|
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: 1079088-SUD (Substance Use Disorder) Investigator(s): Scott Brandt 651-431-6556 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that a staff person (SP) had a sexual relationship with a vulnerable adult (VA) when the VA received services at the facility. Date of Incident(s): Prior to January 24, 2023 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 for this investigation was obtained remotely, including documentation from the facility and through five interviews conducted with the SP, a facility supervisor (P1), a facility staff person (P3) and two management staff persons (P4 and P5). Although this investigator contacted the VA, the VA did not respond to requests to be interviewed. This investigator talked to P2, but P2 chose to not provide information in an interview. The facility provided short term residential services to persons with a variety of substance use disorders. The VA was not subject to guardianship and did not have a case manager according to P5. The VA’s Comprehensive Assessment and Summary stated that the VA’s diagnoses included anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and opioid use disorder. The VA’s Discharge Summary showed that s/he received services at the facility between November 22, 2022, and December 30, 2022. The VA’s goals were to improve his/her quality of life by maintaining ongoing abstinence form all mood altering chemicals and to obtain supportive housing prior to discharge. The plan showed that the VA “discharged against staff [person] advice” and was “unable to successfully complete residential treatment program and did not complete transitional planning.” P1 and P5 provided the following information: · P1 stated that although P1 did not remember the specific date, P2 told P1 that when P2 went into a staff person office, P2 “overheard” a “FaceTime” conversation the SP was having on his/her cell phone. After that, the SP turned the phone around and P2 “recognized” that the SP was talking to the VA, who was no longer receiving services from the facility at that time. · When P1 was asked to describe the interactions, s/he observed between the SP and the VA, P1 said they were “normal,” but the SP had a “tough time” maintaining professional boundaries with clients because the SP “always wanted” to be the clients’ “friend.” · P1 thought that the VA had been making good progress in the program and was “very surprised” when the VA left the program. · When P5 talked to P2 about the allegations, P2 told P5 that s/he heard the SP say, “I love you,” to the VA. When P5 talked to the SP about the allegations, the SP “denied any contact” with the VA. P3, who had not seen any interactions between the SP and the VA, stated that the SP was “friendly” with the clients. P3 provided an example in which the SP had “personal conversations” with clients about “relationships” the SP had with others. As a result, P3 talked to a supervisor and after additional training was provided to all staff persons, including the SP, P3 did not see concerns regarding the SP’s interactions with the clients. P3 thought that the VA was “doing well” in the program before his/her unplanned discharge. P4 did not have prior concerns related to the SP’s interactions with the clients. The SP, who described his/her interactions with all clients to be “appropriate,” denied a sexual or personal relationship with the VA when the VA was at the facility, denied talking to the VA on FaceTime, and denied talking to the VA after the VA discharged from the facility. The facility’s training records showed that all staff persons interviewed for this investigation and P2, were trained on the Reporting of Maltreatment of Vulnerable Adults Act and the VA’s specific care plans prior to December 30, 2022. Conclusion: On an unspecified date in January 2023, P2 went into the staff person office and overheard the SP having a FaceTime conversation with who P2 “recognized” to be the VA, who was no longer receiving services at the facility. According to P5, P2 heard the SP say, “I love you,” to the VA, but further information was not able to be obtained because P2 chose not provide information to this investigator and the VA did not respond to requests to be interviewed. The SP denied a sexual or personal relationship with the VA and denied talking to the VA on FaceTime or any time after the VA was discharged from the facility. However, P1 and P3 had some concerns related to boundaries and said that the SP was “friendly” and had “personal conversations” with clients but nothing specifically related to the VA. Given this, that limited information was provided, and that there were no concerns about the SP and the VA’s relationship while the VA resided at the facility, there was not a preponderance of the evidence whether the SP had sexual contact with the VA or failed to provide the VA with reasonable and necessary care and services to maintain his/her health. It was not determined whether sexual abuse or neglect 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 or 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, followed and that additional training was provided related to professional boundaries. The SP was no longer employed by the facility. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: No action taken at this time.
|
