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 alleged that that on June 22, 2024, C1 was noted to have a severe rash all over their body and feet and some areas appear as though they bled, that on June 24, 2024, C1’s day program determined C1 could not attend the program due to their severe rash, and that the facility did not notice, provide treatment for, or report the rash to C1’s responsible party. LPA conducted a health and safety check and interviewed C1,but did not obtain information corroborating the allegation. LPA interviewed AD who reported that the facility first noticed the rash in May and had C1 seen by a doctor on May 7, 2024, that C1 was seen by doctors again on June 21, 2024 and July 1, 2024, that C1 was prescribed ointments and other topical medications which have improved the rash, that the facility helped C1 take additional hygienic measures to address the rash, and that facility staff kept C1’s responsible party aware of the situation throughout the treatment and provided pictures to C1’s responsible party. LPA reviewed the facility’s Medical Appointment Log which corroborates that C1 was seen by a doctor on May 7, 2024, and C1’s medical records dated June 21, 2024, June 24, 2024, July 1, 2024, and July 2, 2024, which corroborate that C1 was seen by doctors on all of these dates and received testing and treatment for the rash. LPA reviewed facility text messages regarding C1’s rash exchanged with C1’s responsible party which show C1’s responsible party was made aware of the rash, received photo updates, and participated in decision-making regarding the care for C1’s rash as early as June 3, 2024. Per witness interview, C1’s rash was diagnosed as a staph infection, but C1 never had any major symptoms other than itchiness. Per C1’s medical records dated June 24, 2024, C1 was diagnosed with a staph infection while a portion of the rash was suspected to be fungal in nature. However, C1’s medical records dated July 1, 2024 and July 2, 2024 did not indicate a staph infection and instead indicated that the rash was suspected to be fungal. AD denied that they were aware of the staph infection diagnosis because AD was not the one who took C1 to the doctor on June 24, 2024. Per AD and photographs, the rash resolved after treatment and hygiene measures. The information obtained is conflicting regarding whether C1 was present at the facility with a communicable staph infection and the information obtained did not corroborate that the facility failed or delayed seeking medical care for C1’s rash or failed to notify C1’s responsible party.
Based on the information gathered during the investigation and review of all documents obtained, the Department is unable to ascertain if the above allegation occurred as reported. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove or refute the alleged violation occurred; therefore, this allegation is deemed Unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted and a copy of this report was discussed with and provided to facility representative. |