An administrative law judge’s ruling in favor of a former nursing home employee reinforces providers’ need to review their compliance with infection control and prevention regulations, experts asserted Friday.
Social worker Mary Lovejoy Castaneda resigned from her position at Iowa-based provider Care Initiatives in May. She cited concerns about poor implementation of IPC policies and also personal discomfort with hospice patients being assigned to her despite assurances during the hiring process that this would not happen.
Care Initiatives appealed Castaneda’s application for unemployment benefits, but a decision by Judge James Timberland overrode the provider’s concerns earlier this month.
Timberland cited multiple instances where Castaneda did not receive proper notice of residents’ serious illnesses before interacting with them.
“The evidence establishes additional good cause bases for the voluntary quit, based on unsafe, intolerable and detrimental working conditions,” he wrote in the ruling. “Twice during the last two weeks of the employment the nursing staff failed to notify the claimant that particular residents/patients had serious, contagious illness.”
The judge noted that this omission prevented Castaneda from using proper PPE equipment and “unreasonably exposed” her to the contagious illnesses.
Care Initiatives did not respond to McKnight’s Long-Term Care News’ request for comment Friday. The provider did not participate in the appeal hearing, according to court documents.
Reporting on the ruling Friday, compliance consultants Med-Net Concepts urged providers to take away a renewed commitment to their IPC programs and PPE policies. It suggested reviewing these policies, and also regularly ensuring that staff are maintaining compliance.
“Periodically audit to ensure that all staff members are following infection control policies and procedures correctly, and that the IPCP is reviewed annually. Provide additional education if necessary,” the Med-Net report suggested.
The consultants also urged providers to keep careful documentation of their training process.
In his ruling, Timberland also noted that Castaneda’s resignation was justified by the requirement to work with hospice patients despite assurances made to her during the hiring process.
“The unfolding of events suggests a bait-and-switch whereby the employer waited for the claimant to adjust to the work environment and then substantially changed the nature of the work,” Timberland wrote.
He ruled that Castaneda could receive benefits due to an established good cause for her resignation — as long as she also met all other eligibility requirements.
