|
|
|
|
The state department of
Health monitors other comparable health care facilities to
assure quality care Part Three of Three Editor’s note. This excerpt is from an unrelievedly bleak report written by a Philadelphia Grand Jury. As a consequence abortionist Kermit Gosnell is charged with eight counts of murder. We are running an excerpt from the 261-page report each and every day. The Department of Health’s decades-long neglect of its duty to ensure the health and safety of women undergoing medical procedures in abortion clinics is in stark contrast to its policies and practices with respect to procedures performed in other types of health care facilities. DOH’s authority and duty to regulate, license, and oversee the operation of various health care facilities arises from the Health Care Facilities Act, 35 Pa.C.S. § 448.102 et seq. The purpose of the Act is spelled out in §448.801a: It is the purpose of this chapter to protect and promote the public health and welfare through the establishment and enforcement of regulations setting minimum standards in the construction, maintenance and operation of health care facilities. Such standards are intended by the legislature to assure safe, adequate and efficient facilities and services, and to promote the health, safety and adequate care of the patients or residents of such facilities. It is also the purpose of this chapter to assure quality health care through appropriate and nonduplicative review and inspection with due regard to the protection of the health and rights of privacy of patients and without unreasonably interfering with the operation of the health care facility or home health agency. The Health Care Facilities Act charges DOH with the oversight of health care facilities including hospitals, home health care agencies, nursing facilities, cancer treatment centers, birth centers, and ambulatory surgical centers. The health department regulates, licenses, and monitors each of these types of facilities differently. The type of facility that is relevant to this Grand Jury’s investigation is the “ambulatory surgical facility” (ASF). The Health Care Facilities Act defines an Ambulatory Surgical Facility as: A facility or portion thereof not located upon the premises of a hospital which provides specialty or multispecialty outpatient surgical treatment. Ambulatory surgical facility does not include individual or group practice offices of private physicians or dentists, unless such offices have a distinct part used solely for outpatient surgical treatment on a regular and organized basis. For the purposes of this provision, outpatient surgical treatment means surgical treatment to patients who do not require hospitalization, but who require constant medical supervision following the surgical procedure performed. This is precisely what Gosnell’s clinic was – a facility that provided specialty outpatient surgical treatment. And, by definition, so are all freestanding abortion clinics (those not associated with hospitals). The regulations that DOH wrote pursuant to the Abortion Control Act (18 Pa .C.S. § 3201 et seq.) are entitled “Regulations for Ambulatory Gynecological Surgery” (28 Pa. Code 29.1, et seq.). Section 29.33(13) expressly requires: Each patient shall be supervised while recovering from surgery or anesthesia, until she is released from recovery by a registered nurse or a licensed practical nurse under the direction of a registered nurse or a physician. The nurse shall evaluate the condition of the patient and enter a report of the evaluation and orders in the medical record of the patient. The plain language of the Health Care Facilities Act mandates that abortion clinics should be regulated, licensed, and monitored as Ambulatory Surgical Facilities. DOH licenses many types of facilities as ASFs, including endoscopy centers, where colonoscopies are performed; offices where plastic surgery procedures such as liposuction, facelifts, and breast augmentation are performed; and eye surgery centers. Under the regulations written by DOH, such facilities must be inspected and licensed yearly. In addition, DOH inspectors are expressly authorized to ASFs, at any time, announced or unannounced, to investigate any complaints (28 Pa. Code § 551.31 through 551.51). The regulations for Pennsylvania ASFs – which run over 50 pages – provide a comprehensive set of rules and procedures to assure overall quality of care at such facilities. They include, for example, measures for infection control (28 Pa. code. §567.3 lists 17 specific actions that ASFs have to take to control infection); a requirement that linens be sterile (§567.21-24); and requirement that the premises and equipment be kept clean and free of vermin, insects, rodents, and litter (§567.31). The ASF regulations devote three pages to anesthesia protocols alone. They not only spell out the equipment a facility must have, but also require that the equipment actually be used to monitor patients under anesthesia. “At a minimum,” 28 Pa. Code §555.33(6) requires: (i) The use of oxygen
saturation by pulse oximetry. And §555.33(5) requires: (5) A patient receiving anesthesia shall have an anesthetic record maintained. This shall include a record of vital signs and all events taking place during the induction of, maintenance of and emergence from anesthesia, including the dosage and duration of anesthetic agents, other drugs and intravenous fluids. These and other ASF regulations set out basic, minimum standards of care that any patient having a surgical procedure should expect to receive when anesthesia is involved. They are the standards that DOH came up with when charged by the legislature to assure safe, adequate, and efficient facilities and services and to promote the health, safety, and adequate care of patients. The law exists. The regulations are clear. Why does DOH not apply or enforce these standards for abortion facilities? Please send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com. If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha. |