#cal osha compliance training | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

injuriesreduced-blog · 5 years

Text

MIPP Matters to Hotels in California and it Should Matter to You too.

First and foremost MIPP is an acronym formulated by the State of California which stands for "Musculoskeletal Injury Prevention Program". We have our own MIPP you can adopt now.

With summer coming to an end and still many making plans to travel to California to take in the best natural and historical sites this side west of the Mississippi, the hotel industry will reach peak capacity as families, backpackers, couples and all wanderlust travelers book up their travel plans in the coming months.

For the hotel industry, business isn’t just good ‐ it’s great. But with occupancy rates climbing higher each year, the hotel industry struggles to maintain the staffing it needs to ensure smooth operations and to meet growing demand for rooms and beds. But with these increased demands, hotel operators and owners must heed Cal/OSHA’s recent regulations requiring them to address the types of repetitive motions and stress‐related injuries commonly sustained by housekeepers. The new law requires employers to implement a written policy and undertake a site‐specific, initial worksite evaluation to identify and address the types of musculoskeletal injuries housekeepers may sustain in their jobs. On top of these regulations, several cities within California, including Oakland and Long Beach, have proposed measures taking these requirements one step further. For instance, Oakland’s initiative, titled “Measure Z,” creates a number of key restrictions on the amount of work a housekeeping employee can perform, including restrictions on the number of hours, square footage they can clean in a day which itself can vary based on the number of rooms they clean in a shift. For the text of Measure Z, click on the link below:

https://www.acvote.org/acvote%E2%80%90assets/02_election_information/PDFs/20181106/en/Measures/22%20%E2%80%90%20Measure%20Z%20%E2%80%90%20City%20of%20Oakland.pdf

Where does one start to ensure compliance with these requirements? With little guidance from the bodies that enacted the ordinance, ensuring compliance can be a confusing undertaking even for the most experienced hotel operators. Keeping this in mind, on the next page we have included a few tips to start thinking about your operations and how they fit within the larger scheme of the new ordinances.

Get a handle of the square footage you’re working with...

Review the drawings of your facility. Create a plan for how you can divide up to the 4,000 square feet requirement. Call each divided spot a “Zone” and assign employees their designated zone. If one zone is undersold or has less turnover in a day, have that employee assist another employee in a zone that is overbooked. Although this may be a bit of a chess game, it is a good start to see how to work the board to ensure your employees are working within requirements.

Evaluate the tasks performed by housekeeping employees...

It’s important to evaluate and understand what types of tasks each housekeeping employee accomplishes on a daily basis. Oftentimes housekeeping employees are engaged in a variety of different tasks when they turn over a room. Some housekeepers are also tasked with cleaning some general areas like the bathrooms, the lobby, or conference rooms. But if an employee performs just one or two tasks throughout the day, the risk of a musculoskeletal injury is much higher because of the repetition in performing the same tasks and reduced range of motion required of them. Consider breaking up the employee’s tasks so that they are not focused on long‐term, repetitive motions.

Do you have the right number of staff?

The number of housekeeping staff is critical. As a rule of thumb, if housekeeping employees need to clean more than 4,000 square feet on a routine basis, you probably don’t have enough staff. Of course there are challenges with people calling in sick, the number of rooms that need to be turned over and other elements that may make it infeasible to ensure employees are cleaning less than 4,000 square feet every day. Having on‐call employees or part‐time employees fill in may be a helpful option.

Consider these tips as you contemplate your staffing needs for the summer. Of course, these tips are not intended to be legal advice, and you should consult with an attorney experienced in Cal/OSHA law.

To find out more about Worksite Evaluations and Risk Assessments, Effective MIPP Training and Compliance Solutions, contact Team Accurate by clicking on our logo below.

#riskassessment #injuriesreduced #injury #injuryprevention

0 notes

frclothings · 5 years

Text

The Significance of Electric Arc Flash Protection Clothing

Arc flash is the exposure to the massive thermal energy released by an arc fault. All employees who work around energized electrical equipment (electricians, maintenance workers, operators, etc.) may get affected by an arc flash occurrence. Arc flashes are a primary hazard in the following types of industries: oil and gas, utility, solar, and wind power generation, paper and pulp manufacturers, hospitals, universities and colleges, food processing and packaging plants, breweries, bakeries, and dairies.

