|
Date, SMSI Staff Writer
We believe that the events of 9/11, have changed some of the fundamental underlying assumptions of many Hospital Security Programs. The three general topics that illustrate these changes are the police, technology, and foreseeability , three somewhat dissimilar topics.
The Police
Before 9/11, most hospitals, with a fair degree of predictability , were able to count on police backup and support. Because of 9/11 and the evolving involvement of the police in Homeland Security responsibilities, that support might be diminished. The bottom-line is the hospital may need to stand on its own if a terrorist event occurs within the hospital's normal service area. It is important , before the fact, to have some idea of what the limitations are that could affect police response. As a practical matter, there should clearly defined roles for the police in other than, terrorism events. For example, the role of the police should be worked out in advance for bomb threat response, emergency room disruptions, and infant abductions. Once it is determined when and under what circumstances police response may be curtailed, the hospital must decide how they will address those voids.
Considerations may need to be given as to the availability of reserve security personnel or the designation of other staff persons as security surrogates. It may mean reviewing policies to arm or not arm some or all uniformed security personnel. Pepper spray and handcuffing policies may need further review. The use of canines may need to be considered. Training needs must be reevaluated. The number of present vs. future security FTEs may need rethinking.
Technology
If it hasn't been done since 9/11, now is the time to completely reassess the security program. Before embarking on requisitioning additional security FTEs, first make sure the hospital is optimizing the use of technology such as access control systems, lighting, barriers, and CCTV. In the long run, when there is a choice, these remedies are far less costly than increases in payroll.
Can you lock down your hospital in five minutes, and can you ensure the integrity of that lock down over time? If your hospital intends to maintain a secure perimeter in response to a bio/chemical attack, the ability to quickly secure the perimeter is paramount, especially if police protection is not forthcoming. The use of CCTV can be a very cost effective method of extending the reach and deterrent value of security personnel. There are cautions, however. Each camera should have a written protocol of purpose. Cameras providing surveillance of common areas must be viewed live. If you do not have the ability to view CCTV monitors live, you should rethink whether you should use cameras at all. Cameras that are not viewed in real time can actually increase liability.
The important point to be made is the need to achieve total security integration. The security program should be designed to fully integrate technology with human factors. The security technology in use at every hospital will have added impact when connected to the hospital's Security Awareness Program (SAP). Now is the time to assess whether your security program is state-of-art. Is the use of technology need-driven or vendor-driven? Effective security design can reduce reliance on continually adding FTEs.
Foreseeability
You're probably wondering what foreseeability has to do with the attack on America. In most States, civil case law requires that a claim of negligence must show that the injury-causing event could have been anticipated (foreseen). The basis for establishing foreseeability in cases involving security issues, varies somewhat from State to State. In many states, the previous occurrence of prior similar incidents is sufficient to establish foreseeability.
The events of 9/11 were experienced by the entire country. Additionally, the Department of Homeland Security has, and will in the future, continue to issue warnings and admonitions as to how various segments of the society can better protect themselves.
All of this means that the Standard of Care bar has been universally raised, especially for hospitals because any further attacks will surely involve the health care community. If this premise is correct, at the very least, an assessment of your total security program is in order.
What does all of this have to do with foreseeability?
Simply this, if a third party is victimized by crime while on hospital property, their probable lawsuit will assert a premises liability claim of inadequate security. If the plaintiff can show that prudent reevaluations of the hospital's security program were not taken even after the 9/11 attack, the case for inadequate security is made much easier.
It is unfortunate that many hospitals have to be led kicking and screaming to improve their security program because it is often viewed as a financial black hole. Liability aside, good security is good business. Most hospitals could finance a significant portion of their security budget by reducing internal fraud and theft, yet few hospitals include an aggressive asset protection program as part of their security department mission. Just like any other department, the security department should be measured by effectiveness and results.
Try going to the SMSI website (www.smsiinc.com) and see where you stand by taking the SMSI Hospital Security Test.
|
