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 | (Continuation of LIC9099)
It was specifically alleged that the facility refused to let the residents use their own pharmacy and had to use the facility’s preferred pharmacy. Interview with the Executive Director said that they allow residents to use their own Pharmacy of choice but recommend their preferred pharmacy. They do have residents who opted to be a part of their own preferred pharmacy that is not the facility’s preferred pharmacy. According to the ED, residents are up-charged for using another pharmacy but no bill. According to staff #1 (S1) interviewed, they said that families are given the option to choose their preferred pharmacy upon admission. During their admission, they are provided two forms; one form is the pharmacy policy to opt for their preferred pharmacy; and the second form is for the facility’s preferred policy. Depending on the families and or residents’ decision, the facility will follow their preference. S1 did not recall a time where families opted to use another pharmacy as the facility does charge a $300 fee. Families are usually charged the co-pay fee’s and the $300 fee if they opted to use their own pharmacy. A review of records revealed that upon the admission of resident #1 (R1) and resident #2 (R2) there were documents that that enrolled each of them to the facility's preferred pharmacy. The power of attorney (POA) for R1 was R2, who agreed and signed the enrollment form Resident Pharmacy Enrollment forms. On 2/23/20, R2 signed the Resident Pharmacy Enrollment Form, for both themselves and R1 - as their financially responsible party. On the same form, it was annotated that R1 had a financially responsible party named who agreed to be responsible for payment of all amounts owed by the resident for prescription drug products and service provided to the resident by the facility's preferred pharmacy. R1’s financially responsible party for their pharmacy needs was R2 with persons involved in R1’s healthcare who had permission to manage the resident’s prescriptions. Based on the information obtained there is not sufficient evidence to support the allegation.
It was specifically alleged that staff were unable to provide the residents’ family with the contact information of the Long-Term Care Ombudsman (LTCO). A review of records, specifically former required annual inspections, the facility was not cited for not having required postings which includes the LTCO posting(s). Upon review of the resident’s admission agreement for R1 and R2, specifically appendix c – Statement of Residents Personal Rights, the contact information for the LTCO was provided in two sections of the appendix and was signed by the responsible party and dated 2/24/2020. During the initial visit on 07/21/2020, LPA Lott photographed two framed LTCO postings and the postings included contact information for the LTCO. One framed posting was located next to an elevator and the second framed posting was located in a hallway next to the metal Silver Springs sign. It was also documented that the Community Care Licensing framed posting was located in the front receptionist area posted on a column with contact information. Based on the information obtained there is insufficient evidence to support the allegation.
(Continuation on LIC9099-C) |