Jump to content

Talk:Joint Commission

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

99 percent?

[edit]

I'd personally love to see the stats regarding "The Joint Commision" and certifying 99% of it's customers.

Since the JC, (It's new name) is certified by no one but itself, therein lies the problem. And the fact that a hospital, etc., "invites" a certification is implication of itself. And the hospital or entity desiring "certification or accredition" must PAY FOR the same. So, if you pay for a survey, YOU GET accredited or certified. This is fraud.

(Same thing goes with the Better Business Bureau by the way.)

Yes, they seem to do some good, but I believe they are self-serving shake-down artists that are here to stay.

Some hospitals refuse to play along, as I have discovered on the web. There is another entity that will also "certify" hospitals for a fee...in other words, JCAHO has some competition which is a very good thing.

I don't know where to go with this...This was mine. I didn't log in when I did it.Blondesareeasy (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.13.127 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see a separate Wikipedia article on "healthcare accreditation", looking not just at JC and JCI but also at the available options to what is a very USA-oriented organisation in the way it functions. The USA healthcare system is only one model for healthcare delivery, and it is not a source of dispute when one says that under the current arrangements in the USA many millions of US citizens have no access to healtcare, or at least have only access to very poor healthcare. Whatever one's personal political stance on this issue, healthcare accreditation clearly has much wider importance to healthcare and to patients safety and I think merits an article in its own right, whuch would help to put the JC and JCI's activities intot a more appropriate broader context. -- SP 23:56(GMT), 18 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Professorial (talk • contribs).

Go ahead and start up an article on that topic with whatever information you already have, and you are sure to get contributions. Ryanjo 01:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ryanjo

I have created an article on "International Healthcare Accreditation", partly to try to bring some balance back into things. At the moment, one could be forgiven for thinking that JCI was the only organisation in world able to provide international healthcare accreditation. It may well be excellent, but it is not unique.

I hope that the article is acceptable and doesn't get deleted !

Kind regards

Professorial. (September 1st 2007).

www.bumrungraddeath.com

[edit]

I am not involved in the Joint Commission, and actually agree that some questions need to be answered about why the JC gives American hospitals a 99% accreditation rate when thousands of patients died annually of medical errors.

However, articles on Wiipedia must have only verified statements from creditable sources. I have edited out a few sentences contributed by Professorial, due to Wikipedia guidelines Wikipedia:No original research & Wikipedia:Verifiability. I deeply sympathize with Mr. Goldberg regarding the loss of his son, and I hope he gets clarification from the hospital and JC. However, the events he relates must be verified to be added as a reference in Wikipedia, and cannot be used to support the statement:

...this important issue clearly raises moral, ethical and legal concerns about how international hospital accreditation is conducted, and merits further discussion...

.

Ryanjo 02:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Competitors to Joint Commission within the USA

[edit]

Actually, the "Joint" as they are called in the hospital community is not totally a monopoly. The American Osteopathic Association http://www.osteopathic.org/ is another organization which the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services or CMS allows the survey to "deem" a hospital acceptable and in compliance with the Conditions of Participation. These are the only two at present who feds recognize.Deentess (talk) 02:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ther have been recent attempts to provide some plurality within the range of accreditation options within the USA (at the moment, it is a monopoly !). A comments with references has been added to include this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.129.166 (talk) 22:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some further links to recognised major competitor groups to the Joint Commission within the USA have been added, to help provide balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Professorial (talk • contribs) 15:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, the edits added by 207.7.208.180 at 18:49 on 12 February 2008 cannot be justified. 1) The Joint Commmision is a US company or a corporation, with a Board and a Managing Director. It is non-governmental. The word "organization" does not describe it adequately, certainly not in legal terms. 2) It is seeking to expand its business - why not say so ? It is constantly advertising its services, and makes it clear from its literature that it is picking up new hospitals all over the world all the time. 3) Why a "gloabal" seal of approval rather than a "United States" seal ? JC is a completely American entity, with no formal link to any other group worldwide, and the main reason for going for JCI accreditiation is to get approval from US-based healthcare groups, including Medicare Medicaid. "Global approval" is an advertising type of phrase, and just that.

4) It is extremely difficult to find out what JCI charges - this is a statement of fact. While the size and complexity of the hospital matters, the ball park they are working in is not spelled out - is it $2,000 or $200,000 per survey ?

