Affiliate: Planned Parenthood Arizona.
Locations: 7. Covered here: 7.
Patients who feel a need to file a complaint:
Arizona Licensing Services Online Complaint Forms
Flagstaff
| The Better Business Bureau webpage lists this center under “did not disclose” and states: “This charitable organization either has not responded to written BBB requests for information or has declined to be evaluated in relation to BBB Standards for Charity Accountability.” |
Health Department Documents:
Highlights:
Clinic Conditions
The facility failed to properly sterilize instruments and textiles that “may come in contact with a patients’ blood and internal tissue.” Using unsterilized, dirty instruments on multiple women has the potential to spread infection.
AZ Flagstaff Google 1. Accessed 04.24.21.
AZ Flagstaff Google 2. Accessed 04.24.21.
AZ Flagstaff Google 3. Accessed 04.24.21.
AZ Flagstaff Google 4. Accessed 04.24.21.
AZ Flagstaff Google 5. Accessed 04.24.21.
AZ Flagstaff Google 6. Accessed 04.24.21.
AZ Flagstaff Google 7. Accessed 04.24.21.
AZ Flagstaff Google 8. Accessed 02.13.22.
AZ Flagstaff Google 9. Accessed 02.13.22.
AZ Flagstaff Google 10. Accessed 02.13.22.
AZ Flagstaff Yelp 1
AZ Flagstaff Yelp 2
AZ Flagstaff Yelp 3
AZ Flagstaff Yelp 4
AZ Flagstaff Yelp 5
AZ Flagstaff Yelp 6
Glendale
The Better Business Bureau webpage lists this center under “did not disclose” and states: “This charitable organization either has not responded to written BBB requests for information or has declined to be evaluated in relation to BBB Standards for Charity Accountability.”
Health Department Documents:
Highlights:
Clinic Conditions
The facility used expired medications on patients. Some were two years past their expiration dates.
Staff failed to perform required spore tests on the autoclaves (machines used to sterilize instruments). This could lead to “a potential risk of cross contamination and infection to their patients” according to the report.
Staff failed to properly maintain, clean, and sterilize the autoclaves as per the manufacturer’s instructions. There was no documentation that the autoclaves were cleaned on a weekly or even monthly basis.
When blood dripped from a used speculum onto the floor, staff was observed wiping it up with paper towels and cleaning spray rather than using bleach and properly disinfecting the floor.
Hazardous chemicals weren’t properly labeled.
Staff didn’t properly clean and disinfect post-procedure specimen bottles.
Staff failed to clean and sanitize examination tables between patients.
According to the report, these omissions, “have the potential for non-sterile instruments or non-disinfected supplies to be utilized on patients.”
There was no designated infection control person assigned to the infection control position, no one whose job is specifically to ensure that cleanliness and proper sterilization practices were followed.
There were multiple tears and punctures in the upholstered material of an examination table, exposing stuffing. This presents an infection risk as it makes the surface difficult or impossible to properly disinfect.
Staff
Three staff members had not received yearly TB tests, and the test of another was improperly conducted, rendering it invalid.
Two doctors weren’t certified in CPR. There was no documentation of present or past certification.
Privacy
A HIPAA (privacy) violation that occurred at the clinic wasn’t documented.
Incidents
A patient had an adverse reaction to sedation administered before a procedure. She suffered severely low blood pressure. This wasn’t reported to the medical director or recorded in the procedure notes. The RN who administered the sedation wasn’t licensed to do so. When asked to show what protocols were in place for treating patients suffering severe hypotension (dangerously low blood pressure) the clinic was unable to provide any. The facility also had no guidelines for what blood pressure measurements indicated severe hypotension. According to the report, the center manager “verified, during an interview conducted on 2/13/15, that there are no established blood pressure parameters for severe hypotension, standing orders, and/or facility policy that identifies the care and treatment of a patient experiencing severe hypotension after adversely reacting to a medication provided for conscious sedation.”
Other
Fire and evacuation drills weren’t conducted every six months, as required.
Rodriguez
This could also be listed under health violations, but isn’t duplicated above.
Court Document:
Article from Legal Reader:
Planned Parenthood Whistleblower Awarded $3M, Ending Wrongful Termination Case
by Brianna Smith, August 23, 2019
According to the suit, a former Planned Parenthood director, Mayra Rodriguez, sued the organization for wrongful termination in 2017 after 17 years of service. Towards the end of her career, she began reporting that the “organization was endangering the health and safety of the women visiting their facility.” Soon after, she was fired.
