1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32 | Allegation: Lack of supervision resulting in client being assaulted by another client.
It is alleged that lack of supervision resulted in client being assaulted by another client. Regarding this allegation it is reported that Client #1 (C1) was assaulted by Client #2 (C2) because C2 was attempting to flirt with C1’s partner while C1 was on a phone call. It is reported that C2 ran towards C1 and was able to strike C1 in the face. Following C1 being struck in the face, C1 was in crisis, ran out of the facility and proceeded to call 911 for assistance. Subsequently, C1 was taken to the hospital and placed on a psychiatric hold. LPA interviewed House Manager (HM) and it was discovered that both C1 and C2 have partners and C2 was attempting to flirt with C1’s partner. When C1 confronted C2, there was a verbal altercation but at no point did C2 hit or attempt to hit C1. C1 did in fact call 911 and claimed to be in crisis to which the paramedics decided to transport C1 to the hospital where C1 was placed on a psychiatric hold, however this is a common occurrence with C1, and it may or may not be related to this incident. HM did confirm that it was C3 that hit C1 and that it happened so fast that it was unavoidable, not due to lack of supervision. Interview with C1 revealed that it was C3 that struck C1 not C2. C1 stated that it was not lack of supervision as there was enough staff available. It all just happened so fast that it was not preventable. Interview with Staff #1 (S1) over the phone, who was present at the facility when the incident took place, revealed that C2 did not hit or have a physical altercation with C1, only a verbal confrontation. S1 stated that C2 is very good at removing themselves from conflict and would rather return to their room to calm down. Interview with three (3) additional staff revealed that there was no physical altercation between C1 and C2. Interview with Staff #5 (S5) over the phone revealed that there was no lack of supervision, however Client #3 (C3) was the one that hit C1, but it did not go beyond the one hit. S5 stated that C3 was upset that C1 and C2 were arguing but that it did not go beyond a hit before staff intervened and were able to redirect clients. Subsequently C1 had a behavior episode but S5 states that C1 is often in crisis and calls 911 seeking attention. LPA interviewed C2 and C2 stated that they did not hit C1, they only had a verbal argument and C3 was the one to hit C1.
Continued on LIC9099-C
|