Briefings on Infection Control, July 2010
Briefings on Infection Control, July 1, 2010
This is an excerpt from a member only article. To read the article in its entirety, please login.
California hospital hit with major fine for ATD violation
A $100,000-plus fine serves as a warning for other California hospitals
After reading this article, you will be able to:
- Explain why Alta Bates Summit Medical Center was fined by Cal/OSHA
- Define the requirements of California’s aerosol transmissible disease standard
- Predict the implications for other hospitals in the country
A California hospital was hit with a fine in April for violations of the state’s aerosol transmissible disease (ATD) standard—the only one currently on the books in the United States.
The Department of Industrial Relations’ (DIR) Division of Occupational Safety and Health, better known as Cal/OSHA, fined Alta Bates Summit Medical Center in Oakland $101,485 for violating numerous state health and safety standards that contributed to a hospital employee and an Oakland police officer developing bacterial meningitis.
Cal/OSHA also fined the Oakland police and fire departments for failing to limit emergency workers’ exposure to the contagious disease.
Along with a respiratory therapist at the hospital, an Oakland police officer was also exposed to the patient with bacterial meningitis in December. Both required hospitalization, although they survived the illness.
On May 18, the hospital officially submitted an appeal to retract the fine, according to a spokesperson at the DIR.
Clearly, hospitals in California need to embrace the new regulations or risk the fallout from enforcement, says Steven MacArthur, safety consultant at The Greeley Company, a division of HCPro, Inc., in Marblehead, MA.
“The advice to hospitals is to refrain from dragging their feet when it comes to the evolution of regulatory standards,” MacArthur says.
This is an excerpt from a member only article. To read the article in its entirety, please login.
Related Products
Most Popular
- Articles
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- Topic: CMS, OESS post new security compliance review information, checklist
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- QA:Coding multiple initial infusions
- Capturing all necessary codes for IUD insertion and removal can be challenging
- News and briefs: Oklahoma Osteopathic Association against residency bill change
- OB services: Coding inside and outside of the package
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- E-mailed
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- New conflicts of interest create new challenges
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- Joint Commission Center announces handoff communication solutions
- Inside best practice: Reduce patient falls with a stoplight
- Identify modifiable risk factors to prevent patient falls
- Hospitalist-surgeon comanagement has no effect on outcomes
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- Searched
