Episode Details

Two updates since I posted this audi.  Specifically, I sent two emails to Corrigan or DMH staff.  In the first, I asked for the plan again--this time I asked two other people in addition to LW.  I also expanded the request to include prior years.  In the second, I decided to go ahead and make an official Human Rights Complaint.  You are supposed to make a complaint to the Person in Charge.  I sent it to three people who, if they aren't that person, would certainly know who was.  Needless to say, I don't expect any of them to even confirm receipt of the email!!!

 

Here are the two emails:

substantive part of first email--asking for plan

Dear Ms. H, Mr. W, and Mr. G,

  I hereby request both the current version and all available prior versions of the written plan specified and required under 104 CMR §27.13(6)(f)5 for the inpatient unit at Corrigan Mental Health Center.   I hereby also request any and all documents and records pertaining to the DMH  determination of reasonable justification referenced referenced in 104 CMR §27.13(6)(f)(5)(c)(ii).      substantive part of second email--human rights complaint  

Dear Mr. W, Dr. M, and Dr. A,

I intend this email to constitute a complaint under 104 CMR, § 32.  My complaint relates to a longstanding condition at the Acute Inpatient Unit (IPU) at Corrigan Mental Health Center ("Corrigan"). I believe this condition is either dangerous, illegal, or inhumane. 

The condition relates to all Corrigan IPU patients other than those who are young, physically fit, and relatively social (the "Youthful" patients).  For example, it relates to those patients who are catatonic, obese, elderly, or who suffer from a physical handicap or a mental disorder such as social anxiety or claustrophobia (the "Compromised" patients).

Corrigan staff represent that the patients have four times that they get to go outside. But there seems to be little or no concern or recognition that only the Youthful patients take part in these breaks.  The Compromised Patients can spend days, weeks, and even  years without ever accessing the outdoors. 

[Consider, e.g.,] patient D, who was an elderly man with significant social anxiety.  In speaking with him, his favorite moments were the times he would take walks with his sister and look at flowers.  Yet as a resident at Corrigan IPU, he was too socially anxious to go to lunch, much less to go with the group for outdoors.  [Yet if someone dedicated themself to taking him outside, he greatly enjoyed and benefited from it.]

[But for a staff member's taking it on themselves to encourage him to access the outdoors] however, he would never have gone outside.  For practical purposes, for this patient to go outside, it is not sufficient to simply post outdoors times.  Given his complex condition, and given the physical plant at Corrigan, for practical purposes, he would not have gone outside at all during his time there but for a person encouraging him and following through.

Patient P has been a resident for perhaps two years.  [Again, a special effort is required to take P outdoors, and staff is highly resentful and obstructinist when someone takes the effort.  Staff would rather use the outdoors break as their own outdoors break, without having Compromised patients interfering.  Once, it was impossible to take P down, and staff purposively blocked her participation.  Yet there were three staff outside, and only two (Youthful) patients. Nevertheless, the explanation was that P could not access the outdoors due to ... "we don't have the staff"]. 

Essentially, there is a great deal of resistance to taking [Compromised] patients outside.  [Social worker D.K. is in a position of authority but is highly resentful of any efforts to change practices.  She seems to believe that because of her managerial position, she is beholden to defend the status quo.