BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH Senator Ed Hernandez, O.D., Chair BILL NO: AB 1340 AUTHOR: Achadjian AMENDED: April 3, 2014 HEARING DATE: June 11, 2014 CONSULTANT: Diaz SUBJECT : Enhanced treatment programs. SUMMARY : Establishes enhanced treatment programs (ETPs) within the Department of State Hospital system to be licensed by the Department of Public Health to provide additional treatment to patients with histories of violent behavior. Allows ETPs to lock patient doors externally when clinically necessary and other specified requirements are met. Requires patients in ETPs to receive treatment from a team of professionals, as specified; determinations to be in writing and provided to patients and their advocates; and transfers of patients to occur as timely as possible, as specified. Allows patient treatment teams to determine at any time that a patient no longer requires treatment in an ETP, as specified. Existing law: 1.Establishes the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) as the lead agency charged with overseeing and managing the state's five state hospitals: Atascadero, Coalinga, Metropolitan, Napa, and Patton. 1.Provides for the involuntary commitment of mentally ill persons to a state hospital, such as when the patient is deemed incompetent to stand trial (IST) or not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI), or the patient is a mentally disordered offender (MDO). 2.Requires DSH, prior to admission of a patient committed as IST or NGI to Metropolitan or Napa, to evaluate each patient for risk. 3.Designates Napa and Metropolitan to only treat low-to-moderate risk patients; requires high-risk patients to only be treated at Atascadero or Patton, a correctional facility, or other secure facility; and, designates Coalinga for mostly sexually violent predators (SVP). Continued--- AB 1340 | Page 2 4.Makes a violation of any law or regulation pertaining to health facilities, including acute psychiatric hospitals, a misdemeanor, and upon conviction is punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000 or imprisonment in a county jail for a period not to exceed 180 days, or by both the fine and imprisonment. This bill: 1.Establishes ETPs, commencing July 1, 2015, and subject to available funding, under the jurisdiction of DSH to provide 24-hour inpatient care for mentally disordered, incompetent, or other patients who have been committed to DSH and have been assessed to be at high risk for most dangerous behavior, as defined, and cannot be effectively treated within an acute psychiatric hospital, a skilled nursing facility, or an intermediate care facility, including medical, nursing, rehabilitative, pharmacy, and dietary service. Specifies that it is not the Legislature's intent for ETPs to supplant the aforementioned facilities. 2.Requires an ETP to meet licensure requirements for acute psychiatric hospitals commencing July 1, 2015 and until January 1, 2018. Requires the Department of Public Health (DPH) to license ETPs, on and after January 1, 2018, to provide treatment for patients at high risk for the most dangerous behavior as part of a continuum of care based on the individual patient's treatment needs. Requires DSH and DPH to jointly develop regulations governing ETPs. 3.Requires ETPs to meet the following: a. Maintain staff-to-patient ratios of one-to-five, b. Limit each room to one patient, c. Require each patient room to allow visual access by staff 24 hours a day, d. Require each patient room to have a bathroom, e. Allow each patient room door to lock externally only when clinically indicated and determined to be the least restrictive environment for provision of the patient's care and treatment. Specifies that a locked door is not considered seclusion; and, f. Provide emergency egress for patients. 4.Requires ETPs to adopt and implement policies and procedures consistent with DSH regulations that provide: AB 1340 | Page 3 a. Policies and procedures for admission into an ETP, b. Clinical assessment and review focused on behavior, history, dangerousness, and clinical need for patients to receive treatment in an ETP, c. A process for identifying which ETP along a continuum of care best meets the patient's needs, and d. Treatment plans with regular clinical review and reevaluation of placement back into a standard treatment environment, including discharge and reintegration planning. 5.Requires that ETP patients are guaranteed the same rights as patients not in an ETP, with the exception of placement in a room with a door that may be locked externally. 6.Requires DSH, commencing January 1, 2018, and until January 1, 2026, to monitor ETPs, evaluate outcomes, and report the findings and recommendations to the Legislature every two years. 7.Allows a state hospital psychiatrist or psychologist to refer a patient to an ETP for temporary placement and risk assessment upon determining the patient may be at high risk for most dangerous behavior and when treatment is not possible in a standard treatment environment. Allows the referral to occur at any time after the patient is admitted to a DSH facility with notice to the patient's advocate at the time of referral. 8.Requires, within three business days of placement in an ETP, a dedicated forensic evaluator, not on the patient's treatment team, to complete an initial evaluation of the patient that includes an interview of the patient's treatment team, an analysis of diagnosis, past violence, current level of risk, and the need for enhanced treatment. 