If an organization requires employees to respond to violent situations, but provides inadequate training to respond safely that is negligence.
All hospitals (that except insurance) are required to have plan for responding to potentially violent situations. The plan must include, among many other things, who is trained, what is the content of the training and the response when a situation of violence or potential violence occurs. The typically there will be an overhead announcement, such as "Code Gray" or "Dr. Strong" summoning people to the scene.
Those responding place themselves in harm's way if they do not have the skills to adequately respond to physical aggression. A staff member can easily be injured because he or she is not prepared to exercise personal safety techniques. The aggressive person is placed in harm's way if staff members do not have the skills to respond appropriately. An aggressive person can easily be injured because improperly trained staff members are more likely to use excessive force.
What is the role of the trainer who recognizes the inadequacy of training that certifies people to respond? The trainer trains staff in the organizations approved curriculum, knowing that the methods taught (or omitted from training) are not enough for the safety of staff or clientele. The organization has defined a certain course as meeting the requirements for safe response. The trainer knows the course is inadequate, and places people in danger. What is the proper ethical response?
Of course the question can be much broader. You know your training is inadequate (constraints of time and $), but it is deemed as sufficient by the larger organization, and that the inadequacy of training places people in harm's way? Is better than nothing okay? What is a little knowledge is more dangerous than none at all?
No comments:
Post a Comment