Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: Ursus on January 03, 2009, 03:49:17 PM
-
Trails Carolina does not identify itself specifically as Aspen; however, pretty much everyone there that has noted previous TTI affiliations appears to have spent some time at SUWS of the Carolinas.
Photos on the website are obviously of models, since they don't have any kids yet. Not sure whether this will be an actual dress code policy or not, but all the kids were dressed in khaki pants and blue shirts: light blue turtlenecks for the girls, navy blue for the boys. lols
-------------- • -------------- • --------------
Posted: Jan 2, 2009
Trails Carolina
Lake Toxaway, NC
Trails Carolina Now Accepting Students (http://http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/TrailsCarolinaBN_090102.shtml)
Contact:
Mark Oerther
Admissions
888-387-2457
http://www.trailscarolina.com (http://www.trailscarolina.com)
January 2, 2008
Graham Shannonhouse, Executive Director for Lake Toxaway, North Carolina-based, Trails Carolina is pleased to announce the program is now accepting students.
Designed for struggling adolescents ages 13 to 17, Trails Carolina integrates clinically sophisticated and research-based modalities including equine therapy (EAP), group and individual therapy with licensed therapists, structured academics with a certified teacher, and comprehensive family inclusion to provide students with an impactful experience that encourages and supports self-awareness and confidence and develops unique and effective tools to ensure continued post-program success.
Trails Carolina operates from the premise that a student's ability to effectively integrate their wilderness experience into real-world skills is every bit as important as the program experience itself. For this reason, a comprehensive and educational family inclusion program is built into the program model. Parents and caregivers are expected to actively participate in their child's experience by working with their student's therapist to complete a course curriculum which parallels the curriculum of their child and by participating in parents workshops designed specifically to address their family's needs. Parents are empowered to help their child better transition their Trails Carolina experience to their "real" lives, as well as enhance the student's experience by being an active participant in the growth and recovery of the family unit. Additionally, students take part in a comprehensive academic program that continues their formal education while on trail. This better prepares the student to seamlessly return to a challenging academic environment without significant disruption in their coursework, while also providing opportunity for the child to practice new-found tools in a real-world setting.
Former SUWS of the Carolinas Executive Director, Shannonhouse, has assembled a dynamic and proven team including Mark Oerther, Admissions Director, Shalene Pierce LCSW, Therapist, Carlyn Daubs MS, Therapist, and Al Evans M.Ed, a certified educator with over 30 years of experience working with youth.
Program Highlights:
Clinically Sophisticated Model
Academic Credits
Equine Therapy
Integrated, Wrap-Around Family Curriculum
Wilderness Expeditions
For additional information, please contact Mark Oerther at: 888-387-2457 or 828-606-3507 and/or visit the Trails Carolina website at http://www.trailscarolina.com (http://www.trailscarolina.com).
-
Trails Carolina Staff (http://http://www.trailscarolina.com/about_us/staff.html)
(http://http://www.trailscarolina.com/images/headshots/graham.jpg)
Graham Shannonhouse
Executive Director
O-828-885-5920
[email protected] (http://mailto:[email protected])
After obtaining his Bachelor of Science degree from Coastal Carolina University, Mark served as a Field Instructor at SUWS of the Carolinas. While at SUWS, he was promoted to Senior Instructor and then Graduation Coordinator. He left SUWS to join Wilderness Treatment Center in Montana as a Wilderness Guide and Counselor. Mark was then selected to assist in the development and start-up of Adirondack Leadership Expeditions (ALE). While at ALE, Mark was promoted to Field Director and then to Admissions Director. In 2004, Mark returned to North Carolina to serve as the Admissions Director for SUWS of the Carolinas. Soon after, Mark was promoted to the Regional Director of Admissions for Aspen Education Group's Outdoor Division.
Mark brings his experience and skills to Trails Carolina as Admissions Director. He is continuing his education by becoming certified as a Clinical Addiction Specialist. Mark enjoys surfing, wakeboarding, softball, flag football and attempting to play golf.
(http://http://www.trailscarolina.com/images/headshots/shalene.jpg)
Shalene Pierce, MSW, LCSW
Primary Therapist
O-828-885-5920
[email protected] (http://mailto:[email protected])
Carlyn Daubs has been a member of the Trails Carolina team since its inception. Ms. Daubs earned a master's degree in Counseling Psychology from the University of North Texas where she is currently concluding her dissertation in order to earn a Ph.D. in Counseling Psychology. Her areas of interest include: attachment and adoption issues; marital conflict and divorce; trauma; anxiety disorders; depressive disorders; AD/HD; Oppositional Defiant Disorder; Conduct Disorder; and individuals with multiple Axis I disorders. Prior to joining the Trails Carolina team, Ms. Daubs was a therapist in a variety of settings including a community mental health clinic, a university counseling center, a wilderness program and a therapeutic boarding school. Ms. Daubs's therapeutic approach is an integrative model that employs techniques from interpersonal, cognitive, behavioral and psychodynamic theories. In her spare time, Ms. Daubs enjoys horseback riding, running, reading and spending time with her family.
(http://http://www.trailscarolina.com/images/headshots/al.jpg)
Al Evans M. Ed.
Dean of Academics
O-828-885-5920
[email protected] (http://mailto:[email protected])
Nick Pearl has worked in the wilderness for almost 10 years. He started out as a wilderness guide in the mountains of West Virginia. He has led river rafting expeditions through the New River and Gauley River gorges, led countless mountain bike expeditions, and served as a rock-climbing guide for eight seasons. During his six years in the Therapeutic Wilderness industry, Nick has served as a Master Level Instructor, Medical Coordinator and Field Director. Originally from Kentucky, Nick studied Physics and Chemistry at Western Kentucky University. He is certified as a Wilderness First Responder, Clinical First Responder, Leave No Trace trainer, and Nonviolent Crisis Intervention Certified Instructor. In his spare time, he enjoys hiking with his wife Melissa and two children Huxley and Adlai. He also enjoys playing guitar and banjo, biking, running, climbing, teaching, and learning.
(http://http://www.trailscarolina.com/images/headshots/mike.jpg)
Mike D'Angelo
Field Guide
O-828-885-5920
[email protected] (http://mailto:[email protected])
Kendall Smith enjoyed the rural life of upstate New York while earning her B.A. in Psychology and Religion from Colgate University. She then ventured out West to pursue her passion for working therapeutically with people and animals in the outdoors. While working at the University of Colorado in Boulder, Kendall was involved with Colorado Horse Rescue and the Colorado Therapeutic Riding Center. Kendall obtained her Masters Degree in Transpersonal Counseling with an emphasis in Wilderness Therapy from Naropa University. She has worked with youth and families in public health, in a wilderness program, a therapeutic boarding school and at equine-assisted psychotherapy and learning programs. Kendall continues to be amazed by the horse-human relationship and the endless possibilities for growth.
(http://http://www.trailscarolina.com/images/headshots/scott.jpg)
Scott Huffman
Facilities Manager
O-828-885-5920
[email protected]
A native of Caldwell, Idaho, Scott Huffman attended the University of Idaho at Moscow, and spent over twenty-five years in Idaho's Wood River Valley serving as a professional glassblower, carpenter, sheet metal mechanic, coach and business owner. He moved with his family to Brevard, NC in 2004 where he owned and operated King Street Heat, a hot glass blowing studio. Additionally, he spent two years serving as Facilities Director for Four Circles Recovery Center, a program dedicated to serving young adults struggling with drug and alcohol addiction. Scott's passions include rugby, traveling, hot glass, and his two daughters, Ellie and Frances Graham. Scott is an accomplished contractor, artist, craftsman and outdoorsman and brings to his position a strong work ethic and an intense belief in the ability of adolescents to take control of their lives through hard work, determination, and focused self-awareness.
-
The director is from Aspen, so I would assume it would be an Aspen program, but it isnt clear on the website. They site an independent outcome study to support wilderness therapy here (http://http://www.trailscarolina.com/Articles/Outcome_Study_Trails.pdf) which I haven’t seen on other Aspen web sites.
This was from a Keith C. Russell, Ph.D. Study:
The study concluded that participation in outdoor behavioral
healthcare resulted in clinically significant reductions in severity of
behavioral and emotional symptoms.........
Over 80% of parents and 95% of participants believed that treatment was effective 24 months after the process.
...
-
The director is from Aspen, so I would assume it would be an Aspen program, but it isnt clear on the website. They site an independent outcome study to support wilderness therapy here (http://http://www.trailscarolina.com/Articles/Outcome_Study_Trails.pdf) which I haven’t seen on other Aspen web sites.
Keith C. Russell of Outdoor Behavioral Healthcare Industry Council??
(http://http://www.obhic.com/images/obhic.jpg)
http://www.obhic.com/join/index.html (http://www.obhic.com/join/index.html)
Membership Criteria
* Provisional period of one year.
* Review by membership committee.
* Letters of recommendation from: (1) child, (1) parent or family, (1) professional referral source.
* Letter of application stating why they want to participate and what they can contribute.
* Members are licensed, certified, or accredited by agencies recognized by OBHIC.
* Proof of land use permits.
Independent study??? Sounds like another NATSAP.
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
The director is from Aspen, so I would assume it would be an Aspen program, but it isnt clear on the website. They site an independent outcome study to support wilderness therapy here (http://http://www.trailscarolina.com/Articles/Outcome_Study_Trails.pdf) which I haven’t seen on other Aspen web sites.
Keith C. Russell of Outdoor Behavioral Healthcare Industry Council??
(http://http://www.obhic.com/images/obhic.jpg)
http://www.obhic.com/join/index.html (http://www.obhic.com/join/index.html)
Membership Criteria
* Provisional period of one year.
* Review by membership committee.
* Letters of recommendation from: (1) child, (1) parent or family, (1) professional referral source.
* Letter of application stating why they want to participate and what they can contribute.
* Members are licensed, certified, or accredited by agencies recognized by OBHIC.
* Proof of land use permits.
Independent study??? Sounds like another NATSAP.
From what I have read they are heavy into research and studies which focus just on wilderness, Not the entire industry. They get funding from US Department of Labor,US Dept. of Agriculture, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute etc. and work with UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO WILDERNESS RESEARCH CENTER.
I am still reading up on it but so far look like a great reference.
...
-
From what I have read they are heavy into research and studies which focus just on wilderness, Not the entire industry. They get funding from US Department of Labor,US Dept. of Agriculture, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute etc. and work with UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO WILDERNESS RESEARCH CENTER.
Where they get their funding from has nothing to do with the validity of their "research". "Wilderness Research" in the names of both cronies you mention indicates the likelihood of bias. No, I take that back, it damn well guarantees it. Keith Russel is the only TTI player I can think of who is even more deceitful than you.
I am still reading up on it but so far look like a great reference.
...
And how much will you be paid for making that reference, John? You read it here first, Whooter admits to making referrals. Can he be banned for using his posts as Aspen commercials?
-
(http://http://stroimvse.info/16915.jpg) (http://http://stroimvse.info/15579/)
Jenny kerry fucking pics, Senhas porno, first time sex pain in women - gay animal mating porn videos - Erotic stories seduction jacquee, bruce dickonson king of the hill hentai - Girl teenagers watching porn - wallpaper of boobs - Naked asian college women having sex, Bdsm in amsterdan, Abby free xxx teen pics, Pussy stretch huge orgasm, Chichi goten sex, Make a tgp porn site, onine dating and research - italian gay boy porn - athletes nude photos erotic - Free porn in louisiana, Free lesbian porn sed, force fuck teens - reon kadena sex tape. huge tit xxx movies asians. Sexy tv channels online, Playboy playmate may 1983, youngleafs xxx sex quickplay. homemade girlfriend from private albums. tigi all sexed up - australian gay guys fucking. Boyfriend girlfriend poems anniversary, Breastmilk squirt sex, baltimore amateur casting -
pitures of loins having sex - United states nudistpics, 80 s porn cock - machine sex babes - Aruba tits Hpv sexually transmitted, young hot porn vid free hardcore gay sex pictures. naked girl porn stars. Hot chicks with sex toys Gangbang matures pics, fuck her hard in the ass. flash sex games gay. sauna erotique vaucluse. amateur crotch shot - negative emotions of sex shock video sex - lesbian squirting pussy videos come fuck me in the ass - Amy lindsey xxx sweet ass milf buries dildo - Shamanic stone casting for divination, litterateur erotic outrageous rough sex lesbian shower stories - free i q tests for adults - m m and pussy innocent girl hentai. shyanne adult film star california - sex doll centaur - britney spears my pussy sticking out Fucked hard 2008 jelsoft enterprises ltd sexy bathingsuite older enemas sex. fee hanycaped asin porn Dad fucks his sexy daughter, Girl teenagers watching porn -
young amateur porn movies girlfriend nude self shot mirror free - guardians porn. sex wife swinger - Dps sex video scandal, angel heart sex scene mom teaches son how to fuck. heti sex - tales of symphonia hentai sheena Naked porn, pokemon yaoi xxx oliva if i was your girlfriend Hardcore bondage galleries, thick booty ass pics - Guy movies sex, simpsons xxx tgp - Hardcore teen movie gallery post, Nature boobs tube, Eroticaa nime, mature sex orgeys - perfect mother blowjob - women using sex dolls. japanese naked ass african tribe porno movies Litle anal teens, Mammeth breast sex stories, Wet indian pussy, Anime mother son hentai, show me a pussy -
-
Definitely NOT an Aspen Group. Most of the staff did work in Apsen programs but tired of the corporate money making machine. This is an independently owned program.
-
Definitely NOT an Aspen Group. Most of the staff did work in Apsen programs but tired of the corporate money making machine. This is an independently owned program.
This is very typical in the business world. The corporation grows too big and people tire of the lack of intimacy and freedom to develop and implement new ideas so they head out on their own to try something new. This is a very healthy way for the industry to grow and improve. I am sure Aspen (and others) are watching them closely to see how and if they are successful and adopt some of their practices if they are working well.
...
-
Definitely NOT an Aspen Group. Most of the staff did work in Apsen programs but tired of the corporate money making machine. This is an independently owned program.
This is very typical in the business world. The corporation grows too big and people tire of the lack of intimacy and freedom to develop and implement new ideas so they head out on their own to try something new. This is a very healthy way for the industry to grow and improve. I am sure Aspen (and others) are watching them closely to see how and if they are successful and adopt some of their practices if they are working well.
Spoken like a true marketer, Whooter... I'm sure Aspen is both flattered and proud of ya. :D
-
tired of the corporate money making machine.
On the other hand, child abuse apparently never gets old.
-
Definitely NOT an Aspen Group. Most of the staff did work in Apsen programs but tired of the corporate money making machine. This is an independently owned program.
This is very typical in the business world. The corporation grows too big and people tire of the lack of intimacy and freedom to develop and implement new ideas so they head out on their own to try something new. This is a very healthy way for the industry to grow and improve. I am sure Aspen (and others) are watching them closely to see how and if they are successful and adopt some of their practices if they are working well.
Spoken like a true marketer, Whooter... I'm sure Aspen is both flattered and proud of ya. :D
OR
Spoken like a true marketer, Ursus... I'm sure Fornits is both flattered and proud of ya.
-
Definitely NOT an Aspen Group. Most of the staff did work in Apsen programs but tired of the corporate money making machine. This is an independently owned program.
This is very typical in the business world. The corporation grows too big and people tire of the lack of intimacy and freedom to develop and implement new ideas so they head out on their own to try something new. This is a very healthy way for the industry to grow and improve. I am sure Aspen (and others) are watching them closely to see how and if they are successful and adopt some of their practices if they are working well.
Spoken like a true marketer, Whooter... I'm sure Aspen is both flattered and proud of ya. :D
OR
Spoken like a true marketer, Ursus... I'm sure Fornits is both flattered and proud of ya.
You are not making sense, Danny. I am not marketing anything, nor am I making excuses for an industry that takes advantage of desperate parents.
Quite the contrary. I'm trying to alert folks to the potential dangers of that industry.
-
Definitely NOT an Aspen Group. Most of the staff did work in Apsen programs but tired of the corporate money making machine. This is an independently owned program.
This is very typical in the business world. The corporation grows too big and people tire of the lack of intimacy and freedom to develop and implement new ideas so they head out on their own to try something new. This is a very healthy way for the industry to grow and improve. I am sure Aspen (and others) are watching them closely to see how and if they are successful and adopt some of their practices if they are working well.
Spoken like a true marketer, Whooter... I'm sure Aspen is both flattered and proud of ya. :D
Maybe I missed my calling lol, but marketing never really interested me, I liked to be down in the dirt (so to speak) getting the product out the door and solving problems. But anyone familiar with big business will tell you that you always lose a few good people who are ambitious and can’t wait around for the corporate machine to take notice of you. I had been there myself. I am sure Aspen wasn’t happy to lose them and isn’t proud to lose them. But, it is what makes capitalism work so well and drives businesses to improve and stay competitive.
On a side note: Curious how it always seems to bother you,Ursus, when the good side of the industry is shown here on fornits or when you struggle to put an evil spin on a post.
...
-
Definitely NOT an Aspen Group. Most of the staff did work in Apsen programs but tired of the corporate money making machine. This is an independently owned program.
This is very typical in the business world. The corporation grows too big and people tire of the lack of intimacy and freedom to develop and implement new ideas so they head out on their own to try something new. This is a very healthy way for the industry to grow and improve. I am sure Aspen (and others) are watching them closely to see how and if they are successful and adopt some of their practices if they are working well.
Spoken like a true marketer, Whooter... I'm sure Aspen is both flattered and proud of ya. :D
Maybe I missed my calling lol, but marketing never really interested me, I liked to be down in the dirt (so to speak) getting the product out the door and solving problems. But anyone familiar with big business will tell you that you always lose a few good people who are ambitious and can’t wait around for the corporate machine to take notice of you. I had been there myself. I am sure Aspen wasn’t happy to lose them and isn’t proud to lose them. But, it is what makes capitalism work so well and drives businesses to improve and stay competitive.
On a side note: Curious how it always seems to bother you,Ursus, when the good side of the industry is shown here on fornits or when you struggle to put an evil spin on a post.
"Struggling?" For a one-sentence reply? "Evil spin?" LOLOLLLL. That might have been a more appropriate response to another post (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=29220&p=368131#p368131).
Methinks you are struggling to keep your responses sorted from one another. :rofl:
-
Definitely NOT an Aspen Group. Most of the staff did work in Apsen programs but tired of the corporate money making machine. This is an independently owned program.
This is very typical in the business world. The corporation grows too big and people tire of the lack of intimacy and freedom to develop and implement new ideas so they head out on their own to try something new. This is a very healthy way for the industry to grow and improve. I am sure Aspen (and others) are watching them closely to see how and if they are successful and adopt some of their practices if they are working well.
Spoken like a true marketer, Whooter... I'm sure Aspen is both flattered and proud of ya. :D
Maybe I missed my calling lol, but marketing never really interested me, I liked to be down in the dirt (so to speak) getting the product out the door and solving problems. But anyone familiar with big business will tell you that you always lose a few good people who are ambitious and can’t wait around for the corporate machine to take notice of you. I had been there myself. I am sure Aspen wasn’t happy to lose them and isn’t proud to lose them. But, it is what makes capitalism work so well and drives businesses to improve and stay competitive.
On a side note: Curious how it always seems to bother you,Ursus, when the good side of the industry is shown here on fornits or when you struggle to put an evil spin on a post.
"Struggling?" For a one-sentence reply? "Evil spin?" LOLOLLLL. That might have been a more appropriate response to another post (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=29220&p=368131#p368131).
Methinks you are struggling to keep your responses sorted from one another. :rofl:
Sorry, I seem to have hit a nerve with my use of the word "Struggling", I will try to come up with another descriptor if you like. Why does it bug you so much when you cant find any dirt on a program? Curious...
...
-
This is very typical in the business world. The corporation grows too big and people tire of the lack of intimacy and freedom to develop and implement new ideas so they head out on their own to try something new. This is a very healthy way for the industry to grow and improve. I am sure Aspen (and others) are watching them closely to see how and if they are successful and adopt some of their practices if they are working well.
Spoken like a true marketer, Whooter... I'm sure Aspen is both flattered and proud of ya. :D
Maybe I missed my calling lol, but marketing never really interested me, I liked to be down in the dirt (so to speak) getting the product out the door and solving problems. But anyone familiar with big business will tell you that you always lose a few good people who are ambitious and can’t wait around for the corporate machine to take notice of you. I had been there myself. I am sure Aspen wasn’t happy to lose them and isn’t proud to lose them. But, it is what makes capitalism work so well and drives businesses to improve and stay competitive.
On a side note: Curious how it always seems to bother you,Ursus, when the good side of the industry is shown here on fornits or when you struggle to put an evil spin on a post.
"Struggling?" For a one-sentence reply? "Evil spin?" LOLOLLLL. That might have been a more appropriate response to another post (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=29220&p=368131#p368131).
Methinks you are struggling to keep your responses sorted from one another. :rofl:
Sorry, I seem to have hit a nerve with you using the word "Struggling", I will try to come up with another descriptor if you like.
Nope. Nary a nerve. Well, maybe my funny bone, lol. But do keep trying, Whooter; I enjoy our work-outs! :D
Why does it bug you so much when you cant find any dirt on a program? Curious...
Shucks, thanks for the lead-in, but I'm still working on my copy and paste. It seems Trails Carolina has some problems with their "medication management," background checks on personnel, and a host of documentation issues which include, but are not restricted to, informing appropriate personnel when events during a restraint do not go well. Such as a staff member losing it and punching a kid in the face.
-
Definitely NOT an Aspen Group. Most of the staff did work in Apsen programs but tired of the corporate money making machine. This is an independently owned program.
This is very typical in the business world. The corporation grows too big and people tire of the lack of intimacy and freedom to develop and implement new ideas so they head out on their own to try something new. This is a very healthy way for the industry to grow and improve. I am sure Aspen (and others) are watching them closely to see how and if they are successful and adopt some of their practices if they are working well.
Spoken like a true marketer, Whooter... I'm sure Aspen is both flattered and proud of ya. :D
OR
Spoken like a true marketer, Ursus... I'm sure Fornits is both flattered and proud of ya.
You are not making sense, Danny. I am not marketing anything, nor am I making excuses for an industry that takes advantage of desperate parents.
Quite the contrary. I'm trying to alert folks to the potential dangers of that industry.
Well Ursus I beg to differ with you, you are marketing/promoting a axiom, precept, law, principle based upon your convictions of what you believe the TTI is doing. I can see that and I respect that.
My problem has always been if others don't have the laws of principle you have, well then we are corrupted.
I say to that opinion, bullshit. You don't hold the moral ground here, all by yourselves.
