Skip Maine state header navigation
Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation
|Home | Contact Us | Calendar | Archives | Education Intranet|
From: Deb Davis [firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 1:02 PM
To: Newton, Ansley; Cronin, Nancy E; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Dube, Nancy; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Spear, Steve; email@example.com
Cc: Keenan, Arthur
Subject: Re: CH 33 and The Children's Health Act of 2000
As we approach our next meeting, I had some preliminary thoughts and questions. Shouldnít we be basing our work on the Childrenís Health Act of 2000? We would then add our chapter 33 amendments to further safeguard Maine students. Isnít there a tremendous amount of language in the Childrenís Health Act of 2000 we need to use to make that law effective & enforceable within our guidelines? Who are the federal enforcers of that law? There are federal audits of serious issues of r/s/a within hospital settings, why arenít there audits of schools as well? If the DOE isnít the federal enforcer, we need to know who is, so our guidelines best protect Maine students.
Mentioned at the recent IACC conference was the "importance of gaining support at the organizational level within schools" because this would set the tone for change. "This will be a long haul to fix these problems, school district by school district." My suggestion would be to set-up a group that could support schools achieve the goals set forth by the chapter 33 revisions.
Please refer below info about the Children's Health Act. Look forward to moving forward.
:-) Deb Davis
The final language of the Childrenís Health Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-310) represents sensible legislation to respond to abuses in the use of seclusion and restraints without undermining practices critical to ensuring the safety and well-being of residents and staff in residential treatment facilities. The legislation includes a new, separate section to specifically address the circumstances of non-medical, community-based facilities for children and youth. The language emphasizes that restraints and seclusion in non-medical, community-based facilities for children and youth will only be imposed in emergency circumstances and only to ensure the physical safety of the residents or others. The language also recognizes the importance of appropriately trained and certified staff, and thus the requirement for a physician to authorize restraints has been removed from this section and substituted by, "a supervisory or senior staff person with training in restraint and seclusion who is competent to conduct a face-to-face assessment." In addition, terms have been defined less broadly and more specifically in consonance with their usage in non-medical, community-based facilities, so that, for example, the definition of "seclusion" does not include time out, and the definition of "physical restraint" does not include physical escort. However, the legislation left much to be determined in regulations, and definitions and other key provisions have been left to two executive agencies, HCFA, for Part H, and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), for Part I of the law.
|Copyright © 2007 All rights reserved.|