glenwood gardens

[taysdad]

did you guys see this? staff refused to adminster cpr to patient.

http://www.turnto23.com/news/local-news/glenwood-gardens-in-bakersfield-refuses-cpr-releases-statement-on-policy-and-residents-death

[valleynative]

Why would that be their policy?  Liability?  I would think there would be at least one person on staff with CPR training??? 

[taysdad]

Right? and the dispatcher told them she would instruct and ems would be liable and they still refused. have never been a fan of them since my great grandma stayed there years ago. now I know why

[hsfan]

Not enough info on the article for a judgement to be made.She may have signed a notarized statement stating she did not want to receive CPR.

I have a notarized statement to that effect with the VA hospital in Fresno. My late mother-in-law had the same wishes when she entered home --and my 86 year old mother has the same wish --no CPR.  

[valleynative]

Not enough info on the article for a judgement to be made.She may have signed a notarized statement stating she did not want to receive CPR.

I have a notarized statement to that effect with the VA hospital in Fresno. My late mother-in-law had the same wishes when she entered home --and my 86 year old mother has the same wish --no CPR.  

Good point...and the article is sparse on details...but their statement says it is their protocol not to administer CPR?

[taysdad]

yeah the article isn't as good as the what they aired on the news. they played the tape. staff passed the phone off to numerous employees, never mentioned such a statement, just that they weren't going to give cpr and that's why they were calling 911. the news segement and entire 7 minute 911 call is on the link as well.

[izne1home]

I am confident that the living center had healthcare directives, DNR's..., etc., with disclosures and waivers for families going in that about the center's policy in the event of a medical emergency.  More importantly, an assisted living center like Glenwood is much different that a skilled care facility (a normal 'nursing home'), which is a licensed medical facility with RN's on the floor and doctors making visits at all times of the day. 

Of course, the media skips these pesky details since it would take some of the wind out of the story.  These policies are dictated by liability and restrictions imposed by insurance companies.  Without insurance in place, the State will not license your facility.  So it's a catch 22 for the operators.  Caring for the elderly is a high risk occupation, and claims (some, if not most, being groundless) are filed on a daily basis.  Policies like this are the result. 

The 911 dispatcher might have been surprised, but I suspect the family of the deceased isn't. 

[valleynative]

I am confident that the living center had healthcare directives, DNR's..., etc., with disclosures and waivers for families going in that about the center's policy in the event of a medical emergency.  More importantly, an assisted living center like Glenwood is much different that a skilled care facility (a normal 'nursing home'), which is a licensed medical facility with RN's on the floor and doctors making visits at all times of the day. 

Of course, the media skips these pesky details since it would take some of the wind out of the story.  These policies are dictated by liability and restrictions imposed by insurance companies.  Without insurance in place, the State will not license your facility.  So it's a catch 22 for the operators.  Caring for the elderly is a high risk occupation, and claims (some, if not most, being groundless) are filed on a daily basis.  Policies like this are the result. 

The 911 dispatcher might have been surprised, but I suspect the family of the deceased isn't. 

Sad sad.  Years ago, there was a terrible accident in a little town.  Someone ran over a guy.  There was a doctor there, but he did not assist the person run over for, he said, liability reasons.  The guy died.  Is that how it really is, that a doctor cannot even try and help someone out of the scope of his practice, for fear of being sued? 

[OriginalCVFan]

I am confident that the living center had healthcare directives, DNR's..., etc., with disclosures and waivers for families going in that about the center's policy in the event of a medical emergency.  More importantly, an assisted living center like Glenwood is much different that a skilled care facility (a normal 'nursing home'), which is a licensed medical facility with RN's on the floor and doctors making visits at all times of the day. 

Of course, the media skips these pesky details since it would take some of the wind out of the story.  These policies are dictated by liability and restrictions imposed by insurance companies.  Without insurance in place, the State will not license your facility.  So it's a catch 22 for the operators.  Caring for the elderly is a high risk occupation, and claims (some, if not most, being groundless) are filed on a daily basis.  Policies like this are the result. 

The 911 dispatcher might have been surprised, but I suspect the family of the deceased isn't. 

This is what I always mean when i tell people   QUIT GETTING YOUR INFORMATION FROM THE NEWS or THE INTERNET.    Would you want to go to a Doctor whose highest level of education and training is HS BIOLOGY?
There is always MUCH MORE to the story, but people are either too lazy, too gullible, or too unintelligent to figure out the REAL story, and news reports PREY on this. 

Also, this is what we continue to ALLOW AND ENDORSE, when we allow people to sue AND WIN over so many things.  IF we had TORT REFORM, where the LOSER OF A LAWSUIT had to pay all costs, court costs, etc. we would ELIMINATE 90% of all RIDICULOUS lawsuits, then we would have FAIR insurance rates and we would then also not have RIDICULOUS poliices like the assisted living center had in place. 

