November 4, 2011

Dear Premier McGuinty and Minister Matthews,


On behalf of the members of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Ontario and CUPE’s Ontario Council of Hospital Unions (OCHU) please accept our congratulations on your re-election.
There are several important issues that our members are looking to us to pursue with your government. Specifically in the areas of Long Term Care, Hospitals and Home Care, we are very concerned about [a] compulsory contracting out of home care services, [b] the privatization of health care delivery, [c] the lack of minimum care standards in long term care homes, [d] cuts to hospital services, [e] infection control in health care facilities, and [f] fresh local food in our health care facilities. We look forward to the opportunity to sit down with you in the near future to discuss our concerns and share our recommendations for improvement.
However, there is one particular issue we need to raise today as a very pressing concern for CUPE/OCHU and especially for our more than our 25,000 members who are Personal Support Workers (PSW’s) and Healthcare Aids (HCA’s) in Ontario. That issue, of course, is the PSW Registry.
We have recently read Minister Matthews’ September 02, 2011 letter on this matter, addressed to the President of the Ontario Council of Hospital Unions (OCHU), and we both appreciate your outreach to us.
As we trust you are both aware, CUPE did not agree with the creation of a registry and we warned that it would detract attention and resources away from more pressing concerns in healthcare. (A copy of our August 2011 brief is attached) It is most unfortunate that despite our recommendations and expertise you have moved forward with the creation of the Registry.
The focus of our concern today is the Minister’s September 02, 2011 letter where it refers to the process to design and establish a PSW Registry as being “led by OCSA” the Ontario Community Support Association.
Let us be very direct. To make this an employer led process is highly inappropriate. Our concern is not due to some anti-employer animus. Rather it is inappropriate for the government to contract out public policy development to a third party -- in particular, a third party which has an interest in the outcome.
1
The public policy process should avoid conflicts of interest and the appearance of a conflict of interest if it is to be credible. A process that is widely accepted as balanced and impartial is needed.
Given this flawed process it is perhaps not surprising that some unsettling choices have been made. OCSA has apparently set up a committee to manage this task with only two organizations out of twenty representing workers and only one of those actually having PSW’s as direct members. This shows a complete lack of respect for PSWs and will inevitably not reflect the needs of the very PSW’s it is supposed to represent.
How can it be only one of the five or more unions in Ontario that have PSW’s as members will be at the table in this important process? How can it be that Ontario’s largest trade union, CUPE, an organization with more PSW members (25,000) than any other organization, is not invited?
In order for this process to be meaningful and credible it must take into account a broad range of view points and voices.
We remind you that when the province of British Columbia set out to design a similar registry, that government engaged all the concerned health care unions in extensive consultations on the registry design.
We are calling on the government to immediately organize consultation sessions that will allow you to hear from community groups, workers and the public at large.
As well, extensive consultation with all unions representing PSW’s must be a part of this process.
Premier and Minister, CUPE and OCHU members who are PSW’s and Healthcare Aids (HCA’s) work in hospitals, homecare and long term care in virtually every riding and every community in our province. Our members work hard and they care deeply about the quality of services they provide each day and they have much to contribute in this process.
The unbalanced leadership and representation in the registry design process is offensive, unacceptable and must be corrected. We understand that the current process is moving forward very quickly. So we would request a response to our concerns before November 16.
Thank you very much for your serious and timely attention to this important matter. We look forward to your response and we are sure that if we work together we will find a constructive solution.
Yours Sincerely,
Fred Hahn President CUPE Ontario
Michael Hurley President
Ontario Council of Hospital Unions

Response to the Proposed Ontario Personal Support Worker (PSW) Registry for Health Care