-
Shucks, thanks for the lead-in, but I'm still working on my copy and paste. It seems Trails Carolina has some problems with their "medication management," background checks on personnel, and a host of documentation issues which include, but are not restricted to, informing appropriate personnel when events during a restraint do not go well. Such as a staff member losing it and punching a kid in the face.
Oh no!, That’s terrible!! That sounds very much like our friend DJ. He likes to solve his problems by punching people out. Did he ever serve as staff there? I think if you cant find the original you may be able to confirm they use IBM computers {wink} or find a staff member who once worked for CEDU. That would surely result in branding the program ineffective and abusive.
But all kidding aside and in all fairness I think this shows how far this industry has come when the dirt we find on them are mostly paperwork issues in-line with the level of findings one would expect from many hospitals.
...
-
nforming appropriate personnel when events during a restraint do not go well. Such as a staff member losing it and punching a kid in the face.
There's a big difference between "written down" and "informed", Ursus. Ever hear of this little thing called "plausible deniability"? Why the fuck would a program ever write down something like that, anywhere?
Documenting something and then torching it later is the way of the foolish past. The modern technique is just not to document it at all. Safer that way.
-
But all kidding aside and in all fairness I think this shows how far this industry has come when the dirt we find on them are mostly paperwork issues in-line with the level of findings one would expect from many hospitals.
Well now, it would all depend on just what those "paperwork issues" were, eh? I don't think we're talking 'bout failure to record a staff potluck in the "events" file here...
-
Shucks, thanks for the lead-in, but I'm still working on my copy and paste. It seems Trails Carolina has some problems with their "medication management," background checks on personnel, and a host of documentation issues which include, but are not restricted to, informing appropriate personnel when events during a restraint do not go well. Such as a staff member losing it and punching a kid in the face.
Oh no!, That’s terrible!! That sounds very much like our friend DJ. He likes to solve his problems by punching people out.
Citation needed.
-
But all kidding aside and in all fairness I think this shows how far this industry has come when the dirt we find on them are mostly paperwork issues in-line with the level of findings one would expect from many hospitals.
Well now, it would all depend on just what those "paperwork issues" were, eh? I don't think we're talking 'bout failure to record a staff potluck in the "events" file here...
Until we see the paperwork all we can do is speculate. If they didnt record the pot luck, in the events section, they should be written up like any other infraction. What if a kid had a peanut allergy and almost died, we would want to know who brought what to the dinner and if there was any intent to hurt the child?
...
-
But all kidding aside and in all fairness I think this shows how far this industry has come when the dirt we find on them are mostly paperwork issues in-line with the level of findings one would expect from many hospitals.
Well now, it would all depend on just what those "paperwork issues" were, eh? I don't think we're talking 'bout failure to record a staff potluck in the "events" file here...
Until we see the paperwork all we can do is speculate. If they didnt record the pot luck, in the events section, they should be written up like any other infraction. What if a kid had a peanut allergy and almost died, we would want to know who brought what to the dinner and if there was any intent to hurt the child?
There's a big difference between "written down" and "informed", Ursus. Ever hear of this little thing called "plausible deniability"? Why the fuck would a program ever write down something like that, anywhere?
Documenting something and then torching it later is the way of the foolish past. The modern technique is just not to document it at all. Safer that way.
-
But all kidding aside and in all fairness I think this shows how far this industry has come when the dirt we find on them are mostly paperwork issues in-line with the level of findings one would expect from many hospitals.
Well now, it would all depend on just what those "paperwork issues" were, eh? I don't think we're talking 'bout failure to record a staff potluck in the "events" file here...
Until we see the paperwork all we can do is speculate. If they didnt record the pot luck, in the events section, they should be written up like any other infraction. What if a kid had a peanut allergy and almost died, we would want to know who brought what to the dinner and if there was any intent to hurt the child?
There's a big difference between "written down" and "informed", Ursus. Ever hear of this little thing called "plausible deniability"? Why the fuck would a program ever write down something like that, anywhere?
Documenting something and then torching it later is the way of the foolish past. The modern technique is just not to document it at all. Safer that way.
Exactly, so basically you got nothing.
...
-
...informing appropriate personnel when events during a restraint do not go well. Such as a staff member losing it and punching a kid in the face.
There's a big difference between "written down" and "informed", Ursus. Ever hear of this little thing called "plausible deniability"? Why the fuck would a program ever write down something like that, anywhere?
Documenting something and then torching it later is the way of the foolish past. The modern technique is just not to document it at all. Safer that way.
Exactly, so basically you got nothing.
That wouldn't appear to be in sync with how the state of North Carolina sees it... Nice try at a bluff, though!
-
...informing appropriate personnel when events during a restraint do not go well. Such as a staff member losing it and punching a kid in the face.
There's a big difference between "written down" and "informed", Ursus. Ever hear of this little thing called "plausible deniability"? Why the fuck would a program ever write down something like that, anywhere?
Documenting something and then torching it later is the way of the foolish past. The modern technique is just not to document it at all. Safer that way.
Exactly, so basically you got nothing.
That wouldn't appear to be in sync with how the state of North Carolina sees it... Nice try at a bluff, though!
You are the one claiming to have the info, so until we all see it posted or some link of some sort then the bluff is on your end. I am merely waiting for the evidence.
...
-
...informing appropriate personnel when events during a restraint do not go well. Such as a staff member losing it and punching a kid in the face.
There's a big difference between "written down" and "informed", Ursus. Ever hear of this little thing called "plausible deniability"? Why the fuck would a program ever write down something like that, anywhere?
Documenting something and then torching it later is the way of the foolish past. The modern technique is just not to document it at all. Safer that way.
Exactly, so basically you got nothing.
That wouldn't appear to be in sync with how the state of North Carolina sees it... Nice try at a bluff, though!
You are the one claiming to have the info, so until we all see it posted or some link of some sort then the bluff is on your end. I am merely waiting for the evidence.
...
Ya know I was thinking the same thing, he (Ursus) gets so caught up in his own words he forgets what his intentions were.
Evidence Ursus.
-
...informing appropriate personnel when events during a restraint do not go well. Such as a staff member losing it and punching a kid in the face.
There's a big difference between "written down" and "informed", Ursus. Ever hear of this little thing called "plausible deniability"? Why the fuck would a program ever write down something like that, anywhere?
Documenting something and then torching it later is the way of the foolish past. The modern technique is just not to document it at all. Safer that way.
Exactly, so basically you got nothing.
That wouldn't appear to be in sync with how the state of North Carolina sees it... Nice try at a bluff, though!
You are the one claiming to have the info, so until we all see it posted or some link of some sort then the bluff is on your end. I am merely waiting for the evidence.
Ya know I was thinking the same thing, he (Ursus) gets so caught up in his own words he forgets what his intentions were.
Evidence Ursus.
Lols. Just what exactly are you trying to say, Dannyboy? Words... intentions... you would seem to know a lot about those, eh?
Apparently... someone filed a complaint on TRAILS Carolina, and the North Carolina Division of Health Service Regulation and/or the County Department of Social Services investigated earlier this year. Not only was the complaint found to be substantiated, but a number of other violations were also found, specifically:
- V 114 · 27G .0207 Emergency Plans and Supplies
- V 118 · 27G .0209 (C) Medication Requirements (medication administration)
- V 123 · 27G .0209 (H) Medication Requirements (medication errors)
- V 131 · G.S. 131E-256 (D2) HCPR - Prior Employment Verification (health care personnel registry)
- V 132 · G.S. 131E-256(G) HCPR - Notification, Allegations, & Protection (health care personnel registry)
- V 133 · G.S. 122C-80 Criminal History Record Check
- V 500 · 27D .0101(a-e) Client Rights - Policy on Rights (policy on rights restrictions and interventions)
- V 503 · 27D .0103 Client Rights - Search And Seizure Policy
- V 512 · 27D .0304 Client Rights - Harm, Abuse, Neglect (protection from harm, abuse, neglect or exploitation)
- V 522 · 27E .0104(e10) Client Rights - Sec. Rest. & ITO (seclusion, physical restraint and isolation time-out and protective devices used for behavior control)
- V 537 · 27E .0108 Client Rights - Training in Sec Rest & ITO (training in seclusion, physical restraint and isolation time-out)
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
V 503 · 27D .0103 Client Rights - Search And Seizure Policy > Are there more specifics on this complaint?
I don't know whether V503 was in the original complaint which sparked the investigation, but this violation had to do with the confiscation of all clients' pants and shoes each night, regardless of whether someone was considered to be a runaway risk or not. Apparently this had been Trails Carolina's SOP since they opened.
North Carolina had a problem with this practice not jiving with Trails Carolina's own official Search and Seizure policy, both in the nature of what was seized, esp. from kids who were not considered to be runaway risks, as well as the fact that these seizures were not duly documented. Moreover, if Trails Carolina was going to be taking these kids' clothing from them every night, there needed to be notation stipulating to that effect made by a qualified professional in each kid's file, which was certainly not done.
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
Too bad there was not more detail available......Unless we know exactly what the specifics of the violations were we really dont know how serious the issue(s) were. Could be something major or minor like a paperwork issue. If the background checks are not filed correctly or someone leaves a trash can on the fire escape you are held in violation. You need to also consider that many of the inspectors need to justify their jobs. If you are an inspector you need to find stuff (thats what you do) if you dont find anything than many perceive it as maybe you didnt look hard enough or are not very effective at your job. Very few inspections come out clean even when they are scheduled and the schools are prepared for it... this inspection did not appear to be scheduled in advance.
...
-
Too bad there was not more detail available......Unless we know exactly what the specifics of the violations were we really dont know how serious the issue(s) were. Could be something major or minor like a paperwork issue. If the background checks are not filed correctly or someone leaves a trash can on the fire escape you are held in violation. You need to also consider that many of the inspectors need to justify their jobs. If you are an inspector you need to find stuff (thats what you do) if you dont find anything than many perceive it as maybe you didnt look hard enough or are not very effective at your job. Very few inspections come out clean even when they are scheduled and the schools are prepared for it... this inspection did not appear to be scheduled in advance.
Geeezzzz. I wouldn't consider punching a kid in the kisser in retaliation for misbehavior, and injuring the kid in the process, to be a "minor" issue. I'm sure that incident figured prominently in the original complaint.
If you're really sooooo bloody concerned about inspectors "justifying their jobs" with busywork at the taxpayers expense, you'll be relieved to know that they probably weren't doing it this time around!
-
Too bad there was not more detail available......Unless we know exactly what the specifics of the violations were we really dont know how serious the issue(s) were. Could be something major or minor like a paperwork issue. If the background checks are not filed correctly or someone leaves a trash can on the fire escape you are held in violation. You need to also consider that many of the inspectors need to justify their jobs. If you are an inspector you need to find stuff (thats what you do) if you dont find anything than many perceive it as maybe you didnt look hard enough or are not very effective at your job. Very few inspections come out clean even when they are scheduled and the schools are prepared for it... this inspection did not appear to be scheduled in advance.
Geeezzzz. I wouldn't consider punching a kid in the kisser in retaliation for misbehavior, and injuring the kid in the process, to be a "minor" issue. I'm sure that incident figured prominently in the original complaint.
If you're really sooooo bloody concerned about inspectors "justifying their jobs" with busywork at the taxpayers expense, you'll be relieved to know that they probably weren't doing it this time around!
I read back and didnt see this listed as a finding, Ursus. Maybe I missed it:
Apparently... someone filed a complaint on TRAILS Carolina, and the North Carolina Division of Health Service Regulation and/or the County Department of Social Services investigated earlier this year. Not only was the complaint found to be substantiated, but a number of other violations were also found, specifically:
* V 114 · 27G .0207 Emergency Plans and Supplies
* V 118 · 27G .0209 (C) Medication Requirements (medication administration)
* V 123 · 27G .0209 (H) Medication Requirements (medication errors)
* V 131 · G.S. 131E-256 (D2) HCPR - Prior Employment Verification (health care personnel registry)
* V 132 · G.S. 131E-256(G) HCPR - Notification, Allegations, & Protection (health care personnel registry)
* V 133 · G.S. 122C-80 Criminal History Record Check
* V 500 · 27D .0101(a-e) Client Rights - Policy on Rights (policy on rights restrictions and interventions)
* V 503 · 27D .0103 Client Rights - Search And Seizure Policy
* V 512 · 27D .0304 Client Rights - Harm, Abuse, Neglect (protection from harm, abuse, neglect or exploitation)
* V 522 · 27E .0104(e10) Client Rights - Sec. Rest. & ITO (seclusion, physical restraint and isolation time-out and protective devices used for behavior control)
* V 537 · 27E .0108 Client Rights - Training in Sec Rest & ITO (training in seclusion, physical restraint and isolation time-out)
They filed a complaint for search and seizure didnt they, not punching a guy in the face. Where does it say that?
...
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
* V 114 · 27G .0207 Emergency Plans and Supplies
* V 118 · 27G .0209 (C) Medication Requirements (medication administration)
* V 123 · 27G .0209 (H) Medication Requirements (medication errors)
* V 131 · G.S. 131E-256 (D2) HCPR - Prior Employment Verification (health care personnel registry)
* V 132 · G.S. 131E-256(G) HCPR - Notification, Allegations, & Protection (health care personnel registry)
* V 133 · G.S. 122C-80 Criminal History Record Check
* V 500 · 27D .0101(a-e) Client Rights - Policy on Rights (policy on rights restrictions and interventions)
* V 503 · 27D .0103 Client Rights - Search And Seizure Policy
* V 512 · 27D .0304 Client Rights - Harm, Abuse, Neglect (protection from harm, abuse, neglect or exploitation)
* V 522 · 27E .0104(e10) Client Rights - Sec. Rest. & ITO (seclusion, physical restraint and isolation time-out and protective devices used for behavior control)
* V 537 · 27E .0108 Client Rights - Training in Sec Rest & ITO (training in seclusion, physical restraint and isolation time-out)
[/color][/i][/b]
I think Trails Carolina got caught with their "pants down" and thanks for posting the information Ursus. There are allot of wilderness programs that get away with the above complaints. Whereas wilderness programs fly under the radar because people from DSHS don't inspect them on a routine basis. The above complaints don't surprise me because I saw them at Eckerd Youth Alternatives Camp E-Hun-Tee.
Maybe they were caught with their pants down because it was not a scheduled audit. You saw the same thing at Eckerd youth. From my experience most places are given plenty of notice to clean things up prior to an inspection. The week prior to the inspection is dedicated to going over all the records, performing internal audits based on requirements etc. .... so it is not surprising that discrepancies were found when they came in with little to no notice.
If there was nothing major I am sure they were given a few weeks to tie up the loose ends.. come up with corrective action strategies and schedule a follow-up inspection to verify the changes.
...
-
Too bad there was not more detail available......Unless we know exactly what the specifics of the violations were we really dont know how serious the issue(s) were. Could be something major or minor like a paperwork issue. If the background checks are not filed correctly or someone leaves a trash can on the fire escape you are held in violation. You need to also consider that many of the inspectors need to justify their jobs. If you are an inspector you need to find stuff (thats what you do) if you dont find anything than many perceive it as maybe you didnt look hard enough or are not very effective at your job. Very few inspections come out clean even when they are scheduled and the schools are prepared for it... this inspection did not appear to be scheduled in advance.
Geeezzzz. I wouldn't consider punching a kid in the kisser in retaliation for misbehavior, and injuring the kid in the process, to be a "minor" issue. I'm sure that incident figured prominently in the original complaint.
If you're really sooooo bloody concerned about inspectors "justifying their jobs" with busywork at the taxpayers expense, you'll be relieved to know that they probably weren't doing it this time around!
I read back and didnt see this listed as a finding, Ursus. Maybe I missed it
I first posted (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=26502&start=15#p368142) 'bout that just under a week ago, colored emphasis added:
It seems Trails Carolina has some problems with their "medication management," background checks on personnel, and a host of documentation issues which include, but are not restricted to, informing appropriate personnel when events during a restraint do not go well. Such as a staff member losing it and punching a kid in the face.[/list]
-
They filed a complaint for search and seizure didnt they, not punching a guy in the face. Where does it say that?
I never said they filed a complaint for search and seizure. In fact, I specifically said, with emphasis as per the original, "I don't know whether V503 was in the original complaint which sparked the investigation..." As of yet, I have not actually seen, nor read, nor read of ... what was in the original complaint.
My strictly non-professional guess is that the original complaint had to due with the kid being punched. Trails Carolina graduated him within a couple of weeks after that incident. I'd wager that would have made it a lot more difficult for North Carolina authorities to interview him, eh? ... jes sayin' !
Perhaps, given the egregious nature of the incident, and/or anger fueled by the injustice of how things went down, other violations were also noted in the original complaint in addition to the kid being abused or injured in said altercation.
It is also conceivable that North Carolina authorities were not happy with the "ends justify the means" manner of effecting "treatment" that these programs always seem to employ and, once at Trails Carolina investigating the abuse of a client, chose to investigate a bit more. And the more they poked, the more they found.
All that said and speculated 'bout aplenty, I honestly don't know. Re. the original complaint, that is...
-
Ursus, are you able to divulge your source of the punching thing? Link, or was this gotten some other way?
-
My strictly non-professional guess is that the original complaint had to due with the kid being punched. Trails Carolina graduated him within a couple of weeks after that incident. I'd wager that would have made it a lot more difficult for North Carolina authorities to interview him, eh? ... jes sayin' !
Perhaps, given the egregious nature of the incident, and/or anger fueled by the injustice of how things went down, other violations were also noted in the original complaint in addition to the kid being abused or injured in said altercation.
Yes, but what complaint, what investigation? Where does it state that a child was hit in the face by a staff member and then graduated the program? I looked at every post in this thread and there isn’t anything about this event…. Then you go on to say other violations were also noted in the original complaint in addition to a child being abused. So there must be some type of evidence or documentation.
Its just confusing. By all the wording you use It looks like something could of occurred but maybe it did or maybe it didn’t. Can you provide a link to a report or post what you have so we can look at the original or the info that you saw? Where did this information originate from? I am not trying to be an ass here just doesnt seem to add up or something is missing. If I missed the link I apologize but I have been through the thread twice.
...
-
:eek:
Apparently... someone filed a complaint on TRAILS Carolina, and the North Carolina Division of Health Service Regulation and/or the County Department of Social Services investigated earlier this year. Not only was the complaint found to be substantiated, but a number of other violations were also found, specifically:
V 114 · 27G .0207 Emergency Plans and Supplies
V 118 · 27G .0209 (C) Medication Requirements (medication administration)
V 123 · 27G .0209 (H) Medication Requirements (medication errors)
V 131 · G.S. 131E-256 (D2) HCPR - Prior Employment Verification (health care personnel registry)
V 132 · G.S. 131E-256(G) HCPR - Notification, Allegations, & Protection (health care personnel registry)
V 133 · G.S. 122C-80 Criminal History Record Check
V 500 · 27D .0101(a-e) Client Rights - Policy on Rights (policy on rights restrictions and interventions)
V 503 · 27D .0103 Client Rights - Search And Seizure Policy
V 512 · 27D .0304 Client Rights - Harm, Abuse, Neglect (protection from harm, abuse, neglect or exploitation)
V 522 · 27E .0104(e10) Client Rights - Sec. Rest. & ITO (seclusion, physical restraint and isolation time-out and protective devices used for behavior control)
V 537 · 27E .0108 Client Rights - Training in Sec Rest & ITO (training in seclusion, physical restraint and isolation time-out)
Man, this program has been in operation for only a year or so and they are up to their necks in serious violations already? Looks like they've been popped for most of the same things the Aspen programs continuously get hit for.
Abuse, neglect, no verification of employees (professional or criminal), messing up the meds...and a whole laundry list of deadly serious violations.
Looking at this list of violations you'd have to ask "What did they do right at this place?" That's probably a much shorter list.
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
DJ these complaints are signs of serious ongoing problems over several months rather than an isolated incident. If it were an isolated incident, allot of this could have been "swept under the rug" supervisors in wilderness programs are skilled at doing. This is sad but it is true.
How do you know any of these are ongoing problems vs isolated? I have not been able to determine this based on the posts thus far.
This time an ASPEN wilderness program got caught with their pants down and justice will be served. The complaints about restraints { I'll break it down for ASPEN people reading my post } = restraints without justifiable cause and using excessive force/assaulting a minor.
Where did you read that this is an Aspen program? I wasn’t able to determine this from their website. If you look at the aspen website they don’t list Trails Carolina as one of theirs.
Link to Aspen site (http://http://www.aspeneducation.com/Outdoor-edu.html)
Nothing seems to add up on this thread. All the facts presented do not lead anywhere which can verify their authenticity. In fact they say just the opposite.
Does anyone have a link to verify any of the abuse or violations found? Just curious.
...
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
DJ these complaints are signs of serious ongoing problems over several months rather than an isolated incident. If it were an isolated incident, allot of this could have been "swept under the rug" supervisors in wilderness programs are skilled at doing. This is sad but it is true. This time an ASPEN wilderness program got caught with their pants down and justice will be served. The complaints about restraints { I'll break it down for ASPEN people reading my post } = restraints without justifiable cause and using excessive force/assaulting a minor.
Not just several months; some of these violations go way back to Opening Day.
The incident in question, which resulted in the injury of a client, allegedly occurred on 12/23/2009. Several of the above noted violations figure into this incident, but the most pertinent ones are V132, V500, V512, V522, and V537 (based on my admittedly inexpert perusal of the Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction, which will be posted shortly).
Trails Carolina personnel did file (in-house) incident reports regarding the incident, but failed to notify North Carolina. Perhaps the fact that the offending staff in question had not undergone training in the restraint system that Trails Carolina uses may have had something to do with that. Or that his training (in another system) had occurred so many years ago that it was no longer considered up to date.
Perhaps the fact that the three incident reports had discrepancies regarding relevant details also had something to do with it. Specifically, said offending staff claimed that kid injured himself while trying to bite him. Two other staff witnesses stated that he punched the kid in the mouth and gave him a bloody lip. At least one of those staff members indicated that it appeared to be retaliatory.
I should stress that this is technically NOT an Aspen program. Several of the staff including the founder previously worked at SUWS, as well as other Aspen programs, for many years. Perhaps the thread should be moved?
-
I should stress that this is technically not an Aspen program. Several of the staff including the founder previously worked at SUWS, as well as other Aspen programs, for many years. Perhaps the thread should be moved?
What do you mean by technically not an Aspen Program? It is either an Aspen program or it isn’t. Why do you blur facts all the time Ursus? Why not just be honest with the readers and say : This is not an Aspen Program.
If you look at almost any start up company the employees are going to have experience and roots in the industry they are starting up. If you were going to hire someone you would want people who had experience in the industry whether it be a restaurant, repair shop or insurance Company. It surprises me that you don’t see this. How many businesses, that you know of, are started up by people who have absolutely no previous work experience in the business they are in? and hire employees who have never worked in that said industry?
