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 | Continued from LIC9099
A review of Resident 1 (R1) Physician’s Report, dated May 23, 2024, indicated that R1 is capable making their own decisions and communicating their needs. A R1’s primary diagnosis is Chronic right sided hemiplegia.
A review of care conference notes dated, on September 10, 2024, revealed R1 reported to licensee that Staff 1 (S1) handled them inappropriately and that S1 and Staff 2 (S2) made disparaging comments about R1 in their presence.
During an interview with R1, they reported sitting in their wheelchair facing the sink after washing their hands. They didn’t have a towel; therefore, they pressed the pendant for assistance and S2 responded. While R1 was telling S2 where to find the hand towels, S1 entered the room and stood behind R1, out of their line of sight. As R1 raised their hand to receive the towel, S1 reached over and touched R1’s hand to check if it was wet. R1 stated they were startled and reacted by squeezing S1's hand. S1, also startled, left the room immediately to report the incident to their supervisor. R1 expressed that no one should touch another person without their knowledge and stated that S1 did not have permission to touch their hands.
During an interview, S2 confirmed R1 was washing their hands at the sink and had requested a hand towel. S2 stated S1 reached over to touch R1’s hand to show their hands were dry when R1 squeezed S1's hand. S2 stated R1 was not anticipating S1 to reach over to touch their hand without their knowledge. In a separate interview, with S1 explained that R1 had requested a hand towel to dry their hands. S1 stated that they told R1 their hand was already dry and while R1 was raising their voice, S1 reached over to feel R1’s hand without informing them beforehand. S1 stated that R1 reacted by squeezing their hand, S1 stated they pulled away and left the room.
Staff 3 (S3) was interviewed and stated they conducted their own investigation, concluding that R1 had handled S1 in an inappropriate manner. However, S3 admitted they did not interview R1, complete an incident report, or follow mandated reporting guidelines regarding a resident complaint of inappropriately staff handling.
Staff 4 (S4) confirmed during interview that they did not interview R1 about the incident and stated they agreed with S3’s investigation findings.
A review of staff records reviewed revealed that S1 and S2 had no documented poor performance reviews or disciplinary actions. Interviews with outside sources indicated no concerns regarding the care provided by staff at the facility.
Outside Source 1 (OS1) stated that no records provided showing the facility had investigated the September 5, 2024, incident. OS1 noted that R1 had a history of making factual statements. Outside Source 2 (OS2) also confirmed that R1 had no reason to make false statements.
On September 9, 2024, CCL received a complaint alleging staff spoke to R1 in an inappropriate manner.
During an interview with R1, they reported that on the evening of September 5, 2024, while S2 was assisting them with their hygiene routine, S2 commented that they would be late ending their shift because R1 was taking too long. R1 stated they found this comment inappropriate and told S2 that they pay their salary and to avoid rushing through their care.
When interviewed, S2 initially denied making the statement but later admitted to saying they would be late getting off their shift.
In an interview, S3 stated they conducted an internal investigation and concluded the staff did not speak to R1 in an inappropriate manner. S3 acknowledged they did not interview R1 but interviewed S1 and S2. S3 also admitted they did not complete an incident report or follow the mandated reporting guidelines regarding a resident complaint of inappropriate staff conduct manner.
Staff 4 (S4) was also interviewed and stated they had no incidents of R1 making comments about paying their salary. S4 reported maintaining a good rapport with R1 by allowing ample time for them to communicate their needs.
The Department investigated the above allegations, and the preponderance of the evidence standard was met. Therefore, the above allegations are substantiated. Deficiencies were cited in accordance with the California Code of Regulations, Title 22 and are documented on the attached 9099-D. An exit interview was conducted with Executive Director Sanjay Kabadi and a plan of correction was jointly developed. A copy of these reports along with Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC 9058 03/22) were provided at the conclusion of the visit. |