Two psychiatrists at the Minnesota Security Hospital in St. Peter deliberately misled a Hennepin County judge about the care of a mentally ill woman after the judge concluded she had suffered medical neglect, according to court documents reviewed by the Star Tribune.
In a stinging order issued Thursday, Judge Jay Quam accused the woman's psychiatrist, who has since been fired, and the hospital's medical director of engaging in a cover-up to hide violations of medical protocol and create the impression that the 49-year-old woman was receiving timely psychiatric care.
Quam said it appears that medical staff left the woman undermedicated and deprived of sleep, and then tried to hide the fact by reconstructing medical records to document her treatment. "They made up records months after the fact ..." Quam wrote. The episode, he concluded, "caused her to lose a year of her life without any gain to show for it."
The woman's case is the latest sign of dysfunction at St. Peter, the state's largest psychiatric hospital, which cares for nearly 400 patients deemed mentally ill and dangerous. It was placed on a conditional license in late 2011 by Human Services Commissioner Lucinda Jesson after reports of patient maltreatment, and then it suffered the resignation of several staff psychologists during a stormy change in top management in 2012.
Alarmed by the record-keeping irregularities that surfaced in his courtroom, Quam has ordered the state Department of Human Services (DHS) to produce medical files for another six patients from Hennepin County.
Court supervision, Quam said, has become necessary "to ensure [patients] are being properly treated and not held longer than necessary."
DHS officials say the woman's psychiatrist, Dr. Edward L. Kelly, did keep appointments with his patients and kept some records of the woman's care, but they acknowledge that the case was handled badly.
"We were appalled," Assistant Human Services Commissioner Anne Barry said in an interview. "We can't treat clients properly if we don't have information that is accurate and up to date. Had the documents been up to date, the court would have been able to take action [on behalf of the woman] months earlier."