|
AMENDED MALTREATMENT INVESTIGATION MEMORANDUM Minnesota Statutes, section 626.557, subdivision 1 states, “The legislature declares that the public policy of this state is to protect adults who, because of physical or mental disability or dependency on institutional services, are particularly vulnerable to maltreatment.” NOTICE: The Amended Maltreatment Investigation Memorandum supersedes a version dated June, 29, 2022, which must be destroyed. The original version contained a mistake on Page 4, which did not impact or change the disposition, and was corrected in the amended copy.
License Number and Program Type: 1104338-SUD (Substance Use Disorder) Investigator(s): Beth Virden Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that a staff person (SP) engaged in inappropriate relations with three vulnerable adults (VA1-VA3), including kissing and maintaining personal relationships. Date of Incident(s): Unknown, ongoing Nature of Alleged Maltreatment Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 626.557, subdivision 9c, paragraph (b), and Minnesota Statutes, section 626.5572, subdivision 15, and subdivision 2, paragraph (c); and subdivision 17, paragraph (a): Any sexual contact or penetration between a facility staff person or a person providing services in the facility and a resident, patient, or client of that facility. Sexual contact is defined by Minnesota Statutes, section 609.341, as the intentional touching of the intimate parts with sexual or aggressive intent. 'Intimate parts' includes the primary genital area, groin, inner thigh, buttocks, and breast. The failure or omission by a caregiver to supply a vulnerable adult with care or services, including but not limited to food, clothing, shelter, health care, or supervision which is reasonable and necessary to obtain or maintain the vulnerable adult's physical or mental health or safety, considering the physical and mental capacity or dysfunction of the vulnerable adult and which is not the result of an accident or therapeutic conduct. Summary of Findings: Pertinent information was obtained during a site visit conducted on June 1, 2022; from documentation at the facility; and through interviews conducted with a facility staff person (SP) and supervisory staff persons (P2-P3). This investigator made contact with another staff person (P1). P1 had provided information at the outset of the investigation, which is included in this report; however, P1 declined to participate in an interview or provide additional information. Letters were mailed to VA1’s and VA3’s last known addresses; however, neither responded by the completion of this investigation. VA2 did not have contact information available. The facility’s client records provided the following information: · VA1-VA3 had each been diagnosed with a substance use disorder, and were each seeking recovery supports and services at the facility. · In November 2021, VA1 moved into the facility. · In January 2022, VA2 moved into the facility. · In March 2022, VA3 moved into the facility. According to the facility’s website, https://www.valleyviewrecovery.com, “Valley View Recovery Center offers high intensity residential treatment programs — all programs offer 24/7 staff and the structure needed to thrive in recovery. Providing chemical dependency treatment and mental health services to [people] in Minnesota, our residential treatment programs range from 30-90 days to best meet the needs of our clients.” The facility, itself, was a renovated hotel. The main entrance opened into a large lobby with a grand staircase and overlooking loft. The client bedrooms were set along hallways connected to the lobby. The staff area was a cordoned off area in the loft. P2 and P3 provided the following information: · The SP was initially hired to work the overnight shift, which was at times single-staffed. The clients were to remain in their bedrooms during the night. They could leave their rooms to use the restroom, smoke a cigarette, etc., but they were to return to their respective bedrooms as soon as able. · P3 said that facility administrators became aware of concerns clients were staying up past curfew, and as such, they watched the facility’s camera footage to determine what was happening. P3 also watched the cameras and had immediate concerns that the SP was allowing clients to be up at night and do activities, such as their assigned chores. P3 met with the SP and after discussion, it was decided the SP would move to the evening shift, which was double-staffed. · P3 said that after the SP’s move to the evening shift, there were some concerns about the SP buying cigarettes for clients. The clients’ “shopping day” was scheduled for every Friday, but the clients were asking the SP to shop on other days, or to buy them cigarettes with reimbursement. P3 met with the SP about expectations, and what was allowed and not. · P2 and P3 also became aware of a time when a former client, believed to be VA1, called the staff phone and asked to speak with the SP. The SP was not working at that time, and so the call ended. About a week later, staff told the SP, “I forgot to tell you [VA1] called.” The SP became “super upset and was crying.” P2 and P3 met with the SP about his/her response to the client’s missed call. The SP said that s/he was crying about something that happened at home earlier that day, not about missing the client’s call. P3 reminded the SP about the importance of keeping his/her home- and work-life separate. · P3 said that another time, while reviewing cameras, s/he saw an incident that “looked a little off.” P3 