The four dangerous elements of an arc flash are: enormous light, pressure wave, acoustic energy, and thermal energy. An arc flash blast usually lasts less than a second, and leads to an outburst and a flash fire. A flash fire is a rapid moving flame that can be caused by diffuse fuel, such as dust, gas, or a vapour of a flammable liquid. All the five elements must be present in order to produce a flash fire: fuel, a source of ignition, oxygen, a constricted space, and combustion (the action of heating a substance until it burns away rapidly). When a worker is close to the location where the mishap happens, serious burns and even death can occur.

The NFPA 70E Standard demands that all employees wear arc-rated clothing “wherever there is possible submission to an arc flash above the threshold incident-energy level for a second degree burn.”

In order to find the proper Arc Flash clothing for your demand, you have to perform risk assessment to find out what hazards exist at your work place. You also should check if safety ratings of PPE you plan to provide for your workers are in line with the OSHA requirements. It is important for everyone’s knowledge that all arc-rated garments are also flame-resistant, but not all flame-resistant garments are arc-rated. When wearing multiple layers of arc flash safety clothes, it is important to calculate the combined arc-rating of your full outfit to ensure compliance with the NFPA 70E Standard.

Wearing arc-rated garments and PPE is the ultimate line of defence against severe injuries that may be caused by an arc flash. OSHA’s 1910.132 regulation states that “the protective equipment which includes personal protective equipment, shall be provided by the employer at no cost to employees”.

You should always train your team on how to wear their arc-rated PPE properly. The clothing has to be sized properly and be comfortable. The ability to quickly remove clothing that catches fire is also vital as it can prevent the person wearing it from getting severely burned or simply killed.

Specially designed Arc protective Clothing from TaraSafe® will help insulate the wearer from heat, resist breaking open of garment and will not ignite or continue to burn when exposed to a high intensity, short duration explosion and electric arc fire. We offer Arc Rated clothing providing protection from 8 - 40 cal/cm2.

For more information visit our website: www.tarasafe.com

About TaraSafe

TaraSafe® specializes in conceptualizing, designing and producing high quality Protective Clothing for various end applications. Today Tarasafe® is the largest manufacturer and supplier of Flame Resistant protective clothing in India, with the distinction of successfully executing supplies of these special garments to various Indian industry giants in the Oil and Metal industries.

Company Name: Tarasafe International Pvt.Ltd.

Address: Dutta Properties, Budge Budge Trunk Road, P.O. Govindapur, P.S. Maheshtala Kolkata - 700 141, West Bengal, India

Tel: +91-33-2492-9410/ 7998

Email: [email protected]

Url: https://www.tarasafe.com

#tarasafe

0 notes

buynsellsolar-blog · 5 years

Text

Anaheim installer Nexus Energy Systems cited by OSHA for fall protection violations

New Post published on http://roofnrays.com/anaheim-installer-nexus-energy-systems-cited-by-osha-for-fall-protection-violations/

Anaheim installer Nexus Energy Systems cited by OSHA for fall protection violations

Cal/OSHA has cited an Anaheim solar panel installation company $193,905 for multiple serious workplace safety hazards including one willful serious accident-related violation, following an investigation of a worker who was seriously injured after they fell from the roof of an Oakland home. Cal/OSHA determined that Nexus Energy Systems did not provide required fall protection for its workers.

On December 6, three installers were working to install solar panels at the Oakland residence when one of the workers lost his footing and fell 15 feet onto the concrete driveway, suffering a broken wrist and jaw. None of the workers were wearing fall protection.

“Falls from roofs are often deadly, and that is why employers must protect their employees from fall hazards and provide effective training,” said Cal/OSHA deputy chief of enforcement Debra Lee. “This employer was aware of these dangers and ignored its responsibility to address them.”

Cal/OSHA cited Nexus Energy Systems for five violations, three of which were related to the December accident. The violations include:

A willful serious accident-related violation as the employer failed to provide fall protection.

Two serious violations for the employer’s failure to provide training and ensure compliance with fall protection measures.

Two general violations for the employer’s failure to implement an effective heat illness protection plan and an injury and illness prevention program that identifies and corrects hazards specific to the worksite.

