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 | CONTINUED FROM FORM LIC9099
Regarding the allegation that Staff did not reappraise resident when his condition changed, the following has been concluded. Resident R1 was assessed upon move-in in October 2023 and was then reassessed multiple times throughout the period of admission, with assessments reviewed for April 2024 after six months, then monthly after July 2024 once the resident was moved to the facility's memory care until R1's move-out in December. Gradual updates appear to reflect the evolution of R1's cognitive and behavioral abilities.
Regarding the allegation that Staff did not provide resident's authorized person sufficient notice before changing his basic needs and services plan, the allegation is based on facility staff ordering the immediate implementation of a one-on-one caregiver starting on December 5, 2024. Per R1's admission agreement signed by all parties on September 27, 2023, the resident and their responsible party had agreed to a clause stating: "If you become a safety risk to yourself or to others during your residency, we have the right in our sole determination to obtain, at your expense, private duty personnel to provide supervision or assistance until you move from the Community or your safety is no longer at risk, and we will communicate that decision to someone on your behalf according to the Responsible Party and/or Emergency Contact information you agree to provide us. This communication will occur in advance of implementing a private duty caregiver, if reasonably possible, or soon after we have made the decision regarding your safety". Multiple incidents involving aggressive behavioral expression were reported to the responsible party as well as to the resident's primary care physician prior to the December 5 notification. Additionally, one-on-one supervision is not listed among the basic resident services for which a change in rate would require advance notice.
Regarding the allegation that Staff kept resident isolated in his room, the following has been concluded: During both facility visits, licensing staff toured the memory care unit. During both visits, residents appeared free to ambulate, with no residents found to exhibit any signs of distress. Residents were observed relaxing in the unit's common area or in their respective bedrooms. Staff interviews evidenced that one of the recommended redirection strategies for some of R1's behavioral expression was to accompany the resident back to their unit to allow R1 to calm down as well as to avoid disrupting care for the other memory care residents. Interviews however did not provide sufficient evidence to corroborate that R1 was kept in their bedroom against their will.
CONTINUED ON FORM LIC9099-C |