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 | According to the Administrator, R1 consistently refused to identify a responsible party or share contact information for any additional witness. R1 indicated and documented that they were their own emergency contact and specifically directed staff not to reach out to additional witnesses. Administrator stated they advised R1 to add a responsible party, but R1 consistently refused indicating that they have the ability to make their own decisions. Furthermore, Administrator stated that they had multiple conversations with Additional Witness (AW1) to confirm contact information to report any information pertaining to R1. However, AW1 repeatedly refused to provide the requested information on documents. It was advised that on March 9, 2025, AW1 did visit the facility and was advise that R1 was in the hospital. The notification did abide by the time frame set in place by Title 22 Regulations regarding reporting requirements. Information obtained from an interview with AW1 revealed they had spoken by phone with the Administrator and Staff 2 (S2) around the time R1 was admitted to the facility. AW1 believed that facility staff having the knowledge of their phone contact information was sufficient to assume responsibility for R1. However, AW1 stated they never verbally confirmed nor completed any paperwork designating themselves as R1’s emergency contact. AW1 did corroborate that on March 9, 2025, during a visit to the facility, they were advised of R1’s hospitalization by facility staff. Information from additional witnesses also stated they were not the current or listed responsible party for R1. A review of admission records revealed that the admissions agreement between R1 and the facility did not designate a responsible party. During the intake process, R1 explicitly wrote “none” in the section for a responsible party signature on multiple documents. Additionally, the Emergency Contact Form and Resident Roster did not list a responsible party for R1. R1 was unable to be interviewed regarding the allegations due to the death of R1.
Based on interviews, research, and record review, the allegation that staff did not notify responsible representative regarding an incident involving resident in care is unfounded. AW1 was not documented as a responsible party for R1 for the facility to be required to notify of any incident regarding R1. Also, on March 9, 2025, facility staff did advise AW1 that R1 was in the hospital. A finding that the allegation is unfounded meaning that the allegation was false, could not have happened, and/or is without a reasonable basis. This allegation has been investigated and is dismissed
An exit interview was conducted where a copy of this report was provided to facility representative.
|