Cal/OSHA also cited the employer for two additional violations stemming from an incident that investigators learned had taken place the previous September, when a worker suffered electrical burns while connecting solar panels to an energized breaker box. Cal/OSHA noted one serious continuing violation for failing to provide insulated gloves or tools while working on energized equipment, and a general violation for the employer’s failure to investigate the industrial accident and take measures to correct safety hazards.

A violation is classified as serious when there is a realistic possibility that death or serious harm could result from the actual hazard created by the violation, and violations are classified as accident-related when the injury, illness or fatality is caused by the violation. A willful violation is cited when the employer is aware of the law and violates it nevertheless, or when the employer is aware of the hazardous condition and takes no reasonable steps to address it.

All employers in California are required to have an effective written injury and illness prevention program, a safety program to identify, assess and control hazards in the workplace. Cal/OSHA has online tools and publications to guide employers on how to establish an effective safety program. Cal/OSHA’s resources on fall protection include a safety and health factsheet, residential fall protection training and a construction safety pocket guide.

News item from the California Department of Industrial Relations; Cal/OSHA

0 notes

forensiceyes · 5 years

Text

California Cannabis: Breaking Down the CDPH Permanent Regulations

The State of California finally adopted permanent cannabis regulations earlier this month. In a series of posts, we’re going to cover the highlights of each agency’s permanent rules so that you know what big changes to expect during 2019. This post will cover the main changes (in our opinion) regarding the California Department of Public Health Manufactured Cannabis Safety Branch’s (“CDPH-MCSB”) permanent regs. Without further ado:

No more Farm Bill hemp-CBD ingredients or additives. It’s no secret that the California Department of Health Food and Drug Branch (“FDB”) has an issue with hemp-CBD. Specifically, an FAQ that issued from FDB last year made clear that FDB prohibits hemp-CBD in “Food” for humans and pets. Now, CDPH-MCSB is following suit (indirectly). Pursuant to new regulation 40175(c), “a manufacturer licensee shall only use cannabinoid concentrates and extracts that are manufactured or processed from cannabis obtained from a licensed cannabis cultivator.” What this means is that using Farm Bill hemp-CBD as an ingredient or addictive to cannabis manufactured products is not allowed unless it comes from a licensed cannabis cultivator. The protections of the Farm Bill won’t apply.

Owners and financial interest holders. I recently wrote about how it’s unclear as to how far the state will now go in finding and vetting entity owners and entity financial interest holders, especially since the Bureau of Cannabis Control (“BCC”) articulates in its rules that it intends to locate and vet every human possible in pretty much any ownership structure. But what about MCSB? MCSB entity owner regulations now state that “if the owner . . . is an entity, then the chief executive officer and members of the board of directors of the entity shall be considered owners,” and for financial interest holders, MCSB rules mandate only that “financial interest holders shall be disclosed on the application for licensure.” On balance, the BCC’s owner and financial interest holder rules are much more aggressive than MCSB, and the BCC’s comments to its owner and financial interest holder rules was that all agencies would apply the same standards for vetting. However, this clearly isn’t going to be the case if stakeholders go off of a plain reading of the law. Though it will be strange, the MCSB will very likely stick to its minimal vetting requirements while the BCC goes full bore on retailer, distributor, and lab owners and financial interest holders.

Changes in ownership. Again in contrast with the BCC, the MSCB is going to be much easier on changes in ownership of licensees. Under BCC regulations, if there’s a full buy-out of all existing owners, the entity can no longer operate while the change of ownership is being reviewed and processed by the BCC. The MCSB however has no such standard, at least not one that’s codified under the new regs. Specifically, for any changes of ownership or changes to financial interest holders, the MCSB expects the following protocol:

“The licensee shall notify the [MCSB] of the addition or removal of an owner through [the agency’s online system] within 10 calendar days of the change; Any new owner shall submit the information required [by law]; The [MCSB] shall review the qualifications of the new owner in accordance with [state law] and these regulations to determine whether the change would constitute grounds for denial of the license. The [MCSB] may approve the addition of the owner, deny the addition of the owner, or condition the license as appropriate, to be determined on a case-by-case basis; An owner shall notify the [MCSB] through [the state agency’s online system] of any change in their owner information . . . within 10 calendar days of the change; and a licensee shall notify the [MCSB] through [the state’s online system] of any change in the list of financial interest holders . . . within 10 calendar days of the change.”

