RE: Do Hospital Compliance Lines offer Genuine Protection from Retaliation?

[TsunamiKim]

i just discovered an internet site called health ethics trust (a division of the council for ethical organizations.) i posted the following as an inquiry after joining talk-about-compliance.

is it acceptable for a compliance line, that publicly on the internet boasts protection from retaliation, to refuse to provide this much needed protection until all other avenues of recourse have been exhausted through hr etc., eeoc, arbitration first? this in effect is asking an employee to endure what can be an extended ordeal of several years of corrupt managerial maneuvers targeting them for permanent removal in order to silence their allegations of negligence. in other words:

we cannot protect you from retaliation until your hospital has finished retaliating?

the failure of the compliance line to even attempt to verify whether the initial excuse given for dismissal was valid initiates this extended postponement of retaliatory protection. only the firm insistence that the abuse and negligence issues should be dealt with separately and without delay prompts a half-hearted look at multiple serious patient safety problems. there is no report of findings or a plan for corrective measures to be taken just a verbal comment acknowledging that there is truth to the allegations and that the compliance line has decided to "just keep an eye on things." this is hardly a reassuring statement in consideration of the extreme personal sacrifices taken by a reporting employee and the ongoing onslaught of aggressive career destroying retaliation. however, there is an assurance that this alleged retaliation will be investigated after all other recourse has been exhausted. in my case this excruciatingly painful and humiliating ordeal took nearly three years!

as in my case, most powerful and determined hospitals will succeed in these corrupt procedures to permanently remove an outspoken employee from the workplace. with me this was achieved through a succession of lies, deceit, fabricated backdated insertions into my personal file all of which was concealed from me, but shown to external agencies behind my back to discredit my reporting of safety violations. by damaging my credibility this sabotaged all of my separate attempts to have external agencies investigate the ongoing negligence issues for the public good.

the process of dismissal is trusted as legitimate at least partially due to the presence of a compliance line. compliance line inaction is actually far worse than no compliance line at all! because of the complete lack of any type of compliance line investigation, scrutiny or monitoring of my personal files, the hospital's hr dept., or the managers spearheading this corrupt process, the hospital was free to use whatever means necessary to pursue their goal of retaliatory discharge totally unimpeded. my employee file was a revolving door of late submission document to help bolster an untenable case. this process was nothing short of a "witch hunt!" once these retaliatory measures have resulted in a permanent ruling against the employee the compliance line can then refuse to investigate the issue of retaliation as the former employee no longer works for the organization!

in other words:

now that your hospital has succeeded in their corrupt retaliatory dismissal efforts we can no longer consider investigating this alleged retaliation as you are no longer an employee!

despite the earlier assurances that if all else failed i could expect my hospital's compliance line to finally investigate the retaliatory discharge practices they continue to refuse to deal with my case. the chief investigator who had originally made this commitment to me was too spineless to even tell me that they had had no intention of ever investigating my case. he refused to answer my calls and had the mighty hospital's legal department send me a letter ordering no further communication.

does this example represent the level of compliance you recommend to support ethical conduct and encourage reporting of fraud, abuse and negligence in healthcare facilities? is it appropriate for any compliance line to boast being "independent and impartial" when it was initiated and then run by a long-term internal hospital appointee? this chief compliance officer has since been rewarded with another top level post within the same organization? i am compelled to believe that it was in the best interests of this chief investigator to set up a program that protected the agenda of his hospital in victimizing an outspoken employee they had chosen to silence with retaliatory dismissal.

what protections are in place to insure that compliance lines are not simple a damage control pr front prepared to cover-up negligence issues for financial reasons? what assurances do regular hospital employees have that they will be protected from retaliation if they have the courage to report, fraud, abuse or negligence? proclamations on the internet may fool the public, but what guarantees that a compliance line abides by their own advertising promises? what recourse is left to me now that the compliance line has failed in their duty to protect by adamantly and consistently denying access to an investigation into my retaliatory discharge?

this inquiry will be posted on a nursing site as other betrayed nurses expect answers too. we want more honesty, integrity and genuine transparency since under current conditions we are helplessly unable to report negligence and abuse without fear of serious retaliation. we want to know why these so called "compliance lines" are hindering not helping to insure safer patient care? we want to understand the warped logic behind the "hands off" policy that ignores retaliatory practices until a hospital has succeeded in the corrupt removal of an outspoken employee?

please answer with honesty as many patients still remain at serious risk,

kim

[Keysnurse2008]

tsunami kim.....i dont know about all compliance lines. i actually had a meeting with my previous hcf's compliance officer.i am still waiting for the "results" of that investigation.

