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 | It was also reported that on Thursday, June 5, 2025, Staff #1 (S1) arrived at the facility after 1pm after the clients were picked up by Access, a transportation service. Based on the review of the face sheets, C1 and C2 are able to leave the facility independently; and according to the IPPs, C1 and C2 travels independently to and from the facility. The IPP for C2 and the Facility Annual Review Progress Report for C1 documents that staff are on call when clients wish to return to the facility which was also corroborated by the clients' social worker and licensee.
Two out of the six clients interviewed and two out of the two staff corroborated staff was not present on June 5th. Based on the review of the LIC500, Staff #1 (S1) was not on shift at the time when C1 and C2 returned to the facility, and starts their shift at 2pm. C1 indicated notifying S1 in advance; however based on the review of the call log history provided as a screen shot by C1, C1 did not notify the staff in advance. There were no outgoing calls made however incoming calls from S1 were received on June 5th at 1:06pm and 2:49pm which was after S1 and S2 had already been picked up by the bus witnessed by the social worker.
The investigation revealed that although staff was not present upon the clients' arrival, clients are in understanding that they are to notify the staff when returning to the facility. S1 was off shift and returned to the facility before their start time at 2pm to accommodate the clients.
Therefore, based on the interviews which were conducted and the records that were reviewed, 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 following allegation: Clients left unsupervised is deemed UNSUBSTANTIATED.
An exit interview was conducted with Administrator Marisa Hernandez, and a copy of this report was provided at exit. |