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 | LPA Moleski reviewed staffing schedules for assisted living and observed that at least two caregivers were regularly scheduled for each cottage during morning and afternoon shifts, with one medication technician scheduled per shift to cover the two assisted living cottages. One caregiver was always scheduled for each cottage for each night shift. LPA Moleski reviewed staffing schedules for memory care and observed that two caregivers were regularly scheduled to work in each cottage for morning and afternoon shifts. On some days out of the week, one medication technician/caregiver was scheduled to work in Dogwood cottage, who also covered medication technician duties for Elm and Fir cottages. On other days out of the week, there was a dedicated medication technician/caregiver scheduled for Dogwood cottage, and another medication technician who floated between Elm and Fir cottages.
Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations does not provide specific staff-to-client ratios which must be maintained at all times. 22 CCR § 87411(a) states that “facility personnel shall at all times be sufficient in numbers and competent to provide the services necessary to meet resident needs.” 22 CCR § 87415(a)(2) states that “in facilities caring for sixteen to one hundred residents at least one employee shall be on duty on the premises, and awake,” and that “another employee shall be on call, and capable of responding within ten minutes.” There were 58 residents being cared for at this facility at the time LPA Moleski opened this complaint investigation on 11/21/24. During a tour of this facility on that date which included a survey of Aspen, Birch, Dogwood, Elm, and Fir cottages, LPA Moleski observed a minimum of two staff members present in each cottage, and did not observe any residents with any obvious signs of unmet needs, such as poor hygiene, or unmanaged pain, et cetera. Resident rooms inspected during this visit were clean and free of odor.
LPA Moleski reviewed six residents’ files (R8-R13) for potential signs of neglect due to lack of care and/or supervision, such as an unusually large number of documented falls, evidence of open wounds, missed doses of medication, et cetera. LPA Moleski observed no concerning trends in any of these resident records. LPA Moleski interviewed seven residents (R1-R7). R1, R2, R4, R6, and R7 voiced no concerns with the current level of staffing in the facility. R2 described the facility as “really good,” and said caregivers respond to them quickly. R6 said that the facility has an abundance of staff who are kind and helpful. R3 said that the facility’s caregivers “need more help.” R3 said that staff take too long to respond to their calls for assistance, sometimes up to 30 minutes. R5 said the facility was “understaffed.” R5 said that they sometimes have to wait four or five hours to be repositioned in bed, and they sometimes wait up to 40 minutes for a response to their calls for assistance. [continued on 9099-C] |