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 | LPA toured the facility and observed the R1’s broken wheelchair was stored in a storage room. R1’s broken wheelchair was in a very bad condition, not operable and not safe to use. It would be a trip hazard if the broken wheelchair was placed in resident’s room per resident’s ambulatory status. Per R1’s file review, R1’s wheelchair was broken prior to May 2021. Staff had initiated the process and attempted to get a new electrical wheelchair to resident for replacing the broken one. Thus, facility staff are not withholding resident's property of a broken electrical wheelchair but preventing trip hazard to resident while in care.
In regard of allegation, “facility staff won't assist resident with ordering a new ambulation device,” it was alleged that resident#1(R1) requested staff to submit an order of a new wheelchair on R1’s behalf but did not have progress. LPA interviewed residents who are using electrical wheelchair. R1 stated staff did not follow up R1’s progress on ordering the new wheelchair. Two (2) out of three (3) residents could not corroborate the allegation. All staff interviewed denied the allegation. Per R1’s file review, R1’s wheelchair request was submitted since May 2021. The process was stopped due to R1 refused to be seen by R1’s primary doctor for an evaluation of a new electrical wheelchair, therefore, no doctor’s order for a new electrical wheelchair was on file. Staff had attempted to encourage R1 to be seen by doctor, but all attempts failed. During resident interview, R1 agreed to be seen by doctor for an evaluation for electrical wheelchair request and resume the process of getting a new electrical wheelchair. R1's primary doctor was contact to schedule appointment. Thus, facility staff had assist resident with ordering a new ambulation device.
Based on the information obtained during the investigation, interviews with staff, residents, review of resident files and LPA's observation, the investigation did not reveal any evidence to support the allegations mentioned above.
Although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there is not preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur, therefore, the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED.
An exit interview was conducted with Administrator, Gil Agas and findings were discussed. A copy this report was provided to Administrator at time of visit. |