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 | The investigation yielded that R1, who had been a resident of the facility almost two years, had been admitted into and had been receiving hospice services prior to being admitted into the hospital. Records reviewed during the investigation indicated that R1 was scheduled to receive a visit from a hospice nurse one time per week and receive a bath from hospice personnel two times per week. Records reflected that R1 regularly received routine and unscheduled visits from hospice personnel. Interviews and records revealed that R1’s condition progressively declined while receiving hospice services, and a day prior to admittance into the hospital, R1 began to receive intensive comfort care.
The investigation further yielded, through interviews and records, that R1’s food and water intake had decreased to minimal amounts, despite staff’s efforts, which was found to be well documented. It was discovered that, pursuant to physician’s orders, R1 had been placed on a pureed diet in an effort to encourage intake of more food. It was also discovered through the investigation that R1’s responsible party was made aware of R1’s poor appetite almost a week prior to admittance into the hospital and acknowledged awareness. Records documented that R1 was receiving hospice services with a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s Disease, which often causes residents to stop swallowing or intaking food and liquids as the disease progresses. The investigation did not produce evidence to conclude that R1 was not being provided or intaking food or water due to inaction by facility staff.
Interviews and records also confirmed that R1’s baths were to be given by hospice personnel, with the assistance of one facility staff person, and there was no evidence discovered in the investigation to conclude that baths were not being given.
Based upon the foregoing and due to lack of corroborating evidence to conclude otherwise, the allegation is unsubstantiated. This finding means that there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred.
An exit interview was conducted with Donelle Williams, Executive Director, and copies of this report and Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC 9058) were provided to the Executive Director at the conclusion of the visit. Her signature below serves as acknowledgment of receipt of copies of the report and rights. |