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 | During LPA’s physical plant tour, LPA observed C1’s bedroom to be neat, clean and organized. LPA did not observe any offensive photographs to be displayed within the facility. LPA observed C1 interacting with various staff members. LPA observed C1 to seem at ease with staff members and did not display any behaviors indicating them not to be so. LPA observed C1 to be coloring, watching television and taking a nap throughout their initial visit.
Based on interviews, record review and observations, there is not enough information to verify the allegation. Therefore, the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED at this time.
Regarding the allegation: Staff did not seek timely medical attention for the client. It was alleged that staff failed to seek medical attention for C1 in an appropriate timeframe. To investigate the allegation, LPA attempted interviews with four (4) clients and ten (10) staff members. LPA’s interview with all staff members confirmed that all clients are attended to in a timely manner for any medical situations. LPA’s record review of C1’s medical visitations confirmed that C1 was seen on 10/26/2025. Further record review of the facility’s Unusual Incident/Injury Report (SIRs) confirmed the facility had self-reported C1’s medical visit to Community Care Licensing Division (CCLD) on 10/28/2025. Additional record review of the facility’s SIRs revealed that C1’s behaviors and medical situations have been reported between the dates of 4/8/2025 to 12/15/2025.
Based on interviews and record review, there is not enough information to verify the allegation. Therefore, the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED at this time.
Regarding the allegation: Licensee did not maintain staffing ratios as required. It was alleged that the facility has not met their required staff ratios. To investigate the allegation, LPA conducted an interview with one (1) staff member. LPA’s interview with S1 revealed that three (3) of the four (4) clients require a 2:1 staff ratio. S1 stated the facility’s staff schedule is posted along the common area for review. On 12/01/2005, LPA spoke with a staff member from NLARC where it was confirmed that three (3) of the four (4) clients require a 2:1 staff ratio. LPA’s record review of the staff schedule pertaining to each client revealed that C2’s staff ratio did not reflect the required 2 to 1 staff ratio. However, on 1/12/2026, LPA received information from C2’s CSC where it was revealed that the facility is in the process of phasing out to a one (1) to one (1) staffing ratio for C2.
(continue to LIC 9099-c)
|