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 | Interviews with outside sources revealed that on 1/6/2022, a hospital case manager spoke to a representative of the facility who stated that R1 would not be allowed to return to the facility until R1 had a negative COVID-19 test result. Interviews with outside sources revealed that skilled medical professionals deemed that R1 was medically stable and was ready for discharge back to the facility. Interviews with outside sources revealed that R1 would be discharged back to the facility on 1/9/2022, if R1 tested negative. R1 continued to test positive on 1/9/2022, therefore, R1’s responsible party was forced to relocate R1 to a different residential care facility for the elderly. Interviews and records review confirmed that the Licensee did not provide R1 with a 30-day eviction notice. R1 was discharged to a different residential care facility for the elderly on 1/13/2022. Interviews and record review revealed that the facility received notice for R1 not returning to the facility on 1/15/2022.
The Department has investigated the above-mentioned allegation and based on observation, interviews, and record review, this allegation is deemed substantiated, which means that the preponderance of the evidence standard has been met and the allegation is valid. The following deficiency was cited per CA Code of Regulations Title 22 and noted on the attached LIC9099-D page.
An exit interview was conducted with Regional Director of Operations Amy Buchanan, to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee Appeal Rights (LIC9058 01/16) were provided via hard copy. |