Top Thrill Dragster Incident

[jsus]

8 minutes ago, disco2000 said:

And yes that leaked bodycam footage is just as bad and probably violated some oath, code of ethics, or something within that profession and that will probably be investigated as well.  I do not know that software, but one has to wonder if the officer's name at the bottom left was who was reviewing it and leaked it or allowed someone to watch it and record it.

 

Not leaked.  Released under public records request.

 It’s a (likely phone) recording of an office monitor at SPD HQ in the chief’s office, of the AXON body cam website (Sandusky.evidence.com iirc), logged in as Jared Oliver, chief of Sandusky Police.  There’s no reason to say it was leaked.  The shaky handheld recording is likely because they have no idea which couple buttons to click to download the video file and send that off to the public who requests it. 

[jsus]

2 minutes ago, Browntggrr said:

^ Fortunately, Ohio has a good Samaritan Law protecting those willing/ trying to help in an emergency situation.

https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2305.23

A trained medical professional is rated as nothing more than a Good Samaritan under ORC?  Because this wasn’t you or me, and for continued to interfere once CP EMS and SFD were on scene, trying to issue orders. 

[Browntggrr]

1 minute ago, jsus said:

A trained medical professional is rated as nothing more than a Good Samaritan under ORC?  Because this wasn’t you or me, and for continued to interfere once CP EMS and SFD were on scene, trying to issue orders. 

That is a correct interpretation if the law.

Watching how there was no C-collar or backboard administered or available and then how the victim was put on the gurney it's easy to understand why she was distraught.

[jsus]

9 minutes ago, Browntggrr said:

That is a correct interpretation if the law.

Watching how there was no C-collar or backboard administered or available and then how the victim was put on the gurney it's easy to understand why she was distraught.

Regardless, civil liability under state law hasn’t been alleged.  HIPAA violations, a federal law, and other concerns have been alleged. 

[Browntggrr]

2 minutes ago, jsus said:

Regardless, civil liability under state law hasn’t been alleged.  HIPAA violations, a federal law, and other concerns have been alleged. 

There absolutely has been many allegations.

Your allegations concentrated on the lady and no allegations dealing with the park.

Brown- always trying to be fair & objective.

[disco2000]

The Good Samaritan Law doesn't apply to her nursing license and oath she took that can be revoked for what she posted...it protects us from being sued for trying to help, but doesn't give a medical professional a free pass of tossing their license requirements out the window just because they were rendering medical aid in their off-duty time.  Some professions are held to a higher standard.

We do not know all of the situation as we were not there and we only saw part of it from a bodycam.  Maybe before that officer arrived, EMS already pulled the c-spine and in assessing her injuries determined it could be more harmful than good and set it aside.

Medical journals have stated that "c-collars increase intracranial pressure: It’s been clearly demonstrated that even proper application of a rigid C-collar can increase intracranial pressure. This is particularly problematic because many patients with spinal injuries also have head injuries where an increase in intracranial pressure can be devastating.  The principle behind this is simple. C-collars are often tight enough on the neck to restrict venous drainage of the head through the jugular veins. They’re not tight enough to restrict arterial inflow through the carotid and the vertebral arteries."  Given what was said in that report, a medical professional could determine that the head trauma was the worse of the two scenarios and that is what needed addressed.

Plus they are dealing with how do you maneuver body board, stretcher, whatever else through a tightly confined queue? Do they get the jaws of life out to start cutting queue lines?  How long does that take and is the injury bad enough that they cannot wait?  Do they have that close by?  Or do they make the call to stabilize her spine the best they can given the constraints they have and the time sensitivity of the injury to get her to a hospital ASAP.

We do not know.  We were not there.  Maybe before the officer arrived she was conscience and alert and moving extremities that they felt the spine was intact.  We do not know. 

 

[jsus]

4 minutes ago, Browntggrr said:

There absolutely has been many allegations.

Your allegations concentrated on the lady and no allegations dealing with the park.

Brown- always trying to be fair & objective.

What allegations of civil liability under state law for the non-emergency medicine nurse, who isn’t a trained EMT?

 

 What are my “allegations” vs. statements of observed fact?

