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 | Regarding allegation #3, staff did not safeguard residents' personal possessions, interviews with five (5) staff denied that they did not safeguard resident’s personal possessions. Interviews with five (5) out of six (6) residents deny that staff did not safeguard their personal possessions.
Regarding allegation #4, Licensee did not adhere to resident's Admission Agreement, it was alleged that Licensee was not adhering to resident’s admission agreement by allowing other residents to use their private bathroom. Interviews with five (5) staff and six (6) residents reveal that the Licensee did adhere to resident’s Admission Agreement.
Regarding allegation #5, staff did not ensure resident’s bathroom was maintained in sanitary conditions, LPA observed six (6) resident’s bathrooms were maintained clean and sanitary. Interviews with five (5) staff and six (6) residents reveal that staff ensure residents’ bathrooms are maintained in sanitary conditions.
Regarding allegation #6, staff did not provide resident(s) with adequate food service, LPA observed in the kitchen a list of residents with special diets. Interviews with five (5) staff and six (6) residents reveal that staff do provide resident(s) with adequate food service.
Regarding allegation #7, staff did not address resident's choking risk, interviews with five (5) staff and six (6) residents reveals not enough evidence to corroborate that staff did not address resident’s choking risk.
Based on LPA observations, interviews with staff and residents, the allegations mentioned in this report are Unsubstantiated. Unsubstantiated meaning that although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur.
An exit interview was conducted where this report was discussed. The report copy was provided with appeal rights to Executive Director Ceballos at the conclusion of the visit.
|