Submitted to the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care (MOHLTC) Ontario
by the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Ontario
and Ontario Council of Hospital Unions (OCHU)
August 2011
Response Submitted to the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care (MOHLTC) Ontario
Introduction
The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Ontario and the Ontario Council of Hospital Unions (OCHU), a CUPE bargaining council, represent approximately 65,000 health care workers among our 210,000 members which include approximately 25,000 Personal Support Workers (PSWs) and Health Care Aides (HCA). CUPE nationally represents more than 615,000 workers making it the largest union in Canada. CUPE members work throughout the public sector including health, community care, social services, municipalities, school boards and universities.
The union welcomes the opportunity to further respond to the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care (Ministry) following the June 2011 consultations held in Toronto with key stakeholders, including CUPE Ontario and OCHU1. Our response takes into account our forty year commitment to support and enhance quality public healthcare that is part of the work of our union through advocating for a regulatory minimum standard of 3.5 hours of direct care for long term care residents, an end to the compulsory contracting out in home care that has created waiting lists of over 10,000 people, and proper funding for non‐profit and public hospital care. As presented at the consultation in June 2011, the union has serious concerns about the purpose, reason and the need for a Registry of PSWs.
A PSW Registry causes “double jeopardy”. The double jeopardy principle means being disciplined twice for the same alleged infraction – once by the employer or supervisor and again by being removed from the Registry list. Double jeopardy is unfair and unneeded and causes unnecessary extra expenses. Duplicate discipline systems and processes are costly. The funding of public health care delivery needs to be a priority.
It is our contention that the proposal for a Registry is premised on the wrong conclusions, focusing solely on the workers instead of the underlying problems facing our health care system. We would argue that it is the lack of meaningful regulations and government policies such as compulsory contracting out of services that are creating the systemic problems, such as:
• Under funding of hospitals, long term care and home care; • Inadequate accountability and transparency; • Health and safety risks for both recipients and health care workers; • Increasing workload; • Low staffing levels; • Wait lists 2 ; • Lack of a legislated direct care standard for long term care residents; and, • In‐attention to investment for skills development and core competencies for PSWs throughout
the health care system.
1 From here on the term “union” will be used to mean CUPE Ontario and OCHU. 2 For more information, click on CUPE’s Solutions to Health Care Waiting Lists http://cupe.ca/wait‐ times/Backgrounder_Solutio
Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Ontario / Ontario Council of Hospital Workers Union OCHU)
Response Submitted to the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care (MOHLTC) Ontario
CONSULTATION QUESTIONS – PERSONAL SUPPORT WORKER REGISTRY
Purpose
On May 19, 2011, the Ministry issued a news release stating that a Registry for PSWs was going to be created that would better recognize PSWs’ work and help to further meet the needs of the people they care for. The union supports efforts by the Ministry to recognize the work of PSWs. We also support policies that ensure that Ontarians whether in hospitals, their own homes or in long‐term care homes receive the care they need. As stated, we believe current government policies are failing to do that. Based on our front‐line hands‐on experience and knowledge of the health care sector, we believe that the PSW Registry will contribute little, if anything, to broad public policy objectives to provide quality public health care.
It is unclear to the union, why the Ministry is creating a Registry after the 2006 recommendations from the Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council (HPRAC) did not support this. A comprehensive and extensive review was undertaken by HPRAC and the recommendation was that PSWs should not be regulated under the Regulated Health Professions Act (RHPA). The union was part of that review and we note that our submission argued against the regulation of PSWs. HPRAC also came forward with the recommendation that a Registry should not be implemented as an alternative to regulation.
HPRAC recommendations from 2006 on the issue of PSW regulation stated the following:
1. HPRAC recommends that Personal Support Workers not be regulated under the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 as they do not meet the requirements for regulation.
2. HPRAC recommends that a Registry for Personal Support Workers not be required as an alternate to the regulation under the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991.
HPRAC did not recommend a PSW Registry since, among other reasons, it required legislation, a thorough examination of confidentiality issues, and that a Registry would not address issues in retirement homes or in private for‐profit care that are currently unregulated. HPRAC also deemed a PSW Registry to be a high‐cost item.
If the Ministry is concerned about the level and quality of care for Ontarians, whether recipients of home care, or who reside in long term care homes or hospitals, it should not focus on unnecessary and costly structures such as a Registry but instead provide adequate funding to ensure the level of care and staffing is maintained to meet the needs of patients.
Funding should not be increased, however, to envelopes from which profit can be taken in the absence of a complete opening of the books. High profit levels for private for‐profit long term care, private for‐ profit home care providers and for‐profit hospital contract companies, reduce resources that should be available for front line care. Funding increases to for‐profit health care providers have not been
Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Ontario / Ontario Council of Hospital Workers Union OCHU)
Response Submitted to the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care (MOHLTC) Ontario
accompanied by enhancements in levels of service. The Ministry needs to impose an accountability mechanism on operators that can be enforced by other stakeholders. As well there needs to be greater transparency so that the public can become informed what the current situation is in relation to care levels and care needs and how funding resources are being allocated.
At the consultation meeting in June, it was also suggested that a PSW Registry in Ontario could be utilized to track the PSW workforce for training and labour force planning purposes. The major challenge of ensuring we have a sufficient supply of trained and competent PSWs to meet the care needs of the people of this province is not the absence of a Registry but rather government policies which clearly undermine the terms and conditions of employment, create excessive workloads for existing staff which act as a deterrent for individuals considering entering the field.
Recruitment and retention can be improved through more competitive wages and working conditions. Currently, compensation for the PSW health care occupation is one of the lowest health care compensations in Ontario. Underfunding of health care organizations and a lack of effective accountability and transparency ‐ and the resulting inadequate staffing levels, heavier workloads ‐ and privatization, have caused horrendous working conditions. These problems also act as a deterrent for individuals considering entering the field as a career choice.
The current demographic of the PSW workforce show that the work force is predominantly women and in urban centres where the majority of work is undertaken, also predominantly racialized women. It is concerning for the union that a workforce with this demographic continues to face poor working conditions and now through a potential Registry may have to bear this additional burden.
Any proposed PSW Registry list must be without fees. PSWs cannot afford extra fees. As mentioned above, PSW compensation is often small. Any extra burden for PSWs would have serious negative consequences affecting both PSW recruitment and retention, not to mention morale.
The matter of minimum required core competencies was raised by the Ministry at the June consultation and it was advised that this work was still in process. A PSW Registry may be positive if it helps create more certified courses that allow PSWs to graduate with a PSW certificate. In 2006, HPRAC made the link between standard core competencies and any possible Registry:
A prerequisite to launching a certification Registry would be to establish uniform minimum entry‐ to‐practice standards for PSWs. This would need to address the treatment of equivalent credentials and competencies in order to avoid the exclusion of a significant part of the current workforce. There was little discussion or agreement on who should accredit and or implement this process.
The role of employment/labour relations law should be a part of a certified PSW course curriculum. In education programs for other health care occupations, such as Registered Nurse education, there have been educational components in this area. Learning about the laws setting out workplace rights and
Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Ontario / Ontario Council of Hospital Workers Union OCHU)
Response Submitted to the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care (MOHLTC) Ontario
responsibilities including the obligation to act as “patient advocates” and the restrictions on the right of employers to interfere with these rights, is an important part of PSW education. The union is eager to be an integral part of this training program.
We suggest the focus and priority for the government should not be a Registry but to ensure that there is regulatory standardization of the core curriculum and standards for PSW certificate programs. The union also has serious concerns about the increasing role of for‐profit, private vocational colleges and remains committed to strengthening and advocating for properly funding our public education system at both the secondary and post‐secondary level. Any effort in the direction of certification or accreditation of the educational programs for PSWs should focus on the public education system with public non‐ profit delivery. Finally current employees in the sector need financial incentives in terms of tuition and book costs as well as paid time, to upgrade their formal qualifications. Many current employees have the motivation but lack the financial wherewithal to take the time to do this on their own.
ACCESS TO INFORMATION Proposed Registry Privacy
Based on the information provided to us currently, there are potentially serious issues around the privacy rights of PSWs and this of the utmost importance to the union. In British Columbia (BC), only employers can check the PSW Registry. It seems that an Ontario Registry may be open to public viewing which would undermine privacy rights of individuals. The only information BC employers can see is if a PSW is included on the list (or Registry). The Registry is not a reference‐checking system for employers in BC. After an individual PSW is added to the list, their contact information is destroyed. Consequently we are perturbed that while Ontario Privacy’s Commissioner has been asked to comment on issues of privacy relating to the Registry the fact that this report will not be made public is extremely disconcerting. The union will be in contact with the Privacy Commissioner to ensure the privacy rights of PSWs are protected.
MAINTENANCE and ELIGIBILTY Governance of a Proposed PSW Registry
If a PSW Registry is created, a committee comprised of PSW unions should monitor the Registry and the Registry process. In BC, the Registry is housed within a non‐profit entity supervised by the Ministry of Health. The union affiliate in BC called the Hospital Employees Union (HEU) sits on one of the Registry Advisory Boards.
Proposed Registry Inclusion
If being included on a PSW Registry entitles a PSW to work for a publicly funded or regulated health care organization, any PSW Registry must include “grandparenting”. Grandparenting means that experienced health care workers working as PSWs and who may not have certificates to prove their qualifications, be allowed to join the Registry.
Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Ontario / Ontario Council of Hospital Workers Union OCHU)
Response Submitted to the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care (MOHLTC) Ontario
If a PSW Registry list is created, PSWs should have at least a one (1) year window to apply for “grandparenting” into a Registry. In BC, the Employer sent in the names of the PSWs, and individual PSWs checked that their name was on the Registry list by a certain date regardless of whether they had any certificates. As long as you were currently working, or had ever worked as a Health Care Aide (HCA) or PSW, you could be added to the list. There is a toll‐free 1‐800 number, mailing address, and web site in order to check to see if your name is on the Registry list. A “receipt” is issued to all eligible and interested health care workers once they are placed on the Registry list.
There should be consideration made about other health care workers who contribute to the health care team and their inclusion in any proposed PSW Registry list. Those individuals who have previously worked in health care but who are not currently working, should also be considered in any proposed PSW Registry list if they so choose.
If a voluntary PSW health care Registry is to be created, similar to the social worker Registry list in Ontario, only health care workers who want to use the title or are classified as “Personal Support Workers” by employers should be included. Health care workers who use alternate titles, need not join the list, if they so choose.
Proposed Registry Exclusion
If a proposed PSW health care Registry is created, the Registry exclusion process must be transparent, fair and follow due process. The negotiated grievance arbitration process already established in collective agreements needs to be examined as an appropriate Registry list exclusion tool.
In BC, only abuse allegations (physical, emotional, financial, sexual, neglect and deprivation of food or fluids as a form of punishment) can trigger a Registry investigation. The unions are involved in creating a list of fair investigators in BC.
In BC, the Registry process introduces intermediary steps, such as education rather than termination, whereby the accused member may enter into an anger management course or work in non‐direct care, similar to the process currently in place for doctors and registered nurses.
In BC, the Registry will not keep a record of abuse allegations: • if they do not result in a termination, or • where a special investigator, or arbitrator, determines that the accused individual should not be
removed temporarily or permanently from the Registry.
The union should not bear the cost of any investigation. Processes for non‐unionized PSWs should also be fair and follow due process.
Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Ontario / Ontario Council of Hospital Workers Union OCHU)
Response Submitted to the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care (MOHLTC) Ontario
In Summary
While the union supports the objectives of ensuring Ontarians receive the care they need, it is our contention that the proposal for a PSW Health care Registry is premised on the wrong conclusions, focusing solely on the workers instead of the underlying health care sector problems.
Again we want to stress that the government policies around regulation, levels of care and the instability of the workforce need to be addressed before the government gives any consideration to a Registry. In review, these include the following:
• Under funding of hospitals, long term care and home care; • Inadequate accountability and transparency;
• Health and safety risks for both recipients and health care workers; • Increasing workload; • Low staffing levels; • Wait lists;
• Lack of a legislated direct care standard for long term care residents; and, • In‐attention to investment for skills development and core competencies for PSWs throughout
the health care system.
We urge the Ministry to take the bold step of re‐allocating the resources and energy directed towards the creation of a Registry to, instead, addressing the longstanding problems that are the underlying causes of the serious challenges undermining the quality of care in all facets of the health care system. A PSW Registry is not the “fix” that is needed.
If the government does moves towards a Registry, however, the union strongly urges the government to consider the following:
• the PSW Registry should remain a list of names with strict privacy rules supported by Ontario’s Privacy Commissioner;
• the union be involved in governance; • the list involves grandparenting; • the list involves a fair exclusion process; • the list be free for PSWs to join; • the list be non‐mandatory; and that • a province‐wide certified PSW educational program be created which will include information
on workplace rights and responsibilities and which involves Unions as contributors.
Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Ontario / Ontario Council of Hospital Workers Union OCHU)
Response Submitted to the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care (MOHLTC) Ontario
Finally the union is eager to discuss with the Government: • Effective ways to ensure Ontarians get the public health care that they require; • Appropriate and effective financial incentives for current employees in this sector to upgrade
their qualifications and; • Standardized training and education measures that need to be developed to ensure that PSW
work is an attractive career choice. Educational changes also require the province to address the issues of wages and working conditions of a predominately female work sector to ensure that there is an adequate supply of workers to provide this care.
sl/cope491
August 15, 2011 CUPE Research
T:\HC‐RA\Ontario\PSW\2011\Brief\MOHLTC PSW Registry\Brief MOHLTC PSW Registry August 15 2011.doc
Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Ontario / Ontario Council of Hospital Workers Union OCHU)

