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 | The external incident report does not note any contacts made with family members. Under a section titled “Agencies/individuals notified,” the author of the report only indicated that CCLD was notified. Under a section titled “Explain what immediate action was taken (include persons contacted),” the incident report states that the resident was evaluated by a staff member and emergency responders were called. The report does not state any further contacts were made. LPA Moleski interviewed a former executive director (ED1), who indicated that, to his knowledge, no report was made to R1’s family members. R1’s power of attorney (POA) said she was not notified by the facility of the incident. LPA Moleski reviewed a random sampling of four incident reports from August and September 2022 from this facility, including another incident report involving R1, and found that four of these reports identified a responsible party who was contacted. During interviews, a former executive director (ED2) and two former staff members (S3, S8) were unsure if notification was made to R1’s POA.
In interviews, ED1 said R1 was given food items contrary to R1’s prescribed diet, such as high-sugar foods. Another former executive director, (ED2) said the same. Two of two dining staff members interviewed (S5, S6) also said R1 was given food items contrary to R1’s prescribed diet, such as dairy products and high-sugar foods. Meal tickets for R1 reviewed by LPA Moleski often included requests for creamer. During an interview, R1 said she was served dairy products. R1’s LIC 602 dated 12/16/22 states that R1 is allergic to milk and milk products, among other things. R1’s functional needs assessment, dated 12/22/22, indicates that R1 needed a diabetic diet.
The department has determined the following as it relates to the allegations that the facility is not following resident’s prescribed diet and that the facility did not notify POA of hospitalization:
Based on interviews and review of facility records, the above allegations are SUBSTANTIATED. A finding that the complaint allegation is substantiated means that the allegation is valid because the preponderance of evidence standard has been met.
This facility is being cited per 22 CCR Sections 87211(a)(1)(B) and 87555(b)(7). An exit interview was held with Leach. Appeal rights and a copy of this report were left with Leach. |