Conference 7.286::digital

    any similar experience? No.  thoughts? Yes.
    
    I think that the EAP counselor was acting on behalf of the employee.
    Apparently, the workplace was a cause of major stress and was an
    unhealthy environment for the employee at that time.  EAP, by the way,
    is not part of Personnel if anyone should read that into your note; 
    they are a separately contracted organization of health providers and
    work in close conjunction with Health Services.  I have found them to
    be highly professional and competent.
    
    my .02,
    Marge
    

    If true, I do not think the people running the program realize the
    effects of their action.  Something like that could prevent me from
    going to EAP.  I would sooner go to my own HMO, since it is already
    paid for, or perhaps to a private agency.
    
    Perhaps it is beneficial to the employee's health to get away from
    work, but being forced away is a psychological blow in itself that can
    do more damage than good.  AND it is a material blow in loss of income.
    
    EAP is supposed to be confidential.  How confidential is it to be
    forced out of work and permitted only to pick up one's belongings?
    
    A better path would be to _recommend_ a leave from work.  There's a
    world of difference between helping somebody take steps and pushing
    them around.
    
    
    				-- edp 

    I'm afraid it sounds to me that what happened is exactly what should
    have happened.  What's the big deal about being told not to go back
    to work?  I used EAP myself once in the most traumatic situation
    I ever found myself in in Digital.  I had literally reached the
    point where I was considering homicide.  EAP responded very quickly
    and made arrangements for me to go on short-term leave of absence
    within literally a few hours.  By the way, they didn't tell me I
    couldn't go back to work, but they moved so quickly that I never
    even really considered going back.

re .2:

>    AND it is a material blow in loss of income.
    
    I assume that .0 is talking about leave with pay.

    Re not allowing the employee back into the office:  well, so much for
    confidentiality. 
    
    When I was a manager, I sent an employee to EAP once.  There's no
    need to go into details as to why, but the person had the kind of
    problem that EAP exists for.
    
    A couple of days later I got a totally unsolicited call from the
    EAP counselor who had seen my employee.  The person proceeded to
    begin detailing the visit to me over the phone!  I stopped him as
    soon as I realized what was going on, and asked if the employee
    had signed a waiver of confidentiality.  He answered that the employee
    had not.  I then asked him what on earth he was doing calling me
    and revealing information that was supposed to be kept confidential,
    and he just said over and over that he thought it was something
    that should be brought to my attention as the employee's manager.
    
    I went immediately to the Personnel organization, who of course
    expressed shock and dismay and did exactly nothing about it.
    
    That was the first and last experience I'll *ever* have with EAP.
    
    							Pat

    I have to say that the EAP person did her job well -- she acted
    professionally and did what she felt was necessary.  And I can
    understand the need to have the authority to 'pull' a person from
    work.  She also observed the confidentiality issues in a proper
    manner and had my friend sign a release so the EAP person could
    talk to my friend's doctor.
    
    However, people ought to know that EAP has that authority!  In this
    case, being pulled from work was a very traumatic thing for my friend.
    Since she has few relatives, and since she has recently undergone
    some very difficult personal problems (death of a parent), being
    home with idle time on her hands was a lot worse than staying at
    work.  Having recently experienced the death of my father, I can
    completely understand how she felt; I couldn't even handle two
    days out of work for the flu.  Additionally, she had the financial 
    aspects to look at as well, since STD pays only 80% of her normal
    salary.
    
    

    I think the EAP rep. acted wisely.  Unfortunately many of us do
    not recognize the signs of being emotionally unable to function
    properly.   The EAP is trained to recognize these signs.
    
    A similiar thing happened to me and the EAP person was most helpful
    and kept everything confidential.  She did send me home but also
    suggested counseling.  I was under a Dr's. care for some time and
    I am so glad I did go home that day.  As the EAP person said it
    is alot better to be able to walk out of here on your own two feet
    than on a stretcher.
    
    I was very proud and for weeks prior kept trying to function normally.
    I kept telling myself that it was only a stressful period I was going
    through, I didn't need help, etc. I look back on it now and I can't
    believe I am the same person.  The only person I was kidding was
    myself.
    
     

    Re .6.....Short Term Disability pays 100% of salary for up to
    six months.  At least it did for me.  Long-term pays 65% I believe,
    but then you also don't have to pay income tax, so it kind of
    washes.  I never heard of the 80% thing.