 

 Why should I accuse the park of anything when I have very little to go on?  No damming evidence has been released.  The one bit of video we’ve seen doesn’t show any wrongdoing to the untrained observer except her trying to tell trained responders what to do. 

If anything, I’ve expressed that maintenance at the park this year has been brought into question, first with the lift chain failure at GateKeeper and now this.  Not knowing the exact details, I’m not going to make accusations but rather express my concern. 

[Browntggrr]

The Ohio Good Samaritan law does protect those with a medical license in a emergency event outside a medical facility where proper medical equipment is unavailable.  Now if she provided some type of treatment that was malicious in nature, that is a different story.

The bodyboard can be administered toe to head as opposed to side to side.  But as seen in the bodycam video, the backboard was not available as an option.

[disco2000]

3 minutes ago, Browntggrr said:

The Ohio Good Samaritan law does protect those with a medical license in a emergency event outside a medical facility where proper medical equipment is unavailable.  Now if she provided some type of treatment that was malicious in nature, that is a different story.

 

That part is not in question - it is her posting her report online with medical jargon and injuries of the patient that the licensing board would take exception to if someone files a complaint, and to what appears those in the medical profession here are saying goes against their licensing requirements and oath they take.

Two different issues.

[Kenban]

41 minutes ago, disco2000 said:

And yes that leaked bodycam footage is just as bad […]

 

The footage was not leaked.  Ohio state law requires that body cam footage is considered a public record.  That means you can use the freedom of information act to request and review body cam footage unless it meets a small list of exceptions.  The news organization which posted it requested the footage and they were allowed to examine and record their own copy of the video.

If I remember correctly police departments are not required to provide a digital copy, what you see is likely just how they comply with the laws requirements.

[disco2000]

Just now, Kenban said:

The footage was not leaked.  Ohio state law requires that body cam footage is considered a public record.  That means you can use the freedom of information act to request and review body cam footage unless it meets a small list of exceptions.  The news organization which posted it requested the footage and they were allowed to examine and record their own copy of the video.

If I remember correctly police departments are not required to provide a digital copy, what you see is likely just how they comply with the laws requirements.

I totally understand that and IF it was obtained through the proper channels, then yes it can be out there.  The first article I read on it gave the impression that someone leaked it.  But if it was lawfully and legal obtained, ok then one less thing for people to argue about being out in the public domain.

Back to the nurses report...

[Browntggrr]

42 minutes ago, disco2000 said:

That part is not in question - it is her posting her report online with medical jargon and injuries of the patient that the licensing board would take exception to if someone files a complaint, and to what appears those in the medical profession here are saying goes against their licensing requirements and oath they take.

Two different issues.

It's a Cedar Point incident report very similar to any police report that any eye witness can, and should, complete with as much information as possible. The information provided was the condition of the victim and first aid provided.  None have anything to do with private information and certainly has zero to do with HIPPA.

Where many are upset are the comments the lady made that put the park respose to the accident, as well as very questionable actions, in a negative light.

What sticks with me the most- the only people, out of the dozen+, the CP representitive wanted out of the area was the lady distraught over the lack of a c-collar and the person with the bodycam who was ordered to go back to Shores the very moment he arrived.

If it was just the lady he wanted out of there- yes it could have easily been her reactions before we can see anything.

But on the other hand....if she was causing such a disturbance, it would be in CP's best interest to have the video on hand showing everything- not for that person having the bodycam to be ordered away immediately.

[disco2000]

The report in and of itself isn't in question. 

It is how it got in the public domain that is in question and a concern. 

Not by a public records request.  

It got out there by a nurse posting it.  That goes against their license requirements/oath/code of ethics.  Medical professionals have lost their license for far less social media posts than that.

Maybe they wanted her out of there the most because she was hindering their efforts.  Rumor is she made claim she was an ER doctor.  Many people on a scene of an accident overstate their qualifications. and no EMT is going to risk their job listening to someone that they cannot prove if they know what they are talking about.  It looked like the other people were either park or city personnel or family/friends of the victim.

