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 LIC9099C, Page 2)
Outside source interviews revealed: OS1 and OS2 advocate for R1 if they feel R1 needs more care from the facility. OS1 stated that with the recent rash, facility staff responded quickly with: treatment, visits from medical staff, and medication that has met the needs of R1's care plan. OS1 has stated they have no concerns for the facilities timeliness or approach to treating R1. OS2 stated that the rash that has occurred from treatment is common for R1 and the facility staff are quick to address R1's needs when they arise. Outside source interviews corroborate staff interviews.
Records review revealed: R1's Physician's report dated 05/18/25 identified R1 with chronic heart failure and mild cognitive impairment. A SNF care note dated 03/31/2025 stated that R1 has been identified with Crohn's disease. R1's care plan dated 05/18/25 includes skin checks when performing ADL services and a dedicated rash service plan.
Based on interviews, direct LPA observations, and records review, a preponderance of evidence does not exist to prove that the alleged violation occurred, therefore the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED.
On 01/27/26 it was alleged "staff did not allow visitation." The Department’s investigation consisted of unannounced facility visits, interviews with facility staff, residents, outside sources, and records review.
Regarding the allegation, "staff did not allow visitation," it was alleged that staff refuse a special visitor to visit R1 while they stay in Assisted Living (AL) or the Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF).
Staff interviews revealed: Staff demonstrated knowledge of visitation rights and resident rights. S1 stated they were aware of the legal situation involving a special visitor of R1. According to S1, S2, and S3, the special visitor of R1 has been denied visitation to R1 through a judge and court order. S1 and S2 stated they have talked to R1's family lawyers, to the court, and to the facility's legal team to ensure that R1's visitation rights are upheld. Facility staff have had to remind the special visitor for R1 of the obligations they must follow in order to visit R1, as a result of the court order.
Outside source interviews revealed: Outside sources have confirmed that R1's visitation rights have been followed based on the legal restrictions in place. OS1 stated there have been times when the special visitor has not followed the legal provisions of the restraining order when it came to visiting R1 in the past. This corroborates staff interviews.
(Continued on LIC9099C, Page 4) |