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 | On September 10, 2025, through September 12, 2025, there was only one staff on duty for the shift of 12 AM to 8:30 AM. From September 17, 2025, through September 21, 2025, there was only one staff on duty for the shift of 12 AM to 8:30 AM. Additionally, from September 24, 2025, through September 27, 2025, there was only one staff on duty for the shift of 12 AM to 8:30 AM. LPAs conducted five staff interviews. Five out of the five staff interviewed confirmed there have been shifts in September in which there were only one staff on duty due to staffing shortages. LPAs conducted three client interviews. Three out of the three clients interviewed confirmed there have been shifts where there have only been one staff on duty. Per California Code of Regulation under Day Staff Client Ratio 81065.5 (a)(2), it states that Short Term Crisis Residential Programs shall have at least two direct care staff persons on duty, on the premises, any time clients are in the facility. Based on the evidence gathered during this investigation, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation is found to be SUBSTANTIATED.
Regarding the allegation that, facility did not complete client’s Needs and Services plan timely, the following has been concluded: It was alleged that Client #3 (C3) Needs and Services plan was not completed in a timely manner. LPAs observed that C3 was admitted to the facility on October 3, 2025. LPAs observed that C3’s Needs and Services plan was completed on October 8, 2025. Per California Code of Regulation under Needs and Services Plan 81068.2 (b), it states that the licensee shall ensure that a written Needs and Services Plan is started prior to admission, and completed prior to or within 72 hours of admission. Based on records reviewed, LPAs observed that C3’s Needs and Services plan was not completed within 72 hours of admission. Based on the evidence gathered during this investigation, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation is found to be SUBSTANTIATED.
Regarding the allegation that, facility did not adhere to client’s treatment plan, the following has been concluded: It was alleged that the facility did not adhere to the treatment plan for Client #1 (C1) and Client #3 (C3). LPAs reviewed the treatment plans for both C1 and C3. LPAs observed that the treatment plan for C1 was established on October 1, 2025. LPAs observed that in C1’s treatment plan, it states that for the first goal, the facility will assist the client in establishing a relapse prevention plan with three warning signs, three coping skills, and three people/places to manage and regulate sequent episodes. It states that a staff will review C1’s progress once a week in sessions. LPAs reviewed the weekly session progress notes for C1 and observed that on October 8, 2025, and October 15, 2025, it does not document C1’s progress towards reaching the established goal in creating a relapse prevention plan with three warning signs, three coping skills, and three people/places to manage and regulate sequent episodes. LPAs observed that the treatment plan for C3 was established on October 6, 2025. LPAs observed that in C3’s treatment plan, it states that for the first goal, the client will learn and implement emotional regulation skills from zero to one time a week, to four to five times a week. It states that a staff will monitor C3’s progress once a week in sessions. LPAs reviewed the weekly session progress notes for C3 and observed that on October 15, 2025, it does not document C3’s progress towards reaching the established goal of learning and implementing emotional regulation skills from zero to one time a week, to four to five times a week. Based on the evidence gathered during this investigation, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation is found to be SUBSTANTIATED.
|