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 | R2 further stated that the facility took additional precautionary measures and sent the resident for further testing. Interview with the facility staff (S1) stated that the resident was sent out to the hospital and the facility did receive confirmation that the resident communicable disease was not contagious. LPA reviewed resident records, LIC 602 Physician’s report and notes which indicated the resident does not have any signs of active communicable disease and is non-contagious. LPA reviewed the LIC 624 Unusual Incident/ Injury Report sent to CCLD on 04/10/2026 which detailed the resident concerns and facility action. Additionally, LPA reviewed LIC 602 Physician’s Reports for 5 out of 5 residents which indicated negative results for communicable diseases for residents in care. There is not enough information or evidence available to corroborate this allegation. Therefore, the allegation is unsubstantiated.
Allegation: Facility staff did not properly monitor residents glucose resulting in hospitalization
It was alleged that facility staff did not report communicable disease. This investigation consisted of interviews with residents and facility staff. On 04/17/2026 LPA Hughes conducted a visit to the facility and interviewed Resident (R1), who stated they were last hospitalized in September 2025 due to blood glucose levels and had not been recently hospitalized as a result of facility staff failing to monitor their blood glucose. LPA also interviewed Resident (R2), who stated they do not require assistance from facility staff with blood glucose monitoring, and have not been hospitalized due to blood glucose concerns. Additionally, LPA interviewed facility staff (S2) who stated they were not aware of any recent hospitalization related to inadequate glucose monitoring and reported that (R1) received appropriate care with blood glucose monitoring and care. Based on the information obtained during the investigation, there was insufficient evidence to corroborate this allegation. Therefore, the allegation is unsubstantiated.
The investigation revealed the preponderance of evidence standards have not been met; therefore, the above allegations are found to be UNSUBSTANTIATED. A finding that the complaint allegations are UNSUBSTANTIATED 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. |