Nksp Medical Inspection Results Cycle 3

NORTH KERN STATE PRISON MEDICAL INSPECTION RESULTS CYCLE 3 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA November 2012 Robert A. Barton, Inspector General Office of the Inspector General November 8, 2012 J. Clark Kelso, Receiver California Correctional Health Care Services 501 J Street, Suite 600 Sacramento, California 95814 Dear Mr. Kelso: Enclosed is the Office of the Inspector General’s final report on its third inspection of medical care delivery at North Kern State Prison. The purpose of our inspection was to evaluate and monitor the progress of medical care delivery to inmates at the institution. The report finds that based on our weighted scoring system encompassing 17 components, North Kern State Prison received 80.8 percent of the total weighted points possible. This is a 1.5 percentage point improvement over the score of 79.3 percent from our second inspection report of this prison issued in August 2011, and an 8.6 percentage point improvement over the score of 72.2 percent from our first inspection report of this prison issued in March 2010. This report contains a detailed breakdown of the institution’s score in each of the 17 relevant components, including the results of all 126 questions. A copy of the report can also be found on our website at www.oig.ca.gov. Thank you for the courtesy and cooperation extended to my staff during the inspection. Please call Alicia Fernandez, Deputy Inspector General, Senior, at (916) 830-3607 if you have any questions. Sincerely, ROBERT A. BARTON Inspector General Enclosure cc: Evelyn Matteucci, Director, Policy and Risk Management Services, California Correctional Health Care Services Ted Kubicki, Chief Executive Officer, North Kern State Prison Sandra Pennywell, Warden (A), North Kern State Prison Matthew Cate, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Governor P.O. BOX 348780, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95834-8780 PHONE (916) 830-3600 FAX (916) 928-4684 Contents Executive Summary ......................................................................................… 1 Introduction …................................................................................................… 3 Background …....................................................................................… 3 About the Institution …......................................................................… 4 Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ….............................................. 4 Medical Inspection Results ….......................................................................… 7 Appendix – Comparative Medical Inspection Scores …............................... 27 California Correctional Health Care Services' Response ............................ 28 Executive Summary An April 2001 class action lawsuit filed by inmates represented by the Prison Law Office alleged that the state provided constitutionally inadequate medical care at California state prisons in violation of inmates’ constitutional rights. In October 2005, the U.S. Court for the Northern District of California declared that California’s delivery system for prison medical care was “broken beyond repair” and still not meeting constitutional standards. As a result, the federal court imposed a receivership to raise the delivery of medical care to constitutional standards. To evaluate and monitor the progress of medical care delivery to inmates, the receiver requested, and the Office of the Inspector General agreed, to establish an objective, clinically appropriate, and metric-oriented medical inspection program to review the delivery of medical care at each state prison. In June 2012, we inspected North Kern State Prison (NKSP) for the third time. Overall Our medical inspection encompassed 17 components of medical delivery and Score comprised 126 questions. The questions are weighted based on their importance 80.8% to the delivery of medical care to inmates. NKSP received 80.8 percent of the total weighted points possible. This is a 1.5 percentage point improvement over the score of 79.3 percent from our second inspection report of this prison issued in August 2011, and an 8.6 percentage point improvement over the score of 72.2 percent from our first inspection report of this prison issued in March 2010. The following summary table lists the components we inspected in order of importance (highest to lowest), with the institution’s score and the definitions of each inspection component. The detailed medical inspection results, with the questions for each component, begin on page 7 of this report. While we are committed to helping each institution achieve a higher level of medical care, it is not our intent to determine the percentage score needed by an institution to meet constitutional standards—that is a legal matter for the federal court to determine. Executive Summary Table Component Weighted Score Definition Chronic Care 76.5% Examines how well the prison provided care and medication to inmates with specific chronic care conditions, which are those that affect (or have the potential to affect) an inmate's functioning and long-term prognosis for more than six months. Our inspection tests anti-coagulation therapy and the following chronic care conditions: asthma, diabetes, HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus), and hypertension. Clinical Services 85.1% Evaluates the inmate's access to primary health care services and focuses on inmates who recently received services from any of the prison's facility or administrative segregation unit clinics. This component evaluates sick call processes (doctor or nurse line), medication management, and nursing. Health Screening 79.6% Focuses on the prison's process for screening new inmates upon arrival to the institution for health care conditions that require treatment and monitoring, as well as ensuring inmates' continuity of care. Specialty Services 79.3% Focuses on the prison's process for approving, denying, and scheduling services that are outside the specialties of the prison's medical staff. Common examples of these services include physical therapy, oncology services, podiatry consultations, and neurology services. Urgent Services 66.9% Addresses the care provided by the institution to inmates before and after they were sent to a community hospital. Medical Inspection Unit Page 1 Office of the Inspector General State of California