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 | records and did not locate a prescription for M1 or M2. Licensee interview confirmed M1 and M2 were administered to C1 and C2, as well as confirming the licensee did not have prescriptions. A review of two (2) admission agreements did not reveal that one of the services to be provided was for the licensee to purchase medications.
A review of clients’ P&I logs dated May 2020-July 2020 revealed clients were making purchases from a pharmacy. Per an interview with the Licensee the purchases at the pharmacy are for co-pays related to the client’s medication, that are not covered by the insurance. LPA reviewed the clients’ medication bottles on 12/28/2023 and did not observe any altered medication labels. The review on 12/28/2023 did not reveal any expired medications. The LPA requested documents to verify if there were any missed or late administrations of medication in or around August of 2020, however, the LPA was not successful in obtaining any documents. The licensee denies medication was missed or given late. The review of medications on 12/28/2023 did not reveal any medications were being stored outside of their original packaging. In addition, the licensee denies storing medications outside of their original packaging. LPA conducted a facility file review which revealed that there were not any unusual Incident/Injury reports pertaining to medication errors reported. The licensee confirmed there were no reports as medication was not missed. Based on interviews with staff the medications were given as prescribed. Based on the residents being given over the counter medications without the proper medical consent/order, the allegation of facility is mismanaging clients medication is substantiated. A finding that the complaint is substantiated means that the allegation is valid because the preponderance of the evidence standard has been met.
It was alleged the facility was mishandling clients’ personal funds because the licensee was writing the clients initials on the Personal and Incidental (P&I) logs rather than the clients initialing themselves. LPA reviewed P&I logs dated between May 2020 and July 2020. Interview with the licensee Manuel Vazquez revealed that Vazquez denies initialing the logs on the client’s behalf. The licensee reports he was using hand-over-hand techniques to assist clients in initialing the P&I logs. The LPA noted that receipts were attached to the P&I logs. The LPA conducted an interview with a relevant third party who confirmed an audit was conducted in November of 2020 which did not result in any issues or concerns about mishandling of clients’ personal funds. Regarding cutting the clients hair and charging them for it, what was alleged is true as a self-admission from licensee Manuel Vazquez stated that on one occasion believed to have occurred sometime in 2020, as the barbershops were closed due to the state of emergency due to Covid-19, and due to the behaviors that the clients were exhibiting while having to wait to have their hair cut. Per Vazquez each client was charged either $13.00 or $14.00 that went towards the clippers that were purchased and used to do the haircuts. LPA observed a P&I log dated May 2020 showing C1 being charged $13.00 for a haircut, however there was no receipt attached. LPA reviewed P& I logs dated August 2023-April 2024 and there were no charges for hair cuts observed. Based on observations, interviews and records review the allegation of Facility mishandling clients’ personal funds is substantiated. A finding that the complaint is substantiated means that the allegation is valid because the preponderance of the evidence standard has been met.
An exit interview was conducted and a copy of this report, 9099D, appeal rights, LIC9098-proof of corrections form was provided to Manuel Vazquez, Licensee/Administrator. |