DHEC Health Regulations
In the Nov. 17 installment of their series, The State headline proclaimed that the state Department of Health and Environmental Control “stumbles” in protecting elderly or vulnerable citizens in residential care facilities.
There’s no dispute that ensuring appropriate care for these citizens is a challenge. Yet the reporters would have you believe that the “three suspicious deaths,” cited in the story are DHEC’s fault. They are not. Whether it is the death of the Peachtree Manor resident who was struck by a car while being pushed along the road outside the facility by another resident or an overdose of medication given by an unqualified staff member at another facility, to blame the oversight agency would be the same kind of logic that would blame a state trooper for a traffic fatality on one of our interstate highways. After all, if the troopers were doing their jobs, this wouldn’t happen in the first place, right?
When we find unacceptable care in community residential care facilities, we take action. Sometimes, we are able to gain compliance through education while others require some type of enforcement action, up to and including the potential revocation of the facility’s license to operate. Much was made in the Nov. 17 story about Peachtree Manor in Fairfield County. Citing numerous problems at the facility, DHEC revoked their license in December 2006. With every enforcement action we take, there is the process of appeal. In this case, the matter went to the state’s Administrative Law Court where there were volumes of testimony and evidence presented by our attorneys including the death of the resident from October 2006. The final decision upholding our action was not issued by the court until March 2008. While that process was underway, the facility was allowed by law to remain open, as reported by the STATE's reporter John Monk in his April 3, 2008, coverage of the trial.
Some reporters might utilize “what if” questions in order to obtain answers that might involve speculation or wishful thinking. In this case, Dennis Gibbs was asked how many inspectors he would like to have for community residential care facilities. He correctly noted that it would be nice to have more inspectors “if money were no object.” Unfortunately in these economic times, it is. We do prioritize complaints to use our resources where they can be most effective.
We’re glad to see some of the groups and organizations cited in the story indicate they want better care and conditions for residents in these facilities. We welcome that because we have seen on far too many occasions, families place loved ones in facilities and then never become involved in their care or even take the time to visit. Yes, there are those who may not have a family to check on them and the care they receive in these facilities but when families do get involved, the facility’s staff and management take notice and respond. That results in better situations for everyone.
Just as that lone trooper on I-20 that may be taking an accident report, has another waiting and needs to get to traffic court, we cannot be everywhere, all the time. We depend on input from the citizens we serve and want to know about problems; whether the complaints come in from direct contact with our staff, from the ombudsman’s office or other agencies. In fact, we were not made aware of the death in Richland County that the coroner is investigating. We have contacted coroner Watt’s office and will be taking our own action in this case as well.
For additional information, contact: (803) 898-3432