Think about it.
...
-
I should stress that this is technically not an Aspen program. Several of the staff including the founder previously worked at SUWS, as well as other Aspen programs, for many years. Perhaps the thread should be moved?
What do you mean by technically not an Aspen Program? It is either an Aspen program or it isn’t. Why do you blur facts all the time Ursus? Why not just be honest with the readers and say : This is not an Aspen Program.
If you look at almost any start up company the employees are going to have experience and roots in the industry they are starting up. If you were going to hire someone you would want people who had experience in the industry whether it be a restaurant, repair shop or insurance Company. It surprises me that you don’t see this. How many businesses, that you know of, are started up by people who have absolutely no previous work experience in the business they are in? and hire employees who have never worked in that said industry?
Think about it.
Geeezzz. A lil bit cranky tonight, eh?
I pointed out that Trails Carolina did not identify itself to be an Aspen program with the very first sentence in this here thread. You must not have read it. Here it is again, bold emphasis added:
Trails Carolina does not identify itself specifically as Aspen; however, pretty much everyone there that has noted previous TTI affiliations appears to have spent some time at SUWS of the Carolinas.[/list]
I think it's pretty safe to say that most of these folks did get a substantial portion of their training and experience with Aspen Ed, however. And that might very well say something 'bout Aspen Ed's training and their priorities. Or not, depending on your POV. :D
-
I should stress that this is technically not an Aspen program. Several of the staff including the founder previously worked at SUWS, as well as other Aspen programs, for many years. Perhaps the thread should be moved?
What do you mean by technically not an Aspen Program? It is either an Aspen program or it isn’t. Why do you blur facts all the time Ursus? Why not just be honest with the readers and say : This is not an Aspen Program.
If you look at almost any start up company the employees are going to have experience and roots in the industry they are starting up. If you were going to hire someone you would want people who had experience in the industry whether it be a restaurant, repair shop or insurance Company. It surprises me that you don’t see this. How many businesses, that you know of, are started up by people who have absolutely no previous work experience in the business they are in? and hire employees who have never worked in that said industry?
Think about it.
Geeezzz. A lil bit cranky tonight, eh?
I pointed out that Trails Carolina did not identify itself to be an Aspen program with the very first sentence in this here thread. You must not have read it. Here it is again, bold emphasis added:
Trails Carolina does not identify itself specifically as Aspen; however, pretty much everyone there that has noted previous TTI affiliations appears to have spent some time at SUWS of the Carolinas.[/list]
I think it's pretty safe to say that most of these folks did get a substantial portion of their training and experience with Aspen Ed, however. And that might very well say something 'bout Aspen Ed's training and their priorities. Or not, depending on your POV. :D
Look Ursus, you are not being direct with the readers. In the last post you said : I should stress that this is technically NOT an Aspen program.
If you look at the Aspen site they do not list Trails Carolina as an Aspen Program. Maybe this is not a big deal to you, but it shows that you tend to mislead the readers here on fornits. I think it is important to be factual and clear if you want to be perceived as credible. You post enough here on fornits to know better.
You also have a tendency to mislead readers into believing that if a program hires an employee that previously worked for "say" a CEDU program then the program must be CEDU based in their model. If you pick any industry at random you will see that the employees move from one company to another (within the industry) because thats what their profession is. Each employee needs to be trained and brought up to speed with the new companies policies and the way they do their business (not vise versa). I suspect that you know this but like to lead the readers the other way but I may be wrong on your intent.
The people that left SUWS of the Carolinas (in most probability) wanted to start their own program because they had newer and better ideas then they thought Aspen did and were frustrated with the large corporate machine and maybe not getting their ideas heard. People dont leave and start clones and expect to succeed against a giant industry.
I think you know all of this, Ursus, but pretend otherwise to mislead people into believing there is a conspiracy of some type but it doesn't come across as being genuine as you would hope it to be. Why not just put the facts up and discuss them honestly? If the places are corrupt or abusive the facts will prove them that way eventually.
...
-
I should stress that this is technically NOT an Aspen program. Several of the staff including the founder previously worked at SUWS, as well as other Aspen programs, for many years. Perhaps the thread should be moved?
What do you mean by technically not an Aspen Program? It is either an Aspen program or it isn’t. Why do you blur facts all the time Ursus? Why not just be honest with the readers and say : This is not an Aspen Program.
If you look at almost any start up company the employees are going to have experience and roots in the industry they are starting up. If you were going to hire someone you would want people who had experience in the industry whether it be a restaurant, repair shop or insurance Company. It surprises me that you don’t see this. How many businesses, that you know of, are started up by people who have absolutely no previous work experience in the business they are in? and hire employees who have never worked in that said industry?
Think about it.
Geeezzz. A lil bit cranky tonight, eh?
I pointed out that Trails Carolina did not identify itself to be an Aspen program with the very first sentence in this here thread. You must not have read it. Here it is again, bold emphasis added:
Trails Carolina does not identify itself specifically as Aspen; however, pretty much everyone there that has noted previous TTI affiliations appears to have spent some time at SUWS of the Carolinas.[/list]
I think it's pretty safe to say that most of these folks did get a substantial portion of their training and experience with Aspen Ed, however. And that might very well say something 'bout Aspen Ed's training and their priorities. Or not, depending on your POV. :D
Look Ursus, you are not being direct with the readers. In the last post you said : I should stress that this is technically NOT an Aspen program.
If you look at the Aspen site they do not list Trails Carolina as an Aspen Program. Maybe this is not a big deal to you, but it shows that you tend to mislead the readers here on fornits. I think it is important to be factual and clear if you want to be perceived as credible. You post enough here on fornits to know better.
You also have a tendency to mislead readers into believing that if a program hires an employee that previously worked for "say" a CEDU program then the program must be CEDU based in their model. If you pick any industry at random you will see that the employees move from one company to another (within the industry) because thats what their profession is. Each employee needs to be trained and brought up to speed with the new companies policies and the way they do their business (not vise versa). I suspect that you know this but like to lead the readers the other way but I may be wrong on your intent.
The people that left SUWS of the Carolinas (in most probability) wanted to start their own program because they had newer and better ideas then they thought Aspen did. People dont leave and start clones and expect to succeed against a giant industry.
I think you know all of this, Ursus, but pretend otherwise to mislead people into believing there is a conspiracy of some type but it doesn't come across as being genuine as you would hope it to be. Why not just put the facts up and discuss them honestly? If the places are corrupt or abusive the facts will prove them that way eventually.
Quoted for sheer <face palm> effects.
Think ya might have been able to get a few more paragraphs into that rant?
I do not try to mislead readers; you know this. You also know, as does pretty much everyone that has read more than five of my posts, that I *DO* seek out the ideological roots where individual programs, as well as the folk who run and work at them, originate. This is nothing new.
Whether ya agree with me or not, is immaterial to me. Origins and history are of interest to me. 'Nuff said.
You are creating a manifesto out of a non-issue.
-
You are creating a manifesto out of a non-issue.
And you're arguing with a troll.
-
Quoted for sheer <face palm> effects.
Think ya might have been able to get a few more paragraphs into that rant?
I do not try to mislead readers; you know this. You also know, as does pretty much everyone that has read more than five of my posts, that I *DO* seek out the ideological roots where individual programs, as well as the folk who run and work at them, originate. This is nothing new.
Whether ya agree with me or not, is immaterial to me. Origins and history are of interest to me. 'Nuff said.
You are creating a manifesto out of a non-issue.
I know you always had a thing for origins and history and that’s cool. But, in the past, this always was just an underlying theme with you. But it has slowly manifested itself into now being your leading form of thinking. You prejudge an entire program based on one employees' past link or a small previously insignificant link to the past all of a sudden dominates your perspective or becomes a motive of a programs intentions. When you first came to fornits, Ursus, you were fair and somewhat open minded. You were the hero of finding the facts (and documenting them here correctly so that there was no mistakes) where no one else could without thought of whether the facts supported the program or showed them in a bad light. You insured that posts were well documented and the facts were clear. But now your wording speaks to a different motive and you work towards deceiving the reader with hearsay, hazy inspection reports and more wording towards……. This might mean a staff person abused an inmate… or ….. a restraint which went bad must mean the staff person punched the kid in the face….. if the staff did this then that must mean the whole program is abusive and he was trained to do this, eh? Etc., etc.
It would be nice to get back to a mindset which pursues the facts and questions everything else.
...
-
As I think about it this maybe should have been stated in a PM... didnt mean it to come across as personal attacks.....I'll let it go. No need to respond, just my observation and a little frustration.
...
-
Quoted for sheer <face palm> effects.
Think ya might have been able to get a few more paragraphs into that rant?
I do not try to mislead readers; you know this. You also know, as does pretty much everyone that has read more than five of my posts, that I *DO* seek out the ideological roots where individual programs, as well as the folk who run and work at them, originate. This is nothing new.
Whether ya agree with me or not, is immaterial to me. Origins and history are of interest to me. 'Nuff said.
You are creating a manifesto out of a non-issue.
I know you always had a thing for origins and history and that’s cool. But, in the past, this always was just an underlying theme with you. But it has slowly manifested itself into now being your leading form of thinking. You prejudge an entire program based on one employees' past link or a small previously insignificant link to the past all of a sudden dominates your perspective or becomes a motive of a programs intentions. When you first came to fornits, Ursus, you were fair and somewhat open minded. You were the hero of finding the facts (and documenting them here correctly so that there was no mistakes) where no one else could without thought of whether the facts supported the program or showed them in a bad light. You insured that posts were well documented and the facts were clear. But now your wording speaks to a different motive and you work towards deceiving the reader with hearsay, hazy inspection reports and more wording towards……. This might mean a staff person abused an inmate… or ….. a restraint which went bad must mean the staff person punched the kid in the face….. if the staff did this then that must mean the whole program is abusive and he was trained to do this, eh? Etc., etc.
It would be nice to get back to a mindset which pursues the facts and questions everything else.
...
No Whooter don't back away, your point is well received. I am sick of his misleading innuendo, flaky facts and the bullshit he blends in with facts. This guy has had it coming for a while, keep him on the carpet, he must answer for his lack of integrity.
Ursus you have steadily gone down hill with your ethics. Your posts are misleading, your agenda is clear. Get off your soapbox and speak to the mass instead of to the few who agree with your hype.
Your a marketing machine for fornits, pure and simple. You bleed fornits, bought and paid for. I know it, whooter, suckit and many others here know it, they just will not say it.
I am happy that this expose of you is finally been cracked open, Whooter finally said it out loud, this thread finally showed your true colors.
Origins and history are important to me, right......as you see it. You are not a expert on the TTI, Ursus. Stop acting like you are, very hard for a survivor to become objective enough to succeed.
-
Quoted for sheer <face palm> effects.
Think ya might have been able to get a few more paragraphs into that rant?
I do not try to mislead readers; you know this. You also know, as does pretty much everyone that has read more than five of my posts, that I *DO* seek out the ideological roots where individual programs, as well as the folk who run and work at them, originate. This is nothing new.
Whether ya agree with me or not, is immaterial to me. Origins and history are of interest to me. 'Nuff said.
You are creating a manifesto out of a non-issue.
I know you always had a thing for origins and history and that’s cool. But, in the past, this always was just an underlying theme with you. But it has slowly manifested itself into now being your leading form of thinking. You prejudge an entire program based on one employees' past link or a small previously insignificant link to the past all of a sudden dominates your perspective or becomes a motive of a programs intentions. When you first came to fornits, Ursus, you were fair and somewhat open minded. You were the hero of finding the facts (and documenting them here correctly so that there was no mistakes) where no one else could without thought of whether the facts supported the program or showed them in a bad light. You insured that posts were well documented and the facts were clear. But now your wording speaks to a different motive and you work towards deceiving the reader with hearsay, hazy inspection reports and more wording towards……. This might mean a staff person abused an inmate… or ….. a restraint which went bad must mean the staff person punched the kid in the face….. if the staff did this then that must mean the whole program is abusive and he was trained to do this, eh? Etc., etc.
It would be nice to get back to a mindset which pursues the facts and questions everything else.
No Whooter don't back away, your point is well received. I am sick of his misleading innuendo, flaky facts and the bullshit he blends in with facts. This guy has had it coming for a while, keep him on the carpet, he must answer for his lack of integrity.
Ursus you have steadily gone down hill with your ethics. Your posts are misleading, your agenda is clear. Get off your soapbox and speak to the mass instead of to the few who agree with your hype.
Your a marketing machine for fornits, pure and simple. You bleed fornits, bought and paid for. I know it, whooter, suckit and many others here know it, they just will not say it.
I am happy that this expose of you is finally been cracked open, Whooter finally said it out loud, this thread finally showed your true colors.
Origins and history are important to me, right......as you see it. You are not a expert on the TTI, Ursus. Stop acting like you are, very hard for a survivor to become objective enough to succeed.
:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
Lols. Two (would be) Furies (http://http://www.in2greece.com/english/historymyth/mythology/names/furies.htm), for the price of one quote reply!
(http://http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/Deux_furies.png/150px-Deux_furies.png) Two Furies, from an ancient vase.
What greater "honor" could one ol' ragtag bearsuit even beg for! :twofinger: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
Okay... here we go, no more muckity muck.
Given my predilection for appropriate attribution, y'all would be so good as to note that this doc was obtained (somehow) by Angela & Company at HEAL. I have, as of yet, been unable to reach her re. more details.
-------------- • -------------- • --------------
NORTH CAROLINA Division of Health Service Regulation
PRINTED: 03/23/2010
FORM APPROVED[/list]
STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES AND PLAN OF CORRECTION (http://http://www.heal-online.org/trails.pdf)
(X1) PROVIDER/SUPPLIER/CLIA IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: MHL088-020
(X2) MULTIPLE CONSTRUCTION
A. BUILDING ______________________
B. WING _____________________________
(X3) DATE SURVEY COMPLETED: 03/04/2010
NAME OF PROVIDER OR SUPPLIER: TRAILS CAROLINA
STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE:
500 WINDING GAP ROAD
LAKE TOXAWAY, NC 28747[/list]
-------------- --------------
(X4) ID PREFIX TAG | SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES (EACH DEFICIENCY MUST BE PRECEDED BY FULL REGULATORY OR LSC IDENTIFYING INFORMATION)
V 000 · INITIAL COMMENTS
An annual and complaint survey was completed 3/4/10. The complaint was substantiated. (Intake ID #NC00062564). Deficiencies were cited.
V 114 · 27G .0207 Emergency Plans and Supplies
10A NCAC 27G .0207 EMERGENCY PLANS AND SUPPLIES
(a) A written fire plan for each facility and area-wide disaster plan shall be developed and shall be approved by the appropriate local authority.
(b) The plan shall be made available to all staff and evacuation procedures and routes shall be posted in the facility.
(c) Fire and disaster drills in a 24-hour facility shall be held at least quarterly and shall be repeated for each shift. Drills shall be conducted under conditions that simulate fire emergencies.
(d) Each facility shall have basic first aid supplies accessible for use.
This Rule is not met as evidenced by:
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure fire and disaster drills were conducted at least once per shift per quarter. The findings are:
Review of fire drill records on 3/4/10, from July 2009 through February, 2010, revealed only two documented fire drill during that period, at 1:20 PM on 7/16/09, and at 11:40 AM on 11/30/09, both first shift drills. The record reveals no documentation of fire drills for any other shifts for the 3rd and the 4th quarters of 2009, or for any shift for the 1st quarter of 2010, and no documentation of disaster drills during the past year.
During interviews with the Executive Director and the Human Resources Manager on 3/4/10, staff acknowledged drills were not being conducted by each shift as often as required. Staff also acknowledged they were unaware of the requirement for conducting disaster drills.
V 118 · 27G .0209 (C) Medication Requirements
10A NCAC 27G .0209 MEDICATION REQUIREMENTS
(c) Medication administration:
(1) Prescription or non-prescription drugs shall only be administered to a client on the written order of a person authorized by law to prescribe drugs.
(2) Medications shall be self-administered by clients only when authorized in writing by the client's physician.
(3) Medications, including injections, shall be administered only by licensed persons, or by unlicensed persons trained by a registered nurse, pharmacist or other legally qualified person and privileged to prepare and administer medications.
(4) A Medication Administration Record (MAR) of all drugs administered to each client must be kept current. Medications administered shall be recorded immediately after administration. The MAR is to include the following:
(A) client's name;
(B) name, strength, and quantity of the drug;
(C) instructions for administering the drug;
(D) date and time the drug is administered; and
(E) name or initials of person administering the drug.
(5) Client requests for medication changes or checks shall be recorded and kept with the MAR file followed up by appointment or consultation with a physician.
This Rule is not met as evidenced by:
Based on record review and interviews, the facility (1) failed to ensure all medications were only administered to a client on the written order of a person authorized by law to prescribe drugs for 4 of 4 client records reviewed (#1, #2, #3, #4) (2) failed to ensure MARs were maintained current for 2 of 4 client records reviewed (#1, #4). The findings are:
Review of client records on 2/26/10 revealed Client #1 was admitted to the facility on 12/30/09 with diagnoses of Asperger's Syndrome, Learning Disorder, and Attention Defecit Hyperactivity Disorder.
Review on 2/26/10 of Client #1's February 2010 MAR revealed he was administered the following medications: Strattera 40 mg, 1 tab by mouth daily; and a Multivitamin, 1 tab by mouth daily; Azithromycin 250 mg, 1 by mouth daily. Review further revealed no physician's orders were found for the multivitamin and Azithromycin.
Review of client records on 2/26/10 revealed Client #2 was admitted to the facility on 12/29/09 with diagnoses of Identity Problem, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Depressive Disorder, and Alcohol Abuse.
Review on 2/26/10 of Client #2's February 2010 MAR revealed he was administered the following medications: Effexor 75 mg, 3 caps by mouth each morning; Yaz 3-0.2 mg, 1 tab by mouth daily, and Trazodone 80 mg, 1/2 or 1 tab by mouth at bedtime. Review further revealed no physician's orders were found for the medications listed above.
Review of client records on 2/26/10 revealed Client #3 was admitted to the facility on 1/23/10 with diagnoses of Parent Child relational Problems, Sibling Relational Problems, and Oppositional Defiant Disorder.
Review on 2/26/10 of Client #3's February 2010 MAR revealed he was administered the following medications: Vyvanse 70 mg 1 capsule by mouth every day; Divalproex ER 500 mg 1 tablet by mouth every evening. Review further revealed no physician's orders were found for the Divalproex.
Review of client records on 2/26/10 revealed Client #4 was admitted to the facility on 9/19/09 with diagnoses of Bipolar Disorder, Disruptive Behavior Disorder, and Intermittent Explosive Anger Disorder. Review further revealed, Client #4 graduated from the program on 1/13/10.
Review on 2/26/10 of Client #4's January 2010 MAR revealed he was administered the following medications: Multivitamin, 1 tab by mouth daily; Lexapro 10 mg, 1 tab by mouth daily; Focalin 10 mg, 1 tab by mouth daily; and Zyprexa 5 mg, 1 tab by mouth at bedtime. Review further revealed no physician's orders were found for the medications listed above.
During interviews with the Field Medic on 3/1/10 and 3/4/10, she acknowledged the facility did not routinely acquire copies of physician's orders.
2. Review of client records for Client's #1-4 on 2/26/10 revealed, all medications administered at a specific time (i.e. in the morning) are listed in a single box in the MAR and all medications are signed with a single set of initials regardless of the number of medications administered.
During individual interviews with clients #1-4 on 2/26/10, they stated their medications were administered to them.
During interviews with the Field Medic on 3/1/10 and 3/4/10, she acknowledged that staff did not sign off for individual medications which they administered.
V 123 · 27G .0209 (H) Medication Requirements
10A NCAC 27G .0209 MEDICATION REQUIREMENTS
(h) Medication errors. Drug administration errors and significant adverse drug reactions shall be reported immediately to a physician or pharmacist. An entry of the drug administered and the drug reaction shall be properly recorded in the drug record. A client's refusal of a drug shall be charted.
This Rule is not met as evidenced by:
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure medication errors were reported immediately to a pharmacist or doctor, effecting 3 of 4 clients audited (#1, #2, #4). The findings are:
Review of client records on 2/26/10 revealed Client #1 was admitted to the facility on 12/30/09 and was being administered Strattera 40 mg, 1 tab by mouth daily; and a multivitamin, 1 tab by mouth daily. The review also revealed Client #2 was admitted on 12/29/09 and was being administered Effexor 75 mg, 3 caps by mouth each morning; Yaz 3-0.2 mg, 1 tab by mouth daily, and Trazodone 80 mg, 1/2 or 1 tab by mouth at bedtime. The review further revealed Client #4 was admitted to the facility on 9/19/09, and was being administered a multivitamin, 1 tab by mouth daily; Lexapro 10 mg, 1 tab by mouth daily; Focalin 10 mg, 1 tab by mouth daily; and Zyprexa 5 mg, 1 tab by mouth at bedtime.
Review of incident reports on 3/1/10 revealed Client #1 refused his medications on 12/31/09, 1/1/10, and 1/2/10. The review further revealed Client #2 had refused her dose of Effexor 75 mg x3 caps on 12/30/09. The review also revealed Client #4 had refused his morning doses of Lexapro 10 mg, and Focalin 10 mg on 10/17/09, 12/1/09, 12/9/09, 12/12/09, 1/2/10, and 1/4/10, and his night dose of Zyprexa 5 mg, on 10/18/09, 10/24/09, 10/25/09,12/31/09, and 1/1/10.
The review of incident reports also revealed no documentation of these medication errors for Clients #1, #2, and #4 being reported immediately to the pharmacist or client's physician.
Interviews with the facility Field Medic on 3/1/09 revealed staff had no recollection of making a call to either the pharmacist or doctor following Client #1, #2, and #4 refusing their medications on the dates listed above. Staff #3 acknowledged either the doctor or pharmacist should have been notified of the medication refusals.
V 131 · G.S. 131E-256 (D2) HCPR - Prior Employment Verification
G.S. §131E-256 HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL REGISTRY
(d2) Before hiring health care personnel into a health care facility or service, every employer at a health care facility shall access the Health Care Personnel Registry and shall note each incident of access in the appropriate business files.
This Rule is not met as evidenced by:
Based on record review and interviews the facility failed to access the NC Division of Facility Services Health Care Personnel Registry (HCPR) to inquire about substantiated findings of abuse, neglect, and/or exploitation by each employee before hiring, as required under G.S.131E-256, for 4 of 5 direct care staff records reviewed ( Staff #1 #2,#3, and the Facility Manager). The findings are:
Review of personnel files on 3/1/10 revealed Staff #1's hire date was 6/15/09, but Staff #1's HCPR check was not conducted until 11/19/09. Staff #2's hire date was 5/1/09, but this staff's HCPR check was not conducted until 6/15/09. Further review of personnel files revealed Staff #3's hire date was 5/1/09, but this staff's HCPR check was not conducted until 6/11/09. The Facility Manager was hired on 4/1/08, but his HCPR check was not performed until 11/21/08.
