Salvation Army Clitheroe.
This evaluation is full of accusations that make little sense.
Below is the first item in the second evaluation.
None of the issues below were ever mentioned by any supervisor or other staff, until the day I was told to sign (and I was told my medical benefits were being denied).
The evaluation looks on the surface like a professional critique.
But...
"...Needs further training in searching clients' belongings..."
Item 1 "Searching clients belongings" refers to one event.
Item 2 "Giving inappropriate information" -See Seroquel-
When I had doubts about something I would ask. The only examples of "inappropriate materials" were a Naltrexone paper made by the Salvation Army, and a paper on hep-C made by the U.S. Government.
Item 3 "Wasn't even borderline" referred to the hep-C paper. A young PNA told me I had to get approval to put up a paper by the NIH on Hep-C. I asked why I had to get approval to put up a circular made by the U.S. government. I had put up dozens of circulars on dozens of topics. This is the same PNA above. She was angry at me and used her relationship with the supervisor to act out her anger.
Item 4 No ROI's were needed. See Computers
Nobody ever asked to see the emails that supposedly needed ROI's, so nobody could know if they required ROI's. They did not. They are on the website.
Item 5 "provide information outside those parameters"
The example the supervisor used, was my getting outpatient info for a client that was leaving in a few days. The supervisor in that unit had not done her job. I was doing it. Amazingly, while I was criticized for getting treatment center info for a client, staff who were having sex with a client were never questioned about letting "their" client view pornography on Salvation Army computers.
"Inflammatory, outside the scope of practice or inaccurate"
Below is the first item in the second evaluation.
None of the issues below were ever mentioned by any supervisor or other staff, until the day I was told to sign (and I was told my medical benefits were being denied).
The evaluation looks on the surface like a professional critique.
But...
"...Needs further training in searching clients' belongings..."
- She is referring to one specific incident that she refused to discuss, aside from writing it. There had been a heroin user from whom I took three syringes, which I gave to the nurse. Some time after the client left, a staff member (who was upset at me) said that... another client supposedly said... that the first client "might" have had drugs. They were probably right.
- It was less than once a month that any staff member would find any significant contraband. Most of the contraband that was found, was found ... by me.
- Both the supervisor and the other staff member knew the accusation would be "made into fact" if a supervisor wrote it down. There was no way for me to dispute it within Clitheroe.
Item 2 "Giving inappropriate information" -See Seroquel-
When I had doubts about something I would ask. The only examples of "inappropriate materials" were a Naltrexone paper made by the Salvation Army, and a paper on hep-C made by the U.S. Government.
Item 3 "Wasn't even borderline" referred to the hep-C paper. A young PNA told me I had to get approval to put up a paper by the NIH on Hep-C. I asked why I had to get approval to put up a circular made by the U.S. government. I had put up dozens of circulars on dozens of topics. This is the same PNA above. She was angry at me and used her relationship with the supervisor to act out her anger.
Item 4 No ROI's were needed. See Computers
Nobody ever asked to see the emails that supposedly needed ROI's, so nobody could know if they required ROI's. They did not. They are on the website.
Item 5 "provide information outside those parameters"
The example the supervisor used, was my getting outpatient info for a client that was leaving in a few days. The supervisor in that unit had not done her job. I was doing it. Amazingly, while I was criticized for getting treatment center info for a client, staff who were having sex with a client were never questioned about letting "their" client view pornography on Salvation Army computers.
"Inflammatory, outside the scope of practice or inaccurate"
- There was one client who I admitted as an alcoholic. He said his only problem was with alcohol, and so thats the information that went on his admit sheet. Later, in private conversation, he admitted that he was addicted to opiates. He said that for years he had been doctor shopping to find M.D.s who would prescribe more opiates for him.
He had been consuming large quantities of prescription opiates for years. That information was very important both to nurses and to whichever PNA did his treatment plan, so I put it in his chart. Again, she refused to discuss the matter. She knew there was no way for me to challenge it within Clitheroe.
- Other chart entries were apparently chosen at random. There was nothing wrong with them, and the supervisor refused to discuss them.
Also... they did not seem to come from 5/17 to 5/19.
Most charting is done in the daytime. I had worked only nights in Detox that week. On 5/19 I had worked the day in residential, where no charting is done. (See timesheets <>here)
- 4/17 to 4/19 were all double shifts, with a staff meeting on the 18th at which I had offended the supervisor in front of all staff. I did a lot of charting those three days.
So... why would the supervisor write things like that?
- An educated guess... The Residential Director knew the effects that staggering shifts might have on me. He had been trying for some time to get rid of me . He probably told her to pull my work "from the 17th to the 19th", and told her that she would find mistakes. But she jumbled the months. She didn't find any mistakes, so she invented some and put the dates that he suggested would be problematic.
- I tried to get her to talk about the entries. She would not.
- If my charting were compared to that of other employees, including the supervisor, the accusation would be mind blowing. The quality of charting in Detox was horrendous.