        The topic note has been hidden and this note has been set NOWRITE
        because the topic note tells a story, with details, about someone
        other than the topic author (a fellow employee).  I've asked
        the topic author whether she has the permission of the other
        person to tell the other person's story here.  If not, then
        the topic note DOES NOT BELONG IN THIS CONFERENCE, and will
        be deleted.  If that happens, the topic note and replies will
        be returned to their authors.
        
        Tom

        I have also hidden the replies, because some of them comment
        on the situation described in the topic note, and because at
        least one tells a story about another employee (after telling
        a story about the author, which is acceptable).  Again, these
        notes will either be returned to their authors, or the notes
        will be unhidden and the topic made writable, once the moderators
        determine the acceptability of the specific notes.  (The topic,
        about EAP and whether it's good or bad, is acceptable.  The
        specific notes, which tell stories about other peoples' experience
        with EAP, are NOT.)
        
        Tom

        I've received mail from the topic author, and we've spoken
        on the phone.  She assures me (and will confirm in a later
        reply) that her friend doesn't object to having her story told
        here.  For that reason, I'm re-opening this topic, and setting
        the hidden replies (with the exception, for the time being,
        of reply 741.9) visible.  (I've contacted the author of that
        reply by mail, raising my concern about the part of that reply
        that tells a story about another employee's experience with
        EAP.)
        
        If you feel compelled to describe someone else's experience,
        good or bad, with EAP or other personnel/personal matters,
        you must either make sure you have that person's permission,
        and say so in your note, or make sure you don't disclose ANY
        details that could cause the person to be identified.  Since
        it's hard to do the latter, and often difficult to obtain the
        former, you might want to stick to telling your own story,
        and let others tell their stories for themselves.  (I don't
        have any problem with someone posting a story on behalf of
        someone else, if that person wants anonymity; just make sure
        you keep a copy of the story in case anyone contacts you to
        confirm it.)
        
        Tom

    
    Thanks, everyone, for your replies so far. 
    
    As Tom said in his last reply (.12), please do ensure that you protect
    the anonymity of any people you're discussing in your notes.  I
    should have made it very clear that my friend endorsed my writing
    this note on her behalf.  She is quite anxious to see/hear what
    kind of advice you all have.
    
    Also, perhaps I didn't ask my question as clearly as I should
    have.  The question is mostly regarding the surprise of finding
    out that the EAP person had the authority to pull my friend out
    of work.  If it is understood ahead of time that they can do that,
    then I don't have a problem with it.  If a person then goes to EAP
    and is pulled-out of work, then it is at least with prior knowledge
    of that potential.  However, to go in there and innocently seek
    help, and ALL OF A SUDDEN be told that you can't return to your
    desk, well, that seems another matter altogether.
    
    I agree with a number of replies here that the EAP program is a
    good one, and that the EAP person did what she had to do in this
    instance.  My problem isn't "with EAP", but with the distribution
    of their 'policies'.  If I go to someone for help, I want to do
    so with a full understanding of the ramifications.  I haven't seen
    any indication in anything about EAP that there ARE ramifications.
    
    On the other side of the argument, one might say that EAP shouldn't
    publicize this policy specifically because people needing help may
    not seek it.  
    
    What do you all think about this?
    

    I think 80% of STD applies to wage class 2 employees; I think wage
    class 4 gets 100%.

        Umm..  We seem to have two threads of discussion here, one about
        EAP, and one about short-term disability.  Perhaps we could
        address the short-term disability question in another topic, or by
        reading "Your Benefits Book", which spells out the rules for
        short-term disability in section 5.  If you don't have a copy of
        the book, ask for one.  Your manager or your PSA should be able to
        help you.
        
        I would make reply 741.9 visible again, because the author has
        informed me that she, too, has obtained the permission of her
        friend to tell the story here.  However, the author appears to
        have deleted it from the conference.  I hope she will post it
        again, as it offered some useful insights. 
        