During interviews with The Executive Director and the Human Resources Manager (HRM) on 3/4/10, staff were asked to locate and produce documentation which would verify the HCPR had been accessed prior to hiring in regard to the above listed staff. Staff was not able to produce the requested verification for any of the staff listed. The HRM acknowledged they were aware of the requirement to do the HCPR check, but was not aware of the time requirement to complete the checks prior to hire.
V 132 · G.S. 131E-256(G) HCPR-Notification, Allegations, & Protection
G.S. §131E-256 HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL REGISTRY
(g) Health care facilities shall ensure that the Department is notified of all allegations against health care personnel, including injuries of unknown source, which appear to be related to any act listed in subdivision (a)(1) of this section. (which includes:
a. Neglect or abuse of a resident in a healthcare facility or a person to whom home care services as defined by G.S. 131E-136 or hospice services as defined by G.S. 131E-201 are being provided.
b. Misappropriation of the property of a resident in a health care facility, as defined in subsection (b) of this section including places where home care services as defined by G.S. 131E-136 or hospice services as defined by G.S. 131E-201 are being provided.
c. Misappropriation of the property of a healthcare facility.
d. Diversion of drugs belonging to a health care facility or to a patient or client.
e. Fraud against a health care facility or against a patient or client for whom the employee is providing services).
Facilities must have evidence that all alleged acts are investigated and must make every effort to protect residents from harm while the investigation is in progress. The results of all investigations must be reported to the Department within five working days of the initial notification to the Department.
This Rule is not met as evidenced by:
Based on review of records and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that the Health Care Personnel Registry (HCPR) was notified of all allegations against health care personnel. The findings are:
Cross refer Tag V 500 10A NCAC 27D .0101(b)
(1) Policy on Rights Restrictions and Interventions. The facility failed to implement it's policy and ensure allegations of abuse were reported.
V 133 · G.S. 122C-80 Criminal History Record Check
G.S. §122C-80 CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORD CHECK REQUIRED FOR CERTAIN APPLICANTS FOR EMPLOYMENT.
(a) Definition. - As used in this section, the term "provider" applies to an area authority/county program and any provider of mental health, developmental disability, and substance abuse services that is licensable under Article 2 of this Chapter.
(b) Requirement. - An offer of employment by a provider licensed under this Chapter to an applicant to fill a position that does not require the applicant to have an occupational license is conditioned on consent to a State and national criminal history record check of the applicant. If the applicant has been a resident of this State for less than five years, then the offer of employment is conditioned on consent to a State and national criminal history record check of the applicant. The national criminal history record check shall include a check of the applicant's fingerprints. If the applicant has been a resident of this State for five years or more, then the offer is conditioned on consent to a State criminal history record check of the applicant. A provider shall not employ an applicant who refuses to consent to a criminal history record check required by this section. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, within five business days of making the conditional offer of employment, a provider shall submit a request to the Department of Justice under G.S. 114-19.10 to conduct a criminal history record check required by this section or shall submit a request to a private entity to conduct a State criminal history record check required by this section. Notwithstanding G.S. 114-19.10, the Department of Justice shall return the results of national criminal history record checks for employment positions not covered by Public Law 105-277 to the Department of Health and Human Services, Criminal Records Check Unit. Within five business days of receipt of the national criminal history of the person, the Department of Health and Human Services, Criminal Records Check Unit, shall notify the provider as to whether the information received may affect the employability of the applicant. In no case shall the results of the national criminal history record check be shared with the provider. Providers shall make available upon request verification that a criminal history check has been completed on any staff covered by this section. A county that has adopted an appropriate local ordinance and has access to the Division of Criminal Information data bank may conduct on behalf of a provider a State criminal history record check required by this
section without the provider having to submit a request to the Department of Justice. In such a case, the county shall commence with the State criminal history record check required by this section within five business days of the conditional offer of employment by the provider. All criminal history information received by the provider is confidential and may not be disclosed, except to the applicant as provided in subsection (c) of this section. For purposes of this subsection, the term "private entity" means a business regularly engaged in conducting criminal history record checks utilizing public records obtained from a State agency.
(c) Action. - If an applicant's criminal history record check reveals one or more convictions of a relevant offense, the provider shall consider all of the following factors in determining whether to hire the applicant:
(1) The level and seriousness of the crime.
(2) The date of the crime.
(3) The age of the person at the time of the conviction.
(4) The circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime, if known.
(5) The nexus between the criminal conduct of the person and the job duties of the position to be filled.
(6) The prison, jail, probation, parole, rehabilitation, and employment records of the person since the date the crime was committed.
(7) The subsequent commission by the person of a relevant offense.
The fact of conviction of a relevant offense alone shall not be a bar to employment; however, the listed factors shall be considered by the provider. If the provider disqualifies an applicant after consideration of the relevant factors, then the provider may disclose information contained in the criminal history record check that is relevant to the disqualification, but may not provide a copy of the criminal history record check to the applicant.
(d) Limited Immunity. - A provider and an officer or employee of a provider that, in good faith, complies with this section shall be immune from civil liability for:
(1) The failure of the provider to employ an individual on the basis of information provided in the criminal history record check of the individual.
(2) Failure to check an employee's history of criminal offenses if the employee's criminal history record check is requested and received in compliance with this section.
(e) Relevant Offense. - As used in this section, "relevant offense" means a county, state, or federal criminal history of conviction or pending indictment of a crime, whether a misdemeanor or felony, that bears upon an individual's fitness to have responsibility for the safety and well-being of persons needing mental health, developmental disabilities, or substance abuse services. These crimes include the criminal offenses set forth in any of the following Articles of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes: Article 5, Counterfeiting and Issuing Monetary Substitutes; Article 5A, Endangering Executive and Legislative Officers; Article 6, Homicide; Article 7A, Rape and Other Sex Offenses; Article 8, Assaults; Article 10, Kidnapping and Abduction; Article 13, Malicious Injury or Damage by Use of Explosive or Incendiary Device or Material; Article 14, Burglary and Other Housebreakings; Article 15, Arson and Other Burnings; Article 16, Larceny; Article 17, Robbery; Article 18, Embezzlement; Article 19, False Pretenses and Cheats; Article 19A, Obtaining Property or Services by False or Fraudulent Use of Credit Device or Other Means; Article 19B, Financial Transaction Card Crime Act; Article 20, Frauds; Article 21, Forgery; Article 26, Offenses Against Public Morality and Decency; Article 26A, Adult Establishments; Article 27, Prostitution; Article 28, Perjury; Article 29, Bribery; Article 31, Misconduct in Public Office; Article 35, Offenses Against the Public Peace; Article 36A, Riots and Civil Disorders; Article 39, Protection of Minors; Article 40, Protection of the Family; Article 59, Public Intoxication; and Article 60, Computer-Related Crime. These crimes also include possession or sale of drugs in violation of the North Carolina Controlled Substances Act, Article 5 of Chapter 90 of the General Statutes, and alcohol-related offenses such as sale to underage persons in violation of G.S. 18B-302 or driving while impaired in violation of G.S. 20-138.1 through G.S. 20-138.5.
(f) Penalty for Furnishing False Information. - Any applicant for employment who willfully furnishes, supplies, or otherwise gives false information on an employment application that is the basis for a criminal history record check under this section shall be guilty of a Class A1 misdemeanor.
(g) Conditional Employment. - A provider may employ an applicant conditionally prior to obtaining the results of a criminal history record check regarding the applicant if both of the following requirements are met:
(1) The provider shall not employ an applicant prior to obtaining the applicant's consent for criminal history record check as required in subsection (b) of this section or the completed fingerprint cards as required in G.S. 114-19.10.
(2) The provider shall submit the request for a criminal history record check not later than five business days after the individual begins conditional employment. (2000-154, s. 4; 2001-155, s. 1; 2004-124, ss. 10.19D(c), (h); 2005-4, ss. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5(a); 2007-444, s. 3.)
This Rule is not met as evidenced by:
Based on review of records and interviews, the facility failed to conduct a nation-wide criminal background check on all employees who have not lived in North Carolina for the last 5 years, as required by GS122C-80, Article 3A. The deficient practice was found in 4 of 5 direct care staff records reviewed. (#1, #2, #3 and Facility Manager). The findings are:
Review of personnel records of direct care staff on 3/1/10 revealed the files of Staff #1, #2, #3, and the Facility Manager did not contain a nationwide North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) criminal background check. The record review further revealed Staff #1 had been hired on 6/15/09 and had resided in Washington State until August, 2005, Staff #2 had been hired on 5/1/09 and had resided in Kansas, Colorado, Idaho and Tennessee within 5 years of hire. Staff #3 was hired 5/1/09, and had resided in Michigan within 5 years of her hire date. The Facility Manager was hired 4/1/08, and had resided in Idaho within 5 years of his hire date.
Interviews with the Executive Director and the Human Resources Manager on 3/4/09 revealed the facility Human Resources staff conducts statewide and national criminal background checks using an on-line background check company, but SBI nationwide checks had been neither initiated nor completed for any of the above listed staff.
V 500 · 27D .0101(a-e) Client Rights - Policy on Rights
10A NCAC 27D .0101 POLICY ON RIGHTS RESTRICTIONS AND INTERVENTIONS
(a) The governing body shall develop policy that assures the implementation of G.S. 122C-59, G.S. 122C-65, and G.S. 122C-66.
(b) The governing body shall develop and implement policy to assure that:
(1) all instances of alleged or suspected abuse, neglect or exploitation of clients are reported to the County Department of Social Services as specified in G.S. 108A, Article 6 or G.S. 7A, Article 44; and
(2) procedures and safeguards are instituted in accordance with sound medical practice when a medication that is known to present serious risk to the client is prescribed. Particular attention shall be given to the use of neuroleptic medications.
(c) In addition to those procedures prohibited in 10A NCAC 27E .0102(1), the governing body of each facility shall develop and implement policy that identifies:
(1) any restrictive intervention that is prohibited from use within the facility; and
(2) in a 24-hour facility, the circumstances under which staff are prohibited from restricting the rights of a client.
(d) If the governing body allows the use of restrictive interventions or if, in a 24-hour facility, the restrictions of client rights specified in G.S. 122C-62(b) and (d) are allowed, the policy shall identify:
(1) the permitted restrictive interventions or allowed restrictions;
(2) the individual responsible for informing the client; and
(3) the due process procedures for an involuntary client who refuses the use of restrictive interventions.
(e) If restrictive interventions are allowed for use within the facility, the governing body shall develop and implement policy that assures compliance with Subchapter 27E, Section .0100, which includes:
(1) the designation of an individual, who has been trained and who has demonstrated competence to use restrictive interventions, to provide written authorization for the use of restrictive interventions when the original order is renewed for up to a total of 24 hours in accordance with the time limits specified in 10A NCAC 27E .0104(e)(10)(E);
(2) the designation of an individual to be responsible for reviews of the use of restrictive interventions; and
(3) the establishment of a process for appeal for the resolution of any disagreement over the planned use of a restrictive intervention.
This Rule is not met as evidenced by:
Based on review of facility records, and interviews, the facility failed to implement their policy requiring and ensuring the Department of Social Services (DSS), in the county where services are provided, was notified of all allegations of resident abuse by health care personnel, affecting one of four sampled clients (#4). The findings are:
A review of facility records on 3/1/10 revealed an incident report dated 12/23/09 and 2 incident reports dated 12/24/09 addressing a restraint of Client #4 which occurred on 12/23/09. The report by the Facility Manager dated 12/23/09 stated he "restrained (Client #4) to ground and held until staff intervened." The attached Physical Intervention report also completed by the Facility Manager on 12/23/09 revealed, in the section asking if the student was injured during the intervention, Client #4 got a "bloody lip trying to bite staff."
Review on 3/1/10 of the 2 incident reports completed 12/24/09 revealed Staff #1 and Staff #2 witnessed the Facility Manager strike Client #4 during the restraint on 12/23/09. The incident report by Staff #1 revealed he "saw [the Facility Manager] hit [Client #4] in the face ... and observed [Client#4] had blood in his mouth." The incident report by Staff #2 revealed the Facility Manager "took student to ground and punched [Client #4] in the lip."
A review on 3/1/10 of an internal investigation report revealed the Executive Director(ED) was out of town and learned of allegations by Client #4 and Staff #1 and #2 in a phone call from the Admissions Director(AD) on 12/23/09. The AD was in charge of facility in the absence of the ED. The AD documented an interview at approximately 4:30 PM on 12/23/09 with Client #4, during which Client #4 told him he had hit the Facility Manager in the face and the Facility Manager hit him back in the face.
Review on 3/1/10 of facility policy and procedures for reporting allegations of abuse revealed: "Policy: The therapist shall provide a leadership role in the identification, reporting, and follow-upon child abuse issues. ... Procedures: ...3. The therapist will receive supervision from a clinical supervisor and the Executive Director to determine if there is enough data to warrant a "reasonable suspicion" that a student has been the victim of abuse. That is all that is required for a suspected report. ... 6. c. Documentation will be made on the Abuse, Neglect, and Dependency Report, Attachment 2 and will be forwarded to the Department of Social Services (DSS)."
Review of facility records on 3/1/10 revealed no Abuse, Neglect, and Dependency Report, Attachment 2 was on file, nor was there documentation that such a report had been forwarded to DSS.
Interviews with Staff #1 and the Facility Manager on 2/26/10, and with Staff #2 on 3/4/10, confirmed that the Facility Manager actively participated in the restraint of Client #4 on 12/23/09, and that Client #4 was injured as a result of the Facility Manager's participation. The Facility manager admitted to punching Client #4 in the face, and both Staff #1 and Staff #2 revealed their belief that the punch was intentional, and not accidental.
During interviews with the Executive Director and Human Resources Manager on 2/26/10 and 3/1/10, staff were asked to locate and provide documentation of any in-house investigation or other documentation pertaining to the restraint of Client #4 on 12/23/09. Staff were able to produce incident reports regarding the incident, a summary of the AD's interview with Client #4 on 12/23/09, and a timeline documenting the ED's contacts along with a brief summary of those contacts regarding the 12/23/09 incident. Staff failed to provide verification of an in-house investigation, other than the interview with Client #4, and were unable to produce the Abuse, Neglect, and Dependency Report, Attachment 2. Staff also acknowledged no report had been filed with DSS, nor had a report been filed with the Health Care Personnel Registry.
V 503 · 27D .0103 Client Rights - Search And Seizure Policy
10A NCAC 27D .0103 SEARCH AND SEIZURE POLICY
(a) Each client shall be free from unwarranted invasion of privacy.
(b) The governing body shall develop and implement policy that specifies the conditions under which searches of the client or his living area may occur, and if permitted, the procedures for seizure of the client's belongings, or property in the possession of the client.
(c) Every search or seizure shall be documented.
Documentation shall include:
(1) scope of search;
(2) reason for search;
(3) procedures followed in the search;
(4) a description of any property seized; and
(5) an account of the disposition of seized property.
This Rule is not met as evidenced by:
Based on record review, policy and procedure review, and interviews , the facility failed to implement their policy that prohibits restricting the rights of a client, using search and seizure, affecting 3 of 4 clients audited (#1-3). The Findings are:
Review of G.S. 122C-62 (b) and (d) on 3/1/10 revealed the following: "...(d) except as provided in subsections (e) and (h) of this section, each minor child who is receiving treatment or habilitation in a 24 hour facility has the right to;... (6) except as prohibited by law keep and use personal and possessions under appropriate supervision... (e)...No right enumerated in subsection (b) or (d) of this section may be limited or restricted except by the qualified professional (QP) responsible for the formulation of the child's treatment or habilitation plan. A written statement shall be placed in the client's record that indicated the detailed reason for the restriction. The restriction shall be reasonable and related to the client's treatment or habilitation needs. A restriction is effective for a period not to exceed 30 days. An evaluation of each restriction shall be conducted by the QP at least once every 7 days at which time the restriction may be removed. Each evaluation of a restriction shall be documented in the client's record. Restrictions on rights may be renewed only by a written statement entered by the QP in the client's record that states the reason for the renewal of the restriction."
Review of agency search and seizure policy on 3/1/10 revealed, "It is the policy of TRAILS Carolina to protect the privacy of each client. Searches and seizure will only be conducted of client under the following conditions:
1. At enrollment to check for contraband and to ensure proper outfitting with the program's gear. ...
2. In the event that the student's group is missing valuables, food, gear, or program tools. ...
3. In an event that a search is warranted to ensure the safety of staff or students.
All searches and seizures will be documented in the client file and will include no less than the following: Scope of search, reason for search, procedures followed in search, description of property seized; and account of the disposition of the seized property."
Review of client records on 2/26/10 revealed there was no documentation by the QP allowing any of the client's shoes or clothing to be taken. Review further revealed none of the 3 clients audited had a history of running away.
During interviews with Clients #1-3 on 2/26/10, the clients confirmed that their shoes and pants were taken by staff on a nightly basis.
During interviews with both direct care staff, and the Executive Director, on 2/26/10, 3/1/10, and 3/4/10 all parties acknowledged that clients shoes and pants were seized each night and returned the following morning. Staff reported this was done to prevent the clients from attempting to run away and that the practice had been standard operating procedure since the facility opened. Interviews further revealed the staff and executive director acknowledged no documentation of these seizures had been completed.
V 512 · 27D .0304 Client Rights - Harm, Abuse, Neglect
10A NCAC 27D .0304 PROTECTION FROM HARM, ABUSE, NEGLECT OR EXPLOITATION
(a) Employees shall protect clients from harm, abuse, neglect and exploitation in accordance with G.S. 122C-66.
(b) Employees shall not subject a client to any sort of abuse or neglect, as defined in 10A NCAC 27C .0102 of this Chapter.
(c) Goods or services shall not be sold to or purchased from a client except through established governing body policy.
(d) Employees shall use only that degree of force necessary to repel or secure a violent and aggressive client and which is permitted by governing body policy. The degree of force that is necessary depends upon the individual characteristics of the client (such as age, size and physical and mental health) and the degree of aggressiveness displayed by the client. Use of intervention procedures shall be compliance with Subchapter 10A NCAC 27E of this Chapter.
(e) Any violation by an employee of Paragraphs (a) through (d) of this Rule shall be grounds for dismissal of the employee.
This Rule is not met as evidenced by:
Based on record review and interviews, facility staff failed to protect 1 of 4 clients audited from abuse (#4). The findings are:
Review of client records on 2/26/10 revealed Client #4 was admitted to the facility on 9/19/09, with diagnoses of Bipolar Disorder, Disruptive Behavior Disorder, and Intermittent Explosive Anger Disorder. Review further revealed, Client #4 graduated from the program on 1/13/10.
Review of staff records on 2/26/10 revealed the Facility Manager was hired 4/1/08. Review further revealed, his Crisis Prevention Intervention (CPI) training was effective 1/10 through 1/11.
Review on 2/25/10 of incident reports dated 12/24/09 revealed the following:
1) Staff #1's incident report stated: "Client #4 grabbed the rope from Staff #2 and refused to let go. Client #4 then began to kick Staff #2 in the legs, bit and punched him (Staff #2) in the face and body. The Facility Manager attempted to verbally de-escalate Client #4 but was unsuccessful. Client #4 was taken to the ground by the Facility Manager and was assisted by Staff #1 and #2. Client #4 was released and immediately attacked the Facility Manager again. The facility Manager "took student (Client #4) to ground and punched [Client #4] in the lip." Staff #1 and #2 joined in a hold a second time. Client #4 was released a second time. Client #4 approached the Facility Manager a third time and continued to punch and kick. The Facility Manager attempted verbal de-escalation again and took Client #4 to the ground. Client #4 was released almost immediately."
2) Staff #2's incident report stated: "...Group was dropping near bear hang when [Client #4] refused to give bear rope to staff [Staff #1] and threatened to hit [Staff #1] in the face if he took it. [Staff #1] told student that he needed to take rope. [Client #4] then hit [Staff #1] in the face and continued a physical attack hitting, kicking, and biting [Staff #2]. [Staff #2] used deflection to avoid injury and tried to verbally de-escalate the situation. Staff [Facility Manager] was walking by and tried to verbally de-escalate student [Client #4]. [Client #4] said it was none of [Facility Manager] business and if he didn't leave then he [Client #4] would hit and kick [Facility Manager] was well. [Facility Manager] said he would not leave and that [Client #4] could not hurt staff at which time [Client #4] stopped hitting staff and began to kick and hit staff [Facility Manager]. [Facility Manager] told [Client #4] to stop hitting and kicking and when [Client #4] did not [Facility Manager] layed hands on [Client #4] grabbing his collar and lowering him to the ground. The time was 4:30 PM. Staff [Staff #2] intervened to separate staff and student taking control of student [Client #4's] legs to keep staff [Facility Manager] from getting kicked. [Staff #2] immediately called staff [Staff #1] to take control of [Client #4's] legs to allow him [Staff #2] to control [Client #4's] upper body to release staff [Facility Manager]. Staff [Facility Manager] did not release control so [Staff #2] called for a release. All staff released control. [Client #4] then continued to attack staff [Facility Manager] hitting and kicking. Staff [Staff #2] had called for support on the radio at 4:45 PM. Staff [Facility Manager] grabbed student [Client #4] by the collar of his shirt and quickly lowered him to the ground. Staff [Staff #2] attempted to intervene with staff [Staff #1] when [Staff #2] saw [Facility Manager] hit [Client #4] in the face after being hit by [Client #4]. [Staff #2] took control of [Client #4] with [Staff #1] assisting and observed that [Client #4] had blood in his mouth. Support showed up at this time. All staff released control of [Client #4]. [Client #4] then began to follow staff [Facility Manager] and attempt to assault him. The time was 5:15 PM. [Facility Manager] took [Client #4] by the shirt front again and pushed him to the ground, and then released him..."
3) The Facility Manager's incident report dated 12/23/09 reported: "Observed student (Client #4) yelling kicking and punching staff. Went to observe and try to defuse the situation. Client turned on me with verbal, kicking punching and biting." The intervention used included "Restrained to ground and held until staff intervened."
Review on 2/25/10 of Facility Managers physical intervention report dated 12/23/09 revealed the following:
a) Behavior That Necessitated the Physical Intervention: "Punching and kicking staff- verbal abuse."
b) Positive and Less Restrictive Alternatives Used or Considered: "Talking and reasoning."
c) What Danger Necessitated the Intervention? "Several punches and kick."
d) Precipitating Factors of the Intervention: "Escalated student assaulting 2 staff."
e) Was The Student Injured During the Physical Intervention? "Yes. Bloody lip trying to bite staff."
f) Description of Plan to Minimize Future Physical Interventions: Minimize contact and ask for support in situations."
