Taking Flight

Requirements for the safe operations of hospital helipads

By Jon Acorn & Jeff Young

Hospital-based heliport operations pose a unique and sometimes overlooked healthcare safety and security risk. Helicopter crashes are rare but do occur and most often at the point of take off/landing. In the past year, there have been two serious helicopter crashes on hospital rooftop heliports. One case involved the medical transport of an organ; the other, a paediatric patient. Fortunately, in both cases, no significant injuries were incurred and the organ was later successfully transplanted.

There have been year-over-year increases in the number of hospital heliport landings across the country. Urban traffic impacting the patient to hospital transfer timeframe and the centralization of specialized services, such as cardiac and trauma, are primary contributors. Obviously, the time to critical care is a significant factor in a positive patient outcome, which underscores the importance of ensuring hospital heliports remain operational and safe.

Transport Canada has oversight of heliports, including those hospital-based. Heliports must abide by legislated aviation regulations, specifically Transport Canada standards 305 and 325. Hospitals should be acquainted with all regulations and standards, and ensure compliance as Transport Canada performs official program validation inspections supported by ad hoc unannounced inspection visits.

Hospitals are required to appoint responsibility and accountability for the organization’s heliport management program (HMP). In most instances, this role is delegated to the facilities team or, in some larger organizations, ‘protection services.’ Regardless of who is responsible, a compliant HMP will ensure standardization of safety procedures to meet Transport Canada’s requirements and keep heliports open and operational.

Many standards and regulations pertaining to safety focus on the physical heliport environment. Common safety risks include general heliport surface conditions (ice/snow); debris; inadequate lighting; absence of a functional windsock; lack of communications between the helicopter and site; and non-operative fire suppression systems. The HMP must identify all potential risks. For each one, mitigation strategies must be put in place, which, in many instances, require a facilities-related response.

The HMP should include a daily documented physical inspection. An additional inspection should be carried out upon notice of an incoming landing to ensure the heliport is safe for operations.

The HMP should also clearly detail the heliport’s operational procedures and asso-

WHEN YOU’RE ON 24/7, YOU NEED EQUIPMENT THAT KEEPS UP

Multi-tank Softeners That Deliver Soft Water 24/7

Multi-tank softeners use 40-50% less salt and regeneration water compared to conventional softeners.

Bryan Laird

Director, Sales and Marketing (519) 465-7927 bryan.laird@canaturewg.com

� Lower Capital Cost Trusted by Canadians for over 50 years. � Lower Operating Costs � Consistent, High Quality Water

www.canaturewg-cied.com Toll Free: 1-877-288-9888

Regina, SK . Cambridge, ON

Knowledge looks great on you

High level decision makers and influencers depend on us to be their trusted information source within the Canadian Real Estate Management Industry

Apar CANADIAN VOLUME 16 / NUMBER 2 / JUNE 2019tment

6 5 0 3 6 00 4 # M P

THE DIGITAL EDGETHE DIGITAL EDGE

INNOVATIVE WAYS TO FILL SUITES FASTER

plus

MARKET UPDATE INSURING YOUR PROPERTY

INCLUSIONARY ZONING WHO'S WHO 2019

SPONSORED BY:

PART OF THE

P A R T O F T H E Occupiers’ liability: A board meeting gone wrong

Anyone who has ever been to BY DAVID ELMALEH a board meeting (or a partners, AND GABRIELA CARACAS shareholders, town hall, or any similar type of meeting) can attest to

the tension that often arises. The law is clear that occupiers have a duty to maintain their premises reasonably safe for those who enter it. But what about when an individual commits assault while at one of these meetings? Should the occupier or organizer of the board meeting be liable for failing to ensure the safety and security of those lawfully on the premises?

In Omotayo v. Da Costa, 2018, the defendant occupier, Metro Toronto Condominium Corporation 1292 (MTCC 1292), was successful in dismissing the plaintiff’ s claim and the assailant’ s crossclaim when a member in attendance at a condominium board meeting struck another meeting attendee with a chair.

Justice Nishikawa found that the duty the condominium corporation owed to the plaintiff did not include preventing an assault that occurred during their condominium board meeting.

Facts of the case

The plaintif f, Jacqueline Omotayo, was a resident and former chair of the condominium corporation. The defendant, Jose Da Costa, was also a resident and former president of the condominium corporation. An emergency board meeting was held on Oct. 4, 2011, to discuss the future organization of the board as Ms. Omotayo had recently been removed from her position as chair and Mr. Da

14 CONDOBUSINESS | Part of the REMI Network

Costa advised that he no longer wished to occupy his role as president. The emergency meeting took place at the defendant’ s (MTCC 1292’ s) premises.

At the emergency meeting, the plaintiff and Mr. Da Costa entered into a heated argument, which led Mr. Da Costa to “lose it” and strike the plaintiff on the head with a chair. Mr. Da Costa was charged by the police and received a conditional discharge for assault with a weapon.

The plaintiff commenced a civil action against Mr. Da Costa for his use of force as well as MTCC 1292 for failing to ensure her safety and failing to employ security measures at board meetings. MTCC 1292 brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff’ s claim against it which was only opposed by Mr. Da Costa given his crossclaim against MTCC 1292 for contribution and indemnity.

Summary judgment motion

MTCC took the position that its duty under the law is confined to the physical condition of the premises and foreseeable risks, not the unforeseeable conduct of individuals in attendance. Meanwhile, Mr. Da Costa argued that MTCC 1292’ s duty extends to having rules of conduct for meetings, policies relating to abusive language, threats and intimidating behavior, and a duty to hire and supervise competent professionals to oversee its business (including, if appropriate, security personnel). Mr. Da Costa further argued that the assault was foreseeable given the quarrelsome nature of MTCC 1292’ s board meetings and a prior unrelated incident involving the plaintiff and another member of MTCC 1292 wherein the police was called.

