Healthcare Joint Commission and Joint Research Paper

In doing so, organizations:

advance the idea of public assurance that the organization is concerned for patient safety and the quality of care present a safe and capable work environment that adds to worker satisfaction negotiate in regards to sources of payment for care in regards to data on the quality of care pay attention to patients and their families, value their rights, and connect them in the care process as partners produce a culture that is open to learning from the timely reporting of unfavorable events and safety concerns set up joint leadership that sets precedence's for and unremitting leadership for quality and patient safety at all points (Introduction, n.d.).

In 2012 Joint Commission made quite a few changes to the 2012 accreditation decision rules. These rules present the consistent structure that the Joint Commission uses to deliver an accreditation decision limiting unpredictability or prejudice. The first thing that was changed was that of decision rule PDA06. This changed in that if one is accredited with a decision of contingent, instead of having two occasions to clear the non-compliant standards, an organization now only has one chance. If one does not clear all the standards that lead to their contingent decision then the next step is preliminary denial of accreditation. The next thing that has been changed is that of CONT02. Under this rule in 2011 if one were given an accreditation with follow up status, they had two chances to clear that status.In 2012 this rule changes to allow for only one chance and if an organization is not successful in getting rid of all requirements they will then receive contingent accreditation (2012 Accreditation Decision Rules, 2011).

There is also some good news in the decision rule changes. AFS11 has been done away with and no replacement has been suggested. This was the rule that would place an organization in accreditation with follow up status if it failed in its MOS submission. This rule has been done away with, making the MOS process less penalizing. Another positive change is the removal of AFS02. This was the rule that could place an organization in accreditation with follow up status if they had too many indirect impact findings. AFS01 stays in place for 2012, but now says that only an excessive number of direct impact findings could possibly lead to AFS status (2012 Accreditation Decision Rules, 2011).

References

2012 Accreditation Decision Rules. (2011). Retrieved from www.jcrinc.com/common/PDFs/fpdfs/.../JCP-01-12-S8.pdf

About Joint Commission International. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.jointcommissioninternational.org/About-JCI/

Common Questions and Answers Regarding JCI Accreditation, Clinical Laboratories, and These Standards. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.jointcommissioninternational.org/common/pdfs/jcia/QuestionsandAnswer

sCL.pdf

Facts about Joint Commission International. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.jointcommission.org/assets/1/18/Joint%20Commission%20International2.

PDF

Introduction. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.jointcommissioninternational.org/Common/PDFs/JCI%20Accreditation/H

C_Q_and_A.pdf.....