Réaction à la proposition de l’Ontario de créer un registre pour les préposés aux services de soutien à la personne (PSSP)


Présentée au ministère de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée (MSSLD) de l’Ontario
par le Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique (SCFP), division de l’Ontario
et le Conseil des syndicats d’hôpitaux de l’Ontario (CSHO)
Août 2011
Réaction présentée au ministère de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée (MSSLD) de l’Ontario
Introduction
Le Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique (SCFP), division de l’Ontario ainsi que le Conseil des syndicats d’hôpitaux de l’Ontario (CSHO), un conseil de négociation du SCFP, représentent quelque 65 000 travailleurs de la santé parmi 210 000 membres, ce qui comprend approximativement 25 000 préposés aux services de soutien à la personne (PSSP) et aides‐soignants. À l’échelle nationale, le SCFP représente plus de 615 000 travailleurs, ce qui en fait le premier syndicat en importance au Canada. Les membres du SCFP sont à l’œuvre dans tous les secteurs publics: santé, soins communautaires, services sociaux, municipalités, conseils scolaires et universités.
Le syndicat est heureux d’avoir l’occasion de présenter cette réaction plus détaillée au ministère de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée (le « ministère »), à la suite des consultations tenues à Toronto en juin2011 auprès d’intervenants clés, dont le SCFP Ontario et le CSHO1. Notre réaction reflète nos 40 années d’engagement envers le maintien et l’amélioration de la qualité des soins de santé publics, lequel engagement s’inscrit dans les revendications de notre syndicat : un règlement établissant un minimum obligatoire de 3,5 heures de soins directs pour les résidents de centres de soins de longue durée, l’élimination de l’obligation de confier la prestation de soins à domicile en sous‐traitance (obligation responsable d’avoir créé des listes d’attente comptant plus de 10 000 personnes) et un financement adéquat des soins hospitaliers sans but lucratif et publics. Conformément à ce qu’il a présenté lors des consultations de juin 2011, le syndicat est très préoccupé par le but, la justification et le besoin d’un registre pour les PSSP.
Un registre pour les PSSP créait une « double incrimination ». En vertu du principe de la double incrimination, un préposé ferait l’objet de sanctions disciplinaires à deux reprises pour la même infraction alléguée – une fois de la part de l’employeur ou du supérieur et une fois de plus en voyant son nom rayé de la liste du registre. La double incrimination est une pratique injuste et inutile qui génère des dépenses supplémentaires frivoles. Le dédoublement des systèmes et processus disciplinaires est coûteux, alors que la priorité doit être donnée au financement de la prestation de soins de santé publics.
Nous soutenons que le projet de registre repose sur les mauvaises conclusions et tient compte uniquement des préposés sans égard aux problèmes sous‐jacents qui affligent notre système de soins de santé. Nous pourrions avancer que les problèmes dans le système (voir la liste ci‐dessous) résultent de l’absence d’une réglementation efficace et de politiques gouvernementales comme celle rendant obligatoire l’impartition de services :
• Sous‐financement des hôpitaux, des soins de longue durée et des soins à domicile; • Niveaux de responsabilité et de transparence inadéquats; • Risques pour la santé et la sécurité des patients et des travailleurs de la santé; • Alourdissement des charges de travail;
• Faibles niveaux de dotation en personnel;
1 À partir de ce point dans le document, le terme « syndicat » regroupe le SCFP Ontario et le CSHO.
Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique (SCFP), division de l’Ontario / Conseil des syndicats des hôpitaux de l’Ontario (CSHO)
Réaction présentée au ministère de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée (MSSLD) de l’Ontario
• Listes d’attente 2 ; • Absence d’une norme légiférée en matière de soins directs prodigués aux résidents de centres
de soins de longue durée; • Investissements inadéquats dans le développement des aptitudes et des compétences de base
des PSSP à l’échelle du système de soins de santé.
QUESTIONS DE CONSULTATION – REGISTRE POUR LES PRÉPOSÉS AUX SERVICES DE SOUTIEN À LA PERSONNE
But
Le 19 mai 2011, le ministère a émis un communiqué de presse pour annoncer la création d’un registre pour les PSSP, dans l’optique de mieux reconnaître le travail des PSSP tout en aidant à mieux satisfaire les besoins des personnes dont ils prennent soin. Le syndicat félicite le ministère pour ses efforts à reconnaître le travail des PSSP. Nous aussi sommes favorables à des politiques qui assureront aux Ontariens les soins dont ils ont besoin, que ce soit en milieu hospitalier, à domicile ou dans un centre de soins de longue durée. Toutefois, nous réitérons qu’à notre avis, les politiques actuelles du gouvernement n’atteignent pas ce but. Sur la base de notre expérience et notre connaissance pratiques du secteur des soins de santé, nous sommes d’avis que le registre pour les PSSP ne contribuerait que peu, voire aucunement, à l’atteinte des grands objectifs de politique publique en matière de prestation de soins de santé publics de qualité.
Le syndicat s’explique mal pourquoi le ministère crée un tel registre à la lumière de la recommandation formulée en 2006 par le Conseil consultatif sur la réglementation des professions de la santé (CCRPS) de ne pas créer ce registre. Le CCRPS avait alors mené un examen exhaustif avant d’arriver à la conclusion que les PSSP ne devaient pas être soumis à la Loi sur les professions de la santé réglementées (LPSR). Le syndicat avait participé à cet examen, et nous tenons à souligner que nous nous étions prononcés contre la réglementation des PSSP dans notre mémoire. De plus, le CCRPS avait indiqué que la mise en œuvre d’un registre ne pouvait pas servir de solution de rechange à la réglementation.
Voici les recommandations formulées par le CCRPS en 2006 concernant la réglementation des PSSP :
1.
2.
Le CCRPS recommande de ne pas soumettre les préposés aux services de soutien à la personne à la Loi de 1991 sur les professions de la santé réglementées puisqu’ils ne répondent pas aux exigences en ce qui touche la réglementation.
Le CCRPS recommande de ne pas imposer un registre pour les préposés aux services de soutien à la personne comme solution de rechange à la réglementation prévue à la Loi de 1991 sur les professions de la santé réglementées.
2 Pour plus d’information, consultez le document information Solutions aux listes d’attente dans les soins de santé du SCFP : http://scfp.ca/tempsdattente/Document_dinformatio
Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique (SCFP), division de l’Ontario / Conseil des syndicats des hôpitaux de l’Ontario (CSHO)
Réaction présentée au ministère de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée (MSSLD) de l’Ontario
Le CCRPS n’a pas recommandé la création d’un registre pour les PSSP notamment parce qu’un tel registre nécessiterait l’adoption d’une loi et un examen exhaustif des préoccupations relatives à la confidentialité. De plus, un tel registre ne règlerait aucunement les problèmes touchant les maisons de retraite ou les soins privés à but lucratif qui ne sont pas réglementés à l’heure actuelle. Enfin, le CCRPS était d’avis que la tenue d’un registre pour les PSSP serait coûteuse.
Si le ministère se préoccupe du niveau et de la qualité des soins prodigués aux Ontariens, que ce soit à domicile, dans un centre de soins de longue durée ou en milieu hospitalier, il ne doit pas s’attarder à des structures inutiles et coûteuses comme un registre, mais plutôt affecter des fonds adéquats pour assurer des niveaux de soins et de dotation en personnel qui répondront aux besoins des patients.
