A Comprehensive
Assessment
of the
Michigan Department
of Corrections
Health Care System

National Commission on Correctional Health Care
Chicago, Illinois

A Comprehensive Assessment
Of the
Michigan Department of Corrections
Health Care System
January 2008

National Commission on Correctional Health Care
Chicago, Illinois

i

FOREWORD
Throughout the country, few areas of concern are more important to state government’s leadership
and prison administrators than providing health services for inmates. Particularly in today’s difficult
economy, the sometimes complicated interplay of managing inmates’ special health needs, staffing,
custody-medical interfacing, legal matters, ethical concerns, and cost containment are of vital
importance to every state department of corrections.
The Michigan Department of Corrections asked the National Commission on Correctional Health
Care to determine if medical, dental, and mental health care were being provided appropriately to
inmates within their system and to suggest ways to provide care more effectively and efficiently. To
develop this report, we employed a team of highly respected experts in the field of correctional
health care and used the nationally recognized NCCHC Standards for Health Services in Prisons as a
guide. The end product is a review of management options that should help the department identify
directions for future efforts and determine a best course of action. We also have included a number
of recommendations that should help the State effectively manage its resources.
We are confident that, with the guidance and recommendations provided by this report, the
Michigan Department of Corrections will better be able to provide effective and efficient health care
to its inmates.

Edward A. Harrison
President
January 2008

ii

iii

Table of Contents
Foreword ............................................................................................................................................................ i
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................... iii
Abbreviations .................................................................................................................................................. vii
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 1
Methodology ....................................................................................................................................... 1
Findings and Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 5
The Medical Program ........................................................................................................................ 5
Organizational Structure ...................................................................................................... 5
Staffing and Credentials ....................................................................................................... 6
The Intake Process ............................................................................................................... 7
The Sick Call Process and Nursing Issues ........................................................................ 7
Management of Chronic Care Patients .............................................................................. 8
Mortality Review ................................................................................................................... 8
Off-site Referrals for Specialty Care .................................................................................. 8
Telemedicine ....................................................................................................................... 10
Hospital Care ...................................................................................................................... 11
Pharmacy Management ..................................................................................................... 11
Automatic Refills ............................................................................................................... 12
Disposal of Pharmaceutical Waste .................................................................................. 13
Formulary ............................................................................................................................ 13
Medication Administration ............................................................................................... 15
Discharge Medications ...................................................................................................... 16
Health Information ............................................................................................................ 16
Software Issues ................................................................................................................... 21
Paperwork Issues ............................................................................................................... 22
Medical Service Provider Productivity ............................................................................ 23
Continuing Education Training ....................................................................................... 25
Continuous Quality Improvement .................................................................................. 25
Peer Review ........................................................................................................................ 26
Grievances .......................................................................................................................... 26
Other Cost-saving Strategies ............................................................................................. 27
Over-ordering of Tests ........................................................................................ 28
Transfers ................................................................................................................ 29
Non-Medical Issues ............................................................................................. 29

iv

Provider Coverage and Participation during Off-Hour Events .................... 29
Documentation Issues ...................................................................................................... 30
Health Services Contracts ................................................................................................. 32
The Mental Health Program ..........................................................................................................
Organizational Structure ...................................................................................................
The Intake Process ............................................................................................................
CMHP Quality of Care .....................................................................................................
CMHP Contracting Issues ................................................................................................
PSU Assaultive Offender Program (AOP) and Sexual Offender Program (SOP) ...
Conflict of Interest in PSU: Forensics vs. Treatment ..................................................

33
33
35
36
36
36
38

The Dental Program .......................................................................................................................
Organizational Structure ...................................................................................................
Staffing and Credentials ....................................................................................................
The Intake Process ............................................................................................................
Health Information ............................................................................................................
Dentists’ Productivity ........................................................................................................
Dental Water Sterility Checks ..........................................................................................

38
38
38
38
39
39
40

Summary of Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 41
Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................... 44
Addendum—Review of the MDOC’s Strategic Plan .............................................................................. 47
Appendices
Appendix A—The National Commission on Correctional Health Care ................................ 59
Appendix B—NCCHC’s Consultants’ Biographies ................................................................... 63
Appendix C—NCCHC’s Chronic Care Guideline Worksheets ............................................... 69
Appendix D—Mortality Review Details ...................................................................................... 77
Appendix E—External and Internal Stakeholders’ Concerns ................................................ 117

v

vi

vii

Abbreviations
AFB
AOPP
ARDS

Acid-fast bacillus
Assaultive Offender Program
Acute Respiratory Distress
Syndrome
ARF
Acute respiratory failure
BHCS Bureau of Health Care Services
BPRS Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale
CCC
Chronic Care Clinic
CCP
Chronic Care Program
CMHP Corrections Mental Health Program
CML
Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia
CMS
Correctional Medical Services
CNA
Certified Nursing Assistant
CPR
Cardiopulmonary resuscitation
CQI
Continuous Quality Improvement
CURE Michigan Citizens United for the
Rehabilitation of Errants
CV
Cardiovascular
DCH
Department of Community Health
DNR
Do not resuscitate
DRF
Carson City
DWHC Duane Waters Health Center
EMS
Emergency Medical Services
ER
Emergency room/department
ERD
Expected Release Date
ESRD End-Stage-Renal-Disease
FSBG Finger-stick blood glucose
GERD Gastro-esophageal reflux disease
GYN
Gynecology
H & P History and physical
HCV
Hepatitis C Virus
HER
Electronic health record
HIV
Human Immunodeficiency Virus
HP
History and physical
HVM Huron Valley Men’s Facility
HUM Health Unit Manager
JCF
G. Robert Cotton Correctional
Facility
KOP
Keep-on-person
LCF
Lakeland Correctional Facility
LFT
Liver function tests
MAC
Medical Advisory Committee
MAR
Medication Administration Record

MDOC Michigan Department of
Corrections
MBP
Marquette Branch Prison
MI
Myocardial infarction (heart attack)
MRSA

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus
Aureus
MSAC Medical Services Administrative
Committee
MSP
Medical service provider
NCCHC National Commission on
Correctional Health Care
NP
Nurse practitioner
NPH
Normal pressure hydrocephalus
OTC
Over-the-counter
PA
Physician assistant
PI
Performance Improvement
PSA
Prostate Specific Antigen
PSU
Psychological Services Unit
PVC
Paroxysmal ventricular contractions
RGC
Charles E. Egeler Reception and
Guidance Center
RMO
Regional Medical Officer
RTP
Residential treatment program
RUQ
Right upper quadrant
SASSI Substance Abuse Subtle Screening
Inventory
SCF
Scott Correctional Facility
SMF
Standish Correctional Facility
SMHU Special Mental Health Unit
SOAP Subjective, Objective, Assessment
and Plan
SOP
Sexual Offender Program
SRF
Saginaw Correctional Institution
TM
Telemedicine
TSH
Thyroid Stimulating Hormone
TST
Tuberculin skin test
UM
Utilization management
UP
Upper Peninsula
URF
Kinross Correctional Facility
WHV Huron Valley Women’s Facility
WNL
Within normal limits

viii

1

Report
Introduction
In January of 2007, the National Commission on Correctional Health Care (NCCHC) received a
contract from the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) to determine whether medical,
dental, and mental health care could be provided more effectively and efficiently. B. Jaye Anno,
PhD, CCHP-A, co-founder of NCCHC, served as the project director. R. Scott Chavez, PhD,
CCHP-A, Vice President of NCCHC, served as the project manager.
Methodology
NCCHC used a variety of methodologies to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the
MDOC’s health care delivery system. We interviewed a number of central office staff, regional
office staff, and staff at selected ten correctional facilities. We also interviewed several external
stakeholders and conducted an on-line survey of MDOC employees.
We interviewed a number of MDOC’s Central Office staff to obtain their views on the strengths
and weaknesses of the current health care delivery system. They included:
Patrick Barrie, Deputy Director, Department of Community Health (DCH)
Teresa Bingman, JD, representative of the Michigan Governor’s Office
Royal Calley, Director of Corrections Mental Health Program (CMHP)
Patricia Caruso, Director, MDOC
James Dillon, MD, Chief Clinical Advisor
Leo Friedman, Assistant Attorney General
David McLaury, Chief Deputy Director, DCH
George Pramstaller, DO, Chief Medical Officer, Bureau of Health Care Services
Richard Russell, former administrator of BHCS
2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

2

Dennis Staub, Deputy Director, MDOC
Tony Straseske, PhD, BHCS
Ray Tamminga, CMS Contract Monitor
We interviewed a number of external stakeholders by telephone to obtain their impressions of
the current health care delivery system. They included:
John Lazet, chief of staff for State Senator Alan Cropsey
Kay Perry, Michigan Citizens United for the Rehabilitation of Errants (CURE)
Penny Rider, American Friends Service Committee
State Representative Alma Wheeler Smith
State Senator Liz Bader
Janet Olszewski, Director, Michigan Dept of Community of Health
Cindy Kelly, Michigan Dept of Community of Health
Family members of some individual inmates.
In general, these external stakeholders raised the same type of issues with health services as did
MDOC staff. A summary of their concerns is found in Appendix E.
In addition to Central Office staff and external stakeholders, several individuals were interviewed
at each institution generally including regional staff, the warden, the medical providers, the health
unit managers, the nursing director and other nursing staff, the pharmacy technician, the outpatient
mental health staff, psychological services staff, dental staff, health information staff, and the
custody transportation coordinator.
We also solicited input on health services from MDOC staff via an on-line survey. A total of
1114 correctional, health, and administrative staff responded. There comments are summarized in
Appendix E under the section on internal stakeholders.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

3

Our evaluation of the health services provided by MDOC also included reviewing several
documents such as policies and procedures, staffing and credentials, meeting minutes, statistical
reports, outside contracts, nursing protocols, medical provider productivity reports, offsite specialty
referrals, dental waiting lists, etc. Our physician reviewers also looked at 283 medical records
selected from the chronic care lists at 10 facilities. To measure the quality of care provided, they
used forms developed from NCCHC’s Chronic Care Guidelines for asthma, diabetes, epilepsy, HIV,
hyperlipidemia, and hypertension (see Appendix C). They also reviewed 15 inpatient records at
DWHC, six denials of off-site specialty referrals, and the records of 38 inmates who died during
2006. Our psychiatrist reviewed the records of 79 patients with serious mental disorders, and two
suicides.
NCCHC also used additional experts to review specific areas such as deaths at the ten facilities
during 2006, the formulary, and the Sexual Offender Program/Assaultive Offender Program
(AOP/SOP).
To obtain a good mix of facilities to review, NCCHC wanted to ensure that the ten institutions
selected included some from each of the MDOC’s three regions, had different medical missions,
held different custody levels, and included both male and female inmates. After discussion with
MDOC’s Central Office administration, the following facilities were selected for review:

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

4

Name

Region

Gender

Security

Medical Mission

Level
Carson City

II

Male

I, II, & IV

Ambulatory Care

III

Male

I, II & IV

Ambulatory Care

III

Male

I

Intake Guidance Center

Correctional Facility
G. Robert Cotton
Correctional Facility
Charles E. Egeler
Reception and

Ambulatory Care, Duane

Guidance Center

Waters Health Center

Huron Valley

III

Male

IV

Complex—Men
Huron Valley

Mental Health
III

Female

I & II

Complex—Women
Kinross Correctional

Ambulatory Care; Inpatient

Ambulatory Care; Inpatient
Mental Health

I

Male

I, & II

Ambulatory Care

II

Male

II

Ambulatory Care

I

Male

I&V

Ambulatory Care

Female

I, II, IV & V

Intake, Ambulatory Care

Male

V

Ambulatory Care

Facility
Lakeland Correctional
Facility
Marquette Branch
Prison
Robert Scott

III

Correctional Facility
Standish Correctional

I

Facility

Each of the facilities was visited for two to three days by a team of NCCHC reviewers generally
consisting of a correctional health care administrator, a physician, a nurse, and a psychiatrist. The
list of reviewers along with their credentials is found in Appendix B.
2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

5

The report that follows contains our findings and recommendations regarding ways we believe
the MDOC can improve the effectiveness and efficiency of its health care delivery system.
Findings and Recommendations
The Medical Program
Organizational Structure. The medical program has a somewhat complicated organizational
structure. The medical providers (physicians and physician assistants [PAs]) are independent
contractors hired by Correctional Medical Services (CMS). Nurses, dentists, and support staff are
employees of the MDOC. Pharmacy services are contracted out to PharmaCorr, a CMS subsidiary.
The electronic medical record, Serapis, is also provided through a contract with another CMS
subsidiary. Finally, the MDOC also contracts with CMS to provide its utilization review for offsite
specialty care.
With a handful of exceptions, the MDOC relies on an all RN nursing staff to provide sick call,
do lab tests, and deliver medications. This is a very expensive way to deliver care. Additionally,
there is a nationwide RN shortage, which makes it difficult to recruit RNs. Most of the facilities we
visited had one or more vacant RN positions. Most of those vacancies were filled by contract RNs,
which is even more expensive. In most states, LPNs or even Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs)
can deliver medications. This would be a considerable cost-savings over a RN’s salary. To be sure,
RNs are still needed to conduct sick call, but many other tasks can be performed by lower level
personnel.
NCCHC recommends that the MDOC: Convert some of its vacant RN positions to LPNs

or CNAs. One RN position in each complex should be converted to a lab tech. Information
on developing staffing patterns can be found in Correctional Health Care: Guidelines for the
Management of an Adequate Delivery System edited by B. J. Anno and available from NCCHC.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

6

Contracting out the providers leads to other organizational problems. As an example, one of
our reviewers became concerned about the level of cognitive functioning of one provider. He had
difficulty tracking the logical threads of the provider’s responses to his questions. Some of his
documentation had so many errors of language or spelling as to make parts of them
incomprehensible. The provider also had significant problems navigating Serapis, despite years of
using it and supposed fluency.
There were obvious implications for patient safety in this situation. For example, our physician
reviewed the case of a patient followed in seizure clinic. At each of the past couple of visits, the
practitioner indicated there had been no seizures since the last visit. There was no indication of
when the last seizure actually was, which is important, according to this chronic disease protocol, for
determining when it is time to consider discontinuing medications. When the practitioner was
questioned about this issue, he had difficulty trying to, and was ultimately unable to, figure out when
the last seizure took place.
Because our reviewer considered this a potentially serious issue requiring immediate attention,
during the course of our visit, he engaged various staff members in leadership positions to both
verify his findings as well as share them. What he discovered in these conversations was that his
observations were not surprising to any of them. Each had made similar observations anywhere
from three months to a year ago. One person took significant steps to address his/her concern;
another made one comment to the staff member; and the third took no action. Apparently, it is not
clear to the people in this system who is in charge and how change can be effectuated. Any system
can have, from time to time, an employee with a functional impairment. There is nothing
frightening about that. What is frightening here, however, is that the system failed to self-correct.
Part of the problem is that the providers are not employees. None of the supervisors our physician
spoke with felt they had the power to correct this situation.
Staffing and Credentials. The credentials of all professional staff were checked at each facility.
All staff were licensed, registered, and/or certified as required by law.
2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

7

The Intake Process. There are two reception centers in the MDOC: Egeler for males and Scott
for females. The intake process is similar at both facilities. On the day of arrival, the new
admissions receive an extensive intake screening along with vital signs, a PPD (a tuberculosis skin
test), a suicide screening, and a special needs screening. Individuals who are on medications for a
chronic disease are scheduled to see a medical service provider (MSP) the next day for a physical
exam and a treatment plan. MSP is the collective term used by the MDOC to refer to a physician, a
nurse practitioner (NP), or a physician assistant (PA). Under NCCHC’s standards, the intake
physical should occur within seven days of an inmate’s arrival. The MDOC allows ten days.
Regardless of which standard is used, it was seldom met at either Egeler or Scott. Many times, it
took up to a month for the physical to be completed. The review of patients’ systems in Serapis
(the electronic health record) is very detailed. We also noted at Egeler that one provider did not
actually do a physical exam on healthy individuals. Instead, he simply did a SOAP note noting that
the inmate was healthy. Other providers checked a single box stating that all findings were negative
when, in fact, they had not examined all areas listed (see Health Information section). This gives the
appearance of falsifying records and raises a potential legal liability.
NCCHC recommends that the MDOC: Develop a simplified physical for healthy

individuals. Because the seriously ill prisoners are seen by an MSP the day after arrival, a
simplified physical for healthy individuals would allow the providers to conduct their intake
physicals on a timelier basis.
We also questioned the need to do routine annual exams on everyone in the MDOC. The
MDOC should consider doing routine annual exams only on inmates who are age 50 and older, and
exams every five years on inmates under 50 who are not part of the chronic disease program. This is
closer to the community standard.
The Sick Call Process and Nursing Issues. Timeliness of sick call and the appropriateness of the
nursing response varied by institution as did other nursing issues such as use of nursing protocols,
2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

8

orientation, and in-service training. We did not identify any systemic issues that needed to be
addressed across the MDOC.
Management of Chronic Care Patients. The management of chronic care patients also varied by
institution. One systemic issue we did identify is that problem lists are often not updated. This is
not a problem unique to the MDOC. Training should emphasize the need to keep these valuable
tools updated. In the MDOC, the problem is further complicated by Serapis for two reasons. First,
there is both a paper and an electronic problem list, which creates difficulty in keeping both lists
simultaneously current. Second, the Serapis problem list function is difficult to use and update.
Mortality Review. Our physician reviewer concluded that the MDOC mortality reviews had
been performed in accordance with accepted medical standards of care for all 38, or 100% of the
cases he reviewed. He agreed in full with the Michigan DOC’s conclusions and plans for 25 out of
38 (66%) of the reviews. Our reviewer also agreed with the conclusions of, but made comments on,
an additional 8 of the 38 (21%) reviews.
There was disagreement with 5 of the 38 (13%) Michigan DOC mortality reviews. In
conclusion, the Michigan DOC’s mortality review process is professionally performed with
appropriate corrective action plans that fit the situations in most cases. Details on the cases
reviewed are found in Appendix D.
NCCHC recommends that the MDOC: Maintain a log of corrective action plans that tracks

the plans to completion. This will complete the documentation cycle.
Off-site Referrals for Specialty Care. The MDOC has a contract with CMS to provide utilization
review. All ten facilities followed the same process. An MSP fills out a referral form, which is faxed
to CMS. A physician at their regional office reviews the request and either approves or denies it, or
defers a decision pending receipt of additional information. We believe such requests should be

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

9

answered within one week. Often, however, we found it took two weeks to a month for CMS to
provide a response.
NCCHC recommends that the MDOC: Specify, when the new managed care contract is

written, that requests for off-site specialty care must be responded to within one week.
We also looked at the timeliness of off-site referrals from the date of CMS’s approval to the date
of the appointment with the specialist. This turned out not to be an issue, because the MSPs note
the urgency of the referral at the time they make their requests. All of the CMS schedulers (who,
despite their title, are MDOC employees) told us that if they are unable to schedule the appointment
within the timeframe specified by the MSP, they return the chart to the MSP for further instructions.
We also looked at the BHCS process for reviewing the specialty requests denied by CMS.
Because Regions I and II are smaller and less problem-prone, the Regional Medical Officers (RMO)
there are able to review all denials. This is as it should be. In Region III, however, there are two
RMO positions, but only one was filled at the time of our audits. Additionally, this region holds
some of the sickest patients, because of its proximity to Duane Waters Health Center (DWHC).
Owing to the lack of one RMO and the sheer volume of referrals, the Region III RMO is not able to
review all denials of specialty care. Nonetheless, someone should. As stated above, these are among
the sickest patients in the prison system. In addition, under the current MDOC/CMS contract,
CMS pays for off-site specialty care. The BHCS needs to ensure that its clinical directors agree with
the decisions being made.
We realize there is an appeal process for MSPs who disagree with CMS’s denial of specialty care.
However, this option is seldom used. We were told that the Medical Services Administrative
Committee (MSAC) hears only 3-7 denials per month for the entire MDOC. Cotton alone had 138
denials in 2006. The MSPs at the prisons work for CMS. Most of them are not willing to appeal the
decisions made by the CMS administration.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

10

NCCHC recommends that the MDOC: Aggressively recruit a physician for the vacant

RMO position.
Telemedicine. The facilities we visited had telemedicine (TM) units that would be the envy of
any correctional system. The unit at URF had peripheral devices such as an electronic stethoscope,
skin camera, electronic otoscope, and document camera. Yet, these TM units are seldom used for
specialty consultations, except for the occasional HIV/ID-related consultations. None of the
facilities exploits the technology to a fraction of its potential. No facility conducts any emergency
department visits by TM. TM is a powerful cost-saving tool. In the experience of the New York
DOC, using TM reduced out-trips by 13-24%. Once again, organizational incentives are misaligned
under the current MDOC structure. CMS is responsible for off-site medical costs. However, they
are not responsible for the associated custody transportation costs. Since consultant fees for TM
may be equal to (or sometimes greater than) their fees for in-office face–to–face visits, CMS has
little incentive to expand the use of TM. Consistent with this reasoning, the most utilized TM
service is for HIV/ID, which is perfectly aligned with CMS’s incentives. These TM consults are
conducted by CMS’s own medical director, avoiding the cost to CMS of sending the patient to a
non-CMS consultant. Increasing the use of telemedicine, however, could result in substantial cost
savings to the MDOC in reducing custody time and transportation associated with community
specialty referrals.
NCCHC recommends that the MDOC: Explore ways to expand its use of telemedicine.

