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 | The investigation revealed the following: Regarding the allegation… Licensee does not ensure facility doors are kept in good repair. It’s being alleged the facility has a back door that is in disrepair and is being locked with use of a cord tied around the door handles from the inside of the building. LPA interviewed 5 out of 54 residents in total. 1 out of 5 confirmed the allegation. R2-5 all denied the allegation. Agreeing that they have no issues going in and out of the facility nor observing the facility doors to be obstructed. During interviews with staff, LPA Agard interviewed 2 out of 16 in total. 0 out of 2 were able to confirm the allegation. S1 states, “the doors are not broken, blocked off, tied or locked to the residents.” S2 states, “there are no issues with the doors. They are never tied locked because the residents need to be able to come in and out of the main building.”
Regarding the allegation: Licensee allows residents to access hazardous area on facility premises. It’s being alleged the facility has a vacant cottage that is currently vacant due to fire damage. The vacant cottage is currently not being locked which is a safety concern as other residents could potentially enter the unsafe building.” 1 out of 5 confirmed the allegation. R2-5 denied going to this area of the facility grounds or observing any other residents go into these premises. R4 states, “there is no reason for us to go in there… there is nothing in there. It had a fire and we know not to go in there.” During interviews with staff, 0 out of 2 confirm the allegation. S1 states, “Residents are not allowed in there and if they go in there it is without our permission. As you can see it’s blocked off. There is no furniture in the building so no one should be in there.” S2 states, “We have architects that are accessing the building, but no residents go inside there. The insurance company is about to start repairs.”
During a facility tour, LPA Agard did not observe any facility doors to be in disrepair. LPA did observe a set of facility doors held open by bricks. LPA observed the concrete below that door seal to be too low to use a pull-down door stop. LPA advised the facility Administrator to obtain a thick rubber door stop to hold doors in place as an alternative. LPA observed cottage to be vacant and blocked off for usage. LPA also observed yellow caution tape.
Based on LPA’s observation, and interviews conducted, the preponderance of evidence standard has not been met. Although the allegation(s) may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation(s) did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is unsubstantiated.
An exit interview was conducted, and a copy of the report was given. |