Aerosol Can Storage

By Brad Keyes…

Q: Housekeeping products like germicidal, glass cleaner, air freshener are stored in a locked metal box on housekeeping cart. All of our stock of these and other products are stored in two large locked metal lockers. They are not fire rated cabinets. The surveyor said aerosols all have to be stored in fire rated cabinets. While they are in use while on housekeeping carts, they will have to be checked in and out daily from a fire cabinet.

The surveyor did not cite a tag or code for this he just told us we had to do it. I have searched and so much is left to interpretation I am confused on what to do. With all the changes occurring and more to come with state regulations and inspections I would like to be prepared.

A: It is safe to say that there is no NFPA standard, no CMS standard, and no accreditation standard that specifically says aerosol cans must be stored in a fire rated cabinet. However, if access to these aerosol products by unauthorized individuals is a safety risk (i.e. can children get into them) then it may be perceived as an unsafe environment and the surveyor would have a legitimate concern about them.

I suggest you go back to the surveyor and ask them why they believe the aerosol products have to be stored in a fire-rated cabinet. Ask for a specific code, standard, or regulation that they are using to make this recommendation.

Otherwise… it’s not a code violation, but a surveyor’s preference.

Direct Visual Observation Required in Emergency Department

Q: If an Emergency Department is greater than 7500 square feet but less than 10,000 square feet and is deemed to have “sleeping accommodations”, do the requirements of direct visual observation per 19.2.5.7.2.1(D)(1)(a) apply since only “sleeping accommodations” are provided and not a full “patient sleeping room”?

A: According to CMS, the answer is yes. They consider an Emergency Department that provides observation beds to be sleeping accommodations and must comply with healthcare occupancy sleeping suite requirements, and all that is required. They also consider the patient as ‘inpatients’, which seems to be contrary to the what the rest of the world believes.

See if you can do one of the following:

  • Eliminate the ‘observation beds’
  • Relocate those ‘observation beds’ to a regular inpatient unit
  • Divide your ED up into multiple suites to get around the direct observation requirement for sleeping suites over 7500 square feet.

Corridor Doors

Q: A deficiency was found by CMS on a recent survey that stated ‘staff failed to provide a safe and hazard free environment by not having all doors protecting corridor openings ready to close without impediments’. The finding was repeated three separate times as doors to a patient room could not be closed due to obstructions/impediments. In all three instances, the rooms were vacant, being used for storage, and had either a chair or waste basket blocking the door. Although we have regularly explained away this finding with Joint Commission surveyors as being an item we train our staff on (to move obstructions in patient room doorways in case of fire while closing all doors as directed by our fire plan) the CMS surveyor listed it as a deficiency and was not satisfied with our answer. Does this seem like a reasonable action to you? The rooms were vacant, and there were no patients in the rooms! Why would the CMS surveyor care if the doors closed or not? Do I have to attempt a zero-tolerance approach to this deficiency for all patient room doors (which would seem to be futile) or just enforce the regulation for vacant rooms only?

A: Corridor doors must close and latch at all times in the event of an emergency. Even corridor doors to vacant patient rooms used for storage. I believe by what you have described, that the CMS surveyor was correct and justified in citing any corridor door that could not close. If there was an impediment blocking the door, such as a chair or a waste receptacle preventing the door from closing, then that is a deficiency.

Here is the reason why… In an emergency, staff must quickly go through the unit and check rooms and close doors. If there is an impediment to quickly closing the doors, and the staff had to move a chair or a waste receptacle, then that slows down the process. The concept of the corridor door is to separate the room from smoke and fire in either the corridor, or the room. If an impediment prevents the door from closing, then smoke and fire can enter the patient room and then the patient is in serious trouble.

You must enforce maintaining the corridor doors free from impediments to close them throughout your entire hospital, on units that are occupied and units that are not. I do not agree with your comment that seeking a zero-tolerance on this issue would seem futile. On the contrary, nurses have a very keen respect for patient safety, and if you explain keeping corridor doors free of impediments is patient safety, then I’m sure they will buy into that and keep the doors clear.