        Tom
        
        P.S.: Wage class 1 and 2 get 12 days of 100% coverage under the
        "Sick Pay Plan", which accrues at one day per month worked, and
        then get up to 6 months of coverage at 80% under the "Accident and
        Sickness Plan", provided the rules for qualifying (also in the
        book) are met.  Wage class 3 gets up to 3 months of 100% under the
        "Salary Continuation Plan", followed by up to 3 months at 80%
        under the "Accident and Sickness Plan".  Wage class 4 gets up to 6
        months of 100% coverage under the "Salary Continuation Plan".
        It's all in "Your Benefits Book".  Read it for yourself.  It's not
        a matter of opinion, so there shouldn't be any need for argument
        or discussion.         

    I'm the individual that entered response .9.  I have chosen to
    delete the note although I do have my friend's permission to
    enter the note.  My friend no longer works for DEC and she
    reiterated that perhaps she would still be a DEC employee if EAP
    had been around when her trouble occurred.
    
    I have chosen to delete the note since I cannot be _100%_ certain
    that others might not remember the incident, although it happened
    quite a number of years ago.  My main concern was *and still is*
    that the manner in which the base note was entered would tend to
    deter others from seeking EAP's assistance.
    
    I would suggest that you all determine who delivers EAP in your
    areas and make an informational phone call BEFORE a crisis 
    situation occurs.
    
    In light of the questions that arose here, I contacted my EAP
    person.  She stated that EAP ABSOLUTELY DOES *NOT* HAVE THE
    AUTHORITY TO PULL AN EMPLOYEE OFF THE JOB, at least in this
    area.  She said all EAP can do is recommend and suggest what
    an employee should do.  If the employee has not signed a release
    (as I did), EAP cannot even confirm to DEC that the employee
    kept the appointment - this is assuming the employee's manage-
    ment might have sent the employee to EAP or knew the employee
    was contacting EAP.
    
    We do not have a Health Services organization here in my area,
    so I can't know if that alters the situation.  My EAP rep said
    that if they were contacted by DEC they *could not* divulge
    anything unless the employee signed the release, and even with
    a signed release EAP cannot reveal details of the session be-
    tween the employee and the EAP counselor.
    
    Having once been on STD as a WC2 I can understand the panic of
    only collecting 80% of one's salary when you are budgeted to
    100%, however I would hate that deterring anyone from getting
    help if they really needed it.
    
    Bottomline, is I guess, we should all contact our local EAP
    providers for specific details.  I would be surprised however,
    to find that DEC would provide a benefit that could vary
    drastically from area to area.
    
    In this case, perhaps we just don't have all the specific de-
    tails, and that *I believe* is as it should be.
    
    Karen
    
    

>  Having once been on STD as a WC2 I can understand the panic of
>  only collecting 80% of one's salary when you are budgeted to
>  100%, however I would hate that deterring anyone from getting
>  help if they really needed it.

Oh, it certainly would deter. Say, I'm living in Mass. and barely make ends
meet because I own a home. A cut in pay will make things even tougher for
me emotionally. Plus, the idle time would drive me crazy. Even if I need
help, I don't need that kind of help. 

I've dealt with enough trained medical professionals to question their
opinions. Especially, when the opinions may be based in part on subjective
issues. I don't want any trained professional ordering me away from work
because I am unemotionally unfit in their opinion. Advising is one thing;
ordering me to leave work is a different matter. 

If this is truely the way EAP works, then it will be a warm day in Buffalo
before I use it. I guess I'll go talk to our health services folks
here in BXB1 and see what they have to say about EAP.

    RE: .17
    
    >Advising is one thing; ordering me to leave work is a different
    >matter.
    
    I would ask that you re-read my entry .16.  I reiterate, I was told
    _today_ by my EAP provider that they have absolutely NO author-
    ity to order anyone off the job. That is why I suggested that
    anyone concerned after reading this note contact their EAP
    provider and get specific details in the event it could vary
    by geographical location. If it turns out that the EAP rep
    overstepped her bounds, I hope someone will let us know for
    certain.                 
    
    >If this is truly the way EAP works, then it will be a warm day
    >in Buffalo before I use it.
    
    This was exactly what I feared after reading some of the notes.
    I think we all own a part of being aware of our benefits, that
    is why I got on the telephone today and double-checked with my
    EAP provider.
    
    >I guess I'll go talk to our health service folks here in BXB1
    >and see what they say about EAP.
    
