Joint Commission
Many people are familiar with the role that accrediting agencies play when it comes to institutions of higher learning. Whether it be the board of regents for a given state, a more national organization or so forth, these agencies are supposed to be an impartial reviewer and accreditor of whether a school meets certain standards. When it comes to healthcare, the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, often shortened to JCAHO, does much the same thing. Of course, healthcare involves much higher stakes than what are seen in a typical school situation. For this regulatory agency, a number of facets and traits of the JCAHO's structure will be covered including its effect on healthcare, an example of the organization executing its duties, what regulatory authority has when it comes to healthcare and how agencies deal with elements and intentional torts that could risk quality and/or risk when it comes to healthcare organizations. While the JACHO and what it is does is by no means perfection, they do a good to great job overall and their work is necessary.
Analysis
The JCAHO has been around for a good amount of time. However, it has evolved over the years. It was first formulated and created in the 1950's. However, there was not a lot of "teeth" with what the organization said and did until 1965 when their accreditation granting (or lack thereof) had direct bearing on the standing or existence of the healthcare organizations that they oversaw. Things expanded and changed even further when the involvement and review process become fully intertwined with Medicare and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS. The government periodically reviews the standing and performance of JCAHO and JCAHO in turn keeps tabs and solicits data from the healthcare organizations that they accredit and otherwise oversee (Tabrizi, Gharibi & Wilson, 2011).
When it comes to the organization's effect on healthcare, this is pretty clear and easy to see. Just like many healthcare organizations are worried and concerned with the reviews and summaries of the...
It is common across many
industries to have third-party accreditation and endorsement due to requirements or the huge upsides to what they company is doing, is not doing, what they can do, what they have proven and so forth. Not having a good Better Business Bureau (BBB) rating is bad news for a firm. Conversely, being ISO 9001 certified or otherwise certified is typically a source of bragging rights and authority for a firm. When it comes to hospitals in particular, there is a two- to three-year cycle whereby a hospital is reviewed so as to ensure that their practices, procedures and structure is of the proper form. The minutia of what is found wrong (or right) is not openly revealed to the
public. However, gaining or losing accreditation by JCAHO is obviously no small thing. However, the effects and outcomes mentioned above are not universal across the United States. Indeed, there are some
jurisdictions and states that do not recognize the authority and presence of JCAHO and do other things when it comes to monitoring and policing the practices of healthcare organizations and locations. Regardless of the regulatory agency in question (but especially in the case of JCAHO), the agencies out there like JCAHO serve as an additional checker and verifier of whether healthcare organizations are progressing properly and delivering the necessary level of care. Sure, there are those healthcare groups and firms that will do their best and the right thing no matter what. However, the presence and
power of the JCAHO and agencies like it serve as a reminder that healthcare firms and agencies will have to prove that they are following the rules and keeping the safety and quality of life of patients in mind. Those healthcare organizations that cannot or will not meet the minimum standards will typically eventually be caught by the JCAHO and that is why the group is there (Tabrizi, Gharibi & Wilson, 2011).
One example of JCAHO discharging their duties was already mentioned. This was…