Component Weighted Score Definition Emergency Services 89.0% Examines how well the prison responded to inmate medical emergencies. Prenatal N/A Focuses on the prenatal and post-delivery medical care provided to pregnant inmates. This Care/Childbirth/Post- component is not applicable at men's institutions. delivery Diagnostic Services 90.8% Addresses the timeliness of radiology (x-ray) and laboratory services and whether the prison followed up on clinically significant results. Access to Health Care 44.1% Addresses the prison's effectiveness in filing, storing, and retrieving medical records and Information medical-related information. Outpatient Housing Unit N/A Determines whether the prison followed department policies and procedures when placing inmates in the outpatient housing unit. This component also evaluates whether the placement provided the inmate with adequate care and whether the physician's plan addressed the placement diagnosis. NKSP does not have an outpatient housing unit. Internal Reviews 64.5% Focuses on the activities of the prison's Quality Management Committee and Emergency Medical Response Review Committee. This component also evaluates the timeliness of the inmates' medical appeals and the prison's use of inmate death reviews. Inmate Transfers 100.0% Focuses on inmates pending transfer to determine whether the sending institution documented medication and medical conditions to assist the receiving institution in providing continuity of care. Clinic Operations 100.0% Addresses the general operational aspects of the prison's facility clinics. Generally, the questions in this component relate to the overall cleanliness of the clinics, privacy afforded to inmates during non-emergency visits, use of priority ducats (slip of paper the inmate carries for scheduled medical appointments), and availability of health care request forms. Preventive Services 85.3% Focuses on inmate cancer screening, tuberculosis evaluation, and influenza immunizations. Pharmacy Services 100.0% Addresses whether the prison's pharmacy complies with various operational policies, such as conducting periodic inventory counts, maintaining the currency of medications in its crash carts and after-hours medication supplies, and having valid permits. In addition, this component also addresses whether the pharmacy has an effective process for screening medication orders for potential adverse reactions/interactions. Other Services 100.0% Examines additional areas that are not captured in the other components. The areas evaluated in this component include the prison's provision of therapeutic diets, its handling of inmates who display poor hygiene, and the availability of the current version of the department's Health Services Policies and Procedures. Inmate Hunger Strikes N/A Examines medical staff's monitoring of inmates participating in hunger strikes lasting longer than three days. There were no inmate hunger strikes at NKSP that met our testing criteria. Chemical Agent 100.0% Addresses the prison's process of handling inmates who may be predisposed to an adverse Contraindications outcome during cell extractions involving Oleoresin Capsicum, which is commonly referred to as "pepper spray." For example, this might occur if the inmate has asthma. Staffing Levels and 100.0% Examines the prison's medical staffing levels and training provided. Training Nursing Policy 80.0% Determines whether the prison maintains written policies and procedures for the safe and effective provision of quality nursing care. The questions in this component also determine whether nursing staff review their duty statements and whether supervisors periodically review the work of nurses to ensure they properly follow established nursing protocols. Overall Score 80.8% Medical Inspection Unit Page 2 Office of the Inspector General State of California Introduction Under the authority of California Penal Code section 6126, which assigns the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) responsibility for oversight of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), and at the request of the federal receiver, the OIG developed a comprehensive inspection program to evaluate the delivery of medical care at each of CDCR’s 33 adult prisons. In June 2012, we inspected North Kern State Prison (NKSP). Our medical inspection encompassed 17 components of medical delivery and comprised 126 questions. To help readers understand the medical risk associated with certain components of medical delivery—which pose a greater risk to an inmate- patient—we developed a weighting system and assigned points to each question. Consequently, we assigned more total points to more critical components, such as chronic care, clinical services, and health screening. We assigned fewer total points to less critical components, such as inmate hunger strikes, staffing levels and training, and chemical agent contraindications. (For a detailed description of the weighting system, see the Objectives, Scope, and Methodology section on the next page.) Background In April 2001, inmates represented by the Prison Law Office filed a class action lawsuit, known as Plata v. Brown. The lawsuit alleged that the state provided constitutionally inadequate medical care at California state prisons in violation of inmates’ constitutional rights. In June 2002, the parties entered into a Stipulation for Injunctive Relief, and the state agreed to implement over several years comprehensive new medical care policies and procedures at all institutions. Nevertheless, the U.S. Court for the Northern District of California declared in October 2005 that California’s delivery system for prison medical care was “broken beyond repair” and still not meeting constitutional standards. Thus, the federal court imposed a receivership to raise the delivery of medical care to constitutional standards. In essence, the court ordered the receiver to manage the state’s delivery of medical care and restructure day-to-day operations to develop and sustain a system that provides constitutionally adequate medical care to inmates. The court stated that it would remove the receiver and return control to the state once the system is stable and provides for constitutionally adequate medical care. To evaluate and monitor the progress of medical care delivery to inmates, the receiver requested that the OIG establish an objective, clinically appropriate, and metric-oriented medical inspection program. To that