In 517, if a doctor's office does an invasive procedure, then they must have back-up power as though it were a hospital. What constitutes an invasive procedure? Heart Catherization is. But is endoscopy? Does inserting a camera into an orifice constitute an invasive procedure legally? Endoscopy would not require breaking the skin.
517 and invasive procedures
- Thread starter dema
- Start date
- Status
growler
Senior Member
- Location
- Atlanta,GA
Re: 517 and invasive procedures
I would think that it depends on the size of the camera and which orifice. I don't know a darn thing about medicine so I feel fully qualified to answer this question. I was just reading about the upper GI procedure and one of the side effects was bleeding and it appears as if they take samples using the same equipment. I'm not even going to read about the lower GI procedure. To me having a camera with clippers attached sounds invasive enough but only your Doctor knows for sure.
I would think that it depends on the size of the camera and which orifice. I don't know a darn thing about medicine so I feel fully qualified to answer this question. I was just reading about the upper GI procedure and one of the side effects was bleeding and it appears as if they take samples using the same equipment. I'm not even going to read about the lower GI procedure. To me having a camera with clippers attached sounds invasive enough but only your Doctor knows for sure.
rick hart
Senior Member
- Location
- Dallas Texas
Re: 517 and invasive procedures
If the patient walks in and can walk out (even if little bowlegged and humbled)in an emergency under their own power for all procedures anticipated, then IMO 517 does not apply.
In a cardiac cath, where the doctor runs a fish tape through the arteries, the patient must remain still after the procedure is complete to keep from bleeding out, therefore 517 will apply because the patients physical state is altered. Not an official rule, just one that seems to apply. I can't imagine a cath lab not having backup power, air, oxygen, vacuum in the first place.
If the patient walks in and can walk out (even if little bowlegged and humbled)in an emergency under their own power for all procedures anticipated, then IMO 517 does not apply.
In a cardiac cath, where the doctor runs a fish tape through the arteries, the patient must remain still after the procedure is complete to keep from bleeding out, therefore 517 will apply because the patients physical state is altered. Not an official rule, just one that seems to apply. I can't imagine a cath lab not having backup power, air, oxygen, vacuum in the first place.
Re: 517 and invasive procedures
If they use anesthesia (I hate trying to spell that word), chances are they will need emergency power.
Rick: Are you saying you don't think any of 517 applies to a basic doctors office? I would have to disagree with that.
Steve
If they use anesthesia (I hate trying to spell that word), chances are they will need emergency power.
Rick: Are you saying you don't think any of 517 applies to a basic doctors office? I would have to disagree with that.
Steve
- Location
- Lockport, IL
- Occupation
- Retired Electrical Engineer
Re: 517 and invasive procedures
There is more to it than the nature of the intended procedure. You also have to consider what equipment and personnel must be readily available to deal with an unexpected problem. For example, when my mother had an angioplasty (insert a balloon into an artery to force it to stay open), there was a team ready to jump in and perform open heart surgery, in case something went seriously wrong. Therefore, it took place at a hospital. That?s an extreme example, I'll admit, but it makes a case for thinking beyond the immediate present.
There is more to it than the nature of the intended procedure. You also have to consider what equipment and personnel must be readily available to deal with an unexpected problem. For example, when my mother had an angioplasty (insert a balloon into an artery to force it to stay open), there was a team ready to jump in and perform open heart surgery, in case something went seriously wrong. Therefore, it took place at a hospital. That?s an extreme example, I'll admit, but it makes a case for thinking beyond the immediate present.
rick hart
Senior Member
- Location
- Dallas Texas
Re: 517 and invasive procedures
Charlie,
That's the way I see it. The scope of the procedure and the risk to the patient determine if 517 applies. That is determined by the equipment used, the likely contingencies for the staff my face and, as I stated earlier, generally the altering of the patients, physical, psychological or conscious state of being. With a balloon in your arteries, you had better be careful about moving at all. Invasive is not a good rule of thumb- a simple blood stick is invasive but you can usually get up and leave if the technician keeps missing the vein.
I don't see partial compliance with 517 or any other section of the NEC for that matter; you are either all in or all out when it comes to patient safety. But, it does not hurt anything except the financial bottom line to comply with 517 in a doctors professional office. It is pointless however to provide emergency contingencies and justify the cost in a place where whatever treatment has started can be safely rescheduled for another day. That does not happen in a hospital- you are all the way in and better be ready if the lights in the building or the patient start to dim.