    Good idea, but since health services works for DEC, why not
    give EAP equal time and make sure each group's understanding of
    procedures mesh?
    
    I detailed my experience with STD as a WC2; it wasn't a day at
    the beach...I'm not going to beat a dead horse.
    
    I would like the folks worried about the financial considerations
    to think about the following scenario:
    
    	Employee under tremendous emotional strain and stress.
    	Employee's condition begins to impact job performance and/or
    		impact co-workers.
    	Employee is put on written warning.
    	Employee is advised to seek EAP assistance by concerned
    		friends or even a concerned manager (I've personally
    		seen that happen).
    	EAP _suggests_ STD and professional care.
    	Employee refuses to follow EAP's recommendations and continues
    		going into work.
    	Employee's performance continues to deteriorate and an entire
    		work group is negatively impacted.
    	Employee is given additonal written warning.
    	Employee's condition and performance continues to deteriorate.
    	Employee is terminated.
    
    I believe the above scenario would have a catastrophic impact on
    anyone's financial status.  For what it's worth I have witnessed
    a similar (not identical) situation.
    
    Since we may never know _all_ the details that prompted the base
    note, let's not continue to speculate about EAP's actions in this
    one case.  I sincerely hope everything works out for the employee
    in the base note, but let's not turn this note into an EAP 
    bashing note without doing some individual footwork. 
    
    Karen
    

I've contacted Bruce Davison of Digital Corporate EAP and asked him
to respond to our concerns here by posting a note. Maybe he will ...

    Thanks "EAGLE1:BRUNNER" for your efforts to "get the real scoop".
    I did some investigating myself today and was also given Bruce's
    name as the person who'd know the real policy.  I suggested that
    my friend call him.
    
    Before I found out his name, I did call another EAP office just
    to clarify some of the policy.  What it comes down to, apparently,
    is that the EAP "social workers" are licensed by the State.  They
    have to take an oath, just as do other "professionals" (doctors,
    lawyers, and the like).  As part of THEIR PROFESSIONAL standards,
    they have an obligation to ensure that someone seeks appropriate
    medical help if that person is a threat to others, or a threat to
    him/herself (suicide).  In the case of my friend, the EAP person
    clearly stated to us that she was worried about suicide or other
    self-harm.  
    
    So, when the EAP person was acting, she was doing so on behalf of
    her profession, NOT on behalf of any Digital policy.  It's interesting
    to note that their policy with Digital has no such "authority" (i.e.,
    ability to pull people from work).
    
    What it appears to come down to, really, is whether they're going
    to adhere strictly to Digital's policy, or their own legal/ethical
    obligations.  As far as I'm concerned, ethical obligations MUST
    be the primary rule by which people live.  So, in this way, I can
    understand more clearly the authority utilized in this situation.
    
    One thing still unclear to me is why the employee had to see Digital's
    doctor.  I realize it is our policy that employees must see our doctor
    if they're returning from STD/LTD, or after five days of being out
    of the office.  If the true intent of the EAP consultant was in
    response to her own ethical/legal/professional requirements, a tie-in
    with Digital's doctor doesn't seem necessary since it is not a Digital
    policy.  It would seem that all ethical requirements would be met
    by the employee returning with a note from her own doctor.
    
    And, I'll reiterate what I originally wrote:
    
    With all this in mind, I **STILL** think that employees should be
    aware of this before they go into an EAP office.  An argument against
    this is that it may deter some people from going there; however,
    I've always believed strongly that people should know what they're
    getting into before they seek any kind of assistance.
    

I am not aware of an organisation in Digital outside the U.S. called EAP, 
could someone be kind enough to explain the charter of the organisation,
it's size and how it came into being? Thanks.

    
    "EAP" stands for Employee Assistance Program.  It is not an 'internal'
    group, per se (i.e., they're not on Digital payroll, I don't believe),
    but they're contracted by Digital to provide counselling for employees.
   
    One thing nice about EAP is that it doesn't have divided loyalties
    such as Personnel might have.  With Personnel, it often seems their
    first priority is to management, not necessarily to "the little
    people".  With EAP, the "little people" are exactly their business.
    