Review on 2/25/10 of the Director of Admissions investigative report dated 12/23/09 revealed the following: "...According to [Client #4], {Staff #2] was making his life difficult with the bear bag ropes and so he decided to kick him. [Staff #2] asked him to stop and he did not and walked off. [Client #4] reported that [Staff #2] tackled him and was holding him down, so in defense, he began hitting him. [Staff #2] then was holding him down and so [Client #4] continued to kick him and get him to give him the rope. [Facility Manager] came down from cabin 1 and told [Client #4] to stop hitting [Staff #2]. [Client #4] told him (Facility Manager) that it was none of his business and that he would do what he wanted. He (Client #4) kept hitting and punching [Staff #2] and [Facility Manager] intervened and restrained him. [Client #4] reports that when he got back up that he went after [Facility Manager] many times and [Facility Manager] restrained him again. [Staff #2] at this point had his legs. He (client #4) said that he went after [Facility Manager] in frustration and hit him in the face and that [Facility Manager] hit him back in the face."
Record review on 2/26/10 revealed, neither a 24 Hour Initial Report nor a 5-Working Day Report to Health Care Personnel Registry (HCPR) had been completed.
Interview with Staff #1 on 2/25/10 revealed, there were teeth marks in Client #4's lip. "He bit his lip when he was hit (by the facility manager)." Interview further revealed Client #4's injury was the result of the hit. Interview further revealed, the facility manager did not utilize approved restrictive intervention techniques.
Interview with Staff #2 on 3/4/10 revealed, he witnessed the facility manager punch Client #4 in the mouth. "He (facility manager) was pushing him (Client #4) at the same time and popped him, he did not wind up and clock him." Interview further revealed, Client #4 had a bloody lip which was associated with the hit. Interview further revealed, the facility manager did not utilize approved restrictive intervention techniques. "He (facility manager) pushed him (Client #4) down by the shirt...there was force but it wasn't a slam to the ground."
Interview with the facility manager on 3/1/10 revealed, "I grabbed him (Client #4) by the shirt and put him down...[Staff #1] and [Staff #2] grabbed his (Client #4) feet. [Staff #1] let go of his (Client #4) right hand and I took one right on the nose. I popped him (Client #4)...light fist on the chin. It's really bothered me ever since, I liked the kid."
Client #4 was unable to be interviewed. He was no longer at the facility.
Interview with the Executive Director on 2/25/10 revealed, "My understanding is [facility manager] struck [Client #4]. [Facility manager] confirmed this."
During interview with the Executive Director on 3/4/10, she acknowledged Client #4's parents were contacted and no other authorities were informed of the incident. Interview further revealed, the facility sought clinical consultation about the incident and were told it was unnecessary to contact Department of Social Services and HCPR due to it not meeting the criteria for abuse.
A protection plan was completed by the facility on 3/4/10, which included the following:
"1. All Trails personnel who have any interaction with Trails clients will have restrictive intervention training."
"2. All Trails staff whether direct care or support will have training on a typical client profile and types of behaviors to expect."
"3. Employee evaluations will include a section on interactions with Trails students."
"4. Trails will review with all staff protocols for reporting a staff if they believe that there has been any interaction they deem appropriate or demeaning. Identified staff member will then review the incident and take appropriate disciplinary action."
(This deficiency constitutes a Type B rule violation. An administrative penalty of $200.00 is per day will be imposed for failure to correct within 45 days.)
V 522 · 27E .0104(e10) Client Rights - Sec. Rest. & ITO
0A NCAC 27E .0104 SECLUSION, PHYSICAL RESTRAINT AND ISOLATION TIME-OUT AND PROTECTIVE DEVICES USED FOR BEHAVIORAL CONTROL
(e) Within a facility where restrictive interventions may be used, the policy and procedures shall be in accordance with the following provisions:
(10) The emergency use of restrictive interventions shall be limited, as follows:
(A) a facility employee approved to administer emergency interventions may employ such procedures for up to 15 minutes without further authorization;
(B) the continued use of such interventions shall be authorized only by the responsible professional or another qualified professional who is approved to use and to authorize the use of the restrictive intervention based on experience and training;
(C) the responsible professional shall meet with and conduct an assessment that includes the physical and psychological well-being of the client and write a continuation authorization as soon as possible after the time of initial employment of the intervention. If the responsible professional or a qualified professional is not immediately available to conduct an assessment of the client, but concurs that the intervention is justified after discussion with the facility employee, continuation of the intervention may be verbally authorized until an on-site assessment of the client can be made;
(D) a verbal authorization shall not exceed three hours after the time of initial employment of the intervention; and
(E) each written order for seclusion, physical restraint or isolation time-out is limited to four hours for adult clients; two hours for children and adolescent clients ages nine to 17; or one hour for clients under the age of nine. The original order shall only be renewed in accordance with these limits or up to a total of 24 hours.
This Rule is not met as evidenced by:
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure interventions exceeding 15 minutes were authorized only by the responsible professional or another qualified professional who is approved to use and to authorize the use of the restrictive intervention based on experience and training, effecting 1 of 4 clients audited (#4). The
findings are:
Review of Physical Restraint Reports on 3/1/10 revealed the following physical restraints of Client #4 which exceeded 15 minutes:
9/19/09 at 7:30 PM for 30 minutes
9/20/09 at 4:00 PM for 30 minutes
9/20/09 at 5:50 PM for 48 minutes
9/22/09 at 8:30 PM for 45 minutes
9/23/09 at 12:15 PM for 30 minutes
9/23/09 at 1:00 PM for 30 minutes
9/29/09 at 4:10 PM for 20 minutes
1/15/10 at 5:11 PM for 28 minutes, and 34 seconds.
The review further revealed no documentation on the Physical Restraint Reports or on file elsewhere of authorization for restraints lasting longer than 15 minutes by the responsible professional (QP) or another qualified professional who is approved to use and to authorize the use of the restrictive intervention based on experience and training.
During interview with the Executive Director (ED) on 3/4/10, The ED was asked to locate and produce verification of authorization by a QP for physical restraints exceeding 15 minutes in length. She was unable to provide the requested verification. The ED acknowledged that staff were not seeking authorization from the QP for extended restraints.
V 537 · 27E .0108 Client Rights - Training in Sec Rest & ITO
10A NCAC 27E .0108 TRAINING IN SECLUSION, PHYSICAL RESTRAINT AND ISOLATION TIME-OUT
(a) Seclusion, physical restraint and isolation time-out may be employed only by staff who have been trained and have demonstrated competence in the proper use of and alternatives to these procedures. Facilities shall ensure that staff authorized to employ and terminate these procedures are retrained and have demonstrated competence at least annually.
(b) Prior to providing direct care to people with disabilities whose treatment/habilitation plan includes restrictive interventions, staff including service providers, employees, students or volunteers shall complete training in the use of seclusion, physical restraint and isolation time-out and shall not use these interventions until the training is completed and competence is demonstrated.
(c) A pre-requisite for taking this training is demonstrating competence by completion of training in preventing, reducing and eliminating the need for restrictive interventions.
(d) The training shall be competency-based, include measurable learning objectives, measurable testing (written and by observation of behavior) on those objectives and measurable methods to determine passing or failing the course.
(e) Formal refresher training must be completed by each service provider periodically (minimum annually).
(f) Content of the training that the service provider plans to employ must be approved by the Division of MH/DD/SAS pursuant to Paragraph (g) of this Rule.
(g) Acceptable training programs shall include, but are not limited to, presentation of:
(1) refresher information on alternatives to the use of restrictive interventions;
(2) guidelines on when to intervene (understanding imminent danger to self and others);
(3) emphasis on safety and respect for the rights and dignity of all persons involved (using concepts of least restrictive interventions and incremental steps in an intervention);
(4) strategies for the safe implementation of restrictive interventions;
(5) the use of emergency safety interventions which include continuous assessment and monitoring of the physical and psychological well-being of the client and the safe use of restraint throughout the duration of the restrictive intervention;
(6) prohibited procedures;
(7) debriefing strategies, including their importance and purpose; and
(8) documentation methods/procedures.
(h) Service providers shall maintain documentation of initial and refresher training for at least three years.
(1) Documentation shall include:
(A) who participated in the training and the outcomes (pass/fail);
(B) when and where they attended; and
(C) instructor's name.
(2) The Division of MH/DD/SAS may review/request this documentation at any time.
(i) Instructor Qualification and Training Requirements:
(1) Trainers shall demonstrate competence by scoring 100% on testing in a training program aimed at preventing, reducing and eliminating the need for restrictive interventions.
(2) Trainers shall demonstrate competence by scoring 100% on testing in a training program teaching the use of seclusion, physical restraint and isolation time-out.
(3) Trainers shall demonstrate competence by scoring a passing grade on testing in an instructor training program.
(4) The training shall be competency-based, include measurable learning objectives, measurable testing (written and by observation of behavior) on those objectives and measurable methods to determine passing or failing the course.
(5) The content of the instructor training the service provider plans to employ shall be approved by the Division of MH/DD/SAS pursuant to Subparagraph (j)(6) of this Rule.
(6) Acceptable instructor training programs shall include, but not be limited to, presentation of:
(A) understanding the adult learner;
(B) methods for teaching content of the course;
(C) evaluation of trainee performance; and
(D) documentation procedures.
(7) Trainers shall be retrained at least annually and demonstrate competence in the use of seclusion, physical restraint and isolation time-out, as specified in Paragraph (a) of this Rule.
(8) Trainers shall be currently trained in CPR.
(9) Trainers shall have coached experience in teaching the use of restrictive interventions at least two times with a positive review by the coach.
(10) Trainers shall teach a program on the use of restrictive interventions at least once annually.
(11) Trainers shall complete a refresher instructor training at least every two years.
(k) Service providers shall maintain documentation of initial and refresher instructor training for at least three years.
(1) Documentation shall include:
(A) who participated in the training and the outcome (pass/fail);
B) when and where they attended; and
(C) instructor's name.
(2) The Division of MH/DD/SAS may review/request this documentation at any time.
(l) Qualifications of Coaches:
(1) Coaches shall meet all preparation requirements as a trainer.
(2) Coaches shall teach at least three times, the course which is being coached.
(3) Coaches shall demonstrate competence by completion of coaching or train-the-trainer instruction.
(m) Documentation shall be the same preparation as for trainers.
This Rule is not met as evidenced by:
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure physical restraint was employed only by staff who had been trained and had demonstrated competence in the proper use of and alternatives to these procedures, and were retrained and had demonstrated competence at least annually, effecting 1 of 4 client's audited (#4). The findings are.
A review of policy and procedures on 2/26/10 revealed the facility staff utilize the Crisis Prevention Intervention (CPI) system for employing physical restraints, and that physical restraints may be employed on an emergency basis, when a client provides a danger to himself or others, and inflicts significant property damage.
A review of incident reports on 3/1/10 revealed 3 incident reports describing the Facility Manager taking Client #4 to the ground twice during a single incident at approximately 4:30 PM on 12/23/09. Client #4 received a cut in his mouth as a result of a punch by the Facility Manager during the physical restraint. Further review of the incident reports also revealed the Facility Manager took the client down by"grabbing his collar and lowering him to the ground."
A review of staff personnel records on 3/1/10 revealed no evidence on file that the facility manager had participated and demonstrated competence in CPI Training between his hire date of 4/1/08 and January, 2010.
During interviews with staff conducted on 2/26/10 and 3/4/10, administrative staff were asked to locate and provide verification of training within a year prior to the 12/23/09 incident in CPI for the Facility Manager. Staff were unable to produce verification of the required training for the Facility Manager.
Interviews with Staff #1 and the Facility Manager on 2/26/10, and with Staff #2 on 3/4/10, confirmed that the Facility Manager actively participated in the restraint of Client #4 on 12/23/09, and that Client #4 was injured as a result of the Facility Manager's participation.The interview with the Facility Manager on 2/26/10 also revealed that the Facility Manager had received NCI training from a previous employer, but he was not current in any kind of restraint training at the time of the incident.
# # #
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
Thanks Ursus, after my first pass I see basically paperwork issues, not enough fire drills, using the wrong process to document background checks, exceeding restraint time limits, kid punched out a staff member causing a fight etc. Looks like the inspection team went over that place with a fine toothed comb but didn’t find anything that warranted action against them accept a response and follow-up.
So overall the program seemed to be in full compliance with no gaping holes with the exception of a staff member who participated in a restraint who had not had up to date training, lost his cool, which resulted in one of the kids getting a bloody mouth. It seemed to be concluded that the program needs to rewrite their policy of removing the kids shoes and replacing it with another which will be equally effective in keeping kids from running.
It would be interesting to see the corrective action responses to some of the actions particularly restraint training and policy.
...
-
At first pass it seems this facility is doing almost everything in an illegal manner. These aren't "paperwork issues." Two staff members reported a third staff member punched a kid in the face. Paperwork? Bullshit.
Like I said, a list of what they were doing right would be a very short list indeed.
-
Thanks for posting the information Ursus. I think it would be a wise idea for the state of North Carolina to suspend enrollment until the program complies with company policies and state laws. The State of North Carolina could also take actions against Trails Carolina like the State of Oregon did against the shit pit ASPEN program Mount Bachelor Academy. I think both solutions are appropriate.
Reading through the complaint and findings I don’t see where there would be any risk to new enrollees. If there were a company policy that stated “staff must punch kids in the face” then I could see suspending enrollment because company policy would jeopardize the children’s safety and wellbeing.
Sometimes it is good to put it in another perspective. Suppose an employee at McDonalds punched out a customer and give him/her a bloody mouth. The popular sentiment would not be for the state to step in and prevent people from eating there. I also don’t think that people would view all fastfood restaurants as abusive based on this incident. See what I mean?
For the most part this program is doing all the right things they just need to get their act together and follow the local code more closely. I think you will see that they don’t even get a slap on the hand because of the discrepancies found.
...
-
How about the fact that the guy who likes to punch kids in the face is still employed there? Don't you think that new enrollees are going to be subject to this dangerous individual? Maybe next time he chokes a kid (or already has)? Or maybe next time he punches a kid in the face he causes permanent brain damage. The fact he even still works there is alarming at least and criminally negligent at worst.
How about that Trails Carolina didn't report this child abuse? What else has their staff done to kids that went unreported?
Your constant apologies for this abusive facility say a lot about you and program supporters in general.
-
How about the fact that the guy who likes to punch kids in the face is still employed there? Don't you think that new enrollees are going to be subject to this dangerous individual? Maybe next time he chokes a kid (or already has)? Or maybe next time he punches a kid in the face he causes permanent brain damage. The fact he even still works there is alarming at least and criminally negligent at worst.
Your constant apologies for this abusive facility say a lot about you and program supporters in general.
Nobody is apologizing for Trails Carolina that I am aware of, I am certainly not. We are discussing a report that came out and that Ursus posted.
Having the facts in front of us makes this discussion a lot easier. The people conducting the interview spoke with the staff and management. If they felt this person was a threat to other students then they would have noted this in the report or would have surfaced. If you read through the various steps you will see that the kid was out of control and attacked the staff person and punched him in the mouth and the staff lost his cool and responded by punching him back. What they typically do is look at all the pieces and the persons history in the industry. If he had a history of violence then maybe they would suggest his being removed.
You and I sitting here do not have the advantage and information to assess whether or not this person is a danger to the other students. For all we know he might have a long history of working with children and this was his first incident. I dont think we can judge down to that level.
I think if their policy advocated punching children in the mouth then I would side with you and say the program should be terminated until they have a change in policy. Children would certainly be placed in harms way in my opinion. But this was not the case.
How about that Trails Carolina didn't report this child abuse? What else has their staff done to kids that went unreported?
None, they went through and audited their records and didnt find any other incidences. There was only the one incident.
...
-
You're not very convincing. Who cares what the stated policy is if they clearly don't follow it? A bunch of these violations are for items where they didn't even follow their own policy. Right now they have policy that says "Never commit physical violence against a child" and they did it anyway.
Since they don't follow their own reporting policy the conclusion can be drawn that there were likely other events of abuse/neglect that didn't make it into their own reports to be reviewed by the state. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that if the kid puncher were alone with that kid that report would never have been filed.
-
You're not very convincing. Who cares what the stated policy is if they clearly don't follow it? A bunch of these violations are for items where they didn't even follow their own policy. Right now they have policy that says "Never commit physical violence against a child" and they did it anyway.
Since they don't follow their own reporting policy the conclusion can be drawn that there were likely other events of abuse/neglect that didn't make it into their own reports to be reviewed by the state. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that if the kid puncher were alone with that kid that report would never have been filed.
Of course you could speculate that, any of us could speculate anything we want, But the fact is that they documented the incident, there is no getting around that fact.
We could also applaud them for documenting the details of the incident.... dates times, how long he was restrained, who hit who first etc. Depends on your point of view, I guess.
...
-
You're not very convincing. Who cares what the stated policy is if they clearly don't follow it? A bunch of these violations are for items where they didn't even follow their own policy. Right now they have policy that says "Never commit physical violence against a child" and they did it anyway.
Since they don't follow their own reporting policy the conclusion can be drawn that there were likely other events of abuse/neglect that didn't make it into their own reports to be reviewed by the state. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that if the kid puncher were alone with that kid that report would never have been filed.
Of course you could speculate that, any of us could speculate anything we want, But the fact is that they documented the incident, there is no getting around that fact.
We could also applaud them for documenting the details of the incident.... dates times, how long he was restrained, who hit who first etc. Depends on your point of view, I guess.
Given that there were two other staff who witnessed — and to some degree participated — in this assault, it would have been sheer folly to pretend that it never happened.
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
Given that there were two other staff who witnessed — and to some degree participated — in this assault, it would have been sheer folly to pretend that it never happened.
Exactly, that’s why there is so much emphasis placed on documenting each event no matter how small. To you and I a teenager acting out and getting in a fight may seem normal ,especially in a program for troubled teens, but for the childs family and for tracking purposes it is important to document the events. Agencies can use this data to determine if one school seems to have a higher incidence than normal which could spark an investigation… or just the opposite, if a program has zero incidences this may raise an eyebrow as to whether or not they are following the proper reporting procedures.
Even public schools now document every incident and submit reports in triplicate to the appropriate agencies. Most of this is driven by lawsuits and if a staff person doesn’t follow procedure (and puts the school at risk, exposes them to lawsuits) he/she risks getting fired and never working in the profession again.
...
-
Given that there were two other staff who witnessed — and to some degree participated — in this assault, it would have been sheer folly to pretend that it never happened.
Exactly, that’s why there is so much emphasis placed on documenting each event no matter how small.
Not really. From the standpoint of a staff member covering their ass, if there are no witnesses, why not report it in a way that minimizes their fault, if at all?
In fact, that is exactly what happened. The Facilities Manager claimed the kid injured himself whilst trying to bite him. Pity for the Facilities Manager that ... the other two staff members didn't quite see it that way. They witnessed the Facilities Manager punching the kid in the mouth, with the kid getting a bloody lip as a result of that punch.
As to "documenting each event no matter how small," we do not know that, nor can infer it from how staff behaved, and documented or didn't document, in this particular incident. If anything, we can infer that the Facilities Manager may be prone to covering his ass at the expense of the truth.
-
Is Whooter doing damage control again? :roflmao:
Joel, I responded to your post with good intentions. Instead of joining the conversation you decide to just make fun of people? Why do you do that?
...
-
If you read through the various steps you will see that the kid was out of control and attacked the staff person and punched him in the mouth and the staff lost his cool and responded by punching him back.
I did not get the impression that the kid was out of control. Sure, he may have been a handful, but nothing that a "professional" couldn't handle, eh?
The impression that *I* got was that he was initially uncooperative and refused to do the task that he was supposed to do, and that staff escalated the situation by insisting on cooperation, rather than deescalating it or leaving it be.
From the kid's POV, he may have even felt goaded into this altercation. *I* probably would have.
-
If you read through the various steps you will see that the kid was out of control and attacked the staff person and punched him in the mouth and the staff lost his cool and responded by punching him back.
Not so cool of him, eh?
-
If you read through the various steps you will see that the kid was out of control and attacked the staff person and punched him in the mouth and the staff lost his cool and responded by punching him back.
I did not get the impression that the kid was out of control. Sure, he may have been a handful, but nothing that a "professional" couldn't handle, eh?
The impression that *I* got was that he was initially uncooperative and refused to do the task that he was supposed to do, and that staff escalated the situation by insisting on cooperation, rather than deescalating it or leaving it be.
From the kid's POV, he may have even felt goaded into this altercation. *I* would have.
I read it a little differently. The kid was out of control and started hitting the staff (punched one in the face) and one of the lead staff lost his cool and punched him back. Neither one of us was there so it is a difficult discussion. We need to yield to the people who conducted the interviews on the three involved. From the report it didnt seem like they needed to take it further and were satisfied with the way it was reported.
I am sure each person may read it differently. Maybe the staff did escalate it which would be an indication that more training is needed. It was noted that the lead staff had not been current with his training and should not have been involved. So it appears to be a training issue on the surface.
...
-
If you read through the various steps you will see that the kid was out of control and attacked the staff person and punched him in the mouth and the staff lost his cool and responded by punching him back.
I did not get the impression that the kid was out of control. Sure, he may have been a handful, but nothing that a "professional" couldn't handle, eh?
The impression that *I* got was that he was initially uncooperative and refused to do the task that he was supposed to do, and that staff escalated the situation by insisting on cooperation, rather than deescalating it or leaving it be.
From the kid's POV, he may have even felt goaded into this altercation. *I* would have.
I read it a little differently. The kid was out of control and started hitting the staff (punched one in the face) and one of the lead staff lost his cool and punched him back. Neither one of us was there so it is a difficult discussion. We need to yield to the people who conducted the interviews on the three involved. From the report it didnt seem like they needed to take it further and were satisfied with the way it was reported.
I am sure each person may read it differently. Maybe the staff did escalate it which would be an indication that more training is needed. It was noted that the lead staff had not been current with his training and should not have been involved. So it appears to be a training issue on the surface.
...
This brings back an old conversation. The counselor may have been aggravating the ‘client’ (in this doc.) but doing it appropriately according to the program. How do we evaluate fault? Everyone is going to defend themselves under certain personal circumstances. In evaluating fault, root cause, and who is defending from who, don’t we need complete transparency from programs as to their process?
-
This brings back an old conversation. The counselor may have been aggravating the ‘client’ (in this doc.) but doing it appropriately according to the program. How do we evaluate fault? Everyone is going to defend themselves under certain personal circumstances. In evaluating fault, root cause, and who is defending from who, don’t we need complete transparency from programs as to their process?
