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 | Although it was being tested only, it was never reported as non-operational, and no maintenance order for repairs was required. If the situation calls for it, (S3) will promptly place an order for repairs to ensure everything is in top condition.
On July 6, 2026, between 8:14 AM and 8:40 AM, the Department conducted an interview with witness #1 (W1). (W1) noticed that the call box was malfunctioning around June 3-4, 2026, after (R1) had pulled it off the wall while seeking assistance. On June 7,2026, (W1) found the call box hanging off the wall again and reported it to the front desk, which informed them that repairs were in progress. (W1) repeatedly observed the call box hanging off the wall and reported it each time. By June 28, 2026, the call mechanism had been tampered with and was no longer usable.
The Department inspected room #132 (R1's room) and evaluated the call light system. The wall-mounted system was found to be functioning properly. A care staff member responded within 2 minutes after the call light was activated.
Further inspection of the call light system in room #132 (R2) confirmed it was operable as well. In addition, the call light systems in the following rooms were inspected and tested: #101, #104, #134, #137, #139, #141, #142, #206, #208, #213, #217, #228, and #229. All 30 call light systems were found to be in working condition.
A review of the Facility Visitor Log Report (dated 06/01/26 to 06/30/26), revealed inaccuracies in the reporting of visit dates from (W1). Additionally, a review of the Facility Maintenance Request Report for the same period confirmed that services were performed on (R1's) call light system on June 19, 2026, and June 30, 2026. The analysis showed that of (68) work orders, (60) were completed within 24 hours, resulting in an 88.24% completion rate.
Based on the information gathered, there is insufficient evidence to support the allegation mentioned above.
Based on the information collected from the facility inspection, observations, interviews, and records analysis, the Department found no evidence to support the above allegation. The allegation may have happened or is valid, but there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred. Therefore, the allegation is Unsubstantiated.
No deficiencies cited.
An exit interview was conducted with Ace Huynh, and copies of the reports were provided.
|