As we speak, many hospitals across Massachusetts are in the homestretch of completing preparations for the Joint Commission’s Health Care Equity Certification. Unlike the triennial accreditation survey (i.e., “the Big One”) which focuses on all aspects of patient care in hospitals, and which looms over hospitals and their quality departments like a mountain, the Health Care Equity certification brings with it slightly less stress.
Ostensibly, this is an “optional” certification which hospitals would seek out to distinguish themselves as leaders in the health equity space. Similar to other Joint Commission certifications like those that exist for stroke centers, the focus here is on leadership, collaboration, data collection, and how you use that data to improve care. What makes this certification unique, at least in Massachusetts, is that this “optional” certification is now a requirement for hospitals to obtain as part of the Commonwealth’s 1115 Waiver. That means that this certification is tied to a significant amount of Medicaid money and, by extension, is not exactly optional. While Massachusetts is leading the way by mandating this certification, there are rumblings of other states possibly doing the same, including New York.
There are many components of this new certification process that can be stressful. With many DEI offices in hospitals being either downsized or reshuffled as a result of new legislation, there is a bigger question of who “owns” this certification process. For a Joint Commission Primary Stroke Center certification, it is relatively clear who needs to manage the logistics of obtaining that certification: the leadership of a hospital’s stroke team. However, health equity is more diffuse and, fundamentally, everyone’s responsibility. To repeat a phrase I recently heard, “when something is everyone’s responsibility, it is no one’s responsibility.”
There is also the issue of data overload. Hospitals are now stratifying more health information more than ever before. However, coming up with concise answers about what is being done with that data and how it is being used to improve patient care can be a stumbling block.
Yet this is where some of the good news comes in. So many of our staff intuitively know how to connect patients with the correct resources. For example, while recently rolling out a staff education tip sheet on how to accommodate patients with communication deficits, frontline nursing and social work staff actually provided the authors of the tip sheet more information around resources than the authors were even aware of!
Whether for survey preparation or for performance improvement initiatives, we should always return to the Gemba to anchor our work. Often, quality professionals think of the
Gemba as a useful tool to determine what processes we need to change in order to improve. We don’t always think of the Gemba as a tool to show us what is already working and, by extension, what we can brag about. Once we have a sense of how the frontline is already succeeding in addressing the health equity needs of our patients, we can also find a better way to leverage data to support their work. Furthermore, once we have clear processes that are working well, leaders are more inclined to take ownership of these processes and are more willing to speak to them. No one wants to “own” a process that doesn’t work, let alone describe it to a Joint Commission reviewer.
This is both the challenge and reward that certifications like this bring to hospitals. They provide an opportunity to highlight so much of the great work that is already happening in the background. The job of quality leaders is to make this work explicit: to outline successful processes, to formalize workflows, and to educate other stakeholders on what the preferred process for addressing health equity needs is. Fortunately, we as quality leaders seldom have to start from scratch.