end, the Inspector General agreed to inspect each state prison on a cycle basis. In November 2009, we completed the fieldwork for our first cycle of medical inspections of the state’s 33 prisons and in February 2011, we completed the field work for our second cycle of the medical inspection reviews. This report presents the results of the third medical inspection conducted at this institution. The appendix to this report provides summary comparative data for the first, second, and third cycle inspections conducted at this institution. We are committed to helping each institution achieve a higher level of medical care, but it is up to the federal court to determine the percentage score necessary for an institution to meet constitutional standards. Medical Inspection Unit Page 3 Office of the Inspector General State of California About the Institution The primary mission of NKSP is to function as a reception center that processes inmates coming in from California counties. NKSP has a general population medium custody facility and a minimum support facility. The reception center compiles the inmate's criminal records, life histories, medical and psychological histories, and social relationships, so that NKSP staff can determine the inmate's classification score and institutional placement. As of October 24, 2012, CDCR reported that NKSP housed 4,689 male inmates, including 3,768 reception center inmates. NKSP operates five medical clinics where staff handle non-urgent requests for medical services. The institution also treats inmates needing urgent or emergency care in its triage and treatment area. According to information provided by the institution, NKSP's vacancy rate among medical managers, primary care providers, nursing supervisors, and nursing staff is 8.7 percent. Ted Kubicki serves as the prison's chief executive officer over health care services while Ndukwe Odeluga, M.D., serves as the prison's chief medical executive. Objectives, Scope, and Methodology In designing the medical inspection program, we reviewed CDCR’s policies and procedures, relevant court orders, guidelines developed by the department’s Quality Medical Assurance Team, and guidance developed by the American Correctional Association. We also reviewed professional literature on correctional medical care, consulted with clinical experts, and met with stakeholders from the court, the receiver’s office, the department, and the Prison Law Office to discuss the nature and scope of the inspection program. Based on input from these stakeholders, we developed a medical inspection program that evaluates medical care delivery. Within each of 20 components, we created “yes” or “no” questions designed to gauge performance. To make the inspection results meaningful to both a medical expert and a lay reader, we worked with clinical experts to create a weighting system that factors the relative importance of each component compared to other components. Further, the program considers the relative importance of each question within a component to the other questions in that component. This weighting ensures that more critical components—such as those that pose the greatest medical risk to the inmate-patient—are given more weight compared to those considered less serious. For example, we assign a high number of possible points to the chronic care component because we consider this the most serious of all the components. We assign proportionately fewer points to all other components. Each inspection question is weighted and scored. The score is derived from the percentage of “yes” answers for each question from all items sampled. We then multiply the percentage of “yes” answers within a given question by the question’s weight to arrive at a score. The following example shows how this scoring system works. Example Question: Institution X Answers Weighting Points Yes No Yes + No Yes % Possible Received Score % N/A Unk Is the clinical history adequate? 40 10 50 80% 20 16 80.0% 0 0 Medical Inspection Unit Page 4 Office of the Inspector General State of California If the institution receives 40 “yes” answers and 10 “no” answers, the percentage of “yes” answers to this question equals 80 percent. We calculate the number of points the institution would receive by multiplying the “yes” percent of 80 by the number of possible points for this question, which is 20, to arrive at 16 points. To arrive at the total score, we add the points received for each question and then for each program component. Finally, we calculate the institution’s overall score by dividing the sum of the points received by the sum of the points possible. We do not include in the institution’s overall score the weight for questions that are not applicable or, in some cases, where a lack of documentation would result in numerous “no” answers for one deviation from policy (unknown). For instance, an institution may not be able to provide documentation that its Emergency Medical Response Review Committee met for a particular month. Therefore, when we evaluate whether meeting minutes document monthly meetings for a particular month, the institution would receive a “no” answer for that question. However, when we evaluate whether the meeting minutes document the warden’s attendance at the meeting, the answer would be “unknown” so that the institution’s score is not penalized twice for the same reason, not documenting the meeting. Further, we do not include a score for any question for which only one sample item is found to apply unless we know that the sample item represents the entire population related to the question in the time period under review. In these cases, the one sample item is identified as not applicable in our report and thereby not included in the inspection scores. To evaluate the institution’s delivery of medical care, we obtained various electronic data files maintained by the institution for inmate medical scheduling and tracking, pharmacy, and census data. We used these electronic data files only to identify random samples of inmates receiving or requiring specific medical services. We then reviewed the medical file for each inmate in our sample. We did not rely on the medical care information contained in these electronic data files. Our inspection program assumes that if a prison's medical staff does not document an event in an inmate's unit health record, the event in question did not happen. If an inmate's record does not show that the inmate received