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 interviews with the clients, fourteen (14) out of sixteen (16) interviewed did not corroborate the allegation. One of the clients interviewed stated that S1 and all other staff in the facility do treat them and others with dignity and respect. Another client interviewed stated that all of the staff in the facility have all been very attentive and kind to the clients. During interviews with the staff, none of them corroborated the allegation. S1 explained that they have never spoken towards any of the clients in a rude manner previously. Another staff member stated that they have never witnessed any of the staff yell at or be rude to any of the clients in the facility. During the two (2) visits, LPA did not observe any staff treating clients disrespectfully or in a rude manner.
In regards to the allegation that "Staff interferes with client receiving mail in a timely manner," it is alleged that the mail of the residents sits in the office for up to two (2) days before being distributed, and that C1 had a mail package that had gone missing and was never provided to C1. During interviews with the clients, fourteen (14) out of sixteen (16) did not corroborate the allegation. One client interviewed stated that they do receive their mail from the facility staff and that they have had no issues in obtaining their mail. Another client interviewed also stated that they have had no issues in receiving their mail from the facility staff. During interviews with the staff, all of them denied the allegation. One of the staff interviewed stated that they pick up the mail for clients at the post office, and that mail is distributed to clients from the medication room once they return to the facility. Another staff stated that for the package in question for C1, their family had delivered the package directly to the facility from Amazon, and it was not discovered who determined the package was given to. In addition this package was delivered in early February 2025, and the facility surveillance cameras only keep recordings for up to two (2) weeks, so by the time the issue was brought to their attention on 3/20/2025, it was too late to review the camera footage to determine who the package was given to.
Based on statements and interviews conducted with staff, clients, review of client files and facility file records, there was not enough supportive evidence to concur with the reported allegations. Although 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.
Exit interview held, and a copy of this report was provided. |