Though Rodriguez’s suit did not list specific damages she hoped to win, a two-week trial and a three-hour deliberation resulted in an Arizona jury siding with her. In the end, the jury unanimously awarded her $3 million for acting as a whistleblower . . .
What were the accusations included in the suit, though? What were the issues Rodriguez reported that led to her wrongful termination? For starters, the lawsuit included several “accusations against Planned Parenthood that demonstrated its lack of medical care, concern for patients, and unethical practices.” Her suit added that “Planned Parenthood fired her after she observed its many violations of state law and ethics guidelines, and after it fabricated a bunk claim that she had narcotics in her desk.”
Additionally, “a couple of months before her termination, Rodriguez made several complaints against doctors and questioned business practices,” according to the suit. On top of that, she began to notice a pattern of a “Planned Parenthood official performing abortions on patients who then experienced significant complications, including bleeding and cramps.” The suit further stated, “Ms. Rodriguez was concerned about the substantial health, welfare, and safety risks to these patients, as well as the substantial risk to the health, safety, and welfare of the inevitable future of PPA patients.”
As if those claims weren’t enough, the suit also alleged that a handful of medical assistants often “complained about working with the same doctor during abortions and that the doctor had been requiring the assistants to sign an affidavit stating the abortion procedure was performed properly before they even did the procedure.” The suit stated:
“The medical assistants believed the attestations were premature, wrong, and illegal because the abortion surgery had not yet been performed and they were concerned about the quality and thoroughness of the procedures.”
On one occasion, a medical assistant even had to track down the doctor “after an ultrasound revealed the doctor had placed an IUD in a patient before an abortion was fully completed.” On another occasion, one of the facility’s managers allegedly “did not report that a minor with an adult partner was seeking an abortion, a blatant violation of state law meant to protect potential victims of statutory rape.”
Eventually, Rodriguez voiced her concerns to her supervisor, even though she did not feel comfortable doing so because her supervisor and doctor in question were friends.
Soon after the jury’s decision, Tim Casey, Rodriguez’s attorney, met with reporters and said “the jury found Rodriguez was doing her job by reporting her concerns . . . It vindicated what she found and it ought to help our community be safer.”
AZ Glendale Google 1. Accessed 04.24.21.
AZ Glendale Google 2. Accessed 04.24.21.
AZ Glendale Google 3. Accessed 04.24.21.
AZ Glendale Google 4. Accessed 04.24.21.
AZ Glendale Google 5. Accessed 04.24.21.
AZ Glendale Google 6. Accessed 04.24.21.
AZ Glendale Google 7. Accessed 04.24.21.
AZ Glendale Google 8. Accessed 04.24.21.
AZ Glendale Google 9. Accessed 02.13.22.
AZ Glendale Google 10. Accessed 02.13.22.
AZ Glendale Google 11. Accessed 02.13.22.
AZ Glendale Google 12. Accessed 02.13.22.
AZ Glendale Google 13. Accessed 02.13.22.
AZ Glendale Google 14. Accessed 02.13.22.
AZ Glendale Google 15. Accessed 02.13.22.
AZ Glendale Google 16. Accessed 02.13.22.
AZ Glendale Google 17. Accessed 02.13.22.
AZ Glendale Google 18. Accessed 02.13.22.
AZ Glendale Google 19. Accessed 02.13.22.
AZ Glendale Google 20. Accessed 02.13.22.
AZ Glendale Google 21. Accessed 02.13.22.
AZ Glendale Google 22. Accessed 02.13.22.
AZ Glendale Google 23. Accessed 02.13.22.
AZ Glendale Google 24. Accessed 02.13.22.
AZ Glendale Google 25. Accessed 02.13.22.
AZ Glendale Yelp 1
AZ Glendale Yelp 2
AZ Glendale Yelp 3
AZ Glendale Yelp 4
AZ Glendale Yelp 5
AZ Glendale Yelp 6
Mesa
The Better Business Bureau webpage lists this center under “did not disclose” and states: “This charitable organization either has not responded to written BBB requests for information or has declined to be evaluated in relation to BBB Standards for Charity Accountability.”
AZ Mesa Google 1. Accessed 04.24.21.
AZ Mesa Google 2. Accessed 04.24.21.
AZ Mesa Google 3. Accessed 04.24.21.
AZ Mesa Google 4. Accessed 04.24.21.
AZ Mesa Google 5. Accessed 04.24.21.
AZ Mesa Google 6. Accessed 04.24.21.