More fundamentally, though, the MDOC should seek to create a new organizational
structure that would provide incentives for the use of TM.
On a positive note, at MBP, the practitioner occasionally accompanies his or her patients during
telemedicine encounter with a specialist. This is an excellent clinical practice for several reasons. It
increases the efficiency of the visit, because the practitioner can quickly find data the specialist asks
for. It increases the quality of care, because the practitioner knows more about the patient than may
be in the medical record and can provide richer data to the specialist. It also increases the quality of
2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

11

care, because the practitioner can hear the specialist’s recommendations first hand, understand the
subtleties of the issues, and clarify any questions. Finally, it is a superb learning opportunity for the
practitioner, potentially leading to avoided specialty consults in the future.
Hospital Care. We conducted a comprehensive review of the Duane Waters Hospital, recently
renamed the Duane Waters Health Center. This report contains a number of recommendations to
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of DWHC.
Pharmacy Management. Pharmacy services are provided through a contract with an outside
firm, PharmaCorr, a subsidiary of CMS. Staff indicated a number of problems with the current
pharmacy contract including the lack of a consulting pharmacist, delays in receiving “same day”
medications, and the number of medications that are now off-formulary since PharmaCorr took
over.
Pharmacy information was a particular challenge. Within Serapis, the physicians’ orders for
medication several times were found to be inconsistent with the current medication list, and it was
difficult to verify that an ordered medication was actually given. Although a renewal system is in
place, during this brief review, we found one HIV patient at Cotton on antiretroviral therapy, whose
medication was not refilled, and who suffered a break of almost three weeks in therapy, attended to
only after the patient reported having to file two kites.
The medication ordering system is complex. After the physician writes the order in Serapis, the
clinic staff prints it out and places it in a batch, which is picked up by the pharmacy and separately
entered into the pharmacy Frameworks system. Non-formulary medications are dispensed with a 10
day supply, pending approval by the appropriate RMO. When the RMO approves, this approval
goes to the MSP, who then forwards the approval to the pharmacy, along with a copy of the original
order. The pharmacy does not maintain a list of off-formulary requests that are pending approval,
and the system is fraught with the potential for problems.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

12

NCCHC recommends that the MDOC: Add the first level review of off-formulary requests

to the utilization management responsibilities in the new contract.
Pharmacy staff we interviewed identified other inefficiencies with the medication ordering
system. For example, if a provider wants to titrate a dose and then taper off, that requires two
separate orders instead of one. Similarly, if the medication dosage differs by time (e.g. Seraquil, 200
mg a.m., 600 mg HS [nb hour of sleep]), this also requires two separate orders instead of one.
Automatic Refills. Staff working in the prison pharmacies almost universally complained that
they have to refill prescriptions manually, which is labor-intensive. The inmate is supposed to kite
(request) for a refill 10 days before the prescription is needed. Pharmacy staff then removes the
refill sticker and faxes it to PharmaCorr. Apparently, the PharmaCorr computer system does have
the capability of sending automatic refills, but this feature has never been turned on. We are not
sure it should be.
At the Region I facilities we visited, inmates are not required to kite for medication renewals for
six months. Instead, pharmacy staff “automatically” renews them using the same manual process
described above. We observed hundreds of medication tablets being discarded after patients
received them, but having no intention of taking them, they went unused. This is a tremendous
waste of money. Patients should receive renewed medications only when they request them.
Competent adult patients in prison are autonomous with regard to medical decision-making. In
other words, they are free to decide to be compliant with doctor’s instructions or not. There is no
obligation for departments of corrections to automatically renew medications.
Some staff also said many prisoners are under the impression that the Parole Board will not
release someone on chronic medications. As a result, patients return unused medications (which
must be discarded) as they get close to parole, and their medical conditions worsen. The MDOC
should determine whether this is true, and, if not, should educate the inmate population accordingly.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

13

NCCHC recommends that the MDOC: Determine whether the Parole Board will not

release someone on chronic medications, and if false, educate the inmate population.
Disposal of Pharmaceutical Waste. At one facility, we observed all pharmaceutical waste being
handled the same way, i.e., prepared for incineration. There is a class of waste which is considered
“Federal Toxic” (for example, nitroglycerin) and may need to be disposed of by other means than
incineration. The MDOC may be in violation of environmental regulations. The MDOC should
research this issue with the appropriate environmental authorities to see if these regulations apply in
Michigan. If so, the MDOC should determine whether this poor practice is also occurring at its
other facilities.
NCCHC recommends that the MDOC: Research the issue of incinerating pharmaceutical

waste with the appropriate environmental authorities to see if these regulations apply in
Michigan, and change their practice if necessary.
Formulary. Our review of MDOC’s formulary concluded that the current content of the
formulary lacks certain therapeutic categories and pharmacologic classes that are commonly
prescribed and would normally be included in the formulary of a large health care organization
providing mainly ambulatory and some infirmary or long-term care. The omissions that are of most
concern include the following.
•

Macrolide antibiotics, besides erythromycin, namely clarithromycin and azithromycin. (We noted
that clindamycin was listed incorrectly in the formulary as a macrolide antibiotic. It is actually a
lincosamide antibiotic used primarily to treat anaerobic infections).

•

Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers, for example, Losartan and Valsartan.

•

Clopidorel bisulfate (Plavix).

•

Proton Pump Inhibitors, for example, Omeprazole and Lansoprazole.

•

Antileukotrienes, for example, Montelukast

•

Dutasteride for treatment of benign prostatic hypertrophy (Note - tamsulosin hydrochloride is
already on the formulary).

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

14

•

Diphenhydramine hydrochloride (Benedryl)

•

Hydroxyzine hydrochloride (Vistaril)
The NCCHC recommends that the MDOC: Review the entire formulary to be certain that it

contains all of the therapeutic categories and pharmacologic classes specified in the Model
Guidelines for Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit, submitted by the United States
Pharmacopeial Convention, Inc. on December 31, 2004.
NCCHC recommends that the MDOC: Survey physicians practicing in the Michigan

Department of Corrections to elicit further recommendations about other drugs they
believe, on the basis of their experience, should be included in the formulary.
The process for a clinician treating a patient to request approval for a non-formulary medication
poses significant risk of a delay in a patient receiving an appropriate medication, unless the
requesting clinician lists the request as “urgent,” in which case the clinician may order up to a ten
day supply followed by the phrase “Pending Medical Officer’s Approval.” The definition of
“urgent” is not given. There are many instances when a non-formulary medication is necessary for
the patient’s comfort and condition, but may not be considered “urgent,” one common definition of
which is that a treatment is required to prevent an immediate deterioration in a person’s health.
The NCCHC recommends that the MDOC: Promptly fill the initial order for the non-

formulary medication for up to a ten day period, unless the ordering practitioner specifies
“non-urgent.” It is, after all, the ordering clinician who has examined the patient and
concluded that a non-formulary medication is indicated and likely to be beneficial if given
on a timely basis.
Of particular concern in this process are patients on non-formulary medications initially entering
the system and patients who are returning after a stay in an outside hospital. In both of these
circumstances, an interruption of a non-formulary medication may pose significant safety concerns.
2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

15

The NCCHC recommends that the MDOC: Clarify the formulary. On the copy of the

formulary reviewed, pages 14 and 23 are blank. According to the Table of Contents, page 14
appears to be only the title page for psychiatric drugs. Page 23 is supposed to be
Supplements – Minerals and Vitamins, none of which are listed in the copy given to us for
review. This needs to be clarified.
NCCHC recommends that the MDOC: Reinstitute its Pharmacy and Therapeutics

Committee to provide an on-going mechanism for adding and deleting items from the
formulary.
Medication Administration. We also noted that in the Region I facilities we visited, medications
are pre-poured in the pharmacy. While the regional administrator told us this was permissible by the
Board of Pharmacy, we advise against it. To pre-pour, there are two sets of coin-envelopes for each
patient. One set remains in the pharmacy and is used as a place holder for each patient.
Medications are poured into unlabeled plastic cups on top of each envelope. Once this step is
completed, the contents of each cup are transferred into the second envelope. This envelope is
carried to the living unit (without the Medication Administration Record [MAR]) where the contents
are given to the patients. There are a number of problems with this system:
1. The plastic cups are close together, light-weight, and slippery. We noticed some of them
sliding away from their “parent” envelope towards other envelopes (of other patients). It would not
be impossible to imagine two cups getting switched.
2. The nurse does not take the MAR with him/her to the patient. If the patient refuses some,
but not all medications, it is harder to record this information and, therefore, easier to make a
recording mistake when getting back to the pharmacy.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

16

3. Since refused medications are already poured, they must be discarded, wasting money. If the
medications were still in the blister cards, they could be used later.
This process is VERY time consuming and, therefore, wasteful. Consideration should be given
to a simple solution: nurses should issue medications directly from blister cards and document
directly on the MAR as they administer the medications. This is easily achieved with a series of
simple materials such as cabinets to lock medications in the medical rooms located in the living
units, a small rolling portable table, and a small medication box for each floor of each living unit.
NCCHC recommends that the MDOC: Issue medications directly from blister cards and

document directly on the MAR as they administer the medications.
Discharge Medications. We were also told that when inmates are released from the MDOC,
they are given a 30-day supply of all of their prescription medications. This is more generous than
we find in most other states.
Health Information. Clinical information is scattered and may be found in Serapis, in the
current volume of the paper chart, in previous volumes, and in shadow charts maintained by dialysis
and specialty providers. Serapis does not lend itself to organized searching. For example, there is no
easy way within Serapis to review chronic care visits. Every encounter, including mental health and
laboratory tests, must be examined in date-of-occurrence order to see if a CCC template was used.
Because some providers do not use CCC templates to document CCC visits, identifying CCC visits
is difficult. This is particularly challenging for physicians following up on clinical status trends, or
just trying to figure out what happened on the previous CCC visit. The paper chart usually contains
the CCC Serapis documentation, but since charts are purged regularly, and old consultation notes,
admissions, and special studies such as angiography are not brought forward, MSPs may lose access
to relevant historical information.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

17

For routine management of patients in good control, the Serapis system supports performance
requirements by prompting for required history and physical elements, and by providing a simple
and rapid method for documenting pertinent negatives. However, where documentation requires
access to information in old records, or information recorded in Serapis required intervention, many
failures were observed. We suspect this was caused by a combination of factors, including the
difficulty and time required to use Serapis to locate relevant information in old records, and the
challenge of identifying pertinent clinical information in a Serapis record filled with many negative
findings of questionable relevance.
The clinical documentation process in Serapis is achingly slow, and providers confirm that their
productivity has dropped significantly as a result of having to document patient encounters in
Serapis. It is time-consuming and, in some cases, impossible to retrieve and view data-relevant
episodes of care or chronic disease spanning several visits or several years. All visit documents
appear in a tree-like structure in sequential order, and the only way to determine the content of a
visit is to open up each document in the tree to look at it. The tree includes lab draws, finger-stick
blood glucoses, blood pressure checks, and mental health visits. Trying to review all of the chronic
care visits for a complex patient with diabetes, for example, might require scrolling through 50-100
records. When did this patient have her last eye exam? Was she seen in urgent care for
hypoglycemia? Is this visit a follow-up for an outside specialty service, and what was the
recommendation? These questions are exceedingly time-consuming and difficult to answer within
Serapis.
Serapis report documents contain large volumes of largely irrelevant negative findings, making it
very difficult to find the “meat” of the visit. Serapis allows for the creation of long lists of negative
findings by checking a single box, both for the history and for the physical examination. At every
institution where we observed providers documenting within Serapis, we saw providers checking an
“all findings negative” box when, in fact, they had not asked or examined all of the elements that
were reported negative as a result. We believe providers are documenting in good faith. They
conduct what they believe to be a complete evaluation, and if no problems are identified, they check
2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

18

the “all negative” box. The problem is that Serapis then produces a report far more specific and
detailed than justified by the history taken or the exam performed. The unacceptable result is a
medical record containing false information.
Another problem arises when a patient has multiple chronic care problems. Providers generally
choose a Serapis template based on the “primary” diagnosis. This template contains prompts
relevant to the primary diagnosis, but often omits important data elements for other diagnoses. For
example, a foot exam is required for diabetic patients on each follow-up visit, but this is not included
in the cardiovascular template, and providers often fail to document a foot exam in diabetic patients
with hypertension, if documented using the cardiovascular template. As another example, patients
carrying both the diagnosis of hypertension and the diagnosis of hyperlipidemia are documented in a
single template, “CV/HTN”. This template provides for a single degree of control designation. For
patients with both diagnoses, it is ambiguous whether this degree of control designation applies to
the diagnosis of hypertension, the diagnosis of hyperlipidemia, or to both.
Particularly at Scott, we gained the impression that issues both with quality of care and with
provider performance could frequently be attributed to the use of one template for managing a
patient with multiple diseases. The alternative is to use multiple templates for a single visit, as we
frequently found at Standish. This is very time consuming, leads to duplication within the record of
care, and creates report documents that are long, and filled with so many negative findings of
minimal relevance that usability for clinical management is compromised.
We noted several cases where the “all findings negative” checkbox produced findings
contradicted by text entered directly by the provider. In one instance, for a patient with asthma, the
history, created through use of a checkbox, stated “no change in use of inhalers” and inhaler
frequency was listed as “none.” But in the comments, the provider wrote “using Albuterol
excessively.” It is likely that a significant number of medical records contain information that is not
justified by inquiry or examination of the patient, particularly with regard to pertinent negatives. This

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

19

presents a problem for good medical care, and is a risk management issue should the chart become
the basis for defense in a legal proceeding.
The inventory of problems our reviewers encountered with Serapis is too long to list, but here
are some examples:
1. On one of the chronic care templates, Serapis prompts the user to indicate
Left lung clear

Right lung clear

When that information is translated to the progress note, it reads as
Left side clear

Right lung clear

Since the “left side clear” statement comes right after information about the abdominal
examination, the reader can’t be sure if “left side” refers to the abdomen or lung.
2. The chronic care templates make it difficult to document a visit during which more than one
chronic disease was addressed. It can be done, but it requires a good memory and a strong
constitution.
3. Medication lists are displayed in different ways in different screens. For example, on some
screens, start and stop dates are listed on top of each other. On other screens, they are next to each
other; and on yet other screens only one of the two dates appears. Such inconsistency is the perfect
way to get users to misread and make errors.
4. Serapis allows the same event to be documented with conflicting information. Data from a
visit is entered into a template from which Serapis produces a more readable WORD-like document.
However, after it produces the document, the user can edit the document, with the result that the
template (still part of the legal record) and the document have different information. This is a
software functionality that plaintiffs’ attorneys put on their holiday wish lists.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

20

5. It is VERY difficult to find information. There is no easy way to review a patient’s history in
the chronic care clinic without opening dozens of documents.
6. Medical Serapis is not integrated with the dental or pharmacy software packages requiring
users to move from one system to another, sometimes also having to make duplicate entries. Even
with the suite of three software products, all the health care documentation needs are not met. For
example, there is no mechanism for scanning and filing outside records or consults. So a paper
record must also be kept. And some data can be entered EITHER in the paper or electronic record.
All this means that users are forced to look in both the electronic and paper record to be sure they
have all the information they need. Thus, each patient has multiple, simultaneous, medical records.
Not only is this inconsistent with the current national standard for medical records, it is timeconsuming. Even if Serapis did the things it was designed to do well, if it cannot accommodate all
health information, it might be safer and cheaper to revert to an all paper record.
7. Finally, based on discussions with staff, it is not clear what the plan is for the future if the
contract with Serapis is not renewed or the company fails to continue supporting the product
(including selling it, discontinuing it, or going out of business). Who owns the data? Does the
MDOC have legal rights to the software code? How would the data in Serapis be incorporated into
another electronic health record? If the MDOC decides to continue use of Serapis, these questions
should be addressed in future contracts.
On the positive side, Serapis is very useful for order entry, for reviewing a patient’s laboratory
results, and for medication management.
NCCHC recommends that the MDOC: At a minimum, use of Serapis to document chronic

care clinic visits should cease, and CCC visit documentation should revert to paper.
Specifically, CCC clinic visits should be documented on the one-page paper form for
multiple diagnoses that was in effective use prior to the transition to Serapis. Such records
can be copied, or maintained, in the clinic, where providers can have rapid access to them in
2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

21

a timely fashion, and the originals saved in the paper medical record. Order entry,
laboratory studies, and medication management could continue in Serapis, subject to the
recommendation that at Scott, all patient medication lists be brought up-to-date within
Serapis.
Implementing these recommendations will increase provider productivity, improve the quality of
care for patients in the CCC, and reduce the risk inherent in a medical record that is known to
contain false information.
Software Issues. Remarkably, there appeared to be no policy on the consistent deployment and
utilization of the electronic health record (EHR), and staff were permitted to use or not use the
EHR as they saw fit. At the time of our visit, we were informed that there was a new policy that
everyone would use the EHR, but this had not yet been implemented. Although we did not have
time to explore the product in detail, our expert found that its network performance was
satisfactory, despite staff claims to the contrary. Records were retrieved and displayed very quickly.
The laboratory module was a bit odd in that the laboratory vendor was unable to transmit laboratory
results directly to the EHR in HL7 format – a feature universally available in other electronic health
records system. As described by the staff, a laborious process occurs wherein laboratory results are
transmitted to Saint Louis, converted, then uploaded to the EHR. In fact when looking at the
laboratory test names, one can see the HL7 field separators (carots) still visible in the lab description
field. This was somewhat disconcerting to read.
There was also some concern about the EHR’s incomplete reporting capabilities. Report
capabilities of any database are easily extended with many third-party tools. In fact, those third-party
tools were available on the computer we utilized during our review. In this case, the product was
Microsoft Access, which can easily be connected to the EHR database (MS SQLServer) through a
simple ODBC connection. This simple tool would allow quite sophisticated data analysis and CQI –
clearly an important objective in a state as large as Michigan where manual auditing is expensive and
likely incomplete. Unfortunately, to do this, there is a requirement that one have knowledge of the
2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

22

database schema. Apparently, this was not provided by the vendor of the product. Access to this
simple database schema would likely extend the useful life of this EHR product for several to many
years. This is especially important given the capital expense of a new software product.
To enhance the usability of Serapis, the NCCHC recommends that the MDOC:Build query

tools locally using MS Access and ODBC.
NCCHC recommends that the MDOC: Write a concise EHR implementation policy and

follow it.
NCCHC recommends that the MDOC: Obtain the data schema.
Paperwork Issues. The MDOC is one of the most bureaucratic systems we have ever
encountered. This was true of the custody side of the house as well as health care. For example, we
needed to place all loose items on the tray outside the main control booth prior to walking through
the metal detector, but no one examined the contents of those loose items. For example, despite
having NCIC clearance, official badges, a gate pass, a hand stamp, and an escort, a piece of paper
called a “gate manifest” (signed by someone at a warden’s level no less) needed to be generated and
then handed off every time we entered and exited. For example, food from the outside was not
allowed inside some facilities, but was okay elsewhere. For example, at one facility, all of our pens
were confiscated, and we were issued clear ones.
While none of these procedures are dangerous in and of themselves, in the aggregate, they raise
two concerns. First, is the system of governance working if such procedures-–which were likely
responses to single or rare incidents–-can be put in place and continue unchecked? Second, if staff
spends their time on procedures of dubious value, what procedures of real value are they not doing?
The situation in health care was even worse. For example, one HUM gave us a list of the
monthly reports she must file with the warden, the regional office, or BHCS. There were 18
2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

23

separate reports listed. Multiplied by 51 facilities, it seems highly unlikely that most of these reports
are even read, let alone used to inform decision-making. For example, one psychologist showed us
the four different forms/reports he has to complete when someone is identified as potentially
suicidal. For example, the RMOs told us there are 22 separate steps needed in Serapis to process
non-formulary requests. For example, we were told it takes four to six months to fill a new position,
even if it is in the budget. Such inefficiencies clearly impact the timeliness and quality of patient
care.
What generally is responsible for bureaucratic quagmires is a change in administrators or
supervisors. New individuals come into the top positions and have their own ways of doing things.
They issue new orders regarding procedures, forms, or reports without taking into consideration
what paperwork staff are already completing.
NCCHC recommends that the MDOC: Appoint committees for both custody and health

care to examine paperwork requirements with an eye toward simplifying and streamlining
the processes.
Medical Service Provider Productivity. MSP productivity at the ten facilities we visited ranged
from a low of five patients per day for one physician to a high of 24 patients per day for one PA.
Most providers averaged from 8-12 patients per day, which we consider low. Our correctional
physician reviewers all thought providers should be able to see an average of 20 patients per day
with proper system support, with the exception of providers serving primarily a Level V population,
owing to the increased custody requirements (e. g., one patient at a time, belly chains and cuffs, two
COs per inmate). Factors contributing to the lower productivity in the MDOC include the use of
Serapis, which slows providers down (see the Health Information Section); different custody rules at
different institutions (some will not allow providers to see patients during count and lunch, or to
mix custody levels); and the fact that the providers are not MDOC employees. The latter point
bears some discussion.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

24

The providers have no incentive other than their own professionalism to see more patients. All
MDOC facilities have been completing MSP Productivity Reports for several years. The BHCS
administration says they cannot do anything about the situation, because they do not supervise the
MSPs. They send the information on to the CMS administration, but nothing ever changes. We
were told by several MDOC staff that CMS administrators say they cannot tell the MSPs what to do,
because they are independent contractors and not employees. Whatever the truth is, this situation
must change.
NCCHC recommends that the MDOC: Build in approval of hiring and firing decisions of

MSPs into its new provider contract, if it decides to continue to contract these positions out.
The MDOC should seriously reconsider the advantages and disadvantages of continuing to
contract out provider services. There are two reasons to contract out. One is lack of expertise.
The other is inability to recruit due to union/salary issues. We do not think the MDOC lacks
internal expertise. As far as recruitment, the MDOC seemed to be able to fill positions before a selfimposed moratorium on physician hiring. If civil service salaries are non-competitive, the
Governor/Director should have the authority or influence to be able to change that. If the State
concludes that contracting is a necessity, serious consideration should be given to “going all the
way” and contracting out all health services. At least that way, there would be a single chain of
command.
NCCHC recommends that the MDOC: Seriously reconsider the advantages and

disadvantages of continuing to contract out provider services.
NCCHC recommends that the MDOC: Review its custody procedures regarding closing

clinics during count and lunch, as well as ensure consistency throughout the system
regarding which custody levels can be mixed in clinic waiting areas.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

25

Continuing Education Training. Our reviewers identified several areas where continuing
education would improve staff performance.
NCCHC recommends that the MDOC: Train all nurses managing patients under protocols

in use of the nursing protocols, including assessment, documentation, intervention and
follow-up, and be required to demonstrate competency in the use of each protocol.
NCCHC recommends that the MDOC: Train all MSPs in NCCHC’s clinical guidelines,

and develop a clinical quality management program where charts of chronic care patients
can be reviewed for compliance with these guidelines. Emphasis should be placed on
accurate determinations of the degree of control, the need for intervention when control is
not good, and the importance of ordering follow-up based upon a patient’s clinical needs.
NCCHC recommends that the MDOC: Train staff, particularly some providers, in the use

of Serapis. Health staff would benefit from the additional training.
Continuous Quality Improvement. The MDOC does not have an effective CQI program; with
the exception of one of the ten facilities we visited (Kinross). For about a year, until March of 2007,
most of the facilities we audited were using a cumbersome six-page form to report their
Performance Improvement activities on a monthly basis. Few of these forms were completed in
their entirety and the usefulness of the information that was reported is questionable. Formal
studies reporting sample size, timeframe, criteria, thresholds, results, analysis, and corrective action
plans were seldom found. An effective CQI program should address problems with process and
outcome unique to each facility. For the most part, what we found was “paper pushing” dictated by
Central Office rather than “problem solving” specific to the needs of particular facilities.
NCCHC recommends that the MDOC: Create an effective CQI program that specifies

how to conduct a formal CQI program, but does not specify what each facility should study.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

26

Information on developing a CQI process can be found in Correctional Health Care: Guidelines for
the Management of an Adequate Delivery System.