    The people working there are licensed social workers (or, I think
    they may use the word "therapist").  I asked one person about the
    general EAP therapist credentials, and she said that it included
    at least a masters degree, and then she started to name some additional
    'letters' on top of that (similar to a dentist being a DDS; I'm
    not sure what the EAP 'letters' meant).  This is all a very poorly
    constructed way of saying that they're not psychologists or
    psychiatrists (or, at least not necessarily).
    
    They're listed in the back of the DEC Directory.  They have slightly
    less than 30 offices, mostly in the Greater Maynard area.
    

        From page 3.54 in "Your Benefits Book, 1988 edition":
        
        All U.S. Digital facilities have an Employee Assistance Program
        to support, in a confidential manner, employees and their families
        who are having personal problems such as alcoholism, drug abuse,
        physical or emotional concerns, complications with aging parents,
        legal, marital, family, or financial problems.
        
        The Employee Assistance Program makes available to employees
        and their families the kind of professional information services
        or referrals required to help prevent or resolve many of these
        problems and situations.
        
        -----------------------------------------------------------------
        
        I believe that in almost all cases, the EAP services are provided
        by outside contractors.  I suspect that the exact services differ
        somewhat from place to place, and the skills and backgrounds of
        the actual counselors (who are individuals) will obviously vary
        from place to place.  In the MKO facility (and, I believe, most of
        the rest of the southern NH area), the EAP services are provided
        by the Stoney Brook Counseling Center. 
        
        In my experience, the EAP services are professionally delivered.
        
        The brochure that's provided in MKO says, with regard to the
        question of confidentiality: 
        
        "The relationship between the counselor and the individual is
        strictly confidential.  No identifiable information about any
        employee is released without the written consent of that
        employee."
        
        This being Digital, it's altogether possible that the way EAP is
        administered in some other facility may be different, and in any
        case, people (being people) can make mistakes, even about such
        sensitive matters as the one described in the topic note. 
        
        Since the employee whose experience is described there did
        not write the note, and since the note's author *may* have
        misunderstood some aspects of the situation, we can't know
        for sure just what happened (unless the employee in question
        chooses to participate in this topic and tell us more, or the
        author of the topic note seeks out and reports more details).
        
        Tom

        The index to the on-line Personnel Policies and Procedures manual
        (VTX ORANGEBOOK infobase) only lists one policy that mentions the
        EAP, which is the policy on incapacitated employees.  So you can
        easily read it yourself, I've included it below. 
        
        This policy says that it's up the manager or supervisor, with the
        help of Health Services and Personnel, to decide whether an
        employee is incapacitated, and advises them to seek assistance
        from the EAP, as well as to advise the employee of availability of
        the EAP. 
        
        Note that the policy explicitly mentions extreme stress as
        one possible form of temporary incapacitation, and explicitly
        says that an incapacitated employee should be removed from
        the worksite.  (At least, that's what it says to me.)
        
        Now, imagine the following scenario:  manager or supervisor, as
        well as personnel, believe the employee is extremely stressed, and
        ask EAP counsellor to evaluate the employee to either confirm or
        deny the suspicion.  EAP meets with employee (at manager's
        request), determines that the employee is extremely stressed and
        should be escorted home, and reports same to manager and to
        personnel.  Employee is escorted home, and advised to get
        short-term crisis-oriented counselling. 
        
        I don't have any way of knowing whether this is what happened in
        the case mentioned in the topic note, but it just MIGHT be what
        happened.  I do believe that people who are already extremely
        stressed sometimes misunderstand things that are happening, and
        it's possible that there was some misunderstanding about what was
        going on. 
        
        Tom

Incapacitated Employee                             Effective: 10-AUG-87
                                                     Section: 6.33     

 Policy 

 It is the Company's policy to provide its employees with a work
 environment that is safe and healthy.  To meet that objective,
 employees must be capable of performing their work in a safe,
 responsible and productive manner, and should never work if they
 are in any way incapacitated.  Managers and supervisors have the
 responsibility for identifying employees who appear incapacitated
 and must take appropriate action.  Additionally, all employees have
 the responsibility for notifying an appropriate individual when
 they or another employee appears incapable of performing their work
 in a safe, responsible and productive manner.