9.Requires, within seven business days of placement in an ETP and with 72-hours' notice to the patient and patient's advocate, a forensic needs assessment panel (FNAP) to conduct a placement evaluation meeting with the referring psychiatrist or psychologist, the patient and patient's advocate, and the dedicated forensic evaluator who performed the initial evaluation. Requires a determination to be made as to whether AB 1340 | Page 4 the patient clinically requires ETP treatment. Allows the FNAP to delay its decision for an additional seven business days if a patient shows improvement during placement in the ETP. 10.Specifies that the threshold standard treatment in an ETP is met if a psychiatrist or psychologist who uses standard forensic methodologies for clinically assessing violence risk, including an analysis of past violence and use of valid and reliable violence risk assessment testing, determines that a patient meets the definition of a patient at risk for most dangerous behavior and ETP treatment can meet the identified needs of the patient. 11.Requires the FNAP to review all material presented at the placement evaluation meeting and to certify the patient for 90 days of ETP treatment or direct the patient be returned to a standard treatment environment. Requires a patient's transfer, if the ETP treatment will be provided at a facility other than the current hospital, to take place as soon as transportation can be reasonably arranged and no later than 30 days after the decision is made. Requires the determination to be in writing and provided to the patient and patient's advocate as soon as possible but no later than three business days after the decision. 12.Requires upon admission to an ETP a forensic needs assessment team (FNAT) psychologist, who is not on the patient's treatment team, to perform an in-depth violence risk assessment and make a treatment plan based on the assessment within 14 business days of placement in the ETP. Requires formal treatment plan reviews to occur on a monthly basis and to include a full report on the patient's behavior while in the ETP. Requires an ETP patient to receive treatment from a team consisting of a psychologist, psychiatrist, nurse, psychiatric technician, clinical social worker, rehabilitation therapist, and any other staff necessary, and to meet no less than once a week to assess the patient's response to ETP treatment. 13.Requires the FNAP to convene a treatment placement meeting prior to the expiration of the 90-day treatment and with 72-hours' notice to the patient and patient's advocate with a psychologist from the treatment team, a patient advocate, the patient, and the FNAT psychologist who performed the in-depth violence risk assessment, to determine if the patient may return to a standard treatment environment or if the patient AB 1340 | Page 5 clinically requires continued ETP treatment. a. Requires the patient to be certified for one year of ETP placement if the FNAP determines the patient clinically requires continued ETP treatment. Requires the determination to be in writing and provided to the patient and the patient's advocate within 24 hours of the meeting. Requires the FNAP to review the patient's treatment summary every 90 days to determine if the patient no longer clinically requires ETP treatment. Requires this determination to be in writing and provided to the patient and patient's advocate within three business days of the meeting. b. Requires the FNAP to identify appropriate placement within a standard environment in a state hospital and for the patient to be transferred within 30 days if the FNAP determines that the patient is ready to be treated in a standard treatment environment. 14.Requires the FNAP, prior to the expiration of the one-year certification of ETP placement and with 72-hours' notice to the patient and patient's advocate, to convene a treatment placement meeting with the treatment team, the patient advocate, the patient, and the FNAT psychologist who performed the in-depth violence risk assessment. Requires the FNAP to determine if a patient clinically requires continued ETP treatment. Requires a patient to be certified for ETP treatment for an additional year if the FNAP determines the patient clinically requires continued ETP placement. Requires the determination to be in writing and provided to the patient and patient's advocate within three business days of the meeting. 15.Requires a recommendation be made to the FNAP or FNAT to transfer a patient out of an ETP if at any point during ETP placement a patient's treatment team determines the patient no longer clinically requires ETP treatment. 16.Allows the process of assessment, determination, and documentation outlined above to continue until the patient no longer clinically requires ETP treatment or until the patient is discharged from the state hospital. AB 1340 | Page 6 17.Defines "FNAP" as a panel that consists of a psychiatrist, a psychologist, and the medical director of the hospital or facility, none of whom are involved in the patient's treatment or diagnosis at the time of the hearing or placement meetings. Defines "FNAT" as a panel of psychologists with expertise in forensic assessment or violence risk assessment, each of whom are assigned an ETP case or group of cases. Defines "patient at high risk of most dangerous behavior" as an individual who has a history of physical violence and currently poses a demonstrated danger of inflicting substantial physical harm upon others in an inpatient setting, as determined by the in-depth violence risk assessment. FISCAL EFFECT : The current version of this bill has