Virginia Regulatory Town Hall
Agency
Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services
 
Board
State Board of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services
 
Guidance Document Change: The purpose of this memorandum is to remind DBHDS licensed providers of the requirements and expectations for reporting serious incidents to the DBHDS Office of Licensing, pursuant to 12VAC35-46-1070.C. and 12VAC35-105-160.D.2., including the timeframe for reporting incidents; the process for reporting incidents; the allowable timeframe for adding to, amending, or correcting information reported to the Office of Licensing through the Computerized Human Rights Information System (CHRIS); and to inform providers of the processes that the Office of Licensing will follow for issuing citations, repeat citations and sanctions for violations of serious incident reporting requirements. In addition to ensuring all providers understand the regulatory requirements associated with reporting incidents, the processes outlined in this memo are central to the department’s efforts to address compliance indicators related to serious incident reporting as mandated by the US Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Settlement Agreement with Virginia.
Previous Comment     Next Comment     Back to List of Comments
7/22/20  1:54 pm
Commenter: Laura Davis, MRCS

concerns
 

The requirement to report level II and III serious incidents and human rights in CHRIS on weekends and holidays is unnecessary and an unfunded burden to all providers.  DBHDS does not review incidents on Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays, and therefore doesn’t have the same expectations on themselves nor the same budgetary burdens to pay staff on weekends /holidays and/or overtime. If it were urgent for DBHDS to review, then DBHDS should be reviewing within 24 hours also. The requirement to enter such reports should be changed from within 24 hours to “within 24 hours or as soon as possible the next business day.”

Sanctioning four late reports for a licensed service in a two-year period does not increase compliance, competency, or prevention.  In rural areas where we have large service areas, 30 facilities, and 750+ employees, this allows for no actual prevention efforts, only sanctions. For example, we can have an outpatient therapist in Galax report the ER visit of an individual late, then 15 months later, another outpatient therapist in Marion with a different supervisor in a building 70 minutes away, report learning of the expected death of an individual late, and be cited by this standard. In the past 18 months, any time we have had a late report, the staff person is provided documented supervision.  In 18 months, we have had zero repeat offenses of late reporting by the same staff person; so, we find this more effective, as opposed to sanctioning an entire service.  It is an unfair standard for large entities compared to small providers who have small numbers of staff and fewer opportunities for human error.  Staff are focused on the care of individuals.  We recommend that a percentage for compliance be established to take into account the variety of variables across our provider system.  We would also recommend that the "reset" be annually, not every two years.

It is concerning that these expectations went into effect prior to the opening of the public comment period, which implies that the public comments will not have a significant impact on the final requirement.

 

CommentID: 84094