{"Short_Answer__76":"KP_BridgesMN-BEC-2021-02","Date__77":"02\/25\/2021","Multiple_Choice__78":"Kristie Pittman","Short_Answer__80":"Bridges MN","Short_Answer__81":"Shyla Kahle (completed the BIRF)","Short_Answer__82":"shylak@bridgesmn.com","Short_Answer__83":"651-328-0677","Multiple_Choice__84":"Elopement","Multiple_Choice__85":"Blue Earth County","Date__86":"01\/21\/2021","Multiple_Choice__96":"1","Short_Answer__91":"Staff unable to redirect a person from departing on a bus to Chicago.","True_or_False__94":"Yes","Date__97":"10\/14\/2020","Free_Text__98":"Staff unable to redirect a person from departing on a bus to Chicago.","Free_Text__100":"Staff was unable to redirect a person from departing on a bus to Chicago and this was influenced by wanting to go to Chicago to visit their sister. This matter was complicated given the person wouldn\u2019t communicate with staff present.  All efforts to redirect the person were unsuccessful while exhausting all other safe alternatives. The person was earlier hospilatized regarding mental health and aggression and the staff was hesitant at the moment and didn\u2019t want to anger the person further. Another contributing factor was that the person received a COVID stimulous check that created the means for the visit to Chicago.    \r\n\r\nStaff being unable to redirect the person was influenced by the provider ultimately determining the risk was low to take the trip without staff. After many unsuccessful attempts to redirect, the provider reviewed the person\u2019s risk management plan and it was affirmed. Contributing factors that further influenced the staffs\u2019 decision to remain at the bus station was the expectation of the lead agency and CSSP was not to follow a person to another state while eloping and assure full communication with all team members and agency staff.\r\n\r\nAnother influence to the inability to redirect was that staff were hesistant to anger the person. This was further supported by the person having a history of aggressive behavior. The person wouldn\u2019t communicate with the staff present and they were hesitant to coherse the person too much in their efforts to support him in being safe. Staff also did offer to support this trip at a future date with proper planning to assure health and safety. This moment was further complicated by contacting the hospital who stated there was nothing they or staff could do given the person was his own guardian which further limited staff in their efforts to help him return home.\r\n\r\nAn additional feature that impacted the support lended to the person was the agency\u2019s practice of person-centered efforts in trying to find balance of what was important to and for the person while making decisions at that moment. Their operating philosophy supported personal freedoms and choices based on experiences over time.  There is also an overall systemic expectation that providers support experiences, choices, and the person\u2019s rights.   \r\n\r\nStaff being unable to redirect was influenced by the provider exhausting all safe alternatives. The person is their own guardian and did have a provisional discharge from the program.  Furthermore, COVID and the Governor\u2019s stay at home order also influenced the person\u2019s decision to leave as his routine was limited to low activity. This elopement influenced the agency, team, and staff present to honor the person\u2019s civil rights which connected directly to their philosophy of protecting his rights which put him in charge of making the decision to leave on the bus.","Multiple_Choice__115":"1"}