DHS

 

Wisconsin Department of Health Services

Client Rights Home

Intro to Client Rights

Client Rights Office

Client Rights Training Opportunities

Client Rights Limitation or Denial

Community Grievance Decision Digest

Confidentiality of Treatment Records

Guardianship

Minors

Informed consent

Centers for the Develop- mentally Disabled

Mental Health Institutes

Secure Treatment Centers

Outpatient treatment

Inpatient treatment

Model Grievance Procedure

Forms, publications and posters

Non-Wisconsin residents who are emergency detained

Community Grievance Decision Digest

SAFETY, RIGHT TO

THE LAW:

"...[Hospital] facilities shall be designed to afford patients with ..safety..."

§ 51.61(1)(m), Wis. Stats. [Emphasis added.]

"Staff shall take reasonable steps to ensure the physical safety of all patients."

HFS 94.24(2)(a), Wis. Admin. Code [Emphasis added.]

DECISIONS

  1. A woman complained about her doctor, alleging that the medications he prescribed for her may have caused an adverse heart reaction leading to an emergency visit to the hospital. This allegation was reviewed by the Bureau of Regulation and Licensing (BRL), which reviews medical allegations of malpractice or injury to others. BRL did not find that the heart reaction and emergency room visit was necessarily caused by the medication.  The grievance process defers to BRL’s medical expertise on such issues and thus there was no finding of any rights violation.  (Level III decision in Case No. 00-SGE-03 on 9/12/01.)

  2.  The county is ultimately responsible for the health and safety of a client to whom they provide services.  Even though they have a contract for an independent service provider to do the hands-on services, the contracted agency’s failure to perform its duties is also the county’s failure. The county must monitor the providers it contracts with in order to ensure that vital services are provided for their clients. (Level III Decision in Case No. 03-SGE-04 on 6/15/04.)

  3. The sister/guardian of a woman filed a grievance about the care the woman had received while she was living in her own apartment.  She had been receiving supportive home care services from an independent service provider under a general contract with the county.  The guardian alleged lack of care causing deterioration in health to the point of needing immediate medical attention. Staff’s tasks included providing “acu-checks,” monitoring her bathing three times a week and providing medical treatment for her hands and legs with sores.  It was found that the woman’s rights were violated when the contract agency did not complete the assigned tasks during a period of time and the woman’s health deteriorated as a result. (Level III Decision in Case No. 03-SGE-04 on 6/15/04.)

Last Updated: November 13, 2006