JCI Standard MCI.2 – Communication with Patients and Families, about care and services and how to access those services

JCI Standard MCI.2 states clearly that “The organization informs patients and families about its care and services and how to access those services.”, thereby a hospital must meet 3 of its requirements to match this standard.

Let us now see what a hospital must do to live up to the expectations and hopes of sick patients and their families when they get to a hospital.

Organisation ethics requires that a hospital offer to inform patients and their families complete information they wish to know on the care and services at the hospital. Patient and families have a right to reasonable access to care as well as how to access those services. Information provided also includes information on the proposed care for a patient.

This openness and trustworthiness shown by a hospital when it works to build and establish trust and open communication with patients and their families, and when it also trys to understand and protect each patient’s cultural, psychosocial and spiritual values, helps create a bond between patients and their families.

Let’s now see how the Joint Commission International quality standards fits into this picture of openness by a hospital.

By providing all the needed information with the openness of the hospital, awareness and knowledge gained and learnt of the care and services through this openness, trust bonded between patients and their families and the hospital, the hospital easily complies with two of the JCI Standard MCI.2 requirements  namely ME 1 and ME 2.

If the hospital includes information on the proposed care for a patient.in its initial plan to inform patients and their families, then the hospital meets the requirement by the JCI Standard ACC.1.2, ME 2

At the hospital, it is only normal when patients and their families learn of the hospital’s capability to match their expectations of care and services.

When patients and their families learn that their needs fall beyond the scope of  the hospital’s competence, mission and capabilities, then the hospital is obligated to provide information to the patient and their families on alternative sources of care and services. Such alternative sources of care and services may be available at another hospital in the district, and the hospital then co-ordinates with the other hospital with the needed services, and ensures that such patients are appropriately referred to the other facility with services that meets their ongoing care needs.

The hospital will thus comply with the JCI Standard MCI.2 requirement ME3 if the hospital is able to provide information to the patients and their families on alternative sources of care and services when their needs fall beyond the scope of  the hospital’s competence, mission and capabilities.

Reference:
Joint Commission International, 2010, Joint Commission International Accreditation Standards For Hospitals, 4th edn, JCI, USA

Paying the high price for ICD-10 compliance when using EMR systems in US hospitals

Lucky for us in Malaysia, our hospitals with EMR systems with technology already incorporating the ICD-10 code set, are not up against paying the high price of implementing ICD-10 unlike in the US where hospitals using EMR/EHR systems are gearing up for the October 2013 ICD-10 dateline (which is likely to be delayed again to October 2014).

One example of an US hospital system that encompasses 14 hospitals, is the North Shore Long Island Jewish Health System, N.Y. They estimate the price tag will be about US$50 million (about RM158 million) including project management, I.T. remediation(some 90 applications), training and other areas.

Sutter Health which runs 24 hospitals across northern California, is another example which provided an even higher price tag–well over $100 million (about RM316 million), including $60 million (about RM190 million) for technology remediation (some 146 applications will need to be remediated) and $25 million (about RM79 million) for a computer-assisted coding program

Both these organizations are said to well ahead of the rest of the industry in their ICD-10 planning in the US. However, they are being cautious and concerned with  long-term financial impact on their revenue when converting past billing claims to ICD-10 and also estimating where documentation would need to be enhanced to support the more granular codes in ICD-10.

In the US, ICD-9 codes have been used mainly for billing, historically. It seems every clinical encounter that gets billed to an insurance payor includes diagnosis designations, encoded as ICD-9 codes.

Thus, I can understand the profound impact of paying the high price of implementing ICD-10 in the US when changing the fundamental method of encoding diagnoses to a whole new system .

The rationale for making such a change (given the disruption that will occur) is that the ICD-10 code set is more detailed and extensible, allowing for more than 155,000 different codes, and permits the tracking of many new diagnoses and procedures (a significant expansion on the 17,000 codes available in ICD-9).

As we know ICD-10 was developed by the WHO and released in 1992, soon after the ICD-10 system was adopted relatively swiftly in most of the world including in Malaysia.

Abridged, from the article The High Price of ICD-10 by Gary Baldwin, June 26, 2012, Health Data Management reporting  from the HFMA conference June 24-27 2012 in Las Vegas, where panelists shared the above estimates.

With additional references from:
practicefusion.com/, Website
ehrscope.com, Blog
pdmanesthesia.com/, Blog for the image in this post