Peer Review. Clinical care and provider morale would both benefit from a peer review quality
management program, in which MSPs meet regularly to review patients, discuss challenging cases,
critique each other’s management, and share knowledge and experience. Such a program could also
function as a first tier utilization management (UM) review, rather than having all UM performed by
offsite medical directors.
NCCHC recommends that the MDOC: Develop an effective peer review process.
Grievances. The number of Step I health care grievances filed in 2006 at the ten facilities we
reviewed varied from a high of 63.5 per month at Scott to a low of 4.4 per month at HVM (see chart
below).
Facility
DRF
URF
JCF
RGC
HVM
WHV
LCF
MBP
SCF
SMF

# of

# per

% of population

grievances
252
404
636
349
53

month
21
33.7
53
29.1
4.4

filing monthly
1.7
2.9
2.9
1.6
0.8

223
565
762
484

18.6
47.1
63.5
40.3

1.4
3.7
7.2
7.6

Capacity
1246
1150
1854
1853
538
927*
1344
1206
880
528

*Data not provided
Not surprisingly, in general, we found the highest number of health care grievances in those
facilities with the least adequate care, and the lowest number of grievances in the facility providing
inpatient mental health care. The only real anomaly was Cotton. This facility had the most

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

27

compromised care, yet the number of health care grievances fell in the lower range with facilities
providing generally adequate care. We noted, however, that health staff at the Cotton facility had a
real problem with responding to grievances on a timely basis. Some months, only one to two
percent of the grievances were responded to within the two week timeframe set by the MDOC.
Thus, the reported number of Step I grievances at Cotton is undoubtedly seriously understated.
The tone of the responses was generally respectful, and, for the most part, the responses were
timely (except for Cotton). With the exception of Kinross, health staff at the other facilities we
visited did not document whether the grievances were resolved or denied, or track trends. Health
care grievances are a good way to identify problem areas in the health care delivery system that are
ripe for a CQI study. Additionally, grievances can help identify problems with staff performance,
attitudes, and level of professionalism.
There are two other steps in the grievance process. Those not resolved at the facility are
referred to the regional office (Step II). Those not resolved at Step II are appealed to central office
staff (Step III). While we only tracked Step I grievances, we were told that there were a substantial
number of Step II grievances, because facility staff do not always answer Step I grievances in a
timely fashion. Regional staff should track the number of Step II grievances that resulted from
being unanswered at Step I, and address the need to follow grievance policy and procedures with
institutional staff who are not complying with time requirements.
NCCHC recommends that the MDOC: Develop a process to track trends in grievances

and identify whether grievances were resolved or denied. Also, regional staff should hold
facility staff accountable for timely responses to Step I health care grievances.
Other Cost-saving Strategies. Our reviewers identified other cost-saving strategies that do not
fit easily into the categories listed above.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

28

Over-ordering of Tests. Our physician reviewers found many examples of tests ordered that
were unnecessary. Most of these were blood tests. While most blood tests are not expensive, this
practice is not good for two reasons. First, if done often enough, the costs add up. Second, and
more importantly, when a test is not ordered for good clinical reasons, and it produces a “positive”
result, the meaning of the positive is not clear. In other words, an abnormal result means something
different in a patient who has symptoms versus a person who has no symptoms. Unfortunately, we
are not sure what it means in the latter case, so the doctor is often obligated to do more tests, even
though the tests will most likely be normal. Not only do the additional tests cost money, the further
tests are usually also invasive and can harm the patient (such as a CT scan with intravenous dye to
which a patient can have an allergic reaction and die).
Over-ordering happens much more often in mid-levels’ practices for several reasons. First,
some of the patients they are seeing are sicker than should be assigned to a mid-level. Second, there
is inadequate oversight by the physicians. Third, this is not stressed by CMS (which is one of the
risks of a disjointed management/leadership structure). Fourth, this is not stressed by the MDOC.
In fact, the message being heard by some (and this may not be the message sent, nor is it necessarily
being heard by everyone) is that MDOC cannot tolerate providers missing things. So it is better to
over-test than under-test. This impression seems to have proliferated in the aftermath of recent bad
patient outcomes.
We believe this problem can be addressed, in part, by clear messaging and training from both the
MDOC and CMS. Staff needs to hear that neither over- nor under-ordering is good. You want
logical ordering based on good clinical judgment. If a practitioner uses good judgment, does not
test, and a diagnosis is missed, he/she will be supported; bad outcomes sometimes happen to good
clinicians. While CMS must play a role in this, it will be very difficult to align their priorities with the
MDOC’s under the existing disjointed structure. Much of the above also applies to physicians.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

29

NCCHC recommends that the MDOC: Develop a utilization management program to

track appropriate ordering of laboratory and diagnostic tests, and train providers who
exhibit a pattern of over- or under-ordering.
Transfers. We were told that current MDOC policy requires all transfers to be seen by an
MSP within five days of arrival, even if they were just recently seen. Nurses at the receiving
institutions do a record review to ensure continuity of care and meet face–to–face with new arrivals.
In most systems, absent poor control issues, nurses would schedule new CCC patients for their next
visit at the time specified by the sending institutions’ provider.
NCCHC recommends that the MDOC: Revisit its policy regarding transfers. The revised

policy can specify the proper intervals for patients to be seen, depending upon their level of
disease control.
Non-Medical Issues. Providers seem to be spending excessive time resolving issues of special
shoes, mattresses, extra blankets or pillows, and other non-medical issues. Proper triage of sick call
requests and referral of these kinds of issues to an ombudsman would increase provider efficiency.
Also, several staff told us that while there are guidelines for issuing such items, providers do not
interpret the guidelines consistently. This leads, at best, to patient frustration and an increase in
grievances.
NCCHC recommends that the MDOC: Clarify the guidelines for issuing non-medical

items and appoint a single ombudsman to address these requests.
Provider Coverage and Participation During Off-Hour Events. Many of the facilities we visited
did not have a reliable on-call system for practitioners. The mid-level practitioners seemed willing to
receive calls at home, but they are not always available. The physicians’ back-up of the mid-level
practitioners is looser, yet. Nurses often resort to calling the practitioner at Duane Waters, who
2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

30

does not know the patients as well if at all. The practitioner’s involvement in the case, whether the
facility practitioner, or the one at Duane Waters, generally seems to stop after the initial call.
Therefore, what doesn’t happen is that there is no contact between the correctional and emergency
department practitioners. All decisions are made independently by the emergency department
without any input/advice from the prison. Invariably, such lack of communication classically leads
to patients being admitted to the hospital who could be managed (less expensively) in the prison,
and emergency department discharge plans are made that may be impractical for the prison to carry
out, etc. In the absence of direct communication with the emergency department, most patients
return from the emergency department with nothing more than a patient instruction sheet; no
medical records are sent. This makes subsequent care of the patient riskier.
NCCHC recommends that the MDOC: Develop a clear and reliable on-call system. A mid-

level practitioner can take “first call,” but there must be a physician designated as a backup. These staff must become actively involved in the management of patients who go to an
emergency department.
Documentation Issues. In general, our reviewers found instances of inadequate documentation
even in those units where the health care was judged to be good to excellent. At MBP and URF, for
example, among various providers–nurses, physicians, nurse practitioners, PAs, and dentists–there
was a theme: episodes of poor documentation of the good to excellent care. This raises concerns
regarding the MDOC’s potential liability in litigation.
•

A nurse at MBP wrote that a patient was on the floor of his segregation cell, unresponsive, for
the first half of the shift. Staff went in to evaluate him and he was okay. What was (probably)
missing was that this particular patient was known to staff to feign illness and the nurse was not
aware of the situation until the middle of the shift when she was called. Read in front of a jury,
however, the documentation tells the story of a nurse who knew about an unresponsive patient
for four hours before finally doing something.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

31

•

A dentist at MBP was unable to get patients in to see the community oral surgeon owing to the
surgeon’s full schedule. The scheduling clerk kept trying to get him in. The dentist wisely saw
the patient periodically while he waited, and told him to kite if the problem got worse. The only
documentation in the medical record, however, was that the dentist ordered an oral surgeon
evaluation on a certain date (which had passed), and there were periodic examinations. There
was no documentation of the surgeon’s office’s response to requests for appointments, of the
planned revisits to check on the patient’s well-being, nor of instructions given to the patient to
kite if there was any change in his condition. Read in front of a jury, the chart tells the story of
an 8th Amendment violation by virtue of a doctor’s order not being carried out and no plan to
deal with it or any instructions to the patient to try to mitigate a situation not under the MDOC’s
control.

•

A physician at MBP saw a patient for a 10 or 15 minute follow-up for an abdominal problem
and a visit to the ER. In the progress note, he wrote that 51 separate body parts were examined
and were “normal.” These parts included 14 different arm and leg joints, five different parts of
the mouth, etc. Clearly, he did not examine those parts. The problem is that in Serapis, if you
check the box that says the “patient’s exam was normal” Serapis automatically populates all the
body part boxes as “normal.” While this is partially a problem with Serapis, it is avoidable, even
in Serapis. On the jury stand, after the plaintiff’s attorney asks the doctor 51 separate times,
“Doctor, did you, in fact, examine Mr. X’s [left elbow] [right elbow] [left knee] … during this 10
minute examination for an abdominal problem?” and the doctor responds 51 times, “No,” and
the lawyer says, “So you lied in the medical record?” It won’t matter how good the care was.

•

A nurse at URF, documenting in a nursing protocol, did something almost identical to the last
case.

•

A physician at MBP saw a patient for jaw pain, which the patient claimed was so severe, it
caused him to pass out. The thorough examination ended with a number of possible diagnoses
including “possible syncope.” The physician did not document any further symptoms,

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

32

examination, or plans with regard to the syncope other than to place the prisoner in a lower
bunk. He told our physician reviewer he really did not believe the syncope history and was not
worried. However, syncope, or losing consciousness, has many serious causes, including heart
and brain problems. The fact that the doctor did not really think the patient had any serious
heart or brain problems and did not warrant further work-up was not documented. Read at a
deliberate indifference trial that might ensue after the patient had a bad outcome totally
unrelated to the problem above, this medical record would show a physician who ignored a
potentially serious problem.
Health Services Contracts. There may be serious flaws in the way the MDOC chooses vendors,
and writes contracts with those vendors. An obvious example of a questionable contract is the
choice of Serapis. There are many other products on the market, most of which function better. It
is not clear that these other products were seriously considered. We were told that the Serapis
contract was a “sole source.”
Another example is the lack of firm requirements for physician coverage. We were repeatedly
told that CMS can unilaterally choose to reduce provider staffing from five days a week to two days
a week, if it has trouble recruiting, and that CMS is not subject to any penalty or disincentive.
During our audits, we found several examples where CMS, in fact, took a full-time provider from
one facility to cover two days a week at another. This, obviously, compromises care at both
facilities.
Interestingly, however, when we read the contract between the MDOC and CMS, it states that:
“…CMS shall…provide a minimum of 32 hours of coverage per MDOC pay period for each vacant
position but as many hours as possible given existing staff availability until a new MSP is placed,
trained and functional. If requested by the MDOC Chief Medical Officer, CMS shall provide any
extra hours required to maintain services at a level satisfactory to the MDOC” (page 35, 15 b. 6.).
This brings us to contract monitoring.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

33

Until a few months ago, the MDOC had a full-time contract monitor for the CMS contract, but
it is not clear what he actually did. This contract has been running for over ten years, and we were
not provided with a single monitoring report. According to the contract with CMS, the MDOC was
supposed to perform regularly scheduled audits, and liquidated damages were to be assessed at any
facility where CMS’s providers failed to achieve 90 percent compliance with essential outcomes
(pages 38-39, 15 g-i.). No damages have ever been assessed.
We are not saying there is an improper relationship between the State of Michigan and
Correctional Medical Services, Inc. However, there is an appearance of such an improper relationship
in the field. Many staff verbalized that they have “heard from Lansing” that the MDOC simply
needs to make the relationship with CMS “work.” Whether or not anyone in the BHCS central
office actually said this, this is what staff perceives. The most glaring example of this is practitioner
staffing shortages. There are long lists of patients waiting to be seen at virtually all facilities we
visited, yet many shifts remain unfilled by the vendor. Staff speculates that if the MDOC and CMS
were operating in a truly arm’s length relationship, there should be an immediate response from the
MDOC followed by rapid resolution of the problem, legal action, and/or termination of the
contract. Instead, the contract has continued for ten years.
We are aware that the MDOC took some steps this past summer to try to address some of these
contractual issues. There has been a change in the leadership at the BHCS and the contract monitor
retired. Nevertheless, we recommend the MDOC take a critical look at its contracting process.
NCCHC recommends that MDOC: Develop an effective contract monitoring system and

hold its health services vendor accountable for meeting the contract terms.
The Mental Health Program
Organizational Structure. The mental health program consists of two entities: the Corrections
Mental Health Program (CMHP) administered by the Department of Community Health, and the
2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

34

Psychological Services Unit (PSU) administered by MDOC psychologists and support staff. PSU is
responsible for mental health intake screenings and evaluations at the reception centers. In the
regular prison units, PSU staff is responsible for crisis intervention, bi-weekly segregation rounds, 30
and 90 day evaluations of inmates in segregation, parole evaluations, responding to kites requesting
mental health care, and holding Assaultive Offender Program/Sexual Offender Program
(AOP/SOP) groups. CMHP staff is responsible for the care and treatment of all individuals
identified with a major mental illness.
The current organizational structure is not an efficient one. It is, in fact, cumbersome and
results in duplication of administration, services, and materials. If an issue arises between CMHP
and PSU staff at a given institution and they cannot resolve it, it must go up one chain of command
to the regional level, across to the opposite regional level, and then back down the respective chains.
Also, there is often disagreement between the two entities at specific institutions as to whether
particular clients are or are not seriously mentally ill. Worse yet, this division in responsibility results
in a “silo effect,” allowing staff to claim in particular instances that a request for service is “not my
job.”
As another example, we were told of an incident in which an inmate attempted suicide by
hanging. Medical services was notified and the nurse practitioner responded. By the time the nurse
practitioner arrived, custody staff already had the inmate down. However, the inmate managed to
crawl under the bed and held on to it yelling that she wanted to die, and continued to struggle with
the staff. The psychiatrist was called, but failed to come. Upon repeated telephone calls, he stated
that he only sees patients after they have been evaluated by a psychologist from PSU. Finally, a
psychologist did come and evaluate the patient. The patient was then referred to the psychiatrist for
inpatient admission. Nonetheless, the episode took more than 45 minutes, because the psychiatrist
insisted that the mental health protocols be rigidly followed. While we were not told of any other
incidents of this sort, this is an unacceptable response to an emergency situation, directly attributable
to a faulty organizational structure.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

35

There is also considerable duplication of services. As an example, several PSU’s psychologists
told us that in order to refer a patient to CMHP, they must do a full psychological work-up. This
occurs in spite of the fact that all inmates receive a substantial battery of psychological tests as part
of the mental health intake process, as well as a full psychological evaluation, if they have an
identified serious mental illness. Worse yet, they are required to do such evaluations even if the
inmate was previously on the CMHP case load. We were told of an instance where an inmate had
been discharged from the CMHP case load, because she was non-compliant with her psychotropic
medications. Later, she decided she wanted to resume care. The psychologist wrote a three and a
half page evaluation to refer the patient back to CMHP. In most systems, this would have been
accomplished with a simple phone call or referral form stating “Pt. wants back on meds.”
NCCHC recommends that the MDOC: Give serious consideration to consolidating all

mental health services under a single entity to avoid the inefficiencies inherent in the
current organizational structures as well as the potential for compromising the quality of
mental health care.
The Intake Process. All new arrivals in the MDOC receive a battery of psychological tests at the
reception centers. Those with assaultive or sexual offenses also receive a partial psychological
evaluation. Those with identified serious mental heath needs receive a full psychological work-up.
Under NCCHC’s standards, mental health evaluations for new admissions must be completed
within 14 days of the inmate’s arrival in the prison system. We found that PSU staff at Egeler
generally met this requirement, but those at Scott did not. At Scott, the medical intake process must
be completed before the psychologists can do their intake evaluations. Because the MSPs at Scott
are considerably behind in their intake exams, this puts the psychologists behind in completing their
intakes. To correct this, the MDOC needs to immediately address the issue of lack of provider
coverage at Scott and low provider productivity.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

36

CMHP Quality of Care. Our psychiatrist was impressed with the quality of care provided by
CMHP. He had no suggestions for system improvements.
CMHP Contracting Issues. The original contract between the MDOC and the DCH was signed
in 1991. It was briefly amended in 1994 to reduce the number of interdepartmental representatives
serving on an interdepartmental committee, but has not been amended since. We also saw no
evidence of contract monitoring.
NCCHC recommends that the MDOC: Review its contract with the DCH to ensure that it

continues to reflect the MDOC’s needs regarding mental health services.
NCCHC recommends that the MDOC: Appoint a contract monitor to oversee this

contract. We noted that the psychologist in central office does not have any supervisory
responsibilities for regional psychologists, who report to the regional health administrators.
Perhaps this position could serve as the contract monitor.
PSU Assaultive Offender Program (AOP) and Sexual Offender Program(SOP). One of the
primary responsibilities of the PSU staff is to hold group sessions for inmates who have a history of
either sexual or assaultive offenses. Apparently, inmates with such histories must complete the
appropriate group prior to being considered eligible for parole. Most PSU staff members were
holding a maximum of five groups per week, each for an hour and a half. Some PSU staff members
were holding only one or two groups per week and some were not holding any. Each group takes
approximately one year from beginning to end. There was a considerable waiting list to get into
these groups at all of the facilities we visited. Not surprisingly, inability to enroll in an AOP or SOP
group on a timely basis was the number one grievance against PSU.
We had a number of problems with the AOP/SOP group structure. For one thing, motivation
to change past behavior was not a criterion for admission. The mental health literature is replete
with studies showing that forced therapy does not work. For another, an inmate’s poor
2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

37

performance in group does not lead to his/her being discharged from the group. Also, while there
is a general outline and some suggested materials, the curricula that are taught are not consistent
throughout the system. Finally, the materials used are often not gender specific, which is particularly
needed for female sexual offenders.
Our primary objection to the AOP/SOP groups, however, is that we were told they have been
required by the Parole Board for the past 15 years, and yet, no one has ever evaluated them to see if
they have any impact on recidivism. We recommend this occur as soon as possible. If the programs
are not effective in reducing recidivism as currently structured, we recommend the MDOC change
its criteria for admission to take into account both motivation and performance. Further, the
curricula should be up-dated to include new and gender-specific materials that have proven effective
elsewhere. A second evaluation should then occur. If the programs still have no impact on
recidivism, they should be dropped.
If the MDOC decides to continue the AOP/SOP groups, a state-wide waiting list should be
created to make the admission process more equitable. Further, the time spent in groups could be
doubled to cut down on the time it takes to complete the process. This would double the number
of inmates who could be served by these programs annually. We believe this is feasible, particularly
if the referral process to CMHP is streamlined as suggested above.
NCCHC recommends that the MDOC: Evaluate the AOP/SOP impact on recidivism.
NCCHC recommends that the MDOC: Change its criteria for admission into the

