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 March 12, 2025, between 10:45 AM and 11:30 AM, the Department interviewed four resident members identified as Resident #3 through Resident #6. Four (4) out of the (4) could not support this claim. (R3-R6) claimed no issues or concerns with their items. (R3-R6) are complementary of the staff for care and supervision provided and stated they are trustworthy staff. Residents #1 and #2 were out in the community or unavailable for an interview during the visit.
On March 12, 2025, between 11:10 AM and 11:45 AM, the Department interviewed two witnesses identified as family representatives, Witness #1 and Witness #2. (W1-W2) reported they were unable to support this claim. (W1-W2) stated there have been no issues or concerns relating to the resident’s failure to safeguard the resident’s valuables. (W1) mentioned that (R1) had made these accusations, and later items were recovered. (W1) stated that (R1) was admitted with items of no value at this facility.
A review of Resident #1’s service records, including the Physician Reports LIC 602A (dated 09/09/24 and 12/12/23), Appraisal/Needs and Services Plan LIC 625 (dated 12/19/23), revealed that (R1) is diagnosed with Major Neurocognitive Disorder (NCD). Admission Agreements for Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly LIC 604A (dated 12/23/24), Resident Personal and Valuables LIC 621 revealed (R1) only had two personal items listed a cell phone and hearing aids that are not claimed missing. Further review of staff training records verified staff have completed courses in Resident Rights, Cultural Sensitivity In Elder, Common Challenges in Aging, Communications Caring for Persons with Dementia, and Dementia.
The Department observed during the visit that mandate posters, Resident Rights, Personal Rights, and California Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly Complaint Poster, were posted throughout the facility to inform residents of their rights.
Based on the information gathered, there is not enough evidence to support the allegation mentioned above.
Based on the information collected from the facility inspection, observations, interviews, and records analysis, the Department found no evidence to support the above allegation. While the allegation may be valid or have occurred, there is insufficient evidence to establish whether the alleged violation took place or did not. Therefore, the allegation is deemed Unsubstantiated.
An exit interview was conducted with Katrina Baesa, and copies of the reports were provided.
|