Labeling. Labeling is still just as intense and comprehensive as it was under the emergency regulations. Now though, manufacturers need to ensure that, if a product container is separable from the outer-most packaging (e.g., a container placed inside of a box), the product container includes the following: (1) For edible cannabis products, topical cannabis products, suppositories, or orally-consumed concentrates, all information required for the primary panel except for cannabinoid content, and (2) for inhaled products (e.g., dab, shatter, and wax), the universal symbol (which is the black triangle with a cannabis leaf and an “!” with “CA” underneath). We also now (finally) have specific labeling requirements for pre-roll and packaged flower that didn’t exist before outside of the statute, itself. Overall, there are additional technical change requirements for labeling, including the weight of the product now needing to be in metric and U.S. customary units, specific labeling for flavoring in line with federal law, and more specific labeling restrictions for cannabinoid content.

Packaging. Until 2020, manufacturers are off the hook for providing child resistant packaging (“CRP”). Until then, retailers will bear the burden of CRP through the continued use of CRP exit packaging. Once CRP for manufacturers kicks in though, they’ll need to adhere to a litany of requirements, including compliance with the Poison Prevention Packaging Act of 1970 Regulations.

New product definitions. Via the permanent regulations, MCSB has introduced a number of newly defined terms, which is ultimately better for licensees so that confusion doesn’t abound as product development continues. For example, we now have as recognized definitions like:

“Infused pre-roll,” which means “a pre-roll into which cannabis concentrate (other than kief) or other ingredients have been incorporated”;

“Kief,” which means “the resinous trichomes of cannabis that have been separated from the cannabis plant”; and

“Orally-consumed concentrate,” which means “a cannabis concentrate that is intended to be consumed by mouth and is not otherwise an edible cannabis product. ‘Orally-consumed concentrate’ includes tinctures, capsules, and tablets . . .”

OSHA training. Given that cannabis remains federally illegal, people often think that violating one federal law somehow gives you a license to violate every federal law, which is entirely untrue. Under the permanent MCSB regulations:

“for an applicant entity with more than one employee, the applicant employs, or will employ within one year of receiving a license, one supervisor and one employee who have successfully completed a Cal/OSHA 30-hour general industry outreach course offered by a training provider that is authorized by an OSHA Training Institute Education Center to provide the course.”

Clearly, safety and federal compliance in the workplace still applies, even to cannabis operators, which is now demoralized under the permanent MCSB rules.

Changes to operations that now require state approval. As the state moves along with licensing and enforcement, it was inevitable that certain licensee actions would first require state approval. What this usually means is that major changes to your business or SOPs can’t go down without the state’s blessing, which can take weeks or months to secure. Specifically, for the MCSB, licensees will now have to report to and clear with the state the following action items before the licensee pulls the trigger on them (all to the tune of a $700 change application fee, which is non-refundable):

the addition of any closed-loop extraction method;

the addition of any other extraction method that necessitates a substantial or material alteration of the premises;

the addition of infusion operations if no infusion activity is listed in the current license application on file with the [MCSB] (you’ll also have to tell the state about “any changes to the product list on file with the [MCSB] and provide a new product list within 10 business days of making any change” to the products you’re making”); or

a substantial or material alteration of the licensed premises from the current premises diagram on file with the [MCSB].

Importantly, a “substantial or material alteration” includes: “the removal, creation, or relocation of an entryway, doorway, wall, or interior partition; a change in the type of activity conducted in, or the use of, an area identified in the premises diagram; or remodeling of the premises or portion of the premises in which manufacturing activities are conducted.” Be advised!

California Cannabis: Breaking Down the CDPH Permanent Regulations posted first on http://ronenkurzfeld.blogspot.com

0 notes

centuryassociates · 5 years

Text

California Cannabis: Breaking Down the CDPH Permanent Regulations

“Infused pre-roll,” which means “a pre-roll into which cannabis concentrate (other than kief) or other ingredients have been incorporated”;

“Kief,” which means “the resinous trichomes of cannabis that have been separated from the cannabis plant”; and

Clearly, safety and federal compliance in the workplace still applies, even to cannabis operators, which is now demoralized under the permanent MCSB rules.

the addition of any closed-loop extraction method;

the addition of any other extraction method that necessitates a substantial or material alteration of the premises;

a substantial or material alteration of the licensed premises from the current premises diagram on file with the [MCSB].

