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 | This is an amended report. On the allegation: Staff do not provide activities to resident. It is alleged clients did not have activities at the facility.
LPA observed that the indoor common areas of the facility include a specified “activity room” for clients to utilize in the facility. There are activity supplies and equipment, including activity materials for the clients such as television, puzzles, games, toys/tools/equipment, etc. There are also activities available for clients such as board games, puzzles, and reading materials located in the dining room area. Clients interviewed by LPA stated they liked to do things in the facility such as reading books, playing games/puzzles, and/or watching television. The facility maintains documentation of client activities/outings through filling out an activity sheet for each client as well as a shift duty checklist. Based on the information gathered, there is insufficient evidence to prove staff do not provide activities to resident(s). Therefore, the allegation is Unsubstantiated.
On the allegation: Staff do not allow resident to have visitors. It is alleged that staff did not allow C1’s visitor (Person 1 – P1) to visit or speak to C1 on the phone.
LPA Phillips observed a central/initial sign-in area for visitors upon entering the facility. This area contained visitor logbooks for visitors to identify themselves, the date, time in/time out, and what client was being visited. The facility also keeps documented visitation logs for outside agencies visiting the facility. LPA received the facility visitor policy signed and dated by C1 stored in C1's facility file/record. Facility staff indicated C1’s conservator did not want P1 visiting C1. C1 is conserved by the Public Guardian’s office, and LPA Rankin reviewed C1’s conservatorship documents and interviewed Public Guardian (PG). PG stated C1 did not give a release of information that would allow P1 to visit or know where P1 was residing. Additionally, PG stated C1 did not want P1 to visit. As a result, PG confirmed they told facility staff P1 was not allowed to visit. Facility staff interviewed stated P1 was very disruptive when they attempted to gain entry to the facility, and staff had concerns for C1’s wellbeing. Based on the confirmation the PG instructed facility staff to not let P1 visit, the allegation is Unsubstantiated at this time. Contd. 9099-C
|