Interesting point. If the staff were trained by the program to aggravate the kid into punching him in the face then I would see this as a program problem and fault the program for this incident. There were 3 staff involved and the one who punched the kid back was not properly trained (or his training had lapsed) so it may have been a training issue in which case it would be the fault of the staff for getting involved. Thirdly it could have just been personal and unprofessional in which case it was not a reflection of the program and they need to deal with the individual.
But I see your point awake that it could have been "program abuse" if the staff had been trained to initiate that particular response.. Interesting. But then we could not fault the staff member.
...
-
This brings back an old conversation. The counselor may have been aggravating the ‘client’ (in this doc.) but doing it appropriately according to the program. How do we evaluate fault? Everyone is going to defend themselves under certain personal circumstances. In evaluating fault, root cause, and who is defending from who, don’t we need complete transparency from programs as to their process?
Interesting point. If the staff were trained by the program to aggravate the kid into punching him in the face then I would see this as a program problem and fault the program for this incident. There were 3 staff involved and the one who punched the kid back was not properly trained (or his training had lapsed) so it may have been a training issue in which case it would be the fault of the staff for getting involved. Thirdly it could have just been personal and unprofessional in which case it was not a reflection of the program and they need to deal with the individual.
But I see your point awake that it could have been "program abuse" if the staff had been trained to initiate that particular response.. Interesting. But then we could not fault the staff member.
...
Lol. Well I don’t think many program are trying to get the kids to punch their staff in the face, if that’s what you’re thinking,……. however I doubt any program expects the child not to want to. The level of aggrevation is subjective and dependent on unique circumstances. What would it take to get you aggravated enough to punch someone? , and doesn’t this matter when considering fault?
-
...after my first pass I see basically paperwork issues, not enough fire drills, using the wrong process to document background checks, exceeding restraint time limits, kid punched out a staff member causing a fight etc. Looks like the inspection team went over that place with a fine toothed comb but didn’t find anything that warranted action against them accept a response and follow-up.
So overall the program seemed to be in full compliance with no gaping holes with the exception of a staff member who participated in a restraint who had not had up to date training, lost his cool, which resulted in one of the kids getting a bloody mouth. It seemed to be concluded that the program needs to rewrite their policy of removing the kids shoes and replacing it with another which will be equally effective in keeping kids from running.
Mmm. I don't think so. From V 512 · 27D .0304 Client Rights - Harm, Abuse, Neglect:
This deficiency constitutes a Type B rule violation. An administrative penalty of $200.00 is per day will be imposed for failure to correct within 45 days.[/list]
-
Two hundred dollars a day?
That isn't shit.
What good is regulation if the regulators have no teeth?
And, apparently, it's okay for any facility found to be harming, neglecting, and abusing its "clients" to do absolutely nothing about it for almost a month and a half and pay absolutely nothing. Who writes these things?
-
Given that there were two other staff who witnessed — and to some degree participated — in this assault, it would have been sheer folly to pretend that it never happened.
Exactly, that’s why there is so much emphasis placed on documenting each event no matter how small.
Not really. From the standpoint of a staff member covering their ass, if there are no witnesses, why not report it in a way that minimizes their fault, if at all?
In fact, that is exactly what happened. The Facilities Manager claimed the kid injured himself whilst trying to bite him. Pity for the Facilities Manager that ... the other two staff members didn't quite see it that way. They witnessed the Facilities Manager punching the kid in the mouth, with the kid getting a bloody lip as a result of that punch.
As to "documenting each event no matter how small," we do not know that, nor can infer it from how staff behaved, and documented or didn't document, in this particular incident. If anything, we can infer that the Facilities Manager may be prone to covering his ass at the expense of the truth.
Exactly, Ursus. This staff member - the Kid Puncher - lied about the incident in his report which was contradicted by other staff in their reports. This happens all the time to these kids. They are set up from the beginning as being "not credible" and anytime a staff abuses them and gets caught, they take the "blame the kid" approach. Why? Because it works.
-
Maybe the staff member should be fired for this. I dont know him or have access to his background. I wasnt there when the audit team spoke to him. Reading a few lines on the internet doesnt qualify me to decide if a person should loss their job or not. I think we can find some comfort in the fact that the incidents (although conflicting) were well documented and some discomfort in the fact that the stories did not line up. So I can see both sides of the issue and see why many here would want this staff person removed.
The consensus of the audit team and school management team is to get the staff person some more training.
...
-
...after my first pass I see basically paperwork issues, not enough fire drills, using the wrong process to document background checks, exceeding restraint time limits, kid punched out a staff member causing a fight etc. Looks like the inspection team went over that place with a fine toothed comb but didn’t find anything that warranted action against them accept a response and follow-up.
So overall the program seemed to be in full compliance with no gaping holes with the exception of a staff member who participated in a restraint who had not had up to date training, lost his cool, which resulted in one of the kids getting a bloody mouth. It seemed to be concluded that the program needs to rewrite their policy of removing the kids shoes and replacing it with another which will be equally effective in keeping kids from running.
Mmm. I don't think so. From V 512 · 27D .0304 Client Rights - Harm, Abuse, Neglect:
This deficiency constitutes a Type B rule violation. An administrative penalty of $200.00 is per day will be imposed for failure to correct within 45 days.[/list]
This fine is to increase the pain level a little more so that the school doesnt respond with "The next training session in our area isnt until 6 months from now." The $200 a day makes it more cost effective for the school to fly this staff person out for training ASAP. It lights a little fire under them. Thats all... $200 a day is $6,000 a month which tips the scales and makes for a better business decision to get the training done sooner.
Things like scheduling extra fire drills is not difficult to implement and probably history has shown they dont need to hold a monetary fine over their heads to get the changes done.
...
-
Maybe the staff member should be fired for this.
No maybe's. This guy should have been terminated on the spot. I worked with a much rougher population than this (mostly straght from jail) and never had a physical, ever. This is the axiomatic Golden Rule for working with kids: YOU DON'T ASSAULT THEM, NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO.
There's just no excuse for it. It shows bad character. It's a bad fit for the profession. And as long as he's there he will be made an issue by people like us, causing further damage to the facility's reputation, so it's bad for business as well. Firing that guy is a complete no-brainer from all perspectives.
-
Maybe the staff member should be fired for this.
No maybe's. This guy should have been terminated on the spot. I worked with a much rougher population than this (mostly straght from jail) and never had a physical, ever. This is the axiomatic Golden Rule for working with kids: YOU DON'T ASSAULT THEM, NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO.
There's just no excuse for it. It shows bad character. It's a bad fit for the profession. And as long as he's there he will be made an issue by people like us, causing further damage to the facility's reputation, so it's bad for business as well. Firing that guy is a complete no-brainer from all perspectives.
You may be right. But we dont have all the facts, dont know this guy or his history and my view is that it should be left to those people who were closer to the situation and are better able to evaluate it. Determining if a person should lose there job or not based on a few lines in a report is a little too reckless for me.
...
-
Thanks Ursus, after my first pass I see basically paperwork issues, not enough fire drills, using the wrong process to document background checks, exceeding restraint time limits, kid punched out a staff member causing a fight etc. Looks like the inspection team went over that place with a fine toothed comb but didn’t find anything that warranted action against them accept a response and follow-up.
So overall the program seemed to be in full compliance with no gaping holes with the exception of a staff member who participated in a restraint who had not had up to date training, lost his cool, which resulted in one of the kids getting a bloody mouth. It seemed to be concluded that the program needs to rewrite their policy of removing the kids shoes and replacing it with another which will be equally effective in keeping kids from running.
It would be interesting to see the corrective action responses to some of the actions particularly restraint training and policy.
...
Oh boy, paperwork discrepancies and a bloody lip. Yep need a congressional hearing on this one. No wonder why Ursus wanted to play in the mud,ya got noth'in and never had noth'in.
I love it when your ethics are on the screen, you just keep delivering over and over.
Kids who are belligerent, hostile and out of control, staff who are young and learning. Let me see here, hundreds of thousands of children have gone through these programs and we have a isolated bloody lip here.
I will not even comment on paper issues, with all of America in disrepair as we speak bridges, roads, public schools, ect....were going to chastise Trails Carolina for their paperwork issues.
Yeh guys lets get the extremist engine running.
-
Maybe the staff member should be fired for this.
No maybe's. This guy should have been terminated on the spot. I worked with a much rougher population than this (mostly straght from jail) and never had a physical, ever. This is the axiomatic Golden Rule for working with kids: YOU DON'T ASSAULT THEM, NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO.
There's just no excuse for it. It shows bad character. It's a bad fit for the profession. And as long as he's there he will be made an issue by people like us, causing further damage to the facility's reputation, so it's bad for business as well. Firing that guy is a complete no-brainer from all perspectives.
...
Well DJ you would be the first to never have to defend yourself if a altercation was to happen. Part of your training working with folks who come out of prisons is self-defense, so I am not sure where you worked.
You have to be aware of your population and what they can do.
Should he should be fired sure if he hit back with the sole intent of vindication but if he was defending himself well I don't have enough facts yet. Did he punch the kid, wrestle with him, grap him ya know what. Was this kid a bully, very aggressive. Was the staff a bully and out of control.
-
Maybe the staff member should be fired for this.
No maybe's. This guy should have been terminated on the spot. I worked with a much rougher population than this (mostly straght from jail) and never had a physical, ever. This is the axiomatic Golden Rule for working with kids: YOU DON'T ASSAULT THEM, NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO.
There's just no excuse for it. It shows bad character. It's a bad fit for the profession. And as long as he's there he will be made an issue by people like us, causing further damage to the facility's reputation, so it's bad for business as well. Firing that guy is a complete no-brainer from all perspectives.
You may be right. But we dont have all the facts, dont know this guy or his history and my view is that it should be left to those people who were closer to the situation and are better able to evaluate it. Determining if a person should lose there job or not based on a few lines in a report is a little too reckless for me.
...
You just don't understand the profession. This is the biggest no-no in the book (along with sexual relations with clients). I'll chalk this up to your lack of understanding of how serious this incident really is. He's not some "poor guy" who is a "victim."
Whatever his past history, he struck a child in the face with a closed fist. He should have been summarily dismissed. Plain and simple. There is no gray area here. He could have just walked away, as he should have. But he chose to batter this child and his collegues prove he lied about it in his report, also a fireable offense. Sorry, dude, but you are not being the "voice of reason" here - you're making excuses for violence against an institutionalized child, the most helpless victims of all.
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
Maybe the staff member should be fired for this.
No maybe's. This guy should have been terminated on the spot. I worked with a much rougher population than this (mostly straght from jail) and never had a physical, ever. This is the axiomatic Golden Rule for working with kids: YOU DON'T ASSAULT THEM, NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO.
There's just no excuse for it. It shows bad character. It's a bad fit for the profession. And as long as he's there he will be made an issue by people like us, causing further damage to the facility's reputation, so it's bad for business as well. Firing that guy is a complete no-brainer from all perspectives.
You may be right. But we dont have all the facts, dont know this guy or his history and my view is that it should be left to those people who were closer to the situation and are better able to evaluate it. Determining if a person should lose there job or not based on a few lines in a report is a little too reckless for me.
...
You just don't understand the profession. This is the biggest no-no in the book (along with sexual relations with clients). I'll chalk this up to your lack of understanding of how serious this incident really is. He's not some "poor guy" who is a "victim."
Whatever his past history, he struck a child in the face with a closed fist. He should have been summarily dismissed. Plain and simple. There is no gray area here. He could have just walked away, as he should have. But he chose to batter this child and his collegues prove he lied about it in his report, also a fireable offense. Sorry, dude, but you are not being the "voice of reason" here - you're making excuses for violence against an institutionalized child, the most helpless victims of all.
I understand your opinion and the situation. I just disagree with you, I wasnt there at the meeting where they discussed the details of the altercation and what transpired. They obviously felt that the situation would be better served/resolved by getting the person training instead of taking his job away.
We differ on this and that is okay.
...
-
Maybe the staff member should be fired for this.
No maybe's. This guy should have been terminated on the spot. I worked with a much rougher population than this (mostly straght from jail) and never had a physical, ever. This is the axiomatic Golden Rule for working with kids: YOU DON'T ASSAULT THEM, NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO.
There's just no excuse for it. It shows bad character. It's a bad fit for the profession. And as long as he's there he will be made an issue by people like us, causing further damage to the facility's reputation, so it's bad for business as well. Firing that guy is a complete no-brainer from all perspectives.
You may be right. But we dont have all the facts, dont know this guy or his history and my view is that it should be left to those people who were closer to the situation and are better able to evaluate it. Determining if a person should lose there job or not based on a few lines in a report is a little too reckless for me.
You just don't understand the profession. This is the biggest no-no in the book (along with sexual relations with clients). I'll chalk this up to your lack of understanding of how serious this incident really is. He's not some "poor guy" who is a "victim."
Whatever his past history, he struck a child in the face with a closed fist. He should have been summarily dismissed. Plain and simple. There is no gray area here. He could have just walked away, as he should have. But he chose to batter this child and his collegues prove he lied about it in his report, also a fireable offense. Sorry, dude, but you are not being the "voice of reason" here - you're making excuses for violence against an institutionalized child, the most helpless victims of all.
I understand your opinion and the situation. I just disagree with you, I wasnt there at the meeting where they discussed the details of the altercation and what transpired. They obviously felt that the situation would be better served/resolved by getting the person training instead of taking his job away.
We differ on this and that is okay.
Well, if this guy is who I think he is, he's probably not a long-time industry ideologue, but has worked in the industry for a few years prior.
Worth noting, if you read between the lines in the Statement of Deficiencies (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=26502&start=45#p368695), he wasn't up-to-date with his restraint training at the time of the incident (12/23/2009), but was current immediately thereafter: "his Crisis Prevention Intervention (CPI) training was effective 1/10 through 1/11." My guess is Trails Carolina knew full well the seriousness of this offense and strove to correct their training defiencies el pronto. Before the state of North Carolina was even able to investigate.
Also worth noting is the fact that this staff member is no longer listed on their website, although his brief bio is still available if you know the link.
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
I'm seeing red. :D
-
I'm seeing red. :D
:seg:
-
Here is pertinent text from the Statement of Deficiencies (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=26502&start=45#p368695) regarding the client abuse incident of 12/23/2009 (from V500, V512, V522, V537, my apologies if I've missed some stuff):
From V 500 · 27D .0101(a-e) Client Rights - Policy on Rights:
Based on review of facility records, and interviews, the facility failed to implement their policy requiring and ensuring the Department of Social Services (DSS), in the county where services are provided, was notified of all allegations of resident abuse by health care personnel, affecting one of four sampled clients (#4). The findings are:
A review of facility records on 3/1/10 revealed an incident report dated 12/23/09 and 2 incident reports dated 12/24/09 addressing a restraint of Client #4 which occurred on 12/23/09. The report by the Facility Manager dated 12/23/09 stated he "restrained (Client #4) to ground and held until staff intervened." The attached Physical Intervention report also completed by the Facility Manager on 12/23/09 revealed, in the section asking if the student was injured during the intervention, Client #4 got a "bloody lip trying to bite staff."
Review on 3/1/10 of the 2 incident reports completed 12/24/09 revealed Staff #1 and Staff #2 witnessed the Facility Manager strike Client #4 during the restraint on 12/23/09. The incident report by Staff #1 revealed he "saw
[the Facility Manager] hit [Client #4] in the face ... and observed [Client#4] had blood in his mouth." The incident report by Staff #2 revealed the Facility Manager "took student to ground and punched [Client #4] in the lip."
A review on 3/1/10 of an internal investigation report revealed the Executive Director(ED) was out of town and learned of allegations by Client #4 and Staff #1 and #2 in a phone call from the Admissions Director(AD) on 12/23/09. The AD was in charge of facility in the absence of the ED. The AD documented an interview at approximately 4:30 PM on 12/23/09 with Client #4, during which Client #4 told him he had hit the Facility Manager in the face and the Facility Manager hit him back in the face.
Review on 3/1/10 of facility policy and procedures for reporting allegations of abuse revealed: "Policy: The therapist shall provide a leadership role in the identification, reporting, and follow-upon child abuse issues. ... Procedures: ...3. The therapist will receive supervision from a clinical supervisor and the Executive Director to determine if there is enough data to warrant a "reasonable suspicion" that a student has been the victim of abuse. That is all that is required for a suspected report. ... 6. c. Documentation will be made on the Abuse, Neglect, and Dependency Report, Attachment 2 and will be forwarded to the Department of Social Services (DSS)."
Review of facility records on 3/1/10 revealed no Abuse, Neglect, and Dependency Report, Attachment 2 was on file, nor was there documentation that such a report had been forwarded to DSS.
Interviews with Staff #1 and the Facility Manager on 2/26/10, and with Staff #2 on 3/4/10, confirmed that the Facility Manager actively participated in the restraint of Client #4 on 12/23/09, and that Client #4 was injured as a result of the Facility Manager's participation. The Facility manager admitted to punching Client #4 in the face, and both Staff #1 and Staff #2 revealed their belief that the punch was intentional, and not accidental.
During interviews with the Executive Director and Human Resources Manager on 2/26/10 and 3/1/10, staff were asked to locate and provide documentation of any in-house investigation or other documentation pertaining to the restraint of Client #4 on 12/23/09. Staff were able to produce incident reports regarding the incident, a summary of the AD's interview with Client #4 on 12/23/09, and a timeline documenting the ED's contacts along with a brief summary of those contacts regarding the 12/23/09 incident. Staff failed to provide verification of an in-house investigation, other than the interview with Client #4, and were unable to produce the Abuse, Neglect, and Dependency Report, Attachment 2. Staff also acknowledged no report had been filed with DSS, nor had a report been filed with the Health Care Personnel Registry.[/list]
From V 512 · 27D .0304 Client Rights - Harm, Abuse, Neglect:
Based on record review and interviews, facility staff failed to protect 1 of 4 clients audited from abuse (#4). The findings are:
Review of client records on 2/26/10 revealed Client #4 was admitted to the facility on 9/19/09, with diagnoses of Bipolar Disorder, Disruptive Behavior Disorder, and Intermittent Explosive Anger Disorder. Review further revealed, Client #4 graduated from the program on 1/13/10.
Review of staff records on 2/26/10 revealed the Facility Manager was hired 4/1/08. Review further revealed, his Crisis Prevention Intervention (CPI) training was effective 1/10 through 1/11.
Review on 2/25/10 of incident reports dated 12/24/09 revealed the following:
1) Staff #1's incident report stated: "Client #4 grabbed the rope from Staff #2 and refused to let go. Client #4 then began to kick Staff #2 in the legs, bit and punched him (Staff #2) in the face and body. The Facility Manager attempted to verbally de-escalate Client #4 but was unsuccessful. Client #4 was taken to the ground by the Facility Manager and was assisted by Staff #1 and #2. Client #4 was released and immediately attacked the Facility Manager again. The facility Manager "took student (Client #4) to ground and punched
[Client #4] in the lip." Staff #1 and #2 joined in a hold a second time. Client #4 was released a second time. Client #4 approached the Facility Manager a third time and continued to punch and kick. The Facility Manager attempted verbal de-escalation again and took Client #4 to the ground. Client #4 was released almost immediately."
2) Staff #2's incident report stated: "...Group was dropping near bear hang when [Client #4] refused to give bear rope to staff [Staff #1] and threatened to hit [Staff #1] in the face if he took it. [Staff #1] told student that he needed to take rope. [Client #4] then hit [Staff #1] in the face and continued a physical attack hitting, kicking, and biting [Staff #2]. [Staff #2] used deflection to avoid injury and tried to verbally de-escalate the situation. Staff [Facility Manager] was walking by and tried to verbally de-escalate student [Client #4]. [Client #4] said it was none of [Facility Manager] business and if he didn't leave then he [Client #4] would hit and kick [Facility Manager] was well. [Facility Manager] said he would not leave and that [Client #4] could not hurt staff at which time [Client #4] stopped hitting staff and began to kick and hit staff [Facility Manager]. [Facility Manager] told [Client #4] to stop hitting and kicking and when [Client #4] did not [Facility Manager] layed hands on [Client #4] grabbing his collar and lowering him to the ground. The time was 4:30 PM. Staff [Staff #2] intervened to separate staff and student taking control of student [Client #4's] legs to keep staff [Facility Manager] from getting kicked. [Staff #2] immediately called staff [Staff #1] to take control of [Client #4's] legs to allow him [Staff #2] to control [Client #4's] upper body to release staff [Facility Manager]. Staff [Facility Manager] did not release control so [Staff #2] called for a release. All staff released control. [Client #4] then continued to attack staff [Facility Manager] hitting and kicking. Staff [Staff #2] had called for support on the radio at 4:45 PM. Staff [Facility Manager] grabbed student [Client #4] by the collar of his shirt and quickly lowered him to the ground. Staff [Staff #2] attempted to intervene with staff [Staff #1] when [Staff #2] saw [Facility Manager] hit [Client #4] in the face after being hit by [Client #4]. [Staff #2] took control of [Client #4] with [Staff #1] assisting and observed that [Client #4] had blood in his mouth. Support showed up at this time. All staff released control of [Client #4]. [Client #4] then began to follow staff [Facility Manager] and attempt to assault him. The time was 5:15 PM. [Facility Manager] took [Client #4] by the shirt front again and pushed him to the ground, and then released him..."
3) The Facility Manager's incident report dated 12/23/09 reported: "Observed student (Client #4) yelling kicking and punching staff. Went to observe and try to defuse the situation. Client turned on me with verbal, kicking punching and biting." The intervention used included "Restrained to ground and held until staff intervened."
Review on 2/25/10 of Facility Managers physical intervention report dated 12/23/09 revealed the following:
a) Behavior That Necessitated the Physical Intervention: "Punching and kicking staff- verbal abuse."
b) Positive and Less Restrictive Alternatives Used or Considered: "Talking and reasoning."
c) What Danger Necessitated the Intervention? "Several punches and kick."
d) Precipitating Factors of the Intervention: "Escalated student assaulting 2 staff."
e) Was The Student Injured During the Physical Intervention? "Yes. Bloody lip trying to bite staff."
f) Description of Plan to Minimize Future Physical Interventions: Minimize contact and ask for support in situations."
Review on 2/25/10 of the Director of Admissions investigative report dated 12/23/09 revealed the following: "...According to [Client #4], {Staff #2] was making his life difficult with the bear bag ropes and so he decided to kick him. [Staff #2] asked him to stop and he did not and walked off. [Client #4] reported that [Staff #2] tackled him and was holding him down, so in defense, he began hitting him. [Staff #2] then was holding him down and so [Client #4] continued to kick him and get him to give him the rope. [Facility Manager] came down from cabin 1 and told [Client #4] to stop hitting [Staff #2]. [Client #4] told him (Facility Manager) that it was none of his business and that he would do what he wanted. He (Client #4) kept hitting and punching [Staff #2] and [Facility Manager] intervened and restrained him. [Client #4] reports that when he got back up that he went after [Facility Manager] many times and [Facility Manager] restrained him again. [Staff #2] at this point had his legs. He (client #4) said that he went after [Facility Manager] in frustration and hit him in the face and that [Facility Manager] hit him back in the face."
