{"report_id":216,"form_id":"23","user_id":81,"organization_id":10,"question_id":"100","question_type":"Free_Text","text_answer":"Narrative\r\nElopement\r\nDecember 12, 2019 Mapping\r\n\r\n\r\nLearning Point:  Staff did not report individual\u2019s absence for 5 days.\r\n\r\nStaff not following-up about where the individual was for 5 days after she left the group home was influenced by the staff believing the notification policy wasn' t applicable TO this individual AND situation.Several factors influenced staff believing the policy wasn 't applicable including the staff and the individual being newer to the home and the individual being her own guardian.  The two newer staff were less familiar with the support needs of this individual.  As her own guardian, the individual made her own healthcare decisions and did not have to share the information with staff. The individual had a history of being admitted to a hospital without staff knowledge.  The individual had a history of hospitalizations lasting several days which further contributed to staff not believing the policy was applicable.  The provider did have a policy that emergency contacts should be notified if an individual who is their own guardian is hospitalized which was not followed because staff did not know the individual went to the hospital. \r\nOther contributing factors to staff believing the notification policy wasn't applicable was the individual was her own guardian and allowed to be in the community unsupervised for an indeterminate amount of time.  The individual\u2019s Community Support Plan (CSP) and Community Support Service Plan (CSSP), which is completed by the individual and a county case manager, did not indicate how much time the individual could have.  Staff would have to follow the consented to CSP and CSSP.  Case Manager\u2019s comply with 245D for how and what is written in an individual\u2019s CSP and CSSP.  The individual approved what was included in the plans.  The individual having unspecified time in the community influenced staff's decision that documenting when the individual left was sufficient. The individual regularly was in the community unsupervised so staff felt like it was okay to not notify anyone beyond the logging of their activity in the individual\u2019s logbook. It was noted that staff didn\u2019t have much time to communicate between shifts, so communication often took place in the logbooks instead of staff communication directly with one another regarding the individual.  The individual was admitted to this home directly from a discharge from a hospital and this home was one of only two choices.\r\n\r\nAnother influencing factor affecting staff not following-up to individual\u2019s whereabouts was the staff being worried about calling their supervisor or manager when it wasn't necessary due to being of a culture that deffers to authority figures.   Staff were not of the dominant culture and may have felt intimidated by calling a supervisor with questions.\r\n\r\n\r\nAdditionally, staff not following up on the individual was influenced by the house supervisor being on vacation.  At the time, the provider was short staffed and some of the shifts at this residence were covered by non-routine or fill-in staff.  A lack of cross-training on the individuals supports needs and plan of care could influence staff not reporting the individual\u2019s whereabouts.  The provider's overall staff shortage, and not just this residence, contributed to having non-routine staff supporting individuals and not having enough time to train non-routine staff on all the support needs of individuals in the group home.  Staff shortage is influenced by the state and national wide direct support professional workforce shortage. \r\n\r\nStaff not following up on their individual\u2019s whereabouts was influenced by the individual keeping an irregular schedule and would often not tell staff where she was going or would tell different information to different staff about where she was going or would be. The individual was described as having much different support needs than the three other individuals living in the group home.  The decision to place the individual in a four person home was impacted by an overall lack of community residential settings in Minnesota.","created_by":81,"updated_by":81,"updated_at":"5\/25\/2021 10:25:22 am","created_at":"5\/25\/2021 10:25:22 am","id":15909}