Cependant, il n’y a pas lieu de bonifier les enveloppes budgétaires qui généreraient des profits en l’absence d’une transparence totale. Les niveaux de bénéfices élevés dégagés par les prestataires de soins à domicile et de soins de longue durée privés à but lucratif et les entreprises à but lucratif sous contrat avec des hôpitaux ont pour effet de couper dans les ressources qui devraient être affectées à la prestation des soins de première ligne. L’augmentation du financement aux prestataires de soins de santé à but lucratif n’a pas permis d’améliorer les niveaux de service. Le ministère doit mettre en place un mécanisme de reddition de comptes qui s’appliquerait aux exploitants et qui pourrait être utilisé par d’autres intervenants. De plus, la transparence doit être accrue afin que le public puisse connaître le portrait actuel des niveaux de soins, des soins requis et de l’affectation des ressources financières.
Lors de la consultation en juin dernier, il a également été suggéré d’utiliser un registre pour les PSSP en Ontario pour établir les besoins en formation des PSSP et planifier la dotation en personnel. Le principal défi lorsqu’il est question d’assurer un nombre suffisant de PSSP formés et compétents pour répondre aux besoins des Ontariens n’est pas l’absence d’un registre; le problème réside plutôt du côté des politiques gouvernementales qui minent manifestement les conditions de travail et créent des charges de travail trop lourdes pour le personnel en place. Il en résulte que les personnes songeant à devenir PSSP pourraient être dissuadées de le faire.
Rendre les salaires et les conditions de travail plus concurrentiels contribuerait à améliorer le recrutement et la rétention de personnel. À l’heure actuelle, les PSSP figurent parmi les travailleurs de la santé les moins bien rémunérés en Ontario. Le sous‐financement des organisations de soins de santé et l’absence de mécanismes efficaces pour assurer la reddition de comptes et la transparence – ainsi que les niveaux de dotation en personnel inadéquats et les charges de travail plus lourdes qui en résultent – de même que la privatisation ont rendu les conditions de travail des PSSP horribles. Ces problèmes aussi dissuadent les personnes qui songent à devenir préposés aux services de soutien à la personne.
Le portrait démographique actuel des PSSP nous indique que la main‐d’œuvre dans ce secteur est principalement féminine et concentrée dans les centres urbains où la majorité des soins que prodiguent les PSSP est requise. De plus, ce sont principalement des femmes issues de minorités visibles. Le syndicat craint qu’une main‐d’œuvre ayant un tel portrait démographique continue de vivre des conditions de travail difficiles et qu’un registre potentiel ne contribue qu’à alourdir ce fardeau.
Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique (SCFP), division de l’Ontario / Conseil des syndicats des hôpitaux de l’Ontario (CSHO)
Réaction présentée au ministère de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée (MSSLD) de l’Ontario
L’inscription à la liste de tout registre proposé pour les PSSP doit être gratuite, car les PSSP n’ont pas les moyens financiers de payer des frais additionnels. Comme mentionné ci‐dessus, les PSSP sont souvent faiblement rémunérés. Tout fardeau financier additionnel imposé aux PSSP aurait donc de graves conséquences négatives qui nuiraient à la fois au recrutement et à la rétention de personnel, sans parler des effets dévastateurs sur la motivation.
La question des compétences de base minimales requises a été soulevée par le ministère lors de la consultation en juin, et on lui a indiqué que le travail se poursuivait à cet égard. Un registre pour les PSSP pourrait avoir une incidence positive s’il contribuait à l’élaboration de nouveaux cours accrédités permettant aux PSSP d’obtenir leur certificat à terme. En 2006, le CCRPS avait établi un lien entre les compétences de base et un éventuel registre :
L’élaboration de normes uniformes et minimales en matière d’admission à la profession pour les PSSP serait préalable à la mise en place d’un registre d’accréditation. Ces normes aborderaient la question de l’évaluation des équivalences en matière d’accréditations et de compétences afin d’éviter l’exclusion d’une partie importante de la main‐d’œuvre actuellement en poste. De qui relèverait l’accréditation ou la mise en œuvre de ce processus n’a pas vraiment été discuté ou fait l’objet d’un consensus. (traduction libre)
Le rôle du droit du travail et de la loi sur les relations de travail devrait être enseigné aux PSSP dans le cadre d’un programme de formation accrédité. Le programme de formation d’autres professionnels de la santé – pensons notamment aux infirmières autorisées – aborde ce rôle. Un volet important de la formation des PSSP consiste à se familiariser avec les lois qui établissent les droits et les responsabilités dans le lieu de travail, dont l’obligation de veiller aux intérêts des patients et les restrictions imposées sur le droit des employeurs de faire ingérence dans l’exercice des droits des PSSP. Le syndicat souhaite ardemment faire partie intégrante de ce programme de formation.
Nous suggérons au gouvernement d’accorder toute son attention et sa priorité non pas à créer un registre, mais plutôt à uniformiser la réglementation concernant le contenu éducatif et les normes des programmes d’accréditation des PSSP. De plus, le syndicat est très préoccupé par le rôle de plus en plus important que jouent des collèges d’enseignement professionnel privés à but lucratif et réitère son engagement à renforcer et à revendiquer le financement de notre système public d’éducation secondaire et postsecondaire. Tout effort visant la certification ou l’accréditation des programmes de formation de PSSP doit être axé sur le système d’éducation public, sans prestation privée à but lucratif. Enfin, il faut offrir aux travailleurs actifs du domaine des incitatifs financiers pour couvrir les frais de scolarité, les coûts des manuels scolaires et les congés payés afin qu’ils puissent parfaire leurs compétences. À l’heure actuelle, de nombreux PSSP souhaitent parfaire leurs compétences, mais leur situation financière leur empêche de le faire sans aide.
Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique (SCFP), division de l’Ontario / Conseil des syndicats des hôpitaux de l’Ontario (CSHO)
Réaction présentée au ministère de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée (MSSLD) de l’Ontario
ACCÈS À L’INFORMATION Confidentialité du registre proposé
En fonction des renseignements dont nous disposons actuellement, les droits de la protection des renseignements personnels des PSSP pourraient être gravement compromis, ce qui inquiète vivement le syndicat. En Colombie‐Britannique, seuls les employeurs sont autorisés à consulter le registre pour les PSSP. Il appert qu’en Ontario, le registre serait accessible au public, ce qui porterait atteinte aux droits de la protection des renseignements personnels des personnes inscrites. En Colombie‐Britannique, les employeurs peuvent seulement vérifier si un PSSP est inscrit à la liste (ou au registre). Le registre n’est pas un système de vérification des références mis à la disposition des employeurs de cette province. Une fois qu’un PSSP a été inscrit à la liste, ses renseignements personnels sont supprimés. Par conséquent, nous sommes extrêmement perturbés par la décision de ne pas rendre public le rapport de la Commissaire à la protection de la vie privée de l’Ontario en réponse à des questions relatives à la confidentialité du registre. Le syndicat communiquera avec la Commissaire à la protection de la vie privée pour s’assurer que les droits de la protection des renseignements personnels des PSSP sont respectés.
MAINTIEN et ADMISSIBILITÉ Gestion du registre proposé pour les PSSP
Si un registre pour les PSSP est créé, un comité formé de syndicats représentant les PSSP devrait être chargé de surveiller le registre et son processus. En Colombie‐Britannique, le registre est géré par un organisme sans but lucratif qui relève du ministère de la Santé. Le Hospital Employees Union (HEU), syndicat affilié en Colombie‐Britannique, siège à un des conseils consultatifs du registre.