his medications on a specified date, for example, we assume that the inmate did not receive the medications. While it is possible that the inmate received his medications and the staff neglected to document the event, our program cannot assume that appropriate care was provided. Our medical inspection at NKSP encompassed 17 of the 20 components of medical delivery. Three of the components were not applicable during the period inspected. In total, we reviewed 195 inmate medical files, which are referred to as unit health records. In addition, we reviewed staffing level reports, medical appeals summaries, nursing policies and procedures, summaries of medical drills and emergencies, minutes from Quality Management Committee and Emergency Medical Response Review Committee hearings, contents of inmate transfer envelopes, and assorted manual logs or tracking worksheets related to medical care delivery. Finally, we interviewed medical and custody staff members about the delivery of medical care to inmates, and we observed day-to-day medical delivery at the institution. We do not test the care provided in the licensed hospitals or correctional treatment centers because they are subject to inspections and oversight by other regulatory agencies. Medical Inspection Unit Page 5 Office of the Inspector General State of California Consistent with our agreement with the receiver, our report only addresses the conditions found related to the medical care criteria. We do not discuss the causes of noncompliance, nor do we make specific recommendations in this report. Further, we do not review for efficiency and economy of operations. However, if we learn of an inmate-patient who needs immediate care, we notify the chief executive officer of health care services and request a status report. Moreover, if we learn of significant departures from community standards, we may report such departures to the institution’s chief executive officer or the receiver’s office. Because these matters involve confidential medical information protected by state and federal privacy laws, specific details related to these cases are not included in our report. For ease of reference, following is a table of abbreviations used in the remainder of this report. Abbreviations used in this report CEO Chief Executive Officer CME Chief Medical Executive FTF Face-to-Face INH Isoniazid (antituberculous medication) LVN Licensed Vocational Nurse MD Medical Doctor OB Obstetrician OHU Outpatient Housing Unit OIG Office of the Inspector General PCP Primary Care Provider RN Registered Nurse TB Tuberculosis TTA Triage and Treatment Area UHR Unit Health Record Medical Inspection Unit Page 6 Office of the Inspector General State of California OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL NORTH KERN STATE PRISON Overall Score: MEDICAL INSPECTION RESULTS 80.8% 06/04/2012 – 06/15/2012 Answers Weighting Points Questions Not Answered Component Page Yes No Yes + No Yes % Points Possible Points Received Score % Not Applicable Unknown Chronic Care 8 151 45 196 77.0% 133 101.8 76.5% 18 0 Clinical Services 9 293 45 338 86.7% 100 85.1 85.1% 49 0 Health Screening 11 248 28 276 89.9% 73 58.1 79.6% 113 1 Specialty Services 13 86 23 109 78.9% 71 56.3 79.3% 67 1 Urgent Services 14 95 33 128 74.2% 59 39.5 66.9% 22 0 Emergency Services 15 34 3 37 91.9% 58 51.6 89.0% 3 0 Diagnostic Services 16 49 8 57 86.0% 52 47.2 90.8% 8 0 Access to Health Care Information 17 4 4 8 50.0% 51 22.5 44.1% 0 0 Internal Reviews 18 26 6 32 81.3% 40 25.8 64.5% 0 0 Inmate Transfers 19 17 0 17 100.0% 30 30.0 100.0% 8 0 Clinic Operations 20 28 0 28 100.0% 33 33.0 100.0% 0 0 Preventive Services 21 32 6 38 84.2% 30 25.6 85.3% 0 0 Pharmacy Services 22 9 0 9 100.0% 29 29.0 100.0% 0 0 Other Services 23 11 0 11 100.0% 10 10.0 100.0% 1 0 Chemical Agent Contraindications 24 10 0 10 100.0% 17 17.0 100.0% 0 0 Staffing Levels and Training 25 8 0 8 100.0% 16 16.0 100.0% 1 0 Nursing Policy 26 13 2 15 86.7% 14 11.2 80.0% 0 0 Totals 1114 203 1317 84.6% 816 659.7 80.8% 290 2 Medical Inspection Unit Page 7 Office of the Inspector General State of California Answers Weighting Points Reference Chronic Care Number Yes No Yes + No Yes % Possible Received Score % N/A Unk 03.076 Was the inmate's most recent chronic care visit within the time frame 17 8 25 68.0% 20 13.6 68.0% 0 0 required by policy? 03.082 Did the institution document that it provided the inmate with health care 24 1 25 96.0% 6 5.8 96.0% 0 0 education? 03.175 Did the inmate receive his or her prescribed chronic care medications during 16 8 24 66.7% 16 10.7 66.7% 1 0 the most recent three-month period or did the institution follow departmental policy if the inmate refused to pick up or show up for his or her medications? 03.235 Is the clinical history adequate? 16 9 25 64.0% 18 11.5 64.0% 0 0 03.236 Is the focused clinical examination adequate? 14 8 22 63.6% 16 10.2 63.6% 3 0 03.237 Is the assessment adequate? 16 1 17 94.1% 18 16.9 94.1% 8 0 03.238 Is the plan adequate? 16 3 19 84.2% 21 17.7 84.2% 6 0 03.262 Is the inmate's Problem List complete and filed accurately in the inmate's 19 6 25 76.0% 8 6.1 76.0% 0 0 UHR? 03.293 Are immunizations current for the chronic care condition? 13 1 14 92.9% 10 9.3 92.9% 0 0 Component Subtotals: 151 45 196 77.0% 133 101.8 76.5% 18 0 Medical Inspection Unit Page 8 Office of the Inspector General State of California Answers Weighting Points Reference Clinical Services Number Yes No Yes + No Yes % Possible Received Score % N/A Unk 01.024 RN FTF Documentation: Did the inmate's request for health care get 29 1 30 96.7% 6 5.8 96.7% 0 0 reviewed the same day it was received? 01.025 Did the RN complete a FTF visit within one business day after Form 7362 22 8 30 73.3% 10 7.3 73.3% 0 0 (Health Care Services Request) was reviewed? 01.027 If the RN determined a referral to a PCP was necessary, was the inmate seen 13 4 17 76.5% 10 7.6 76.5% 13 0 within the timelines specified by the RN during the FTF triage? 01.246 Did documentation indicate that the RN reviewed all of the inmate's 28 2 30 93.3% 4 3.7 93.3% 0 0 clinically significant complaints listed on Form 7362? 01.157 RN FTF Documentation: Did the RN's subjective note address the nature 25 5 30 83.3% 6 5.0 83.3% 0 0 and history of the inmate's clinically significant complaint(s)? 