RE: 911:: blood borne pathogens

[Guest guest]

oldpeople wrote:

>Assign it a code and use the code on the air. Pretty simple. Guns and knives

usually have a code, so does this. Its an officer safety issue. No way do I

want my officers health to depend on the caller passing on the information.

>

>

We used to have codes for both blood borne and air borne pathogens, but

our attorneys said no more. If someone was treated differently because

of deputies being given that information, there was major liability. The

attorneys also said they should always use universal precautions anyway.

Most of my co-dispatchers don't agree with this, but the powers that be

have spoken, so we live with it.

Mike

[Guest guest]

>Assign it a code and use the code on the air.

You might want to check the legality of this.

You're leaving yourself and your Department wide open

for a lawsuit.... and you'll loose.

Weintraut

[Guest guest]

>We have one code we use for physically 'sick'.

That one " probably " wouldn't cause you any trouble, although

it's not really necessary.

> Add a particular suffix and it means mentally sick.

That one probably will.

And this one....

>Add a different suffix and it means contagious disease sick.

Certainly could cause you and your agency big problems.

In some cases, it's illegal.

We used to keep a file of known mental callers and it was

decided if not liable, at least a bad idea.

>If not...the rank and file is doing as policy directs and the shit

should fall uphill.<

Maybe it " should " ... but if you are following a policy that you

know to be illegal... you're not going to be protected.

Weintraut

[Guest guest]

Don't think for a moment that it can't... won't happen..

I found this with one quick search of google, the story just hit

the news 14 hours ago... I'm sure it's one of many.

Posted on Sat, Sep. 11, 2004

<http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/startelegram.news/state;kw=center6;c2=state;c3=s\

tate_homepage;pos=center6;group=rectangle;ord=1094933391787?>

Dallas newspaper sued over identifying HIV-positive man

DAVID KOENIG

Associated Press

DALLAS - A church volunteer is suing an alternative weekly newspaper for

up to $1.1 billion in damages, charging the publication violated a Texas law

when it reported that he is HIV-positive without getting his permission.

[Guest guest]

Well it wont and your policies and procedures do not protect you or

your dept. As we have already discussed MANY times regarding this

topic... There are several laws covering this aspect... HIPAA, The

White Act, State and Local regulations regarding confidentiality and

even the ADA.

And in regards to your large dept... that only means more people to sue

and more money to lose. This subject is basic legal liability 101...

take a seat and enjoy the class...

> We have one code we use for physically 'sick'. Add a particular

> suffix and it means mentally sick. Add a different suffix and it

> means contagious disease sick. This is a large department. (we have

> approximately 15,000-20,000 incoming calls per day). I would hope

> that our legal department has covered their bases on it. If not...the

> rank and file is doing as policy directs and the shit should fall

> uphill.