Inscription au registre proposé
Si l’inscription à un registre pour les PSSP habilite un PSSP à travailler pour une organisation des soins de santé publique ou réglementée, ledit registre pour les PSSP doit prévoir le maintien des droits acquis. Par maintien des droits acquis s’entend l’admissibilité pour les travailleurs de la santé expérimentés qui occupent un poste de PSSP et qui n’ont pas nécessairement les certificats de compétence nécessaires à s’inscrire au registre.
Si une liste est créée pour un registre pour les PSSP, les PSSP doivent disposer d’un délai minimal de un (1) an pour demander le maintien de leurs droits acquis dans le registre. En Colombie‐Britannique, ce sont les employeurs qui ont fourni les noms des PSSP, tandis que les PSSP eux‐mêmes ont vérifié si leur nom figurait à la liste avant une certaine date, et ce, peu importe s’ils détenaient ou non des certificats de compétence. Il suffisait de travailler activement ou d’avoir déjà travaillé comme aide‐soignant ou PSSP pour être admissible à s’inscrire à la liste. Les PSSP disposent d’un numéro de téléphone sans frais, d’une adresse postale et d’un site Web pour vérifier s’ils ont été inscrits à la liste du registre. Un « reçu » est émis à tout travailleur de la santé admissible et intéressé à la suite de son inscription à la liste du registre.
Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique (SCFP), division de l’Ontario / Conseil des syndicats des hôpitaux de l’Ontario (CSHO)
Réaction présentée au ministère de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée (MSSLD) de l’Ontario
Il y a lieu de tenir compte des autres travailleurs de la santé qui contribuent à l’équipe de prestation des soins et de leur inscription à la liste d’un registre proposé pour les PSSP. Quant aux personnes ayant déjà travaillé dans le domaine de la santé, elles devraient aussi pouvoir s’inscrire à la liste d’un registre pour les PSSP proposé si elles souhaitent le faire.
Dans le cas où l’inscription à un registre pour les PSSP est volontaire, comme c’est le cas du registre pour les travailleurs sociaux de l’Ontario, seuls les travailleurs de la santé qui souhaitent utiliser le titre de « préposé aux services de soutien à la personne » ou qui sont considérés comme des PSSP par leur employeur devraient s’y inscrire. Il ne serait pas nécessaire pour les travailleurs de la santé utilisant un autre titre de s’inscrire à la liste, s’ils ne souhaitaient pas s’y inscrire.
Exclusion du registre proposé
Si le projet de registre pour les PSSP est mis de l’avant, le processus d’exclusion du registre doit être transparent, équitable et dûment établi. Le processus négocié pour l’arbitrage de griefs déjà enchâssé dans des conventions collectives doit être considéré comme un outil d’exclusion de la liste du registre approprié.
En Colombie‐Britannique, seules les allégations d’abus (physique, psychologique, financier, sexuel, négligence et privation de nourriture et de boissons en guise de punition) peuvent déclencher une enquête au titre du registre. Les syndicats participent à dresser une liste d’enquêteurs équitables en Colombie‐Britannique.
En Colombie‐Britannique, le processus du registre comprend des mesures intermédiaires – par exemple, la formation au lieu du congédiement – qui permettent au membre accusé de s’inscrire à un cours sur la gestion de la colère ou occuper une fonction sans lien direct avec la prestation de soins, à l’instar du processus actuellement en place pour les médecins et les infirmières autorisées.
En Colombie‐Britannique, le registre ne tient pas un dossier des allégations d’abus : • qui ne se sont pas soldées par un congédiement; • lorsqu’un enquêteur spécial ou un arbitre arrive à la conclusion qu’il n’y a pas lieu de rayer la
personne accusée de façon temporaire ou permanente du registre.
Le syndicat ne doit pas assumer les coûts d’une enquête. De plus, les processus applicables aux PSSP non syndiqués doivent être équitables et suivre la procédure établie.
Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique (SCFP), division de l’Ontario / Conseil des syndicats des hôpitaux de l’Ontario (CSHO)
Réaction présentée au ministère de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée (MSSLD) de l’Ontario
En bref
Bien que le syndicat soutienne l’objectif d’assurer aux Ontariens la prestation des soins dont ils ont besoin, nous prétendons que le projet de registre pour les préposés aux services de soutien à la personne repose sur les mauvaises conclusions, est axé uniquement sur les travailleurs et n’aborde pas les problèmes sous‐jacents qui affligent le secteur des soins de santé.
Encore une fois, nous voulons faire valoir que les politiques gouvernementales en matière de réglementation, de niveaux de soins et de l’instabilité de la main‐d’œuvre doivent être abordées avant même que le gouvernement ne mette en place un registre. Notamment, les problèmes suivants doivent être abordés :
• Sous‐financement des hôpitaux, des soins de longue durée et des soins à domicile; • Niveaux de responsabilité et de transparence inadéquats; • Risques pour la santé et la sécurité des patients et des travailleurs de la santé; • Alourdissement des charges de travail;
• Faibles niveaux de dotation en personnel; • Listes d’attente; • Absence d’une norme légiférée en matière de soins directs aux résidents de centres de soins de
longue durée; • Investissements inadéquats dans le développement des aptitudes et des compétences de base
des PSSP à l’échelle du système de soins de santé.
Nous incitons fortement le ministère à prendre la décision audacieuse de réaffecter les ressources et les énergies actuellement consacrées à la création d’un registre dans l’optique de plutôt régler les problèmes de longue date qui représentent les causes sous‐jacentes des graves problèmes qui minent la qualité des soins dans tous les volets du système des soins de santé. Un registre pour les PSSP ne représente pas une solution efficace.
Cependant, si le gouvernement décide néanmoins d’aller de l’avant avec un registre, le syndicat l’incite fortement à tenir compte des considérations suivantes :
• le registre pour les PSSP doit demeurer une liste de noms régie par des règles de confidentialité contraignantes appuyées par la Commissaire à la protection de la vie privée de l’Ontario;
• le syndicat doit participer à la gestion; • la liste doit maintenir les droits acquis; • la liste doit comprendre un processus d’exclusion équitable; • les PSSP doivent pouvoir s’inscrire à la liste gratuitement; • l’inscription à la liste ne doit pas être obligatoire; • un programme de formation accrédité à l’intention des PSSP doit être mis sur pied, avec la
contribution des syndicats, pour informer les PSSP.
Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique (SCFP), division de l’Ontario / Conseil des syndicats des hôpitaux de l’Ontario (CSHO)
Réaction présentée au ministère de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée (MSSLD) de l’Ontario
Enfin, le syndicat souhaite ardemment discuter les points suivants avec le gouvernement : • des façons efficaces d’assurer aux Ontariens la prestation des soins de santé publics dont ils ont
besoin; • des incitatifs financiers appropriés et efficaces pour convaincre les PSSP en poste de la nécessité
de parfaire leurs compétences; • l’élaboration de mesures de formation et d’éducation normalisées pour faire du travail des PSSP
un choix de carrière attrayant. De plus, en raison de changements éducatifs, la province devra aborder les questions des salaires et des conditions de travail dans un secteur essentiellement féminin afin d’assurer la disponibilité d’effectifs adéquats pour prodiguer les soins.
sl/cope491
Le 15 août 2011 Service de la recherche du SCFP
T:\HC‐RA\Ontario\PSW\2011\Brief\MOHLTC PSW Registry\Brief MOHLTC PSW Registry August 15 2011_FR.docx
Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique (SCFP), division de l’Ontario / Conseil des syndicats des hôpitaux de l’Ontario (CSHO)