Now if you want to argue about the response the victim received, that is a different argument.  Attack it from that angle and quit trying to defend the nurse for violating her license requirements by posting that report and focus on what you take exception to based on the information legally and lawfully out in the public domain.  That appears to be the beef you have and your intent and message is being lost.  If you feel they were trying to cover up or had a poor response, then attack it from that angle because your message is being lost because of trying to defend the licensing/oath/code of ethics violation.

I do not see people on this forum trying to negate her report because it puts the park in a bad light.  That is a separate argument.  The argument is that it appears almost every medical professional takes exception to her posting that report.  Whether the response of CP and the City was appropriate or not is a different argument.

I am sure that if this were to go to trial (which it won't they will settle), CF's attorney will certainly use all of this nurse's violation of her license to get any and all of her testimony tossed out.  Attorneys get evidence tossed all the time.  By her posting this, she may have inadvertently helped CF win a negligence case if her testimony cannot be used in court. 

Her posting this report may not seem like a big deal to you, but it is a big deal distinction and violation to those that are in a field that requires a license and has requirements/oath/code of ethics with said license...

In fact, check out the beating she is getting on a mid-level practitioner blog site by medical professionals condemning what she posted:

https://www.midlevel.wtf/obnoxious-fnp-tells-ems-that-she-has-a-medical-degree-in-emergency-medicine-interferes-with-scene/?fbclid=IwAR2oYJHeXlXliSkWeyWMaBVMtVu3uwsH79ETxKwHFtM5jolWK1VaUAEw2ZE

[Browntggrr]

She posted a Cedar Point incident report.  There is a reason why she was able to get a copy of it as it contains no sensitive information.

And posting such a report does not go against their certified board license or oath.

Unfortunately what is still being lost in the mix is why she posted it.  It is actually a breath of fresh air that what she put into words on the Cedar Point incident report match what the bodycam video shows.  Too often this does not happen.

Even in your post you put that she claimed to be an ER doctor, which is inaccurate.  She did claim to have a medical degree, which is true of a nurse practitioner:

https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001934.htm

[disco2000]

I guess if her license goes in front of the license board we will find out, but enough medical professionals seem to disagree with you...

And again, if you take exception to how the victim was treated and feel that a cover up is in order, then make that argument from the lawfully and legally obtained evidence in the public domain.  If everything she wrote is evident in the bodycam video, then attack it from that angle and you will get more traction...

People are tired of going around and around with you on an oath/ethical/license violation and have left this conversation.  Do you have a medical license or in a profession that requires a license with ethical/license requirements?

[Tr0y]

19 minutes ago, disco2000 said:

The report in and of itself isn't in question. 

It is how it got in the public domain that is in question and a concern. 

Not by a public records request.  

It got out there by a nurse posting it.  That goes against their license requirements/oath/code of ethics.  Medical professionals have lost their license for far less social media posts than that.

Maybe they wanted her out of there the most because she was hindering their efforts.  Rumor is she made claim she was an ER doctor.  Many people on a scene of an accident overstate their qualifications. and no EMT is going to risk their job listening to someone that they cannot prove if they know what they are talking about.  It looked like the other people were either park or city personnel or family/friends of the victim.

Now if you want to argue about the response the victim received, that is a different argument.  Quit trying to defend the nurse for violating her license requirements by posting that report and focus on what you take exception to based on the information legally and lawfully out in the public domain.  That appears to be the beef you have.  If you feel they were trying to cover up or had a poor response, then attack it from that angle.

I am sure that if this were to go to trial (which it won't they will settle), CF's attorney will certainly use all of this nurse's violation of her license to get any and all of her testimony tossed out.  Attorneys get evidence tossed all the time.

Her posting this report may not seem like a big deal to you, but it is a big deal distinction and violation to those that are in a field that requires a license and has requirements/oath/code of ethics with said license...

