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 | Investigation consisted of the following: interviews of staff from Staff#2 (S2) to Staff#6 (S6); interviews of residents from Resident#2 (R2) through Resident#9 (R9); attempted to interview Staff#1 (S1) and resident #1(R1); reviewed resident#1’s record reviews, and a facility tour.
In regard of the allegation, “staff member filmed resident without permission,” it was alleged that staff conducted a video recording of a resident without resident’s permission. The investigation revealed the following: LPA attempted to interview resident#1(R1), all attempts failed and unable to contact with R1. Eight (8) out of eight (8) residents interviewed could not corroborate the allegation. All five (5) staff interviewed denied the allegation. Both staff and resident interviews revealed that residents were not aware of staff who had filmed residents without permission at the facility. LPA reviewed the video footage and observed Staff#3 (R3) conducted video recording on R1 while approaching and intervening the residents because R1 was hitting R2 in the hallway. The video recording took place in a hallway which was facility's common/public area. Staff had notified R1 that staff would do video recording to record the incident at the spot. Therefore, staff recorded video footage in the hallway to record an incident and had notified resident about the recording.
In regard of the allegation, “facility did not follow reporting requirements,” it was alleged that facility failed to report incident to Licensing. The investigation revealed the following: LPA attempted but failed to interview resident#1(R1). Eight (8) out of eight (8) residents interviewed could not corroborate the allegation. All five (5) staff interviewed denied the allegation. Per file review, an incident report, dated 2/4/21, was filed to Licensing. It detailed the incident regarding R1 which was happened on 2/4/21. Therefore, facility had followed reporting requirements.
In regard of the allegation, “resident was retaliated against for making complaint,” it was alleged that staff retaliated resident after filed a complaint. The investigation revealed the following: LPA attempted but failed to interview resident#1(R1). Eight (8) out of eight (8) residents interviewed could not corroborate the allegation. Per residents’ interviews, included resident who had filed complaint again the facility, revealed staff did not retaliate against residents for making complaint. All five (5) staff interviewed denied the allegation. Staff interviews revealed residents had resident’s right to file complaint. Therefore, there is not preponderance evidence to prove resident was retaliated against for making complaint.
(-continued in LIC 9099 C-) |