OSHA Inspection: FAIRVIEW CARE CENTER OF JOLIET, LLC

Issued

Jan 22, 2013

Penalty

Initial $2,700 · Current $1,500 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.334(a)(2)(ii): When there was a defect or evidence of damage that might expose an employee to injury, the defective or damaged item was not removed from service until repairs and tests necessary to render the equipment safe had been made.      a) On or about July 30, 2012, at the above located workplace, employees were exposed to a Clarke, Focus II, floor scrubber that was missing a grounding prong on its 120 volt plug. Employees were thereby exposed to electric shock or electrocution hazards.     b) On or about July 30, 2012, at the above located workplace, employees were exposed to a Hobart, floor model food mixed that was missing a grounding prong on its 120 volt plug. Employees were thereby exposed to electric shock or electrocution hazards.

Issued

Jan 22, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.334(a)(3)(ii): Attachment plugs and receptacles were connected or altered in a manner which prevented proper continuity of the equipment grounding conductor at the point where plug(s) are attached to the receptacle(s):    a) On or about July 30, 2012, at the above located workplace, employees were exposed to a Clarke, Focus II, floor scrubber that was missing a grounding prong on its 120 volt plug. Employees were thereby exposed to electric shock or electrocution hazards.    b) On or about July 30, 2012, at the above located workplace, employees were exposed to a Hobart, floor model food mixed that was missing a grounding prong on its 120 volt plug. Employees were thereby exposed to electric shock or electrocution hazards.

Issued

Jan 22, 2013

Abate by

Feb 15, 2013

Penalty

Initial $6,300 · Current $3,000 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1030(d)(2)(i): Engineering and work practice controls were not used to eliminate or minimize employee exposure:    a) On or about July 30, 2012, at the above located worksite, nurses used Kendall Monoject Tuberculin Syringes with detachable needles (#1180127012) to give injections. This combination of syringe and needle did not have engineered sharps injury protection, and placed the employees at an increased risk of needle sticks. Effective and appropriate sharps with engineered sharps injury protection were commercially available. Employees using the syringes and needles without engineered sharps injury protection were therefore exposed to the hazards associated with blood borne disease.

Issued

Jan 22, 2013

Abate by

Feb 15, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1904.29(b)(1): A Log of all recordable work-related injuries and illnesses (OSHA Form 300 or equivalent), was not completed in detail as required by the regulation:    a) On or about July 30, 2012, at the above located workplace, the employer's OSHA 300 form for 2012 was not completed in detail as required by 1904.4 through 1904.12. In that:    i) The 2012, OSHA 300 list of recordable injuries and illnesses included eight entries that occurred after July 15, 2012, and did not include the object/substance that directly injured or made the person ill in column F, as required by the standards.

Issued

Jan 22, 2013

Abate by

Feb 15, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1904.29(b)(6): Employee(s) names were not removed from the 300 Log when employee(s) experienced privacy concern cases:    a) On or about July 30, 2012, at the above located workplace, the employer's OSHA 300 log, for 2012, listed a needlestick which occurred on June 13, 2012, the entry included the employee's name where the name should not have appeared.

Issued

Jan 22, 2013

Abate by

Feb 15, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1030(c)(1)(ii)(B):  The employer's Exposure Control Plan did not include the method of implementation for paragraphs (d) Methods of Compliance, (f) Hepatitis B vaccination and Post-Exposure Evaluation and follow-up, (g) Communication of Hazards to Employees, and (h) Recordkeeping of this standard:    a) On or about July 30, 2012, at the above located workplace, employees such as nurses, CNAs and maintenance employees were exposed to blood and other potentially infectious material. The employer's Exposure Control Plan did not address the employer's offer to pay for all medical evaluations related to the hepatitis B vaccine and vaccination series.

Issued

Jan 22, 2013

Abate by

Feb 15, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1030(c)(1)(iv):   The Exposure Control Plan was not reviewed and updated at least annually and whenever necessary to reflect new or modified task and procedures which affect occupational exposure and reflect new or revised employee positions with occupational exposure.     a) On or about July 30, 2012, at the above located workplace employees were exposed to blood and experienced sharps injuries. The employer's Bloodborne Pathogen Exposure Control program had not been reviewed and updated at least annually.

Issued

Jan 22, 2013

Abate by

Feb 15, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1030(c)(1)(v): The employer, who was required to establish an Exposure Control Plan did not solicit input from non-managerial employees responsible for direct patient care who are potentially exposed to injuries from contaminated sharps in the identification, evaluation, and selection of effective engineering and work practice controls and did not document the solicitation in the Exposure Control Plan:    a) On or about July 30, 2012, at the above located workplace, employees were exposed to blood and experienced sharps injuries. The employer did not solicit input from non-managerial employees responsible for direct patient care in the identification, evaluation, and selection of effective engineering and work practice controls and did not document the solicitation in the Exposure Control Plan.

Issued

Jan 22, 2013

Abate by

Feb 15, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1030(c)(2)(i): The employer, who had employees with occupational exposure, did not prepare an exposure determination that contained lists as required by Paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A-C) of this standard:     a) On or about July 30, 2012, at the above located workplace, where employees had occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens the employer's exposure determination did not contain:    A) A list of job classifications in which all employees had occupational   exposure to bloodborne pathogens.    B) A list of job classifications in which some employees have occupational   exposure to bloodborne pathogens.  	  C) A list of all tasks and procedures or groups of closely related tasks and   procedures in which occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens occurred.

Issued

Jan 22, 2013

Abate by

Feb 15, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1030(h)(1)(ii):  The medical record for an employee with occupational exposure did not include a copies as required by 1910.1030 (h)(1)(ii)(A) through 1910.1030 (h)(1)(ii)(E):    a) On or about July 30, 2012, at the above located workplace, the employer did not maintain the results of the source individuals testing following a needlestick which occurred on of about March 11, 2012, or have documented proof that the source individual's blood was not available for testing as required by 29 CFR 1910.1030(f)(3).

Issued

Jan 22, 2013

Abate by

Feb 15, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1030(h)(1)(ii)(C):  The medical record for an employee with occupational exposure did not include a copy of results of examinations, medical testing, or follow-up procedures as required by 29 CFR 1910.1030(f)(3):    (a) On or about July 30, 2012, at the above located workplace, the employer did not maintain written exposure evaluations of the circumstances surrounding two exposure incidences (3/1/2012 and 6/13/2012). The information maintained by the employer did not include as a minimum, engineering controls in use at the time, work practices followed, a description of the device in use, protective equipment or clothing that was used at the time of the exposure incident, location, procedure being performed when the incident occurred, and the employee's training. The information was required to avoid future incidents and to meet the requirements of OSHA standard 29 CFR 1030(f)(3)(i).

Issued

Jan 22, 2013

Abate by

Feb 15, 2013

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.1030(h)(5)(i):  The employer did not establish and maintain a sharps injury log for the recording of percutaneous injurers from contaminated sharps. The information in the sharps injury log was not maintained in such a manner as to protect the confidentiality of the injured employee. The sharps injury log did not contain at a minimum:     A) The type and brand of device involved in the incident.  B) The department or work area where the exposure occurred, and  C) An explanation of how the incident occurred:    a) On or about July 30, 2012, at the above located workplace, the employer's sharps injury log did not included the type and brand of device involved in the injury. This lack of information prevented an effective determination of the of the device's safety features.