返回列表 发表时间:2021-09-02    浏览次数:568

在外包背景调查之前,雇主应该了解什么

针对医疗保健组织的疏忽招聘和疏忽保留索赔的快速增长在财务上是毁灭性的。与这些索赔作斗争的雇主几乎肯定会输,而且损失惨重。医疗保健组织的损失率约为 75%,每起疏忽,平均赔付总额超过 100 万美元。

一项案例研究是针对加利福尼亚州一家成人日间保健中心的公交车司机对一名女性智障患者进行性侵犯的。直到患者对医疗保健中心提起民事诉讼,指控其雇佣行为疏忽,该医疗保健中心才发现以前的家庭虐待重罪,以及他要求的运送残疾人的背书和证书被撤销。当他最初被雇用时,健康中心依赖于安全顾问机构提供的信息。保健中心输了,不得不以 850,000 美元和解。

保险公司代表健康中心向第三方安全顾问机构提起诉讼,要求其审查公交车司机的背景并确认其任职资格和资格。该机构声称,他们只负责确保公交车司机遵守机动车辆管理局规定的适用法律。该机构还声称,他们的协议范围比卫生中心声称的要窄得多。由于这是双方之间不清楚的部分口头协议,因此法院以该机构的论点作出裁决,医疗机构再次败诉。

雇主可以采取哪些不同的做法?

雇主本可以与安全顾问机构达成明确的协议,该协议完全概述了范围和所有责任。如果雇主包含赔偿条款,医疗中心就可以避免 850,000 美元的课程。

从这次经历中可以吸取什么教训?

在外包招聘程序时,组织应特别注意这些服务的工作、细节、合同条款以及包括的赔偿条款。在本案例研究中,医疗保健中心聘请了一家机构并委托他们进行适当的招聘流程,但最终医疗保健中心承担了责任。由于医疗保健提供者面临极端风险,他们应该进行广泛的背景筛查,以超越州和联邦法律对所有与弱势和/或残疾患者一起工作的潜在员工的要求。这将确保所有患者的安全,并降低潜在疏忽诉讼的风险。

A case study was done over a California bus driver for an adult day health care center that sexually assaulted a female mentally disabled patient. It was not until the patient brought a civil action against the health care center alleging negligent hiring practices that the health care center discovered previous felony counts of domestic abuse, as well as his required endorsements and certificates for transporting disabled individuals revoked. When he was originally hired the health center relied on the information provided by a safety consultant agency. The health center lost and had to settle for $850,000.

The insurer on behalf of the health center filed suit against the third party safety consultant agency for vetting the bus driver’s background and confirming his eligibility and qualifications for the position. The agency claimed that they were only responsible for ensuring that the bus driver complied with applicable laws prescribed by the Department of Motor Vehicles. The agency also claimed that the scope of their agreement was much narrower than the health center alleged. Because this was a partially oral agreement that was unclear between both parties the courts ruled with the agency’s argument and the health care organization lost again.

What Could The Employer Have Done Differently?

The employer could have had a clearly defined agreement with the safety consultant agency that completely outlined the scope and all of the responsibilities. If the employer would have included an indemnity clause, the health care center would have avoided an $850,000 lesson.

What Lesson Can Be Learned From This Experience?

When outsourcing hiring procedures organizations should pay particular attention to the work, detail, terms of the contract for those services, and the indemnity provisions included as well. In this case study the health care center hired an agency and entrusted them to conduct an adequate hiring process, however in the end the health care center was held responsible. Because of the extreme risks health care providers face, they should conduct extensive background screens that go past what state and federal law mandates on all potential employees who will be working with vulnerable and/or disabled patients. This will ensure safety of all patients as well as mitigate the risk of a potential negligent suit.


背调项目-2-02.jpg