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 | With regard to the allegation, "Facility staff is using camera and audio in the facility," it was alleged Administrator, Meza-Brown, utilizes audio and visual cameras inside and outside of the facility. Staff interviews reported surveillance devices were being utilized inside and outside of the facility. Interviews reported the devices were not recording private areas of the facility. According to Administrator, Meza-Brown, the devices do not record audio inside the facility. Documentation was requested on the type of devices used, and whether or not they can audio record, however it could not be provided by the Administrator. Furthermore, the Department does not prohibit surveillance devices to be utilized in areas that are readily viewable/accessible by the public. This allegation is deemed UNSUBSTANTIATED at this time.
Pertaining to the allegation, "Facility staff are not allowing visitors into the home," it was alleged R1's family and friends were not allowed to visit with the resident. According to Administrator, Meza-Brown, a restraining order was requested to limit the visitation of two (2) of R1's relatives due to behaviors which caused a hostile work environment for facility staff and residents in care. Meza-Brown stated no other family or friends were restricted from visiting R1. A Notice of Court Hearing report, dated September 25, 2019 was obtained. The report indicates Meza-Brown petitioned for a Temporary Restraining Order, which was approved, against two (2) of R1's family members pending a hearing date of October 16, 2019. One staff reported R1 was permitted to have visitors until the Restraining Order was established. R1 was interviewed on September 9, 2019, and reported they are able to visit with the two (2) family members in question.. R1 is diagnosed with a cognitive impairment. No details could be provided regarding incidences in which R1 was not allowed to have visits from other family/friends. This allegation is deemed UNSUBSTANTIATED at this time.
With regard to the allegation, "Facility staff did not provide responsible party a copy of the admission's agreement," it was alleged R1's responsible party did not receive a copy of the Admission Agreement established for R1. An Admission Agreement was observed on file for R1, dated December 02, 2018. No receipt of the Admission Agreement by R1's responsible party was observed on file. According to Administrator, Meza-Brown, a copy of the agreement was provided to the responsible party. This allegation is deemed UNSUBSTANTIATED at this time.
A finding that the complaint is unsubstantiated means that although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violation(s) occurred. This report was reviewed with Administrator, Meza-Brown, and a copy was provided. |