JCAHO increases accreditation thresholds for 2006
Executive Briefings Digest, January 10, 2006
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Executive Briefings Digest!
Hospitals in 2006 will have a slight cushion in the number of requirements for improvement necessary to trigger preliminary denial of accreditation, according to the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO).
The preliminary denial threshold increased from 13 noncompliant standards to 15 for hospitals. Also, the JCAHO increased the preliminary denial threshold for critical-access hospitals from seven to eight noncompliant standards for 2006. The threshold for conditional accreditation will remain at 10 noncompliant standards. The critical-access cutoff will remain at five.
A source close to the JCAHO says pressure from hospital leaders may have forced the commission to increase the cutoff. Fifteen hospitals had been placed in preliminary denial of accreditation in 2005.
Source: Briefings on JCAHO
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Executive Briefings Digest!
Related Products
-
Medical Staff Briefing
This monthly resource acts as a support system by providing time-saving tools, expert advice, and analyses to help you...
-
Medical Staff Leader Connection
Subscribe to our weekly e-mail newsletter for medical staff leaders that provides them encouragement, tips, tools, and...
-
OPPE, FPPE, and Proctoring Solutions for Small and Critical Access Hospitals
This expert-developed, affordable program was created with your specific needs in mind. Our Greeley experts created tailored...
-
Advanced Practice Professional Solutions for Small and Critical Access Hospitals
This expert-developed, affordable program was created with your specific needs in mind. Our Greeley experts created tailored...
-
Low-Volume Providers Solutions for Small and Critical Access Hospitals
This expert-developed, affordable program was created with your specific needs in mind. Our Greeley experts created tailored...
Most Popular
- Articles
-
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- Topic: CMS, OESS post new security compliance review information, checklist
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- HIPAA Q&A: Answering service messages
- News and briefs: Oklahoma Osteopathic Association against residency bill change
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- QA:Coding multiple initial infusions
- OB services: Coding inside and outside of the package
- State medical board will hear unprofessional charges against OB-GYN
- The debate continues: Nurses who reported physician to the Texas Medical Board file federal appeal
- E-mailed
-
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- Are your workforce members texting PHI?
- Q&A: Coding for protein malnutrition
- Q&A tackles coding questions about injections and infusions
- Joint Commission Center announces handoff communication solutions
- Inside best practice: Reduce patient falls with a stoplight
- Identify modifiable risk factors to prevent patient falls
- Hospitalist-surgeon comanagement has no effect on outcomes
- Don't let these sentinel events trigger falsely
- Avoid the trap of probable diagnoses
- Searched