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 | rehabilitation with a change in medication. S1 was not aware of the discomfort the medication was causing resident but states the facility did not make any changes. W1 states, the changes in medication was done by W2. “W2 made the changes to the medication due to the cost. They stated the medication was too expensive and that they weren’t going to pay for it.” W2 confirmed that they made the changes to the medication back in September 2021 due to the cost. “I’m only trying to look out for R1. It is not the facility’s fault. They do a great job.” S2 states, overhearing R1 complaining about the medication burning their eyes. S2 states the medication was what was prescribed when resident returned from rehabilitation. S3 states not being aware of the complaints from R1 and that the medication, which was causing discomfort, was recently discontinued and will return back to the original prescribed med prior to leaving the facility.
During interviews with the residents the following was revealed. R1 states they are aware that W2 made the changes and it is “not their business to make changes.” R1 states it was not supposed to be changed and it was done because of the cost. R1 states “W2 changed it out of cheapness.” R2-4 state generally not having issues with medication at the facility. R5 was unable to answer the questions due to their cognitive ability.
Based on LPA’s observation, interviews conducted, and record review, the preponderance of evidence standard has not been met. Although the allegation 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. |