The World of Long-Term Care Hospitals

The New York Times
Wed Feb 10 2010
Page: 1
Section: Business/Financial
Byline: ALEX BERENSON
No one at the hospital noticed that Tina Bell-Jackman was dying.

On the night of June 26, 2007, Ms. Bell-Jackman turned restlessly in her bed in Room 7 at Select Specialty Hospital of Kansas City, a small medical center that specializes in treating chronically ill patients. Ms. Bell- Jackman, a 46-year-old with diabetes, had been hospitalized at Select for five weeks, was increasingly agitated and could not speak because of a surgical hole in her throat. Her physicians had ordered the hospital to keep a sitter with her.

But at 8 p.m., the sitter left, according to a state court lawsuit and a Medicare inspection report. Left alone, Ms. Bell-Jackman tried to get up. Around 9:30 p.m., staff members tied her down with wrist restraints. Around 12:15 a.m., after the restraints had been removed, a nurse injected her with a sedative to calm her.

In other hospitals, an attending physician might have seen Ms. Bell- Jackman. But the Select hospital of Kansas City has no doctors on its staff or its wards overnight. In emergencies, it must call in physicians from outside.

More than 400 similar facilities, called long-term acute care hospitals, have opened nationally in the last 25 years. Few of them have doctors on staff, and most are owned by for-profit companies. The Kansas City hospital is part of a chain called the Select Medical Corporation, a publicly traded Pennsylvania company that runs 89 long-term hospitals, more than any other company.

Lawsuits, state inspection reports and statistics deep in federal reports paint a troubling picture of the care offered at some Select hospitals, and at long-term care hospitals in general.

In 2007 and 2008, Select's hospitals were cited at a rate almost four times that of regular hospitals for serious violations of Medicare rules, according to an analysis by The New York Times. Other long-term care hospitals were cited at a rate about twice that of regular hospitals.

Long-term care hospitals also had a higher incidence of bedsores and infections than regular hospitals in 2006, the most recent year for which federal data is available.

Fewer than 10 hospitals dedicated to long-term care existed in the early 1980s, according to Medicare officials. But many such hospitals have sprouted since then, driven by Medicare rules that offer high payments for hospitals that treat patients for an average of 25 days or more. Long-term care hospitals now treat about 200,000 patients a year, including 130,000 Medicare patients -- at a projected cost of $4.8 billion to the government this year, up from $400 million in 1993.

Unlike other specialized hospitals, like psychiatric or children's hospitals, long-term care hospitals do not treat specific types of patients or offer services unavailable in regular hospitals. They are defined solely by the fact that they keep patients longer than other hospitals. They are also smaller than a typical hospital, averaging about 60 beds.

Many patients at hospitals that specialize in long-term care are very sick. While usually in stable condition, they may be on dialysis, need a ventilator or have wounds that will not heal. If patients need surgery or suffer serious medical emergencies, they are usually transferred back to general hospitals.

Nontraditional Hospitals

Despite the rapid expansion of long-term care hospitals and the serious illnesses they treat, Medicare has never closely examined their care. Unlike traditional hospitals, Medicare does not penalize them financially if they fail to submit quality data.

Supporters of long-term hospitals say that even without staff physicians, they provide high-quality care and play an important role by treating patients who are too sick for nursing homes but are not improving at traditional hospitals. Hospital intensive care units help patients survive acute illnesses, heart attacks and trauma, but they are not intended to treat patients for weeks or months.

Of course, traditional hospitals can move those patients to regular medical wards for treatment. But under Medicare payment rules, traditional hospitals often lose money on patients who stay for long periods. So they have a financial incentive to discharge patients to long-term hospitals, which then receive new Medicare payments for admitting the patients. Both hospitals benefit financially.

That dynamic, rather than evidence that long-term hospitals benefit patients, has driven their expansion, said Dr. Jeremy M. Kahn of the University of Pennsylvania, who has received a federal grant to study the hospitals. The industry's growth is an example of how health care companies can exploit the $450 billion Medicare program, he added.

"The U.S. health care system allows unintentional financial incentives to drive sweeping changes," Dr. Kahn said.

The questions about long-term care hospitals center on the for-profit side of the industry, led by Select and Kindred Healthcare, another publicly traded company.

For-profit long-term hospitals generally spend less on patients and have higher margins than comparable nonprofits, according to data from the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, a Congressional research agency.

In 2007, for-profit long-term care hospitals had margins of 6 percent on Medicare patients, while regular hospitals lost an average of 6 percent on Medicare patients, according to the commission.

In a presentation to investors last month, Select Medical reported that it improved its margins by monitoring staffing levels and lowering supply costs.

Medicare inspection reports, however, describe preventable patient injuries and deaths, and they portray Select's hospitals as understaffed and with high turnover.

In the last three years, inspectors have found 22 violations of care standards at 12 Select hospitals so serious that, if uncorrected, could lead Medicare to ban those hospitals from admitting Medicare patients.

The 22 violations represent an estimated 2 percent of the serious violations Medicare found nationally, even though Select operates less than half a percent of the nation's hospital beds. Put another way, on a per-bed basis, Select hospitals were cited about four times as often as the average.

Select also appears to manage how long patients stay, to maximize its profits. A hospital is certified as a long-term care hospital and receives high Medicare reimbursements if most patients stay at least 25 days. But Medicare pays the hospital a set amount for each patient, meaning that patients who stay longer than that become less profitable.

Therefore, long-term care hospitals are most profitable if most patients are discharged at or just after their 25th day, with a few discharged earlier. Select adheres closely to this formula, with an average length of stay at its hospitals of about 24 days, according to public filings. At some Select hospitals, the 25th day is called the "magic day," ex-employees say.

And in 2007, an inspector for Medicare found that a case manager at a Select hospital in Kansas had refused to discharge a patient despite the wishes of his physician and family. The hospital calculated it would lose $3,853.52 if it discharged the patient when the family wanted, the inspector found.

Select strongly defends its care. In a statement, the company said that the Medicare reports represented isolated incidents, that it corrected any problems that inspectors found and that it did not discharge or hold patients for financial reasons.

"In 13 years of operating hospitals, we have a demonstrated record of regulatory compliance and quality patient care," the company said in a statement. While Select hospitals do not have physicians in-house around the clock, they always have doctors on call, said Carolyn Curnane, a Select spokeswoman. And its patients, like those at other hospitals, are seen by physicians at least once a day.

Select also said that a privately maintained database showed that it was better at weaning patients off ventilators and helping them avoid pneumonia than typical hospitals.

"The picture you draw about Select Medical is inaccurate and misleading," the company wrote in response to a reporter's questions about the Medicare findings.

Partly owned by a private equity firm, Select Medical sold shares to the public in September. Its top two executives, a father and son named Rocco and Robert Ortenzio, have made about $200 million from salary, benefits and share sales since founding Select in November 1996. The Ortenzios, who are veterans of the for-profit hospital industry, still own about 10 percent of the company, worth about $200 million.

Hiring a Director

Select, which has 23,000 employees and provided care to 42,000 patients in 2009, has no physicians on its board or in management. In 2007, it hired a physician for a new position, national medical director. The physician, Dr. David Jarvis, does not work at Select's headquarters in Mechanicsburg, Pa., and has no management responsibilities. He estimated he spent only 10 hours a week working for Select Medical.

