Tracy Wodach, co‑chair of the Healthcare Safety Workforce Work Group, said members are exploring replacing parts of existing intake‑screening mandates with a validated risk assessment tool presented by Demus, and asked the group to evaluate whether the tool could serve as an acceptable alternative.

The proposal from Demus — described as an online, clinician‑oriented screener that generates low/moderate/high risk scores and suggested interventions — prompted detailed questions about how the tool would be used, who would complete it, and what training would be required. “We wanted to repeal the mandates of some of the intake screening, the lookups, etcetera, and not replace it with anything. And to now look forward to some solution where we might be able to put something in place that that would be acceptable by all as a as a positive recommendation,” Wodach said as she opened discussion of the tool.

Sarah Gansby of Demus described the tool as “an online friendly user tool” that “will kind of populate based on the information that you put in” and said it produces a low, moderate or high score and offers suggested interventions. Gansby and other Demus representatives told the group their model is used in other jurisdictions and that Demus pairs the tool with stepwise safety protocols and training for staff.

Work group members raised implementation questions including when and how often to screen, who in an agency could complete assessments, and how to capture changing risk between visits. Several members said standard time points could include start of care and recertification intervals. One participant recommended assessments at “start of care and at various time points” and noted recertification every 60 days as an existing checkpoint. Members also pressed for a clause to require reassessment when there is a change in presentation or behavior.

Panelists emphasized that risk is fluid and that substance use or sudden life events can rapidly change a person’s risk profile. A Demus presenter and multiple participants stressed the need for tools and protocols that any staff member who interacts with clients — including phone staff who receive referrals — can use, so frontline workers receive timely safety information before entering a home.

The group discussed training implications at length. Demus said its full initial curriculum for staff is three days and includes inpatient‑level topics; Demus also requires an annual refresher of roughly five and a quarter hours. One participant estimated the statewide number of staff who would need training at about “close to 10,000,” a figure several members said would make a three‑day requirement impractical without phased or train‑the‑trainer approaches. Participants proposed options including train‑the‑trainer models, vendor partnerships, and prioritizing behavioral‑health workers for the most intensive training.

Members flagged limits in the current criminal‑record lookup discussed in the statute: the judicial branch search cited on the call excludes out‑of‑state records, does not include juvenile records, is time‑limited to about 10 years, and can require additional follow‑up that may take days or weeks. Several speakers said the offender‑registry lookup should remain, but that the judicial branch search has practical limitations for intake screening.

The work group did not take a formal vote. Instead, chairs Sasha and Wodach said they would incorporate the feedback and redraft the recommendations: “Sasha and I are gonna look at everything that you've recommended, and we're going to redraft the recommendations and get them out to you,” Wodach said, and asked members to be ready to review a revised draft at the next meeting.

Members asked Demus and other agencies to share implementation materials and sample tools for cross‑agency comparison. Several participants reiterated the need to balance worker safety and access to care, and to provide minimum, evidence‑based standards while allowing agencies flexibility to tailor training and tools to the populations they serve.

The work group scheduled continued discussion at a subsequent meeting to finalize the language of recommendations and training expectations.