By Bo Mitchell, Contributing Writer

Healthcare facilities have come under intense scrutiny in recent years as instances of active attackers and other workplace violence episodes have increased. For facilities managers involved in the planning and implementation of security strategies in these facilities, the process involves difficult decisions about which measures to take. Discussions often include whether or not to arm security personnel. 

The risks of armed personnel 

The decision presents complex considerations for managers: 

• Is it legal for civilian employees to open or conceal carry at work in the jurisdiction under federal, state and local law? 
• Do managers have a clear and detailed written policy and job description? 
• What are the qualifications of an employee or contractor who would carry a firearm at work? 
• Is there constant and professional training, certification and recertification of civilian employees, as there is for a police department? 
• Are plans, training, drills and exercises for armed employees in full cooperation with local law enforcement? 
• Does management know the active shooter protocol governing law enforcement’s detailed planning and training for entering the facility and dealing with an active shooter? 
• If armed security personnel is the organization’s desired strategy, is it deployed in all facilities? For all shifts? Before and after normal business hours? In any court deposition, a cross-examining attorney will ask, “If this is your answer, why did you not deploy it in all your facilities and at all hours? Are those employees not important to your duty of care?” 

Does this sound like a complex answer to a complex problem? Does implementation of arming employees sound expensive and time consuming? Does it require policing and management discipline for years to come? All of these are true. The real risk exposure to management is active-shooter incidents in workplaces. 

Crisis scenario 

This morning, the angry husband of a hospital’s female employee comes to her workplace to kill her. He walks through the front door and kills the receptionist. The gunshots alert the hospital’s armed employees. The shooter moves internally to his target, and her workplace is now in chaos as everyone has heard his shots. 

Related Content: Fatal Flaws: Strategies for Active Attackers

The hospital’s armed employee intercepts the shooter, and without warning the shooter starts firing, wounding the employee but also killing three other employees. This is called contagious discharge and happens with police officers all the time. 

The shooter empties his pistol, missing the armed employee but putting two more hospital employees in wheelchairs for life. Then the police show up. Their active shooter protocol is to enter the building, find the person with the gun, and kill him. They enter the building, encounter the hospital’s armed employee — a person with a gun — and kill him instantly. 

Guess who is responsible for all those dead and wounded employees? The hospital’s senior management is solely responsible. Management has sole and absolute exposure to the inevitable lawsuits by employees’ families. The families will win. They certainly will cost the organization tens of millions, perhaps closing the facility. 

The case for police officers 

Organizations that decide to have armed personnel at their facilities should hire a police officer. They can use the armed officer for all hours, or they can decide to have the officer only for certain situations, such as issuing protection orders, firing employees and working at events such as board of directors meetings. 

Employing a police officer means the officer’s immunities also travel to the healthcare facility. The officer is known to arriving police teams, is highly trained, is in uniform and is up to date on certifications. The officer’s presence might scare away active attackers. 

An active shooter scenario with an armed officer on duty ends quite differently. The shooter is dead, and no healthcare employees are dead or in wheelchairs. 

According to OSHA’s general duty clause — 29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(1) — duty of care requires that “each employer shall furnish … a place of employment … free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees.”  

Sophisticated employee planning and training are the answers. None of these measures are simple or cheap. But addressing the fatal flaws in an active shooter response plan meets the duty of care as required by federal law. 

Bo Mitchell is president of 911 Consulting, which creates emergency, disaster recovery, business continuity, crisis communications and pandemic plans, as well as training and exercises for organizations.