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 | On 08/08/2020, R1 was admitted to a local hospital for a chief complaint of "arm pain." R1 was discharged the same day. A fentanyl patch was prescribed for pain management with instructions to place the patch on the skin every third day. Discharge instructions included picking up the fentanyl patch from any pharmacy with a printed prescription.
Facility records document that the fentanyl patch was applied on R1 on 08/09/2020 due to miscommunication from the hospital. Reporting party (RP) stated that they visited R1 on 08/09/2020 and observed the fentanyl patch was not applied on R1. RP stated they went to the pharmacy to obtain the fentanyl patch on 08/09/2020 and provided it to the facility so that they could apply it on R1.
Facility staff reported that either Staff 1 (S1) or the on-duty med-tech would have been responsible for reading the discharge instructions and ensuring that the newly prescribed medication is filled. S1 admitted that either they or the on-duty med-tech would have been responsible for reading R1's discharge instructions and obtaining the newly prescribed medication.
Based on the interviews and evidence obtained, 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. Appeal rights were provided, and an exit interview conducted.
|