AOP/SOP programs.
NCCHC recommends that the MDOC: Create a state-wide waiting list into the AOP/SOP

programs to make the admission process more equitable.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

38

Conflict of Interest in PSU: Forensics vs. Treatment. Psychologists working for the MDOC do
both evaluations for the Parole Board and provide direct patient care. This situation puts the
professional in an ethically untenable position. In his/her forensic role for the Parole Board, there is
no patient-doctor therapeutic relationship and the psychologist’s ethical obligation is to the State. In
the latter role, the psychologist’s ethical obligation is to the patient. It is difficult, if not impossible,
for one person to fill both roles. We could argue that they should not even report through the same
chains of command.
At the very least, NCCHC recommends that the MDOC: Identify psychologists who either

provide patient care or perform evaluations for the Parole Board, but not both.
The Dental Program
Organizational Structure. The organizational structure of the dental program is the least
complex. All dental staff are employees of the MDOC. There are three regional dentists, who
oversee the dental care in each region. They meet periodically to discuss the dental program. There
is no dental director in Central Office, which appears to work fine.
Staffing and Credentials. The credentials of dentists and hygienists were checked. All were
licensed, certified, and/or registered as required by law.
The Intake Process. The dental intake process works well, despite the inefficiencies associated
with Serapis. Because the electronic dental record does not talk to Serapis, dental staff has to repeat
the intake history. Any medications ordered by the dentists have to be entered into the dental
record, entered again into Serapis, and then into the PharmaCorr program (see the Health
Information section below for recommendations to address this problem).
New inmates coming into the MDOC are processed at Egeler (males) or at Scott (females). The
dental intake process consists of inmates completing a medical history, having an x-ray taken, and
2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

39

receiving a dental screening by a dentist. A full-mouth exam and x-rays are deferred until the inmate
reaches his/her assigned facility. At that point, a treatment plan is developed and dental needs are
prioritized.
According to BHCS policy, the dental intake is supposed to be completed within three days of
arrival. NCCHC’s standards allow 30 days for this process to be completed. We found most dental
intakes were done within the first week of arrival.
Health Information. The management information system for the dental program is separate
from Serapis, and the two programs are not linked. The dental computer system also is not linked
to the pharmacy computer system. This results in duplication of efforts for the dental staff. For
example, the reason inmates have to complete a new medical history for dental care, even though a
complete receiving screening has already been done, is because dental staff does not have ready
access to Serapis. Similarly, when dentists order medications, they not only chart in the dental
record, but must then chart the order in the computerized pharmacy system and in Serapis.
NCCHC recommends that the MDOC: Print a copy of the receiving screening when it is

completed, and forward a copy to the dental staff.
NCCHC recommends that the MDOC: Explore the cost and feasibility of linking the

computerized dental, medical, and pharmacy systems.
Dentists’ Productivity. We found similar problems with the dentists’ productivity as we did with
the MSPs’. Some dentists were seeing only five patients per day, on average, and some spent fewer
than five hours per day seeing patients. It is difficult to determine the number of patients dentists
should be able to see per day, because it all depends on the dental procedure. An extraction may
well take an hour or more to do, while a simple filling may take only 20 minutes or so. Nonetheless,
we know a dentist should be able to see more than five patients per day.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

40

NCCHC recommends that the MDOC: Develop productivity guidelines for the dentists,

and hold them accountable for meeting them.
NCCHC recommends that the MDOC: Review its custody procedures regarding closing

clinics during count and lunch, as well as ensure consistency throughout the system
regarding which custody levels can be mixed in clinic waiting areas.
While dental staff do a good job meeting inmates’ urgent and emergent needs, routine services
such as exams and fillings are often seriously delayed. In some Region III facilities, for example, we
were told it could take up to two years to obtain routine care. All of the facilities we visited had
dental waiting lists, but some were only two to three months behind rather than two years.
NCCHC recommends that the MDOC: Consider developing a state-wide dental waiting

list to provide routine care on a more equitable basis.
On the other hand, grievances about dental services were very low, usually only a handful each
year in the facilities we visited.
Dental Water Sterility Checks. Owing to the fact that the hoses in dental chairs can accumulate
bio-films that trap and breed bacteria, the water that comes out of the irrigator should be tested
periodically. We found this was not being done at the Level V dental clinic in MBP. While we did
not inquire about this at the other facilities, we recommend the MDOC do so.
NCCHC recommends that the MDOC: Periodically test water that comes out of dental

irrigators at all its dental operatories.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

41

Summary of Recommendations
The National Commission on Correctional Health Care’s comprehensive analysis of the
Michigan Department of Corrections-Bureau of Health Care Services has led to a number of
recommendations designed to improve the effectiveness and quality of the health care delivered to
inmates, and to maximize efficiencies and strategies to reduce costs. These recommendations are
summarized here to facilitate discussion and are presented in no particular priority.

NCCHC Recommendations of Systemic Changes
1. Convert some of its vacant RN positions to LPNs or CNAs. One RN position in each complex
should be converted to a lab tech.
2. Develop a simplified physical for healthy individuals.
3. Specify, when the new managed care contract is written, that requests for off-site specialty care
must be responded to within one week.
4. Aggressively recruit a physician for the vacant RMO position in Region III.
5. Explore ways to expand its use of telemedicine.
6. Add the first level review of off-formulary requests to the utilization management
responsibilities in the new contract.
7. Determine whether the Parole Board will not release someone on chronic medications, and if
false, educate the inmate population.
8. Research the issue of incinerating pharmaceutical waste with the appropriate environmental
authorities to see if these regulations apply in Michigan, and change their practice if necessary.
9. Review the entire formulary to be certain that it contains all of the therapeutic categories and
pharmacologic classes specified in the Model Guidelines for Medicare Prescription Drug
Benefit, submitted by the United States Pharmacopeial Convention, Inc. on December 31, 2004.
10. Survey physicians practicing in the Michigan Department of Corrections to elicit further
recommendations about other drugs they believe, on the basis of their experience, should be
included in the formulary.
11. Promptly fill the initial order for the non-formulary medications, for up to a ten day period,
2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

42

unless the ordering practitioner specifies “non-urgent.”
12. Clarify the formulary.
13. Reinstitute its Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee to provide an on-going mechanism for
adding and deleting items from the formulary.
14. Issue medications directly from blister cards and document directly on the MAR as they
administer the medications.
15. Build query tools locally using MS Access and ODBC.
16. Write a concise EHR implementation policy and follow it.
17. Obtain the data schema for the EHR.
18. Appoint committees for both custody and health care to examine paperwork requirements with
an eye toward simplifying and streamlining the processes.
19. Build in approval of hiring and firing decisions of MSPs into its new provider contract, if it
decides to continue to contract these positions out.
20. Train all nurses managing patients under protocols in the use of the nursing protocols, including
assessment, documentation, intervention and follow-up, and be required to demonstrate
competency in the use of each protocol.
21. Train all MSPs in NCCHC’s clinical guidelines, and develop a clinical quality management
program where charts of chronic care patients can be reviewed for compliance with these
guidelines.
22. Train staff, particularly some providers, in the use of Serapis. Health staff would benefit from
the additional training.
23. Seriously reconsider the advantages and disadvantages of continuing to contract out provider
services.
24. Review its custody procedures regarding closing clinics during count and lunch, as well as ensure
consistency throughout the system regarding which custody levels can be mixed in clinic waiting
areas.
25. Create an effective CQI program that specifies how to conduct a formal CQI program, but does
not specify what each facility should study.
26. Revisit its policy regarding transfers.
2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

43

27. Develop a clear and reliable on-call system.
28. Develop an effective contract monitoring system and hold its health services vendor accountable
for meeting the contract terms.
29. Print a copy of the receiving screening when it is completed, and forward it to the dental staff.
30. Explore the cost and feasibility of linking the computerized dental, medical, and pharmacy
systems.
31. Develop productivity guidelines for the dentists, and hold them accountable for meeting them.
32. Consider developing a state-wide dental waiting list to provide routine care on a more equitable
basis.
33. Periodically test water that comes out of dental irrigators at all its dental operatories.
34. Give serious consideration to consolidating all mental health services under a single entity to
avoid the inefficiencies inherent in the current organizational structures as well as the potential
for compromising the quality of mental health care.
35. Review its contract with the DCH to ensure that it continues to reflect the MDOC’s needs
regarding mental health services.
36. Appoint a contract monitor to oversee the mental health contract.
37. Evaluate the AOP/SOP’s impact on recidivism.
38. Change its criteria for admission into the AOP/SOP.
39. Create a state-wide waiting list for the AOP/SOP groups to make the admission process more
equitable.
40. Separate the forensic and treatment functions of its psychologist staff.
41. Improve timing and occurrence of post-discharge MSP appointments.
42. Ensure continuity of care in the transition from the inpatient to the ambulatory setting.
43. Consider exploring the possibility of transferring some hospitalists and emergency department
staff to ambulatory care positions at those institutions where provider staff is urgently needed.
44. Explore reducing the emergency department capabilities to urgent care level equipment and
staffing. Resuscitations are rarely run in the ER.
45. Consider having the hospitalist staff cover the urgent care-level facility if the emergency
department is converted to that.
2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

44

46. Implement a regularly scheduled CQI/peer review process, during which MSPs discuss
challenging cases, critique each others’ performance, and work together to identify and seize
opportunities for improvement.
47. Develop site-specific procedures incorporating Serapis throughout the entire sick call process.
48. Determine which set of nursing protocols should be used to ensure consistency throughout the
system.
49. Consider a CQI process study of the sick call system once all the patient history is entered into
Serapis to determine the effectiveness of the overall process.
50. Provide periodic in-service training for nurses that addresses the use of protocols, medications,
documentation, and physical assessment as related to the sick call process.
51. Develop a process to track trends in grievances and identify whether grievances were resolved or
denied. Also, regional staff should hold facility staff accountable for timely responses to Step I
health care grievances.
52. Maintain a log of corrective action plans that tracks the plans to completion. This will complete
the documentation cycle for all mortality reviews.
53. Use of Serapis to document chronic care clinic visits should cease, and CCC visit documentation
should revert to paper.
54. Develop an effective peer review process.
55. Develop a utilization management program to track appropriate ordering of laboratory and
diagnostic tests, and train providers who exhibit a pattern of over- or under-ordering.
56. Clarify the guidelines for issuing non-medical items and appoint a single ombudsman to address
these requests.
Conclusions
With rare exceptions, our reviewers were impressed with the dedication and professionalism of
all of the staff we encountered: administration, custody, dental, nursing, medical, and mental health.
We were also impressed with the extent to which such individuals worked together in spite of a
fractured organizational structure. Most of the problems we identified were attributable to system
2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

45

failures, rather than to individuals not doing their jobs. We believe the most pressing problem for
the MDOC is to address the lack of MSP coverage and their generally low productivity. Until this
occurs, access to care, quality of care, and health staff morale will continue to suffer. We also
identified a number of inefficiencies in the current health care delivery system that should be
addressed. The MDOC could realize considerable cost savings if some or all of our
recommendations are implemented.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

46

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

47

ADDENDUM
Review of the MDOC’s Strategic Plan
The MDOC formed a Health Care Improvement Team that began working March of 2007. It
includes representatives of the MDOC’s Bureau of Health Care Services and Bureau of Fiscal
Management, representatives from the Department of Management and Budget, Department of
Community Health, Department of Information Technology, and consultants from the Michigan
Public Health Institute. The Health Care Improvement Team has met as a full committee at least
twice weekly since April. In addition there have been several work group committees meeting weekly
to implement specific tasks in the strategic plan, in accordance with the timeline of the Strategic
Plan. Through most of 2007, the MDOC has continued to work aggressively in redesigning the
health services contracts it manages, and restructuring the organization to improve the management
capability of the MDOC. These efforts are reflected in its Strategic Plan.
Following the submission of our draft report, we had the opportunity to review the Strategic
Plan developed by the Michigan Prisoner Health Care Improvement Project. It is a comprehensive,
thoughtful document that will go a long way toward addressing the major concerns raised in our
report. A comparison of NCCHC’s recommendations with the MDOC’s Strategic Plan activities
follows.
NCCHC Recommendation # 1: Recommends the conversion of some MDOC RN vacancies
to LPN or CNA positions. One RN position in each complex should be converted to a lab tech
position.
Strategic Plan Activity—Page 30 of the Strategic Plan is aligned with this recommendation. It
requires that the MDOC conduct an assessment of the current nurse staffing plan; develop models
to effectively accomplish patient care services; and identify Civil Service barrier issues to implement
the needed changes.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

48

NCCHC Recommendation #2: Recommends developing a simplified physical for healthy
individuals.
Strategic Plan Activity—Page 25 of the Strategic Plan is partially aligned with this
recommendation. It requires that the intake process be reviewed with the goal of improving the
workflow and outputs for medical and mental health to improve the quality of health services.
NCCHC Recommendation #3: Recommends specifying that the new managed care contract
require that off-site specialty care responses be scheduled within one week.
Strategic Plan Activity—Page 10 of the Strategic Plan is aligned with this recommendation. It
requires the use of telemedicine to expand the pool of specialists and reduce the cost of consults;
improve the timeliness and quality of specialty care; and reduce transportation costs. In addition, the
MDOC has included this requirement in the terms of its contract extension with the current
provider.
NCCHC Recommendation #5: Recommends exploring ways to use telemedicine.
Strategic Plan Activity—Pages 10 and 15 of the Strategic Plan are aligned with this
recommendation. In addition, the contract extension with the current provider has financial
incentives to increase the use of telemedicine. The MDOC may want to contact the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice regarding their very effective use of telemedicine.
NCCHC Recommendation #6: Recommends adding a level of first review of off-formulary
requests to the utilization management responsibilities in the new contract.
Strategic Plan Activity—Page 31 of the Strategic Plan is partially aligned with this
recommendation. MDOC states that current staffing levels and expertise in this area are deficient

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

49

and will need to be increased. NCCHC recommends that the Strategic Plan include its specific
recommendation to help reach the stated objective.
NCCHC Recommendation #7: Recommends that it be determined if it is true that the Parole
Board will not release someone on chronic medications, and if false, educate the inmate population.
Strategic Plan Activity—Page 18 of the Strategic Plan is aligned with this recommendation.
Appropriate community placement of the medically fragile is also the stated goal of the Governor.
Recent articles in October 2007 in the Detroit Free Press provide extensive coverage of the pilot
program for the medically fragile and its successes. The media coverage is also part of the
communication strategy on page 32 of the strategic plan.
NCCHC Recommendations 9-14: Recommends a series of improvements to the business
processes of the pharmacy contract and MDOC management delivery system for pharmacy.
Strategic Plan Activity—Page 14 of the Strategic Plan is partially aligned with the
recommendation to address the need to improve the existing pharmacy contract. MDOC, through
the current Request For Information (RFI) process for the health care services contract, has invited
vendors to make recommendations in their proposals to improve the delivery system and utilization
review for pharmacy. The RFI was posted on the MDOC web page.
NCCHC Recommendations 15-17: Recommends building query tools locally using MS
Access and ODBC. Also, the MDOC needs to write EMR implementation policies, and obtain a
data schema for the EMR.
Strategic Plan Activity—Page 13 of the Strategic Plan is fully aligned with this recommendation,
though the proposed solution takes a different approach. MDOC has completed a RFI process to
upgrade the existing electronic medical record system that includes more robust reporting tools. A
RFP was posted on December 17, 2007 with the scheduled award date for an improved EMR
2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

50

contract to be awarded in late January 2008. MDOC reports that the RFP significantly incorporates
the recommendations of NCCHC.
NCCHC Recommendation 18: Recommends the appointment of committees for both
custody and health care to examine paperwork requirements with an eye towards simplifying and
streamlining the processes.
Strategic Plan Activities—Page 27 of the Strategic Plan is aligned with this recommendation. The
Strategic Plan requires that an integrated reporting system be developed that will map all health care
reports to identify those that are necessary and those that are not. The Strategic Plan further requires
that the MDOC develop the capacity to analyze and interpret the reports. The MDOC also provided
documentation on the recent reorganization of the Central Office management team for health
services, which now includes an office of Quality Assurance (QA), whose duties include the
development and monitoring of an integrated reporting system. The Quality Assurance office duties
also support the development and training for Continuous Quality Improvement targeting both
clinical and process procedures in health care.
NCCHC Recommendation 19: Recommends contract changes in the health services provider
contract to include approvals of hiring and firing decisions of MSPs.
Strategic Plan Activities—Pages 10 and 11 of the Strategic Plan and the contracting objectives of
MDOC appear to be aligned with the goals of this recommendation. The initial RFP for provider
services includes the broad outlines for risk sharing, performance accountability, and compliance
through a HMO model. Contract requirements along these lines appear to address the underlying
concerns related to the need to approve MSP hiring and firing. While the initial RFP has been
replaced with a new RFI to take into consideration non-HMO provider plans, the principals stated
in the new RFI are consistent with the core objectives of the earlier RFP.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

51

NCCHC Recommendations 20 and 21: Recommend the training of all nurses managing
patients under protocols in the use of nursing protocols, including assessment, documentation,
intervention, and follow-up, and that they be required to demonstrate competency in the use of each
protocol.
Strategic Plan Activity—Page 23 of the Strategic Plan is significantly aligned with this
recommendation. Through instituting a CQI program, the MDOC will be able to address the
procedural and competency issues of the nursing staff. As a result of the Strategic Plan requirements,
the MDOC has developed the Quality Assurance office to ensure accountability for this and related
concerns.
NCCHC Recommendation # 22: Recommends training staff and providers in the use of the
current EMR.
Strategic Plan Activity—Page 10 of the Strategic Plan addresses this recommendation through a
plan to replace the existing EMR with a new EMR. The RFP for this effort has been posted on the
Department of Management and Budget website and includes the requirement to provide training
on the new system to all users through a phased roll-out period with a defined timeline.
NCCHC Recommendation #23: Recommends the MDOC seriously consider the advantages
and disadvantages of continuing to contract out provider services.
Strategic Plan Activities—Page 10 of the Strategic Plan indicates that the MDOC is in alignment
with this recommendation. The strategic plan objective to redesign the managed care contract is a
serious consideration of changing the current system. The current RFI for health care services is
posted on the MDOC website and invites providers to submit proposals for a wide variety of
delivery services. While this does not include the option of the MDOC returning to Civil Service
providers, it does invite discussion on all other options as distinct from the current system.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

52

NCCHC Recommendation #24: Recommends a review of custody procedures that result in
closing clinics during “count” and lunch, as well as to ensure system-wide consistency regarding
mixing custody levels in the clinic waiting areas.
Strategic Plan Activities—Page 23 of the Strategic Plan appears to align with this
recommendation. The development and implementation of a CQI program provides the
opportunity to address the inefficiencies in the current system that result in closing clinics and
mixing custody levels in waiting areas.
NCCHC Recommendation #25: Recommends creating an effective CQI program without
micro-management at the facility level.
Strategic Plan Activities—Page 23 of the Strategic Plan aligns with this recommendation. The
Strategic Plan states that the CQI initiative is designed to extend from senior management to frontline staff. In addition, the new Quality Administrator’s duties will include the development of CQI
programs, in consultation with the Chief Medical Officer, the Health Services Administrator, and
Regional Health Administrators. The restructured organization for the Bureau of Health Care
Services includes a Health Care Quality Improvement Team that will collaboratively develop CQI
programs utilizing teams that train and work with front-line staff to develop solutions to problems
identified through the activities of the Quality Assurance program.
NCCHC Recommendation #26: Recommends revisiting the policy regarding transfers.
Strategic Plan Activities—This is not specifically covered in the Strategic Plan, and, therefore,
not in alignment with the NCCHC recommendations. The MDOC may wish to contact the New
Jersey or the Washington DOC regarding their transfer policies.
NCCHC Recommendation #27: Recommends the development of a clear and reliable on-call
provider system.
2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

53

Strategic Plan Activities—Page 10 of the Strategic Plan appears to address this in the redesign of
the health services RFP and the ensuing RFI. Based on the RFP and the RFI, it appears that the
MDOC intends to incorporate improved provider oversight through the terms of the new contract.
In addition, the MDOC reports that the contract extension with the current provider requires the
development of a reliable on-call system.
NCCHC Recommendation # 28: Recommends the development of a contract monitoring
system to hold vendors more accountable.
Strategic Plan Activities—Page 31 of the Strategic Plan is aligned with this recommendation. The
Strategic Plan clearly shows the priority for contract management and vendor accountability. The
MDOC reports that while budget requests are still in the early stages, additional positions for
contract compliance are under consideration. In addition, the terms of the current provider contract
extension have been improved to enhance compliance and accountability. The RFI under
consideration is another example of the development of business processes that will require
enhanced accountability and oversight of the health services vendor.
NCCHC Recommendation #29: Recommends printing a copy of the receiving screening
when it is completed and sharing it with the dental staff.
Strategic Plan Activities—Page #27 of the Strategic Plan appears to be aligned with this
recommendation, if the development of an integrated reporting system includes the specific task of
sharing the receiving screening information with the dental providers.
NCCHC Recommendation #30: Recommends linking the computerized systems for medical,
dental, and pharmacy.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

