Organizations that have maintained Joint Commission Behavioral Health and Human Services (BHC) Accreditation know that accreditation can help an organization improve the quality of its care, but new evidence demonstrates that organizations see a strong return on investment (ROI) over the lifetime of accreditation.
According to a new independent study completed by the ROI Institute, for each dollar invested in accreditation, an organization sees that dollar returned plus realizes an additional $6.23 in benefits as a direct result of its Joint Commission accreditation achievement.
The study asked BHC organizations to identify areas of return related to their investments in accreditation. Areas that saw top returns included:
- Improved staff and supervisor competency.
- Reduction in staff turnover.
- Improved reimbursement rates.
- Increased revenue.
Costs considered during data collection included accreditation and survey fees, accreditation-related materials and supplies, consulting, training and education, dedicated accreditation-related personnel, any facilities modifications or software/IT changes, and any other costs identified by the organizations in the study.
Organizations also identified top areas of positive influence of Joint Commission accreditation, not necessarily related to ROI. These included:
- Quality of care.
- Improved client outcomes.
- Culture of the organization.
- Reputation.
Organizations that took part in the study ranged from small community organizations to large health systems, and length of accreditation ranged from two months to 41 years, averaging eight years. Services provided needed to include mental health services and/or substance use disorder treatment but spanned a wide variety of organization types.
Learn more about the financial and non-financial benefits of BHC accreditation by reviewing the infographic and read the white paper for more on the study design, findings, and challenges.
Effective July 1, 2022, The Joint Commission has approved revisions to the Rights and Responsibilities of the Individual (RI) chapter for behavioral health care and human services organizations.
These revisions were made after an internal review and address a written policy on informed consent and organizational use of images, films, and recordings of patients.
The Joint Commission added a new bullet to Standard RI.01.03.01, Element of Performance (EP) 1, that requires organizational policies to include who is qualified under law and regulation to conduct informed consent discussions. The informed consent discussion is an opportunity to establish a mutual understanding between the patient and the licensed independent practitioner about a proposed procedure or treatment and the risks, benefits, and side effects of the proposed and alternative procedures or treatments.
The Joint Commission also is deleting Standard RI.01.03.01, EP 3, that requires organizations to obtain patients’ informed consent prior to making and using recordings, films, or other images of patients. This requirement will be replaced with a new EP at Standard RI.01.01.01 that more broadly addresses issues related to protecting patients’ rights.
The Joint Commission recognizes that the ease of capture and portability of audiovisual information can potentially pose risks to patient privacy. However, such information also can be beneficial for treatment, payment, and health care operations, such as education and internal performance improvement. This new EP will require health care organizations to comply with applicable laws and regulations, such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), when making and using recordings, films, or other images of patients. The Joint Commission will continue to evaluate compliance with applicable federal and state requirements.
View the prepublication standards.
Effective July 1, 2022, The Joint Commission has approved several revisions to the Environment of Care (EC) chapter for behavioral health and human services organizations.
The changes vary across accreditation programs and include the following:
- New and revised elements of performance (EPs) that clarify and/or strengthen expectations for accredited organizations as they relate to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) codes.
- Standard EC.02.03.05, EPs 7 and 8, were deleted for behavioral health and human services organizations because most organizations no longer have water storage tanks.
View the prepublication standards. (Contact: Herman McKenzie, hmckenzie@jointcommission.org)
A new book from Joint Commission Resources (JCR) aims to help hospitals, critical access hospitals and behavioral health care and human services (BHC) organizations prevent patient suicides.
Amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that emergency department (ED) visits for mental health reasons increased 31% among adolescents aged 12-17 in 2020 compared to 2019. Additionally, U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, MD, issued an advisory on the youth mental health crisis in December 2021.
An important task for health care organizations is to screen at-risk individuals for possible suicidal ideation, assess those who screen positive, and implement appropriate mitigation strategies as needed. The Joint Commission’s National Patient Safety Goal (NPSG) NPSG.15.01.01 requires that accredited hospitals, critical access hospitals and BHC organizations reduce the risk of suicide. This involves identifying vulnerable individuals, evaluating the environmental risks for suicide, implementing mitigation strategies, and providing counseling and follow-up care.
“Preventing Patient Suicide” covers the following topics:
- Environmental risk assessments and actions to minimize suicide risk (such as using ligature-resistant plumbing fixtures in patient bathrooms and removing plastic bags and sharp objects from patient rooms).
- Populations that are especially likely to be at risk for suicide, from military veterans to the LGBTQ community.
- Validated screening tools to identify individuals at risk for suicide.
- Assessment of the severity of suicide risk.
- Documentation of an individual’s level of risk and the mitigation plan to minimize that risk.
- Written policies and procedures (P&Ps) for caring for individuals at risk for suicide.
- Monitoring of the implementation and effectiveness of suicide prevention P&Ps.
- Actions to improve compliance.
Key features of the book include:
- An analysis of what is required by NPSG.15.01.01.
- Best-practice suggestions from external authorities on suicide prevention.
- Links (in the e-book) to validated tools used by the Veterans Health Administration and other entities with expertise on suicide prevention, as well as lists of other helpful resources.
- JCR checklists and other tools to assist with preventing patient suicide.
Purchase the book.
A new book from Joint Commission Resources (JCR) takes a close look at The Joint Commission’s standards and elements of performance (EPs) related to treatment planning in behavioral health care and human services (BHC) organizations.
The book specifically examines the Care, Treatment, and Services (CTS) chapter of the Comprehensive Accreditation Manual for Behavioral Health Care and Human Services (CAMBHC) and explores the processes and activities that go into effective treatment planning within BHC programs and settings.
To help accredited BHC organizations identify and improve compliance in areas related to treatment planning, “Treatment Planning in Behavioral Health Care and Human Services” highlights requirements that many organizations find challenging (as seen by Joint Commission surveyors) and offers solutions and strategies for improvement.
Recent data from The Joint Commission show that on surveys conducted in BHC settings in 2020, the rate of noncompliance with standard CTS.03.01.03 was 61.69%. This requirement states, “The organization has a plan for care, treatment, or services that reflects the assessed needs, strengths, preferences, and goals of the individual served.”
Joint Commission surveyors reported the following common problems:
- Care, treatment, or service goals did not reflect the individual’s own words.
- Care, treatment, or service goals were not reviewed at specific time frames as required.
- Care, treatment, or service goals were not measurable and did not or could not show progress toward meeting identified goals.
- The treatment plan did not address all the needs and problems identified during screening and assessment.
- The treatment plan was not individualized.
- Goals and objectives in multiple plans for multiple individuals were the same, selected from scripted language found in the electronic medical record.
- Individuals were not involved in decision making for treatment planning.
- Organizations failed to follow the written plan for care, treatment, or services.
The book looks at these compliance challenges and identifies and explains ways that organizations can improve in areas such as:
- Entry to care, treatment, or services.
- Screening, assessment, and reassessment.
- Planning and development of care, treatment, or services.
- Delivery of individualized care, treatment, or services.
- Monitoring outcomes of care, treatment, or services to achieve individualized goals.
- Continuity of care, treatment, or services.
- Discharge planning.
- Prevention and wellness promotion services, when applicable.
Purchase the book.