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 | Furthermore, RP stated that residents had to go to bed at a specific time. RP stated that R1 did not agree to live at the facility, and that they were there without consent. RP also stated that R1 requests for help regarding toileting had been ignored.
On the same day, LPA visited the facility, interviewed staff and clients and reviewed facility records. During the visit, LPA was able to see the residents, including R1, interacting with staff and outside services in the living room. The interactions looked amicable, including jokes, laughs and other comments.
Interviews with staff and residents suggested that there is no limit regarding phone calls, or a bed time. A resident (R2) stated that they “love living at the facility, I go to bed whenever I want and I get up as late as I want”.
An interview with R1, mentioned that even though they’d rather be at their own place, they and their outside source (OS1) agreed that they needed help due to age, and could not live on their own. R1 also mentioned that the staff and the facility are the next-best thing after living at their house. R1 stated that staff are respectful and professional and do their best to help them.
R1 specifically denied that the staff monitored their calls or that requests for help have been denied and reiterated that they agreed to live at the facility for their own well-being.
Based on records reviewed, LPA observations, and interviews conducted with R1, residents, and staff, the preponderance of evidence standard has not been met, and the allegation is deemed unsubstantiated. No deficiencies were cited in accordance with the California Code of Regulations.
Report and Appeal Rights discussed with and provided to licensee Leona Jardin. Signature below confirms receipt. |