01.159 RN FTF Documentation: Did the RN's objective note include vital signs and 23 7 30 76.7% 5 3.8 76.7% 0 0 a focused physical examination, and did it adequately address the clinically significant problems noted in the subjective note? 01.244 RN FTF Documentation: Did the RN's objective note include allergies, 27 3 30 90.0% 3 2.7 90.0% 0 0 weight, current medication, and where appropriate, medication compliance? 01.158 RN FTF Documentation: For the clinically significant complaints, did the 25 5 30 83.3% 5 4.2 83.3% 0 0 RN's assessment provide appropriate conclusions based on subjective and objective data? 01.162 RN FTF Documentation: Did the RN's plan include an adequate strategy to 28 2 30 93.3% 6 5.6 93.3% 0 0 address the clinically significant problems identified during the FTF triage? 01.163 RN FTF Documentation: Did the RN's education/instruction adequately 30 0 30 100.0% 4 4.0 100.0% 0 0 address the clinically significant problems identified during the FTF triage? 01.247 Sick Call Follow-up: If the provider ordered a follow-up sick call 7 2 9 77.8% 5 3.9 77.8% 21 0 appointment, did it take place within the time frame specified? Medical Inspection Unit Page 9 Office of the Inspector General State of California Answers Weighting Points Reference Clinical Services Number Yes No Yes + No Yes % Possible Received Score % N/A Unk 01.124 Sick Call Medication: Did the institution administer or deliver prescription 22 4 26 84.6% 6 5.1 84.6% 4 0 medications (new orders) to the inmate within specified time frames? 15.234 Are clinic response bags audited daily and do they contain essential items? 2 0 2 100.0% 5 5.0 100.0% 0 0 21.278 If pre-existing medical conditions contributed to the need for the TTA visit, 12 2 14 85.7% 25 21.4 85.7% 11 0 was there adequate prior management of those conditions? Component Subtotals: 293 45 338 86.7% 100 85.1 85.1% 49 0 Medical Inspection Unit Page 10 Office of the Inspector General State of California Answers Weighting Points Reference Health Screening Number Yes No Yes + No Yes % Possible Received Score % N/A Unk 02.016 Did the institution complete the initial health screening on the same day the 29 1 30 96.7% 9 8.7 96.7% 0 0 inmate arrived at the institution? 02.017 If "Yes" was answered to any of the questions on the initial health screening 18 0 18 100.0% 8 8.0 100.0% 12 0 form(s), did the RN provide an assessment and disposition on the date of arrival? 02.018 If, during the assessment, the RN referred the inmate to a clinician, was the 1 3 4 25.0% 9 2.3 25.0% 26 0 inmate seen within the time frame? 02.021 Reception Center: Did the inmate receive a history and physical by a Nurse 20 0 20 100.0% 7 7.0 100.0% 0 0 Practitioner, Physician Assistant, or a Physician and Surgeon within the timeframe required by policy? 02.211 Reception Center: Is the history of present illness section of the provider's 17 3 20 85.0% 2 1.7 85.0% 0 0 intake history and physical examination complete and appropriate to the chief complaint(s), if any? 02.212 Reception Center: Is the past medical history complete? 17 3 20 85.0% 2 1.7 85.0% 0 0 02.215 Reception Center: Is the review of systems complete? 17 3 20 85.0% 2 1.7 85.0% 0 0 02.213 Reception Center: Is the family and social history complete? 20 0 20 100.0% 1 1.0 100.0% 0 0 02.216 Reception Center: Is the physical examination complete and appropriate to 19 1 20 95.0% 2 1.9 95.0% 0 0 the history and review of systems? 02.217 Reception Center: Is the assessment appropriate to the history and physical 14 3 17 82.4% 3 2.5 82.4% 3 0 examination? 02.218 Reception Center: Is the plan appropriate to the assessment? 14 2 16 87.5% 4 3.5 87.5% 4 0 02.219 Reception Center: Has required intake testing been completed? 20 0 20 100.0% 3 3.0 100.0% 0 0 Medical Inspection Unit Page 11 Office of the Inspector General State of California Answers Weighting Points Reference Health Screening Number Yes No Yes + No Yes % Possible Received Score % N/A Unk 02.020 Did the LVN/RN adequately document the tuberculin test and timely 29 1 30 96.7% 6 5.8 96.7% 0 0 reading of the test results; or, if the inmate did not have a TB test because of a previous positive TB test, was a review of signs and symptoms completed? 02.015 Was a review of symptoms completed if the inmate's tuberculin test was 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0 0.0% 30 0 positive, and were the results reviewed by the infection control nurse or the public health nurse? 02.128 If the inmate had an existing medication order upon arrival at the institution, 8 3 11 72.7% 8 5.8 72.7% 19 0 did the inmate receive the medications within specified timeframes, or did a physician document why the medications were not to be continued? 02.007 Non-reception center: Does the health care transfer information form 5 5 10 50.0% 7 3.5 50.0% 0 0 indicate that it was reviewed and signed by licensed health care staff within one calendar day of the inmate's arrival at the institution? 02.014 Non-reception center: If the inmate was scheduled for a specialty 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0 0.0% 9 1 appointment at the sending institution, did the receiving institution schedule the appointment within 30 days of the original appointment date? 02.111 Non-reception center: Did the inmate receive medical accommodations 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0 0.0% 10 0 upon arrival, if applicable? Component Subtotals: 248 28 276 89.9% 73 58.1 79.6% 113 1 Medical Inspection Unit Page 12 Office of the Inspector General State of California Answers Weighting Points Reference Specialty Services Number Yes No Yes + No Yes % Possible Received Score % N/A Unk 07.037 Did the institution approve or deny the PCP's request for specialty services 26 1 27 96.3% 8 7.7 96.3% 0 0 within the specified time frames? 07.035 Did the inmate receive the specialty service within specified time frames? 16 1 17 94.1% 9 8.5 94.1% 10 0 07.090 Physical therapy services: Did the physical therapist assess the inmate and 2 0 2 100.0% 2 2.0 100.0% 25 0 document the treatment plan and treatment provided to the inmate? 07.043 Did the PCP review the specialist's report and see the inmate for a follow-up 8 5 13 61.5% 10 6.2 61.5% 14 0 appointment within specified timelines following completion of the specialty service? 07.260 Was the institution's denial of the PCP's request for specialty services 3 1 4 75.0% 15 11.3 75.0% 6 0 consistent with the "medical necessity" requirement? 07.273 Was information provided on the request for services sufficient for the 4 5 9 44.4% 4 1.8 44.4% 0 1 Medical Authorization Review Committee to make a medical necessity determination? 