{"report_id":197,"form_id":"23","user_id":81,"organization_id":10,"question_id":"116","question_type":"Free_Text","text_answer":"A factor into why staff assisted the person to leave for an overnight with people they had concerns about was that the person wanted to leave with the people (claiming to be family). The person she left with claimed to be the person\u2019s uncle, which the person herself confirmed and she appeared to trust him. There was a perception that since the person was a family member, visiting with the person would be less risky than if the person was unrelated. The lead staff at the home also determined this trip was important to the person. The provider agency trusted the lead staff in this home and had been working to implement a person-centered philosophy which prioritized weighing supporting things that were important to the people they served over what was important for them. This philosophy was impacted by the statewide emphasis placed on supported decision making and person-centered thinking, the latter of which was supported by provider requirements in the provider\u2019s licensing statute, Minnesota Statutes 245D. The provider had worked with this person for 14 years, so the relationship with the person influenced the provider to make supporting the person\u2019s own decisions even stronger.  Influencing the lead staff to determine the trip was important to supporting the person was that it appeared that assisting the person to have a safe trip seemed to mitigate risk versus allowing the person to leave without assistance. The person appeared to be determined to go, and without help from the provider, it seemed more likely issues might arise. Mitigating risk is a priority for all HCBS providers for a number of reasons: Case managers assign this priority to providers in Coordinated Service and Support Plan, Minnesota Statutes 245D requires providers to ensure the health, safety and well-being of the people they serve, and providers could be liable to lawsuits, investigations or insurance claims if a person they serve is harmed. If someone is harmed while in the care of a provider, that provider could be found in violation of the Vulnerable Adult Act and additional penalties may be brought upon a provider by the Department of Human Services. \r\n\r\nAnother was that the provider felt they did not have a choice but to assist her in leaving. The person was their own guardian and had the power to make many choices independently.  Additionally, the person had attempted to leave with this person in the past, and the provider determined they would weigh what was important to the person over what was important for the person. This decision was impacted by the provider\u2019s person-centered philosophy, which in turn was impacted by statewide emphasis on supported decision-making and person-centered thinking. This emphasis came from a number of sources including advocacy organizations and DHS, which released best practice guidance on both and enforced person-centered planning requirements governing providers in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 245D. The provider\u2019s concerns about the person leaving with the person did not seem to outweigh the provider\u2019s desire to empower and support the person.   \r\nAn additional influence into why the staff assisted the person to leave an overnight with people they had concerns about was that the staff wanted to empower the person during this time since they had attempted to leave with this person in the past. Although the provider had a practice in place to not allow people to take overnights at the time due to the threat of COVID-19 and MDH guidance on COVID-19 for residential programs, the provider determined they would weigh what was important to over what was important for the person. The provider\u2019s person-centered philosophy, influenced by the statewide emphasis on supported decision making and person-centered thinking influenced this decision by the provider. Additionally, the provider staff determined the concerns they had about the person leaving weren\u2019t enough to take restrictive actions and weigh safety over the person\u2019s own choice. Implementing restrictions on a person\u2019s rights could create the liability of providers being incompliant with the conditions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 245D enforced by the Department of Human Services.","created_by":81,"updated_by":81,"updated_at":"5\/25\/2021 9:28:45 am","created_at":"5\/25\/2021 9:28:45 am","id":14647}