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 | Regarding the allegation that staff are not providing adequate meal services, In Kitchen staff interview it was learned that there was no designated staff for leading the design the menu at the start of the complaint, and now a designated staff has been promoted to a lead position. Facility staff originally provided that at the time of the complaint, no single person was given the responsibility as lead. 1 kitchen staff supported the statement that the lead has since been able to shop for ingredients in a timely fashion, and has since been able to switch items to accommodate alternative diets without a loss of nutrition.
Secondary to not having a person in charge of the kitchen, were many adjacent issues. In interview, it was learned in staff interviews that R1 was not allowed to eat a fruit by a staff during a meal service, another R2 that was not permitted by a staff to get a snack from their personal property locker to supplement a meal service, and a third R3 was eating the alternative meal(peanut butter and jelly sandwitch) for weeks at a time. On the 2 meal services the LPA witnessed, clients were allowed to partake of the availible fruits if they wanted with no limitation to kind or quantity, there was no client desiring supplemental food from their personal storage, and the client making excessive use of the alternate meal plan was fully participating with the regular menu. In 1 of 3 clients interviews it was corroborated that the client involved was not allowed to eat a fruit, the client stated she was told "This is for everybody", from the staff when denied the fruit. Two staff corroborated the incident where a client was not allowed to supplement a meal with a personal snack.
On the Visits, LPA observed food serving temperature being moderated with serving pans over the stove during the second meal observation visit(first visit was a sandwitch and chips), to be served to the clients. Some food reserved from previous meals to be served had not been labeled with dates on the first inspection(tacos and rice salad), all foods were labeled on the second kitchen inspection. During the second visit, 1 Kitchen staff report a lessening of the cockroaches due to a spray of pesticide since the the first visit.
Based on LPAs observations and interviews which were conducted and record review(s), the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation(s) is found to be SUBSTANTIATED. Citations on a following D Page.
LPA left a copy of the report with the Facility Manager Angie Chaves electronicly, and provided a copy of the appeal rights. the report was read and an exit interview was conducted.
|