OSHA Inspection: HARTFORD HEALTHCARE-GOHEALTH URGENT CARE, LLC

Issued

Jan 10, 2022

Abate by

Feb 28, 2022

Penalty

Initial $8,778 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.101(b):The in-plant handling, storage, and utilization of all compressed gases in cylinders, portable tanks, rail tankcars, or motor vehicle cargo tanks were not in accordance with Compressed Gas Association Pamphlet P-1-1965, which is incorporated by reference as specified in CFR 1910.6:  1445 NEW BRITAIN AVENUE, WEST HARTFORD, CT:  On or about and at times prior to November 10, 2021, a portable oxygen cylinder was stored in the Procedure Room without being secured to prevent it from being knocked over.  Compressed gas cylinders are under pressure and if knocked over can result in crushing injuries.

Issued

Jan 10, 2022

Abate by

Feb 28, 2022

Penalty

Initial $10,533 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.502(c)(1): The employer did not develop and implement a COVID-19 plan for each workplace with all the required site-specific information.  COMPANY-WIDE:  On or about July 16, 2021 and continuing afterwards, healthcare workers were exposed to COVID-19 and increased risk of infection due to deficiencies in the company's written nationwide COVID-19 plan and its implementation. The plan is not site-specific in that the COVID Safety Coordinator was not identified, the hazard assessment did not reflect workplace conditions, appropriate personal protective equipment was not specified, and employee training did not contain all the required elements.  Two employees became infected with COVID-19 and lost between eight and 162 days of work.

Issued

Jan 10, 2022

Abate by

Feb 28, 2022

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.502(c)(3): The identity of the safety coordinator(s) was not documented in the written COVID-19 plan.   COMPANY-WIDE:  On or about July 16, 2021, the employer did not identify the COVID-19 Safety Coordinators in the written COVID-19 Safety Plan & Procedures and therefore employees did not know who to contact for questions or concerns.  Two employees became infected with COVID-19 and lost between eight and 162 days of work.

Issued

Jan 10, 2022

Abate by

Feb 28, 2022

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.502(c)(4)(i): The employer did not conduct a workplace-specific hazard assessment to identify potential workplace hazards related to COVID-19.  COMPANY-WIDE:  On or about July 16, 2021 and continuing afterwards, hazard assessments were not workplace-specific, exposing healthcare workers to COVID-19 and increased risk of infection.  The hazard assessments conducted were not specific to the individual urgent care centers. Examples include, but are not limited to: At Corbin's Corner patients were not required to wait outside the building until their appointment and frequently waited in the waiting room contradicting the hazard assessment. The hazard assessment specified the use of N-95 respirators in accordance with either the mini respirator program or 29 CFR 1910.134; however, the mini respirator program is not applicable because employees are exposed to patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 and the employer did not implement a respirator program in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134.  The hazard assessment mentions a receptionist who greet patients and families.  Not all facilities have a receptionist.  The hazard assessment recommended that windows be opened - this option was not available at all locations.  Two employees became infected with COVID-19 and lost between eight and 162 days of work.

Issued

Jan 10, 2022

Abate by

Feb 28, 2022

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.502(c)(7)(i): The COVID-19 plan did not address the hazards identified by the workplace-specific hazard assessment, and did not include policies and procedures to minimize the risk of transmission of COVID-19 for each employee, as required by paragraphs (d) through (n) of this section.  COMPANY-WIDE:  On or about July 16, 2021 and continuing afterwards, the employer's COVID-19 Safety Plan & Procedures did not include policies and procedures to minimize the risk of transmission of COVID-19. The Plan did not specify whether airborne, droplet, or contact precautions were indicated. Standard and Transmission-Based Precautions were not outlined and no direction was provided regarding appropriate PPE.  Two employees became infected with COVID-19 and lost between eight and 162 days of work.

Issued

Jan 10, 2022

Abate by

Feb 28, 2022

Penalty

Initial $12,288 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.502(d)(2): In settings where direct patient care is provided, the employer did not screen and triage all clients, patients, residents, delivery people and other visitors, and other non-employees entering the setting for symptoms of COVID-19.  COMPANY-WIDE:  On or about July 16, 2021 and continuing afterwards, healthcare workers were exposed to patients with known or suspected COVID-19 prior to the patients being screened for symptoms. Patients were not screened for COVID-19 symptoms upon entry into the facility and prior to care.  Two employees became infected with COVID-19 and lost between eight and 162 days of work.

Issued

Jan 10, 2022

Abate by

Feb 28, 2022

Penalty

Initial $12,288 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.502(f)(2)(i):The employer did not ensure that a respirator was used in accordance with 29 CFR � 1910.134 when employees have exposure to a person with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.  COMPANY-WIDE:  On or about July 16, 2021 and continuing afterwards, healthcare workers were exposed to COVID-19 while providing direct care to suspect or confirmed COVID-19 patients while wearing inadequate respiratory protection such as surgical masks. The appropriate respiratory protections is an N-95 face filtering respirator.  The employer did not require or 'ensure use' of N-95 respirators.  Two employees became infected with COVID-19 and lost between eight and 162 days of work.

