|
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: 1110603-H_CRS (Home and Community-Based Services-Community Residential Setting) Investigator(s): Jason Pehler Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported a staff person (SP) provided and smoked marijuana with a vulnerable adult (VA) on two occasions. Date of Incident(s): February 2022, and during the summer of 2022. 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 17, paragraph (a): 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 August 17, 2022; and through five interviews conducted with the VA, two facility staff persons (P1 and P4), a facility supervisor (P3), and the SP. Facility documentation showed the VA enjoyed spending time with his/her family, and liked coloring, painting, reading, and listening to music. The VA was insightful and a “great advocate” for him/herself. The facility provided 24/7 care and services to the VA. The VA was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, attention deficit hyperactive disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, cannabis dependency disorder, as well as other physical health issues. The VA’s client specific information showed the VA attempted to purchase illicit drugs when s/he had money. The VA provided the following information: · The VA said s/he had smoked marijuana with the SP a “couple times,” and said the incidents occurred in the “summer.” However, within the interview the VA said the first incident occurred on February 14, 2022, when the SP, P4, and the VA went to the SP’s house/business. While at the house they smoked hookah and marijuana. The VA was unsure what substance was smoked from the hookah. · The VA provided conflicting information whether P4 smoked marijuana on February 14, 2022. There was also information of another unknown staff person and the VA appeared to have confused P4 with the unknown staff person. · The VA was unable to provide a time and/or date for second incident but said that it occurred while the SP was working at the facility. The SP approached the VA to smoke a “joint” outside the facility and they did so. The Internal Review (IR) provided the following information: · The internal investigation was started on April 29, 2022, after the VA told P1 and P2 that the SP gave the VA with marijuana and they smoked marijuana together outside of the facility. P1 and P2 said the VA went outside to get the remaining marijuana, however, there was no marijuana found in the “wrap/blunt.” · The SP denied providing and/or smoking marijuana with the VA. · The VA declined to answer additional questions during the internal investigation. · There was no information obtained during the internal that P4 smoked marijuana with the VA. · Three staff were interview and there was no other information that corroborated the information that the VA smoked marijuana with the SP. P3 provided information that was consistent with the information in the IR. · P1 provided information that was consistent with the information in the IR. P1 also stated the VA told P1 that the SP and the VA smoked a hookah and marijuana while at the SP’s business, but did not provide additional details to P1. P1 had not observed the SP smoking marijuana by him/herself or with any other person. P4 denied smoking marijuana with the VA and the SP. P4 was not aware of the SP providing and/or smoking marijuana with the VA. P4 said s/he, the SP, and the VA went to the SP’s business and got a smoothie, but the VA was not provided any marijuana and did not smoke a hookah. The SP denied providing and/or smoking marijuana with the VA. The SP said the VA never went to his/her home, but had gone to a business the SP owns with the SP and P4. While at the business, the SP gave the VA and P4 with smoothies. The business did not have a hookah and the VA and SP never smoked a hookah together. The SP received training on the facility’s policies and procedures, Reporting of Maltreatment of Vulnerable Adults Act, and his/her job description. Conclusion: The VA said that s/he smoked marijuana with the SP on two occasions including once with P4 while they were at the SP’s home/business. The SP and P4 denied smoking marijuana with and providing marijuana to the VA, and said that when they went to the SP’s business, they had smoothies with the VA. The IR provided information that three additional staff persons were interviewed and none had information about the SP or P4 smoking marijuana with the VA. Given that there was no information to support the VA’s account, there was not a preponderance of the evidence whether the SP and/or P4 gave or smoked marijuana with the VA. 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 the policies and procedures were adequate, and were followed. The facility provided the SP with a re-training on the facility’s drug and alcohol policy. The report was not similar to past events. The SP no longer worked at the facility. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: No further action taken.
|
