📋
Extraído del Informe Consolidado

Esta investigación fue publicada originalmente como parte de un informe consolidado más amplio que contiene múltiples investigaciones. Consulte el PDF consolidado para ver el documento completo.

Plumas County Grand Jury • 2004-2005

Plumas County

Published: June 15, 2005 5 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings 16 findings

F1 Page 20
The MHD stands alone as a county department. The MHD has been split from the Department of Alcohol and Drugs. The MHD is not linked to the Plumas County Health Department.
F2 Page 20
There is inadequate interaction between the MHD and the Department of Alcohol and Drugs. The relations between the two county agencies have been acrimonious for a number of years. Relations have improved slightly in the last few months.
F3 Page 20
There is no Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the MHD and the Department of Alcohol and Drugs outlining a protocol for the needed interaction between the two departments. 17
F4 Page 21
The communication between the MHD and the Sheriff’s Department is minimal. One aspect of the problem that contributes to the lack of communication is complicated by patients’ confidentiality rights. The MHD clinicians cannot divulge information about a client and therefore are unwilling to release information about treatment and follow-up of that client. The perception sometimes is that “nothing is being done”. This appears to be one cause for misunderstandings between the MHD and the Sheriff’s Department.
F5 Page 21
There is no civil (non-criminal) protective locked facility for members of the community who may be a danger to themselves or to others. Currently, the MHD does not see such individuals that are considered “under the influence”. As a consequence, these people remain untreated and unprotected or are taken to jail. A locked civil protective custody facility is mandated by law (Welfare and Institution Code 5170), but one does not exist in Plumas County.
F6 Page 21
There have been issues raised that on occasion the MHD is slow to respond to crisis intervention situations and the law enforcement officer who should be in the field is taken out of service to care for an individual during a possible mental health situation until the clinician arrives.
F7 Page 21
There is an MOU between the MHD and the Sheriff’s Department that outlines mutual areas of coordination and responsibilities for emergency evaluations and hospitalizations.
F8 Page 21
As mandated by the State of California, Plumas County has a Mental Health Commission separate from the MHD. The Commission acts in an “Advise and Recommend” capacity to the Board of Supervisors on MHD issues and on the policies of the MHD. The Commission also acts in an advisory capacity directly to the MHD, as well as participates in the budgeting and planning agenda of the MHD. The Chair of the Mental Health Commission meets with the director of MHD on a regular basis and has an excellent working relationship. However, the Mental Health Commission meets with the Board of Supervisors only once a year. A Board of Supervisors member attends the Mental Health Commission’s meetings irregularly.
F9 Page 21
There are issues of coordination within the MHD staff about clients and their treatment that may put clients at risk.
F10 Page 21
The MHD staff meets on a weekly basis. It was reported to the Grand Jury that communication within the staff is excellent and supportive.
F11 Page 21
The MHD provided a budget that indicates that the Department is efficiently run and is fiscally responsible.
F12 Page 21
The MHD operates a number of quality programs within its area of practice. The MHD is to be commended for the hard work of its employees and for the implementation of innovative and supportive programs. Notable, are Sierra House, the Respite Program, and the Wilderness Program.
F13 Page 21
The recently passed California Proposition 63 should increase revenue for the MHD.
F14 Page 21
The MHD staff meets face-to-face once a week for four hours. Otherwise, the small staff is spread out in the various communities it serves and rarely comes together 18 except for the weekly staff meetings. Most communication among staff is done by phone, a highly inefficient method for a task that requires communication and relay of client information. As a result, there have been errors.
F15 Page 22
MHD knowledge of Grand Jury investigations caused the stoppage of all quality control with Plumas District Hospital.
F16 Page 22
An administrator of MHD violated the admonition of the Grand Jury to keep discussion with the Grand Jury confidential.

Recommendations 8

Conclusions 1

Commendations 4