California Cannabis: Breaking Down the CDPH Permanent Regulations posted first on https://centuryassociates.blogspot.com/

0 notes

stephenmccull · 4 years

Text

Hospitals, Nursing Homes Fail to Separate COVID Patients, Putting Others at Risk

Nurses at Alta Bates Summit Medical Center were on edge as early as March when patients with COVID-19 began to show up in areas of the hospital that were not set aside to care for them.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had advised hospitals to isolate COVID patients to limit staff exposure and help conserve high-level personal protective equipment that’s been in short supply.

Yet COVID patients continued to be scattered through the Oakland hospital, according to complaints to California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health. The concerns included the sixth-floor medical unit where veteran nurse Janine Paiste-Ponder worked.

COVID patients on that floor were not staying in their rooms, either confused or uninterested in the rules. Staff was not provided highly protective N95 respirators, said Mike Hill, a nurse in the hospital intensive care unit and the hospital’s chief representative for the California Nurses Association, which filed complaints to Cal/OSHA, the state’s workplace safety regulator.

“It was just a matter of time before one of the nurses died on one of these floors,” Hill said.

Two nurses fell ill, including Paiste-Ponder, 59, who died of complications from the virus on July 17.

The concerns raised in Oakland also have swept across the U.S., according to interviews, a review of government workplace safety complaints and health facility inspection reports. A KHN investigation found that dozens of nursing homes and hospitals ignored official guidelines to separate COVID patients from those without the coronavirus, in some places fueling its spread and leaving staff unprepared and infected or, in some cases, dead.

As recently as July, a National Nurses United survey of more than 21,000 nurses found that 32% work in a facility that does not have a dedicated COVID unit. At that time, the coronavirus had reached all but 17 U.S. counties, data collected by Johns Hopkins University shows.

KHN discovered that COVID victims have been commingled with uninfected patients in health care facilities in states including California, Florida, New Jersey, Iowa, Ohio, Maryland and New York.

A COVID-19 outbreak was in full swing at the New Jersey Veterans Home at Paramus in late April when health inspectors observed residents with dementia mingling in a day room — COVID-positive patients as well as others awaiting test results. At the time, the center had already reported COVID infections among 119 residents and 46 virus-related deaths, according to a Medicare inspection report.

The assistant director of nursing at an Iowa nursing home insisted April 28 that they did “not have any COVID in the building” and overrode the orders of a community doctor to isolate several patients with fevers and falling oxygen levels, an inspection report shows.

By mid-May, the facility’s COVID log showed 61 patients with the virus and nine dead.

Federal work-safety officials have closed at least 30 complaints about patient mixing in hospitals nationwide without issuing a citation. They include a claim that a Michigan hospital kept patients who tested negative for the virus in the COVID unit in May. An upstate New York hospital also had COVID patients in the same unit as those with no infection, according to a closed complaint to the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Federal Health and Human Services officials have called on hospitals to tell them each day if they have a patient who came in without COVID-19 but had an apparent or confirmed case of the coronavirus 14 days later. Hospitals filed 48,000 reports from June 21 through Aug. 28, though the number reflects some double or additional counting of individual patients.

COVID patients have been mixed in with others for a variety of reasons. Some hospitals report having limited tests, so patients carrying the virus are identified only after they had already exposed others. In other cases, they had false-negative test results or their facility was dismissive of federal guidelines, which carry no force of law.

And while federal Medicare officials have inspected nearly every U.S. nursing home in recent months and states have occasionally levied fines and cut off new admissions for isolation lapses, hospitals have seen less scrutiny.

The Scene Inside Sutter

At Alta Bates in Oakland, part of the Sutter Health network, hospital staff made it clear in official complaints to Cal/OSHA that they wanted administrators to follow the state’s unique law on aerosol-transmitted diseases. From the start, some staffers wanted all the state-required protections for a virus that has been increasingly shown to be transmitted by tiny particles that float through the air.

The regulations call for patients with a virus like COVID-19 to be moved to a specialized unit within five hours of identification — or to a specialized facility. The rules say those patients should be in a room with a HEPA filter or with negative air pressure, meaning that air is circulated out a window or exhaust fan instead of drifting into the hallway.