Record review on 2/26/10 revealed, neither a 24 Hour Initial Report nor a 5-Working Day Report to Health Care Personnel Registry (HCPR) had been completed.
Interview with Staff #1 on 2/25/10 revealed, there were teeth marks in Client #4's lip. "He bit his lip when he was hit (by the facility manager)." Interview further revealed Client #4's injury was the result of the hit. Interview further revealed, the facility manager did not utilize approved restrictive intervention techniques.
Interview with Staff #2 on 3/4/10 revealed, he witnessed the facility manager punch Client #4 in the mouth. "He (facility manager) was pushing him (Client #4) at the same time and popped him, he did not wind up and clock him." Interview further revealed, Client #4 had a bloody lip which was associated with the hit. Interview further revealed, the facility manager did not utilize approved restrictive intervention techniques. "He (facility manager) pushed him (Client #4) down by the shirt...there was force but it wasn't a slam to the ground."
Interview with the facility manager on 3/1/10 revealed, "I grabbed him (Client #4) by the shirt and put him down...[Staff #1] and [Staff #2] grabbed his (Client #4) feet. [Staff #1] let go of his (Client #4) right hand and I took one right on the nose. I popped him (Client #4)...light fist on the chin. It's really bothered me ever since, I liked the kid."
Client #4 was unable to be interviewed. He was no longer at the facility.
Interview with the Executive Director on 2/25/10 revealed, "My understanding is [facility manager] struck [Client #4]. [Facility manager] confirmed this."
During interview with the Executive Director on 3/4/10, she acknowledged Client #4's parents were contacted and no other authorities were informed of the incident. Interview further revealed, the facility sought clinical consultation about the incident and were told it was unnecessary to contact Department of Social Services and HCPR due to it not meeting the criteria for abuse.
A protection plan was completed by the facility on 3/4/10, which included the following:
"1. All Trails personnel who have any interaction with Trails clients will have restrictive intervention training."
"2. All Trails staff whether direct care or support will have training on a typical client profile and types of behaviors to expect."
"3. Employee evaluations will include a section on interactions with Trails students."
"4. Trails will review with all staff protocols for reporting a staff if they believe that there has been any interaction they deem appropriate or demeaning. Identified staff member will then review the incident and take appropriate disciplinary action."
(This deficiency constitutes a Type B rule violation. An administrative penalty of $200.00 is per day will be imposed for failure to correct within 45 days.)[/list]
From V 522 · 27E .0104(e10) Client Rights - Sec. Rest. & ITO:
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure interventions exceeding 15 minutes were authorized only by the responsible professional or another qualified professional who is approved to use and to authorize the use of the restrictive intervention based on experience and training, effecting 1 of 4 clients audited (#4). The findings are:
Review of Physical Restraint Reports on 3/1/10 revealed the following physical restraints of Client #4 which exceeded 15 minutes:
9/19/09 at 7:30 PM for 30 minutes
9/20/09 at 4:00 PM for 30 minutes
9/20/09 at 5:50 PM for 48 minutes
9/22/09 at 8:30 PM for 45 minutes
9/23/09 at 12:15 PM for 30 minutes
9/23/09 at 1:00 PM for 30 minutes
9/29/09 at 4:10 PM for 20 minutes
1/15/10 at 5:11 PM for 28 minutes, and 34 seconds.
The review further revealed no documentation on the Physical Restraint Reports or on file elsewhere of authorization for restraints lasting longer than 15 minutes by the responsible professional (QP) or another qualified professional who is approved to use and to authorize the use of the restrictive intervention based on experience and training.
During interview with the Executive Director (ED) on 3/4/10, The ED was asked to locate and produce verification of authorization by a QP for physical restraints exceeding 15 minutes in length. She was unable to provide the requested verification. The ED acknowledged that staff were not seeking authorization from the QP for extended restraints.
From V 537 · 27E .0108 Client Rights - Training in Sec Rest & ITO:
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure physical restraint was employed only by staff who had been trained and had demonstrated competence in the proper use of and alternatives to these procedures, and were retrained and had demonstrated competence at least annually, effecting 1 of 4 client's audited (#4). The findings are.
A review of policy and procedures on 2/26/10 revealed the facility staff utilize the Crisis Prevention Intervention (CPI) system for employing physical restraints, and that physical restraints may be employed on an emergency basis, when a client provides a danger to himself or others, and inflicts significant property damage.
A review of incident reports on 3/1/10 revealed 3 incident reports describing the Facility Manager taking Client #4 to the ground twice during a single incident at approximately 4:30 PM on 12/23/09. Client #4 received a cut in his mouth as a result of a punch by the Facility Manager during the physical restraint. Further review of the incident reports also revealed the Facility Manager took the client down by"grabbing his collar and lowering him to the ground."
A review of staff personnel records on 3/1/10 revealed no evidence on file that the facility manager had participated and demonstrated competence in CPI Training between his hire date of 4/1/08 and January, 2010.
During interviews with staff conducted on 2/26/10 and 3/4/10, administrative staff were asked to locate and provide verification of training within a year prior to the 12/23/09 incident in CPI for the Facility Manager. Staff were unable to produce verification of the required training for the Facility Manager.
Interviews with Staff #1 and the Facility Manager on 2/26/10, and with Staff #2 on 3/4/10, confirmed that the Facility Manager actively participated in the restraint of Client #4 on 12/23/09, and that Client #4 was injured as a result of the Facility Manager's participation.The interview with the Facility Manager on 2/26/10 also revealed that the Facility Manager had received NCI training from a previous employer, but he was not current in any kind of restraint training at the time of the incident.
-
Here is pertinent text from the Statement of Deficiencies (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=26502&start=45#p368695) regarding the client abuse incident of 12/23/2009 (from V500, V512, V522, V537, my apologies if I've missed some stuff):
From V 500 · 27D .0101(a-e) Client Rights - Policy on Rights:
Based on review of facility records, and interviews, the facility failed to implement their policy requiring and ensuring the Department of Social Services (DSS), in the county where services are provided, was notified of all allegations of resident abuse by health care personnel, affecting one of four sampled clients (#4). The findings are:
A review of facility records on 3/1/10 revealed an incident report dated 12/23/09 and 2 incident reports dated 12/24/09 addressing a restraint of Client #4 which occurred on 12/23/09. The report by the Facility Manager dated 12/23/09 stated he "restrained (Client #4) to ground and held until staff intervened." The attached Physical Intervention report also completed by the Facility Manager on 12/23/09 revealed, in the section asking if the student was injured during the intervention, Client #4 got a "bloody lip trying to bite staff."
Review on 3/1/10 of the 2 incident reports completed 12/24/09 revealed Staff #1 and Staff #2 witnessed the Facility Manager strike Client #4 during the restraint on 12/23/09. The incident report by Staff #1 revealed he "saw
[the Facility Manager] hit [Client #4] in the face ... and observed [Client#4] had blood in his mouth." The incident report by Staff #2 revealed the Facility Manager "took student to ground and punched [Client #4] in the lip."
A review on 3/1/10 of an internal investigation report revealed the Executive Director(ED) was out of town and learned of allegations by Client #4 and Staff #1 and #2 in a phone call from the Admissions Director(AD) on 12/23/09. The AD was in charge of facility in the absence of the ED. The AD documented an interview at approximately 4:30 PM on 12/23/09 with Client #4, during which Client #4 told him he had hit the Facility Manager in the face and the Facility Manager hit him back in the face.
Review on 3/1/10 of facility policy and procedures for reporting allegations of abuse revealed: "Policy: The therapist shall provide a leadership role in the identification, reporting, and follow-upon child abuse issues. ... Procedures: ...3. The therapist will receive supervision from a clinical supervisor and the Executive Director to determine if there is enough data to warrant a "reasonable suspicion" that a student has been the victim of abuse. That is all that is required for a suspected report. ... 6. c. Documentation will be made on the Abuse, Neglect, and Dependency Report, Attachment 2 and will be forwarded to the Department of Social Services (DSS)."
Review of facility records on 3/1/10 revealed no Abuse, Neglect, and Dependency Report, Attachment 2 was on file, nor was there documentation that such a report had been forwarded to DSS.
Interviews with Staff #1 and the Facility Manager on 2/26/10, and with Staff #2 on 3/4/10, confirmed that the Facility Manager actively participated in the restraint of Client #4 on 12/23/09, and that Client #4 was injured as a result of the Facility Manager's participation. The Facility manager admitted to punching Client #4 in the face, and both Staff #1 and Staff #2 revealed their belief that the punch was intentional, and not accidental.
During interviews with the Executive Director and Human Resources Manager on 2/26/10 and 3/1/10, staff were asked to locate and provide documentation of any in-house investigation or other documentation pertaining to the restraint of Client #4 on 12/23/09. Staff were able to produce incident reports regarding the incident, a summary of the AD's interview with Client #4 on 12/23/09, and a timeline documenting the ED's contacts along with a brief summary of those contacts regarding the 12/23/09 incident. Staff failed to provide verification of an in-house investigation, other than the interview with Client #4, and were unable to produce the Abuse, Neglect, and Dependency Report, Attachment 2. Staff also acknowledged no report had been filed with DSS, nor had a report been filed with the Health Care Personnel Registry.[/list]
From V 512 · 27D .0304 Client Rights - Harm, Abuse, Neglect:
Based on record review and interviews, facility staff failed to protect 1 of 4 clients audited from abuse (#4). The findings are:
Review of client records on 2/26/10 revealed Client #4 was admitted to the facility on 9/19/09, with diagnoses of Bipolar Disorder, Disruptive Behavior Disorder, and Intermittent Explosive Anger Disorder. Review further revealed, Client #4 graduated from the program on 1/13/10.
Review of staff records on 2/26/10 revealed the Facility Manager was hired 4/1/08. Review further revealed, his Crisis Prevention Intervention (CPI) training was effective 1/10 through 1/11.
Review on 2/25/10 of incident reports dated 12/24/09 revealed the following:
1) Staff #1's incident report stated: "Client #4 grabbed the rope from Staff #2 and refused to let go. Client #4 then began to kick Staff #2 in the legs, bit and punched him (Staff #2) in the face and body. The Facility Manager attempted to verbally de-escalate Client #4 but was unsuccessful. Client #4 was taken to the ground by the Facility Manager and was assisted by Staff #1 and #2. Client #4 was released and immediately attacked the Facility Manager again. The facility Manager "took student (Client #4) to ground and punched
[Client #4] in the lip." Staff #1 and #2 joined in a hold a second time. Client #4 was released a second time. Client #4 approached the Facility Manager a third time and continued to punch and kick. The Facility Manager attempted verbal de-escalation again and took Client #4 to the ground. Client #4 was released almost immediately."
2) Staff #2's incident report stated: "...Group was dropping near bear hang when [Client #4] refused to give bear rope to staff [Staff #1] and threatened to hit [Staff #1] in the face if he took it. [Staff #1] told student that he needed to take rope. [Client #4] then hit [Staff #1] in the face and continued a physical attack hitting, kicking, and biting [Staff #2]. [Staff #2] used deflection to avoid injury and tried to verbally de-escalate the situation. Staff [Facility Manager] was walking by and tried to verbally de-escalate student [Client #4]. [Client #4] said it was none of [Facility Manager] business and if he didn't leave then he [Client #4] would hit and kick [Facility Manager] was well. [Facility Manager] said he would not leave and that [Client #4] could not hurt staff at which time [Client #4] stopped hitting staff and began to kick and hit staff [Facility Manager]. [Facility Manager] told [Client #4] to stop hitting and kicking and when [Client #4] did not [Facility Manager] layed hands on [Client #4] grabbing his collar and lowering him to the ground. The time was 4:30 PM. Staff [Staff #2] intervened to separate staff and student taking control of student [Client #4's] legs to keep staff [Facility Manager] from getting kicked. [Staff #2] immediately called staff [Staff #1] to take control of [Client #4's] legs to allow him [Staff #2] to control [Client #4's] upper body to release staff [Facility Manager]. Staff [Facility Manager] did not release control so [Staff #2] called for a release. All staff released control. [Client #4] then continued to attack staff [Facility Manager] hitting and kicking. Staff [Staff #2] had called for support on the radio at 4:45 PM. Staff [Facility Manager] grabbed student [Client #4] by the collar of his shirt and quickly lowered him to the ground. Staff [Staff #2] attempted to intervene with staff [Staff #1] when [Staff #2] saw [Facility Manager] hit [Client #4] in the face after being hit by [Client #4]. [Staff #2] took control of [Client #4] with [Staff #1] assisting and observed that [Client #4] had blood in his mouth. Support showed up at this time. All staff released control of [Client #4]. [Client #4] then began to follow staff [Facility Manager] and attempt to assault him. The time was 5:15 PM. [Facility Manager] took [Client #4] by the shirt front again and pushed him to the ground, and then released him..."
3) The Facility Manager's incident report dated 12/23/09 reported: "Observed student (Client #4) yelling kicking and punching staff. Went to observe and try to defuse the situation. Client turned on me with verbal, kicking punching and biting." The intervention used included "Restrained to ground and held until staff intervened."
Review on 2/25/10 of Facility Managers physical intervention report dated 12/23/09 revealed the following:
a) Behavior That Necessitated the Physical Intervention: "Punching and kicking staff- verbal abuse."
b) Positive and Less Restrictive Alternatives Used or Considered: "Talking and reasoning."
c) What Danger Necessitated the Intervention? "Several punches and kick."
d) Precipitating Factors of the Intervention: "Escalated student assaulting 2 staff."
e) Was The Student Injured During the Physical Intervention? "Yes. Bloody lip trying to bite staff."
f) Description of Plan to Minimize Future Physical Interventions: Minimize contact and ask for support in situations."
Review on 2/25/10 of the Director of Admissions investigative report dated 12/23/09 revealed the following: "...According to [Client #4], {Staff #2] was making his life difficult with the bear bag ropes and so he decided to kick him. [Staff #2] asked him to stop and he did not and walked off. [Client #4] reported that [Staff #2] tackled him and was holding him down, so in defense, he began hitting him. [Staff #2] then was holding him down and so [Client #4] continued to kick him and get him to give him the rope. [Facility Manager] came down from cabin 1 and told [Client #4] to stop hitting [Staff #2]. [Client #4] told him (Facility Manager) that it was none of his business and that he would do what he wanted. He (Client #4) kept hitting and punching [Staff #2] and [Facility Manager] intervened and restrained him. [Client #4] reports that when he got back up that he went after [Facility Manager] many times and [Facility Manager] restrained him again. [Staff #2] at this point had his legs. He (client #4) said that he went after [Facility Manager] in frustration and hit him in the face and that [Facility Manager] hit him back in the face."
Record review on 2/26/10 revealed, neither a 24 Hour Initial Report nor a 5-Working Day Report to Health Care Personnel Registry (HCPR) had been completed.
Interview with Staff #1 on 2/25/10 revealed, there were teeth marks in Client #4's lip. "He bit his lip when he was hit (by the facility manager)." Interview further revealed Client #4's injury was the result of the hit. Interview further revealed, the facility manager did not utilize approved restrictive intervention techniques.
Interview with Staff #2 on 3/4/10 revealed, he witnessed the facility manager punch Client #4 in the mouth. "He (facility manager) was pushing him (Client #4) at the same time and popped him, he did not wind up and clock him." Interview further revealed, Client #4 had a bloody lip which was associated with the hit. Interview further revealed, the facility manager did not utilize approved restrictive intervention techniques. "He (facility manager) pushed him (Client #4) down by the shirt...there was force but it wasn't a slam to the ground."
Interview with the facility manager on 3/1/10 revealed, "I grabbed him (Client #4) by the shirt and put him down...[Staff #1] and [Staff #2] grabbed his (Client #4) feet. [Staff #1] let go of his (Client #4) right hand and I took one right on the nose. I popped him (Client #4)...light fist on the chin. It's really bothered me ever since, I liked the kid."
Client #4 was unable to be interviewed. He was no longer at the facility.
Interview with the Executive Director on 2/25/10 revealed, "My understanding is [facility manager] struck [Client #4]. [Facility manager] confirmed this."
During interview with the Executive Director on 3/4/10, she acknowledged Client #4's parents were contacted and no other authorities were informed of the incident. Interview further revealed, the facility sought clinical consultation about the incident and were told it was unnecessary to contact Department of Social Services and HCPR due to it not meeting the criteria for abuse.
A protection plan was completed by the facility on 3/4/10, which included the following:
"1. All Trails personnel who have any interaction with Trails clients will have restrictive intervention training."
"2. All Trails staff whether direct care or support will have training on a typical client profile and types of behaviors to expect."
"3. Employee evaluations will include a section on interactions with Trails students."
"4. Trails will review with all staff protocols for reporting a staff if they believe that there has been any interaction they deem appropriate or demeaning. Identified staff member will then review the incident and take appropriate disciplinary action."
(This deficiency constitutes a Type B rule violation. An administrative penalty of $200.00 is per day will be imposed for failure to correct within 45 days.)[/list]
From V 522 · 27E .0104(e10) Client Rights - Sec. Rest. & ITO:
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure interventions exceeding 15 minutes were authorized only by the responsible professional or another qualified professional who is approved to use and to authorize the use of the restrictive intervention based on experience and training, effecting 1 of 4 clients audited (#4). The findings are:
Review of Physical Restraint Reports on 3/1/10 revealed the following physical restraints of Client #4 which exceeded 15 minutes:
9/19/09 at 7:30 PM for 30 minutes
9/20/09 at 4:00 PM for 30 minutes
9/20/09 at 5:50 PM for 48 minutes
9/22/09 at 8:30 PM for 45 minutes
9/23/09 at 12:15 PM for 30 minutes
9/23/09 at 1:00 PM for 30 minutes
9/29/09 at 4:10 PM for 20 minutes
1/15/10 at 5:11 PM for 28 minutes, and 34 seconds.
The review further revealed no documentation on the Physical Restraint Reports or on file elsewhere of authorization for restraints lasting longer than 15 minutes by the responsible professional (QP) or another qualified professional who is approved to use and to authorize the use of the restrictive intervention based on experience and training.
During interview with the Executive Director (ED) on 3/4/10, The ED was asked to locate and produce verification of authorization by a QP for physical restraints exceeding 15 minutes in length. She was unable to provide the requested verification. The ED acknowledged that staff were not seeking authorization from the QP for extended restraints.
From V 537 · 27E .0108 Client Rights - Training in Sec Rest & ITO:
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure physical restraint was employed only by staff who had been trained and had demonstrated competence in the proper use of and alternatives to these procedures, and were retrained and had demonstrated competence at least annually, effecting 1 of 4 client's audited (#4). The findings are.
A review of policy and procedures on 2/26/10 revealed the facility staff utilize the Crisis Prevention Intervention (CPI) system for employing physical restraints, and that physical restraints may be employed on an emergency basis, when a client provides a danger to himself or others, and inflicts significant property damage.
A review of incident reports on 3/1/10 revealed 3 incident reports describing the Facility Manager taking Client #4 to the ground twice during a single incident at approximately 4:30 PM on 12/23/09. Client #4 received a cut in his mouth as a result of a punch by the Facility Manager during the physical restraint. Further review of the incident reports also revealed the Facility Manager took the client down by"grabbing his collar and lowering him to the ground."
A review of staff personnel records on 3/1/10 revealed no evidence on file that the facility manager had participated and demonstrated competence in CPI Training between his hire date of 4/1/08 and January, 2010.
During interviews with staff conducted on 2/26/10 and 3/4/10, administrative staff were asked to locate and provide verification of training within a year prior to the 12/23/09 incident in CPI for the Facility Manager. Staff were unable to produce verification of the required training for the Facility Manager.
Interviews with Staff #1 and the Facility Manager on 2/26/10, and with Staff #2 on 3/4/10, confirmed that the Facility Manager actively participated in the restraint of Client #4 on 12/23/09, and that Client #4 was injured as a result of the Facility Manager's participation.The interview with the Facility Manager on 2/26/10 also revealed that the Facility Manager had received NCI training from a previous employer, but he was not current in any kind of restraint training at the time of the incident.
No wonder Joel, Che, DJ and all the other ex-staff here, are not staff any more. Most would have failed miserably in that altercation, tell me I'm wrong.
Having a kid bite, kick, punch and verbally assault you repetitively, DJ depending on how many staff are on duty, you don't get to always walk away.
No this is not black and white but will see when all the facts are on the table.
Really nice when you can sit back and arm chair quaterback situations like this.
-
1) Staff #1's incident report stated: "Client #4 grabbed the rope from Staff #2 and refused to let go. Client #4 then began to kick Staff #2 in the legs, bit and punched him (Staff #2) in the face and body. The Facility Manager attempted to verbally de-escalate Client #4 but was unsuccessful. Client #4 was taken to the ground by the Facility Manager and was assisted by Staff #1 and #2. Client #4 was released and immediately attacked the Facility Manager again. The facility Manager "took student (Client #4) to ground and punched [Client #4] in the lip." Staff #1 and #2 joined in a hold a second time. Client #4 was released a second time. Client #4 approached the Facility Manager a third time and continued to punch and kick. The Facility Manager attempted verbal de-escalation again and took Client #4 to the ground. Client #4 was released almost immediately."
Not sure why they were playing tug of war with a kid, they probably could have easily just let go of the rope, and backed away from the kid and let him have the rope.
2) Staff #2's incident report stated: "...Group was dropping near bear hang when [Client #4] refused to give bear rope to staff [Staff #1] and threatened to hit [Staff #1] in the face if he took it. [Staff #1] told student that he needed to take rope. [Client #4] then hit [Staff #1] in the face and continued a physical attack hitting, kicking, and biting [Staff #2]. [Staff #2] used deflection to avoid injury and tried to verbally de-escalate the situation. Staff [Facility Manager] was walking by and tried to verbally de-escalate student [Client #4]. [Client #4] said it was none of [Facility Manager] business and if he didn't leave then he [Client #4] would hit and kick [Facility Manager] was well. [Facility Manager] said he would not leave and that [Client #4] could not hurt staff at which time [Client #4] stopped hitting staff and began to kick and hit staff [Facility Manager]. [Facility Manager] told [Client #4] to stop hitting and kicking and when [Client #4] did not [Facility Manager] layed hands on [Client #4] grabbing his collar and lowering him to the ground. The time was 4:30 PM. Staff [Staff #2] intervened to separate staff and student taking control of student [Client #4's] legs to keep staff [Facility Manager] from getting kicked. [Staff #2] immediately called staff [Staff #1] to take control of [Client #4's] legs to allow him [Staff #2] to control [Client #4's] upper body to release staff [Facility Manager]. Staff [Facility Manager] did not release control so [Staff #2] called for a release. All staff released control. [Client #4] then continued to attack staff [Facility Manager] hitting and kicking. Staff [Staff #2] had called for support on the radio at 4:45 PM. Staff [Facility Manager] grabbed student [Client #4] by the collar of his shirt and quickly lowered him to the ground. Staff [Staff #2] attempted to intervene with staff [Staff #1] when [Staff #2] saw [Facility Manager] hit [Client #4] in the face after being hit by [Client #4]. [Staff #2] took control of [Client #4] with [Staff #1] assisting and observed that [Client #4] had blood in his mouth. Support showed up at this time. All staff released control of [Client #4]. [Client #4] then began to follow staff [Facility Manager] and attempt to assault him. The time was 5:15 PM. [Facility Manager] took [Client #4] by the shirt front again and pushed him to the ground, and then released him..."