In reaching her decision, Justice Nishikawa looked to Coleiro v. Premier Fitness Clubs where summary judgment was granted in favour of the defendant SOCIAL MEDIA COLUMN

Sponsored by MediaEdge

Want to stand out on social media? Don’t fake it

By Steven Chester

Let’s face it, we all want our businesses to be social media rock stars, and we know it ain’t easy.

It’s becoming more prevalent that some of the most popular social media platforms have been infiltrated by those who game the system.

This includes those that buy fake followers and “likes” in order to create the illusion that their social media profile is more popular than it is. These fake followers are predominantly bots – accounts run by software designed to look and act like real people.

New services are also popping up that allow authentic social media accounts to become part of the bot game. By signing up for the service, the user authorizes their account to automatically like, follow and randomly comment on other users’ posts, and in turn they trade that fake engagement with other users. Sound harmless enough? The thing is you have no say in in the message your account is spreading or where it ends up.

Ask yourself this: What’s more important, having 50,000 cosmetic followers, or having 500 followers who are in your target market that actually want to hear from you?

As a consumer, it’s even simpler, as deceptive tactics are easy to spot. If you’re using underhanded methods to promote your business, this can be viewed as a reflection of your product or service. Your integrity is at stake.

This is one of the more complex topics that can’t be fully covered in this space. As always, I invite you to stay social and continue the conversation on Twitter at @Chestergosocial where I’ll share a link to the full article.

Steven Chester is the Digital Media Director of MediaEdge Communications. With 15 years’ experience in cross-platform communications, Steven helps companies expand their reach through social media and other digital initiatives. To contact him directly, email gosocial@mediaedge.ca.

www.REMInetwork.com | June 2018 15

Leverage our award-winning insight

remisubscribe.com

ciated training, as well as include an incident emergency response plan with emphasis on fire safety. Heliport operational procedures and training should be conducted in consultation with various stakeholders, including the helicopter operator, which in many jurisdictions is a contracted service; air ambulance dispatch; emergency medical services; Transport Canada; and local fire services. Staff designated to support heliport operations must then receive the necessary education and training to ensure their safety and to support safe operations of the heliport.

A clearly defined Notice to Airmen protocol is an essential process that helps ensure issues that may impact the safe operation of a heliport are communicated to the pilot. These include the presence of construction cranes or other obstructions impeding the flight paths on or near the hospital, problems with heliport lighting or any issue that may be a concern.

A relatively new risk is the increased presence of remotely piloted aircraft systems, more commonly known as drones. A HMP should identify this risk and ways to mitigate it, such as appropriate signage and a physical pre-landing inspection for unmanned aerial vehicles. Also, with any hospital redevelopment, the contractor and hospital media relations/communications should be advised not to utilize a drone to capture build progress without first advising the applicable heliport responsible program and/or facilities team.

Efficient operations are the product of planning, preparation and communication. Each facility will have its own unique set of circumstances to consider, such as climate/ weather impacts on the helipad, elevator access and function, HVAC implications relating to aircraft exhaust, and noise and its potential impact on normal facility operations during heliport take off/landing. Careful consideration should be given to the transport of patients from the heliport to the destination within the facility, typically the emergency department, as well as the distance and route the team has to travel and their ability to effectively move accompanying equipment. A rooftop heliport may have very different issues compared to a ground level heliport.

Also of consideration are the expenses required to maintain a heliport. Understanding how much noncorrosive de-icer is needed each year, how many replacement lights and windsocks to keep on hand, how often the helipad surface requires repainting and the cost of the five-year survey report will all help to establish a reasonable operating budget.

As well, identifying a reliable consultant that specializes in heliport regulations can be a real asset in helping maintain compliance certification, interpreting regulations, and liaising with Transport Canada, local municipalities and other authorities.

Jon Acorn is director of operations, integrated protection services, for four healthcare organizations in British Columbia’s lower mainland. He oversees the heliport management plan for Fraser Health, Providence Health, the Provincial Health Services Authority and Vancouver Coastal Health. Jeff Young is national director, healthcare, for GardaWorld. Previously, he served as executive director, lower mainland integrated protection services, for the same four healthcare organizations in B.C. Jon and Jeff can be reached at jonathan.acorn@fraserhealth.ca and jeff.young@garda.com, respectively.

CHES SCISS

Canadian Healthcare Engineering Society Société canadienne d'ingénierie des services de santé

Call for Nominations

CHES Board of Directors Executive Positions

CHES is seeking nominations for CHES National executive positions. Members are invited to submit nominations for the following: • Vice President • Secretary • Treasurer

Members in the regular membership classification are eligible for office, providing they meet the bylaw requirements in Article 6; Governance, Item 6.3.3 Eligibility.

Nominations can be received either by:

• Members identifying and nominating eligible qualified candidates • Members who are interested in standing may submit their own name as a candidate

Candidates must be active in and a participating member of CHES for a minimum of two years. Candidates shall be in compliance with all provisions of the bylaws and have the ability to carry out the fundamental duties of the assignments of the board. Candidates shall obtain the approval of their superior to serve on the board.

Nominations must be received by April 30, 2022 They should be sent to: CHES National Office info@ches.org Please refer to the eligibility requirements (Bylaws 14th Edition, Article 6: Governance, Item 6.3.3 Eligibility) regarding the call for nominations on the CHES website at www.ches.org or contact the National Office at 613-531-2661.