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 reviewed written statements signed by R1 stating they were refusing to eat meals at the facility, and they understood by doing so they were choosing to not follow their doctors’ orders. R1 also signed a written statement acknowledging that they were aware they needed to make changes in their diet due to their medical condition. R1 acknowledged they were choosing to go against the advice of medical providers and caregivers which could cause health problems. LPA reviewed the facilities monthly menu that includes a variety of healthy food choices.
During interviews staff, staff informed LPA that R1 would often refuse to eat the meals prepared by the facility. R1 chose to leave the facility on their own and purchase alternative food. R1 would often purchase fast food that they either ate while they were out of the facility, or they would bring food back to their bedroom and hide it from staff. Staff tired to include R1 in the meal preparation by having R1 write down a list of food preferences. Staff used R1’s list of food preferences along with R1’s dietary needs to create meals that were within R1’s dietary restrictions. R1 was still not interested in eating the food at the facility.
During interview with R1’s social worker (R1SW), LPA was informed that R1SW knew that R1 was choosing to make unhealthy dietary choices that were affecting R1’s health condition. R1SW informed LPA that the facility and the social worker team were doing their best to educate and help R1 make better choices regarding the food they were consuming. R1SW stated that R1 was choosing to use their personal rights to not follow the doctors ordered dietary guidelines.
Based on evidence obtained, the allegation listed above is deemed UNSUBSTANTIATED. A finding that the complaint is UNSUBSTANTIATED means 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.
During today’s visit, no deficiencies were cited per Title 22, Division 6, of the California Code of Regulations.
An exit interview was conducted, and this report (LIC9099) was discussed and provided to Administrator Jamal Shalabi, along with a copy of the appeal rights. |