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 | The investigation revealed the following: Regarding Allegation(s)- Staff overmedicated a client while in care. It is alleged staff overmedicated C1 on 12/23/2024. C1 was admitted into the facility on 12/18/2024. During records reviewed, LPA Ramirez observed MAR for December 2024 for C1. LPA Ramirez did not observe any discrepancies on MAR. LPA Ramirez observed medication orders for C1 and did not observe discrepancies. Three (3) out of the three (3) staff interviewed denied this allegation. C1 is no longer at the facility and unavailable for interview. LPA Ramirez attempted to contact C1’s responsible party and was unavailable for interview. C2 - C3 are non-verbal and unavailable for interview. Two (2) out of the two (2) clients interviewed denied this allegation. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED.
Staff allowed a client to be soiled while in care. It is alleged staff allowed C1 to remain soiled on 12/23/2024. During records reviewed, LPA Ramirez observed C1’s physician report that indicates C1 requires assistance with toileting. LPA Ramirez observed facility client notes for C1 dated 12/18/2024 through 12/23/2024, that documented facility staff assisting C1 with toileting. On 12/23/2024 during the AM shift, staff notes documented C1 was assisted with toileting twice in the AM. Three (3) out of the three (3) staff interviewed denied this allegation. C1 is no longer at the facility and unavailable for interview. LPA Ramirez attempted to contact C1’s responsible party and was unavailable for interview. C2 - C3 are non-verbal and unavailable for interview. Two (2) out of the two (2) clients interviewed denied this allegation. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED.
Staff did not provide laundry service to a client. It is alleged staff refused to wash C1’s bedding on 12/23/2024. Three (3) out of the three (3) staff interviewed denied this allegation. C1 is no longer at the facility and unavailable for interview. LPA Ramirez attempted to contact C1’s responsible party and was unavailable for interview. During facility tour, LPA Ramirez inspected four (4) client bedrooms and observed required linen on beds. Client bedrooms were not observed to be malodorous. Clients were observed to be well groomed. LPA Ramirez observed extra linen in the facility hallway cabinet. LPA Ramirez observed facility washing machine and dryer to be operational. Two (2) out of the two (2) clients interviewed denied this allegation. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED.
No violation were cited during this investigation. Exit interview was conducted. A copy of this report was provided. |