1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32 | Below is the summary of doctor/hospital visits C1 had per the Administrator:
• On 4/24/2024, C1 was sent to ER for wound care.
• On 5/15/24, C1 had a follow up visit for wound care.
• On 6/26/24, C1 had a doctor appointment for wound care but refused to get out of the car
• On 6/27/24, C1 was in the hospital until 7/3/24 for wound treatment.
• On 7/8/24, C1 was sent to hospital and D/C back to the facility.
• On 7/10, C1 was sent back to the hospital due to worsening wound then transferred to skilled nursing facility.
Based on information provided by the Administrator, C1 declined to get wound treatment on 6/26/2024. The Administrator states C1’s Case Manager (CM) was informed about C1’s refusal to see the wound doctor for treatment. When asked by LPA if there is any documentation to show CM was informed, the Administrator was unable to provide LPA any proof.
On 8/27/2024, LPA interviewed S1 who states C1 was observed rubbing elbow on the edges of the table and side of the bed. S1 states that C1 refused to see the doctor for wound treatment twice but does not remember the exact dates.
On 12/12/2024, LPA interviewed S2 who states that S2 accompanied C1 in going to the doctor twice but does not remember exact dates. S2 states that during the first visit, C1 was already inside the doctor’s office waiting for the doctor when C1 ran out of the office and refused to go back to see the doctor. During the 2nd visit, S2 states C1 refused to get out of the Uber vehicle. Upon arrival at the doctor’s office.
On 8/26/2024, LPA interviewed C1’s Case Manager (CM) and family member to verify if the facility sent notification about C1’s refusal to go see the doctor. Both CM and family member denied getting notification from the facility about C1’s refusal to see the doctor for wound treatment. C1’s family member states a notification was received from the facility to inform that C1 was being sent to the hospital again due to swelling of the arm in July 2024.
Based on interviews which were conducted, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation is found to be substantiated. California Code of Regulations, Title 22 is being cited on the attached LIC 9099D.
Exit interview was conducted with Manalo and Appeal Rights was provided.
|