Questions remain after attack on hospital employee

After a female employee at Duke University Hospital was attacked Sept. 20, questions surround the nature of the attack, how it occurred and how it was handled by hospital administrators.

Although early reports described the incident as a sexual assault, statements from the hospital and a memo emailed to all employees Sept. 24—four days after the attack—asserted that this was not a case of sexual assault. The memo, sent by Kevin Sowers, president and CEO of DUH, acknowledged that communication to all staff in the hospital “should have been handled differently.” Sowers also described a “sense of vulnerability and fear” among hospital employees after the incident occurred, noting that “inconsistent information” was passed on after the incident. No notification was sent under the federal Clery Act, which requires DUH to send out timely warning notices when certain crimes occur. Some employees were not informed until about 24 hours after the incident.

“It’s not just whether or not the Clery Act or any other provision of law mandates that they report to people—it’s that, out of an abundance of caution for the safety and security for the patients and employees, the prudent thing to do would’ve been to notify everyone immediately, so everyone would be on high alert,” said Justin Bamberg, one of the victim’s attorneys, who related his client’s account of what transpired to The Chronicle.

According to Bamberg, the 26-year-old employee performed a routine electrocardiogram procedure on a patient at approximately 5 a.m. during her shift Sept. 20. She then used the restroom on the ninth floor of the hospital at around 5:15 a.m.

While she was checking her hair in the mirror of the bathroom, the assailant came up behind her, choked her until the blood vessels in her eyes began to burst and she lost consciousness, Bamberg said. She woke up with her pants down, unsure of whether she had been sexually assaulted or violated in any way.

Unable to walk, she called for help and was assisted onto a stretcher and taken to the emergency room, Bamberg said. Sexual assault nurse examiners then performed a rape kit exam on the victim.

“It is my understanding that the rape kit won’t be tested until they have a suspect, and that is a systemic issue,” Bamberg said. “It’s not uncommon for law enforcement to not completely test a rape kit until they have a suspect, and it’s my understanding it has not been processed yet.”

Bamberg added that the severity of the crime was not accurately reflected in Sowers’ employee memo, which said “an intruder approached an employee and put his arm around the employee’s neck and then shoved the employee to the ground.”

Duke University Police Department and Durham Police Department are not investigating the attack as a sexual assault, but as an “assault by strangulation” consistent with the police report, according to a statement released by DUH Tuesday.

Michael Schoenfeld, vice president for government affairs and public relations, and Sarah Avery, media relations officer for the School of Medicine, previously denied that the case involves sexual assault.

DUPD policies created to uphold the Clery Act require “timely” notice for certain crimes, including aggravated assault, burglary, criminal homicide and sex offense, among others. Schoenfeld previously stated that the attack did not meet the Clery criteria, which is why it was not communicated immediately to students, faculty and staff.

According to Bamberg’s understanding, administrators met with the directors from each hospital department after the incident Sunday. Directors were instructed to meet with charge nurses, who were instructed to notify employees of what had happened.

“By its very nature, this is a system that would take forever, which is why you see such a breakdown in notifications,” Bamberg said. “Rather than locking down the hospital, which could’ve aided in the capture before they were able to leave the premises, or notifying the employees there was an assailant on the loose, none of that was done. The question remains—why was that not done?”

Bamberg also raised questions as to how the intruder was able to get into the hospital during the early morning, as DUH visiting hours are between 5:30 a.m. and 9 p.m. and entering as an approved visitor outside those hours is a longer process. According to information he has obtained, employees have reported coming into the hospital for their shifts and seeing security officers asleep at the front desk or not even present.

“For this attack to have happened around 5 a.m., how did this assailant even get into the hospital? Was he not stopped by security? Was he required to check in?” Bamberg said. “It’s not just that [the assault] happened or how it was handled, but what was it that opened the door to allow this to happen?”

Sowers stated in the email memo to employees that police and security presence has been increased in DUH since the attack. A security assessment team will evaluate the current security system and report back with recommendations for improvements.

“In addition to [increased] personnel, there are procedures and equipment, such as the metal screening machine in the Emergency Department that people must pass through,” Chief of DUPD John Dailey wrote in an email. “We are currently working closely with hospital administration to review all aspects of security to ensure there continues to be a safe environment.”

Although Bamberg gave credit to the administration for acknowledging mistakes in communication and increasing hospital security after the assault, he noted that when incidents like these occur, they need to be addressed directly for what they are.

“When women are sexually assaulted or attacked in some way that impeaches on their womanhood, they don’t want to come forward because it’s already embarrassing and dehumanizing in the first place,” he said. “When the hospital administrators come and downplay the situation and deny sexual assault, the victim has to read these things in the paper, and they’re put in a position where they’re victimized a second time.”

In the statement released Tuesday, DUH did not directly respond to Bamberg’s information “in the interest of protecting the confidentiality of the ongoing police investigation.”

Sowers could not be reached for comment in time for publication.