Initially, in March, the hospital outfitted a 40-bed COVID unit, according to Hill. But when a surge of patients failed to materialize, that unit was pared to 12 beds.

Since then, a steady stream of virus patients have been admitted, he said, many testing positive only days after admission — and after they’d been in regular rooms in the facility.

From March 10 through July 30, Hill’s union and others filed eight complaints to Cal/OSHA, including allegations that the hospital failed to follow isolation rules for COVID patients, some on the cancer floor.

So far, regulators have done little. Gov. Gavin Newsom had ordered workplace safety officials to “focus on … supporting compliance” instead of enforcement except on the “most serious violations.”

State officials responded to complaints by reaching out by mail and phone to “ensure the proper virus prevention measures are in place,” according to Frank Polizzi, a spokesperson for Cal/OSHA.

A third investigation related to transport workers not wearing N95 respirators while moving COVID-positive or possible coronavirus patients at a Sutter facility near the hospital resulted in a $6,750 fine, Cal/OSHA records show.

The string of complaints also says the hospital did not give staff the necessary personal protective equipment (PPE) under state law — an N95 respirator or something more protective — for caring for virus patients.

Instead, Hill said, staff on floors with COVID patients were provided lower-quality surgical masks, a concern reflected in complaints filed with Cal/OSHA.

Hill believes that Paiste-Ponder and another nurse on her floor caught the virus from COVID patients who did not remain in their rooms.

“It is sad, because it didn’t really need to happen,” Hill said.

Polizzi said investigations into the July 17 death and another staff hospitalization are ongoing.

A Sutter Health spokesperson said the hospital takes allegations, including Cal/OSHA complaints, seriously and its highest priority is keeping patients and staff safe.

The statement also said “cohorting,” or the practice of grouping virus patients together, is a tool that “must be considered in a greater context, including patient acuity, hospital census and other environmental factors.”

Concerns at Other Hospitals

CDC guidelines are not strict on the topic of keeping COVID patients sectioned off, noting that “facilities could consider designating entire units within the facility, with dedicated [staff],” to care for COVID patients.

That approach succeeded at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha. A recent study reported “extensive” viral contamination around COVID patients there, but noted that with “standard” infection control techniques in place, staffers who cared for COVID patients did not get the virus.

The hospital set up an isolation unit with air pumped away from the halls, restricted access to the unit and trained staff to use well-developed protocols and N95 respirators — at a minimum. What worked in Nebraska, though, is far from standard elsewhere.

Cynthia Butler, a nurse and National Nurses United member at Fawcett Memorial Hospital in Port Charlotte, on Florida’s west coast, said she actually felt safer working in the COVID unit — where she knew what she was dealing with and had full PPE — than on a general medical floor.

She believes she caught the virus from a patient who had COVID-19 but was housed on a general floor in May. A similar situation occurred in July, when another patient had an unexpected case of COVID — and Butler said she got another positive test herself.

She said both patients did not meet the hospital’s criteria for testing admitted patients, and the lapses leave her on edge, concerns she relayed to an OSHA inspector who reached out to her about a complaint her union filed about the facility.

“Every time I go into work it’s like playing Russian roulette,” Butler said.

A spokesperson for HCA Healthcare, which owns the hospital, said it tests patients coming from long-term care, those going into surgery and those with virus symptoms. She said staffers have access to PPE and practice vigilant sanitation, universal masking and social distancing.

The latter is not an option for Butler, though, who said she cleans, feeds and starts IVs for patients and offers reassurance when they are isolated from family.

“I’m giving them the only comfort or kind word they can get,” said Butler, who has since gone on unpaid leave over safety concerns. “I’m in there doing that and I’m not being protected.”

Given research showing that up to 45% of COVID patients are asymptomatic, UCSF Medical Center is testing everyone who’s admitted, said Dr. Robert Harrison, a University of California-San Francisco School of Medicine professor who consults on occupational health at the hospital.

It’s done for the safety of staff and to reduce spread within the hospital, he said. Those who test positive are separated into a COVID-only unit.

And staff who spent more than 15 minutes within 6 feet of a not-yet-identified COVID patient in a less-protective surgical mask are typically sent home for two weeks, he said.