In fact, check out the beating she is getting on a mid-level practitioner blog site by medical professionals:

https://www.midlevel.wtf/obnoxious-fnp-tells-ems-that-she-has-a-medical-degree-in-emergency-medicine-interferes-with-scene/?fbclid=IwAR2oYJHeXlXliSkWeyWMaBVMtVu3uwsH79ETxKwHFtM5jolWK1VaUAEw2ZE

She didn’t break any HIPPA laws? If you read her report there are no Patient identifiers that constitute a HIPPA ( Patient privacy ) law violation. Which includes:

Patient’s Name
Social security number
Telephone Number
Patient’s Address
Patient Medical record numbers
Photos of the Patient (mainly the face)

None of that is in her report. 

[Browntggrr]

24 minutes ago, disco2000 said:

People are tired of going around and around with you on an oath/ethical/license violation and have left this conversation.  Do you have a medical license or in a profession that requires a license with ethical/license requirements?

I do not have a medical license, but have numerous immediate family members that do.

Where some of the confusion seems to be at: police report that was completed by a nurse and posted by same nurse is considered a violation.

But that same report can be requested and posted by anyone and it's not a violation? 

I'm all for agreeing to disagree.  I would never argue ethics- too gray of an area with too many opinions.  What I am about is being objective as to why she posted it for all to see.

[disco2000]

A nurse can violate their license code of conduct and lose their license, yet not be a HIPAA violation (or could be both).  

From the Ohio Board of Nursing - These rules prohibit nurses licensed in Ohio from using social media, texting, emailing or any other form of communication to disseminate patient information for purposes other than patient care, or for otherwise fulfilling the nurse’s assigned job responsibilities:

Principles for Social Networking
1. Nurses must not transmit or place online individually identifiable
patient information. Nurses must know their legal and ethical
responsibilities, as well as their own organization’s policies,
regarding their responsibility to protect patient privacy, whether
online or offline. Merely removing someone’s name (or face, in the
instance of images) from a communication does not necessarily
protect that person’s identity. Under federal law (HIPAA),
protected “individually identifiable information” includes health
information that identifies the individual or can reasonably be used
to identify the individual, in any form (oral, written, or otherwise)
that relates to the past, present, or future physical or mental health
of an individual.

Given the national headlines this accident made, I think most will argue that her report can be reasonably used to identify the individual and tie it back to her once the victim's name is made public...

 

And if the police report and bodycam was obtained via a public records request, was her form made available as part of complying with that request or was it able to be withheld due to HIPAA?  Has anyone said her report entered public domain through official channels?

 

[Browntggrr]

7 minutes ago, disco2000 said:

And if the police report and bodycam was obtained via a public records request, was her form made available as part of complying with that request or was it able to be withheld due to HIPAA?  Has anyone said her report entered public domain through official channels?

 

Most state and law enforcement agencies are not required to follow HIPAA privacy rule.

 

https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-att-us-revc&sxsrf=ALeKk003ajFU0yKSX5R_Ssuy7QMGAMTgMg:1629348566058&q=final_hipaa_guide+law+enforcement.pdf&spell=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiRvvqzpLzyAhVNCc0KHbSTBP8QBSgAegQIARAC&biw=360&bih=666

[Browntggrr]

This was reportedly posted on a news page. This is supposed to be what flew off TTD. A guest picked it up and said they were keeping it.

If true, this would definitely squash some of the cover up rumors, but dang....who would ever keep such a thing and impede an investigation??

EDIT: link to article describing the part below:

https://www.cleveland19.com/2021/08/18/conflicting-stories-after-cedar-point-accident-leaves-guest-seriously-injured/

 

[disco2000]

Then she should have let her report get out in the public domain through the proper channels.  According to your analysis, the bodycam video posted not even a day later "is actually a breath of fresh air that what she put into words on the Cedar Point incident report match what the bodycam video shows.  Too often this does not happen.", so did she even need to put her career on the line?  Let the video speak for itself.

Now if you want to make an argument about her being a whistle blower and willing to put her license and career on the line to expose an issue, that is a different argument as well.

You obviously disagree with medical professionals and the Ohio Nursing Board that posting patient information (even without names or photos, etc.) to social media that is reasonably able to be tied back to an individual is a license violation, so let's just move on from that argument and proceed with your idea that a cover-up or incompetence happened.