not been analyzed by a fiscal committee. PRIOR VOTES : Prior votes not applicable to current version. COMMENTS : 1.Author's statement. According to data from DSH, violent acts by state hospital patients have increased substantially in recent years, including the tragic homicide of Napa psychiatric technician Donna Gross in 2010, as well as patient murders at Patton in 2013 and Atascadero in 2014. In 2012, there were nearly 7,000 combined incidents of violence against both staff and patients. Clearly, there is much work to be done to ensure that state hospitals are providing a safe and secure environment for both staff and patients alike. This bill expands the range of available clinical treatment by establishing ETPs for patients determined to be at the highest risk for violence. The goal of ETPs is to deliver concentrated, evidence-based clinical therapy and treatment in a secure environment designed to improve these patients' conditions so that they may be safely returned to the standard treatment environment. Providing these individuals with enhanced treatment apart from the general population will protect state hospital staff and patients, decrease the level of violence, and provide more effective treatment to those patients with the most aggressive behavior. 2.Background. According to DSH, the state hospital patient population has shifted over the past 20 years, from a 20 percent forensic population in 1994 to the current 96 percent. Forensic patients are committed for a variety of reasons, including IST, NGI, mentally disordered offenders (MDO), and AB 1340 | Page 7 SVP. There are 4,967 patients at Atascadero, Coalinga, Metropolitan, Napa, and Patton state hospitals comprising 1,350 NGI; 1,283 IST; 1,154 MDO; 897 SVP; 258 mentally ill California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation commitments; and 25 mentally disordered sex offenders. DSH states that despite the significant change, there is no current legal, regulatory, or physical infrastructure in place for state hospitals to effectively and safely treat patients who have demonstrated severe psychiatric instability or extremely aggressive behavior. 3.Incidents of violence. According to DSH, in 2013, there were a total of 3,344 patient-on-patient assaults and 2,586 patient-on-staff assaults at state hospitals. Of the total patient population, 62 percent are non-violent, 36 percent committed 10 or fewer violent acts, and 2 percent committed 10 or more violent acts. Of all the violent acts committed, 65 percent are committed by those with 10 or fewer violent acts, and 35 percent are committed by those with 10 or more violent acts. A small subset of the population, 116 people, commits the majority of aggressive acts. Assaults for the previous years are as follows: 3,803 patient-on-patient and 3,026 patient-on-staff in 2012; 4,022 patient-on-patient and 2,814 patient-on-staff in 2011; and 4,627 patient-on-patient and 2,703 patient-on-staff in 2010. The Division of Occupational Safety and Health, known as Cal/OSHA, within the California Department of Industrial Relations, has had significant and ongoing involvement with DSH as a result of insufficient protections for staff. According to a Los Angeles Times article from March 2, 2012, Cal/OSHA has issued nearly $100,000 in fines against Patton and Atascadero, alleging that they have failed to protect staff and have deficient alarm systems. These citations are similar to citations levied in 2011 against Napa and Metropolitan. Cal/OSHA found an average of 20 patient-caused staff injuries per month at Patton from 2006 through 2011 and eight per month at Atascadero from 2007 through 2011, including severe head trauma, fractures, contusions, lacerations, and bites. DSH states they have been working closely with Cal/OSHA to resolve the issues and take all necessary corrective measures to protect staff at all of the state hospital facilities. 4.Enhanced treatment unit (ETU) pilot project. DSH issued a AB 1340 | Page 8 report in May 2013, Enhanced Treatment Unit: Annual Outcome Report, on the pilot project at Atascadero, which has operated since December 2011, but does not allow for locked doors. The goal of the ETU is to decrease psychiatric symptoms of some of the most violent patients in order to enable DSH to simultaneously assist the patients in their recovery, thereby increasing the safety of the facility. Patients must meet certain criteria, based on the patient's mental illness and psychiatric symptoms, before being admitted to the ETU. DSH reviews patient referrals to determine if patients meet the following entrance criteria: a. The patient engages in pathology-driven behaviors; b. The patient engages in recurrent aggressive behaviors that have been unresponsive to mainstream therapeutic interventions; or, c. The patient commits a serious assaultive act that results in serious injury. The report concludes that the ETU has been successful in decreasing aggressive incidents and that the program as a whole is likely effective. Some of the contributing factors cited include added staff with expertise in treating difficult patients and decreased staff-to-patient ratios; added presence of the Department of Police Services (Atascadero state hospital law enforcement); and the "calm milieu" of the ETU, which is attributed to the added staff with greater expertise in treating difficult and violent patients, i.e. the staff reacts to an incident in a manner that does not escalate the situation that would result in a violent act. While successful, DSH states that the Atascadero ETU accepts only those with Axis 1 diagnoses, such as schizophrenia, major depression, bipolar, and schizoaffective disorder. The Atascadero ETU intentionally avoids patients with Axis 2 diagnoses, which are various types of personality disorders that are often present in the patients involved in predatory violence. Patients with Axis 2 diagnoses have been involved in three recent murders of staff and patients, and are the patients the ETPs will treat. 