Issued

Jan 10, 2022

Abate by

Feb 28, 2022

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.134(c)(1):A written respiratory protection program that included the provisions in 29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1)(i) - (ix) with worksite specific procedures was not established and implemented for required respirator use:  COMPANY-WIDE:  On or about September 3, 2021 and continuing afterwards, the employer had not developed and implemented a written respiratory protection program where N95 face filtering respirators were required by the employer. Healthcare workers were exposed to COVID-19 while providing direct care to suspect or confirmed COVID-19 patients.  Two employees became infected with COVID-19 and lost between eight and 162 days of work.

Issued

Jan 10, 2022

Abate by

Feb 28, 2022

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.134(d)(1)(i):Selection of appropriate respirators was not based on the respiratory hazard(s) to which the worker was exposed and user factors that affect respirator performance and reliability:  COMPANY-WIDE:  On or about July 16, 2021 and continuing afterwards, healthcare workers were exposed to COVID-19 and increased risk of infection due to inadequate respiratory protection while providing healthcare to patients who were suspected or known to have COVID-19 or had not been screened prior to care being provided. Employees wore surgical/procedure masks. The appropriate respiratory protections is an N-95 face filtering respirator.  Two employees became infected with COVID-19 and lost between eight and 162 days of work.

Issued

Jan 10, 2022

Abate by

Feb 28, 2022

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.134(e)(1):The employer did not provide a medical evaluation to determine the employee's ability to use a respirator, before the employee was fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace:  COMPANY-WIDE:  On or about September 3, 2021 and continuing afterwards, healthcare workers were required to wear N-95 respirators when providing direct care to patients.  Many patients who were treated were suspected of having and/or confirmed to have COVID-19 and respirators were required due to increased risk of infection.  The employer did not provide employees with medical evaluations.

Issued

Jan 10, 2022

Abate by

Feb 28, 2022

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.134(f)(2):Employee(s) using tight-fitting facepiece respirators were not fit tested prior to initial use of the respirator:  COMPANY-WIDE:  On or about September 3, 2021 and continuing afterwards, healthcare workers were required to wear N-95 respirators when providing direct care to patients.  Many patients who were treated were suspected of having and/or confirmed to have COVID-19 and respirators were required due to increased risk of infection.  Employees were not fit-tested prior to use.

Issued

Jan 10, 2022

Abate by

Feb 28, 2022

Penalty

Initial $10,533 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.502(f)(5): The employer did not ensure that the protective clothing and equipment was used in accordance with subpart I of this part.    COMPANY-WIDE:  On or about July 16, 2021 and continuing afterwards, the employer did not ensure that employees wore isolation gowns to prevent transmission of COVID-19 while providing direct care to patients known or suspected to have COVID-19.  Two employees became infected with COVID-19 and lost between eight and 162 days of work.

Issued

Jan 10, 2022

Abate by

Feb 28, 2022

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.132(d)(1)(i):The employer did not select and have each affected employee use, the types of personal protective equipment that would protect the affected employee(s) from the hazards identified in the hazard assessment:  COMPANY-WIDE:  On or about July 16, 2021, and continuing afterwards, the employer did not ensure that employees wore isolation gowns while providing direct care to known or suspected COVID-19 patients.  Two employees became infected with COVID-19 and lost between eight and 162 days of work.

Issued

Jan 10, 2022

Abate by

Feb 28, 2022

Penalty

Initial $10,533 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.502(n)(1):The employer did not ensure that each employee received training, in a language and at a literacy level the employee understands and so that the employee comprehended at least the elements listed in paragraphs (n)(1)(i) through (xii) of this section.  COMPANY-WIDE:  On or about July 16, 2021 and continuing afterwards, the employer did not provide employees with COVID-19 training that covered all the elements.  The following elements were not addressed: employees were not aware of the employer's COVID-19 Plan, the Plan did not specify procedures for managing patient care allowing individual facilities to develop their own process flow, patients were not screened upon entry to the facility as required by the COVID Plan, and employees were not made aware of the appropriate personal protective equipment to be worn when providing direct care to known or suspect COVID-19 patients.  Two employees became infected with COVID-19 and lost between eight and 162 days of work.

Issued

Jan 10, 2022

Penalty

Initial $986 · Current $0 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR  1910.502(r)(1)(ii): The employer did not report to OSHA each work-related COVID-19 in-patient hospitalization within 24 hours of the employer learning about the in-patient hospitalization.   COMPANY-WIDE:  On or about August 3, 2021, the employer did not report the in-patient hospitalization of a health care employee who was diagnosed with work-related COVID-19 after providing direct care to COVID-19-positive patients at a walk-in urgent care center between July 6 and 16, 2021. The employee began to exhibit symptoms on July 17th, was diagnosed as COVID-19 positive on July 18th, and was hospitalized on July 31st.  The employee notified their employer on August 1st and August 2nd.  The employer reported the hospitalization to OSHA on August 6, 2021 which is more than 24 hours after August 2, 2021.