Outside of academic medicine, though, front-line staff have turned to union leaders to push for such protections.

In Southern California, leaders of the National Union of Healthcare Workers filed an official complaint with state hospital inspectors about the risks posed by intermingled COVID patients at Fountain Valley Regional Hospital in Orange County, part of for-profit Tenet Health. There, the complaint said, patients were not routinely tested for COVID-19 upon admission.

One nursing assistant spent two successive 12-hour shifts caring for a patient on a general medical floor who required monitoring. At the conclusion of the second shift, she was told the patient had just been found to be COVID-positive.

The worker had worn only a surgical mask — not an N95 respirator or any form of eye protection, according to the complaint to the California Department of Public Health. The nursing assistant was not offered a COVID test or quarantined before her next two shifts, the complaint said.

The public health department said it could not comment on a pending inspection.

Barbara Lewis, Southern California hospital division director with the union, said COVID patients were on the same floor as cancer patients and post-surgical patients who were walking the halls to speed their recovery.

She said managers took steps to separate the patients only after the union held a protest, spoke to local media and complained to state health officials.

Hospital spokesperson Jessica Chen said the hospital “quickly implemented” changes directed by state health authorities and does place some COVID patients on the same nursing unit as non-COVID patients during surges. She said they are placed in single rooms with closed doors. COVID tests are given by physician order, she added, and employees can access them at other places in the community.

It’s in contrast, Lewis said, to high-profile examples of the precautions that might be taken.

“Now we’re seeing what’s happening with baseball and basketball — they’re tested every day and treated with a high level of caution,” Lewis said. “Yet we have thousands and thousands of health care workers going to work in a very scary environment.”

Nursing Homes Face Penalties

More than 40% of the people who’ve died of COVID-19 lived in nursing homes or assisted living facilities, researchers have found.

Patient mixing has been a scattered concern at nursing homes, which Medicare officials discovered when they reviewed infection control practices at more than 15,000 facilities.

News reports have highlighted the problem at an Ohio nursing home and at a Maryland home where the state levied a $70,000 fine for failing to keep infected patients away from those who weren’t sick — yet.

Another facing penalties was Fair Havens Center, a Miami Springs, Florida, nursing home where inspectors discovered that 11 roommates of patients who tested positive for COVID-19 were put in rooms with other residents — putting them at heightened risk.

Florida regulators cut off admissions to the home and Medicare authorities levied a $235,000 civil monetary penalty, records show.

The vice president of operations at the facility told inspectors that isolating exposed patients would mean isolating the entire facility: Everyone had been exposed to the 32 staff members who tested positive for the virus, the report says.

Fair Havens Center did not respond to a request for comment.

In Iowa, Medicare officials declared a state of “immediate jeopardy” at Pearl Valley Rehabilitation and Care Center in Muscatine. There, they discovered that staffers were in denial over an outbreak in their midst, with a nursing director overriding a community doctor’s orders to isolate or send residents to the emergency room. Instead, officials found, in late April, the assistant nursing director kept COVID patients in the facility, citing a general order by their medical director to avoid sending patients to the ER “if you can help it.”

Meanwhile, several patients were documented by facility staff to have fevers and falling oxygen levels, the Medicare inspection report shows. Within two weeks, the facility discovered it had an outbreak, with 61 residents infected and nine dead, according to the report.

Medicare officials are investigating Menlo Park Veterans Memorial Home in New Jersey, state Sen. Joseph Vitale said during a recent legislative hearing. Resident council president Glenn Osborne testified during the hearing that the home’s residents were returned to the same shared rooms after hospitalizations.

Osborne, an honorably discharged Marine, said he saw more residents of the home die than fellow service members during his military service. The Menlo Park and Paramus veterans homes — where inspectors saw dementia patients with and without the virus commingling in a day room — both reported more than 180 COVID cases among residents, 90 among staff and at least 60 deaths.

A spokesperson for the homes said he could not comment due to pending litigation.

“These deaths should not have happened,” Osborne said. “Many of these deaths were absolutely avoidable, in my humble opinion.”

Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Hospitals, Nursing Homes Fail to Separate COVID Patients, Putting Others at Risk published first on https://smartdrinkingweb.weebly.com/

0 notes

gordonwilliamsweb · 4 years