We can trace this all back to a broken legal system, with greedy people who are 'sue happy' and lawyers who prey on using the SYSTEM to their own advantage. 

[izne1home]

IF we had TORT REFORM, where the LOSER OF A LAWSUIT had to pay all costs, court costs, etc. we would ELIMINATE 90% of all RIDICULOUS lawsuits.  We can trace this all back to a broken legal system, with greedy people who are 'sue happy' and lawyers who prey on using the SYSTEM to their own advantage. 

Actually, we reformed it.  The system in place in the mother land, from which our system is birthed, has the loser pay the costs and attorneys fees.  Not long ago, in our infinite wisdom, we reformed the law so that everyone could have their day in court.

[bksflddan]

... had this person in fact signed a "no resuscitation" form as I have? ...

When we had to place my mother into an assisted living facility one of our criteria was this very thing.

[OriginalCVFan]

Now that the FACTS are coming in, why isnt everyone up in arms about the MISREPRESENTATION of the situation by the STUPID MEDIA?

1.  When people choose to reside at Glenwood Gardens, they are specifically told that they WONT get CPR in case of an emergency.  For services like that, they have to pay DOUBLE, to live in the facility across the street, with licensed medical care and proper insurance and certifications that cost MONEY.   
2.  The family of the deceased has come out and said.... SHUT UP.  THE FACILITY DID NO WRONG, and that EVERYONE  including the DECEASED knew this could happen.


Why doent our wonderful news process print a retraction, and apologize for making a big story out of nothing.  If I were the Glenwood Gardens management, I would start a ludicrous lawsuit against the newsreporter that first broke the story and claim millions in damages by the false representation of facts(or at least the damage caused by the lack of FULL REPRESENTATION of the facts)

[Just_A_Fan]

Now that the FACTS are coming in, why isnt everyone up in arms about the MISREPRESENTATION of the situation by the STUPID MEDIA?

1.  When people choose to reside at Glenwood Gardens, they are specifically told that they WONT get CPR in case of an emergency.  For services like that, they have to pay DOUBLE, to live in the facility across the street, with licensed medical care and proper insurance and certifications that cost MONEY.   
2.  The family of the deceased has come out and said.... SHUT UP.  THE FACILITY DID NO WRONG, and that EVERYONE  including the DECEASED knew this could happen.


Why doent our wonderful news process print a retraction, and apologize for making a big story out of nothing.  If I were the Glenwood Gardens management, I would start a ludicrous lawsuit against the newsreporter that first broke the story and claim millions in damages by the false representation of facts(or at least the damage caused by the lack of FULL REPRESENTATION of the facts)

That really needs to start happening on a broad front with the press.......

[valleynative]

Now that the FACTS are coming in, why isnt everyone up in arms about the MISREPRESENTATION of the situation by the STUPID MEDIA?

1.  When people choose to reside at Glenwood Gardens, they are specifically told that they WONT get CPR in case of an emergency.  For services like that, they have to pay DOUBLE, to live in the facility across the street, with licensed medical care and proper insurance and certifications that cost MONEY.   
2.  The family of the deceased has come out and said.... SHUT UP.  THE FACILITY DID NO WRONG, and that EVERYONE  including the DECEASED knew this could happen.


Why doent our wonderful news process print a retraction, and apologize for making a big story out of nothing.  If I were the Glenwood Gardens management, I would start a ludicrous lawsuit against the newsreporter that first broke the story and claim millions in damages by the false representation of facts(or at least the damage caused by the lack of FULL REPRESENTATION of the facts)

I understand FULLY what you are saying and agree that the media did what the media does best - SENSATIONALIZE!  What I don't understand is: is it the POLICY of Glennwood Homes to not GUARANTEE CPR if needed, or is it their policy to absolutely not administer CPR even if there is someone available to do CPR.  Is it a liability issue as I asked at the beginning of the thread?

[Just_A_Fan]

I understand FULLY what you are saying and agree that the media did what the media does best - SENSATIONALIZE!  What I don't understand is: is it the POLICY of Glennwood Homes to not GUARANTEE CPR if needed, or is it their policy to absolutely not administer CPR even if there is someone available to do CPR.  Is it a liability issue as I asked at the beginning of the thread?

If I understand things correctly, it is a liability thing and fully disclosed to residents.  Sad that "trying" to save someone can get you sued if you fail so people/companies are reusing to even try and help any longer.  There are also those that don't want to be helped in heir later years and would prefer to meet their maker in the natural order of things and on their terms.  The later I respect, the former is just another sad example of what legal system has devolved into.

[OriginalCVFan]

Its even more simple than the liability issue.

The woman in question and her family, show up at Glenwood Gardens, and apply for residence.  They are given two different programs.  1.  Stay at THIS facility which is $/month.  Here, you get THIS(complete list of product and services offered, and you have to INITIAL at every point saying you understand).  One line item says  WE ARE NOT A MEDICAL facility, we are an assisted living facility, kind of like a geriatric hotel.   We will not provide medical services, emergency or otherwise.  Please sign here saying you understand. 

