Director’s Office à Mike Williams (916) 440-7400
DHS Kathy Shinnamon
Voice: 916 440-7426
Fax: 916 440-7405
DHS Cathy Shinnamon
Spoke to Cathy on 5/23/05 and she indicated the issues was assigned on Friday 5/20/05 to a response as to status. Cathy indicated it would take 15 working days for a response.
6/30/05 12:43 PM
I called Cathy and she couldn’t find issue in her computer and she would have to go look for a hard copy. She will call back by the end of the day, one way or the other.
6/30/05 1:20 PM
Cathy called back and indicated she could not find the issue and it was her first week at the time. She request more information. I offered to refax à re-faxed at 1:24 PM same day and Cathy said she would call back and confirm she got the fax.
6/30/05 1:26 PM
Cathy called and got the fax. She will do some research and get back to me.
6/30/05 3:50 PM
Cathy Shinnamon Called and said that Mark Halman would be calling me. I requested a timeframe because I’ve already attempted to work with Mark Halman in the past and he has been non-responsive. Cathy said she would get the timeframe and get back to me. She also indicated that she went up to higher levels over Mark Halman and his boss will be asking him to contact me about this problem.
7/8/05 10:20AM
Dialed 916-440-7426 for Cathy Shinnamon, and Jean Iacino answered the phone. I asked for Cathy Shinnamon and Jean indicated that this number was not Cathy’s. I was put on hold and when Jean returned, she indicated the Cathy was away from her desk. I requested another person, as things were not being taken care of and at the onset with Cathy, the ball dropped as she originally promised to send this matter out for audit and the matter would have more info within 2 weeks. When that didn’t happen, I learned from Cathy that she had only been at DSH for a week and I didn’t know if my request for update fell though the cracks due to Cathy’s newness on the job. Per Jean’s request, I gave a brief overview of all the events thus far. Jean indicated someone would be calling me back. I objected as that is what I’ve been told know for many months. At this point Jean indicated that she was Cathy’s supervisor and would look into the paperwork and I would be getting a call back today regardless of what is learned. I gave Jean my cell number ###-6214
7/8/05 1:00PM
Received call from the local L&C Carolyn McQue (sic) [909-383-6705]. She indicated that ETS is being cited for holding patients longer then the 24-hour limit and is demanding corrective action. Carolyn indicated that ETS is Lic under Riverside County Regional Medical Center (RCRMC), and therefore not as a psychiatric facility (until officially admitted) and different Title 22 Regs apply. Regs for Acute Medical Hospital and NOT psychiatric hospital. The Regs are similar but not exact. RCRMC is Lic as an outpatient only and cannot hold clients past the 24-hour mark. Carolyn indicated the long delay for getting back was due to further investigation, the case was complicated, and it was on top of her regular workload. I request a copy of the letter that cited the hospital and the current Lic Code that RCRMC is operating under. I indicated that I want to be a informed as to the hospital C/A response.
7/8/05 2:17PM
Wing Ling Young (sic) 909-383-6701. Called to inform that ETS is being cited with a letter of deficiency. Later, once ETS responds, she will send the Corrective Action response. She indicated that the hospital has 10 days to respond to the letter. I expressed my disappointment that this took so long. She indicated that they have a large caseload to look into. I indicated that I understood that, but this is not a one-shot deal. This affects many people every day, and for this reason it needs to be put on top of the pile. Then it appeared that she opened up more and indicated that this is a hard case because the hospital has to take 5150 clients and this is a community problem. I indicated that there is a simple solution. The hospital QA department that is responsible for getting the hospital paid is connected to the hospital ETS unit. The QA department can be relocated and make more room for the patients so they don’t have to sleep on the floor. That would seem to be the solution rather then worry about the convenience of the hospital QA dept being next to the patients and their clinical charts.
7/8/05 2:25PM
Wing Ling Young (sic) 909-383-6701. Called to confirm address for letter of deficiently to be sent. She indicated 3 pages.
7/8/05 2:41PM
I called Jean Iacino and thanked her for helping me get a response on this matter. I shared that the local L&C tone and demeanor had changed into being helpful. Jean indicated she had tired to reach me earlier in the day several times but my cell phone would only beep several times and she got the same response from another phone in their office. Must be something about LD and cell because we both acknowledged that the local L&C office got through. [Note: in past messages on other days I have left both Cell and Home phone and both have recordings.]
7/12/05 10:45PM
Received an unexpected call from the local L&C Carolyn McQue (sic) [909-383-6705]. She indicated that the call was to assure me that psych Regs apply to those inpatient. (I’m not clear on what Regs she is refereeing too. I’m not sure if she is refereeing to ETS or ITF as inpatient.) She indicated that she disagreed that ETS patients are ‘entitled’ to the rights I quoted in my original compliant letter to her. She indicated that nothing except patients are held over the 24 hour limit applies. Patients are not entitled to visitors on the ETS unit or any other considerations, space, bed, or privacy. She indicated the only issue goes to patients that are being held past the 24 hour limit on ETS and that is what the deficiency letter is being sent on corrective action for, nothing else. She plans on waiting to see the corrective action response. (Opinion – She didn’t seem able to relate or have insight into the notion that if a patient goes past the 24 hour mark, many other things a patient is entitled to is delayed, which means for the time being DENIED without good cause per the Regs.)