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 08/13/24 between 10:30 am -01:16 pm, the Department interviewed (10) out of (11) residents #2-#11 (R2-R11) who are unable to corroborate this allegation. (R2-R11) claimed they have never experienced or known a resident who has sustained bodily bruises while in care.
As a result of the Department reviewing (R1) Physician Report LIC 602A (dated: 03/27/24), Preplacement
Appraisal Information LIC 623 (dated: 08/17/21); Unusual Incident Report LIC 624 (dated: 06/24/24 and 06/30/24); Harbor UCLA Medical Records (dated: 06/08/24); Facility’s Body Assessment Chart (dated: 06/08/24 and 06/29/24); Southern California Hospital Medical Records (dated: 07/03/24), SeniorDoc Medical Notes (dated: 01/31/24 -06/26/24), revealed while hospitalized, (R1) was administered Intravenous (IV) between (06/06/24-06/07/24); (R1) was on medical restraint devices between 06/30/24 – 07/07/24. Medication Administration Record (dated:06/01/24-06/30/24) revealed (R1) is on twenty (20) routine medications. Eleven (11) out of twenty (20) prescribed medications have side effects related to unusual bleeding and bruising according to the National Institute of Health (ref: NIH). Based on the gathered information, there is no evidence to support the allegation mentioned above.
Allegation #2: Facility staff did not seek medical attention in a timely manner.
The details of the complaint alleged facility staff did not seek medical attention for resident #1 (R1) in a timely manner. It was reported that (R1) required immediate medical attention and the facility staff refused to assist on 06/30/29. The report did not provide any further details.
On 08/13/24 between 10:10 am - 02:45 pm, the Department interviewed (4) out of (4) staff #1-#4 (S1-S4) who reported were aware that (R1) was sent out for further medical evaluation at a local hospital on 06/30/24. (S2) indicated family representatives came for a visit on 06/30/24 and felt a concern for (R1’s) requiring immediate 911 (EMS) medical attention. (S2) did not contact Emergency Medical Services (EMS) as (R1) was not having a life-threatening condition.
(S2) described that (R1) was not badly hurt, in danger, distressed, fainted, collapsed, persistent chest pain or difficulty breathing was the reason (S2) refused to contact 911 (EMS).
Instead, (S2) contacted a regular ambulance to transport (R1) to Southern California Hospital for further medical evaluation on 06/30/24 at 5:35 pm.
(Evaluation Report continues LIC 9099-C)
|