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 | Allegation: “Staff did not ensure resident saw primary care physician within the required time frame” and “Staff did not follow residents admission agreement”
It was reported that Resident #1 (R1) did not see their primary care physician within sixty (60) days as required by the facility’s plan of operation. Interview and record review confirmed that R1’s previous primary care visit occurred on 03/09/2026, with the next follow-up appointment scheduled for 05/15/2026. This appointment date exceeded the sixty (60) day requirement, resulting in a sixty-seven (67) day gap.
The House Manager stated that on 05/07/2026, they identified that the upcoming primary care appointment would not meet the required timeframe. The House Manager reported contacting R1’s primary care provider to request an earlier appointment; however, the provider had no availability. Additionally, the provider informed the House Manager that the scheduled 05/15/2026 appointment would need to be moved to 05/22/2026 due to physician unavailability. As a result, the facility took R1 to an urgent care clinic in an attempt to temporarily fulfill the requirement.
Review of the facility’s plan of operations states: “Provision for the consumer to be examined by [their] primary care physician at least once every 60 days, or more frequently, if indicated.” This established a clear requirement for staff to ensure residents are seen by their primary care physician every sixty (60) days.
Review of resident admission agreements revealed that while the agreements do not explicitly state a sixty (60) day primary care requirement, they do specify that the facility must operate in compliance with Title 17 and Title 22 regulations, as well as its approved plan of operation.
Based on interviews and record review, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met; therefore, the allegation “Staff did not ensure resident saw primary care physician within the required time frame” is deemed SUBSTANTIATED at this time. The allegation “Staff did not follow residents admission agreement” is deemed SUBSTANTIATED and considered a TECHNICAL VIOLATION with no deficiency cited.
Pursuant to Title 22 CA Code of Regulations and/or the Health and Safety Code, the following deficiency was cited (Refer to 9099-D).
Exit interview conducted. A copy of the appeal rights and report was reviewed and provided. |