|
August 22, 2023 Blake Elliot, Authorized Agent Bridges, MN 1932 University Avenue West St. Paul, MN 55104 License Number: 1102804/1079030 Dear Mr. Elliot: The Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS), Division of Licensing, received your request for reconsideration regarding the Correction Order issued to you on August 19, 2022. After an independent review of the record, the Commissioner has determined that there is sufficient evidence to support the citation. Reconsideration Determination Citation This citation was issued because the license holder did not ensure services were provided in response to the person’s identified needs, interests, preferences, and desired outcomes, as specified in the coordinated service and support plan and the coordinated service and support plan addendum. C’s support plan and support plan addendum required 2:1 staffing; that if staffing were unavailable C’s guardians would be notified; and that staff accompany C in the community at all times. On June 4, 2022, the facility did not notify C’s guardians that it could not provide 2:1 staffing and C was left unsupervised in the community for over 20 minutes. Applicable Law. The license holder must provide services in response to the person's identified needs, interests, preferences, and desired outcomes as specified in the support plan and the support plan addendum, and in compliance with the requirements of this chapter. Minnesota Statutes, section 245D.07, subdivision 1a, paragraph (a). Your Response. You state the correction order is premised on the erroneous maltreatment determination that SP committed an error in therapeutic conduct when the SP left the setting with a VA and no other staff. You state the SP left the VA in the SP’s care to relieve himself in a restroom and that his/her decision violated Bridges MN’s policies and procedures and basic common sense, putting the VA at risk. You contend the correction order was retaliatory, to bolster the revocation against Bridges MN. Reconsideration Determination. The correction order was issued because the facility did not notify C’s guardians that it could not provide 2:1 supervision and because the VA was unattended in the community. In your reconsideration request you do not dispute either of these facts. You acknowledge the VA was with one staff person and that s/he was left unattended in the SP’s car. Although you state the staff person violated the facility’s policies and procedures, you as the license holder are responsible for licensing sanctions when staff fail to comply with licensing laws and rules. Therefore, this citation is affirmed. Disposition The Commissioner has reviewed the relevant laws and all of the information you submitted in response to the Correction Order. The record supports the citation and it is affirmed. This is a final agency decision. Sincerely,
Kofi Montzka, Attorney Legal Counsel’s Office Office of Inspector General
|
