Talk:Joint Commission

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  99 percent? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  www.bumrungraddeath.com 

message: 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)
thread_title: Competitors to Joint Commission within the USA

message: 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)
thread_title:  Neutrality discussion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Joint Commision  'deemed status' year 

message: 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)
thread_title: Deem

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Joint Commission. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080704073124/http://www.24x7mag.com/issues/articles/2008-01_05.asp to http://www.24x7mag.com/issues/articles/2008-01_05.asp/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080625155843/http://www.jointcommission.org/NR/rdonlyres/C6A3B227-564E-46E3-A1D8-6CBF5DA6BEE5/0/9_07deeming.pdf to http://www.jointcommission.org/NR/rdonlyres/C6A3B227-564E-46E3-A1D8-6CBF5DA6BEE5/0/9_07deeming.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090503035454/http://www.aarc.org:80/headlines/jcaho/change.cfm to http://www.aarc.org/headlines/jcaho/change.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629174341/http://www.paho.org/english/dd/pin/pr070611.htm to http://www.paho.org/english/dd/pin/pr070611.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111003121918/http://www.medtripinfo.com/node/183 to http://www.medtripinfo.com/node/183
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111016171113/http://www.jointcommissioninternational.org:80/Cost%2Dof%2DAccreditation/ to http://www.jointcommissioninternational.org/Cost-of-Accreditation/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Please Advise Holly Du Frane (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  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? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed