Some key points from the investigation have been considered:

Facility administrator, Phyllis Leggs, acknowledged previous concerns about a staff (S4) behavior towards residents in care. However, Phyllis indicated residents in care has not had an issue with S4 in the past and that staff members are expected to maintain appropriate conduct towards residents in care. Phyllis noted that S4 had received counseling and training on resident interactions and that S4 is was taken off schedule at this time since this investigation started.

Through interview with another staff member (S3), also acknowledged concerns about S4’s demeanor but emphasized that S4 was not inherently a bad person or worker. S3 indicated that efforts were made to address these concerns through counseling and training.

Through interviews with residents in care (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, & R6) have provided varied perspectives: 2 of 6 residents expressed positive views of all staff and their treatment towards them (residents). 1 of 6 resident mentioned S4’s loud and assertive demeanor but indicated it did not significantly bother them, and they had a neutral opinion overall. Conversely, 2 of 6 residents in care voiced dissatisfaction with S4’s behavior, citing instances of rudeness and use of inappropriate language. 4 of 6 residents in care did not report any issues with any staff behavior and described interactions as normal or satisfactory.

While isolated concerns were raised about specific staff members, the Department’s investigation did not find sufficient evidence concerning the overall dignity and respect accorded to residents by staff at the facility. Therefore, this allegation has been deemed UNSUBSTANTIATED. Efforts by the facility to address specific concerns and maintain appropriate standards of care were acknowledged throughout the investigation.

{Page 2}

Facility administrator Phyllis Leggs acknowledged the presence of occasional foul language among clients but emphasized that staff are expected to maintain appropriate conduct. Phyllis addressed previous concerns regarding S4, stating that corrective action was taken through verbal counseling and training. However, S4’s behavior was normal, and no intentional mistreatment towards residents. Phyllis also noted that S4 was taken off schedule at this time since the investigation was initiated.

Interview with another staff member (S3) confirmed that S4 had been retrained. However, S3 expressed that S4 was not a bad person or worker despite previous concerns about S4’s demeanor.

Resident interviews provided mixed perspectives: 4 of 6 residents in care reported positive interactions with staff, describing them as good, cool, and attentive. 1 of 6 residents in care acknowledged S4’s assertive demeanor and using foul language was normal for S4, but resident indicated it did not significantly bother them, and they still liked S4. However, 2 of 6 expressed dissatisfaction with S4’s behavior, specifically citing instances of rudeness and use of inappropriate language.

While isolated incidents were reported, the Department did not find sufficient evidence to support the claim that staff regularly use inappropriate language towards residents at the facility. Therefore, the allegation was UNSUBSTANTIATED. Efforts by the facility to address concerns and maintain appropriate standards of conduct were noted throughout the investigation.

{Page 3}

Through staff interviews revealed that staff have no knowledge of gift card issue and affirms that all residents’ mails are directly handed to the residents. Interview with facility administrator, Phillys Leggs clarified that the facility staff do not retain residents’ mail.

Through resident interview, 1 of 6 resident confirmed managing their own money and mentioned that although staff initially hold onto gift cards, they (staff) promptly handed over to them upon request. Similarly, another resident reported receiving assistance from staff in managing their money without any issues. Additionally, 6 of 6 residents in care did not report any concerns against the facility in regards to resident money.

Based on the information gathered, there was no sufficient evidence to support the allegation that the facility staff withheld resident’s gift card sent by their family. Therefore, the allegation was UNSUBSTANTIATED.

Note that a finding that is unsubstantiated means that, although the above allegations 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 with Kiesha Leggs, and a copy of this report and the appeal rights were provided.

{Page 4}