54

Strategic Plan Activity—Page 13 of the Strategic Plan is aligned with this recommendation. The
Strategic Plan requires updating the current EMR and the RFP now posted for bids addresses the
concerns underlying this recommendation.
NCCHC Recommendations #31-33: Recommends the development of productivity
guidelines for dentists and holding them accountable; the development of a statewide dental waiting
list; and testing water from the dental irrigators.
Strategic Plan Activity—Page 23 of the Strategic Plan is in alignment with this recommendation.
The Strategic Plan requires the development of a CQI process for all clinical and procedural
services, including dental.
NCCHC Recommendations #34-40: Recommends giving serious consideration to
consolidating mental health services under a single entity.
Strategic Plan Activities—Page 16 of the Strategic Plan is in alignment with this
recommendation. The process outlined in the Strategic Plan will review the current system and the
statutory barriers to changing the mental health care delivery system. Through its Health Care
Improvement Team, the MDOC has convened a multidisciplinary group of 25 members from
government agencies and community groups to conduct the review. Their recommendations are
expected by April 2008. MDOC officials state that recommendations from NCCHC will be included
in the review process.
NCCHC Recommendation #41: Recommends improving the timing and occurrence of postdischarge MSP appointments.
Strategic Plan Activities—Page 23 of the Strategic Plan is aligned with this recommendation. The
CQI for provider processes to improve quality should include this recommendation.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

55

NCCHC Recommendations #42-43: Recommends ensuring continuity of care in the
transition from an inpatient to an ambulatory care setting.
Strategic Plan Activities—Page 23 of the Strategic Plan provides for quality of care management
through CQI in all regions. Page 28 addresses the more specific quality improvement issues at the
Duane Waters Health Center. The management restructuring by MDOC to institute a Quality
Assurance Administrator will insure that CQI and DWHC improvement efforts are monitored and
reported on. In all these aspects, the Strategic Plan is in alignment with this recommendation.
NCCHC Recommendation #44-45: Recommends reducing the ER capabilities at DWHC to
urgent care. The MDOC should also consider utilizing hospital staff for the ER coverage, if it can be
converted to urgent care.
Strategic Plan Activity—Page 28 of the Strategic Plan is aligned with this recommendation,
though more specificity would be beneficial. The Strategic Plan requires an evaluation of the role of
the DWHC, which could include converting the ER to an urgent care operation.
NCCHC Recommendation #46: Recommends implementing a regular peer review process
for MSPs.
Strategic Plan Activities—Page 23 of the Strategic Plan is aligned with this recommendation. The
development of a system-wide CQI program, with leadership from the Chief Medical Officer, the
Health Services Administrator, and the Quality Administrator could certainly result in the
implementation of peer review processes.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

56

NCCHC Recommendation #47: Recommends developing site-specific procedures
incorporating the EMR throughout the entire sick call process.
Strategic Plan Activities—Page 13 of the Strategic Plan is aligned with this recommendation. The
Strategic Plan calls for the development of a new EMR to be a system-wide information tool that
successfully integrates all aspects of the delivery system.
NCCHC Recommendation #48: Recommends the development of a consistent set of
nursing protocols that can be used throughout the system.
Strategic Plan Activities—Page 23 of the Strategic Plan is aligned with this recommendation. The
Strategic Plan to develop CQI through the Quality Assurance office will likely result in the
development of uniform nursing protocols that can be monitored and compared with best practice
models.
NCCHC Recommendation #49: Recommends a CQI process to study the sick call system.
Strategic Plan Activities—Page 23 of the Strategic Plan is aligned with this recommendation. The
development of system-wide CQI processes for health care through the Quality Assurance office
would likely focus on the sick call process to improve health outcomes overall and reduce costs.
NCCHC Recommendation #50: Recommends periodic in-service training for nurses that
addresses the use of protocols, medications, documentation, and physical assessments as related to
the sick call process.
Strategic Plan Activities—Page 29 of the Strategic Plan, though not specific to this
recommendation, appears to align with it. The Strategic Plan requires team-building processes that
can facilitate the cultural change from a silo-oriented system to a more collaborative structure. In-

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

57

service training can serve to reinforce that change. The Strategic Plan would benefit from more
specificity in this regard.
NCCHC Recommendation #51: Recommends a grievance process that tracks the final
disposition of the complaint and holds staff more accountable for timely responses.
Strategic Plan Activities—Page 27 of the Strategic Plan is in alignment with this
recommendation, though the Strategic Plan would benefit from more specificity with respect to the
grievance reporting system.
NCCHC Recommendation #52: Recommends the development of a log of corrective action
plans that tracks the plans through to completion. This will complete the documentation cycle for all
mortality reviews.
Strategic Plan Activities—This is not currently addressed in the Strategic Plan. The plan to
develop an integrated reporting system would benefit from the addition of this recommendation.
NCCHC Recommendation #53: Recommends that the use of the EMR to document chronic
care clinic visits should cease, and the CCC visit documentation should revert to paper.
Strategic Plan Activities—The EMR upgrade will include a more user-friendly system that will
enhance the CCC documentation.
NCCHC Recommendation #54: Recommends a peer review process be developed.
Strategic Plan Activities—Page 23 of the Strategic Plan is aligned with this recommendation
through the implementation of a CQI process and a Quality Assurance program. Though not
specifically mentioned in the strategic plan, a peer review process is a useful tool to enhance quality
improvement.
2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

58

NCCHC Recommendation #55: Recommends the development of a utilization management
program.
Strategic Plan Activities—Page 31 of the Strategic Plan is aligned with this recommendation
through the development of a stronger contract compliance operation. In addition, the proposed
contract terms for a new RFP for health services require improved utilization management. Finally,
the development of a contract for an independent third party review will focus on utilization
management. In the process of developing the RFP for health care services, the MDOC reports that
it has engaged the services of a national actuary firm to further support its ability to monitor
utilization through claims data.
NCCHC Recommendation #56: Recommends clarifying guidelines for issuing non-medical
items and the appointment of a single ombudsman to address these requests.
Strategic Plan Activities—This recommendation is not addressed in the Strategic Plan.
Conclusions
We commend the MDOC and BHCS administrations for the positive way they have embraced
our recommendations and those of other consultants. If this strategic plan and the recommendation
of our report are implemented, the MDOC’s health delivery system can, once again, become a leader
in the correctional health care field.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

59

APPENDIX A
The National Commission on Correctional Health Care
The National Commission on Correctional Health Care (NCCHC) is a not-for-profit, 501(c)(3)
organization committed to improving the quality of care in our nation’s prisons, jails, and juvenile
detention and confinement facilities. NCCHC is supported by the major national organizations
representing the fields of health, law, and corrections.
In the early 1970s, the American Medical Association studied the conditions in jails. Finding
inadequate, disorganized health services and a lack of national standards to guide correctional
institutions, the AMA, in collaboration with other organizations, established a program that in the
early 1980s became the National Commission on Correctional Health Care. The National
Commission’s early mission was to evaluate, formulate policy, and develop programs for an area
clearly in need of assistance.
Today, NCCHC’s leadership in setting standards for health services and improving health care in
correctional facilities is widely recognized. Its Standards for Health Services are written in separate
volumes for prisons, jails, and juvenile confinement facilities. The Standards represent NCCHC’s
recommended requirements for the management of a correctional health services system, covering
the general areas of care and treatment, health records, administration, personnel, and medical-legal
issues. The Standards have helped the nation’s correctional and detention facilities improve the
health of their inmates and the communities to which they return; increase the efficiency of their
health services delivery; strengthen their organizational effectiveness; and reduce their risk of adverse
legal judgments.
As well as establishing standards, each year NCCHC sponsors correctional health care’s premier
educational and scientific conferences. Each fall, the annual National Conference on Correctional
Health Care attracts physicians, nurses, psychologists, scientists, and other health care providers and
researchers to learn of contemporary practices and issues in the field of correctional health care.
2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

60

Each spring, the Clinical Updates conference provides the latest information on infectious and
chronic disease research and treatments, as well as other timely clinical issues in correctional health
care.
NCCHC also provides technical assistance and quality improvement reviews on correctional
health care management and policy issues, and develops and publishes research on the correctional
health care field. In addition, NCCHC operates the national certification program for correctional
health professionals, sponsors other educational and training programs, and publishes numerous
support texts.
NCCHC SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
Academy of Correctional Health Professionals
American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Academy of Physician Assistants
American Academy of Psychiatry & the Law
American Association for Correctional & Forensic Psychology
American Association of Public Health Physicians
American Bar Association
American College of Emergency Physicians
American College of Healthcare Executives
American College of Neuropsychiatrists
American College of Physicians
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Correctional Health Services Association
American Counseling Association
American Dental Association
American Diabetes Association
2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

61

American Dietetic Association
American Health Information Management Association
American Jail Association
American Medical Association
American Nurses Association
American Osteopathic Association
American Pharmacists Association
American Psychiatric Association
American Psychological Association
American Public Health Association
American Society of Addiction Medicine
John Howard Association
National Association of Counties
National Association of County and City Health Officials
National Association of Social Workers
National District Attorneys Association
National Juvenile Detention Association
National Medical Association
National Sheriffs’ Association
Society for Adolescent Medicine
Society of Correctional Physicians

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

62

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

63

APPENDIX B
NCCHC’s Consultants’ Biographies
B. Jaye Anno, PhD, CCHP-A is a criminologist specializing in correctional health administration
and compliance with national correctional health care standards. She operates a correctional health
care consulting firm, Consultants in Correctional Care. Dr. Anno is an experienced researcher,
lecturer, and author in correctional health care. She is the editor and principal author of the major
reference book for the field, Correctional Health Care: Guidelines for the Management of an Adequate Delivery
System, 2001 edition, and has written numerous other articles and reports on correctional health care
topics. She is a past editor of the Journal on Correctional Health Care and former author of the “Q & A
on NCCHC Standards” column for the quarterly newspaper, CORRECTCARE. Dr. Anno was
recognized by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies of Sciences for her role in
developing correctional health care, receiving the Gustav O. Lienhard Award for the Advancement
of Personal Health Services. Dr. Anno received the Distinguished Service Award of the American
Correctional Health Services Association and the NCCHC’s Award of Merit. In 1999, she received
the “Award of Excellence in Correctional Health Care Communications” from the National
Commission on Correctional Health Care. Dr. Anno received her PhD from the University of
Maryland.
R. Scott Chavez, PhD, MPA, CCHP-A, PA is vice-president for the NCCHC and served as
project manager for the NCCHC-NIC’s A Comprehensive Assessment of Medical Care in the Wisconsin State
Prison System. Dr. Chavez was the coordinator for the NCCHC Congressional study on The Health
Status of Soon-To-Be-Released Inmates project. His responsibilities with the NCCHC include technical
assistance on health care standards, quality improvement, risk management, and organizational
development in correctional health care systems. He currently co-authors the “Q & A on NCCHC
Standards” column for the quarterly newspaper, CORRECTCARE. Dr. Chavez was the principal
investigator for a NCCHC-CDC cooperative agreement on “Hepatitis Curricula for Correctional
Officers and Inmates” and the principal author for the “Tobacco Cessation Curriculum for
Correctional Populations.” He has given numerous presentations and has authored chapters on
2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

64

evidence based medicine, public health, and physician assistant utilization in corrections. Dr.
Chavez received his PhD from Walden University, with a dissertation on organizational factors
correlated to quality public and private correctional health care systems. He has a master’s degree in
public administration from the University of Nebraska, Omaha and a PA credential from
Dartmouth Medical School.
Rochelle Daneluk, RN, MPA, CCHP is a certified correctional health care professional and lead
surveyor for the NCCHC. As a registered nurse, Mrs. Daneluk held several health care
administrative positions in the Michigan Department of Corrections, Bureau of Health Care
Services. Prior to retirement, she was the Infectious Disease Coordinator for five years. Her
responsibilities included the statewide coordination of Infectious Disease Control and Prevention
for prisoners and employees, focusing on HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, tuberculosis and other
communicable diseases. Mrs. Daneluk, in collaboration with the Michigan Department of
Community Health, was one of the principle coordinators for the statewide Hepatitis B Vaccination
Project for MDOC prisoners. She received the “ASTHO 2000 Vision Award” in recognition of a
commitment to excellence from the Michigan Department of Community Health. She designed
and implemented a statewide nursing preceptorship program, with the assistance of MDOC nursing
directors, for newly hired nurses entering the Michigan correctional health system. Since 1988, she
has presented several workshops on topics related to correctional health care for the NCCHC
national conferences. Mrs. Daneluk earned a Masters Degree in Public Administration and a
Bachelors of Science in Health Studies from Western Michigan University.
David Hellerstein, MD, PhD retired in July 2006, as Chief Medical Officer for Medical and Public
Health Programs, Division of Correctional Health Care Services, California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). His responsibilities at CDCR included clinical guideline
development, clinical quality monitoring programs, court mandated statewide healthcare policy and
procedure development, physician training, pharmaceutical formulary management, and HIPAA
compliance. Dr. Hellerstein led the health care services team that developed, piloted, and
implemented the computer-based Inmate Patient Scheduling, Tracking, and Quality Monitoring
2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

65

System used throughout the California prison system. He continues to serve as a consultant to
CDCR. Dr. Hellerstein has published on correctional health care in CORRECTCARE. and the
Journal of Correctional Health Care. He sits on the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the National
Commission on Correctional Health Care. Dr. Hellerstein earned his bachelor’s and master’s
degrees from Harvard University, his PhD from Stanford University, his MD from the University of
California, San Diego, and completed his residency at the University of California, San Francisco. He
is board certified in internal medicine and emergency medicine.
Marcia Jenkinson, RN formerly served as an auditor for the Michigan Department of Corrections
Bureau of Health Care providing quality review audit services for consent decree cases and Michigan
Department of Corrections facilities to promote the delivery of health care services to prisoners. As
Litigation Coordinator for Regional Management Team members, she was recipient and responder
to prisoner litigation to concurrent work with the Office of the Attorney General, State of Michigan.
Along with specialization in audit performance and review, she acted as Grievance Coordinator for
advanced level prisoner grievances within her region. Marcia was the Continuous Quality
Improvement Coordinator for two regions within the state and served as resource liaison between
staff and management as facilitator. Her responsibilities also included course development and
training staff in Quality Assurance. She has been a member of Women in Corrections lecturing on
the Unique Health Care Needs of the Female Offender, was a committee member for the youthful
offender study, and has hosted various “Wellness” booths promoting employee health care. Marcia
graduated from Oakland Community College in Nursing, and attended the University of Michigan
for Total Quality Management graduating as a certified trainer. Marcia was presented with the “2001
Quality Excellence Award” by the Bureau of Health Care, and is currently employed with Oakland
County, State of Michigan.
Lambert King, MD, PhD is Director of Medicine at Queens Hospital Center. He attended the
University of Chicago where he received his MD degree and a PhD degree in Experimental
Pathology. He is a recipient of the HIV Clinical Excellence Award from the New York State AIDS
Institute. Dr. King has published studies on the epidemiology of diseases, including tuberculosis and
2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

66

epilepsy, in jails and prisons and the organization and improvement of health services within
correctional institutions. He is principal investigator for an NCCHC-sponsored national project to
identify best practice models for continuity of care between prisons and local communities.
Joseph Paris, MD, PhD, CCHP-A. Joe Paris obtained an MD from Boston University in 1975.
After four years of residency in internal medicine in Boston and in Worcester, Massachusetts, he
became a Diplomate of the American Board of Internal Medicine in 1979. After a few years in
private practice, Joe entered correctional medicine in the Florida DOC in 1985 and treated
thousands of correctional patients in various Florida State prisons. He was the first Florida
correctional physician to prescribe AZT to an inmate. In 1991 he became Medical Director of the
Florida Prison Hospital in Lake Butler where he treated inpatients and outpatients from all of
Florida prisons. In 1995, he came to the Georgia Department of Corrections in Atlanta and became
Statewide Medical Director, a title he retained in 1997 when the Medical College of Georgia entered
a partnership with the Georgia Department of Corrections for the delivery of correctional health
care throughout the Georgia prisons. He retired from the DOC at the end of 2005 and began parttime public health work with HIV patients. Joe is a founding member and Past President of the
Society of Correctional Physicians (SCP). He is also Past President of the Florida Chapter of the
American Correctional Health Services Association and a Board Member of the Certified
Correctional Health Professionals and of the Correctional Medical Institute. In 2002, he received the
Armond Start Award, the highest commendation of the SCP. He is the author of dozens of
specialized correctional publications and has presented his work in over a hundred national
meetings. He is the author of several chapters in the textbook Clinical Care in Corrections, first
published in 1998 and reedited in 2005. Joe is in demand as a correctional health care consultant, a
lecturer, a surveyor of the National Commission on Correctional Health Care, and as an expert
witness in correctional health care litigation.
William Reinbold, MD served seven years as the Director of Mental Health at the then 7,200
inmate Orleans Parish Prison (New Orleans’ municipal population area). This preceded his now sixyear tenure as the Director of Psychiatry at Angola (Louisiana’s maximum security facility). He has
2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

67

served in over seventy NCCHC accreditation and technical assistance audits. He has been involved
as well in many other audits in various states based on his full time correctional experience and
extensive work as a correctional systems evaluator. He is American Board of Psychiatry and
Neurology certified in General, Forensic, and Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. He is an Assistant
Professor of Clinical Psychiatry in the LSU Psychiatry Department.
Andrew Savicky, PhD is a forensic psychologist specializing in correctional mental health care and
treatment. He is presently the Chief Psychologist and Director of Mental Health for the New Jersey
Department of Corrections. Dr. Savicky has over thirty years of experience in psychology, and is a
sought after lecturer and presenter at numerous professional conferences and meetings. He is the
coauthor of the book A World Without Tears which examined the mind of the infamous Charles
Rothenberg case for the National Burn Victim Foundation. Dr. Savicky has provided consultation
to other states on correctional policies and procedures, with a focus on compliance with NCCHC
standards. His expertise on suicide prevention; behavior support plans for hard to manage inmates;
sex offender treatment; psychological testing; and women’s issues in corrections; has yielded
numerous consultations to colleagues in the corrections field. Recently he returned from a tour of
duty in the combat zone of Kirkuk, Iraq as a Lt Col., and Chief of Life Skills. Dr. Savicky received
his PhD from the Graduate Faculty of the University of Pennsylvania and holds an MA in National
Security and Strategic Studies from the US Naval War College.
Ralph Woodward, MD is a physician specializing in correctional medicine and has been Director
of Health Services for the New Jersey State Department of Corrections since 2004. He was the
software developer for NCCHC’s Analysis of Chronic Care Disease – a Robert Wood Johnson
funded project. Dr. Woodward has authored two chapters on electronic health records in
correctional medicine in Clinical Practice in Correctional Medicine 2nd edition and Public Health Behind Bars:
From Prisons to Communities. Dr. Woodward earned his BS degree from Rutgers University, a Master’s
in Biology from Stroudsburg University, a medical degree from UMAN, and a fellowship in
infectious diseases from Seton Hall University.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

68

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

69

APPENDIX C
NCCHC’s Chronic Care Guideline Worksheets

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

76

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

77

APPENDIX D
MORTALITY REVIEW DETAILS
Duane Waters Health Center
Case 1
Pre-morbid care:

Date of Death: 38895

Age: 80

Gender: Female

Severe advanced dementia case at DWHC for 10 years due to normal
pressure hydrocephalus (NPH) evolving for many years. He also may have
had a stroke in 1995. Incidental history of coronary artery disease and post
myocardial infarction. There was no linear record or historical evidence of
when he developed the normal pressure hydrocephalus. He was never
considered for a shunt. Infirmary-style care was given for his dense organic
brain syndrome.

Morbid care:

All at DWHC

Events during death Developed pneumonia at DWHC, did not respond to antibiotics and
process:

expired quietly despite supportive care.

Mortality Review:

Conducted by Central Office medical staff. Performed on December 20,
2006, nearly 6 months after the death. No findings were made. No actions
were taken. Case closed the same day.

COMMENT:

The MDOC Committee should have considered the matter of why the
dementia was not worked up at onset. In some cases, dementia progression
may be halted by the performance of a ventricular shunt, which may be
effective in normal pressure hydrocephalus. The MDOC Committee should
have considered additional education and training at the institution where
the dementia work-up was omitted. NCCHC’s standards require mortality
reviews to occur within 30 days of death.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

78

Southern Michigan Correctional Facility
Case 2
Pre-morbid care:

Date of Death: 38997

Age: 61

Gender: Male

This male inmate died of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA)
pneumonia and end-stage Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. The
massive records on hand showed multiple admissions to hospitals for
exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Although he had
been in prison since 2001, most of the time he was at “C” Unit (an
infirmary-like facility). He was on multiple medications for chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease, plus oxygen. No evidence of chronic care
visits was found in the extensive C-Unit record. However, it is policy to

Morbid care:

have all C-Unit patients seen by a physician monthly.
All at C-Unit plus a number of frequent hospitalizations.

Events during death He was at Foote Hospital in Jackson, MI, in a secure unit. He had an
exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease again and the
process:
hospital staff tried to turn him around. However, the combination of MRSA
pneumonia and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease could not be

Mortality Review:

overcome.
Conducted by regional office. No concerns found; however, it was noted
that the patient did not receive his Synthroid (thyroid medication) for 5 days.

