A Multistate Comparison Study of COVID-19 Cases Among Accredited and Nonaccredited Nursing Homes

Widely acknowledged is the disproportionate number of COVID-19 cases among nursing home residents. This observational study examined the relationship between accreditation status and COVID-19 case rates in states where the numbers and proportions of Joint Commission accredited facilities made such comparisons possible (Illinois (IL), Florida (FL), and Massachusetts (MA)). COVID-19 data were accessed from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Nursing Home Compare Public Use File, which included retrospective COVID-19 data submitted by nursing homes to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Healthcare Safety Network. The outcome variable was the total number of nursing home-identified COVID-19 cases from June 2020 to January 2021. Joint Commission accreditation status was the independent variable. Mediating factors included state, and county-level case rates. Increases in the county rate had a significant association with higher nursing home COVID-19 case rates ( p < .001). After adjusting for county case rates, no differences were observed in the mean group case rates for accredited and nonaccredited nursing homes. However, comparing predicted case rates to actual case rates revealed that accredited nursing homes were more closely aligned with their predicted rates. Performance of the nonaccredited nursing homes was more variable and had proportionally more outliers compared to accredited nursing homes. Community prevalence of COVID-19 is the strongest predictor of nursing home cases. While accreditation status did not have an impact on overall mean group performance, nonaccredited nursing homes had greater variation in performance and a higher proportion of negative outliers. Accreditation was associated with more consistent performance during the COVID-19 pandemic, despite being located in counties with a higher prevalence of COVID-19.

Strategies to Enhance Patient Care and Compliance with Pain Order Duplications and Gaps

According to the Joint Commission every patient has a right to pain management. Due to multimodal pain management, pain orders have the potential for duplication as well as gaps in therapy. At our institution, we evaluated pain orders and implemented strategies that aimed to reduce those gaps. We found that current ordering practices permitted the use of varying visual analog scale (VAS) ranges (e.g., VAS 1-3 and 1-5) which inherently increased the potential for duplicate therapies. When gaps in therapy occurred, medication orders for corresponding VAS scores were not available and thus, therapy was delayed. Additionally, current administration policies did not take into account patient preferences for less potent agents which can also cause a delay in care. In summary, simple strategies, discussed in this article, may be implemented at the hospital level to optimize patient care while maintaining recommendations by the Joint Commission for clear medication orders.

IMPACT OF JOINT COMMISSION INTERNATIONALACCREDITATION (JCIA) ON HEALTH CARE PROCESSES AND THE CHALLENGES FACED BY PHYSICIANS AND NURSES.

Purpose: To evaluate the impact of joint commission international accreditation on health care processes as well as to assess the challenges faced by the physicians and nurses . Method: Conducted a cross sectional study in 11 health centers belong to Dubai health authority. Prepared a checklist and questionnaire to assess the changes in the processes brought by accreditation as well as the challenges faced by employees respectively. Studied perceived challenges by recruiting physician (n=106) and nurses (n=194) using convenience sampling technique. Done content validity of the tools with clinical quality experts. Conducted pilot study for the questionnaire and checked the reliability using Cronbach alpha (0.924). After obtaining ethical clearance and consent from subjects, the researcher visited health centers and administered questionnaire to the participants. To evaluate the process improvements, the researcher audited documents for the availability of processes before and after accreditation using the validated checklist, which consisted of 25 processes reecting various domains of quality, employee engagement, interdisciplinary collaboration and communication. Results: Observed tremendous improvements in the availability of processes. The proportion of processes before and after the accreditation was statistically signicantly different (p <.001) for quality of health care. However for employee engagement (p=.250) and interdisciplinary collaboration and communication (p=1.000) no statistical signicance were noted even though there were signicant improvements. Majority (57.5%) of doctors and nurses perceived that the accreditation processes were challenging. Discussion: Observed processes improvements ensuring quality, employee engagement, interdisciplinary collaboration and communication after accreditation.However,majority ofthe employees perceived that, the accreditationwas challenging in terms ofworkload, communication and documentation.