"I'm sort of part time," Dr. Jarvis said. He said that Select Medical "would probably benefit" from having a full-time physician on staff. Select's corporate medical officer, Mary Burkett, is a registered nurse who is not listed among the company's top 10 executives on its financial statements.

Select said that it had several corporate-level employees responsible for ensuring safe care and that each hospital had a full-time quality manager. "In addition, a corporate survey nurse makes unannounced hospital visits to look for potential problems," the company wrote. "Unfortunately, we cannot prevent our staff, as well trained as they are, from making mistakes on rare occasions."

Select allowed a reporter to tour its hospital in Nashville, where Dr. Jarvis sees patients, though he is not on the hospital's staff. During a four-hour visit in December, the hospital appeared clean and well run. Patients and their families said they were happy with the care they received.

Dr. Jarvis defends Select and the industry, saying that long-term care hospitals play an important role by caring for patients who are not improving at traditional hospitals. Nurses and aides at traditional hospitals may grow frustrated with such patients, but Select's nurses and aides are used to them, he said. And after aggressive intensive care treatment, long-term patients need gentler care that will enable them to recover on their own.

"These people do better when we don't overdo it," he said.

Patients who need scans or more intense care can be transferred back to traditional hospitals. But some patients cannot be saved even with the best care, he said. Indeed, about 12 percent of Select's patients die while hospitalized. "We see such sick people," Dr. Jarvis said.

Among the more peculiar aspects of long-term care hospitals is that nearly half of them, and almost all of Select's, are actually "hospitals within hospitals." They do not have their own buildings and instead occupy a floor or two of an existing hospital. They contract most services from the host hospital, so they can be opened quickly and cheaply.

Yet under Medicare rules, because they have different owners, the two hospitals are considered separate for payment purposes. This means there can be a second reimbursement when a patient is simply transferred between floors.

A Case Is Settled

Select's Kansas City hospital sits on the fourth floor of the Overland Park Regional Medical Center, in a Kansas City suburb. On Oct. 7, 2004, Bill Dean Borum lay in bed there, recuperating from a forklift accident that had led doctors to amputate part of his left leg.

Mr. Borum, 69, also suffered from diabetes and a perforated bowel. Nonetheless, after a month at Select, he had been weaned from a ventilator, according to Wanda Stagg, his sister. "I went to see him almost every single day, and he was starting to talk better and do better," Ms. Stagg said.

Then, around 5 a.m. on Oct. 8, a nurse at Select called Ms. Stagg, telling her that her brother had died of a heart attack. Sheryl Laing, who was the hospital's director of quality, later told Ms. Stagg that a nurse had turned off Mr. Borum's heart monitor because the nurse was tired of listening to the monitor beep.

In October 2005, Ms. Stagg and Mr. Borum's daughter sued. The case, in state court in Kansas, was dropped in 2006, after Select paid Mr. Borum's family $195,000, according to court records. The nurse involved was fired, Ms. Laing said.

Select did not admit liability in the settlement. In answer to questions about the case, Select said that its "monitoring policy in place at that time met the prevailing standard of care" and that the death resulted from "human error and a failure to comply" with the company's policy.

Because of Mr. Borum's death and a second event she described, Ms. Laing pressed Select's corporate officials to let the hospital hire a clerk to watch the heart monitors, she said. Patients' rooms lay on a long corridor, with the nurses' station at one end. "You could be fairly close and not be able to hear the monitors," Ms. Laing said.

But Select Medical refused, saying that nurses should check the monitors, also called telemetry machines, between their other duties, Ms. Laing said. Jason Hedrick, an occupational therapist who was the hospital's chief executive at the time, offered a similar account in a deposition in September 2008. Asked why Select Medical had refused to hire a clerk, Mr. Hedrick said, "I would say that it's, it's a financial reason."

Select said in a statement that it disputed the accounts of Ms. Laing and Mr. Hedrick and that they never asked the company for a clerk.

Ms. Laing joined the Select Kansas City hospital as a nurse in 2002, after years working as a counselor at a center for veterans. She was promoted to director of quality in the summer of 2004. In December 2006, she was promoted again, to director of clinical services. Despite the promotions, she grew frustrated with Select Medical's corporate management. She said she believed that Select's failure to spend adequately put patients at risk.

Alarms Sound

Select had not hired a person to watch the telemetry machine on May 25, 2007, when Tina Bell-Jackman was admitted from Overland Park Regional, the host hospital for Select. Ms. Bell-Jackman, a smoker who suffered from poorly controlled diabetes, needed a ventilator to breathe. Slowly, she regained her strength.

By late June, she could breathe unaided and walk a few steps, though she was unable to speak because surgeons had cut a hole in her throat for a tracheostomy tube. "She was getting ready to leave the hospital," Ms. Laing said. "She was never going to be a really healthy person, but it seemed like she was on the way to being her best."

After the sedative injection at 12:15 a.m. on June 27, Ms. Bell-Jackman seemed to relax. But at 12:42 a.m., the leads connecting her heart monitor to her chest came loose. The machine sounded an alarm at a nursing station. No one responded.

As her alarm rang and the minutes ticked by, Ms. Bell-Jackman went unaided. Finally, during a bed check at 2 a.m., Samuel A. Danso, the nurse responsible for treating Ms. Bell-Jackman overnight, noticed she was unconscious. Efforts to revive her failed. She was pronounced dead the next day, without having regained consciousness.

Two days after Ms. Bell-Jackman's death, the hospital fired Mr. Danso. He did not return calls for comment.

In a scathing report after Ms. Bell-Jackman's death, Medicare inspectors found that the hospital did not have enough nurses on the night she died and that the volume on her monitor was turned down. "The audible alarms could barely be heard," inspectors wrote. In addition, although staff members "recognized the need to report the death" because she had been in restraints, "they stated the corporate legal department advised the hospital not to report the death" to Medicare.

Select's lawyers did not think that the company needed to report the death, the company said.

On July 18, a week after the Medicare inspection, Select Specialty hired a full-time technician to watch the heart monitors. In September 2007, Select fired Ms. Laing. The company did not give a reason for her firing, she said. But she says she believes it had grown tired of her complaints about its practices. Select declined to comment about Ms. Laing's dismissal.

In January 2008, Ms. Bell-Jackman's family filed suit against the hospital in Johnson County Court in Kansas, later adding Select Medical, the parent company, as a defendant. In June 2009, the hospital, which is insured separately from the parent company, settled the claim against it by paying Ms. Bell-Jackman's family $800,000, while denying wrongdoing. On Jan. 20, after being asked by The New York Times about the case, Select Medical agreed to a settlement with Ms. Bell-Jackman's family. Terms were not disclosed.

Through their lawyer, Dr. Samuel K. Cullan, the family declined to comment.

In a statement, the company said: "Ms. Bell-Jackman's death was a tragedy for which we are deeply sorry. Select conducted an appropriate clinical review following Ms. Bell-Jackman's death and terminated a clinician involved in her care." As for Ms. Laing, she now works at a veterans' hospital in Leavenworth, Kan., where she says she is much happier. She added that she regretted not reporting her concerns to state inspectors or Medicare officials.

"I should have been more verbal with outside entities, but sometimes you get in a situation where that's not your first thought," she said. "You just try to do the best you can with what you have."

"Just talking about this makes me mad, because it shouldn't have happened this way," she said. "She shouldn't have died in our hospital."

Many other Select hospitals have problems, according to Medicare inspectors. But questions about patient safety at long-term care hospitals extend well beyond Select's hospitals.

In 2006, nine out of 1,000 Medicare patients developed serious infections in long-term care hospitals, according to a March 2009 report from the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. In contrast, fewer than three out of 1,000 patients over 65 -- a group made up almost exclusively of Medicare patients -- developed infections at traditional hospitals that year, according to the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

But Medicare has few levers to discipline long-term care hospitals, or any hospitals. Hospitals must submit plans to correct the problems that inspectors find, but the program cannot impose fines or reduce payments.

