Enhanced Non-Lethal Security Blog

I received a link to a Security Magazine article from a colleague who simply said, "Interesting read" in the subject header of the email. Naturally, my curiosity caused me to click on the link. Perhaps it's the same thing that caused you to start reading this blog post.

In my situation, I was glad that I clicked the link.

The article was well-written (I've come to expect this from the folks at Security Magazine). It featured the summary of a webinar about whether or not to arm security officers in hospitals. What caught my eye, however, was the disparity between the term "armed" and the alternative (nothing). Implied in the article is the idea that "armed" only means lethal force and that the alternative is to “Take a zero incidence philosophy; or consider a mix of policies such as having a licensed police officer on site, particularly within the ER; and develop strong 911 ties.”

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ stance on weapon use in hospitals is clear:  the use of weapons in the application of restraint, or even seclusion for that matter, is inappropriate for any healthcare intervention. On the other hand, a weapon may be used as part of a law enforcement action, not a healthcare intervention, to protect people from harm. Inasmuch as a patient has the right to a safe environment for their care, a clinician has the same right to provide that care in a safe environment. As security officers enlisted to help and serve others, part of our job is to ensure that people do not harm themselves or others.

The impacts of CMS regulations on hospital security are widely misconstrued, and for good reason. The agency’s guidelines on Patient Restraint or Seclusion are more than 40 pages long, and strict interpretation of CMS guidelines can entangle your hospital in OSHA or JTC compliance issues.  

Hospital security staff have long been in the difficult position of trying to keep an emergency department approachable as a valued service to the community, and yet protect staff and patients from those who are capable of extreme violence. This conundrum was at the core of a recent blog post appearing on the Joint Commission Leadership blog, titled Hospital Security – Different Approaches to Mitigating Violence, by Mark Crafton. The piece centered on discussion of the pros and cons of arming hospital security guards with deadly force weapons.

This post appeared originally on LinkedIn.

Violent attacks on hospital staff are not limited to the United States. Recently, Canada has experienced high profile assaults that have left defenseless workers injured.

The Vancouver Sun reports a nurse at Abbotsford Regional Hospital in British Columbia was the victim of a "vicious attack" by a patient in the emergency room. The B.C. Nurses' Union is calling for better training for hospital staff and more security guards in emergency rooms. "The health employers have a responsibility to ensure the safety and well-being of their employees," said union Vice President Christine Sorensen.

Rapid advancements in security systems integration, security technologies and officers’ response tools have enabled hospitals to develop security and risk mitigation apparatus that are far more proactive, more preventative and more strategic than ever before. A case in point: the application, integration and flow of data intelligence enables hospital security to make decisions at a very rapid pace and on a global basis. On the ground, security officers who are well-informed by timely and critical information and intelligence and carry enhanced non-lethal response tools can be far more effective at deescalating or subduing violent confrontations compared to underequipped peers.