you know...if it is any consolation.....that hcf that was successfully sued by a family for unsafe staffing...should be hitting home with these hcfs.

dont you know.....you "know" that hcf had complaint after complaint from nsg staff until they were "effectively" silenced.i bet we havent heard the last of that yet. so...as i said....i hope these hcfs are watching this case...bc...i bet ya...there will be alot of nurses come out of the woodwork to tell how /what was going on. when these hcf's silence nurses who are trying to act as patient safety advocates...they are setting themselves up for a huge huge public outrage.these large hcf's....are setting their own self up for it.what happened when this abc tv ran this story? people and their families started talking...wondering...just wondering...how many nurses were on duty when "mom/dad/sis/ or their child" died..or endured a sentinel event?then what do you think will happen? they will get atty's who will be interested in not only how many nurses were on duty ...but how much expereince they had. that day ...isnt just coming...it is "here". the public deserves safe medical and nursing care.unless these hcf's have shown they have a history of thoroughly investigating and acting on reported events...they are setting their own selves up for the public humiliation this hospital endured. after this family sued successfully...how many families in that area would allow their family members to go there?how much damage did they do to their own reputation?

i mean...i told you about my previous hospital staffing a large icu with a new grad of 7 months in charge one night....bc she was the "most experienced" nurse on the unit. all the others were "just graduated" new grads....and none were acls certified. this was an issue i had addressed months ago with my old manager.....and got "lip service" from her re : hiring too many new grads to save money on the nsg budget.it isnt fair to those new grads...not fair to the new grad of 7 months to be placed in the position she /he was in....and not fair to the high acquity patients and their families. what would have happened if..if...there had been a sentinel event that night?they would have hung that new grad of 7 months out to dry...it doesnt matter that they "placed" her in that position.but that doesnt matter.....well it didnt matter. now...bc of this families successful legal action...it does matter.so when they have a "sham" of a compliance line/office/investigation.....it is gonna come back and bite them in the a**. :cheers: .

[canoehead, BSN, RN]

The petition is too general. How do you know if they have complied or not? They investigate and find they need to "observe the situation" then they have complied to the letter but not to the spirit.

I would sign a petition that required Q4h breaks, or that required an action plan, but complete transparency? It's never going to happen and it would hurt the employees and hospital. What about online publication of infection rates? That would be good for the public, and a good pr move for the hospital, and it would have to result in improved work conditions if they want better numbers.

Make the petition about improving patient care instead about your own reputation and you may see more signatures.

[TsunamiKim]

i am really thrilled to be able to announce that despite your skepticism the important petition i launched on the petition stie demanding compliance accountability has now received over 2930 signatures and comments from the public and conscientious patient advocates working in healthcare. to review and add your comment to the petition please visit: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/938995258

compliance line compliance obligations:

what rules are necessary? and why?

1. compliance lines are duty bound to investigate all allegations of dangerous, negligent or fraudulent practice without delay or any regard for the status, current situation or alleged lack of credibility of the person reporting. reprimand or dismissal must never be sited as legitimate grounds for ignoring a report of potentially dangerous, negligent or fraudulent practices.

without this stipulation a facility or organization guilty of violations can use stalling tactics to postpone an investigation indefinably and when reprimand of firing are permitted to negate the credibility of an informant this tactic will encourage intimidation to silence or remove an outspoken employee.

2. employees should be able to report to compliance lines without going through a “chain of command” in their workplace first as they may genuinely fear managerial retaliation.

if reporting up through the “chain of command” is a prerequisite before contacting compliance it becomes impossible to report the abuse, negligence or fraud perpetrated by a manager and it leaves the employee vulnerable to a tangible fear of retaliation or dismissal.

3. there must be no postponement or delay before a compliance line agrees to investigate and very strictly monitor the dismissal of any employee who reports being targeted by management since waiting until after the grievance process, arbitration and all other avenues of recourse have been exhausted, cannot possibly offer adequate retaliatory protection to a vulnerable targeted employee in the interim.

if an employee contacts their compliance line to report retaliation or wrongful termination, but the proceedings are not vetted for legitimacy and monitored for fairness then abuse of power and manipulation of the disciplinary system is encouraged. special attention must be paid to any evidence of irregularities or prejudicial behavior that precipitated a suspicious firing,

4. compliance lines must not be allowed to review allegations or charges concerning the conduct of an employee where written detailed documentation does not exist or the employee has never been permitted to review all of this documentation and therefore cannot respond to or refute its validity in any way. employees must never be denied full access to their own personnel file or pay records even after dismissal.

a general category of event that might satisfy the basic reason given for dismissal is not valid without a detailed written documentation of exactly what occurred as, without such documentation and without the accused being allowed full access to it, the details can be changed and the seriousness escalated after the fact to secure permanent removal. if an employee does not know exactly what they were accused of doing they cannot possibly mount any defense at all against such nonspecific charges.there is no legitimate reason to deny an employee full access to their own personnel file or pay records.

