Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2022 13:18:29 GMT
When caron tank 1 worker is at 0.1 bit carbon tank 2 polisher still okay, you dont Bypass carbon 1 so that carbon 2 is only one filtering do you? I don’t think this is correct but my CE thinks it’s correct
|
|
|
|
Post by Chuck Weddle on Oct 1, 2022 15:13:45 GMT
No, you shouldn't bypass it. It is still removing some thus lessening the load on #2.
Remember that when you have breakthrough, you only have 72 hours to replace the carbon. You also need to increase the testing frequency, at least hourly is recommended.
When replacing the carbon, it is suggested to move #2 to the #1 position and put the new carbon bed in the #2 position. We find it much easier to rebed both tanks than it is to physically move them.
|
|
|
|
Post by dave74 on Oct 2, 2022 13:41:49 GMT
I agree with Chuck. Depending on how big the carbon tanks are, rotating them could be very difficult, and you can't be sure how long they would last.
If you haven't done so, you should label every major component in your water treatment system and included a brief description of what it does, how to check it and what to do if it is not operating as it should.
You really should have your chlorine policy posted along with what to do in the event of breakthrough. Be sure to document what you are doing. We have a separate sheet for hourly checks should it be necessary. It is easy to forget what to do because it doesn't happen that often. During a survey, a surveyor could ask a staff member to demonstrate how to perform the chlorine test, how they determine if the results are acceptable and what they would do if the results are high.
|
|
|
|
Post by qman213 on Oct 3, 2022 11:40:58 GMT
We have a chlorine policy in our water book. I made and posted an algorithm following that policy to make it easier for the staff to follow when the surveyors to their interviews.
|
|
|
|
Post by gfreely on Oct 3, 2022 13:25:31 GMT
"You really should have your chlorine policy posted..." I agree with everything you said except this should be qualified. Posting controlled documents can get you in trouble. Doesn't always getcha, but can open a can of worms with the right auditor. Just throwing that out there. |
|
|
|
Post by dave74 on Oct 3, 2022 14:58:26 GMT
"You really should have your chlorine policy posted..." I agree with everything you said except this should be qualified. Posting controlled documents can get you in trouble. Doesn't always getcha, but can open a can of worms with the right auditor. Just throwing that out there. I am not really familiar with controlled documents. I guess my concern is that you might have a policy or procedure in so many different places that an outdated procedure might not be replaced. Could you please elaborate on controlled documents? Thanks. |
|
phillipashleyludlow
Full Member
01001000 01101001 00100000 01010011 01110100 01110101 01100110 01100110 00101110
Posts: 148
|
Post by phillipashleyludlow on Oct 3, 2022 15:50:47 GMT
*Lurks in the corner*
|
|
|
|
Post by gfreely on Oct 3, 2022 17:37:33 GMT
Exactly. Controlled Docs are actively monitored to make sure they are still valid and any changes or updates necessary are made (e.g. policies, procedures, work instructions). It is typically done on a regular interval by a Quality person or other designated individual.
As I said before, some people never hear a word about it. Our surveyors have ALWAYS questioned it. Just don't want someone to get burned if it can be avoided.
|
|
|
|
Post by dave74 on Oct 3, 2022 20:16:23 GMT
Gfreely makes a very good point. The only thing that really needs to be posted in the water room is something like:
If chlorine test is greater than 0.1 ppm, begin hourly testing from valve x.
Notify charge nurse and chain of command.
That is what the PCTs must know and requires an immediate response. The other things, like rebedding the carbon tanks within 72 hours, can go wherever you keep your procedures.
Hopefully, that would be satisfactory for any surveyor as long as you can find the full procedure.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaretac on Oct 31, 2022 3:45:51 GMT
There is no point in bypassing the worker. At worst it is helping filter out debris. And youre at 0.1 but what if the city water is at .5, your worker is still helping. Having a bypass is not a good idea and could be a write up by regulators because of the dangers it poses to patients if it is inadvertently bypassed.
|
|
|
|
Post by dave74 on Oct 31, 2022 15:35:48 GMT
I worked in an old dialysis unit where the water treatment system was designed in the 1980s. There was a carbon tank bypass valve. We simply removed the handle from the valve. I believe a surveyor mentioned that if she found a carbon tank bypass valve, she would ding the unit. I cannot find a V tag for that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chuck Weddle on Oct 31, 2022 15:56:15 GMT
I worked in an old dialysis unit where the water treatment system was designed in the 1980s. There was a carbon tank bypass valve. We simply removed the handle from the valve. I believe a surveyor mentioned that if she found a carbon tank bypass valve, she would ding the unit. I cannot find a V tag for that. We have a bypass on our worker tanks but not our polishers. At least that way we do have the ability to bypass it (and have) in case of a mechanical issue such as a leak or head repair/replacement. I cant find anything about not having a bypass in RD62 or CMS IG 1.1, I have no idea what V-tag could be cited. |
|
