Allegation #1: Staff handle resident roughly.

The details of the complaint alleged that resident #1 (R1) was handled inappropriately by staff #2 (S2). The complainant reported that (R1) was handled by (S2) and had thrown (R1) on the bed face first. (R1) hurt the small toe when (S2) shoved (R1) foot forcefully.

According to resident #1 (R1’s) Admissions Agreement (dated: 04/27/23) and Identification and Emergency Information LIC 601 (dated: 04/27/23), (R1) was admitted at Burbank Senior Villa East on 04/27/23. Voluntary termination of residency on 06/30/23 by (R1) due to needing a higher level of care.

On 05/08/24, between 10:30 am – 11:45 am, the Department interviewed (8) out of (9) residents #2 - #9 (R2-R9) were complimentary of the staff and stated they adequately are serviced with their daily needs. (R2-R9) were unable to confirm this allegation that staff had mishandled them inappropriately.

On 05/08/24, between 12:20 pm – 01:17 pm, the Department interviewed (4) out (4) staff #1-#4 (S1-S4) who refuted this allegation. (S2) denied ever handling (R1) in a forceful manner and stated these accusations were false. (S2) described (R1) as an unpredictable resident who had some pleasant and complimentary days, and some discouraging days, and would embellish stories. (S1-S4) reported that all staff have taken mandatory “Physical Care Training” in-service training.

On 05/09/24, between 11:09 pm – 11:51 pm, the Department interviewed administrator #1 (A1). (A1) claimed this allegation is not true. (R1) was never handled inappropriately by staff. Our staff are mandated reporters and if an incident like this happened it would have been reported. (A1) stated this type of action on our residents is unacceptable and would warrant an investigation and disciplinary action or termination. (A1) stated there have been no reports from (R1) on any of our staff including (S2) of their unsatisfactory services. Based on the information gathered, there is no sufficient evidence to validate the allegation mentioned above.

Allegation #2: Staff have not ensured resident has closet space.

It is alleged that resident #1 (R1) was not provided a closet space. The complainant reported that (R1) was not provided a closet space for (R1’s) clothing. The complainant claimed (R1’s) former roommate had lots of personal belongings piled up and made the room smell. (Evaluation Report continues LIC 9099-C)

*This report serves as an amendment to clarify the finding. It does not supersede the complaint investigation findings reflected on the report created on 05/10/24.

On 05/08/24, between 12:20 pm – 01:17 pm, the Department interviewed (4) out (4) staff #1-#4 (S1-S4) that (R1) was provided with closet space. (R1) did not have a private room and all rooms had shared closet spaces with their roommates. (S1-S4) were unaware that (R1) had issues with closet space. (S1-S4) recalled providing daily services in (R1’s) and did not observe any malodorous odor. (S1-S4) House cleaning is performed weekly which includes removal of any unpleasant offensive odor.

On 05/09/24, between 11:09 pm – 11:51 pm, the Department interviewed administrator #1 (A1). (A1) communicated that (R1) was in a shared room under contract. Each room shared a built-in closet space. One-half the closet space is for each resident. (A1) explained when (R1) moved in on 04/27/23 (R1’s) roommate was in the hospital and that the stay was undetermined. (R1) desired that the roommate's belongings be removed from the room as (R1) felt comfortable having the room alone. (A1) stated the roommate was entitled to residential rights and could not handle or remove any of the roommate's personal belongings while the resident was in the hospital indefinitely.

On 05/08/24, between 01:10 pm - 1:31 pm, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) inspected (R1’s) rooms #225, #112, #224, #226, #227 and #228 observed built-in closet space for each room and no unwholesome odor. An observation of housekeeping staff was conducting cleaning service on each floor. A review of (R1’s) Admissions Agreement (dated: 04/27/23 page 5) Basic Services Lodging noted (R1) was under contract with a shared room. Based on the information gathered, there is no sufficient evidence to corroborate the allegation mentioned above.

Allegation #4: Staff do not shower resident as required.