I’m a bit concerned that you are using vacant patient rooms for storage. Be VERY careful with that. If there are any combustibles stored in those patient rooms, you have a big problem. The room would have to comply with section 43.7.1.2 (2) of the 2012 LSC on hazardous rooms. I would suggest you do not store any combustibles in vacant patient rooms.

ILSM in Business Occupancies

Q: Is there a code requirement for implementing an Interim Life Safety Measure (ILSM) for occupancies other than healthcare (i.e. business occupancies) if a life safety code deficiency has been identified?

A: Yes… ILSM (also known as Alternative Life Safety Measures) is found in chapter 4 of the 2012 Life Safety Code, specifically section 4.6.10.1 of the 2012 LSC. This describes the need to implement ALSMs when features of Life Safety are impaired. This chapter is part of the ‘core’ chapters and applies to all occupancy chapters, so that means it applies to business occupancies as well.

Most accreditation organizations should be enforcing this in offsite locations, such as business occupancies. Some surveyors fail to ask for this, but it is an enforceable requirement.

Access To Electrical Rooms

Q: Please clarify if electrical closets and /or electrical rooms can be accessible to anyone. The NFPA70 National Electrical Code seems to require warning signs limiting access to authorized personnel only.

A: For many years there has not been any specific standard that says access to electrical control panels has to be restricted to authorized individuals only. But with the new NFPA 99-2012, section 6.3.2.2.1.3 now says access to over-current protective devices (i.e. circuit breakers) serving Category 1 or Category 2 rooms is restricted to authorized individuals only. This standard actually only applies to new construction.

But be aware that for many years accreditation organization have cited healthcare facilities for not securing their circuit breaker panels from unauthorized access, and they base this on their “Safe Environment” standard, or as some people call it the ‘General Duty’ clause.

So, it has been enforced for years by accreditation organizations, and by some state agencies, while there has not been an actual standard that required securing the panels. So, I would suggest you do secure all electrical rooms from unauthorized access.

ASC Waiting Area

Q: I am looking at a hospital facility with an Ambulatory Surgery Center in an existing building that is a Business Occupancy and construction type – II (222). We are working to separate the Ambulatory Surgery Center from the other business in the building with a two-hour fire rated partition. The waiting area, which is adjacent to the lobby/elevator area is enclosed by glass. Can we leave the waiting area out of the Ambulatory Surgery Center and make the separation behind the waiting area? This would be just separating the Ambulatory Surgery rooms and recovery area from the rest of the building (i.e. enclosed by a two-hour fire-rated wall).

A: No… I believe you are not permitted to do that. Actually, the LSC does not address this, but the CMS Conditions for Coverage (CfC) does address this. According to CMS Conditions for Coverage §416.44(a)(2), the ASC must have a separate recovery room and waiting area.

The Interpretive Guidelines for §416.44(a)(2) says this about waiting rooms:

The ASC is required to have both a waiting area and a recovery room, which must be separate from each other as well as other parts of the ASC. They may not be shared with another healthcare facility or physician office. (See the interpretive guidelines for §416.2 concerning sharing of physical space by an ASC and another entity.)

While the CfC does not specially say the waiting area must be inside the fire-barriers surrounding the ASC, if the waiting area was outside of these boundaries the surveyors could conclude that the waiting area is shared with other another healthcare facility or physician office.

I suggest you make sure the waiting area is inside the fire-rated barrier separating the ASC from the other entities.

Triennial Surveys by Accreditation Organizations

Q: I heard a rumor that the accreditation organizations (AO) are going to 18 month visits vs. the 3 years it has been. Is there truth to this?

A: No… None of the AOs are going to an 18-month cycle for survey. They all will be staying at the 36-month cycle, which is allocated by CMS. They would have to double the number of surveyors which would be an added cost to the healthcare facilities that are accredited by them.

There is one accreditation organization (DNV-GL) that does visit their client hospital every year, but they still only survey on behalf of CMS every 3 years. The other two annual visits that DNV performs is a requirement of their ISO process, and they use those visits as educational visits. DNV’s process is very well received and annual visits are appreciated by their client hospitals.