Sounds to me like they all got pumped up way too quickly. The kid started with threatening to kick everyone's ass and at that point they all could have backed up and let him have the rope.
Hard to say from the content of the reports as neither of them give a reason as to why the staff members absolutely had to regain control of this bit of rope. From the sounds of it the rope might be one of those rope swing thingies and they were either worried about the kid trying to go tarzan on them or trying to hang himself. The reports should state the reasoning behind why it was necessary for the rope to be demanded from a kid who was threatening physical violence. Common sense dictates that when someone is saying, "Try to take it and i'll hit you," that you are inviting some sort of response when you tell them that you need to take the rope.
They may well have a reason for demanding it beyond enforcing the will of the program or screwing up and forgetting the basics of de-escalation. If they did have a reason it didn't show up in these two blurbs.
Incident seems fairly tame to me though. I can't remember ever needing 3 other people to restrain anyone.
-
The review further revealed no documentation on the Physical Restraint Reports or on file elsewhere of authorization for restraints lasting longer than 15 minutes by the responsible professional (QP) or another qualified professional who is approved to use and to authorize the use of the restrictive intervention based on experience and training.
During interview with the Executive Director (ED) on 3/4/10, The ED was asked to locate and produce verification of authorization by a QP for physical restraints exceeding 15 minutes in length. She was unable to provide the requested verification. The ED acknowledged that staff were not seeking authorization from the QP for extended restraints.
err.. so if you restrain him for 14 minutes, let him up.. restrain him all over again it is ok?
Gotcha.
-
1) Staff #1's incident report stated: "Client #4 grabbed the rope from Staff #2 and refused to let go. Client #4 then began to kick Staff #2 in the legs, bit and punched him (Staff #2) in the face and body. The Facility Manager attempted to verbally de-escalate Client #4 but was unsuccessful. Client #4 was taken to the ground by the Facility Manager and was assisted by Staff #1 and #2. Client #4 was released and immediately attacked the Facility Manager again. The facility Manager "took student (Client #4) to ground and punched [Client #4] in the lip." Staff #1 and #2 joined in a hold a second time. Client #4 was released a second time. Client #4 approached the Facility Manager a third time and continued to punch and kick. The Facility Manager attempted verbal de-escalation again and took Client #4 to the ground. Client #4 was released almost immediately."
Not sure why they were playing tug of war with a kid, they probably could have easily just let go of the rope, and backed away from the kid and let him have the rope.
2) Staff #2's incident report stated: "...Group was dropping near bear hang when [Client #4] refused to give bear rope to staff [Staff #1] and threatened to hit [Staff #1] in the face if he took it. [Staff #1] told student that he needed to take rope. [Client #4] then hit [Staff #1] in the face and continued a physical attack hitting, kicking, and biting [Staff #2]. [Staff #2] used deflection to avoid injury and tried to verbally de-escalate the situation. Staff [Facility Manager] was walking by and tried to verbally de-escalate student [Client #4]. [Client #4] said it was none of [Facility Manager] business and if he didn't leave then he [Client #4] would hit and kick [Facility Manager] was well. [Facility Manager] said he would not leave and that [Client #4] could not hurt staff at which time [Client #4] stopped hitting staff and began to kick and hit staff [Facility Manager]. [Facility Manager] told [Client #4] to stop hitting and kicking and when [Client #4] did not [Facility Manager] layed hands on [Client #4] grabbing his collar and lowering him to the ground. The time was 4:30 PM. Staff [Staff #2] intervened to separate staff and student taking control of student [Client #4's] legs to keep staff [Facility Manager] from getting kicked. [Staff #2] immediately called staff [Staff #1] to take control of [Client #4's] legs to allow him [Staff #2] to control [Client #4's] upper body to release staff [Facility Manager]. Staff [Facility Manager] did not release control so [Staff #2] called for a release. All staff released control. [Client #4] then continued to attack staff [Facility Manager] hitting and kicking. Staff [Staff #2] had called for support on the radio at 4:45 PM. Staff [Facility Manager] grabbed student [Client #4] by the collar of his shirt and quickly lowered him to the ground. Staff [Staff #2] attempted to intervene with staff [Staff #1] when [Staff #2] saw [Facility Manager] hit [Client #4] in the face after being hit by [Client #4]. [Staff #2] took control of [Client #4] with [Staff #1] assisting and observed that [Client #4] had blood in his mouth. Support showed up at this time. All staff released control of [Client #4]. [Client #4] then began to follow staff [Facility Manager] and attempt to assault him. The time was 5:15 PM. [Facility Manager] took [Client #4] by the shirt front again and pushed him to the ground, and then released him..."
Sounds to me like they all got pumped up way too quickly. The kid started with threatening to kick everyone's ass and at that point they all could have backed up and let him have the rope.
Hard to say from the content of the reports as neither of them give a reason as to why the staff members absolutely had to regain control of this bit of rope. From the sounds of it the rope might be one of those rope swing thingies and they were either worried about the kid trying to go tarzan on them or trying to hang himself. The reports should state the reasoning behind why it was necessary for the rope to be demanded from a kid who was threatening physical violence. Common sense dictates that when someone is saying, "Try to take it and i'll hit you," that you are inviting some sort of response when you tell them that you need to take the rope.
They may well have a reason for demanding it beyond enforcing the will of the program or screwing up and forgetting the basics of de-escalation. If they did have a reason it didn't show up in these two blurbs.
Incident seems fairly tame to me though. I can't remember ever needing 3 other people to restrain anyone.
I agree re. the personal dynamics before things got out of hand. This is why I have some serious questions as to what means of deescalation were involved, if any, and why I think the kid may have even felt provoked or goaded into an altercation.
It's really unclear as to why it was so damn necessary to insist that the kid do whatever with the rope, particularly since he gave ample warning of his annoyance and refusal to comply prior to the exchange becoming physical.
Nothing was mentioned in the Statement of Deficiencies (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=26502&start=45#p368695) regarding a safety concern that necessitated the kid's cooperation with the rope. And I kinda suspect that, had there been any, at least one if not all of the three staff involved would have mentioned it in their incident reports.
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
If the kid had just given the rope back this would have all been avoided.
If the kid had not resorted to physical violence then none of his would have ever occurred.
The staff fill out reports for just about everything even if a kid trips and scraps his knee. Anyone who worked for a program, daycare etc. that deals with kids knows this. They also typically get a verbal from the other kids just to verify everything. Very little goes on that doesn't get documented.
-
Ehh, that's why they should have asked the staff involved the following question, "Was the the immediate health and safety of the the resident involved at harm of serious injury or death?" I already know what happened here, it was a power struggle gone bad. Such is wont to happen in just about every corner of the world. Personally, I find the whole issue bizarre in the sense that the state is whining at the program for not having trained people to do restraints over 15 minutes long.
Seems to me the state has its priorities completely backwards. Rather than the total time of certain restraints, they should be concerned about the number of restraints for one individual and they should be asking some hard questions about the handling of this individual. It may well be the kid is just one crazy little bastard. There are those out there that are practically uncontrollable no matter who is working with them in what setting. I've dealt with a few of those and believe me, they definitely make your day way more interesting.
However, regardless of how violent the youth is for whatever reason, the program is the responsible party. They are the ones obligated to find ways to deal with this youth that are nonviolent. Restraining a kid is a violent means of suppressing a behavior. There is no nice way to dance around the issue of a restraint. Many systems try to color it up as a means of "assisting a client in a physical means to help them control their behavior". However, the reality of the issue is a restraint is nothing more than that good old fashion exertion of physical force upon a person. Once you go down the road of a restraint you take the risk of killing the kid or injuring him.
This seems to be overlooked in their report.
Just seems to me the state investigators are worried more about stupid shit like having restraints last more than 15 minutes, when it appears the easy way around that one is to restrain a kid for 15 minutes, let him up, and then do it all over again. Seems to me they ought to be taking more of an interesting in the actual number of holds for one specific resident rather than the procedural rigamarole of not having trained professionals who are certified to conduct a hold that lasts over 15 minutes.
I guess when you get right down to it this is why I don't trust or support crap like HR 911. Too many obvious bus sized loopholes.
-
Fwiw, here are some other URLs apparently registered to TRAILS Carolinas:
http://trailscarolina.com/ (http://trailscarolina.com/)
• http://trailsinstitute.com/ (http://trailsinstitute.com/)
• http://www.trailsadult.com/ (http://www.trailsadult.com/)
• http://www.trailsadult.org/ (http://www.trailsadult.org/)
• http://www.trailsadult.net/ (http://www.trailsadult.net/)
• http://www.trailsadultprogram.net/ (http://www.trailsadultprogram.net/)
• http://trailscamp.com/ (http://trailscamp.com/)
• http://www.kamptrails.com/ (http://www.kamptrails.com/)[/list]
-
Here's a Visit Report by Lon, done prior to the alleged client abuse/injury event described at length above, and yet not posted on his site 'till after Trails Carolina was able to graduate the kid in question. Interesting timing, perhaps...
-------------- • -------------- • --------------
Visit Reports
Posted: Jan 19, 2010 11:15
TRAILS CAROLINA WILDERNESS THERAPY PROGRAM (http://http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/TrailsCarolinaWildernessVR_100113.shtml)
Lake Toxaway, NC
Mark Oerther
Director of Admissions
888-387-2457
http://www.trailscarolina.com (http://www.trailscarolina.com)
Visit by Lon Woodbury, November 10, 2009
Nestled in a secluded valley in North Carolina on 33 rural acres, this wilderness therapy program at first glance presents a very pastoral picture. Even the old buildings look rustic rather than run down (It used to be a summer camp). I understand the stream running through their property contains trout, and I was surprised that it ran clear and you could see the bottom, contrary to most rivers and streams I've seen in the South. Their horses were friendly, gentle and well fed, and like just about every North Carolina rural property I have ever seen, it has a pond, which is just below the main Lodge.
We had a chance to talk with some of the students, and they looked alert, were friendly and obviously getting a lot out of their experience there. One of the boys did a demonstration in handling a horse, explaining every step of how he could control the horse without touching it but simply with body and hand signals. He was the one who, when he arrived, was afraid of horses and the most he could see ever accomplishing would be to someday pet a horse. When asked, all the boys agreed that their horse had become one of their best friends.
The girls were equally impressive. They were open and outgoing. One girl had been there 104 days (close to a record) and had what is sometimes called a "wilderness glow." She had considerable and serious personal problems before arriving, and it seemed to me that she felt so much better about herself from her experience that she couldn't help but sport a bright smile that seemed quite genuine.
The program is a minimum of 28 days, but most students take longer before they are ready to move on to either a boarding school or home. The property I described above operates as a base, but the students spend most of their time in the field, hiking and camping in the surrounding national forest lands. Part of the curriculum is basic wilderness skills such as starting a fire with a bow drill (which teaches persistence) and other wilderness skills that teach self reliance and team-work. But this is just the surface.
The whole program draws on multiple elements, each of which can be drawn on to match the individual needs of the students. In addition to the wilderness therapy experience, which itself is a powerful change element, the students have regular sessions with the therapists, equine therapy and a generic positive peer culture, as opposed to the text book Positive Peer Culture (PPC). In addition the program adds a sophisticated approach to experiential academics which supplements their wilderness and outdoor experience in a way to relate academic topics such as biology, history, etc., to what the students are doing in their day to day program. I had a chance to visit with the Academic Dean and his creative ability to "think outside the box" is impressive. The program is registered as a non-public school by the state of North Carolina, and students can earn up five credits during their time there. In addition to being a non-public school, the program is licensed as a Therapeutic Habilative Facility and a Mental Health Program by the state of North Carolina.
All groups are single sex, and the optimum size is fairly small, consisting of 6 to 8 students. This enhances their ability to develop an individualized program to meet the varying needs of each student. They have a girls group, a boys group and a young boys group. Since it is individualized, the groups can be equally effective when the groups are smaller than the optimum when enrollments dictate smaller groups.
A lot of emphasis is made to carrying out a parallel program for parents. This includes weekly parent conference calls which include all the parents associated with a specific student group, and at least two on-campus parent seminars during a child's stay. The staff reported that a frequent remark by graduating students is how much their parents had changed while the student had been in the program. This success was explained by two things: (1) the parents develop a peer group of their own for support at the same time the students are developing their peer group, and (2) the focus of the parent on-campus seminars and weekly phone conferences are to look at the parents' patterns and how to make them more supportive of what their children need. From comments by graduating students and their parents, it seems to be working.
The program is about ready to celebrate their first anniversary and has obviously come a long way in a short year. By the way, the name "TRAILS" stands for Trust, Respect, Accountability, Integrity, Leadership and Service. The name itself is a good description of what this wilderness therapy program is trying to teach their students.
Copyright ©2010, Woodbury Reports, Inc.
-
Any updates on this shithole facility with the shitbag child-punching staff?
-
Any updates on this shithole facility with the shitbag child-punching staff?
Your higher education really shines though when we have you on the ropes DJ. What was that again a PhD? Whoops lol.
...
-
It is what it is.
I try to keep it simple for those of you who can't understand basic concepts like the word "all" meaning "100%". I try not to flex my vocabulary on functional illiterates such as you.
Sooo...any updates on this shithole and the shitbag that likes to punch kids in the face as "treatment"?
-
Sheriff: Teens broke into homes, stole guns after leaving camp (http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/26658999/transylvania-co-deputies-search-for-runaway-teens)
By Joseph Pereira and Casey Vaughn, Fox Carolina, September 30 2014
BREVARD, NC (FOX Carolina) - Transylvania County Sheriff David Mahoney said two teens who ran away from a camp on Monday night were taken into custody on Tuesday afternoon and face several charges after breaking into unoccupied homes.
Deputies said the boys, 15 and 16, left from Trails Carolina, a wilderness therapy camp for adolescents, and were believed to be involved in several burglaries. Sheriff David Mahoney said they believe the teens have broken into three local homes. Joe Owen, who owns a fish hatchery on Silversteen Road, told FOX Carolina he saw the teens in his truck before they took off.
The Lake Toxaway Fire Department, Transylvania County Sheriff's Office and the Transylvania County Emergency Management Office were involved in the search.
Monday night, officials said 30 people were involved in the search that covered about 25 square miles. Crews were still out searching Tuesday morning.
Deputies said reverse 911 calls went out to the community and K-9s were brought in to assist in the search.
Mahoney said the boys were spotted during their search and arrested without incident during the afternoon on Tuesday.
"The amount of cooperation between law enforcement and first responders was incredible," said Mahoney. "When the call went out, responders came rushing in. I could not be prouder of the men and women from our area that I have the opportunity to serve with. They did a phenomenal job under a great deal of stress."
He said the investigation is ongoing. Both teens were charged with two counts of felony breaking and entering, one count of felony larceny, one count of felony larceny of a firearm, and two counts of injury to personal property.
In addition to the Transylvania County Sheriff's Office, the Brevard Police Department, Hendersonville Police Department, Henderson County Sheriff's Office Jackson County Sheriff's Office, North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation, North Carolina Highway Patrol, US Forest Service Law Enforcement, Transylvania County Emergency Management, Brevard Rescue Squad and the Lake Toxaway Fire Department helped in the search.
-
i guess they are serious about not going back.
-
Sheriff: Teens broke into homes, stole guns after leaving camp (http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/26658999/transylvania-co-deputies-search-for-runaway-teens)
By Joseph Pereira and Casey Vaughn, Fox Carolina, September 30 2014
BREVARD, NC (FOX Carolina) - Transylvania County Sheriff David Mahoney said two teens who ran away from a camp on Monday night were taken into custody on Tuesday afternoon and face several charges after breaking into unoccupied homes.
Deputies said the boys, 15 and 16, left from Trails Carolina, a wilderness therapy camp for adolescents, and were believed to be involved in several burglaries. Sheriff David Mahoney said they believe the teens have broken into three local homes. Joe Owen, who owns a fish hatchery on Silversteen Road, told FOX Carolina he saw the teens in his truck before they took off.
The Lake Toxaway Fire Department, Transylvania County Sheriff's Office and the Transylvania County Emergency Management Office were involved in the search.
Monday night, officials said 30 people were involved in the search that covered about 25 square miles. Crews were still out searching Tuesday morning.
Deputies said reverse 911 calls went out to the community and K-9s were brought in to assist in the search.
Mahoney said the boys were spotted during their search and arrested without incident during the afternoon on Tuesday.
"The amount of cooperation between law enforcement and first responders was incredible," said Mahoney. "When the call went out, responders came rushing in. I could not be prouder of the men and women from our area that I have the opportunity to serve with. They did a phenomenal job under a great deal of stress."
He said the investigation is ongoing. Both teens were charged with two counts of felony breaking and entering, one count of felony larceny, one count of felony larceny of a firearm, and two counts of injury to personal property.
In addition to the Transylvania County Sheriff's Office, the Brevard Police Department, Hendersonville Police Department, Henderson County Sheriff's Office Jackson County Sheriff's Office, North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation, North Carolina Highway Patrol, US Forest Service Law Enforcement, Transylvania County Emergency Management, Brevard Rescue Squad and the Lake Toxaway Fire Department helped in the search.
-
Boy went missing around November 10. Now his body has sadly been found. A real tragedy for his mother who lost a son some years ago and now another because an educational consultant should get his referal fee. I hope the mother sues the educational consultant.
Body Found in Jackson County Susupected to be that of Missing Teen (http://wlos.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/body-found-jackson-county-susupected-missing-teen-18625.shtml)
WLOS news, November 23 - 2014
JACKSON COUNTY, N.C. -- Officials with the Jackson County Sheriff's office tell us they found a body in the Nantahala National Forest which they believe is that of 17 year old Alec Lansing. They say searchers found the Body in a remote section of the forest. Deputies are continuing to investigate the death and have requested an autopsy. Lansing has been missing since November 10, 2014.
Body found Saturday in search for missing teen (http://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2014/11/22/body-found-saturday-search-missing-teen/19421933/)
by Mark Barrett, Citizen-Times.com, November 22, 2014
Western North Carolina saw exceptionally cold temperatures during much of the period Alec Lansing was missing.
CASHIERS – Searchers found at midday Saturday what they believe is the body of an Atlanta teenager who had been missing since Monday in a remote area of Nantahala National Forest in southern Jackson County, the county sheriff's office said.
Alec Sanford Lansing, 17, had been camping with a group from Trails Carolina, an organization based in Lake Toxaway that provides wilderness therapy for youths with a range of problems.
A cause of death has not yet been determined but there is no sign of foul play, said Major Shannon Queen with the sheriff's office.
Western North Carolina saw unusually cold temperatures during much of the period Lansing was missing.
Lansing had walked away from a counselor during the trip, the sheriff's office said, and Queen said Saturday that the body was found "fairly close" to where the Trails Carolina group had been.
The terrain in the area off Heady Mountain Road, off N.C. 107 a few miles south of Cashiers, is "rugged and treacherous," Queen said, so much so that searchers considered summoning a helicopter to remove the body.
About 80-100 searchers were looking for Lansing Saturday, Queen said, after county officials issued a special call to law enforcement and emergency management agencies around WNC for help with the search.
-
Hey, parents! You keep sendin' em, I'll keep pilin' em!
-
It was a slow death freezing to death. Terrible:
Autopsy: Missing teen fell, broke hip, died of hypothermia (http://www.wyff4.com/news/autopsy-missing-teen-died-of-hypothermia-hip-was-broken/29926220)
WYFF 4 news, Nov 25, 2014
Teen walked away from wilderness therapy camp
Sylva, NC —The body of an Atlanta teen was found over the weekend in Western North Carolina.
Alec Lansing,17, had been missing since November 10.
The Jackson County Sheriff's Office said the teen walked away from from a wilderness therapy camp called "Trails Carolina."
The sheriff's office said Alec had been seen by a convenience store clerk a few miles away from the camp. But they were unable to confirm the clerk had actually seen Alec because of technical difficulties with the store's video equipment.
A massive search effort was held for Alec. State officials conducting nearby cold weather exercises volunteered in the search effort, but they were still unable to find the teen.
Alec's body was found in a stream on Saturday.
Investigators believe he climbed a tree and fell into the stream below, breaking his hip in the process.
Authorities said Alec was unable to move afterward because of the broken hip.
An autopsy conducted Monday revealed Alec died from hypothermia.
-
Death of 12-Year-Old at North Carolina Nature-Based Therapy Program Under Investigation (https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/north-carolina/articles/2024-02-06/death-of-12-year-old-at-north-carolina-nature-based-therapy-program-under-investigation)
LAKE TOXAWAY, N.C. (AP) ? Authorities in western North Carolina said they were investigating the death of a boy at a nature-based therapy program over the weekend.
The Transylvania County Sheriff?s Office was investigating the death of the juvenile from Trails Carolina in Lake Toxaway on Saturday, Sheriff Chuck Owenby said in an email Tuesday. The investigation was previously reported by WLOS-TV. Authorities were awaiting the results of an autopsy and don't plan to release further information at this time, Owenby said.
Staff at Trails Carolina called 911 around 8 a.m. Saturday when a 12-year-old student who had enrolled the day before did not respond to attempts to wake him and emergency personnel could not resuscitate him, the program said in a statement. Trails Carolina is cooperating with investigators and has retained outside professionals to help conduct an internal investigation, the program said.
?We are shattered by the tragic loss of a young life and our deepest sympathies are with the student's family and loved ones,? the program said in its statement. ?Our priority is to acknowledge and respect the unfathomable impact on their lives and maintain the integrity of the investigation into the cause.?
Trails Carolina, which is located about 35 miles (56 kilometers) southwest of Asheville, describes itself as a nature-based therapy program that helps 10- to 17-year-olds ?work through behavioral or emotional difficulties, build trusting relationships with their family and peers, and achieve academic success.?