07.259 Was there adequate documentation of the reason for the denial of specialty 8 2 10 80.0% 4 3.2 80.0% 0 0 services? 07.270 Did the specialty provider provide timely findings and recommendations or 14 2 16 87.5% 6 5.3 87.5% 11 0 did an RN document that he or she called the specialty provider to ascertain the findings and recommendations? 07.261 Is the institution scheduling high-priority (urgent) specialty services within 2 0 2 100.0% 9 9.0 100.0% 0 0 14 days? 07.288 At the first PCP visit following the denial, was the patient informed of the 3 6 9 33.3% 4 1.3 33.3% 1 0 denial and was the condition that gave rise to the specialty service request appropriately managed? Component Subtotals: 86 23 109 78.9% 71 56.3 79.3% 67 1 Medical Inspection Unit Page 13 Office of the Inspector General State of California Answers Weighting Points Reference Urgent Services Number Yes No Yes + No Yes % Possible Received Score % N/A Unk 21.248 Upon the inmate's discharge from the community hospital, did the TTA RN 21 1 22 95.5% 6 5.7 95.5% 3 0 document that he or she reviewed the inmate's discharge plan and complete a FTF assessment of the inmate? 21.249 Upon the inmate's discharge from the community hospital, did the inmate 14 8 22 63.6% 8 5.1 63.6% 3 0 receive a follow-up appointment with his or her PCP within five calendar days of discharge? 21.281 Upon the inmate's discharge from a community hospital, did the institution 6 4 10 60.0% 7 4.2 60.0% 15 0 administer or deliver all prescribed medications to the inmate within specified time frames? 21.275 Was the TTA nursing clinical care and documentation adequate? 16 9 25 64.0% 15 9.6 64.0% 0 0 21.276 While the patient was in the TTA, did the provider render adequate and 14 10 24 58.3% 19 11.1 58.3% 1 0 timely clinical care, and adequately document that care? 21.250 Upon the inmate's return from the community hospital, was the inmate 24 1 25 96.0% 4 3.8 96.0% 0 0 placed in housing appropriate for his or her clinical status? Component Subtotals: 95 33 128 74.2% 59 39.5 66.9% 22 0 Medical Inspection Unit Page 14 Office of the Inspector General State of California Answers Weighting Points Reference Emergency Services Number Yes No Yes + No Yes % Possible Received Score % N/A Unk 08.183 Was the medical emergency responder notified of the medical emergency 5 0 5 100.0% 7 7.0 100.0% 0 0 without delay? 08.241 Did the first responder provide adequate basic life support prior to medical 4 0 4 100.0% 8 8.0 100.0% 1 0 staff arriving? 08.184 Did the medical emergency responder arrive at the location of the medical 5 0 5 100.0% 6 6.0 100.0% 0 0 emergency within eight minutes of initial notification? 08.185 Did the medical emergency responder use proper equipment to address the 4 1 5 80.0% 9 7.2 80.0% 0 0 emergency and was adequate medical care provided within the scope of their license? 08.242 Did staff call 911 without unnecessary delay after a life-threatening 4 1 5 80.0% 8 6.4 80.0% 0 0 condition was identified by a licensed health care provider or peace officer? 08.187 Did the institution provide adequate preparation for the ambulance's arrival, 5 0 5 100.0% 6 6.0 100.0% 0 0 access to the inmate, and departure? 08.186 Were both the first responder (if peace officer or licensed health care staff) 5 0 5 100.0% 5 5.0 100.0% 0 0 and the medical emergency responder basic life support certified at the time of the incident? 08.222 Were the findings of the institution's Emergency Medical Response Review 2 1 3 66.7% 9 6.0 66.7% 2 0 Committee supported by the documentation and completed within 30 days? Component Subtotals: 34 3 37 91.9% 58 51.6 89.0% 3 0 Medical Inspection Unit Page 15 Office of the Inspector General State of California Answers Weighting Points Reference Diagnostic Services Number Yes No Yes + No Yes % Possible Received Score % N/A Unk 06.049 Radiology order: Was the radiology service provided within the time frame 5 0 5 100.0% 7 7.0 100.0% 0 0 specified in the physician's order? 06.245 Radiology order: Was the diagnostic report received by the institution 5 0 5 100.0% 6 6.0 100.0% 0 0 within 14 days? 06.200 Radiology order: Did the PCP review the diagnostic report and initiate 5 0 5 100.0% 7 7.0 100.0% 0 0 written notice to the inmate within two business days of the date the institution received the diagnostic reports? 06.188 All laboratory orders: Was the specimen collected within the applicable time 10 0 10 100.0% 6 6.0 100.0% 0 0 frames of the physician's order? 06.191 All diagnostic services: At the next clinic visit following report of a 8 5 13 61.5% 7 4.3 61.5% 2 0 clinically significant abnormal diagnostic test result, did the PCP document the abnormal test result in the progress note? 06.263 All diagnostic services: At the next clinic visit following the report of a 9 0 9 100.0% 12 12.0 100.0% 6 0 clinically significant abnormal diagnostic test, was the result adequately managed? 06.202 All laboratory orders: Did the PCP review the diagnostic reports and initiate 7 3 10 70.0% 7 4.9 70.0% 0 0 written notice to the inmate within two business days of the date the institution received the diagnostic reports? Component Subtotals: 49 8 57 86.0% 52 47.2 90.8% 8 0 Medical Inspection Unit Page 16 Office of the Inspector General State of California Answers Weighting Points Reference Access to Health Care Information Number Yes No Yes + No Yes % Possible Received Score % N/A Unk 19.150 Is the medical records office current with its loose filing? 0 1 1 0.0% 9 0.0 0.0% 0 0 19.169 Are Unit Health Records (UHRs) available to clinic staff for the inmates 2 0 2 100.0% 15 15.0 100.0% 0 0 ducated for medical appointments? 19.243 Is the electronic Unit Health Record (UHR) maintained in a manner that 0 1 1 0.0% 12 0.0 0.0% 0 0 allows providers to efficiently locate and use specific medical documents? 19.266 Does the institution properly file inmates' medical information? 1 0 1 100.0% 5 5.0 100.0% 0 0 19.271 While reviewing UHRs as part of the OIG's inspection, were the OIG's RN 0 1 1 0.0% 5 0.0 0.0% 0 0 and MD inspectors able to locate all relevant documentation of health care provided to inmates? 19.272 Does the institution promptly file blood pressure logs in UHRs? 1 1 2 50.0% 5 2.5 50.0% 0 0 Component Subtotals: 4 4 8 50.0% 51 22.5 44.1% 0 0 Medical Inspection Unit Page 17 Office of the Inspector General State of California Answers Weighting Points Reference Internal Reviews Number Yes No Yes + No Yes % Possible Received Score % N/A Unk 17.221 Did the institution complete a medical emergency response drill for each 0 1 1 0.0% 5 0.0 0.0% 0 0 watch and include participation of health care and custody staff during the most recent full quarter? 