saw the SP enter the lobby while talking on his/her cellphone. The SP then hung up, and appeared “smiley and giddy.” Next, the SP stepped outside into the parking lot. “Just then [VA1] pulled up, got out of [his/her] car, came out, hugged [the SP], and then drove off.” The SP then returned inside. P2 and P3 met with the SP about this. The SP said that s/he did not know VA1 was going to drive up at that moment. The SP had, instead, stepped outside to meet a different client when VA1 pulled up. The SP denied being on the phone with VA1 or knowing VA1 was going to stop by. P2 and P3 reminded the SP about boundaries. · Then, P3 received a call from P1. P1 wanted to come forward with concerns about the SP’s conduct. The SP had previously told P1 that s/he kissed VA1 and VA2 while they were receiving services at the facility; that s/he gave VA2 a cellphone; and that s/he started a relationship with VA3 while VA3 was receiving services at the facility. The SP was planning to move to another state with VA3 in the future. · P2 said that staff searched VA2’s room and property, and did not find a cellphone; however, they found “calling cards.” VA2 told staff that the SP never gave him/her a cellphone, but that the SP had given him/her the calling cards to use when s/he discharged from the facility. (Note: Clients were not allowed to possess a cellphone while in treatment.) · P3 said that his/her direction when it came to boundaries, and what s/he repeatedly told the SP and all other staff, was that the clients were “clients and vulnerable adults.” Staff were to maintain professional boundaries with clients at all times, including not giving out personal information like phone numbers. “If lines (boundaries) are crossed, shut it down … Report it … Stop it immediately.” The SP had never reported any concerns to P3 about boundaries, and that any clients had ever tried to cross boundaries with him/her. P3 added that if a staff person wanted to have a personal relationship with a client, the staff was required to wait at least two years after the client’s last contact with facility services. The SP told this investigator the following: · The SP denied having personal relationships, and/or engaging in physical contact, with VA1-VA3. · When asked why the allegations were made against him/her, the SP was not aware of any reasons. The SP believed that s/he was “too nice” and that working in a substance use disorder facility was not the right line of work for him/her. · The SP said, “I would never jeopardize my life” to have a relationship with a client. The facility’s policies and procedures included the following: · “[Staff were to] maintain an objective, non-possessive relationship with clients at all times for a period of two years following the cessation of a professional relationship. If a client is a friend of yours on Facebook, they should be removed from your Facebook while they are in treatment.” · “[Staff] shall not exploit the professional relationship with a client for the provider's emotional, financial, sexual, or personal advantage or benefit. This prohibition extends to former clients who are vulnerable or dependent on the provider.” Facility documentation stated that the SP, P1, P2, and P3 received training on the facility’s policies and procedures, which included the aforementioned information; and on the Reporting of Maltreatment of Vulnerable Adults Act. Conclusion: According to P3, P1 told him/her that the SP had kissed VA1 and VA2 while they were receiving services at the facility; that the SP gave VA2 a cellphone; and that the SP started a relationship with VA3 while VA3 was receiving services at the facility. The SP denied the allegations, and VA1-VA3 did not provide information. P2 and P3 provided examples of concerning conduct by the SP; however, they did not have evidence to support the allegations that the SP kissed or engaged in relations with VA1-VA3; and given the lack of additional witnesses or information, including that from P1, there was not a preponderance of the evidence whether the SP’s conduct towards VA1-VA3 included sexual contact; and/or whether it included a failure to supply care or services, which were reasonable and necessary to maintain VA1-VA3's physical or mental health or safety. It was not determined whether sexual contact occurred (any sexual contact or penetration between a facility staff person or a person providing services in the facility and a resident, patient, or client of that facility. Sexual contact is defined by Minnesota Statutes, section 609.341, as the intentional touching of the intimate parts with sexual or aggressive intent. 'Intimate parts' includes the primary genital area, groin, inner thigh, buttocks, and breast). It was not determined whether neglect occurred (the failure or omission by a caregiver to supply a vulnerable adult with care or services, including but not limited to food, clothing, shelter, health care, or supervision which is reasonable and necessary to obtain or maintain the vulnerable adult's physical or mental health or safety, considering the physical and mental capacity or dysfunction of the vulnerable adult and which is not the result of an accident or therapeutic conduct). Action Taken by Facility: The facility completed an internal review, and determined that policies and procedures were adequate and followed. The facility provided additional training to all staff persons regarding boundaries and maintaining appropriate relations. The SP was no longer employed. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: No further action taken.
|
