96 Hour Debacle
Continues
Q. (To The Joint Commission) As you know
we published this article last month
regarding EC 4.12, B-6.
http://www.healthcareengineering.net/234.htm
The accompanying
survey was taken by 2712 hospital
engineers. The results are posted at:
http://www.healthcareengineering.net/235.htm
I have heard a
rumor that the JC is allowing a “tightly
drawn” contract with a fuel supplier as
an alternate to storing additional fuel
on site. Is this correct? Regards, Dan
Chisholm, Sr.
A. Dan, The issue is an event
that compromises the community (“…when
the organization cannot be supported by
the local community”), so how can a
local supplier guarantee that they will
have fuel available? This is why the
Joint Commission is asking the
organization to, in the Emergency
Operations Plan, “to identify the
organization’s capabilities and
establish response efforts…” This EP
expects the organization to identify
internal capabilities, which would
include strategies to extend resources
if possible. The note does allow
evacuation to be an acceptable response
effort. Regards, Joint Commission
F.U. (Follow up): Thanks for the quick
response.
The problems some of our clients (the
“receiving” hospitals that “must stay
open” for indefinite periods) are facing
is where to store an amount of fuel
required to run for a 96 hour
period…they simply don’t have the
room…above ground or under ground, and
even if they did the fuel could “spoil”
before its ever used for long term
emergencies. They are caught in a Catch
22 in that the local authorities, and
the public, will demand they stay open (and
unfortunately be sued later for
circumstances beyond their control as in
the 21 “wrongful death” cases filed
against our clients in New Orleans for
being good Samaritans – where some of
the nurses and doctors lived and worked
24 hours a day in conditions only found
in 3rd world countries.)
The question becomes; do they evacuate
because they can’t store enough fuel
on-site to render “quality care” (and be
sued for whatever the ambulance-chasing
attorneys can dream up), or stay open
and render whatever care is possible
without sufficient emergency power (and
later be sued for malpractice and
wrongful death). Who makes the call?
There has got to be some middle ground
where logic and common sense prevails.
I’m not saying I have the answer, but I
am saying there are over 1700 hospitals
I know of that will be sued if they
don’t stay open…and only a handful of
them have the vacant real estate
available to store 96+ hours of fuel .
I am hoping the CMS will ultimately
accept the facts as we know them and
will “cut us all some slack”.
Storing fuel off site (preferably on
dealer property) would seem the only
alternative for those “land locked”
larger hospitals that will become the
only accessible safe havens (for the
sick, and the healthy). Let’s face it,
if the fuel suppliers can’t even deliver
the fuel to the hospitals everything
we’re debating will probably be moots
point.
Take care,
Dan
P.S. Recently
during a deposition I was shown a
picture of a JCAHO accreditation
certificate affixed to a wall on the
bottom floor of a hospital in New
Orleans that had a “high water mark”
running right through the center of it.
Opposing counsel is going to use it
during a/the trail. I’m not sure where
healthcare is going to be in 20 years,
but it appears the attorneys are going
to be the only folks able to afford
it…they will have all the money… But
then, their lives will be in the hands
of the docs they’ve sued…
