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 | Staff interviews confirmed R1 had a change in condition. Staff stated when R1 first moved in, they were “half-independent”. R1 used both wheelchair and walker at the facility, was active and able to propel themselves in their wheelchair. R1 was also able to use the bathroom independently. Once R1 became less independent, diaper changes were provided. However, the facility did not conduct the required reappraisal when R1 had a change in condition and/or obtained a current Physician’s Report. The Care Coordinator’s (CC) interview confirmed there was a change in condition when the CC went to a nursing home to assess R1 after the leg amputation and bring R1 back to the facility. The CC stated R1 needed help with transferring from bed to wheelchair and became a two-caregiver assist. The reappraisal was not conducted for R1. Resident interviews confirmed they observed maggots on R1’s leg due to a leg infection, along with a bad odor, and reported it to staff.
The administrator confirmed R1 was not receiving home health services prior to 7/26/2022. The administrator explained R1 was being treated for the wound by their PCP, and it was up to the PCP to determine and order home health for wound care. Administrator further stated that if home health was pending/resident waiting, then they can get involved and assist. Also, if a resident’s situation got worse fast, staff would send the resident out to the hospital for treatment. PCP’s interview stated they attempted to get R1 skilled nursing services, as it’s the PCP’s responsibility. However, R1’s medical insurance was very limited and difficult, it never went through. PCP also suggested many times to R1, to transfer to a skilled nursing facility where their needs would be better met. However, R1 declined to move and stated they liked it at the facility. In addition, the PCP said they asked R1 many times to send R1 out to the hospital as they could not get home health or other care needed, but R1 declined offers. PCP explained they did not provide any instructions to staff once the infection was identified due to staff not having any nurses or staff that were trained or qualified to change and care for the wound. The facility staff failed to provide adequate care for R1 which resulted in a serious medical condition.
Based on LPA’s observations and interviews which were conducted and record review, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegations are found to be substantiated. California code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 6 & Chapter 8, are being cited on the attached LIC 9099D. An exit interview was conducted and a copy of this report along with Licensee Rights (LIC 9058 03/22) were provided to Administrator, Rocio Granda whose signature below confirms receipt of these rights. [See LIC 811 Confidential Names List to identify Resident #1] A civil penalty in the amount of $500 was assessed per Health and Safety Code 1569.49(c)(1), for a violation that the Department determined resulted in an injury of R1. Determination of Civil Penalties under Health and Safety Code Section 1569.49 are pending and under review by the Program Administrator of the Community Care Licensing Division. |