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 | C1 stated S2 did not do it again after that incident. One (1) out of five (5) clients interviewed stated that staff#2 (S2) had left client#2 (C2) in the facility vehicle for about two (2) minutes but C2 did not feel client was unattended because clients were able to see S2 and S2 was able to see clients through the windows. Three (3) out of five (5) clients could not corroborate with the allegation. All five (5) clients indicated they felt safe at the program. Per staff interviews, two (2) out of three (3) staff interviewed revealed they were aware of the incident. It was reported to the management and Licensing. S2 got write up. In-service training was provided to all staff after the incident. S2 stated staff would not do it again. One (1) out of three (3) staff interviewed could not corroborate the allegation which indicated staff did not come across such incident. Per record review, S2 had reported the incident to the facility, apologized to the client's family, completed the in-service training regarding supervision/facility policy, and got write up due to this incident. Since it was a single incident that was occurred in the past few years, disciplinary action was applied to S2 and preventive action was taken immediately; therefore, there was not preponderance of evidence to show staff fail to provide adequate supervision to clients.
In regards of facility staff did not staff did not treat client with dignity and respect, it was alleged that staff was disrespect clients which made clients feel bad, upset and humiliated. Per the client interviews, all five (5) out of five (5) clients interviewed could not corroborate the allegation which client stated that staff treat them nicely. They all indicated they felt happy participating the program. Per staff interviews, all three (3) out of three (3) staff interviewed could not corroborate. Staff would treat clients with dignity and respect. Per observation, staff were nice to clients and treated them with respect. Clients looked happy when interacting with staff. Therefore, it did not show staff failed to treat clients with dignity and respect.
In regards of facility staff did not communicate with client’s authorized representative in a timely manner, it was alleged that program director did not return client’s parent’s correspondence. Per the client interviews, none of the clients interviewed could corroborate with the allegation.
(-continued on LIC 9099C-) |