COMMENT:

This would not have contributed to his death.
The mortality review findings were discussed with health care nurses at a
regional meeting in January 2007.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

79

G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility
Case 3
Pre-morbid care:

Date of Death: 38785
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Cause of death was metastatic lung cancer. Prior to diagnosis, he was at the
Canton Facility. Evidence of chronic care was found. As part of his routine
follow-up, a chest X ray was done on January 17, 2006. It showed a hilar

Morbid care:

mass.
By the time he was seen by oncology, metastases were in evidence. He

received chemotherapy, but eventually he stopped responding.
Events during death The patient received terminal care at DWHC, failed to respond, and expired.
process:
Mortality Review:

Central office conducted the review. Only nursing issues were found.

COMMENT:

Nursing issues charted as “communicated to region.” No details were
described.

G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility
Case 4
Pre-morbid care:

Date of Death: 38773
Age: 52
Gender: Male
This 52 year old male died of metastatic colon cancer. While at Cotton he
was treated for emphysema, Hepatitis C, and hypertension. On February 1,
2006 he developed abdominal pain and increased girth. He was sent to the
emergency department and was admitted. Metastatic colon carcinoma was
found by exploratory laparotomy. No evidence of colonoscopy at age 50 or

Morbid care:

yearly stool guaiacs.
Transferred to DWHC for terminal care.

Events during death Died at DWHC after hospice-type care delivered.
process:
Mortality Review:

Performed by central office medical staff. No observations were made on
the lack of screening colonoscopy or stool guaiacs. One observation was
made on nursing issues. No copy of a regional mortality review was found.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

80

COMMENT:

Nursing issues “will be addressed by Region II Nursing Director.”
However, central office medical staff should have noted the lack of
screening colonoscopy at age 50 and the lack of yearly stool guaiacs.

Parnall Correctional Facility
Case 5
Pre-morbid care:

Date of Death: 38812
Age: 92
Gender: Male
He had a positive PPD since 1995. He refused chest X ray and medical
exam on August 10, 2002. A suspicious chest X ray and blood in sputum
were found on September 3, 2002. A lung mass was found on chest CT on

Morbid care:

October 10, 2002. He refused bronchoscopy on November 6, 2002.
Transferred to DWHC for care of terminal lung cancer. At C-Unit until
March 21, 2005, he received palliative care. He declined chemotherapy or

surgical interventions.
Events during death After March 21, 2005, palliative care was continued at DWHC. He gradually
lost weight and strength, and passed away.
process:
Mortality Review:

Central Office conducted the review and no issues were found.

COMMENT:

Central Office medical staff should have found that, following the finding of
a suspicious chest X ray and blood in sputum for a positive tuberculin skin
test the patient should have been placed in isolation pending the harvesting
of negative sputum for acid-fast bacillus.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

81

G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility
Case 6
Pre-morbid care:

Date of Death: 38821
Age: 77
Gender: Male
JCF and JCS: He had his chronic care visits at the Cardiac /Hypertension

Morbid care:

clinic, where his blood pressure was controlled.
After an intracranial bleed, he was transferred to Foote Hospital for care,
but his condition was not survivable and he passed away. Death due to
intracranial hemorrhage and hypertension.

Events during death He slowly slipped away at Foote Hospital.
process:
Mortality Review:

Review performed by Central Office. No findings.

COMMENT:

None.

Southern Michigan Correctional Facility
Case 7
Pre-morbid care:

Date of Death: 39035
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Since April 2004, he was being treated at DWHC by a consulting surgeon
who felt he had a long term problem with ischio rectal abscess. Over time,
he received antibiotics, debridement, and appeared to have been healing.
Cancer was suspected on August 10, 2004, and a colonoscopy

Morbid care:

recommended. It was performed around October, 2004.
He was diagnosed on November 4, 2004 by biopsy as having a 12 cm mass
of the anus, proven to be carcinomatous. He was staged and given
chemotherapy by oncologists, and also given radiotherapy. He received a

diverting colostomy for relief. Death due to metastatic anal cancer
Events during death At DWHC, he dwindled, developed local metastases to bone and lymph
nodes, could not be nourished, and passed away.
process:
Mortality Review:

Done by regional staff, who found that the diagnosis was not timely.
Specifically, they felt that a CMS MD whose signature was unreadable, did
anal visual inspections, but no digital exam.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

82

With respect to the regional office finding, no action could be taken

COMMENT:

“because the MD in question remains unknown.” This was an inadequate
response. The Committee should at least have addressed the question of
why it took the treating surgeon four months to suspect malignancy when
treating this inmate for ischio-rectal infection since April 2004.

Originally from JCS, he was later sent to C-Unit and DWHC.
Case 8
Pre-morbid care:

Date of Death: 38735
Age: 79
Gender: Male
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was present at least since 1990 and

Morbid care:

he received appropriate care.
While at C-Unit, he was reviewed monthly by MD. Death caused by chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease, plus diabetes mellitus and chronic renal

failure.
Events during death In his old age, he became cyanotic with minimal effort, required maximal
oxygen therapy and required narcotics for pain. He expired with respiratory
process:
failure and multiple medical problems.
Mortality Review:

Done by Central Office. No findings.

COMMENT:

None

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

83

G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility
Case 9
Pre-morbid care:

Date of Death: 38740
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Initially, he had chronic care visits for hypertension, which was controlled by
the last visit on November 2005. There was an unscheduled visit to an RN
on October 12, 2005 for 4 weeks of episodes of chest pains lasting 30
minutes; blood pressure uncontrolled at 172/104. The RN reassured him,
did not write referrals to MD, did not obtain chest X ray or EKG. He
received Tylenol. He was seen on October 13, 2005 by another RN for
uncontrolled blood pressure (144/82) and headache over the eyes. The
patient had been holding off certain medications because of lack of faith in
his newly prescribed medications. On October 14, 2005 he transferred to
JCF, where he had chronic care visits and controlled blood pressure.
However, apparently a physician discontinued Tenormin, Verapamil, and
other drugs except Clonidine, which was given regularly but “abruptly
decreased.” By January 23, 2006 he went into a hypertensive crisis with

Morbid care:

blood pressure of 220/110 and was transferred to the Foote Hospital.
At Foote Hospital, maximal efforts were made, but he was brain dead.

Death due to acute cerebral hemorrhage and long standing hypertension.
Events during death He was disconnected from life support and expired.
process:
Mortality Review:

Done by Central Office, who found that the discontinuation of many
hypertensive drugs by a JCF physician was not adequately performed or
monitored. Central Office referred the matter to the CMS medical director

COMMENT:

for follow-up.
The physician in question was referred to the Michigan Health Professional
Recovery Program for evaluation of cognitive impairment and thereafter
resigned from the Michigan DOC.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

84

Duane Waters Health Center
Case 10
Pre-morbid care:

Date of Death: 38878
Age: 53
Gender: Male
He was at DWHC when, in early January 2005, he had a hospital admission
for chest pain and a hemoglobin of 5. The hospital diagnosed gastric ulcer,
rule out gastric carcinoma. Cancer was diagnosed a few weeks later by

Morbid care:

biopsy and he had a gastrectomy on January 31, 2005.
The last 2 months were spent at DWHC receiving palliative care

interspersed with chemotherapy rounds and admissions to Foote Hospital.
Events during death He slowly deteriorated, became malnourished despite all efforts, needed a
morphine drip, and went downhill. He passed away with peritoneal
process:
Mortality Review:

carcinomatosis. Death due to metastatic stomach cancer.
Done by Central Office. There was only one finding: issues with the dialysis
services at Foote Hospital. Dialysis issues were discussed with Foote

COMMENT:

Hospital authorities.
None

Huron Valley Men’s Facility
Case 11
Pre-morbid care:

Date of Death: 39078
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Known to be hepatitis C virus (HCV) positive since early 2005. He was
enrolled in the HCV Chronic Care Clinic and had visits. At times, ALT
(liver study) was elevated. It is not known why he was not considered a
candidate for interferon at any of these visits in 2005. The 2005 outpatient
records could not be found. In 2006, he had adequate chronic care visits,
but by then he was not a candidate for interferon, because his INR (test to

Morbid care:

study blood coagulation) was up and platelets were down.
At HVM, he became confused, had a short visit to an emergency room,
returned to HVM, and was placed at the infirmary on December 27, 2006.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

85

Events during death He was found unresponsive at the HVM infirmary on December 28, 2006,
given cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and transported via rescue to the
process:
emergency room, where he was pronounced dead. Cause of death: chronic
active hepatitis C, cirrhosis of the liver, pneumonia, and dehydration. Other
diagnoses: hypothyroidism on Synthroid and Bipolar Disorder on Prolixin,

Mortality Review:

Depakene, and Cogentin.
Done by regional staff: There were multiple findings, including inaccurate
diagnosis, diagnosis not timely, inappropriate treatment, also not timely and
preventable death. They also found multiple episodes of not getting his
Synthroid, and not notifying psychiatrist of same. Another finding:
Synthroid was not increased in response to multiple elevated TSH ( test to
evaluate thyroid level in the blood). A transfer from HVM to Riverside
should not have happened. Dehydration should not have happened. The
multiple Regional Office concerns were communicated to Central Office
and a corrective action plan devised. The case was not closed by Central

COMMENT:

Office until implementation was verified.
The 2005 records should be found and the lack of documentation of
whether he was a candidate for interferon therapy should be addressed.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

86

G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility
Case 12
Pre-morbid care:

Date of Death: 39069
Age: 49
Gender: Male
All chest X rays during his chronic care were benign, without masses. His
HIV was being treated regularly at DWHC with visits to consultants who
regulated his HAART. These HIV specialists became concerned, because
by July 2006, the patient had developed clubbing and weight loss. The
specialists wrote about these concerns in their chart notes, but apparently
the primary care providers at JCF did not act upon these recommendations.
A chest X ray at Foote Hospital was normal on November 20, 2006. During
a visit to Foote Hospital on December 1, 2006 for servicing of a Port-ACath, a chest X ray revealed a right lower lobe density and elevation of the
hemidiaphragm, raising the suspicion of effusion or atelectasis. He stayed at
Foote Hospital, was diagnosed with lung carcinoma via chest CT, and was

Morbid care:

too advanced for any therapy to succeed, with brain and other metastases.
Despite efforts, he died at Foote Hospital in a few days. Only brain
radiotherapy was recommended. The chest tumor was too advanced to

benefit. Death caused by metastatic lung cancer plus AIDS.
Events during death He could not be turned around at Foote Hospital.
process:
Mortality Review:

Done by regional staff: The review described the failure of JCF primary care
MDs to review HIV specialist’ notes and to act upon them. The JCF doctor

COMMENT:

in question no longer works for the MI DOC.
None

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

87

Robert Scott Correctional Facility
Case 13
Pre-morbid care:

Date of Death: 38956
Age: 56
Gender: Female
She came to the system on October 13, 2000. She had a routine screening
mammogram on January 10, 2001, which was completely negative. On July
18, 2001 a breast biopsy was requested, because of an enlarged lymph node
near her left clavicle. A surgeon performed a biopsy on August 10, 2001; it
was positive for breast carcinoma. By late 2001, she had Stage IV metastatic

Morbid care:

breast carcinoma, for which she was being treated appropriately.
Following the metastatic breast cancer diagnosis, the patient had visits to
specialists, chemotherapy, etc. She slowly went downhill of metastatic

disease.
Events during death Cared for at Harper Hospital from August 25, 2006 through her death on
August 28, 2006.
process:
Mortality Review:

Done by regional staff. Findings: There were several issues with timeliness
of certain medical services after she was diagnosed. Also there was an issue
with timeliness of the biopsy after the initial request (there was a 3-4 week

COMMENT:

delay).
These issues were addressed by regional staff and one provider was replaced.
Staff education recommended for these issues.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

88

Karmanos Cancer Center, from Charles E. Egeler Reception and Guidance Center
Case 14
Pre-morbid care:

Date of Death: 38765
Age: 48
Gender: Male
This 48 year old male from Midland County Jail came to RGC on January
30, 2006. At the jail, he was said to have been on a 30-day “hunger strike”
when, in fact, he could not eat. He was also incontinent of bowel and urine,
uncommunicative, and uncooperative. He had a history of hepatitis A, B and
D, plus dyslipidemia and mental health problems. Since arrival at RGC, he
took only Ensure. On January 31, 2006, RGC sent the inmate directly to the
Foote Hospital, where a brain CT proved the diagnosis to be a glioblastoma.
He also had a brain hemorrhage with hydrocephalus, which necessitated a
ventriculostomy. Foote staff stabilized him and sent him to the Harper
Hospital, then to the Karmanos Cancer Center for terminal care on

Morbid care:

February 8, 2006.
Terminal, palliative care was given at Karmanos Cancer Center.

Events during death He passed away quietly.
process:
Mortality Review:

Done by Central Office. No findings made.

COMMENT:

None

Duane Waters Health Center
Case 15
Pre-morbid care:

Date of Death: 38808
Age: 37
Gender: Male
This patient was known to be HIV+ since 1986. He developed colon cancer
by September 2005, when he had a surgical resection as a free person. No
chemotherapy was given, because of his low CD4 count. Intake for his last
incarceration began in December 2005. He was sent to DWHC, where he
was followed by a HIV specialist with consultation reports and frequent
progress notes.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

89

Morbid care:

Death caused by HIV and metastatic colon cancer. While at DWHC, he
developed metastases at the incision site and other areas. Palliative care was

instituted.
Events during death The patient died of overwhelming metastatic disease.
process:
Mortality Review:

Done by Central Office. No findings.

COMMENT:

None

G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility
Case 16
Pre-morbid care:

Date of Death: 39039
Age: 46
Gender: Male
He returned to prison November 2004. At intake, he was noted to have
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and congestive heart failure with
edema, a history of cardiac disease, and he was taking Imdur, Lanoxyl, other

Morbid care:

cardiac meds.
While there were progress notes which evidenced a number of clinic visits,
hospital admissions, and medication administration, no evidence of chronic
care visits was found in this review. These visits presumably took place
monthly at the C-Unit, but the C-Unit record had not been forwarded to

Central Office yet so it could not be reviewed.
Events during death He was found unresponsive in his cell at DWHC. He was rushed to Foote
Hospital, but he could not be resuscitated. Cause of death was congestive
process:
heart failure and coronary artery disease.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

90

Mortality Review:

Done by Regional Office. There were some concerns regarding the quality
of pain management therapies and the quality of documentation. Dr.
Savage, Regional Medical Director, discussed his concerns with Dr.
Pramstaller of Central Office. The main concern was regarding Institutional
Pain Management Committee decisions, which need to be entered in Serapis
(electronic medical record system). This case was not closed. However, per
Dr. Pramstaller, it appears that for the last 32 months, Institutional Pain
Management Committee decisions were entered in Serapis. Note: the

COMMENT:

Institutional Pain Management Committee is composed of all physicians.
None

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

91

Duane Waters Health Center
Case 17
Pre-morbid care:

Date of Death: 38817
Age: 83
Gender: Male
He came to prison in 2000, age 76, with surprisingly little chronic disease.
His intake physical did not include a rectal exam. The practitioner charted
“refused. However, no signed refusal could be found. In a few days, it was
found that his PSA (Prostate Specific Antigen) was at the upper limits of
normal for his age, and “Benign prostatic hypertrophy, rule/out prostate
carcinoma” was suspected, with the recommendation that it be followed. By
January 2001, PSA was repeated and it was higher. A urology consult was
requested on January 15, 2001, and performed on April 23, 2001. No refusal
was found to explain the 3-month delay. The urologist did not find cancer,
only benign prostatic hypertrophy. He was referred to urology again on
October 3, 2003. The urologist found a large enlarged prostate, but no
nodules. Rectal ultrasound and biopsy were recommended. Apparently, the
patient refused these to the urologist. Evidence of yearly complete physicals
including rectal exams and PSA was found in the chart for 2002 and 2003.
An exam was mentioned as performed on August 3, 2004, but could not be
found in the chart or Serapis electronic records. By October of 2004, he
started losing weight with poor appetite and intake. By March 2, 2005, he
was referred to an urologist with a PSA of 700, metastases by bone scan,
anemia, and full blown prostate carcinoma. He refused surgery to the

Morbid care:

consultant.
He went to Detroit Medical Center for a bilateral orchiectomy on February

23, 2005.
Events during death At DWHC, he had palliative care until he expired of prostate carcinoma
with metastases.
process:

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

92

Mortality Review:

Done by Central Office. No problems found. Our review found that followup of a rising PSA and BPH in elderly male was performed adequately until
2004, when documentation of such follow-ups could not be found. By 2005,
his disease was not operable. The Central Office Mortality Review should

COMMENT:

have mentioned these facts.
None

Duane Waters Health Center
Case 18
Pre-morbid care:

Date of Death: 38952
Age: 51
Gender: Male
He came to prison for the last time in 1991. Hepatitis C virus (HCV) was
diagnosed in 1998 on top of his previously known hepatitis B positive

Morbid care:

status.
The patient’s liver enzymes had been elevated at least since 1999 and he was
aware of his condition. He wrote an emergency request for hepatitis C virus
care on April 17, 2003, but it was denied. An initial HCV database was
completed on December 8, 2003. He had already a slight elevation of
bilirubin, low platelets, and persistently elevated ALT. He was not offered
interferon therapy. On May 13, 2004, there was a hepatitis C follow-up visit.
The doctor found him to have tense ascites, palmar erythema and pedal
edema. Pro-time was elevated. Lasix was increased. Thereafter, he was
followed closely. Ascites was controlled for a while. However, by May 2005,
his ammonia level was climbing. He was placed on lactulose. On August 22,
2005 he vomited blood and went to the emergency room. Cause of death

was end-stage cirrhosis of the liver due to hepatitis C virus.
Events during death He was at DWHC where terminal care of the cirrhotic patient took place
until he expired.
process:

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

93

Mortality Review:

Done by Regional Office. No findings were made. Our review found that in
2003, there should have been at least a notation of why this patient was or
was not a candidate for interferon therapy. Therapy with plain interferon has
been available in correctional systems since 1999. Interferon plus ribavirin
became the standard of care in corrections in 2003, and should have been

COMMENT:

considered.
None

Duane Waters Health Center
Case 19
Pre-morbid care:

Date of Death: 38777

Age: 69

Gender: Male

He came to the system in July of 2004. Diabetes mellitus was found and
cared for. He had quit smoking 30 years previously. By February 9, 2005, he
presented to an RN and then to a MD with productive cough, positional,
chest pain with cough, wheezing and shortness of breath, night sweats,
headache, fatigue, and nausea. The MD prescribed antibiotics, Tessalon, an
inhaler, and charted to return to clinic as needed in 4 days. The patient
requested a visit for cough again on February 25, 2005, and was seen on
March 1, 2005. A nurse gave over-the-counter medications. He was also
seen in chronic clinic, but no chest X ray was taken.
By January 31, 2006, he had lost 20 pounds in the last 3 months, had
developed weakness, anorexia and new lumps in the neck and abdomen. He
was sent to the Chippewa Hospital Emergency Room. A chest X ray
showed a lung mass and a CT showed multiple liver metastases. An
oncologist recommended palliative treatment, but no chemotherapy or

Morbid care:

radiotherapy.
Was performed at DWHC, consisting of palliation. Death caused by
metastatic lung cancer, plus diabetes mellitus.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

94

Events during death Orders to not resuscitate. He was found unresponsive in his bed.
process:
Mortality Review:

Done by Central Office. Findings: None. NCCHC does not concur. He
should have been diagnosed almost a year earlier, when he presented to the
nurse on February 9, 2005 with classic symptoms suggestive of cancer. The
nurse properly referred him to a MD, but the MD did not perform a chest X

COMMENT:

ray. The Central Office Committee Review did not mention this oversight.
None

Duane Waters Health Center
Case 20
Pre-morbid care:

Date of Death: 38911
Age: 82
Gender: Male
His last incarceration began in 1992, at age 72. There were no findings on
intake exam. He refused his annual exam in 1993. He had nurse annual
screenings in 1994 and 1995. He refused chronic care in 1996 and refused
annual screening in 1997. The status of the 1998 annual exam is unknown.
He had another annual health screening by a nurse in 1999. He refused
annual screenings in 2000 and 2001, but had them in 2002 and 2003. He
refused annual screening again in 2004. He had a nurse annual screening in
2005, but refused the blood tests. He refused blood tests again in early 2006.
He developed a non-healing axillary abscess in February of 2006. He was
referred to the Foote Hospital, because of the abscess. At Foote, anemia was
found, and Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia (CML) was diagnosed by bone

Morbid care:

marrow biopsy.
At Foote Hospital, a hematologist diagnosed CML plus axillary lymphoma
via bone marrow biopsy. He was transfused. Chemotherapy was not

acceptable to the patient and he did not receive it.
Events during death At DWHC, he had epistaxis and lasted only two days, being found dead in
bed.
process:

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

95

Mortality Review:

Done by Central Office. No findings were made. NCCHC concurs, but with
the comment that the several annual screenings performed (1994, 1995,
1999, 2002, 2003, and 2005) were charted as performed by nurses with no
indication that a physician examined the patient. According to Dr.
Pramstaller, annual exams in the elderly are performed by nurses, with
referral to a physician only if there are findings. Apparently, this policy is in
the process of changing. Annual physicals for elderly inmates are to be

COMMENT:

performed by physicians.
None

Duane Waters Health Center, C-Unit
Case 21
Pre-morbid care:

Date of Death: 38731
Age: 58
Gender: Male
This inmate had been in prison since 2003. He developed gastrointestional
bleeding and was sent to the Foote Hospital. He had signs and symptoms of
gastric carcinoma, was promptly diagnosed, and given chemotherapy by an

Morbid care:

oncologist.
He received chemotherapy and was placed at DWHC for long term care.
Cause of death was metastatic gastric carcinoma, with diabetes mellitus and
hepatitis C virus.