Then they are shown the facility up the road(across the street, wherever) and told:  Or you can go with Option 2.  We have a full blown NURSING HOME with Medical Staff.   This will cost you 3$/month.   Here, we have staff to take care of these needs.

WHICH ONE DO YOU WANT TO PAY FOR.

Family chose option 1.  Family has gone public saying this.   The grandma FULLY UNDERSTOOD this.


For some reason, the only people that dont understand this, are the ones that ARENT INVOLVED.  Go FIGGER. 

[Just_A_Fan]

Its even more simple than the liability issue.

The woman in question and her family, show up at Glenwood Gardens, and apply for residence.  They are given two different programs.  1.  Stay at THIS facility which is $/month.  Here, you get THIS(complete list of product and services offered, and you have to INITIAL at every point saying you understand).  One line item says  WE ARE NOT A MEDICAL facility, we are an assisted living facility, kind of like a geriatric hotel.   We will not provide medical services, emergency or otherwise.  Please sign here saying you understand. 

Then they are shown the facility up the road(across the street, wherever) and told:  Or you can go with Option 2.  We have a full blown NURSING HOME with Medical Staff.   This will cost you 3$/month.   Here, we have staff to take care of these needs.

WHICH ONE DO YOU WANT TO PAY FOR.

Family chose option 1.  Family has gone public saying this.   The grandma FULLY UNDERSTOOD this.


For some reason, the only people that dont understand this, are the ones that ARENT INVOLVED.  Go FIGGER. 

Get all of that and you are 100% correct, however my point is the underlying reason companies are offering two options is that in option one they are limiting their liability exposure, and the resulting costs, from the ambulance chasers by stating right up front that they simply will not help you if you are in trouble....that we have gotten so litigious that people/companies have to go this route speaks volumes about the condition of our society and legal system....

[valleynative]

I get it. I really do. BUT, where does this put ANYONE who offers CPR and it doesn't work??? Every single coach has to take a CPR class. Are they opening themselves up to liability if they administer CPR and it doesn't work?

[valleynative]

Get all of that and you are 100% correct, however my point is the underlying reason companies are offering two options is that in option one they are limiting their liability exposure, and the resulting costs, from the ambulance chasers by stating right up front that they simply will not help you if you are in trouble....that we have gotten so litigious that people/companies have to go this route speaks volumes about the condition of our society and legal system....

Which brings me to another question. I cannot believe that them stating they won't help is worth the poser it is written on. I wanted to use my little palomino mare for birthdays...like princess birthdays. I called ins guy, he said she would have to work every day to pay for liability ins. I said I would have everyone sign a release of liability...he said they are not worth the paper they r written on???

[izne1home]

I get it. I really do. BUT, where does this put ANYONE who offers CPR and it doesn't work??? Every single coach has to take a CPR class. Are they opening themselves up to liability if they administer CPR and it doesn't work?

At common law, there is no duty to rescue another person, even if it is clear that the person will die without help. The duty may arise, however, if the two people have a special relationship with one another, like parent and child or husband and wife. If a person without one of these special relationships decides to help another, he or she must exercise reasonable care in rendering the aid. If the injured person is further harmed because the person providing help did not exercise reasonable care, then the injured person can sue for civil damages.

Since the common law rule provides little incentive to people to help one another in emergency situations, the majority of states have passed laws — known as Good Samaritans statutes — to make exceptions to this rule. Under California's Good Samaritan statute (Health & Safety Code §1799.102), those who act in good faith to provide emergency care at the scene of an emergency are immune from civil liability.  The exception is if you act  with "gross negligence" or "willful or wanton misconduct" in providing emergency medical or nonmedical care.

Which brings me to another question. I cannot believe that them stating they won't help is worth the poser it is written on. I wanted to use my little palomino mare for birthdays...like princess birthdays. I called ins guy, he said she would have to work every day to pay for liability ins. I said I would have everyone sign a release of liability...he said they are not worth the paper they r written on???

Releases are pretty powerful documents and can have devastating effects.  They are prepared by attorneys and usually take attorneys to explain.  Courts are reluctant to enforce a release and leave an innocent person without a remedy if the release was handed to them and required to be signed without sufficient time to review and consult with an attorney.  On the other hand, I have been involved with hundreds of releases that have been negotiated and signed off by legal counsel, that are as good as gold.  It's not that releases are ineffective, it's more a question of how and under what circumstances you obtained it. 

In your case, the insurance company would defend you and assert that the release is effective to dismiss the complaint.  That would require a lot of lawyering, hearings, maybe even a trial.  Even if you win, the insurance company has already paid a small fortune in attorneys fees.  They'll win the battle but lose the war.