In theory, Medicare can force hospitals out of the program, but because that penalty is like forcing a hospital to close, the agency almost never uses it.

"It is typically only when the deficiencies are chronic or serious, such as when they directly affect patient care, that Medicare will take the unusual step of threatening decertification," said Robert L. Roth, who was a senior lawyer for Medicare.

In 2009, when Medicare tried to force out the Select hospital in St. Louis, the company sued. A federal judge found the penalty unwarranted and granted an injunction forbidding Medicare to follow through. The violations in the St. Louis case did not directly harm patients, the judge found. The two sides eventually settled, with the hospital agreeing to hire outside experts.

For years, Medicare reimbursement rules have encouraged the growth of long-term care hospitals, said Dr. Christopher E. Cox, an associate professor of critical care medicine at Duke University.

Under Medicare, hospitals receive a payment for a patient based on the patient's diagnosis, not the cost of care. Patients who recover quickly are profitable, but those who languish are not."A lot of the time, hospitals would be losing money on these kinds of patients," Dr. Cox said.

But if a regular hospital transfers a patient to a long-term care hospital, the long-term hospital gets a payment from Medicare that averages about $40,000. Meanwhile, the regular hospital frees up a bed for a new patient -- and new reimbursement.

Because long-term care hospitals do not have emergency rooms, they choose which patients to admit. Medicare tries to prevent them from admitting patients who could be treated less expensively at nursing homes, but its rules are applied loosely, if at all, said Dr. Kahn of the University of Pennsylvania. "They can pick the most profitable types of patients," Dr. Kahn said.

Moratorium

During the 1990s, as medical entrepreneurs like the Ortenzios recognized that long-term care hospitals were relatively cheap to set up and could be run profitably, companies rushed to open them. Spending on such hospitals soared to $4.5 billion in 2006, from $1.9 billion in 2001 and $398 million in 1993.

Concerned about costs, Medicare began tinkering with its rules to slow the industry's growth. The agency limited the number of patients that hospitals- within-hospitals could admit from their hosts. It said that if patients were admitted to a long-term care hospital and then rapidly returned to a regular hospital, it would not pay multiple reimbursements.

Nonetheless, the industry continued to grow. Finally, in December 2007, Medicare instituted a three-year moratorium on new long-term care hospitals. The freeze has slowed, but not stopped, the industry's growth. After soaring for more than a decade, Medicare spending on long-term care hospitals has been flat the last two years.

But the moratorium expires in December of this year. And even if it is extended, existing long-term hospitals will continue to admit nearly 200,000 Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance patients a year, without any proof that they match the quality of traditional hospitals, Dr. Kahn said. Despite the moratorium, he said, Medicare has never "taken steps to curb the perverse financial incentives" that drove the long-term hospital explosion.

© 2010 by the New York Times Company

Illustration:
• PHOTO: 'We see such sick people.' DR. DAVID JARVIS: National medical director for the Select Medical Corporation (PHOTOGRAPH BY JOSH ANDERSON FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES)(A14)
• GOING PUBLIC: Sheryl Laing, who worked for Select Medical, said she grew frustrated with its management. Select Medical's executives, Rocco Ortenzio, left, and Robert Ortenzio at the initial public offering in September.(PHOTOGRAPHS BY STEVE HEBERT FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES
• NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE)
• LONG-TERM CARE: Tina Bell-Jackman was chronically ill with diabetes.(A15)

Edition: Late Edition - Final
Length: 3463 words
Idnumber: 201002100136

Trail of Disquieting Reports From Hospitals of Select Medical

The New York Times
Wed Feb 10 2010
Page: 14
Section: National
Byline: ALEX BERENSON

Some of the most worrisome reports about Select Medical's hospitals are largely hidden from the public.

Inspectors from state health departments regularly visit hospitals on behalf of Medicare to make sure that the hospitals are meeting the requirements to participate in the program. In their visits, often after complaints from patients, family members, nurses and physicians, the inspectors talk to patients and staff members and review medical reports and other evidence.

The reports do not identify patients or staff members, but they offer detailed descriptions of what inspectors have found to be a problem, ranging from minor violations, like poor record-keeping, to much more serious issues.

A handful of states, including Florida and Pennsylvania, make the reports public on state health department Web sites. Most do not. The New York Times received the reports directly from Medicare under a Freedom of Information Act request that asked for reports of Select Medical Corporation hospitals citing "condition level" violations -- problems so serious that Medicare could bar the hospitals from the program if they were not corrected.

In all, Medicare turned over 22 condition-level reports for 2007, 2008 and 2009. In addition, several "standard level" reports from Florida and Pennsylvania describe very serious incidents.

In May 2008, inspectors in Ohio reported that family members of a patient at a Select hospital in Cincinnati had called 911 -- from inside the hospital -- at 9:30 p.m. on Feb. 15 to complain "that they couldn't get any nurses or doctors to help the patient," who had been short of breath for more than an hour. The patient's condition continued to worsen, but no doctor affiliated with Select Specialty arrived, according to the medical records.

At 11:55 p.m., a medical resident from the host hospital, Good Samaritan Hospital, decided to admit the patient to Good Samaritan's intensive care unit. But under Good Samaritan's policies, a more senior physician needed to be consulted before the patient could be transferred. While the resident tried to get approval, the patient's heart stopped and he died.

In a statement, Select said that its staff had responded properly and consistently to the patient's complaints. Nurses, a respiratory therapist and physicians all saw the patient during the night, according to the company. Good Samaritan declined to comment.

In January 2008, inspectors in North Carolina reported that a 68-year-old patient at a Select hospital in Durham had died after his heart stopped despite wearing a telemetry monitor that set off an alarm, because the clerk watching the monitor did not know what the alarm meant and a nurse did not visit the patient for 17 minutes.

In the same report, inspectors reported finding a patient who had soiled himself and had not been cleaned for seven hours. Another patient told inspectors that he had on repeated occasions waited more than an hour to be cleaned after soiling himself.

In a statement about the 68-year-old, Select said that the clerk had acted appropriately and that the patient would have died in any case. "Changes were made in hospital leadership and improved staff competency after this incident," the company said.

A year later, inspectors returned to the hospital and again found an untrained person watching the heart monitors. In the same report, they noted that a patient had not been evaluated for nearly seven hours after falling out of bed. The patient later died.

In March 2009, inspectors in Kansas and Pennsylvania found problems with heart-monitoring in separate incidents. At the Select hospital in Topeka, monitors went unwatched, inspectors reported. In Pittsburgh, inspectors found a broken heart-monitor being used on a patient. In a statement, Select said that the incidents had not put patients at risk.

In October 2009, state inspectors in Florida found that a Select hospital in Palm Beach had put a bedridden patient on a feeding tube that provided only 600 calories a day, causing her to lose 8 percent of her weight in three weeks.

"The registered dietician could not explain the nutritional care being provided to the resident," the inspectors wrote. Another patient at the same hospital weighed 146 pounds; the hospital had reported the patient's weight as 182 pounds and could not explain the discrepancy.

In a statement, Select said that the hospital was trying to move the first patient from tube feeding to mouth feeding, and that the transition had caused temporary weight loss. In the case of the second patient, the weight was inaccurately recorded, but the patient was not malnourished, the company said.

© 2010 by the New York Times Company

Illustration:
• CHARTS: Mounting Problems: Long-term care hospitals specialize in treating patients with chronic or complex conditions. Their numbers have more than doubled since the mid-1990s. But the rate of serious complaints filed against such facilities is much higher than that for other hospitals.: Number of long-term care hospitals
• Complaints resulting in "conditions level" findings
• Select Medical Corp. long-term care hospitals (Sources: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medpac, AHA, SEC)

Edition: Late Edition - Final
Length: 733 words
Idnumber: 201002100133

© 2009 OCHU Contact