AZ Mesa Google 7. Accessed 04.24.21.
AZ Mesa Google 8. Accessed 04.24.21.
AZ Mesa Google 9. Accessed 04.24.21.
AZ Mesa Google 10. Accessed 04.24.21.
AZ Mesa Google 11. Accessed April 24, 2021.
AZ Mesa Google 12. Accessed 04.24.21.
AZ Mesa Google 13. Accessed 02.13.22.
AZ Mesa Google 14. Accessed 02.13.22
AZ Mesa Google 15. Accessed 02.13.22.
AZ Mesa Google 16. Accessed 02.13.22
AZ Mesa Google 17. Accessed 02.13.22
AZ Mesa Google 18. Accessed 02.13.22
AZ Mesa Google 19. Accessed 02.13.22
AZ Mesa Google 20. Accessed 02.13.22
AZ Mesa Google 21. Accessed 02.13.22
AZ Mesa Google 22. Accessed 02.13.22
AZ Mesa Google 23. Accessed 02.13.22
AZ Mesa Google 24. Accessed 02.13.22
AZ Mesa Google 25. Accessed 02.13.22.
AZ Mesa Google 26. Accessed 02.13.22.
AZ Mesa Google 27. Accessed 02.13.22.
AZ Mesa Yelp 1
AZ Mesa Yelp 2
AZ Mesa Yelp 3
AZ Mesa Yelp 4
AZ Mesa Yelp 5
AZ Mesa Yelp 6
AZ Mesa Yelp7
AZ Mesa Yelp 8
Phoenix (entire city)
See also Employee Rights under the city of Glendale above; Rodriguez worked in Phoenix as well.
Doe
Article from the Arizona Daily Sun:
Planned Parenthood found negligent in reporting girl’s abortion
Excerpt:
A judge found Planned Parenthood negligent for failing to report to Child Protective Services an abortion performed on a 13-year-old girl in foster care . . .
The girl’s case dates back to 1998, when the teen went for an abortion at a Planned Parenthood clinic accompanied by her 23-year-old foster brother, with whom she was having a sexual relationship.
Lawsuits filed on behalf of the teen contend the Glendale girl was subjected to continued molestation and sexual exploitation because the abortion provider and others didn’t notify police or CPS of her first abortion on Nov. 10, 1998. The girl’s attorney also argues that Planned Parenthood’s gross negligence led to her second abortion six months later.
Indeed.com Planned Parenthood Employee Reviews for Phoenix, AZ
AZ Phoenix Indeed 1
AZ Phoenix Indeed 2
AZ Phoenix Indeed 3
Phoenix
Central
The Better Business Bureau webpage lists this center under “did not disclose” and states: “This charitable organization either has not responded to written BBB requests for information or has declined to be evaluated in relation to BBB Standards for Charity Accountability.”
AZ Phoenix Central Google 1. Accessed 04.24.21.
AZ Phoenix Central Google 2. Accessed 04.24.21.
AZ Phoenix Central Google 3. Accessed 02.21.22.
AZ Phoenix Central Google 4. Accessed 04.24.21.
AZ Phoenix Central Google 5. Accessed 04.24.21.
AZ Phoenix Central Google 6. Accessed 02.14.22.
AZ Phoenix Central Google 7. Accessed 02.14.22.
AZ Phoenix Central Google 8. Accessed 02.14.22.
AZ Phoenix Central Google 9. Accessed 02.14.22.
AZ Phoenix Central Google 10. Accessed 02.14.22.
AZ Phoenix Central Google 11. Accessed 02.14.22.
AZ Phoenix Central Google 12. Accessed 02.14.22.
AZ Phoenix Central Google 13. Accessed 02.14.22.
AZ Phoenix Central Google 14. Accessed 02.14.22.
AZ Phoenix Central Google 15. Accessed 02.14.22.
AZ Phoenix Central Yelp 1
AZ Phoenix Central Yelp 2
AZ Phoenix Central Yelp 3
Phoenix
Desert Sky
AZ Phoenix Desert Sky Google 1. Accessed 04.24.21.
AZ Phoenix Desert Sky Google 2. Accessed 04.24.21.
AZ Phoenix Desert Sky Google 3. Accessed 04.24.21.
AZ Phoenix Desert Sky Google 4. Accessed 04.24.21.
AZ Phoenix Desert Sky Google 5. Accessed 04.24.21.
AZ Phoenix Desert Sky Google 6. Accessed 04.24.21.
