Orange County Grand Jury • 2018-2019

Grand Jury 2018-2019

14 pages
Ver PDF original

Findings and Recommendations 9 findings

F1
Inmates being booked will often have abnormal vital signs due to the stress of being handcuffed, being booked into jail and potentially being under the influence of various substances.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1
By September 30, 2019, CHS should obtain vital signs on every consenting inmate being booked into the OC Jail at the time of or within 48 hours of booking. (F1, F2, F3, F4)
R2
By December 31, 2019, CHS should evaluate the benefits of, and strongly consider becoming a NCCHC accredited facility to further protect the health of the inmates of Orange County. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5)
F2
Vital signs are attempted only on inmates being booked who self-identify as having hypertension, a heart-related disorder or a prior medical history.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1
By September 30, 2019, CHS should obtain vital signs on every consenting inmate being booked into the OC Jail at the time of or within 48 hours of booking. (F1, F2, F3, F4)
R2
By December 31, 2019, CHS should evaluate the benefits of, and strongly consider becoming a NCCHC accredited facility to further protect the health of the inmates of Orange County. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5)
F3
Inmates have the right to refuse to disclose medical history as well as any medical interventions.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1
By September 30, 2019, CHS should obtain vital signs on every consenting inmate being booked into the OC Jail at the time of or within 48 hours of booking. (F1, F2, F3, F4)
R2
By December 31, 2019, CHS should evaluate the benefits of, and strongly consider becoming a NCCHC accredited facility to further protect the health of the inmates of Orange County. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5)
F4
With the increasing number of inmates, their often poor health status, and the potentially incomplete diagnosing of inmates, the county is opening itself up to potential liability lawsuits.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1
By September 30, 2019, CHS should obtain vital signs on every consenting inmate being booked into the OC Jail at the time of or within 48 hours of booking. (F1, F2, F3, F4)
R2
By December 31, 2019, CHS should evaluate the benefits of, and strongly consider becoming a NCCHC accredited facility to further protect the health of the inmates of Orange County. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5)
F5
Inmates are being transferred to outside hospitals for evaluation of chest pain and more than half are being admitted for care, increasing medical costs to Orange County taxpayers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
By December 31, 2019, CHS should evaluate the benefits of, and strongly consider becoming a NCCHC accredited facility to further protect the health of the inmates of Orange County. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5)
F6
CHS policy does not comply with generally accepted medical practices for monitoring and treating elevated blood pressure.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
By September 30, 2019, CHS should establish a standardized policy for inmates who present with abnormal blood pressure readings below 160/110. (F6)
F7
Electronic medical records currently in use by CHS provide no means to monitor how many and which inmates are having vital signs performed as a result of a nursing decision.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
By December 31, 2019, CHS should monitor completion of vital signs by altering the “Receiving Screening Form” to allow a data sort encompassing: vital signs refused, vital signs not attempted and vital signs completed. (F7)
F8
Inconsistencies between the CHS reports and the reports of OCFA paramedics appear in the custodial death reports issued by the OCDA.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
By September 30, 2019, OCDA should establish a protocol for reviewing all medical records for medical inconsistencies when investigating custodial deaths, engaging medically trained assistance as needed, and taking appropriate corrective action to address identified inconsistencies, including referral to the appropriate state licensing board as necessary. (F8)
F9
The current physical configuration at IRC is not conducive to conducting health screenings.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
By December 31, 2019, OCSD should reconfigure the health screening area at IRC to allow for more privacy, increased safety for the nurses conducting the screening and improved access to the inmates. (F9) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the Findings and Recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933(c) “No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . ” §933.05 “(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the 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) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: 1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe 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 timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) However, 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 Penal Code §933.05 are required from: Responses Required:

Agency Responses 1

Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.