5.Report on inmates in state hospitals. According to an article published in the Los Angeles Times on May 30, 2014, "Report faults prison care of state's mentally ill inmates," a report filed in U.S. District Court by special master Matthew Lopes indicates that state hospitals returned some patients to AB 1340 | Page 9 prison too soon, drugged instead of counseled patients, and only rarely gave one-on-one therapy. Atascadero was noted to have discharged prisoners based on length of stay rather than on their mental conditions and immediately dropped staffing levels and access to group therapy once federal oversight of the hospital ended. The report further indicates that psychiatrists feared retaliation from administrators if they did not sign discharge papers even though they may have felt that prisoners required more treatment. The report cites the use of seclusion and restraints to curb violence, indicating that patients were strapped to their beds 76 times during an eight-month period in 2013, usually for less than 24 hours but in some cases for nearly four days. 6.Double referral. This bill has been double referred. Should it pass out of this committee, it will be referred to the Senate Public Safety Committee. 7.Prior legislation. AB 2399 (Allen), Chapter 751, Statutes of 2012, required each of the five state hospitals to update its injury and illness prevention plan (IIPP) at least once a year, establish an IIPP committee to provide recommendations for updates to the plan, and develop an incident reporting procedure for assaults on employees. SB 60 (Evans) of 2011 would have required the former Department of Mental Health (now DSH) to conduct a security and violence risk assessment, as specified, of each patient upon admission to a state hospital. SB 60 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. SB 391 (Solis), Chapter 294, Statutes of 1997, provided for patient risk assessments for inmates committed to Napa or Metropolitan for certain Penal Code violations and requires patients subject to assessments who are determined to be a high security risk to be treated in the most secure state hospital facilities. 8.Support. The sponsors of the bill argue that ETPs will provide additional individualized care to patients with histories of highly aggressive behavior, until they are deemed safe to return to the general population, in the safest possible treatment environment while upholding patients' rights. 9.Opposition. Disability Rights California (DRC) argues that AB 1340 | Page 10 this bill would allow patients to be locked in a room similar to a prison cell without being afforded adequate due process, such as a hearing before a judge with appointed counsel and without the ability to appeal placement in an ETP. DRC also states that many provisions in this bill are vague and overbroad, giving great deference to DSH with little or no oversight or explanation of terms. 10.Policy comments. a. Are provisions too broad? Opponents raise concerns about certain provisions, such as "when clinically indicated" (in relation to when a patient's door may be locked) and "standard forensic methodologies" (to indicate that a psychologist or psychiatrist met the threshold standard for determining a patient requires ETP treatment). Patient advocates fear that absent an adequate due process for the patient, including the right to appeal referral to an ETP, DSH will arbitrarily define those terms. DSH staff has indicated that ETPs will be based on evidence-based practices, which have been submitted for peer review to CNS Spectrums. In line with this intent, the author may wish to reference specific tools and/or criteria for forensic methodologies and clinical indication. b. Can ETPs be considered seclusion? Though this bill indicates that locked doors will not be considered seclusion, a 1992 report, On the Seclusion of Psychiatric Patients (Brown and Tooke), found instances of seclusion to manage workload when too many agitated patients were admitted and during times when staffing was low on evenings, nights, weekends, or at changes of shifts, suggesting that ward conditions rather than patient condition governs seclusion. A 2004 study from the University of Ottawa, The Mentally Ill and Social Exclusion: A Critical Examination of the Use of Seclusion from the Patient's Perspective, cited patients' wide array of negative emotions associated with their seclusion, such as fear, anger, sadness, shame, and feeling abandoned. Though this bill specifies that, except for externally locking doors, ETP patients will be afforded the same rights as general population patients, the author may wish to clarify how an ETP will differ from seclusion. 11.Technical amendment. AB 1340 | Page 11 a. On page 12, line 26, delete "(2)" and insert: (1) SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION : Support: SEIU Local 1000 (sponsor) Union of American Physicians and Dentists/AFSCME-Local 206 California Association of Psychiatric Technicians (sponsor) American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 2620 Oppose: Disability Rights California Legal Services for Prisoners with Children -- END --