Events during death He received palliative care until he was found dead in bed at DWHC.
process:
Mortality Review:

Done by Central Office. No findings. NCCHC concurs.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

96

Marquette Branch Prison
Case 22
Pre-morbid care:

Date of Death: 38755
Age: 45
Gender: Male
He was in prison since June of 2001. He was known to have high

Morbid care:

cholesterol since September 27, 2001, when his level was 261.
By March 10, 2005, his cholesterol had increased to 311. Despite the early
finding of hypercholesterolemia, the record did not evidence therapy for
hyperlipidemia or visits to chronic care for it until August 3, 2005, when he
was started on Mevacor. His medication administration record (MAR)
showed a gap (a period without Mevacor) between August 31, 2005 and
October 3, 2005. By June 6, 2005, his cholesterol had dropped to 216. By
September 27, 2005, it had dropped further to 196, then to182 on January
12, 2006. Cause of death was acute myocardial infarction, with
contributory factors being hyperlipidemia and history of smoking.

Events during death The inmate was playing hackysack in the prison yard when he became lightprocess:

headed, sat down, and stopped breathing. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation
was given, and the automatic external defibrillator was used. Although it is
very likely that correctional officers started CPR and nurses continued it, the
health record did not describe the sequence of CPR events. Emergency
Medical Services was called. On arrival, EMS staff continued CPR, but he
could not be resuscitated.

Mortality Review:

Done by Central Office. No findings were made. NCCHC finds that the
Committee should have picked up the 4-year gap between diagnosing
hypercholesterolemia and treating it (2001 to 2005). While later treatment
succeeded in lowering cholesterol, the patient most likely had a cholesterol
level of over 300 for several years, thus contributing to the development of
plaques that may have led to his myocardial infarction and death.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

97

COMMENT:

None

G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility
Case 23
Pre-morbid care:

Date of Death: 38982
Age: 21
Gender: Male
The inmate was in the system since April 3, 2006. At intake, staff learned
that before incarceration, he had a near amputation of the left hand, which
needed reattachment. By May 3, 2006, while at JCF, he came to the clinic
with a leg boil. He stated that he had repeated staph infections in the past.
His skin infections recurred by August 13, 2006, when he presented to an

Morbid care:

RN with open, draining lesions of the fingers of the left hand.
The next day, August 14, 2006, a doctor detected a grossly infected left
middle finger He was given Augmentin and booked for a recheck in two
days. He did not improve, osteomyelitis was suspected, and he went to the
Foote Hospital emergency department on August 16, 2006. Emergency
department staff charted the presence of foul odor, discharge, and cellulitis
of the hand. Osteomyelitis of the hand was also suspected, and he was
admitted to Foote Hospital. Blood cultures were obtained. On August 24,
2006, at the Foote Hospital operating room, broad incision and drainage
were performed. He received IV Vancomycin for 6 weeks, as required for
osteomyelitis. Organisms grown were Serratia, Enterobacter, and MRSA
sensitive to Vancomycin. On August 28, 2006, he was discharged to DWHC
on IV Vancomycin, a full course of which was to be finished by the DWHC
staff.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

98

Events during death On September 22, 2006, he slumped, was cyanotic, had chest pain, shortness
of breath and an oxygen saturation of 70%. He was fluid resuscitated,
process:
oxygenated, and transported to the Foote emergency department again. IV
access was difficult, His heart rate shot up to 164 and he was intubated. He
went into Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and became harder and
harder to ventilate. Consideration of transfer to a major ICU center was
made, but he was unstable, went into flat line, and died. The autopsy report
read: dilated cardiomyopathy and congestive heart failure without obvious

Mortality Review:

cardiac infection.
Done by Regional Office. No findings made. NCCHC concurs.

COMMENT:

None

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

99

G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility
Case 24
Pre-morbid care:

Date of Death: 38831
Age: 56
Gender: Male
This inmate came to prison in 1989, when he was already HIV+. He was
initially followed frequently by internal medicine. In March of 1995, he was
enrolled in the HIV Clinic and started on AZT. Epivir was added in March

Morbid care:

of 1996.
During ID visits in September 2005, abdominal pain prompted an
abdominal work-up. Paraproteins were present, so a hematology work-up
was requested. A CT showed a pancreatic mass on 1-26-06. The next day, he
was admitted to Foote Hospital for a work-up. Pancreatic biopsy showed
adenocarcinoma. Metastases were present. IV Gemzar was tried by an
oncologist. Cause of death was pancreatic carcinoma, HIV+, hepatitis C

virus, and hypertension.
Events during death He returned to DWHC for palliative care and signed a DNR (do not
resuscitate). He was found dead in bed in a few weeks.
process:
Mortality Review:

Done by Central Office. There were no findings related to the death with
pancreatic carcinoma. They made an incidental finding: an institutional
primary care MD lacked the ability to recognize and treat patients coinfected with HIV-HCV. This matter was referred to the CMS Regional
Medical Director, Dr. Hutchinson, who responded to these concerns
appropriately and put them to rest. The case was closed by Central Office.

COMMENT:

NCCHC concurs.
None

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

100

Duane Waters Health Center
Case 25
Pre-morbid care:

Date of Death: 38814

Age: 62

Gender: Male

The inmate came into the system on April 27, 2004, already sick.
At intake, he described his diagnosis of laryngeal carcinoma in 2002, due to
chewing tobacco. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy were completed before
incarceration. In prison, he had checkups every other month. He was still
smoking cigarettes, but no longer chewing tobacco. He also had some

Morbid care:

chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
On April 28, 2004, he had a suspicious mole on the neck and he saw a
general surgeon on May 14, 2004. The mole was excised on July 14, 2004. It
was benign. On August 31, 2004, he had some laryngeal findings and a
biopsy was scheduled. On October 28, 2004, the biopsy was described at
Foote Hospital as suspicious, but not diagnostic for recurrence of
malignancy. He was referred to the University of Michigan Hospital for
further diagnosis. He continued to see ENT frequently through 2005. New
biopsies were obtained on October 10, 2005 and were still negative despite
strong clinical suspicions. There were gaps in primary care follow-up at the
institution. He began coughing and choking on December 10, 2005 and
went to the Foote emergency room. Recurrence of laryngeal carcinoma was
blamed. He had a large laryngeal mass, could not receive more radiotherapy,

and declined chemotherapy.
Events during death At DWHC, he received comfort measures only and expired of his large
tumor.
process:
Mortality Review:

Done by Central Office. The Committee had concerns about primary care
follow-up gaps, lack of review of pathology reports, and certain subsequent
actions. The CMS Regional Medical Director, Dr. Hutchinson, responded to

COMMENT:

all the concerns. NCCHC concurs.
Actions taken: Referred to Dr. Hutchinson to respond to concerns. Case is
still open.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

101

Duane Waters Health Center, C-Unit
Case 26
Pre-morbid care:

Date of Death: 38888
Age: 74
Gender: Male
This inmate came to corrections on October 26, 1999. He had non-insulin
dependent diabetes mellitus, emphysema, and hypertension. All appropriate
medications were continued. Chronic care visits were sporadic at first. Later

Morbid care:

on, he had these visits more regularly. By June 2002, he went to C-Unit.
On June 12, 2006, he was admitted to Foote Hospital with MRSA
pneumonia, acute respiratory failure, congestive heart failure, and his other
chronic conditions. He had complications and stayed at Foote Hospital until
June 21, 2006. He was discharged when no additional benefit from the
hospitalization could be obtained.

Events during death He returned to DWHC on June 12, 2006 and died later on that day. Cause
process:

of death was MRSA pneumonia. He also had diabetes mellitus, coronary
artery disease, and atrial fibrillation.

Mortality Review:

Done by Central Office. No findings. NCCHC concurs.

COMMENT:

None

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

102

Duane Waters Health Center
Case 27
Pre-morbid care:

Date of Death: 38741
Age: 53
Gender: Male
He came to the system on September 24, 2004. At intake, he was noted to
have status post myocardial infarction, pacemaker, congestive heart failure,
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and diabetes mellitus. He stated that
his last pacemaker check had been a year previously. He had a pacemaker
check on December 29, 2005. The battery was at the end of its life, so the
consultant recommended a battery change. Although he was seen by
cardiologists numerous times thereafter, the need for his pacemaker battery
replacement was not commented upon anymore. The record bore no

Morbid care:

evidence of further pacemaker testing or battery change.
While at DWHC, he was referred to the Foote Hospital for exacerbation of
congestive heart failure. A chest X ray showed a bilateral lung mass. He
was diagnosed with carcinoma, which was confirmed with a positive biopsy
lung. Chemotherapy was not possible, so he was recommended for

palliation.
Events during death He returned to DWHC on January 20, 2006 and died quietly on January 25,
2006.
process:
Mortality Review:

Done by Central Office. No issues found. NCCHC found that the
diagnosis and care of his terminal disease, lung cancer, met the standard of
care. However, the Mortality Committee did not take issue with the lack of
pacemaker testing. The pacemaker was tested only once in two years, when
it should have been tested monthly or at least every 3 months. The
Committee did not take issue with the lack of follow-up of directives to

COMMENT:

change the pacemaker battery, which was at the end of its life.
None

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

103

DWHC, from Chippewa Correctional Facility
Case 28
Pre-morbid care:

Date of Death: 39041
Age: 51
Gender: Male
This long-time heavy smoker came into the system in 1989. Chronic care
visits were regular until 2005, when they became sparse. By 2006, they were

Morbid care:

regular again.
By June 23, 2006, at Chippewa, he had weight loss, fatigue, dry cough, and
shortness of breath. On July 12, 2006, he was admitted for one day first to
Marquette Hospital then to Duane Waters Health Center (DWHC) for one
month for similar symptoms. Chest X ray and CT scan of the chest showed
a large mediastinal mass infiltrating the carina, trachea. A lung biopsy
showed squamous cell carcinoma. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy were
recommended. Chemotherapy was given July 17, 2006 at Foote Hospital via
Port-a-cath. Taxol, Carboplatin and biphosphonates were given. By then,

bone metastases were present. Radiotherapy was given as well.
Events during death On September 28, 2006 he was at DWHC for end-of-life care. He was
found dead in bed on November 21, 2006. Cause of death was lung cancer.
process:
Mortality Review:

He also had hypertension.
Done by Regional Office. Some nursing performance issues were raised.

COMMENT:

NCCHC concurs that no major issues of care were found.
Nursing performance review per Regional Office.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

104

Deerfield Correctional Facility, with a few days at DWHC
Case 29
Pre-morbid care:

Date of Death: 38794
Age: 60
Gender: Male
This inmate came to prison in 1984. He had paroxysmal ventricular
contractions as early as in 1988 and was on Norpace for a while. He was
enrolled in the cardiac chronic care clinic since 1996, and he had regular
clinic visits. His blood pressure was always low, perhaps reflecting a low

Morbid care:

cardiac output.
In early January of 2002, he had a stay at the Ionia Hospital, and then was
transferred to the Foote Hospital. From Foote, he went to the Sparrow
Hospital. These transfers were needed, because he had a myocardial
infarction which necessitated ICU care, a coronary artery bypass graft, and
an implantable cardiac defibrillator. These cardiac events were complicated
by gastrointestinal bleed and erosive gastritis. He was transferred to DWHC
on February 13, 2006 due to weakness, inability to walk to the bathroom,

and the onset of incontinence.
Events during death At DWHC, he was bedridden and essentially received pain management, as
all therapeutic options were exhausted. He developed shortness of breath on
process:
March 10, 2006, and he had another Foote Hospital emergency department
evaluation. He expired on the 19th. The death was deemed cardiac at

Mortality Review:

autopsy, with renal carcinoma being only a contributory factor.
Done by Central Office. No findings. NCCHC concurs.

COMMENT:

None

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

105

Duane Waters Health Center, C-Unit
Case 30
Pre-morbid care:

Date of Death: 38915
Age: 63
Gender: Male
He was diagnosed with small cell lung carcinoma in September of 2003.

Morbid care:

After a wedge resection of the lung, he received radiotherapy and
chemotherapy, consisting of Carboplatin and Taxol, then Gemcytabine. Due
to poor response to these, palliative therapy with IRESSA (treatment of
advanced non-small cell lung cancer) was necessary. All along, he needed

oral morphine for pain.
Events during death He was at the DWHC C-Unit since January, coping with terminal, metastatic
lung carcinoma, and suffering much pain, which was treated with morphine
process:
tablets. A morphine level at time of death and autopsy was 2.33 (0.1 to 0.8 is
the therapeutic level). At the Foote Hospital where he was taken initially, he
was observed to have a deep, self-inflicted neck laceration. He declared that
he had taken 600 mg of morphine tablets. Foote Hospital stabilized the
patient and referred him to the University of Michigan Hospital, where he

Mortality Review:

died of “suicide, due to morphine intoxication, plus metastatic lung cancer.”
Done by Central Office. They concluded that the diagnosis was not
appropriate, not timely, and the treatment was not appropriate and not
timely. While not stated in the Central Office report, it appeared that these
qualifiers were meant to describe the evaluation of suicidality of the patient,
not the quality of treatment of his lung cancer.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

106

COMMENT:

The matter was referred to the regional medical officer (RMO) and to a
psychiatrist. The psychiatrist prepared a lengthy description of this inmate’s
mental health history. He criticized the DWHC evaluation of the inmate’s
suicidality, pointing to the various weaknesses in his management and their
remedies. The RMO felt that the terminal management would not have
changed the outcome, but had comments on the use of morphine tablets for
a patient who had been suicidal previously when he overdosed with
tricyclics, suggesting that liquid methadone would have been a better choice.
These comments were accepted by Central Office. NCCHC generally
concurs with the process followed, but believes that a review of this type
needs to ask how the C-Unit staff handled the directly observed
administration of morphine tablets to a previously suicidal patient. Perhaps
closer monitoring of the tablet and liquid chaser swallowing process would
prevent similar occurrences in the future.

Baraga Maximum Correctional Facility
Case 31
Pre-morbid care:

Date of Death: 38768
Age: 40
Gender: Male
While at Baraga, and beginning on January 1, 2006, this patient developed
vague, fleeting symptoms including stomach discomfort. He had some
nursing and physician exams and a couple of runs to the emergency
department which were non-diagnostic. He developed night sweats,
hematuria, abdominal pain, and swelling. By February 8, 2006, Baraga health

Morbid care:

staff had requested an abdominal ultrasound.
He went to Marquette General Hospital on February 13, 2006, where a CT
of the abdomen and a CT-guided liver biopsy showed carcinomatosis
replacing 80% of his hepatic tissue. His condition was deemed terminal. An
oncologist did not feel that chemotherapy would work. A morphine drip
was started and he was kept comfortable.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

107

Events during death He died at Marquette General Hospital on February 21, 2006 of liver
carcinomatosis.
process:
Mortality Review:

Done by Central Office. No issues were found. NCCHC concurs.

COMMENT:

None

Charles E. Egeler Reception and Guidance Center
Case 32
Pre-morbid care:

Date of Death: 38982
Age: 39
Gender: Male
He had intake on September 22, 2006. The exam included a 17-question

Morbid care:

suicide screening.
He had only two positive responses to the intake suicide screening: He
checked that he was very worried about major problems (family) and that he
had a history of a previous suicide attempt with drug overdose in May of
2006. At the time of the events in question, intake inmates were referred to
mental health only if they responded positively to 6 or more of the 17
questions, or if they responded positively to a “red flag” question. The “red
flag” questions were not so marked, so inmates could not know which
questions were “red flags.” In any case, he was not referred immediately to
mental health. He would have been seen by mental health for a formal
intake evaluation in a few days, but he did not make it, committing suicide

before that date. He did not request a mental health evaluation either.
Events during death He wrote a suicide note, jumped from a 4th floor galley, crashed into a hard
floor, and was brought by Rescue to Foote Hospital, where he was
process:
Mortality Review:

pronounced dead of multiple injuries.
Done by Central Office and Regional Office. Regional staff opined that
there may have been problems with the standards used for referral to mental
health after screening and referred the matter to Central Office. Central
Office agreed that there may be a need to revise the standards for mental
health referral.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

108

COMMENT:

Central Office said that it would create a committee to formulate screening
and mental health referral standards for suicidality at intake. NCCHC
concurs with the actions taken.

Marquette Branch Prison
Case 33
Pre-morbid care:

Date of Death: 39005
Age: 40
Gender: Male
He was at MBP where he received cared for his uncontrolled insulin
dependent diabetes, diabetic uropathy with indwelling bladder catheter,
recurrent urinary tract infections and attention deficit disorder. He was on
Baclofen, Tenormin, Vasotec, Bactrim, Advair, Albuterol, Neurontin,
Norvasc, and Lantus. His Accuchecks were performed frequently, showing
primarily values between 300 and 600, with rare normal values. HbA1c
levels were on the very high side, with values in excess of 12%. While there
were hundreds of visits and care charted in Serapis for this patient, very few

Morbid care:

chronic care visits could be identified from the Serapis listings.
While at MBP, he developed nausea, vomiting, chest and abdominal pains,
and was admitted to Marquette General Hospital. Blood cultures were
positive for gamma hemolytic strep, a gram negative rod (Serratia), and
Enterococcus. He received antibiotics. An abdominal ultrasound showed
acalculous cholecystitis and a laparoscopic cholecystectomy was performed.
He developed hypotension and required continued endotrachial intubation
and dopamine. He remained on the ventilator in septic shock with metabolic

acidosis.
Events during death Despite all efforts, he could not be ventilated and expired at Marquette
General Hospital of multi-organ failure, insulin dependent diabetes, status
process:
post cholecystectomy, and sepsis.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

109

Mortality Review:

Done by Regional Office. No concerns were raised. A minor issue was
mentioned. When this inmate was found medically unsuitable to go to a
mental health residential treatment program, the information was
communicated verbally, without a health record entry on paper or

COMMENT:

electronically.
The above recommendation will be given to the MBP staff. NCCHC
concurs with findings and action taken.

Huron Valley Men’s Facility
Case 34
Pre-morbid care:

Date of Death: 38971
Age: 62
Gender: Male
This heavy smoker was in the system since 2001, when he came free of
tumor. However, he disclosed a history of Hodgkin’s lymphoma in 1970,
which had required radiotherapy and chemotherapy. A melanoma of the
face had been removed in 1999. Chest X ray showed incipient emphysema.
He spent most of his time at Saginaw Correctional Institution. In 2005, he
developed a suspicious neck lesion. A biopsy performed on July 29, 2005

Morbid care:

showed squamous cell carcinoma of the neck.
After surgery and dissection of the tumor, radiotherapy was tried for 6
weeks. At first he appeared to respond to radiotherapy. However, by May 8,
2006 he had a recurrence, and, on July 27, 2006, an oncologist felt that no
additional therapies were feasible. He was transferred to the HVM infirmary

on August 4, 2006 due to the need for terminal care.
Events during death He was kept comfortable, given pain relief, and was found dead in bed on
September 12, 2006. Cause of death was disseminated carcinoma of the
process:
neck, unresponsive to radiation therapy, coronary artery disease, and

Mortality Review:

emphysema.
Done by Central Office. No findings were made. NCCHC concurs.

COMMENT:

None

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

110

G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility (From JCS)
Case 35
Pre-morbid care:

Date of Death: 38988
Age: 54
Gender: Male
He came to the system in 1999 with no major medical conditions at intake.
By January 2003, however, he was at JCS and was started in the pulmonary
and diabetic chronic care clinics. He was noted to be positive for hepatitis C.
Chronic care visits were sporadic, however, and he was not seen in chronic
care until July of 2002, when he was seen for his chronic conditions. Again,
in 2003, there were only sporadic chronic care visits. Regular chronic care
visits began in 2004. Apparently, he was never considered for interferon

Morbid care:

therapy. Evidence of a pneumonia shot could not be found.
He was at JCF when, on August 30, 2006, he presented with a history of
being sick for 5-6 days with cough, chills, and fatigue. He visited the DWHC
emergency department on August 31, 2006 and September 1, 2006, when he
received antibiotics. Wet film reading of his chest X ray showed infiltrates.
However, he was sent back from the emergency department to prison each
time after intravenous Levaquin was given. Suggestions were given for the
institution, JCF, to monitor the patient and to send him back for reevaluation. The next day, September 2, 2006, JCF staff found him very short
of breath and sent him to the Foote Hospital for definitive care.
He left Foote Hospital on September 13, 2006 and went to DWHC. The
DWHC documentation was not part of the Central Office file given to the
NCCHC reviewer. At DWHC, he did not do well and returned to Foote
Hospital September 25, 2006.

