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 REVEALED THE FOLLOWING:
Allegation: Resident eloped from facility without staff knowledge.
On 03/24/23, Executive Director staff #1 (S1) stated on an incident report that resident #1 (R1) had wander off the facility on 03/19/23. (R1) was found outside the facility in the rear of the building and had exited through an emergency stairwell door. (S1) recalled the incident and was immediately notified by staff #4 (S4) at 6:00 am that (R1) had wandered off the premises, unattended and locked out. (S4) then called emergency medical services (EMS), while (S1) contacted the representative of (R1). (S1) claimed to have contacted staff #2 (S2) directly to check on alarms and all emergency exit doors.
As a result of an interview with (R1), (R1) recalls the incident, however (R1) is unable to provide details regarding the means by which (R1) left the facility. Interviews staff #3-#4 (S3-S4) both had arrived for their shift at 6:00 am spotted (R1) outside the facility and was trying to get inside through the underground garage. (S3-S4) verified contacting (S1) and (EMS) immediately. (S3-S4) confirmed that (R1) did not appear to have any injuries and was taken to a nearby hospital for further medical observation. (S2) described the day of the incident, (S2) had received an urgent call from (S1) to check on all the alarms and emergency exit doors. (S2) stated the alarm for the emergency door (R1) had activated was in working condition but was uncertain for why the night shift staff was not alerted through the pager devices. (S4) is certain the alarm door was not operable condition. While (S1) was uncertain if the alarm was in operable condition on 03/19/23. According to (S1-S2) the facility does not have surveillance camera. (S1) claimed there were two agency staff who worked on 03/19/23. The Department was not able to obtain statements from the agency staff. During the visit, the Department tested the emergency alarm system on the exit doors, and they are in operable condition. The Department reached out to the complainant and was unable to obtain further statements on the incident. The information gathered and the acknowledgement of (R1) and (S1-S4) support this allegation.
Based on observations, interviews and record reviews, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met therefore the above allegation is found to be substantiated. California Code of Regulations, Tittle 22 are being cited on (LIC 9099-D).
An exit interview was conducted, with Executive Director Hezar. A copy of this report and appeal rights were provided. |