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 | S1 states that CW4 visits often usually most days. S1 states that S1 keeps CW4 informed of any issues or changes in condition. LPA interviewed CW4, CW4 stated that S1 keeps him informed of resident R1 condition and that he loved the facility, and the facility cares for R1’s needs. LPA interviewed residents (R2-R7) regarding the allegation Staff did not notify resident's authorized representatives of incidents. Residents interviewed all stated (R2-R7) they had no problem with staff communicating their change of condition or incidents to their authorized representatives. LPA interviewed staff (S2-S6) regarding allegation all stated there were no delays in communicating to authorized representatives of changes to residents’ condition or incidents.
Based on information gathered, the department did not find sufficient evidence to support allegation Staff did not notify resident's authorized representatives of incident
The Department’s investigation consisted of an inspection of the facility, observation, analysis of facility records and interviews conducted and found No evidence to support the allegations:
Resident sustained injury due to staff neglect
Staff did not notify resident's authorized representatives of incidentAlthough the allegations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations, did or did not occur, therefore the allegations are Unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted with Administrator ALCARAZ, MONA and a hard copy was provided.
|