AZ Phoenix Desert Sky Google 7. Accessed 04.24.21.
AZ Phoenix Desert Sky Google 8. Accessed 02.14.22.
AZ Phoenix Desert Sky Google 9. Accessed 02.14.22.
AZ Phoenix Desert Sky Google 9. Accessed 02.14.22.
AZ Phoenix Desert Sky Google 10. Accessed 02.14.22.
AZ Phoenix Desert Sky Google 11. Accessed 02.14.22.
AZ Phoenix Desert Sky Google 12. Accessed 02.14.22.
AZ Phoenix Desert Sky Google 13. Accessed 02.14.22.
AZ Phoenix Desert Sky Google 14. Accessed 02.14.22.
AZ Phoenix Desert Sky Google 15. Accessed 02.14.22.
AZ Phoenix Desert Sky Google 16. Accessed 02.14.22.
AZ Phoenix Desert Sky Google 17. Accessed 02.14.22.
AZ Phoenix Desert Sky Google 18. Accessed 02.14.22.
AZ Phoenix Desert Sky Google 19. Accessed 02.14.22.
AZ Phoenix Desert Sky Yelp 1
AZ Phoenix Desert Sky Yelp 2
AZ Phoenix Desert Sky Yelp 3
Tempe
Health Department Documents:
Highlights:
Clinic Conditions
Didn’t have a policy for the use, cleaning, and preventive maintenance of certain equipment used on patients, such as heating pads.
The facility appeared to be using irrigation solution (Braun 0.9% Sodium Chloride) that, by manufacturer’s standards, should’ve been discarded.
The autoclave, used to sterilize the instruments, was required to be cleaned weekly. However, the last documented cleaning was nearly three months prior to the inspection. Staff couldn’t verify the autoclave had been cleaned more recently than that.
The clinic staff failed to monitor how many cycles the autoclave was running. This was supposed to be done automatically by a printout attached to the machine. However, the paper in the printer had run out and hadn’t been replaced.
Kost
STATE OF ARIZONA V. TYLER KOST– CRIMINAL CASE
Pinal County Superior Court, Case No. CR201400949
Article from The Arizona Republic:
by Sean Holstege, May 21, 2014
Excerpt:
On May 5, the Sheriff’s Office asked the Arizona Department of Health Services to look into Planned Parenthood’s handling of a 15-year-old girl who claimed Kost had raped and impregnated her. On April 17, the girl’s mother told detectives that clinicians said they “did not want the hassle” of reporting the assault, according to a police report filed in court.
Indeed.com Planned Parenthood Employee Reviews for Tempe, AZ
AZ Tempe Indeed 1
AZ Tempe Google 1. Accessed 04.24.21.
AZ Tempe Google 2. Accessed 04.24.21.
AZ Tempe Google 3. Accessed 04.24.21.
AZ Tempe Google 4. Accessed 02.14.22.
AZ Tempe Google 5. Accessed 02.14.22.
AZ Tempe Google 6. Accessed 02.14.22.
AZ Tempe Google 7. Accessed 02.14.22.
AZ Tempe Google 8. Accessed 02.14.22.
AZ Tempe Google 9. Accessed 02.14.22.
AZ Tempe Google 10. Accessed 02.14.22.
AZ Tempe Google 11. Accessed 02.14.22.
AZ Tempe Google 12. Accessed 02.14.22.
AZ Tempe Google 13. Accessed 02.14.22.
AZ Tempe Google 14. Accessed 02.14.22.
AZ Tempe Google 15. Accessed 02.14.22.
AZ Tempe Yelp 1
AZ Tempe Yelp 2
AZ Tempe Yelp 3
AZ Tempe Yelp 4
Tucson
The Better Business Bureau webpage lists this center under “did not disclose” and states: “This charitable organization either has not responded to written BBB requests for information or has declined to be evaluated in relation to BBB Standards for Charity Accountability.”
AZ Tucson Google 1. Accessed 04.24.21.
AZ Tucson Google 2. Accessed 04.24.21.
AZ Tucson Google 3. Accessed 04.24.21.
AZ Tucson Google 4. Accessed 04.24.21.
AZ Tucson Google 5. Accessed 04.24.21.
AZ Tucson Google 6. Accessed 04.24.21.
AZ Tucson Google 7. Accessed 04.24.21.
AZ Tucson Google 8. Accessed 04.24.21.
AZ Tucson Google 9. Accessed 04.24.21.
AZ Tucson Yelp 1
AZ Tucson Yelp 2