 Definition 

 For purposes of this policy, an incapacitated employee is an
 individual, who appears unable to carry out his or her assigned
 duties in a safe and responsible manner and who should not remain
 at the worksite.  An incapacitated employee is an individual who
 appears to have an acute condition which is impacting his or her
 behavior and should be differentiated from an individual who
 normally comes to work with a restriction and/or impairment.
 Examples may be an employee who is intoxicated, has a medication
 overdose, or is extremely stressed.  In addition, the term
 incapacitated when used in this policy should be distinguished from
 other behavior or performance issues.

 Practice

 The final judgment as to whether an employee should be considered
 incapacitated rests with his or her manager or supervisor with the
 assistance of Health Services and Personnel.

 Managers who believe that they have observed an incapacitated
 employee should have a discussion with that employee to confirm
 their observation and notify the employee of their conclusion.
 When the manager believes that it is not appropriate for the
 incapacitated employee to remain at the worksite, he or she should
 do one or more of the following:

     o  Escort the employee to Health Services, where available.

     o  Initiate the site's Emergency Medical Response Plan.

     o  Contact the site's Employee Assistance Program for
        consultation and assistance.

     o  In instances where neither Health Services, Security or an
        Emergency Response Plan exist, contact the local community's
        emergency response system (i.e., police, fire, hospital
        emergency room, etc.).

     o  Provide transportation in accordance with Policy 6.15
        "Transportation of Sick or Injured Employees."  An
        incapacitated employee should be treated as a medical
        emergency when arranging for transportation under this
        policy.

 When arranging for the incapacitated employee to leave the
 worksite, the manager should not:

     o  Send the employee home alone.

     o  Attempt to restrain the employee.

     o  Attempt to determine the cause of the incapacitation.

     o  Attempt to conduct an in-depth performance discussion at
        that time.

 If an employee insists on leaving the worksite while considered
 incapacitated, the manager should contact Security.  Security will
 notify the police that an employee who appears incapacitated has
 left the worksite.  In the absence of Security, the manager is
 responsible for calling the police.

 Return to Work

 It is the responsibility of employees who were required to leave
 the worksite under this policy to provide an explanation for their
 incapacitation and if appropriate, proper medical documentation
 regarding their fitness to return to work in accordance with the
 Return to Work of Disabled Employees Policy (Ref. 6.17).

 Where a legitimate medical basis exists, the manager (with
 assistance of Health Services) must assess the likelihood that such
 incapacitation will recur and the reasonableness of any
 accommodations that may be requested by the employee.

 Where no apparent legitimate medical reason exists, the manager
 should address the incident(s) of incapacitation as a performance
 and behavior issue in accordance with Personnel Policy 6.21,
 Corrective Action and Discipline, when the employee is ready to
 return to work.

 When appropriate, Health Services, Personnel and the Manager should
 remind the employee of the availability of the Employee Assistance
 Program.

    Re .24:
    
    The problem with the scenario set forth in .24 is that the employee
    contacted NO ONE except the EAP office.  Her manager, personnel,
    and Health Services were not involved when these decisions were
    being made.  I know this because I sat in the EAP office with them (the 
    EAP counsellor and my friend) for over four hours that day; I
    personally sat with them and was the one who escorted my friend
    out of the building.  So, much of what I've said in my base note is 
    from personal involvement, not second-hand information.  
    
    Health Services got involved only when the employee had to go there
    due to a physical ailment which was acting up.  The physical part
    *wasn't* the deciding factor in sending her home.  So, it still
    boils down to the fact that the EAP person, using her own
    authority, refused to let my friend return to work without going
    through the process of seeing her own doctor and Digital's doctor.
                                                 --------------------
    
    Since it was an solely an EAP situation, I still don't understand why
    Digital's doctor must become involved.
    
    Does that clarify the situation, as well as my 'knowledge' of it?
    

    I hope my comments will answer your questions and or clarify concerns
    regarding the Employee Assistance Programs at Digital.
    
    1.  How do Digital EAPs Work:
    
    Digital, since the first EAP was proposed in 1974, has established
    comprehensive EAP services for all U.S. and Canadian employees.
    Additional programs are under consideration in Europe and Puerto
    Rico.  
    
    Digital EAPs confidentialy assess an employee's problem or dificulty
    and, when indicated, make a referral recommendation to a pre-screended
    community resource.  Subsequent reimbursements are determined by
    the provisions of the health plan the employee has selected, the
    nature of the problem and the resource utilized.  The goal is to
    help people get the right kind of help from the right resource.
    
