|
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.”
License Number and Program Type: 801491-SUD (Substance Use Disorder) Investigator(s): Beth Virden Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that a staff person (SP) had a personal and/or sexual relationship with a vulnerable adult (VA) who was receiving services at the facility where the SP was employed. Date of Incident(s): Ongoing, specific dates unknown 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 September 14, 2022; from documentation at the facility; and through an interview conducted with a facility supervisory staff person (P). This investigator contacted the SP about this investigation; however, the SP did not respond to subsequent attempts to setup an interview regarding the allegations. In addition, at the time of the site visit, the VA and other facility clients declined to speak with this investigator. (Note: During this investigation, information was provided that the VA, who was still living at and receiving services at the facility, had made comments about wanting to know which clients were responsible for providing information at the outset of this investigation; and it was believed that the VA’s statements had made the other clients unwilling to speak to this investigator about the allegations.) The facility provided residential substance use disorder treatment. In June 2022, the VA moved into the facility seeking support and services relating to his/her substance use disorder. The facility provided the VA with treatment, mental health and medical supports, and other services. Facility documentation provided the following information: · In early August 2022, various staff and clients brought forth information that the SP was completing the clients’ chores for them, despite this being one of the requirements of the facility’s programming. Information was provided that the SP had been making the clients’ beds at intake, washing the clients’ dishes, folding the clients’ laundry, giving the clients cigarettes, and allowing the clients to use their cellphones at times when it was disallowed. · Around mid-August 2022, a client told staff that the SP and the VA “do things outside of here” (the facility). Another client told staff that there was a text message on the VA’s cellphone from a person, whom the VA identified as being the SP, and in which, referenced the SP’s genitalia being stimulated. Another staff provided information that at least one time, the VA missed his/her required treatment group because s/he was sitting in the SP’s office for unknown reasons. When the SP and the VA were asked separately about why the VA missed his/her treatment group, each independently stated that the facility’s programming was a “cartoon” or a “cartoon movie.” Staff also reported that at least once they saw the VA put a pack of cigarettes and an energy drink on the SP’s desk as though the VA was giving the items to the SP. · Another staff person brought forth information that the SP gave his/her phone number to “recent past clients,” and that the SP had maintained communication with them after they had discharged from the facility. (Note: This information was not specific to the VA.) · On August 19, 2022, a facility administrator met with the SP regarding his/her relationship with the VA. “[The SP] denied having any relationship with [the VA] and became visibly upset.” · The facility administrator also met with the VA, and the VA “denied any relationship with [the SP].” · Yet, another client told staff that the allegations about the SP and the VA were “true.” · On August 22, 2022, the facility administrator met with the SP again regarding his/her relationship with the VA. The administrator asked to see the SP’s cellphone and the SP agreed. However, just prior to handing the cellphone over, the SP “quickly deleted something.” There was nothing noted on the SP’s cellphone relating to the VA; however, the administrator observed that the SP had a former client’s name and phone number listed in the SP’s phone contacts. The administrator reminded the SP of appropriate boundaries. · Following this meeting, the SP resigned from his/her employment at the facility. · A few days later, another client brought forth information that the VA and the SP had spent time together at the SP’s house. A supervisory staff person (P) provided information that the clients “liked [the SP] a lot.” The P was not aware of any conflicts or reasons why the clients might intentionally provide inaccurate information to get the SP in trouble. The facility’s training included that personal relationships with clients were “absolutely not” allowed. This message to staff was “definitely talked about” in trainings and meetings, which the SP attended. The P also had information that the VA knew the SP’s significant other’s first name, and according to the facility’s training, sharing personal information, including the names of significant others, was not allowed. The facility’s policies and procedures, including Code of Conduct and Professional Ethics, provided the following information: · Employees must conduct themselves at all times in a professional manner in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, professional codes of ethics, and standards of conduct. · Employees were expected to maintain appropriate boundaries with clients. · Employees must not socialize with clients when off duty; this includes phone/text messaging, social networking, etc. · “Under no circumstances would employees initiate or participate in a sexual relationship with a client for a period of at least two years following discharge; HOWEVER (emphasis in original), it is always discouraged.” Facility documentation stated that the SP received training on the facility’s policies and procedures, including Code of Conduct, Professional Ethics, and Staff & Client Relationships; and on the Reporting of Maltreatment of Vulnerable Adults Act. The SP also attended staff meetings on June 24 and August 18, 2022, which covered Code of Conduct and Boundaries. Conclusion: It was reported that clients had provided information to the facility that the SP and the VA were involved in a personal and/or sexual relationship. In addition, various staff persons provided information that the SP’s conduct was not always consistent with the facility’s policies and procedures regarding boundaries. An administrative staff person saw that the SP had a former client’s name and phone number listed in the SP’s cellphone, and the P had heard the VA refer to the SP’s significant other by his/her first name. However, there was no information provided that anyone witnessed the SP and the VA engaging in sexual contact; and there was no information provided that the SP’s conduct impacted the facility’s care or services and/or the VA’s physical or mental health or safety. Given the lack of additional information or witnesses, there was not a preponderance of the evidence whether the SP’s conduct included sexual contact with the VA; and/or whether the SP’s conduct included a failure to supply the VA with care or services, which is reasonable and necessary to obtain or maintain the VA’s physical or mental health or safety. It was not determined whether sexual abuse 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 SP was no longer employed at the facility. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: No further action taken.
|
