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 | Continued from LIC 9099
On 11/21/24, LPA attempted to interview R1 three (3) times. R1 denied to participate in the interview. LPA Valerio interviewed R2. R2 was in the room when the alleged incident occurred. R2 reported hearing the staff call R1 the derogatory name and were encouraging R1 to hit the walls harder. R2 did not observe R1 being hit by staff. R2 reported being hit by R1 after R1 entered R2's room. LPA Valerio attempted to interview R3; however, due to communication barriers, the interview was deemed unsuccessful.
On 11/21/24, LPA Valerio interviewed S1 and S2. S1 and S2 deny the allegations to be true. S1 believes all the staff are good but S1 cannot speak on what happened as S1 was not present. S2 stated staff treat residents with respect. S2 reported having a good rapport with all the residents.
LPA Valerio reviewed a shared information report/ Unusual Incident report dated 11/18/2024. Based on the information, S3 and S4 were present during overnight shift when R1 expressed behaviors that were a potential danger to self and other peers/staff. The episode lasted from 12:00 AM until R1 went to the Day Program. The report did not share any details of force used or name calling by staff towards residents in care. The report did indicate R1 making threats to staff, R1 engaging in aggressive acts towards self, staff, and peers, and staff attempting to redirect and calm R1.
On 12/04/2024, LPA Valerio interviewed S3. S3's statement align with what was reported on the incident report. S3 stated the allegations are untrue and it is actually R1 who hit staff. S3 reported trying to calm R1 and figuring out why R1 was agitated. LPA Valerio interviewed S4. S4 stated staff only say things to residents that will de-escalate the situation. Staff stated they understand if they say bad things, it will escalate the situation. S4 stated R1 is the person who hit staff and another resident. S4 reported if they need to assist residents, the staff will ask consent before assisting with ADLs.
Due to the above noted information, although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation(s) did or did not occur, and therefore the allegations are unsubstantiated. Per California Code of Regulations (CCRs) - Title 22, no deficiencies are being cited. An exit interview was held and a copy of report was left at the facility with Administrator F. Fuentes |