Regarding that piece that flew off and a rumor that a guest took and kept it, people are sick and have weird quirks about keeping a piece of history - those of us old enough may remember people were keeping pieces of the space shuttle Challenger as souvenirs instead of turning them in for the investigation...and usually happens in high profile accidents as well.  I am sure some people have evidence from the World Trade Center as well.

[Browntggrr]

She knew knew her career was not on the line and as seen in the video on how she was treated, had good reason to make sure the truth was out their.

HIPAA has been inaccurately used for some time- even trying to use it as a threat.  Hopefully with this discussion it will educate some on what HIPAA is meant to cover.

In the spirit of safety-I hope the picture & story are not true, but those preaching about being ethical now have a real target.

[shark6495]

Not that I want to wade back into this…

Having finally read the report I got nothing more than what I read in most case studies I do for CEUs each year.

If her name is never released to the public, then there is almost no way to identify who the person was (unless I missed something major in the report—I’m tired and it’s early).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[disco2000]

And HIPAA provides guidance on how to go about publishing a case study.  The case study has to be so generic in nature that someone cannot piece together who it is.  "When case reports describe or discuss unique or rare circumstances, as they often do, it may be difficult or impossible to de-identify those cases such that there is no reasonable expectation that the individuals included can be identified, so patient authorization generally would be required."

One could argue that this situation is rare and unique, thus making identification easier.

Her name will get out in the public.  Surprised it hasn't yet by a friend or family member.  But at some point it will.  

"Sandusky Police Chief Jared Oliver said his department did not have an official report of the accident because the incident was handled by Cedar Point. “We were there to assist,” he said. “They handled the report.”"

[shark6495]

And HIPAA provides guidance on how to go about publishing a case study.  The case study has to be so generic in nature that someone cannot piece together who it is.  "When case reports describe or discuss unique or rare circumstances, as they often do, it may be difficult or impossible to de-identify those cases such that there is no reasonable expectation that the individuals included can be identified, so patient authorization generally would be required."
One could argue that this situation is rare and unique, thus making identification easier.
Her name will get out in the public.  Surprised it hasn't yet by a friend or family member.  But at some point it will.  
IF the police report and bodycam footage was obtained legally and lawfully by the media, one would assume that the police report would have included her name unless they were able to redact it?

Again it’s early so forgive me….

But yes I need to go back and re-read the report but I don’t think she identified the patient other than female? (It didn’t read to me that she said “I came across an unresponsive 30-35 year old female with brown hair unconscious…”)

This is such a unique situation that it doesn’t matter, that person will be easily identified. Heck anyone being interviewed can be linked back to the pt (there was another nurse on site).

Again I agree that what she did was unethical and probably immoral of a nurse to release the info so soon, but I’m not sure it violates hipaa (I feel even stronger having now read it). Then again I’m not a lawyer and I’m just a therapist so who knows.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[disco2000]

Again, just because it doesn't violate HIPAA (maybe it does maybe it doesn't), doesn't mean it doesn't violate her nursing license requirements regarding social media posts...  She could be disciplined and possibly lose her license over it for violating social media rules, even if HIPAA wasn't violated.

So if you posted "The governor's wife came in today for therapy for an injury obtained while......and I performed......prognosis is good"

Is that ok?  You didn't post her name, ss, address, age, picture, etc.  But circumstantially there is enough information there to identify who you treated.  Or do you make that argument that it could have been any one of the many state's governors that have a wife LOL.

Same with a freak accident on TTD.  If this were an everyday occurrence, she probably wouldn't be scrutinized.  But once a name enters the public domain, this report is easily connected to her.

 

In case it got lost, I will repost what I mentioned earlier:

From the Ohio Board of Nursing - These rules prohibit nurses licensed in Ohio from using social media, texting, emailing or any other form of communication to disseminate patient information for purposes other than patient care, or for otherwise fulfilling the nurse’s assigned job responsibilities:

Principles for Social Networking
1. Nurses must not transmit or place online individually identifiable
patient information. Nurses must know their legal and ethical
responsibilities, as well as their own organization’s policies,
regarding their responsibility to protect patient privacy, whether
online or offline. Merely removing someone’s name (or face, in the
instance of images) from a communication does not necessarily
protect that person’s identity. Under federal law (HIPAA),
protected “individually identifiable information” includes health
information that identifies the individual or can reasonably be used
to identify the individual, in any form (oral, written, or otherwise)
that relates to the past, present, or future physical or mental health
of an individual.