194.176.105.40 (talk) 14:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Interested party[reply]

Criticism

[edit]

Would anyone object to me added a section on criticism of JCHAO? Notably - they increase the cost of health care through increased paperwork, and often create regulations that have no evidence backing them? RogueNinjatalk 11:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I think that would be a really good idea. Come to think of it, why should US hospitals have to use the American JHACO scheme ? Americans go to hospital in Japanese ambulances, are scanned in hospitals by German MRI equipment, X-rays will be looked at on equipment made in China, patients eat tuna that was caught in the Pacific Far East, they are operated on by surgeons born in India or England etc etc etc. It may help if US hospitals looked at some the excellent but cheaper and less bureaucratic options for hospital accreditation, such as those from Canada and England. Why not ? We still all believe in free trade, don't we, and a bit of decent competition might shake up JHACO and start getting those proces down ! Go for it, Rogue Ninja !!! 78.144.232.116 (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]



I dispute the "non-profit" status of JCAHO. These are their financial records for 2007 & 2008.[1] Page 5 shows excess of revenue over expenses, both before and after income from investments. In 2007, JCAHO made a profit of over $9 million ($6 million if you subtract investments that didn't pay off as well as expected, see page 6.) Curiously, it made less than $1 million actually doing hospital accredations. The other $8 million came from investments. So I guess I also dispute the idea that hospital accredation is the primary function of JCAHO. Over half its assets are investments ($79 million, see page 4), so it's really more of an investment firm.
On the flip side, JCAHO also loses money in the market, as it did in 2008 (approximately $32 million, see page 6).
I realize that a lot of companys play the markets. However, JCAHO is not really a "non-profit" if it does this. It is also potentially an enormous conflict of interest, since JCAHO almost certainly has investments in the pharmaceutical & med-tech sectors (most investors do). Some JCAHO regulations force hospitals to buy many more pills and disposable equipment than they actually use. Supposedly this is for patient safety, but many people who work at hospitals will tell you that JCAHO regulations are excessive and wasteful. It is not unreasonable to suspect that JCAHO makes financial gain from their own regulation.
Wikipedia may not be the place to investigate JCAHO's conflicting interests. However, JCAHO's finances ARE a legitimate subject for criticism. Feel free to look over the financial statements and see if I'm wrong. But someone outside of Wikipedia might do the country a lot of good by asking JCAHO the right questions on TV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.199.40.124 (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed some dubiously sourced criticisms of the Joint Commission from the lede. The dubious source in question is something called Fierce Healthcare, which is a subsidiary of the marketing firm Questex. Its own home pagearchive 2018-10-10 makes it clear what Questex does, and serving as a reliable source per WP:RS is not it.

Also, if criticisms—even better sourced ones—are to be added, they should probably go in a Criticism section as discussed above, or in some other section related to their specific subject matter—not in the lede, unless it can be shown that they are central to the coverage of the Joint Commission in reliable sources. This is a much more stringent standard than the standards applicable to inclusion of material in the text of the article outside the lede.

—Syrenka V (talk) 10:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality discussion

[edit]

The Introduction and "Goals and initiatives" section both contain unsourced assertations. The repeated description of the JC as a "monopoly" (despite the large section beneath that goes into alternatives) and the heavy emphasis on the revenues generated by the (not-for-profit) JC seem to have been added by individuals not pleased with the role the JC plays in the US healthcare system. Additional discussion here would be welcome. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]




I would just like to say that I personally think the article is neutral. I found it very helpful for some background research while doing heavy research for a term paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.44.126.180 (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the last 4 edits all come from the same IP and are all unsupported opinion. I have a problem with the "complaint process" section (sexual assault?) which smells like scaremongering. Of course, since I know nothing of the organisation, it could be verifiable criticism, YMMV. The part about annual profits and spending is useless IMHO. The gist of my comment is: "citation needed". 173.176.64.228 (talk) 03:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The most recent two edits to this article, coming from the same IP that made two edits back in June (68.101.206.190), are rather biased opinion against the Joint Commission. It refers to JC as a "club" and makes accusations against JC without any sort of citation. I've removed the edits, feel free to undo if this was an inappropriate course of action. Tatsuyame (talk) 09:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joint Commision 'deemed status' year

[edit]

Article refers to inception of the Joint commission's 'deemed status' in 1951, but I recall it being 1962. Any thoughts or sources? --Ashershow1talk•contribs 00:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Deem

[edit]

The word deem as used in this article is incomprehensible to the layman reader. I mean that unless you are a member of the small hospital accreditation community there is not a chance you will understand that sentence. "Deem" was used as arcane technical jargon in several sentences to mean something entirely different from the meanings given by the on-line Marriam-Websters dictionary of the English language. If it is not in M-W it should not be used here. This is a general-reader encyclopedia article, and thus not the place to use such a technical term. I replaced "deem" with what I believe is the correct ordinary word. Nick Beeson (talk) 12:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Joint Commission. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Joint Commission. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Date of procedure on an operative report that starts on 3/31/2019 surgery ends on 4/1/2019 time 0038. What is the correct date on the final operative report?

[edit]

Please Advise Holly Du Frane (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: www.change.org/p/safe-staffing-for-patients-and-healthcare-workers. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. OcarinaOfTime (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joint_Commission&oldid=1207847647"