Microsoft Office Clip Art |
“Infection control
review determines the trend and extent of hospital-related infections, proposes
corrective actions, when appropriate, and should ensure that exposure to such
infection is minimized.” Chapter 2 page 6
Yet,
the inspectors noted that no
data, trends, or standards were developed in some facilities. This
included monitoring problems with surgeries. A chart on the 24th
page (pdf) of the Inspector General Report shows that 8 of the 13 hospitals
inspected complied with the infection control QA program.
There
are plenty of direct statements by inspectors that show different
interpretations and complete misinterpretations of policy by VA Medical Center
Directors. Weaknesses in consistent oversight exacerbated
the problem. In the case of infection
control programs, one can see how different interpretations developed. It is downright
hard to see how the policy could have been misinterpreted as not requiring any
activity whatsoever.
The
implications of having no program are:
-
Even if an infection occurred in the patient, it may have gone unreported.
-
The process was meant to drive down infection rates but in some cases there was
no process in place to determine
the actual infection rate. If infection
rates are neither monitored nor driven down, they probably rise.
-
Leap forward to 2010. This gives a quick
look at how horrible this situation may have been in 1985. In 2010, the VA announced that it may have
infected over a thousand patients with infectious diseases. As awful as it was, the VA centered on the
causes, tracked the cases, and responded.
The 1985 report certainly points to the possibility of even more
dangerous incidents may have occurred.
And it could have happened without even so much as the ability to become
aware of it.
Back
to the report:
Infection
control review determines the trend and extent of hospital-related infections proposes
corrective actions when appropriate – This was not tracked.
There was no corrective action because no need could be identified.
And should
ensure that exposure to such infection is minimized. - No clue of the infection rate exited. There was no adherence to the policy or
process. Nothing was minimized. The infection rates probably rose.
The
repetitiveness of this blog post is purposeful.
Then so is the entire matter… repetitive… new leader, same
problems. Final words for this blog post,
in 2 questions.
-
What would you do if you had been
treated at a hospital that had no clue of whether it infected customers and were
not doing anything to find out?
- What kind of culture has to develop to perpetuate
this type of failure?
No comments:
Post a Comment