San Diego County Grand Jury
• 2006-2007
Medical Credentials of Inmate Health Care Providers
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 3 findings
F1
Pulmonary/Critical Care
No recommendations for this finding
F2
Reproductive Medicine 4
No recommendations for this finding
F3
Hospitalist Fact: All 51 physician’s licenses verified with the Medical Board of California. All licenses were renewed and current. Finding: Initial verification by the Grand Jury at the public disclosure website of the Medical Board of California revealed one record of disciplinary action taken. A letter was sent to the Medical Board of California requesting a copy of the original accusation and final administrative disciplinary action. After review, the information was submitted to the Medical Director of the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department. The physician in question had met all the requirements of the Medical Board of California and had completed probation. Fact: In September 2006, a list of names and license numbers of medical personnel assigned to the Sheriff’s Department was provided to the Grand Jury by the Assistant Administrator of the Medical Services Division. Fact: 152 Registered Nurses’ (RN) (Sheriff’s Detention Nurses) licenses were verified with the Registered Nursing Board of California. Finding: All 152 Registered Nurses’ licenses were renewed and current. No Licensing Board disciplinary actions were indicated on any license. Fact: Thirty-six Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) licenses were verified with the Board of Vocational Nursing and Psychiatric Technicians. Finding: All 36 LVN licenses were renewed and current. No Licensing Board disciplinary actions were indicated on any license. Fact: All three Registered Pharmacist (RP) licenses were verified with the California State Board of Pharmacy. Fact: All four Pharmacy Technician’s licenses were verified with the Board of Pharmacy. Finding: At the time of the initial verification, at the public disclosure website, one record revealed disciplinary action taken on a Registered Pharmacist’s license. Fact: A letter was sent to the California State Board of Pharmacy requesting a copy of the original accusation and final administrative disciplinary action. Finding: The Registered Pharmacist in question is currently on probation with the California State Board of Pharmacy. Fact: The Sheriff’s Medical Division has a full time Medical Director, Director for Nursing Services, Chief Medical Records Director, and Assistant Medical Services Administrator, who oversee the day to day operations of the Medical Division. Finding: The Sheriff’s Medical Division is well organized with respect to medical personnel who oversee the various County jails/detention facilities. Fact: The Sheriff’s Medical Division is also the primary site where all pharmacy supplies are initially received from various pharmaceutical companies under contract with the County and where prescriptions are filled. Fact: There are two full-time registered pharmacists who are County employees and work on the premises. One contract registered pharmacist works at the Medical Division and at home, verifying medication orders for individual inmates in the seven detention facilities, using an off-site computer system remotely connected to the Jail Information Management System (JIMS). Currently only three pharmacy technicians assist the registered pharmacists and are responsible for delivery of medical supplies to jails/detention facilities within the county. Relating to services provided at the facilities operated by the Probation Department Fact: The County of San Diego, Department of Probation has a contract for physical health and dental services provided through an HHSA contract with California Forensic Medical Group (CFMG). This is a privately owned, West Coast provider of quality health care to correctional facilities. CFMG’s programs are accredited through the California Medical Association (CMA). Their president and medical director are board certified in psychiatry. Fact: Mental Health services are provided by County employees through Health and Human Services Agency (HHSA) Children’s Mental Health, and Juvenile Forensic Services. Fact: The responsible dietician is an employee of the Sheriff’s Department and is located at the East Mesa Juvenile Detention Facility. Fact: All agencies and individuals identified above have submitted the requested licensure information through the County of San Diego Department of Probation. Finding: All 32 CFMG Registered Nurse (RN) licenses were verified with the Registered Nursing Board of California. All 32 licenses were renewed and current. No Licensing Board disciplinary actions were indicated on any license. Fact: All 24 Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) licenses were verified with the Board of Vocational Nursing and Psychiatric Technicians and all 24 licenses were renewed and current. Fact: One license had previous action taken by the Licensing Board. A copy of the accusation and final administrative disciplinary action was requested. After review, the information was discussed with the medical quality assurance coordinator. The coordinator was aware of the disciplinary action. The LVN in question had met all the requirements of the Board and completed probation three years ago. Fact: Five medical provider licenses were verified with the Medical Board of California. All their licenses were renewed and current with no disciplinary actions. Most of these physicians are credentialed and privileged through Rady Children’s Hospital and Medical Center, which is accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organization (JCAHO). Fact: One dental provider was identified. This provider’s license was verified with the Dental Board of California and is renewed and current with no disciplinary action. Fact: There are five Physician Assistants (PA) and one Family Nurse Practitioner (FNP). All licenses were verified with their respective boards and were renewed and current with no disciplinary action. Fact: There is one dental assistant. This provider’s license was verified and was renewed and current with no disciplinary action. Fact: In October 2006, a listing of health care providers’ information, name and license numbers was submitted to the Grand Jury. At that time, a list of nine providers was submitted, identified as “Juvenile Forensic Services – Crisis Team at the East Mesa Juvenile Detention Facility.” Finding: The Grand Jury verified three physician’s licenses with the Medical Board of California. At the time of initial verification at the public disclosure website, one record revealed disciplinary action taken. A letter was sent to the Medical Board of California requesting a copy of the original accusation and final administrative disciplinary action. The physician in question had met the requirements of the Medical Board of California and had completed probation. Finding: One registered nurse’s license was verified with the Registered Nursing Board of California. At the time of the initial verification to the board this record revealed disciplinary action taken. A letter was sent to the Registered Nursing Board of California requesting a copy of the original accusation and final administrative disciplinary action. The RN in question had met all the requirements of the Board and completed probation. Fact: The licenses of two psychologists were verified with the California Board of Psychologists. The licenses were renewed and current with no disciplinary action. Fact: One Licensed Clinical Social Worker’s (LCSW) license was verified with the Board of Behavioral Sciences and the license was renewed and current with no disciplinary action.
No recommendations for this finding
Commendations 1
-
CM1Psychiatric Centers at San Diego (PCSD) is a contractor for the County of San Diego. This contract group mirrors NCQA standards. Their core standards include: Written Policies and Procedures, Internal Continuous Quality Improvement, Verification of Licensure, Verification of DEA, Reporting of Education and Training and Verifying and Reporting of Malpractice History. Members of the Grand Jury, who reviewed all of these standards, were impressed with the accuracy and detail of each provider's credentials files, which contained all these requirements, and all credentials were primary source verified with issuing agency. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS The California Penal Code §933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code §933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: As to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall (a) indicate one of the following: The respondent agrees with the finding (1) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the (2) finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) As to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: The recommendation has been implemented, with a (1) summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an (3) explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is (4) not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal Code §933.05 are required from the: Responding Agency
Agency Responses 1
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.