5. a compliance line must document or provide the employee’s documented written response to all allegations or charges made against them giving that employee’s response statement equal attention and credence.

an accused employee who is prevented from submitting documentation of their response to allegations is unfairly denied the right to prove their innocence and defend their reputation. no requirement for equal representation encourages false accusations that erroneously appear to go unchallenged by the accused: no charge is valid without response.

6. no employee should be discredited or removed with charges that are not documented in full and in writing in documents that are made fully and promptly available to the accused prior to the date of their discipline. a timeline of all included paperwork with submission dates must accompany this. no additional charges or embellishments added after a dismissal should be considered relevant or credible evidence of misconduct by the fired employee.

charges or allegations against an employee that are not presented prior to an employee’s removal are simply not valid. the legitimacy of charges can only be verified by an accurate timeline of events leading up to the employee’s removal. without this stipulation employers can conduct a “witch hunt” where the targeted employee’s file can easily become a revolving door of late submissions and backdated entries accumulating unnoticed by the accused.

7. compliance lines must remain totally impartial without demonstrating bias towards protecting the facility or the organization’s best interests at the expense of an employee, especially with regard to supporting inequality by disproportionately ignoring the equal accountability and necessity for discipline of management found guilty of dangerous, negligent or fraudulent practices.

when an employee is dismissed on the basis of an inconsequential minor infraction used to silence their protest, but the negligence or corruption they report is virtually ignored and no one is disciplined for actions that present a serious risk to people’s lives then the system is seriously biased.

8. a compliance line should not be managed or staffed by internal appointees with a vested interest in protecting the best interests of the facility or organization.

a serious conflict of interest exists when compliance line staff are recruited from internal departments: they may anticipate another more lucrative transfer in future, if they protect the best interest of the facility or organization they are supposed to be monitoring in a fair and unbiased way.

9. when approached by an external agency a compliance line must demonstrate in detail the evidence on which their findings, even a finding of no cause for concern, plus their decisions regarding corrective measures and proportionate discipline following an investigation, are based.

if a compliance line knows that their findings will be accepted without a presentation of the facts then they are under no pressure to really investigate at all. this will encourage meaningless cursory internal investigations to placate external agencies and evade external scrutiny.

10. a basic report of compliance line findings, even a finding of no cause for concern, plus decisions regarding corrective measures and discipline following an investigation should be made available to the person reporting in order to provide assurance that the situation has been handled appropriately by internal compliance.

when an employee reports abuse, negligence or fraud they may have considerable worry over the consequences of inaction and they have a right to know that genuine corrective measures were taken, that people were held accountable and that they do not need to report the matter to any external agencies due to inappropriate compliance line inaction.

11. compliance lines are duty bound to investigate all allegations of retaliation and wrongful dismissal, despite any rulings against the employee, even after the employee has been permanently removed from the workforce and even if an employee has felt compelled or bullied into writing a solicited letter of resignation or accepting a settlement.

if a compliance line can simply write off the need to investigate a case of retaliation or wrongful dismissal because retaliatory practices have succeeded in totally removing an employee or bullying them into writing a solicited letter of resignation to end all further abuse then this only encourages more aggressive, corrupt and relentless tactics.

12. compliance lines must be subject to external scrutiny by public agencies and government regulatory bodies. this is especially important when an employee removed under suspicious circumstances, reports strong suspicions of an inappropriately dismissive or purely cursory investigation with the complete refusal to pursue any charges against serious offenders without explanation, or valid evidence of an internal cover-up.

when a facility or organization knows that public agencies and government regulatory bodies are powerless to subject them to external scrutiny, that they must accept the findings or corrective strategies of an internal investigation conducted by their compliance line without question, the manipulation and corruption of compliance lines is fostered and condoned. there is a very strong incentive for facilities or organizations to create an internal compliance line for the express purpose of avoiding external scrutiny and highlighting any outspoken “troublemakers” for swift removal from the workforce. this is the diametric opposite of the concept that inspired the creation of these compliance lines in the first place and the general public is left with fewer safeguards and protections than existed before their inception.

to express your opinion regarding the urgent need for compliance line accountability visit "health petitions" at: www.thepetitionsite.complease review and comment on the petition: johns hopkins hospital investigation of wwhistlblower’s dismissal; demand compliance accountability: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/938995258