Generators: Electric Power and Ashe Members Essay Example

failure during emergency situations as stated? The Field Review is designed to question both the foundation and the wording of the proposed standard.

The survey questions and ASHE’s guidance on how to respond to them are available on pages 2 and 3 of this alert. It is crucial to provide answers that are specific to your facility, based on your own experience. In addition to considering whether this standard will achieve its desired objectives, it is important to focus on potential challenges in meeting this requirement. These challenges may involve managing resources such as fuel and labor costs, addressing disruptions to services and patient care during the test, as well as ensuring compliance with air emission regulations. ASHE encourages you to take advantage of this opportunity to share your feedback!

The proposed revision aims to enhance the system's reliability, and your contribution is crucial for ensuring its effectiveness. The JCAHO Field Review mainly focuses on the Emergency Power Testing Standards. To participate in the Field Review survey, please visit www.jcaho.org/accredited+organizations/hospitals/standards/field+reviews/ec740_std_fr.htm. The survey is conducted on surveymonkey.com, and JCAHO collects the results. Provided below are the survey questions along with instructions on how to answer each question.

It is recommended to enter your name in the Name field, although it is not required. The Organization field is also optional, but we suggest providing this information. For the question "In which one of the following categories are you primarily responding?", you should choose the appropriate category from the provided list. In most cases, the first choice, "Joint Commission Accredited Organization", would be selected. If you mainly represent a Joint Commission accredited organization, you need

to select the category that best describes your role in that organization. The options for this question will be listed, and most ASHE members will select "Facility Maintenance", "Facility Design", or "Safety Management/Security Management". There will be a list of JCAHO programs to choose from for the question "For which accredited program are you responding to this field review?". You should select the program that applies to your facility, such as "Hospital". If you have multiple care settings, it is advisable to complete a survey for each different type of care setting.

Please give feedback on whether your organization understands and finds clear the revisions made in "Element of Performance #5" for the question "Would your organization depend on an emergency generator to provide care, treatment, or services for four hours or more during extended electrical power outages?" The default answer is typically Yes unless your program permits stopping services and evacuating the facility. It is important to comment on the proposed standard as written without assuming its intentions.

If there are any unclear parts or a more effective way to communicate their instructions, please leave a comment. 9. Is the required frequency for testing emergency generators specified in "Element of Performance #5" appropriate? In essence, the question is whether this test should be conducted annually. According to the 2005 edition of NFPA 110 - Standard for Emergency and Standby Power Systems - Level 1 EPSS (Emergency Power Supply Systems) must undergo a minimum 4-hour test at least once within every 36 months.

ASHE members, manufacturers, and designers are represented on the technical committee of NFPA 110. The committee has voted that a 4 hour

test every three years is sufficient to ensure reliable performance. If you agree, select No.10. If not, what frequency of testing do you suggest? According to NFPA 110, testing should occur every 36 months (section 8.4.9). Additionally, do you believe that a load of 30% of the generator's nameplate rating, as required in Element of Performance #5, adequately assesses the fueling and cooling systems? According to NFPA 110, the test load should be the same as the EPSS load when the test is conducted, in order to assess the power delivery to the outlets, lighting, and systems on the emergency power system. The use of a resistive load bank to meet EP 5 would not adequately test other essential components such as transfer switches and paralleling switchgear. This raises the question whether a 4-hour test can effectively assess fuel and cooling systems or if the entire EPSS should be tested as mandated by NFPA 110 (section 8.4.9.1). If you believe the entire system should be tested, answer No to question 11 and provide your reasons in the comment section. Question 12.ASHE advises discussing the potential burdens of implementing the proposed revisions in "Element of Performance #5" with your administration and safety committee. It is important to thoroughly consider all the implications of conducting this test on an annual basis.

There are various matters to address concerning the proposed 4 hour test. These include the requirement for extra resources (such as fuel consumption and labor), the potential rise in air emissions (in compliance with state or regional clean air regulations), and the possible disruption to different services during the test (including computer based systems on

emergency power, lighting, transportation systems, and ventilation systems). Organizations that have faced difficulties scheduling and conducting the mandatory monthly tests must ensure that all stakeholders are fully informed and supportive of scheduling and executing this suggested test. If "Element of Performance #5" were to be immediately enforced, organizations would have a maximum of 12 months to achieve compliance. If none of these specified time frames are sufficient, organizations can provide their own timeframe for compliance in the "additional comments" section at the end of the survey. Additionally, organizations should consider if they would need external sources, such as load banks, to meet the 30% test load requirement for "Element of Performance #5". This decision should be based on factors like available staff, expertise, and current load capacity in order to avoid incurring additional expenses. To estimate any additional expenses, please provide an approximate cost.

For any inquiries or feedback, please contact Dale Woodin at [email protected] or 312-422-3812. For more information, visit https://www.premierinc.com/safety/safety-share/05-06-downloads/11-ashe-fda-bed-rail-entrapment-05-06.pdf.