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 | However, S3 did not observe any instance wherein R2 was overmedicated, and based their suspicions on the behaviors of R2, who they described as “out of it.” LPA Moleski attempted to interview this resident on 7/10/24. R2 was not able to respond coherently to LPA Moleski. R2’s LIC 602, dated from May 2023, indicated that R2 has dementia. R2’s most recent appraisal at the time this complaint was opened indicated that R2 is “confused, forgetful, [and] withdrawn.” No other staff members were aware of any time that R2 had been overmedicated.
In an interview, R1’s RP said they were informed that R1 had been saying they had fallen shortly after being admitted to this facility. However, due to R1’s dementia, it was unclear to R1’s RP if the fall had occurred at this facility, or at R1’s prior placement. In an interview, R1 told LPA Moleski that they had fallen, but then appeared to become confused. R1 asked aloud if the fall had happened at this facility, or somewhere else, and was unable to provide a clear answer to LPA Moleski. Of the nine staff members interviewed, one said they had witnessed R1 fall (S9). S9 said that on two occasions they had observed R1 fall while trying to get out of bed. S9 said R1 was not injured, but “vividly” remembered the incidents being reported to R1’s RP shortly after their occurrence. R1’s RP said they had not been informed about any alleged falls until well after the fact. S9 said there was another staff member who witnessed the falls, but could not recall their name. S2 said R1 sometimes told them that they had fallen. S3 said that they were told by another staff member whose name they had forgotten that R1 had fallen, but could not verify if this were true. S6 said that R1 sometimes told people that they had fallen, but would appear confused. S6 could not verify if R1 had ever fallen.
The department has determined the following as it relates to the allegations that staff mismanaged a resident’s medication, that a resident fell due to lack of supervision, and that incidents were not reported to a resident’s responsible party:
Based on interviews, observation, and record review, the above allegations are UNSUBSTANTIATED, which means that although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violations occurred.
No deficiencies were cited regarding the above allegations. An exit interview was held and a copy of this report was left with Stumpf. |