Friday, 28 July 2006

• We still have a long way to go :(

  Personal Comment: We still have a long way to go. It still frustrates me to no end to see this. AAARRRGGGGHHHHH! We, the Deaf and HOH people, need to stand up against those who violate our civil rights! The longer we keep quiet and do nothing, the hospitals will continue to violate our rights. The laws are on your side, but they will not do any good if we don't make sure they are enforced. Please do your part and keep fighting. Any time you are deprived an interpreter and/or VRI, contact The Dept of Justice will do their part, if you ask them to help you. elizabeth   In response to this article below, a reader posted this:   (Re: Maryland Hospital Settles Lawsuit, Deafweekly July 19) Even though Laurel Regional Hospital has settled, they are still not complying. I was just there on July 7th and my mother was not provided with an interpreter, again. My brother was taken by ambulance to their hospital and was not conscious enough to understand what was going on. Understand, my mother was one of the plaintiffs in this same case. After asking repeatedly for an interpreter and requesting the alternative use of VRI [video relay interpreting], she was told that they could not provide an interpreter for family members and that if the patient were deaf they would have secured an interpreter. They still think they can get away with using hearing family members to interpret. What a shame! REBECCA PORRAS-DAVIS     Hospital suit ends in gains for deaf

  07/20/06 By Joe Murchison Laurel Leader

  Laurel Regional Hospital, which last year was sued by deaf patients claiming the facility failed to provide adequate communication methods for the hearing-impaired, has since become a "model" in that regard, a public interest lawyer said. The suit, filed in January 2005 in U.S. District Court in Greenbelt, was settled by a consent decree on Friday, July 14, said Elaine Gardner of the Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs. The public-interest law group filed the suit with a private firm, Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan, on behalf of seven deaf patients who alleged they were denied adequate interpretive services at Laurel Regional. One of the patients was dismissed from the hospital without understanding her followup treatment, and later had to be rushed to another hospital, the suit alleged. The suit sought an order requiring the hospital to provide deaf patients with effective means of communication, and also sought compensatory and punitive damages. "Laurel has done such a good job (responding to the suit's concerns), we think it can serve as a model for other hospitals," Gardner said. The U.S. Department of Justice, which joined the suit, also praised the hospital. In a written statement, Wan Kim, assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division, said, "I commend the Laurel Regional Hospital for working with us." He agreed that the consent degree laid out policies other hospitals should adopt. Part of the suit was resolved through a confidential settlement agreement, the terms of which were not disclosed. Decree is 'landmark' Laurel has a substantial deaf population, due in part to its proximity to the nation's premier college for the deaf, Gallaudet University in Northeast Washington, D.C. Gardner said the consent decree was a "landmark," particularly in regards to the use of "video interpreting services" (VIS). This technology uses video conferencing to allow a patient to communicate by American Sign Language with an off-site interpreter, who then informs medical staff of the patient's situation. "The consent decree ... is the first ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) case resolution to include criteria for video interpreting services," a written statement from the Lawyers' Committee stated. Gardner said the suit alleged that Laurel Regional's VIS equipment was inadequate, and that the hospital should have more readily offered live interpreters to deaf patients. Carol Cawthorne, Laurel Regional's vice president for ancillary services, said that, since the suit was filed, the hospital has acquired VIS equipment with greater bandwidth that provides clearer pictures and faster communication. She said the hospital also has installed new equipment in the emergency room with keyboards and a two- way monitor so that a nurse and patient can communicate instantly by typing messages. Cawthorne said the hospital already had a contract with a service that supplies live interpreters upon request. But what may have been missing, she said, was staff training on when different types of assistance should be used. Last year, the hospital put its entire staff through training on how to help deaf patients, Cawthorne said, and it will repeat the training this year. She said the training included a deaf instructor who sensitized staff to such issues as how hospital workers should alert a deaf patient when they enter the patient's room, such as by flicking the light or touching the patient on the arm. Cawthorne said she learned "deaf people find it very rude for me, the talking person, to face the interpreter. I should be facing the person I'm addressing my comments to, the patient." TVs also upgraded Another equipment upgrade has been a close-captioning capability of TVs in all the rooms. This became available when the hospital installed new TVs a year go, Cawthorne said. She said the hospital already had TTY equipment available upon request. This equipment allows deaf patients to type messages that go over phone lines. Cawthorne said hospital workers have been taught to provide whatever aids the patient requests, whether that be technology or a live interpreter. The main exception would be if doctors or nurses thought a more intensive form of communication than the patient requested was needed, she said. Laurel Regional is not the only hospital sued over its handling of deaf patients. The National Association of the Deaf notes on its Web site that it helped file a suit this year against Baltimore Washington Medical Center, formerly North Arundel Hospital, in Glen Burnie. The suit alleges that a deaf patient who spent 11 days in the hospital during the first three months of 2006 was rarely offered live interpreters nor video interpreting services. The suit has not been settled. E-mail Joe Murchison at Joe Murchison@patuxent.com

  • 3:12 PM
  • 290 Views
  • 4 eProps
  • 5 Comments