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 | Attempts to interview twenty-six additional residents were unsuccessful. Additionally, LPA Lee was unable to contact facility staff who may have worked during the time the alleged incidents occurred. LPA Lee also interviewed a resident’s responsible party, who denied the allegations and reported no concern regarding facility staff meeting their family member’s needs. The responsible party stated that they had never observed their family member being left in soiled clothing, were satisfied with their family member’s placement at the facility and had not witnessed any of the alleged incidents. A review of facility records further revealed that the facility did not maintain documentation indicating when residents’ briefs were changed. As a result, LPA Lee was unable to verify through record review whether R1 did or did not receive the services referenced in the allegations. Based on the information obtained during the investigation, LPA Lee was unable to corroborate the allegations.
It was alleged that staff do not respond to residents’ call buttons in a timely manner. During the investigation, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Pang Lee reviewed facility records and conducted interviews with staff, residents, and a resident’s responsible party. LPA Lee interviewed two of two facility staff members, both of whom denied the allegation and stated that staff respond to residents’ calls when assistance is requested. Attempts to interview eight additional staff members were unsuccessful. LPA Lee interviewed three of four residents, all of whom denied the allegation and reported no concerns regarding staff response times. The residents stated that staff respond when they activate their call pendants. Resident 1 (R1) stated that the call button system is working properly and that staff generally respond within 10 to 15 minutes. R1 reported having no concerns regarding staff response times. Attempts to interview twenty-six additional residents were unsuccessful. LPA Lee also interviewed a resident responsible party, who denied the allegation and reported no concern regarding staff responsiveness. The responsible party stated that staff typically respond within a couple of minutes and that, based on their observations, response times have not exceeded 15 minutes.
Additionally, LPA Lee reviewed R1’s call pendant activity report for March 2026 through May 2026, which showed that R1 activated the call pendant seven times, with an average response time of 4 minutes and 8 seconds. LPA Lee also reviewed eight other residents call pendant activity report for March 2026 through May 2026 and it was learned that all the calls had an average between 2 minutes to seven minutes. Based on interviews and record review, LPA Lee was unable to corroborate the allegation that staff do not respond to residents’ call buttons in a timely manner.
CONTINUED LIC 9099-C
|