IMO 517 does not apply to a doctors office where the doctor examines the patient and PRESCRIBES treatment- general health concerns, weight loss, colds, setting broken bones (maybe), taking blood samples, etc. If the doctor does some sort of treatment that affects the patient while in the doctors care and makes the patient non-ambulatory (able to get around under their own power) then yes, it does fall under 517.
Maybe that is why doctors don't make house calls anymore- residences don't comply with 517?
Charlie,
That's the way I see it. The scope of the procedure and the risk to the patient determine if 517 applies. That is determined by the equipment used, the likely contingencies for the staff my face and, as I stated earlier, generally the altering of the patients, physical, psychological or conscious state of being. With a balloon in your arteries, you had better be careful about moving at all. Invasive is not a good rule of thumb- a simple blood stick is invasive but you can usually get up and leave if the technician keeps missing the vein.
I don't see partial compliance with 517 or any other section of the NEC for that matter; you are either all in or all out when it comes to patient safety. But, it does not hurt anything except the financial bottom line to comply with 517 in a doctors professional office. It is pointless however to provide emergency contingencies and justify the cost in a place where whatever treatment has started can be safely rescheduled for another day. That does not happen in a hospital- you are all the way in and better be ready if the lights in the building or the patient start to dim.
IMO 517 does not apply to a doctors office where the doctor examines the patient and PRESCRIBES treatment- general health concerns, weight loss, colds, setting broken bones (maybe), taking blood samples, etc. If the doctor does some sort of treatment that affects the patient while in the doctors care and makes the patient non-ambulatory (able to get around under their own power) then yes, it does fall under 517.
Maybe that is why doctors don't make house calls anymore- residences don't comply with 517?
ryan_618
Senior Member
- Location
- Salt Lake City, Utah
Re: 517 and invasive procedures
I was speaking about this with a gentleman that was NFPA staff liason for the NFPA 99 (HelathCare). HE basically said that an invasive procedure would involve breaking skin or internal contact with equipment (paraphrasing).
I was speaking about this with a gentleman that was NFPA staff liason for the NFPA 99 (HelathCare). HE basically said that an invasive procedure would involve breaking skin or internal contact with equipment (paraphrasing).
rick hart
Senior Member
- Location
- Dallas Texas
Re: 517 and invasive procedures
And I agree with that definition of invasive. Where I part ways is that it does not, in of itself define a health care facility under 517.
Example- would a school where people line up for smallpox vaccinations be re-classified as a healthcare facility? The skin is broken and a substance is injected; doesn't get more invasive than that. What about glaucoma screening at the mall? Blood pressure checks at the local Wal-Mart? What about the blood donor buses? Those would not fall under 517.
The endoscope thing is a little close to the edge
-pardon the pun- for being covered by 517. A punctured colon would be hard to treat in a business office. If something did happen, I'm sure an attorney would be calling in the near future wanting answers
And I agree with that definition of invasive. Where I part ways is that it does not, in of itself define a health care facility under 517.
Example- would a school where people line up for smallpox vaccinations be re-classified as a healthcare facility? The skin is broken and a substance is injected; doesn't get more invasive than that. What about glaucoma screening at the mall? Blood pressure checks at the local Wal-Mart? What about the blood donor buses? Those would not fall under 517.
The endoscope thing is a little close to the edge
-pardon the pun- for being covered by 517. A punctured colon would be hard to treat in a business office. If something did happen, I'm sure an attorney would be calling in the near future wanting answers
Re: 517 and invasive procedures
Most endoscopies and colonoscopies are performed under anathesia. Rendering the patient unable to defend themselves in case of emergencies. Most docs who perform either endoscpies or colonoscopies do so in facilites that are capable of emergency power. If you have to have one or both of these procedures make sure they do the endoscopy first or you may wake up with funny taste in your mouth. No sense in cleaning the tube. Yes they use the tube on both ends.
Most endoscopies and colonoscopies are performed under anathesia. Rendering the patient unable to defend themselves in case of emergencies. Most docs who perform either endoscpies or colonoscopies do so in facilites that are capable of emergency power. If you have to have one or both of these procedures make sure they do the endoscopy first or you may wake up with funny taste in your mouth. No sense in cleaning the tube. Yes they use the tube on both ends.
- Status