    Digital EAPs primarily utilize the services of external contractors,
    individuals or companies, experienced in EAP service.  We require
    a Master or Doctorate degree and a minimum of 3-5 years of post
    graduate full time experience.  State professional licenses are
    required, where applicable.  Only in Westfield and Maynard area
    has Digital chosen to employ licensed professionals in lieu of
    contracting for service.
    
    2. Confidentiality:
    
    An employee's use of the EAP is strictly confidential.  No personal
    identifying information, including appointment  information, is
    provided to anyone without a written release of information provided
    by the employee.
    
    3.  EAP and Emergency situations:
    
    Under very limited cirucumstances of assessed risk of suicide, homocide
    and severe risk of safety will an EAP professional take steps to
    attempt to protect the safety of a client as well as any individuals
    identified as potentially in danger.  These are professional
    obligations oftened referred to as "Duty to Warn", some states may
    also have similar legal requirements.  In addition, circumstances
    of suspected child abuse and neglect are required by law to be reported to
    State authorities for investigation. 
    
    Digital expects our EAP counselors to function within the professional
    codes established by their field of practice, professional license
    and applicable laws.  The circumstances outlined above have been
    very rare occurences.
    
    Health Services organization is responsible for determining an
    employee's fitness for duty or readiness to return to work.  See
    note on Incapacitated Person Policy #4.35.
    
    Comments:
    
    I have been impressed with the thoughtfulness, detail and concern
    contained in the notes.  It is difficult to comment on the
    circumstances of a particular case that is confidential.  In the
    midst of any personal crisis, the memory of the details of the events
    can easily become blurred.  Digital EAPs come under Corporate Medical
    and are designed to be separate, confidential and independent. 
    Part of my role is to repond to employee concerns that may arise
    from their contact with one of our EAPs or any perceived breaks
    in confidentiality.
    
    Our EAPs are utilized by thousands of employees each year.  The
    program's success is ultimately built on user satisfaction resting
    on a foundation of confidentiality and professional service.
    
    Your comments are welcome.
    
    Bruce Davidson, LICSW
    Corp. Manager Employee Asssistance Programs
    PKO 3-1/K44    
    

    RE: .26
    
    Thank you so much for taking the time to provide such a comprehensive
    reply to this conference.  Your time and input are much appreciated.
    
    Your response brought up one question:  You wrote in there that
    Health Services is responsible for determining when someone is able
    to return to work, and you stated the relevant policy.  My question
    is:  How does Health Services become involved?  If the employee
    goes to EAP, it would stand to reason under the confidentiality
    clause that the EAP person could not advise Health Services of the
    situation.  If the employee were out of work for five or more days,
    or he s/he was on STD, then Health Services must become involved;
    however, in absence of these conditions, it isn't obvious to me
    that Health Services would necessarily have any involvement.
    
    Is there a tie-in between the Health Services and EAP organizations?
    I know they typically reside in the same area.
    
    I realize the situation in my base note clouds the issue somewhat
    inasmuch as my friend ended up in the Health Services office.  But,
    from a strictly theoretical point of view, the location of the
    EAP/employee meeting shouldn't necessarily open up the confidentiality
    agreement between the EAP consultant and employee to include the
    Health Services professional.  Is this assumption correct?
    
    As I've stated before, and I think it's worthy of re-statement,
    I HAVE NO OBJECTIONS TO THE WAY THIS SITUATION WAS HANDLED.  The
    EAP person did the right thing.  I worry that my push-back might
    be misinterpreted.  What I'm trying to understand, for future reference
    more than anything else, is the extent of the EAP consultant's
    authority to become involved in Digital policy.  Their lack of
    involvement in such policy/politics/etc. is exactly why I see EAP as 
    being so benefecial.
    
    Again, thank you for your time and effort.
    

        Ruth, I think the answer to your question (in .26) is contained in
        .25 -- that the reason the EAP person contacted Health Services
        was that he or she believed that the employee's current emotional
        state put the employee (or other employees) at risk.  This was
        covered in part "3." of Bruce's reply, which is very much
        appreciated.  You might want to forward (via MAIL) your reply
        and mine to Bruce and ask him if my suspicion is correct.
        
        Tom