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)
Staff members interviewed denied that a request for a liaison, meeting space, or flyer space had been made. Resident interview revealed knowledge that a Family Council was attempted to be created by a family member, but no resident had knowledge that the Licensee was made aware of the attempt. Resident interview revealed that a Family Council did not exist at the time of the complaint. Residents interviewed stated they did not see a need for a Family Council and/or did not want to participate in one. Review of facility and outside source records confirmed that the Licensee did provide information regarding Family Councils both in the Residency Agreement and during the onboarding process. Records review did not corroborate that the Licensee had knowledge of the formation of a Family council, or that the Licensee denied meeting space, a liaison, or space to display information for an existing Family Council. A preponderance of evidence was not found to support that the Licensee prohibited the formation of a Family Council. Records review showed that it is the Licensee's responsibility to provide meeting space, a liaison, and space to display information if a Family Council has been formed; it is not the responsibility of Licensee to create a Family Council.
Regarding the allegation, "Staff denied an authorized representative access to the facility", it was alleged that an Outside Individual (OI) was not allowed visitation with resident 1 (R1) on facility property. Staff interview revealed that OI was not denied private access to R1, including off property visitation and for medical appointments. Staff interview revealed that due to ongoing disruptive and concerning behaviors by OI, which violated the Residence and Services Agreement and personal rights of other residents, OI was asked to leave the property on multiple occasions, and eventually denied access to visits on facility property. Staff interview corroborated the disruptive and concerning behaviors and incidents involving OI. Resident interview also corroborated the disruptive and concerning behaviors involving OI, residents stating that they avoid OI when OI is at the facility. 3rd party and resident interview revealed that the Licensee agreed for OI to visit directly in R1’s room, but the arrangement was declined by OI. Based on evidence obtained through interview and records, the Licensee’s decision to restrict OI's access to the facility was based on documented disruptive incidents witnessed by both staff and residents. The confirmed behaviors infringed upon the personal rights of other residents to be accorded safe, healthful and comfortable accommodations, which the Licensee is responsible for providing. The evidence does not support that the Licensee restricted all forms of OI’s visitation to R1.
Based on interviews and records review, a preponderance of evidence does not exist to prove that the alleged violation(s) occurred, therefore the allegations are UNSUBSTANTIATED. An exit interview was conducted with Executive Director Sam El-Rabaa, to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided. |