A Critical Examination of State Agency Investigations into ...
A Critical Examination of State Agency Investigations into ... A Critical Examination of State Agency Investigations into ...
SURVEY BY THE OMRDD CENTRAL OFFICEAs discussed in this report’s introduction, the New York State Office of MentalRetardation and Developmental Disabilities (OMRDD) is responsible for certificationand oversight of privately-owned facilities that provide services for individuals withdevelopmental disabilities. In response to the allegations of abuse of Jonathan Carey,OMRDD Central Office conducted a survey in which it examined regulatory complianceat the Anderson School. Although the survey was initiated in response to the specificallegation, it was intended to be broader than the Taconic regional office’s investigation,which was discussed in the previous section. The Central Office’s survey team reviewedthe care of other children, as well as Jonathan’s care, as part of its examination. Thefocus of the survey, according to OMRDD officials, was to assess school-widcompliance concerning issues raised by the Careys’ complaint. Violations noted in theregulatorysurvey were communicated to the Anderson School in a Statement of Deficiencies. Asrequired by OMRDD policy, the Anderson School responded to the Statement ofDeficiencies with a plan to correct each violation.In its survey, OMRDD correctly identified serious problems at the AndersonSchool, with particular focus on its use of techniques like planned ignoring in its behaviorplans and the lack of training among the staff. However, the Inspector General notessome oversights in its review methodology. In addition, the Inspector General identifiedregulatory violations involving Jonathan’s care that were not addressed in the Statementof Deficiencies. OMRDD Central Office accepted a Plan of Corrective Action from theAnderson School that made statements contradicting the findings of the survey.118
Policies and Procedures Related to OMRDD SurveysAccording to a manual provided by OMRDD to service providers to acquaintthem with the survey process, OMRDD’s Division of Quality Assurance conductssurveys to “determine if programs and services are operating in compliance with NewYork State regulations and OMRDD policy.” The manual describes the general activitiesinvolved in a survey:Surveys include some observation centered on at least one mealtimeroutine, if applicable. Interviews are conducted with consumers, and/orfamilies and advocates. Consumers, families and advocates may choosewhether they want to participate in the survey process. Record reviewsare completed for a sample of consumers. Most surveys include reviewsof the principle areas of service delivery and program operation, forexample: environmental/physical plant; medication administration;infection control; personal allowance; rights; informed consent; incidentreporting; program planning.A survey is conducted annually of each facility. However, as occurred in thiscase, the Division of Quality Assurance may make additional visits at its discretion, andmay do so upon learning of a complaint against a facility.If the survey discovers significant violations, OMRDD will issue a Statement ofDeficiencies, and the facility must respond with a Plan of Corrective Action. OMRDDmay require an immediate corrective action for a dangerous situation. The provider mustrespond within specified time periods, depending on the nature of the finding. A surveymay be conducted at any time, and is unannounced, when possible.Survey Activities of the OMRDD Central OfficeOMRDD Central Office’s three visits to the Anderson School and the interviewsit conducted were generally sufficient for the purposes of the survey. However,119
- Page 72 and 73: eally losing it, going bananas basi
- Page 74 and 75: document indicated that Jonathan at
- Page 76 and 77: notified and she consented to the m
- Page 78 and 79: The Anderson School Executive Direc
- Page 80 and 81: naked to prevent him from leaving t
- Page 82 and 83: Anderson School Weekly Body Check F
- Page 84 and 85: continues. Does he take a multivita
- Page 86 and 87: Executive Director stated that arou
- Page 88 and 89: OMRDD regulations, OMRDD called the
- Page 90 and 91: CQC investigator’s notes reflecte
- Page 92 and 93: the psychiatrist wrote (in part),
- Page 94 and 95: V. State Agency Investigations of A
- Page 96 and 97: On October 25, 2004, the Careys att
- Page 98 and 99: INVESTIGATION BY THE TACONIC REGION
- Page 100 and 101: are responsible for conducting thei
- Page 102 and 103: School policies and procedures. Inv
- Page 104 and 105: Taconic Regional Office’s Finding
- Page 106 and 107: an entry on an October 4, 2004, Beh
- Page 108 and 109: When questioned about the Taconic r
- Page 110 and 111: involved “fully in the program pl
- Page 112 and 113: What were the employees doing that
- Page 114 and 115: Central Office. Although the Anders
- Page 116 and 117: acknowledged there was a “propose
- Page 118 and 119: Taconic Regional Office’s Letter
- Page 120 and 121: it is not his office’s policy to
- Page 124 and 125: additional information was availabl
- Page 126 and 127: his supervisor at the time, then-Ar
- Page 128 and 129: that is absent from the Statement o
- Page 130 and 131: clinical director role, psychiatris
- Page 132 and 133: the table contingent on appropriate
- Page 134 and 135: Former Regional Director Articola s
- Page 136 and 137: BruisingAlthough the Careys noted t
- Page 138 and 139: Seclusion / unauthorized time-out /
- Page 140 and 141: monitoring or supervision by clinic
- Page 142 and 143: Investigation of complaint by an in
- Page 144 and 145: and included supporting documentati
- Page 146 and 147: think they wanted him to have the r
- Page 148 and 149: Inaccurate Information Provided to
- Page 150 and 151: this allegation. The letter was tra
- Page 152 and 153: While reports indicated that the An
- Page 154 and 155: facilities like the Anderson School
- Page 156 and 157: egistry, and then it seems there wa
- Page 158 and 159: INVESTIGATION BY THE NEW YORK STATE
- Page 160 and 161: target(s) of the complaint engaged
- Page 162 and 163: arely used by CQC to substantiate a
- Page 164 and 165: The second paragraph of the case su
- Page 166 and 167: CQC Director of Quality Assurance a
- Page 168 and 169: primarily to the provision of meals
- Page 170 and 171: interview notes would have been exp
SURVEY BY THE OMRDD CENTRAL OFFICEAs discussed in this report’s introduction, the New York <strong>State</strong> Office <strong>of</strong> MentalRetardation and Developmental Disabilities (OMRDD) is responsible for certificationand oversight <strong>of</strong> privately-owned facilities that provide services for individuals withdevelopmental disabilities. In response to the allegations <strong>of</strong> abuse <strong>of</strong> Jonathan Carey,OMRDD Central Office conducted a survey in which it examined regulatory complianceat the Anderson School. Although the survey was initiated in response to the specificallegation, it was intended to be broader than the Taconic regional <strong>of</strong>fice’s investigation,which was discussed in the previous section. The Central Office’s survey team reviewedthe care <strong>of</strong> other children, as well as Jonathan’s care, as part <strong>of</strong> its examination. Thefocus <strong>of</strong> the survey, according to OMRDD <strong>of</strong>ficials, was to assess school-widcompliance concerning issues raised by the Careys’ complaint. Violations noted in theregulatorysurvey were communicated to the Anderson School in a <strong>State</strong>ment <strong>of</strong> Deficiencies. Asrequired by OMRDD policy, the Anderson School responded to the <strong>State</strong>ment <strong>of</strong>Deficiencies with a plan to correct each violation.In its survey, OMRDD correctly identified serious problems at the AndersonSchool, with particular focus on its use <strong>of</strong> techniques like planned ignoring in its behaviorplans and the lack <strong>of</strong> training among the staff. However, the Inspector General notessome oversights in its review methodology. In addition, the Inspector General identifiedregulatory violations involving Jonathan’s care that were not addressed in the <strong>State</strong>ment<strong>of</strong> Deficiencies. OMRDD Central Office accepted a Plan <strong>of</strong> Corrective Action from theAnderson School that made statements contradicting the findings <strong>of</strong> the survey.118