The most profound problem isn't that the state's rules aren't stringent enough; it's that there is no money in the budget to enforce those rules. By continually cutting the mental health budget in recent years, state officials created a situation in which only one yearly inspection was completed on Anderson Guest House, when two are called for. In allowing Anderson to be operated in such a fashion that Dupont was closely involved, it's clear the state either wasn't taking its own rules seriously or didn't have the time to look very hard at the management of the homes it licenses.
While I agree with the sentiments expressed in the editorial, it would not have taken that much money for the state to make sure that someone with a long and public list of safety violations, financial problems, and a federal conviction for fraud is not responsible for the care of those least able to care for themselves.
Joplin Globe Editor Edgar Simpson, in a column in today's edition, points out the ridiculous way that the Department of Health and Senior Services handles violations by group home facilities:
The state does not look at an overall company’s performance, but inspects each home as if it were a separate entity. This makes no sense. An operation with fire-code issues at several locations says something about how the company is run, its values and how things are managed at all homes, regardless of what the most recent inspection shows.
2 comments:
Question. Are the inspections announced in advance to the owners or are they surprise inspections?
That could make a real difference as far as passing the inspections.
I believe it is a violation of state law to announce inspections in advance. I know some legislators were pushing for it in recent years to go along with Federal law in Title nursing homes.
Another issue in the News Leader editorial-DHHS staff cuts resulting in residential facilities not receiving the required two inspections yearly-
Even if Governor Blunt does staff/fund DHHS sufficiently to conduct the required two inspections yearly, if the requirements for the second inspection aren't changed it won't improve fire safety oversight unless there is a specific problem to address at a facility. The requirements for the second inspection would also have to change
The second inspection has been described as an "interim" inspection, much less in depth-inspectors look at problems in depth only if they see an outcome, for example dirty residents, or an obvious observation of violation of fire safety i.e. smoking in non-smoking areas, careless smoking etc. The once a year "full" inspection is when more specific tasks are required-looking at fire safety issues, kitchen inspection, observing of dispensing of medication etc., However when there is a specific Hotline complaint any potential violation can be investigated at any time.
It should be noted that if the requirement for the second inspection is changed-which I think should happen especially with a facility AND A CORPORATION with a history of certain violations-that could require even more DHHS staff.
So be it. Bring 'em on!
Post a Comment