17.174 Did the institution promptly process inmate medical appeals during the most 0 1 1 0.0% 5 0.0 0.0% 0 0 recent 12 months? 17.136 For each death sampled, did the institution complete the death review 2 1 3 66.7% 5 3.3 66.7% 0 0 process? 17.132 Do the Emergency Medical Response Review Committee meeting minutes 6 0 6 100.0% 5 5.0 100.0% 0 0 document monthly meetings for the last six months? 17.138 Do the Emergency Medical Response Review Committee meeting minutes 3 3 6 50.0% 5 2.5 50.0% 0 0 document the warden's (or his or her designee's) attendance? 17.118 Do the Quality Management Committee meeting minutes document 6 0 6 100.0% 5 5.0 100.0% 0 0 monthly meetings for the last six months? 17.119 Did the Quality Management Committee (QMC) report its findings to the 6 0 6 100.0% 5 5.0 100.0% 0 0 CEO/CME for each of the last six (6) meetings? 17.135 Did the last three Quality Management Committee meeting minutes reflect 3 0 3 100.0% 5 5.0 100.0% 0 0 findings and strategies for improvement? Component Subtotals: 26 6 32 81.3% 40 25.8 64.5% 0 0 Medical Inspection Unit Page 18 Office of the Inspector General State of California Answers Weighting Points Reference Inmate Transfers Number Yes No Yes + No Yes % Possible Received Score % N/A Unk 05.108 Did Receiving and Release have the inmate's UHR and transfer envelope? 5 0 5 100.0% 7 7.0 100.0% 0 0 05.109 If the inmate was scheduled for any upcoming specialty services, were the 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0 0.0% 5 0 services noted on Form 7371 (Health Care Transfer Information)? 05.110 Do all appropriate forms in the transfer envelope identify all medications 2 0 2 100.0% 8 8.0 100.0% 3 0 ordered by the physician, and are the medications in the transfer envelope? 05.171 Did an RN accurately complete all applicable sections of Form 7371 5 0 5 100.0% 7 7.0 100.0% 0 0 (Health Care Transfer Information) based on the inmate's UHR? 05.172 Did the Health Records Department maintain a copy of the inmate's Form 5 0 5 100.0% 8 8.0 100.0% 0 0 7371 and Form 7231A (Outpatient Medication Administration Record) when the inmate transferred? Component Subtotals: 17 0 17 100.0% 30 30.0 100.0% 8 0 Medical Inspection Unit Page 19 Office of the Inspector General State of California Answers Weighting Points Reference Clinic Operations Number Yes No Yes + No Yes % Possible Received Score % N/A Unk 14.023 Does the institution make the Form 7362 (Health Care Services Request 6 0 6 100.0% 4 4.0 100.0% 0 0 Form) available to inmates? 14.164 Are areas available to ensure audio and visual privacy during RN face-to- 4 0 4 100.0% 3 3.0 100.0% 0 0 face assessments and doctors' examinations for non-emergencies? 14.166 Were refrigerated drugs stored without food in the refrigerator, or were the 2 0 2 100.0% 2 2.0 100.0% 0 0 drugs stored in a sealed container if food was present? 14.131 Do medication nurses understand that the licensed staff member who 2 0 2 100.0% 4 4.0 100.0% 0 0 prepares the medication, must also administer it on the day it is prepared? 14.106 Does clinical staff wash their hands (either with soap or hand sanitizer) or 4 0 4 100.0% 6 6.0 100.0% 0 0 change gloves between patients? 14.033 Does the institution have an adequate process to ensure inmates who are 2 0 2 100.0% 4 4.0 100.0% 0 0 moved to a new cell still receive their medical ducats? 14.160 Does the institution have a process to identify, review, and address urgent 2 0 2 100.0% 4 4.0 100.0% 0 0 appointments if a doctor's line is canceled? 14.029 Does medical staff in the facility clinic know which inmates are on modified 2 0 2 100.0% 4 4.0 100.0% 0 0 program or confined to quarters (CTQ) and does staff have an adequate process to ensure those inmates receive their medication? 14.165 Are the clinic floors, waiting room chairs, and equipment cleaned with a 4 0 4 100.0% 2 2.0 100.0% 0 0 disinfectant daily? Component Subtotals: 28 0 28 100.0% 33 33.0 100.0% 0 0 Medical Inspection Unit Page 20 Office of the Inspector General State of California Answers Weighting Points Reference Preventive Services Number Yes No Yes + No Yes % Possible Received Score % N/A Unk 10.228 Inmates prescribed INH: Did the institution properly administer the 3 2 5 60.0% 6 3.6 60.0% 0 0 medication to the inmate? 10.232 Inmates prescribed INH: Did the institution monitor the inmate monthly for 5 0 5 100.0% 6 6.0 100.0% 0 0 the most recent three months he or she was on the medication? 10.229 Annual TB Screening: Was the inmate appropriately screened for TB within 10 0 10 100.0% 7 7.0 100.0% 0 0 the last year? 10.086 All inmates age 65 and older: Did the inmate receive an influenza 8 0 8 100.0% 6 6.0 100.0% 0 0 vaccination for the most recent influenza season? 10.085 All inmates from the age of 51 through the age of 75: Did the inmate 6 4 10 60.0% 5 3.0 60.0% 0 0 appropriately receive colorectal cancer screening? Component Subtotals: 32 6 38 84.2% 30 25.6 85.3% 0 0 Medical Inspection Unit Page 21 Office of the Inspector General State of California Answers Weighting Points Reference Pharmacy Services Number Yes No Yes + No Yes % Possible Received Score % N/A Unk 13.139 Does the institution conspicuously post a valid permit in its pharmacy(ies)? 1 0 1 100.0% 2 2.0 100.0% 0 0 13.141 Does the institution properly maintain its emergency crash cart 1 0 1 100.0% 2 2.0 100.0% 0 0 medications? 13.252 Does the institution properly maintain medications in its after-hours 1 0 1 100.0% 2 2.0 100.0% 0 0 medication supply(ies)? 13.253 Does the institution conduct monthly inspections of its emergency crash cart 2 0 2 100.0% 1 1.0 100.0% 0 0 and after-hours medication supply(ies)? 13.142 Is the pharmacist-in-charge's license current? 1 0 1 100.0% 5 5.0 100.0% 0 0 13.144 Does the institution have information to ensure that medications are 1 0 1 100.0% 6 6.0 100.0% 0 0 prescribed by licensed health-care providers lawfully authorized to do so? 13.145 Does the pharmacist-in-charge have an effective process for screening new 1 0 1 100.0% 7 7.0 100.0% 0 0 medication orders for potential adverse reactions? 13.148 Does the pharmacist-in-charge monitor the quantity of medications on 1 0 1 100.0% 4 4.0 100.0% 0 0 hand? Component Subtotals: 9 0 9 100.0% 29 29.0 100.0% 0 0 Medical Inspection Unit Page 22 Office of the Inspector General State of California Answers Weighting Points Reference Other Services Number Yes No Yes + No Yes % Possible Received Score % N/A Unk 15.059 Did the institution properly provide therapeutic diets to inmates? 