"A nurse licensed in Ohio who is determined by the OBN to have failed to comply with any of these rules based on the improper use of social media, texting, emailing, or any other form of communication is subject to disciplinary action by the OBN. The use of social media carries with it much responsibility.  Please be aware of your responsibilities and professional obligations and how its use may impact you.”

In addition to it being a condition of the license, it is in the Ohio Administrative Code - Rule 4723-4-06 | Standards of nursing practice promoting patient safety:

(Q) For purposes of paragraphs (I), (J), (K), (L), and (M) of this rule, a nurse shall not use social media, texting, emailing, or other forms of communication with, or about a patient, for non-health care purposes or for purposes other than fulfilling the nurse's assigned job responsibilities.

Given the national headlines this accident made, I think most will argue that her report she posted to social media can be reasonably used to identify the individual and tie it back to her once the victim's name is made public...

 

[IndyGuy4KI]

Nothing happening up here today.

[tuxedoman52]

Our team has the health and welfare of our guest who was involved in Sunday’s incident at Top Thrill Dragster at the forefront of our minds. We will continue to offer our support to her and her family in this unimaginably difficult time.

We want to fully understand what happened and why. Together with the Ohio Dept. of Agriculture’s Division of Amusement Ride Safety & Fairs, third party investigators, engineers and the ride’s manufacturer, we are being careful, methodical and thorough. We will not rush the investigation and will work tirelessly in our search for answers in the interest of improving safety.

This process will take time. As a result, Top Thrill Dragster will remain closed for the 2021 season. The safety of our guests and associates is our top priority and we refuse to operate any ride or attraction without total confidence in its safety.

Via Cedar Point's Facebook

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[BoddaH1994]

30 minutes ago, tuxedoman52 said:

Our team has the health and welfare of our guest who was involved in Sunday’s incident at Top Thrill Dragster at the forefront of our minds. We will continue to offer our support to her and her family in this unimaginably difficult time.

We want to fully understand what happened and why. Together with the Ohio Dept. of Agriculture’s Division of Amusement Ride Safety & Fairs, third party investigators, engineers and the ride’s manufacturer, we are being careful, methodical and thorough. We will not rush the investigation and will work tirelessly in our search for answers in the interest of improving safety.

This process will take time. As a result, Top Thrill Dragster will remain closed for the 2021 season. The safety of our guests and associates is our top priority and we refuse to operate any ride or attraction without total confidence in its safety.

Via Cedar Point's Facebook

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 

Note how CP turned off comments for this post. Probably for the best. Just imagine how that would have gone…

[jsus]

39 minutes ago, tuxedoman52 said:

Our team has the health and welfare of our guest who was involved in Sunday’s incident at Top Thrill Dragster at the forefront of our minds. We will continue to offer our support to her and her family in this unimaginably difficult time.

We want to fully understand what happened and why. Together with the Ohio Dept. of Agriculture’s Division of Amusement Ride Safety & Fairs, third party investigators, engineers and the ride’s manufacturer, we are being careful, methodical and thorough. We will not rush the investigation and will work tirelessly in our search for answers in the interest of improving safety.

This process will take time. As a result, Top Thrill Dragster will remain closed for the 2021 season. The safety of our guests and associates is our top priority and we refuse to operate any ride or attraction without total confidence in its safety.

Via Cedar Point's Facebook

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 

This is the only way to respond at this point.  Even if it were to ultimately be removed, Cedar Fair and INTAMIN need to know how this was able to happen.  The statement gives me hope that she is still receiving the care she deserves and has a chance at recovery.

Sources:

https://www.facebook.com/cedarpoint/posts/10158375615151463

8 minutes ago, BoddaH1994 said:

Note how CP turned off comments for this post. Probably for the best. Just imagine how that would have gone…

Tony and the park have been doing that lately in general, but here especially, there's nothing to discuss.