Events during death At Foote Hospital since September 25, 2006, he did not do well, could not
be ventilated, and expired in four days, on September 29, 2006, of
process:
pneumonia, with non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus, chronic

Mortality Review:

obstructive pulmonary disease, and hepatitis A, B, and C.
Done by Regional Office: No care issues were found, but the DWHC
documentation was not available.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

111

COMMENT:

The Committee agreed that the Regional DON would get together with the
DWHC nursing staff to address the documentation issue. NCCHC concurs.
In addition, it was noted that this diabetic inmate, in the system for 6 years,
has no documented pneumonia shot despite serious diabetic and pulmonary
disease. The Committee should have addressed this issue, but it did not.

G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility
Case 36
Pre-morbid care:

Date of Death: 38960
Age: 77
Gender: Male
He came into the system in 1995, without major problems. He was
enrolled in the chronic clinic for ischemic heart disease in 1997. A
pneumonia shot was given in June of 2002. He had chronic clinic visits. His
blood pressures were on the low side, with an average of 100 systolic and 60
diastolic, perhaps denoting low cardiac output. In 2002, he had a
myocardial infarction, which required pacemaker insertion. The pacemaker
was checked every 3 months. A cardiologist saw him on May 25, 2005, He
commented on the chronic atrial fibrillation and the use of Betapace.
Recurrent weakness and shortness of breath required clinic and emergency

Morbid care:

department visits.
He was sent to the DWHC emergency department on August 22, 2006 for
generalized weakness. DWHC staff felt that he was too sick for DWHC and

relayed the case to the Foote Hospital.
Events during death At Foote Hospital, he was felt to be very elderly, with low perfusion, which
did not respond to the usual therapies, He expired on September 1, 2006 of
process:
pneumonia and sepsis, with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic

Mortality Review:

renal failure, coronary artery disease, and atrial fibrillation.
Done by Central Office and Regional Office. There were no findings.

COMMENT:

NCCHC concurs.
None

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

112

Lakeland Correctional Facility
Case 37
Pre-morbid care:

Date of Death: 38792
Age: 74
Gender: Male
He was at the Lakeland Facility. He came to the system for his last
incarceration in 1965. Documentation from that period was available, but it
consisted of 4x5 cards with very little medical information. However, it was
known from the start that he had a “rough mitral valve sound.” The inmate
said that he had had rheumatic fever at age 7. He smoked all the way to the
end. Over decades of institutionalization, he had numerous visits to the
clinic and to the chronic illness clinics. His last chronic illness clinic visit was
on February 5, 2006. He was doing reasonably well, had a good peak
expiratory flow, and was taking 13 medications (some were over- the-

Morbid care:

counter).
On February 13, 2006 he developed acute shortness of breath, orthopnea,
and was using accessory muscles of respiration. He was sent to the Lakeland
Community Health Center emergency room. A chest X ray was unchanged
from baseline. He was still smoking. Electrocardiogram was unchanged. He
returned to DWHC on March 2, 2006, convalescing from chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease with exacerbation. He was believed to have
end-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Massive doses of SoluMedrol had to be given IV.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

113

Events during death By March 6, 2006, he was admitted to the Foote Hospital because of his
inability to wean from IV Solu-Medrol and increasing shortness of breath.
process:
He had developed a myocardial infarction with elevated troponins. He
remained intubated and on steroids. It was noted that his platelet counts
were in the vicinity of 20,000, with low red blood cells and white blood cells.
A bone marrow biopsy confirmed the presence of aplastic anemia. He
received G-CSF (granulocyte-colony stimulating factor— a growth factor
that stimulates the bone marrow to make more white blood cells),
Neupogen factors, and Fortaz antibiotics, plus platelet transfusions. He did
not respond to these maneuvers, became depressed, lethargic, and expired
on March 17, 2006 of myocardial infarction, with coronary artery disease,

Mortality Review:

chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and aplastic anemia.
Done by Central Office. No findings. NCCHC concurs.

COMMENT:

None

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

114

G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility
Case 38
Pre-morbid care:

Date of Death: 38777

Age: 64

Gender: Male

He came to the system in October of 2001, with no major medical findings,
except for smoking 1 1/2 pack per day for 45 years. He also had chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease, some shortness of breath, and non-insulin
dependent diabetes mellitus since 1975. On admission, he refused a
pneumonia shot. He refused the same shot again in 2003.
Chronic care clinics took place regularly. His HbA1c fluctuated between
10% to 12.0%, because of compliance issues. He refused some chronic care

Morbid care:

visits and ministrations.
He developed shortness of breath, a productive cough and weight loss, and
needed admission to the Foote Hospital on September 30, 2005. A CT scan
of the chest showed lung masses and mediastinal adenopathy. A transbronchial biopsy proved the presence of lung carcinoma. Chemotherapy was
started. He was not operable and was sent to DWHC for palliative care on

October 14, 2005.
Events during death At DWHC, he stayed until November 16, 2005, receiving palliative care. He
stabilized and was returned to JCF. He lasted at JCF until January 13, 2006,
process:
when he developed left-sided weakness and uncontrolled diabetes mellitus.
He went to Foote Hospital, where his lungs were opaque by chest X ray, but
he still was breathing on his own. He was discharged to DWHC on January
23, 2006. Taxol and Taxotere were tried for tumor palliation. He refused his
insulin shots and was restless and weak. He expired on March 2, 2006 of

Mortality Review:

respiratory failure, metastatic lung carcinoma, plus diabetes.
Done by Central Office. Only one problem was found. The Committee
pointed out that, following an emergency department visit on September 9,
2005, a repeat chest X ray that was supposed to take place at the institution
in one week had not been done. Apparently, the inmate had refused to go
to the emergency room for the chest X ray, but the correctional officer did
not generate a signed refusal.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

115

COMMENT:

The RMO took appropriate action. NCCHC concurs.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

116

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

117

Appendix E
External and Internal Stakeholders’ Concerns
Groups and individuals have expressed their concerns to the MDOC administration, the
Governor, and the Michigan Legislature about MDOC health services and the quality of care being
provided to inmates. As part of this comprehensive assessment, NCCHC contacted external and
internal stakeholders to solicit their opinions regarding health services. External stakeholders were
identified by the MDOC, and NCCHC contacted them by telephone in August 2007. Several
themes emerged as a result of their responses.
External Stakeholder Concerns
Theme 1. Health care is not timely nor appropriate. Many external stakeholders indicated to us
that prisoners are not getting the care that they are supposed to be receiving. They cite as examples:
medications are not being delivered on a timely basis, specialist care is not being delivered, health
complaints are being ignored, and recommendations from health care professionals are not followed
through.
Theme 2. Inconsistent Policies and Procedures. Several external stakeholders indicated to us
that health services policies are inconsistent from institution to institution. For example, lack of
special accommodation (e.g., special shoes, canes, walkers, or low bunk assignments) may be allowed
in one facility, but then medical staff cannot order it at a different facility with the same security
rating.
Theme 3. Failure to Follow Thorough. Many external stakeholders indicated to us that health
staff do not sufficiently explain issues to the inmates and fail to follow through on promised
services. Often, inmates are treated rudely by health staff.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

118

Theme 4. Failure of Accountability. A number of external stakeholders indicated there is no
single individual who can effectively take responsibility for change. Owing to the tripartite system,
there is much “finger-pointing” and it is difficult to assign responsibility and accountability. For
example, a severe chronic pain regime has been issued by a “pain committee.” However, it has not
been followed by CMS physicians and there is no enforcement or accountability. Without impunity,
health appointments are cancelled without notification, medications are not delivered, and inmates
are not taken seriously for their complaints or diseases. They indicated there is insufficient oversight
over CMS.
Theme 5. Dysfunctional Operational Capacities. Many of the external stakeholders indicated
that unit physicians are reluctant to put in requests for care, because they know it will be denied
anyway through CMS’s utilization review. CMS has little risk exposure and does not share in the
costs, yet failure to monitor expenses such as over-prescribing leads to over-utilization of services
without accountability. The DOC’s Bureau of Health Care Services, CMS, and the Department of
Community Health do not coordinate their efforts. There is much overlap and failure to ensure that
operational capacities are functioning efficiently and effectively.
Internal Stakeholder Concerns
NCCHC contracted with MGT of America, a national public sector consulting firm specializing
in corrections, to conduct a survey of all employees of the MDOC regarding their impressions and
opinions of inmate health care in the department.
NCCHC and MGT of America designed the Likert survey questions. The survey asked fifteen
questions. The web-based survey was made available online for a one-week period. Table 1
presents the survey questions and response options as they appeared to the survey respondents.
An invitation to participate in the survey was sent by the MDOC Director to all employees.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

119

In an effort to maximize the level of participation, the survey was designed to be taken
anonymously. No mechanisms to identify individuals responding to the survey were included. A
total of 1,114 employees responded to the survey.
Table I
Michigan Department of Corrections Staff Survey on Correctional Health Care
Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

1. Correctional officers, mental health, and
health care staff are held equally
accountable for their performance.
2. Correctional officers follow MDOC
practices, procedures, and regulations.
3. Health care and mental health staff
follow MDOC practices, procedures, and
regulations.
4. Providing good health care and mental
health services to inmates is central to the
mission of the MDOC.
5. Inmates take unfair advantage of health
care and mental health services.
6. Correctional officers treat inmates fairly.
7. Correctional officers, health care, and
mental health staff share common values
and work together effectively.
8. Management does a good job in
balancing security considerations with the
delivery of health care and mental health
services to inmates.
9. I feel safe when working among the
inmates.
10. Inmates should receive no more than a
minimal level of health care services.
11. Inmates currently receive a high level of
health care services.
12. Health care and mental health staff
understand institutional security rules.
13. Health care, mental health staff, and
correctional officers back each other up if
things get tough.
14. It is important to keep an inmate’s
health status confidential.
15. Inmates usually lie about being ill.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

Neutral

Agree

Strongly
Agree

Not
Applicable

120

Survey Results
Question 1. Correctional officers, mental health, and health care staff are held equally
accountable for their performance. There were 1,107 survey respondents who answered this
question. The results were divided almost evenly, with 44 per cent of respondents strongly
disagreeing (15%) or disagreeing (29%) and 43 per cent strongly agreeing (16%) or agreeing (27%).
Twelve percent of respondents were neutral on the issue, and one per cent responded “not
applicable.” Chart 1 below illustrates a summary of the results of question one.
Chart 1
Correctional officers, mental health, and health care staff are held equally accountable for
their performance.
35.00%
29%

30.00%

27%

25.00%
20.00%

16%

15%
12%

15.00%
10.00%
5.00%

1%

0.00%
Strongly

Disagree

Neutral

Disagree

Agree

Strongly

Not Applicable

Agree

Question 2. Correctional officers follow MDOC practices, procedures, and regulations.
There were 1,109 respondents who answered this question. The overwhelming majority (81%) of
respondents agreed (51%) or strongly agreed (30%) that correctional officers follow MDOC
practices, procedures, and regulations. Only eight per cent disagreed (6%) or strongly disagreed (2%)
with this statement. Ten per cent of respondents were neutral on the issue, and one per cent
responded “not applicable.” Exhibit 2 below illustrates a summary of the results of question two.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

121

Chart 2
Correctional officers follow MDOC practices, procedures, and regulations.
60.00%
51%
50.00%
40.00%
30%
30.00%
20.00%
6%

10.00%

10%

2%

1%

0.00%
Strongly

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Disagree

Strongly

Not Applicable

Agree

Question 3. Health care and mental health staff follow MDOC practices, procedures, and
regulations. There were 1,105 survey respondents who answered question three. The majority of
respondents (62%) agreed that health care and mental health staff follow MDOC practices,
procedures, and regulations. Of the 62% agreeing with this statement, 19% strongly agreed, and
43% agreed. Sixteen percent did not agree with the statement, with 13% of these disagreeing and 3%
strongly disagreeing. Nineteen percent were neutral on the issue and 2% responded “not applicable.”
Responses do not add up to exactly 100% due to rounding. Chart 3 below illustrates a summary of
the results of question three.
Chart 3
Health care and mental health staff follow MDOC practices, procedures, and regulations.
50%
43%

45%
40%
35%
30%
25%

19%

20%

10%
5%

19%

13%

15%
3%

2%

0%
Strongly

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Disagree

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

Strongly Agree

Not Applicable

122

Question 4. Providing good health care and mental health services to inmates is central to
the mission of the MDOC. There were 1,104 survey respondents who answered this question. The
majority (67%) of respondents agreed (38%) or strongly agreed (29%) that providing good health
care and mental health services to inmates is central to the mission of the MDOC. There were 16%
of the respondents who did not support the statement [disagreed (11%) or strongly disagreed (5%)].
Another 16% of respondents were neutral on the issue and less than one per cent responded “not
applicable.” Chart 4 below illustrates a summary of the results of question four.
Chart 4
Providing good health care and mental health services to inmates is central to the mission of
the MDOC.
38%

40%
35%

29%

30%
25%
20%

16%

15%
10%

11%
5%

5%

0%

0%
Strongly

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

Not Applicable

Disagree

Question 5. Inmates take unfair advantage of health care and mental health services.
There were 1,107 survey respondents who answered this question. A large majority (74%) strongly
agreed (50%) or agreed (24%) that inmates take unfair advantage of health care and mental health
services. Fourteen percent were neutral on this issue. Only 11% disagreed (9%) or strongly disagreed
(2%) with the statement. One per cent responded “not applicable.” Chart 5 below illustrates a
summary of the results of question five.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

123

Chart 5
Inmates take unfair advantage of health care and mental health services.
60%
50%
50%
40%
30%

24%

20%
10%

14%
9%
2%

1%

0%
Strongly

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

Not Applicable

Disagree

Question 6. Correctional officers treat inmates fairly. There were 1,106 survey respondents
who answered this question, with 79% of them agreeing (53%) or strongly agreeing (26%) that
correctional officers treat inmates fairly. Only 9% did not agree with this statement; 7% disagreed
and 2% strongly disagreed. Twelve percent of respondents were neutral on this issue and one
percent responded “not applicable.” Responses do not add up to exactly 100% due to rounding.
Chart 6 below illustrates a summary of the results of question six.
Chart 6
Correctional officers treat inmates fairly.
60%

53%

50%
40%
26%

30%
20%
10%

12%
7%
2%

1%

0%
Strongly

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Disagree

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

Strongly Agree

Not Applicable

124

Question 7. Correctional officers, health care, and mental health staff share common values
and work together effectively. There were 1,105 survey respondents who answered this question,
with almost half (49%) agreeing (36%) or strongly agreeing (!3%) that correctional officers, health
care, and mental health staff share common values and work together effectively. However, 30%
either disagreed (23%) or strongly disagreed (7%) with this statement. Also, 21% of respondents
were neutral on the issue and one percent responded “not applicable.” Responses do not add up to
exactly 100% due to rounding. Chart 7 below illustrates a summary of the results of question seven.
Chart 7
Correctional officers, health care, and mental health staff share common values and work
together effectively.
40%

36%

35%
30%
23%

25%

21%

20%
13%

15%
10%

7%

5%

1%

0%
Strongly

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

Not Applicable

Disagree

Question 8. Management does a good job in balancing security considerations with the
delivery of health care and mental health services to inmates. There were 1,104 survey respondents
who answered this question. Over half (59%) either agreed (43%) or strongly agreed (16%) that
management does a good job balancing security considerations with the delivery of health care and
mental health services to inmates. Almost one quarter of respondents (23%) disagreed (15%) or
strongly disagreed (8%) with this statement. Sixteen percent of respondents were neutral on this
issue and one percent responded “not applicable.” Responses do not add up to exactly 100% due to
rounding. Chart 8 below illustrates a summary of the results of question eight.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

125

Chart 8
Management does a good job in balancing security considerations with the delivery of
health care and mental health services to inmates.
43%

45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%

15%

16%

16%

15%
10%

8%

5%

1%

0%
Strongly

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

Not Applicable

Disagree

Question 9. I feel safe when working among the inmates. There were 1,106 survey
respondents who answered this question. Two thirds (66%) either agreed (43%) or strongly agreed
(23%) that they felt safe when working among inmates. There was 16% disagreement with this
statement [either disagreed (12%) or strongly disagreed (4%)], 15% of respondents were neutral on
the issue and three per cent responded “not applicable.” Chart 9 below illustrates a summary of the
results of question nine.
Chart 9
I feel safe when working among the inmates.
50%

43%

45%
40%
35%
30%

23%

25%
20%

15%
12%

15%
10%
5%

4%

3%

0%
Strongly

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Disagree

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

Strongly Agree

Not Applicable

126

Question 10. Inmates should receive no more than a minimal level of health care services.
There were 1,096 respondents who answered this question. There were 46% who either agreed
(26%) or strongly agreed (20%) that inmates should receive no more than a minimal level of health
care services. Another 33% either disagreed (27%) or strongly disagreed (6%) with this statement.
Twenty percent of respondents were neutral on this issue and one per cent responded “not
applicable.” Chart 10 below illustrates a summary of the results of question ten.
Chart 10
Inmates should receive no more than a minimal level of health care services.
30%

27%

26%

25%
20%

20%

20%
15%
10%

6%

5%

1%

0%
Strongly

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

Not Applicable

Disagree

Question 11. Inmates currently receive a high level of health care services. There were
1,102 survey respondents who answered this question. A large majority (74%) either agreed (31%)
or strongly agreed (43%) that inmates currently receive a high level of health care services. Only 13%
either disagreed (8%) or strongly disagreed (5%) with this statement. Twelve percent of respondents
were neutral on this issue and one per cent responded “not applicable.” Chart 11 below illustrates a
summary of the results of question eleven.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

127

Chart 11
Inmates currently receive a high level of health care services.
43%

45%
40%
35%

31%

30%
25%
20%
12%

15%
10%
5%

8%
5%
1%

0%
Strongly

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

Not Applicable

Disagree

Question 12. Health care and mental health staff understand institutional security rules.
There were 1,102 survey respondents who answered this question. Slightly more than half (52%)
either agreed (38%) or strongly agreed (14%) that health care and mental health staff understand
institutional security rules. Thirty percent either disagreed (21%) or strongly disagreed (9%) with this
statement, 16% of respondents were neutral on this issue, and two per cent responded “not
applicable.” Chart 12 below illustrates a summary of the results of question twelve.
Chart 12
Health care and mental health staff understand institutional security rules.
45%
38%

40%
35%
30%
25%

21%

20%
15%
10%

16%

14%

9%

5%

2%

0%
Strongly

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Disagree

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

Strongly Agree

Not Applicable

128

Question 13. Health care, mental health staff, and correctional officers back each other up if
things get tough. There were 1,106 survey respondents who answered this question. Over half
(57%) either agreed (36%) or strongly agreed (21%) that health care, mental health staff, and
correctional officers back each other up if things get tough. Twenty percent either disagreed (14%)
or strongly disagreed (6%) with this statement. Another 21% of respondents were neutral on the
issue and two percent responded “not applicable.” Chart 13 below illustrates a summary of the
results of question thirteen.
Chart 13
Health care, mental health staff, and correctional officers
back each other up if things get tough.
40%

36%

35%
30%
25%

21%

20%
15%
10%

21%

14%
6%

5%

2%

0%
Strongly

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

Not Applicable

Disagree

Question 14. It is important to keep an inmate’s health status confidential. There were
1,108 respondents who answered this question. A total of 59% of respondents supported this
statement 30% agreeing and 29% strongly agreeing that it is important to keep an inmate’s health
status confidential. One quarter (25%) of respondents either disagreed (17%) or strongly disagreed
(8%) with this statement. Another 14% of respondents were neutral on the issue and two per cent
responded “not applicable.” Chart 14 below illustrates a summary of the results of question
fourteen.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

129

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

130

Chart 14
It is important to keep an inmate’s health status confidential.
35%
30%

30%

29%

25%
20%

17%
14%

15%
10%

8%

5%

2%

0%
Strongly

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

Not Applicable

Disagree

Question 15. Inmates usually lie about being ill. There were 1,108 survey respondents who
answered this question. Respondents appeared divided as to whether inmates usually lie about being
ill, with 38% either agreeing (23%) or strongly agreeing (15%) with this statement. Another 35%
were neutral on this issue, and 26% either disagreed (24%) or strongly disagreed (2%) with the
statement. Two per cent responded “not applicable.” Responses do not add up to exactly 100% due
to rounding. Chart 15 below illustrates a summary of the results of question fifteen.
Chart 15
Inmates usually lie about being ill.
40%

35%

35%
30%
24%

25%

23%

20%

15%

15%
10%
5%

2%

2%

0%
Strongly

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Disagree

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System

Strongly Agree

Not Applicable

131

Conclusions
The survey results showed a strong consensus among MDOC staff that both correctional
officers and health care staff comply with agency policies and rules in the performance of their
duties. Most staff agreed that health care is an important part of the MDOC’s mission. A very high
percent of respondents agreed that inmates currently receive a very high level of health care service,
and that officers treat inmates fairly. However, the statement that inmates take unfair advantage of
the services available to them received one of the highest positive responses in the survey, with 74%
in agreement (50% strongly agree), and only 11% disagreeing. Staff also generally feel safe working
around inmates and feel that management does a good job of balancing security and health care
service delivery.
There appeared to be a major divide among staff as to whether health care and custody staff are
held equally accountable, whether custody and health care staff share similar values and work
together well, and whether inmates should receive minimal levels of health care. It would have been
useful to know the positions of the respondents in regard to the answers they gave. Unfortunately,
in an effort to promote a higher number of responses to the survey and provide the respondents
with anonymity, data were not collected on the job or facility of the respondents. Therefore,
additional analysis of the data was not possible.

2008 NCCHC Report on MDOC Health Care System