Participants in the delivery of healthcare have long been primary targets in litigation surrounding complaints of medical malpractice. Good Samaritan laws that can provide some protection from damages resulting from unintentional harm fly out the window as soon as a licensed provider of care becomes involved.
From the time a call is made for ambulance transport, or the arrival of a patient for routine admittance, until the patient is discharged or deceased, there are a multitude of events that can lead to the claim of medical malpractice.
Once a healthcare professional has been placed in a client facility, there is a limited amount of control the staffing firm can exert over the providers’ activities. As a third party vendor for contingent labor, there is limited input a staffing firm can have on the day-to-day activities within the facility. This lack of direct control over the daily activities of the caregiver should significantly impact the due diligence given to the qualification of each candidate hired.
With the understanding that the control exerted over the healthcare worker once deployed is limited, several standards of quality must be executed to assure the best possible outcome for healthcare assignments. Many of the standards for working in the acute care setting are identified by the Joint commission. Examples can be found at http://www.jointcommission.org/standards_information/jcfaq.aspx. Some of the criteria for this assessment include:
-
Competency Assessment
-
Performance Evaluation
-
Orientation
-
Credentialing
-
Human Resource Standards applicable to contracted and volunteer personnel
-
Initial job training
These responsibilities are shared by both the vendor, and the facility, but must provide a time-sensitive paper trail for both parties. Due to the length of time required by the legal system to adjudicate most complaints, document archiving is critical. Documentation that can be shown today for an employee will not be sufficient for a claim that occurred three years ago.
Another important aspect in assessment of liability rests in the agreement between the client and vendor. A carefully crafted and even-handed instrument is critical at time of litigation. Regardless the care taken in such an agreement, negotiations at trial can potentially place the vendor at increased risk. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ga-court-of-appeals/1592225.html.
To summarize, the best defense against potential litigation occurs long before the employee enters the client’s facility. Due diligence in the complete investigation of the employee, coupled with a carefully crafted vendor agreement cannot eliminate liability, but can certainly go a long way in mitigating potential claims.
