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 | LPA’s further review of R1’s spouse’s physician’s report revealed R1’s spouse was not diagnosed with dementia, thus was still able to make healthcare decisions for R1. The Department’s investigation did not provide enough information to corroborate the allegation that staff are not allowing resident’s advanced directives regarding who makes decisions for resident’s care. Based on records review, this allegation is unsubstantiated.
It was alleged that the staff do not meet resident’s toileting needs. Information received indicated visitors were instructed to wait for half an hour before they could enter. LPA’s interview with R1 revealed R1 manages their own toileting needs. However, LPA’s review of R1’s physician’s report and facility care plan revealed R1 required incontinence care. LPA’s review of the facility’s plan of operation revealed that staff will provide incontinence care every two (2) hours and as needed. LPA interviewed eight (8) staff members, all of whom stated incontinence care is provided every 2 hours and/or as needed. All the staff interviewed stated they were not required to keep logs for incontinence care provided. LPA’s interview with two (2) additional residents and their responsible parties corroborated the staff’s statement. Based on interviews conducted and record review, this allegation is unsubstantiated.
It was alleged that staff do not keep the facility free from odor. According to the information received, R1’s room always had strong urine odor. LPA’s interview with R1 revealed R1 did not have any concerns about odor in the room. LPA’s interview with the Administrator revealed the odor from R1’s room was due to R1’s health condition, not from lack of maintenance or cleaning. The Administrator stated the residents’ rooms had been thoroughly cleaned by housekeeping staff regularly, and the same housekeeping staff also took care of R1’s laundry needs. LPA conducted interviews with two (2) residents and their responsible parties stated the facility was free from any odor. LPA’s interview with eight (8) staff members corroborated the Administrator’s statement. LPA’s onsite observation also revealed the facility was free from any odor. The Department’s investigation did not provide enough information to corroborate the allegation that staff do not keep the facility free from odor. Based on record review and interviews conducted, this allegation is unsubstantiated.
A finding that the complaint is UNSUBSTANTIATED means the allegation may have happened or is valid, but there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred.
An exit interview was conducted where a copy of this report was provided.
|