Review your policies to ensure compliance with new, revised Joint Commission RC standard EPs
HIM Connection, February 1, 2011
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to HIM Connection!
by Laure Dudley, RN, MS, CSHA, senior consultant with The Greeley Company
Are you questioning your readiness for the recently approved Joint Commission patient-provider communication standards? Although these standards don’t have a firm implementation date when they will actually be scored, they are available and surveyors will be assessing for compliance in 2011.
Standard RC.02.01.01 in record of care includes EP 28, requiring data collection of race and ethnicity, and a new note under EP 1 includes noting the patient’s, guardian’s, or designated advocate’s preferred language for discussing healthcare issues to support the role of the medical record in handoffs. The intent is for hospitals to evaluate the aggregated data, understand cultural
issues, and plan for services (e.g., determine what documents should be translated based on your data).
EPs 28 and 29, scored at the “A” level, have been added to RI.01.01.01 focusing on access of a “support individual” to be present for the patient as much as possible while prohibiting discrimination.
This forces hospitals to review visitor restriction policies. Do you currently allow friends or same-sex partners unlimited visits in the ICU? Review your restrictions to see whether they need revision. Of course, you will need to determine exceptions to the “open-access designee” for important considerations such as infection control or safety reasons.
Editor’s note: For more, see the February issue of Briefings on The Joint Commission.
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to HIM Connection!
Related Products
Most Popular
- Articles
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- Topic: CMS, OESS post new security compliance review information, checklist
- Capturing all necessary codes for IUD insertion and removal can be challenging
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- Identify potential Medicaid RAC target areas
- QA:Coding multiple initial infusions
- OB services: Coding inside and outside of the package
- E-mailed
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- Q&A: Follow CMS' coding guidelines when using modifier -25
- CMS has reformulated payments for some bilateral procedures
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- New conflicts of interest create new challenges
- Q/A. One injection code or two?
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- ED-to-inpatient transfers are flawed with safety gaps
- Searched