5 0 5 100.0% 3 3.0 100.0% 0 0 15.134 Did the institution properly respond to all active cases of TB discovered in 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0 0.0% 1 0 the last six months? 15.265 Is the most current version of the CDCR Health Services Policies and 2 0 2 100.0% 3 3.0 100.0% 0 0 Procedures available in the institution's law library? 20.092 Hygiene Intervention: Did custody staff understand the department's 4 0 4 100.0% 4 4.0 100.0% 0 0 policies and procedures for identifying and evaluating inmates displaying inappropriate hygiene management? Component Subtotals: 11 0 11 100.0% 10 10.0 100.0% 1 0 Medical Inspection Unit Page 23 Office of the Inspector General State of California Answers Weighting Points Reference Chemical Agent Contraindications Number Yes No Yes + No Yes % Possible Received Score % N/A Unk 12.062 Did the institution document that it consulted with medical staff before a 5 0 5 100.0% 9 9.0 100.0% 0 0 calculated use of OC? 12.064 Did the institution record how it decontaminated the inmate and did it 5 0 5 100.0% 8 8.0 100.0% 0 0 follow the decontamination policy? Component Subtotals: 10 0 10 100.0% 17 17.0 100.0% 0 0 Medical Inspection Unit Page 24 Office of the Inspector General State of California Answers Weighting Points Reference Staffing Levels and Training Number Yes No Yes + No Yes % Possible Received Score % N/A Unk 18.002 Information purposes only: Calculate the institution's average vacancy 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0 0.0% 1 0 percentages, the number of health care staff starting within six (6) months of the OIG visit, and the number of health care staff hired from the registry. The institution provided vacancy statistics within four medical classifications: (1) management; (2) primary care providers; (3) nursing supervisors; and (4) nursing staff. Total number of filled positions: 118.72 Total number of vacancies: 11.28 Total number of positions: 130.00 Vacancy percentage: 8.68% Number of staff hired within last six months: 10.72 Total number of registry staff: 0 18.004 Did the institution have an RN available on-site 24 hours a day, seven days 1 0 1 100.0% 4 4.0 100.0% 0 0 a week, for emergency care? 18.005 Did the institution have a physician on-site, a physician on-call, or a 1 0 1 100.0% 4 4.0 100.0% 0 0 medical officer of the day available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for the last 30 days? 18.006 Does the institution's orientation program for all newly hired nursing staff 1 0 1 100.0% 4 4.0 100.0% 0 0 include a module for sick call protocols that require an FTF triage? 18.001 Are licensed health care staff current with their certifications and did they 5 0 5 100.0% 4 4.0 100.0% 0 0 attend required training? Component Subtotals: 8 0 8 100.0% 16 16.0 100.0% 1 0 Medical Inspection Unit Page 25 Office of the Inspector General State of California Answers Weighting Points Reference Nursing Policy Number Yes No Yes + No Yes % Possible Received Score % N/A Unk 16.231 Does the institution ensure that nursing staff review their duty statements? 5 0 5 100.0% 2 2.0 100.0% 0 0 16.154 Does the institution have written nursing local operating procedures that 5 0 5 100.0% 5 5.0 100.0% 0 0 adhere to the department's policies and procedures? 16.254 Does the institution's supervising registered nurse conduct periodic reviews 3 2 5 60.0% 7 4.2 60.0% 0 0 of nursing staff? Component Subtotals: 13 2 15 86.7% 14 11.2 80.0% 0 0 Medical Inspection Unit Page 26 Office of the Inspector General State of California APPENDIX COMPARATIVE MEDICAL INSPECTION SCORES NORTH KERN STATE PRISON The following table shows the institution’s medical inspection scores earned during the three completed reviews of the Office of the Inspector General’s medical inspection program. As detailed in the footnotes below, the inspection program questions changed slightly between the cycle one and cycle two medical inspections. The changes were deemed to have a minimal impact on the institution’s overall final score. As a result, the scores are no longer recalculated as was done in the cycle two report. Cycle One Cycle Two Cycle Three Component Final 1 Final 2 Final 3 Chronic Care 58.9 % 66.3 % 76.5 % Clinical Services 64.0 71.9 85.1 Health Screening 71.9 89.1 79.6 Specialty Services 60.7 81.5 79.3 Urgent Services 79.8 70.5 66.9 Emergency Services 81.0 82.1 89.0 Diagnostic Services 67.9 85.2 90.8 Access to Health Care Information 72.5 80.4 44.1 Internal Reviews 85.0 87.5 64.5 Inmate Transfers 95.8 86.0 100.0 Clinic Operations 90.0 93.9 100.0 Preventive Services 55.0 67.7 85.3 Pharmacy Services 93.1 100.0 100.0 Other Services 50.0 100.0 100.0 Chemical Agent Contraindications 100.0 100.0 100.0 Staffing Levels and Training 95.0 100.0 100.0 Nursing Policy 71.4 50.0 80.0 Overall Score 72.2 % 79.3 % 80.8 % For copies of the cycle one and cycle two reports or the dates they were originally issued, visit the Office of the Inspector General’s website at www.oig.ca.gov. 1 Cycle One Final: These are the institution’s scores from the cycle one medical inspection report. Following completion of the first cycle of 33 prison medical inspections in June 2010, the OIG evaluated the medical inspection program for improvement opportunities with input from the stakeholders involved with the Plata v. Brown litigation. As a result, we made a limited number of revisions. These revisions included eliminating a medical emergency drill, adding five questions and eliminating seven others, and adjusting the weighting of certain questions. 2 Cycle Two Final: These are the institution’s scores reported in the cycle two medical inspection. As noted in the footnote above, the questions or related weighting factor used to generate the component or final overall score were slightly modified beginning in cycle two. 3 Cycle Three Final: These are the institution’s scores reported in the body of this report and include results from all questions applicable in cycle three. The questions and weighting used for the cycle three medical inspection report remained unchanged from cycle two. Medical Inspection Unit Page 27 Office of the Inspector General State of California California Correctional Health Care Services' Response Medical Inspection Unit Page 28 Office of the Inspector General State of California