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 | ***This report serves as an amendment and supersedes the complaint investigation report created on 06/22/22 and 10/16/20. Findings remain the same as unsubstantiated. ***
LPA Tao interviewed staff#1 (S1), resident#1 (R1) and resident#2 (R2) telephonically.
On 06/22/22, LPA Elizabeth Ceniceros conducted a subsequent visit. During the visit, LPA Ceniceros reviewed resident#1’s records, Home Health Agency Notes, Medication Administration Record (MAR), and Change of Dressing (toe) Schedule. LPA delivered findings.
On 03/03/23, LPA Tao conducted another subsequent visit today. During the visit, LPA obtained copies of staff and resident rosters, interviewed residents from resident #3 (R3) through resident #7 (R7), reviewed resident #1 (R1) records, and delivered findings. Investigation consisted of the following: interviews of staff #1 (S1) interviews of residents from Resident#1 (R1) through Resident#7 (R7); reviewed resident#1’s record reviews, and a facility tour.
In regard of the allegation, ‘staff was not refilling residents medication prescription” it was alleged that staff did not refill R1’s narcotic medication timely. The investigation revealed the following: LPA interviewed resident#1, resident said staff did not refill R1’s medication timely. Six (6) out of seven (7) residents interviewed could not corroborate the allegation. All staff interviewed denied the allegation. Per LPA Ceniceros’ file review revealed that Resident #1’s narcotic medication refill required a physician’s approval (triplicate order) for a narcotic medication. Due to the requirement of having a triplicate order - three (3) doctors’ approvals, this narcotic medication was delayed due to Med Techs contact the pharmacy who request’s authorization from the resident’s doctor. Once the narcotic medication has been refilled, it’s delivered to the facility. Staff had responded to R1’s medication needs timely and requested authorizations to doctors to refill the resident's narcotic medication. Therefore, there is not preponderance evidence to prove staff was not refilling resident’s medication prescription.
In regard of the allegation, “staff was not attending to resident’s injury as needed,” it was alleged that staff did not properly attend to R1’s toe infection on R1’s left foot. The investigation revealed the following: LPA interviewed resident#1, resident said staff did not attend R1’s toe infection. Six (6) out of seven (7) residents interviewed could not corroborate the allegation. All staff interviewed denied the allegation.
(-continued in LIC 9099 C-) |