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, one (1) out of three (3) corroborated the allegation that C1 was improperly restrained by staff. One client that was interviewed explained that during the incident, S4 dropped on top of C1 in order to improperly restrain C1 following a disagreement between C1 and the staff. Another client interviewed stated that they do not recall an incident of C1 being improperly restrained, an d that they have never had any issues with staff. During interviews with staff members, none of them corroborated the allegation that C1 was improperly restrained. One of the staff interviewed explained that the incident occurred after C1 requested to take a television from another client's room, and staff explained to C1 that they were not able to provide C1 with another clients property. This agitated C1 and led to C1 become aggressive, including throwing canned food cross rooms and tearing items from the walls. This led to S3 and S4 to attempt a CPI hold due to C1 becoming a danger to themselves and others. When S3 and S4 attempted to initiate the CPI hold, C1 intentionally fell to the ground and began kicking and flailing about, which caused both S3 and S4 to fall as well and land partially on C1. S5 entered the room in which the altercation was occurring and began verbally redirecting C1, and after doing so C1 eventually became calm. LPA reviewed C1's records including C1's Individualized Program Plan (IPP) and Physician's Report which revealed that C1 does have dangerous propensities including a history of property damage, physical aggression, and verbal aggression. Additionally, record review revealed that both S3 and S4 have current and valid CPI training that does not expire until May and March of 2024 respectively.
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. |