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 | The Administrator indicated she was aware of C1 not eating much and losing weight. She stated that she along with staff tried to encourage C1 to eat more and offered different types of food. She indicated that the physician, psychiatrist, and C1's conservator were made aware of this issue. She had tried reaching out to the Psychiatric Mobile Response Team for consultation but C1 did not qualify due to client was not gravely disabled. LPA reviewed the physician’s progress report and the weight for C1’s was tracked each month. Staff interviewed also acknowledged that C1 ate very little and encouraged C1 to eat more and offered choices. Staff also stated they monitor clients during their meals and would check the meal monitoring form when clients come to the dining room to eat. LPA reviewed the daily meal monitoring forms for the month of September and C1 appeared to have come out for meals majority of the time in September. Per staff, although C1 came for meals in the dining room, C1 ate very little. One of the staff expressed the concern to C1’s conservator about the eating pattern and was requested for the conservator to speak to C1 about eating. LPA interviewed 3 clients. One of the clients also noticed that C1 was getting skinnier but stated C1 ate. All 3 indicated that staff are attentive and monitor them daily. Although C1 did lose weight while in care, LPA did not find there was negligence coming from the staff.
Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED.
An exit interview was held. A copy of this report and appeal rights were provided to the Administrator.
|