Suites in AHCO

Q: We recently had a surveyor tell us that suites are not allowed in ambulatory healthcare occupancies. Can you help explain this and any code references that support your opinion?

A: Well… that surveyor is mistaken. Suites are definitely permitted in ambulatory health care occupancies (AHCO). Sections 20/21.2.4.3 of the 2012 LSC specifically permit suites and says any site larger than 2500 square feet must have at least two exit access doors remotely located from each other.

The term ‘remotely located’ is defined by section 7.5.1.3.2 which says the two exits must be located at a distance from one another not less than one-half the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the suite, measured in a straight line between the nearest edges of the exits. In a fully sprinklered building, section 7.5.1.3.3 says it is 1/3 the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the suite.

There are no size limitations on suites in AHCO. And they are not prohibited in business occupancies either, even though there is no advantage to having them in business occupancies. I suggest you ask the surveyor (if he/she is still with you) to show you where in the LSC it prohibits suites in AHCO. I also suggest you ask your state and local authorities if they have any restrictions that would prohibit suites in AHCO.

New vs. Existing Construction

Q: How do we classify existing versus new construction? Do we look at the date of adoption of the current Life Safety Code as the cutoff? Anything constructed before that date is considered existing construction? The 2000 LSC required areas of major rehabilitation to be classified as new construction. The 2012 LSC appears to just require those areas be fully sprinklered. On our Life Safety plans all areas of the hospital were constructed prior to the adoption of the 2012 Code. Can the entire hospital now be considered existing and can we remove all notes on the plans referring to new construction?

A: According to the CMS Final Rule on adopting the 2012 Life Safety Code which was released in May, 2016, they identified July 5, 2016 as the threshold date to differentiate between new construction and existing conditions. However, the 2012 Life Safety Code says in section 4.6.12.1 that whenever a feature of life safety is required for compliance, it must be maintained as such for the life of the building. Section 4.6.12.2 continues to say that features of life safety shall not be removed or reduced where such features are required for new construction.

What this means, is you cannot down-grade a feature of life safety that was installed under new construction requirements, to meet existing condition requirements now that it is no longer considered new construction. It is true that something built prior to July 5, 2016 is now considered existing conditions, but you still are not permitted to down-grade the feature to meet existing condition requirements.

Smoke Door Testing?

Q: The Joint Commission standard for annual door testing states “The hospital has written documentation of annual inspection and testing of door assemblies by individuals who can demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the operating components of the door being tested”. The Joint Commission also references NFPA 105 (smoke doors). Would this include all smoke barrier doors?

A: It appears you have an older copy of the Joint Commission standards. In January, 2019, the standard in which you refer has been changed to specifically identify the need to inspect and test fire door assemblies. Their note to this standard says nonrated doors including smoke barrier doors are not subject to the annual inspection and testing requirements of either NFPA 80 or NFPA 105.

It is the position of CMS and all accreditation organizations that non-rated doors in smoke barriers (barriers that separate smoke compartments) do not have to be inspected on an annual basis.

Here is why: Even though section 7.2.1.15.2 of the 2012 LSC says (in part) smoke door assemblies need to be tested, that conflicts with the occupancy chapter for healthcare. Section 4.4.2.3 says when specific requirements in the occupancy chapters differ from the general requirements contained in the core chapters, the occupancy chapter shall govern. Section 19.3.7.8 says doors in smoke barriers shall comply with section 8.5.4. Section 8.5.4.2 says where required by chapters 11 -43 doors in smoke barriers that are required to be smoke leakaged-rated, must comply with section 8.2.2.4 (which requires testing).

Chapters 18 & 19 (healthcare occupancies) do not require smoke doors to be smoke leakaged-rated: Therefore, smoke barrier doors do not have to be tested in healthcare occupancies. Now… you may have an AHJ that believes differently. You may show them this code trail and perhaps they will allow you to not test your smoke doors, but ultimately they are an authority and if they say you have to test smoke doors, then you have to test smoke doors. But it is not required in healthcare occupancies according to the 2012 LSC.