|
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: 1069659-H_CRS (Home and Community-Based Services-Community Residential Setting) 1069654-HCBS (Home and Community-Based Services) Investigator(s): Jason Pehler 651-431-4830 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that a staff person (SP) provided a vulnerable adult (VA) with marijuana. It was also reported that the VA “drinks” at the facility and “had to be quiet about it.” Date of Incident(s): February 12, 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 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 March 31, 2023; from documentation at the facility and through five interviews conducted with facility supervisors (P1 and P2), the VA’s guardian (G), the VA’s case manager (CM), and the SP. An interview was attempted with the VA, however s/he declined to complete an interview. Facility documentation showed the VA enjoyed living at the facility, but hoped to live on his/her own someday. The VA enjoyed playing video games, four-wheeling, snowboarding, reading books and drawing. The VA liked Mexican food, tuna salad with peas, strawberries, and bananas. The VA was diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism, oppositional defiant disorder, anxiety, depression, and developmental disabilities. The VA had a job in the community and utilized community unsupervised time. The VA had a guardian who helped the VA make informed decisions, but the VA maintained the ability to make choices in his/her daily life. The VA was of legal drinking age. The VA told a community person (CP) that the SP had provided the VA with marijuana and that the VA “drinks” at the facility and “just needs to be quiet about it.” This investigator contacted the CP; however no additional information was obtained because the CP did not respond. The SP denied providing any marijuana or any other substance to the VA. The SP said the VA offered him/her a “gummy,” but the SP declined the offer. The VA said the gummy was a CBD or “Delta 9.” The SP believed the VA had obtained the gummy from a local store. The SP was not aware of the VA using any alcohol and denied providing the VA with any alcohol. P1 did not have a lot of interactions with the SP, but did not have any concerns about his/her interactions with the VA, nor were there any concerns with the SP’s work performance. P1 was not aware of any drug or alcohol use between any staff person or any of the persons receiving services at the facility. The VA had purchased some cannabidiol (CBD) gummies, and the G and CM were made aware of the situation. P2 did not have any concerns with the SP bringing any substance (CBD, marijuana, or alcohol) to the facility. P2 had never observed the SP to be intoxicated by any substance while working. The G was not aware of any concerns and said s/he spoke with the VA every day. The G said the VA communicated openly with the G, and the G did not have any previous concerns with the facility. The CM said there were no previous concerns with the facility and that the VA was a “fairly accurate” reporter of information. The VA had good communication with the G, but the CM was not aware of any concerns with the VA’s care or services. The facility’s Drug and Alcohol policy stated that all staff persons must be free from the abuse of prescription medications or being in any manner under the influence of a chemical that impairs their ability to provide services or support and the consumption of alcohol was prohibited. P1, P2, and the SP received training on the Reporting of Maltreatment of Vulnerable Adults Act, the VA’s specific programming, and the facility’s policy and procedures. Conclusion: The VA told the CP that on February 12, 2023, the SP provided the VA with marijuana. The VA also told the CP that the VA “drinks” at the facility and “just needs to be quiet about it.” The VA declined to complete an interview and did not provide any information within the investigation. The CP did not respond to attempts to collect further information. The SP denied providing the VA with any substances, and said the VA had obtained “Delta 9,” or CBD gummies, and offered one to the SP. The SP said s/he declined the offer from the VA. P1 and P2 provided consistent information that they had no concerns with to the SP’s work performance and no known concerns of any drug or alcohol use by the SP or by anyone, staff persons or clients, at the facility. The VA was of legal drinking age and could choose to have an alcoholic beverage if s/he chose. Given that there was no further information regarding details of the marijuana, there was not a preponderance of the evidence whether the SP gave the VA marijuana. 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 the policies and procedures were adequate, and followed. The facility completed no additional training, and no corrective action was taken. The report was not similar to past events. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: No further action was taken.
|