It is alleged resident #1 (R1) is not being provided routine showers and is not assisted with incontinence needs timely. The complainant claimed that (R1) had only one shower in four weeks and that staff are not changing (R1) timely. The complainant did not offer additional information on these matters such as a date, time, or individuals involved. (Evaluation Report continues LIC 9099-C)

On 05/08/24, between 12:20 pm – 01:17 pm, the Department interviewed (4) out (4) staff #1-#4 (S1-S4) and asserted this allegation is misleading. (S1-S4) explained staff attend to each resident based on their shower schedules. Each resident may be scheduled for two to three showers weekly. (S2) claimed as primary care staff to (R1), expressed there is no truth to the statement that (R1) was not bathed in four weeks. (S2) communicated that (R1) is bathed according to shower logs three baths weekly. (S1-S4) stated that the care staff does incontinent checks morning, afternoon, and evening or as required. (S2) said that (R1) required more than two hours of checks and diapers were changed more frequently than the average.

On 05/09/24, between 11:09 pm – 11:51 pm, the Department interviewed administrator #1 (A1). (A1) claimed shower logs dispute this claim. (R1) was provided bathing three times weekly as noted under the Admissions Agreement contract. (A1) reported having at least three care staff on each floor and a med-tech to assist with incontinence for residents. (R1) was under observation every two hours and was changed more frequently due to (R1’s) physical health impairment.

According to (R1's) Admission Agreement (dated: 04/27/23) and Physicians Report (dated: 0421/23), Facility Shower Logs (dated: April - June 2023), the required assisted daily living (ADL) services were noted, and at the appropriate frequency. Shower logs revealed (R1) received the required weekly bathing needs. Based on the information gathered, there is no sufficient evidence to validate the allegations mentioned above.

Allegation #6: Facility exposes resident to maintenance dust.

The details of the complaint alleged resident #1 (R1) was exposed to maintenance dust and pests. The complainant reported that (R1’s) room and hallway went through interior construction and were exposed to maintenance specks of dust. Furthermore, the facility failed to ensure (R1’s) room was free from roaches.

(Evaluation Report continues LIC 9099-C)

On 05/08/24, between 12:20 pm – 01:17 pm, the Department interviewed (4) out (4) staff #1-#4 (S1-S4) claimed to be unaware of any general construction work done in (R1’s) room or adjacent hallway that would have exposed (R1) to dust. (S2) stated if the resident had some repairs that involved major work in their room; the facility offers the resident a vacant room to occupy while the room is under construction. The facility has a contract with a reputable pest control company to service the facility according to (S2-S4). (S2-S4) unaware of (R1’s) pest issues as there has been on service request for pest control to service (R1’s) room.

On 05/09/24, between 11:09 pm – 11:51 pm, the Department interviewed administrator #1 (A1). According to (A1) there has been no general construction work performed in (R1’s) room that would have exposed the resident to maintenance dust. The facility is under contract with Orkin Pest Company to eradicate pests in the facility. (A1) stated there have been no service requests on a record made by (R1) regarding pests in (R1’s) room. The facility is contracted with Orkin on a semi-monthly service according to contract #3396414.

On 05/08/24, between 01:10 pm – 1:31 pm, the Department inspected (R1’s) rooms #225, #112, #224, #226, #227, #228, and the facility’s kitchen and did not observe any pests or interior construction on the premises. Based on the information gathered, there is no sufficient evidence to support the allegations mentioned above. On 05/03/24, at 11:43 am, the Department contacted resident #1 (R1) who did not wish to be interviewed and was unable to obtain statements for all allegations associated with this complaint.

Based on the information collected, an inspection of the facility, observation and interviews conducted, and an analysis of records reviewed, the Department found no evidence to support the allegations mentioned in this complaint. Although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations, did or did not occur, therefore the allegations are Unsubstantiated.

No deficiencies were cited.

An exit interview is conducted with Imelda Villanueva and a copy of the report is provided.