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 | not notify R1’s responsible party about the bruise until after R1’s responsible party had already observed the bruise themselves on 9/5/2022. Based on the information obtained, the allegation is deemed Substantiated at this time.
On the allegation: Facility Administrator is not present at the facility. At the time of the complaint, Dana Newquist is listed as the Administrator on record with CCL for this facility. Lisa Gerr, Licensee, also identifies herself as the Administrator. RP1 stated another staff/back-up Administrator Emily Gerr, also identified themselves as the Administrator. During LPA’s visit on 9/14/2022, Emily Gerr identified herself as the Administrator, as did Lisa Gerr. On incident reports submitted to CCL by the facility on 10/11/2022 and 10/13/2022, Emily Gerr is listed as the Administrator. Based on interviews with RP1 and Lisa Gerr, LPA confirmed Dana Newquist is not the Administrator overseeing the facility. Dana Newquist is not present at the facility an adequate amount of time to manage and administer the facility, and the record needs to be updated to reflect the accurate administrator. Based on the information obtained, the allegation is deemed Substantiated at this time.
On the allegation: Administrator is not responding timely to responsible party’s communications. LPA reviewed email records, and interviewed Licensee and RP1. RP1 discovered a large bruise on R1’s arm on 9/5/2022. RP1 asked the Care Director about it, and the Care Director indicated they texted all the caregivers to ask what happened, but no one knew how R1 sustained the bruise. RP1 asked Care Director and back-up administrator if the cameras could be checked to see if they captured how R1 sustained the bruise. Back-up administrator stated they would ask the Licensee, and later stated the Licensee would review the video and call RP1. On 9/6/2022 at 6:41 am, RP1 sent Licensee an email asking how R1 obtained the bruise on the left arm. On 9/7/2022 at 12:01 pm, the email records show RP1 emailed the licensee again. The email records do not show that the licensee responded to RP1 timely. RP1 indicated on 9/9/2022 that they still had not received a response from the licensee as of 2:18 pm. The Licensee did not respond to RP1’s emails asking for more information about how R1 sustained a large bruise for at least 3 days, and no other staff contacted RP1 with the requested information. Therefore, based on the information obtained, the allegation is deemed Substantiated at this time.
Pursuant to Title 22 Division 6 Chapter 8 of the CA Code of Regulations, the following deficiencies were cited (refer to LIC 9099-D):
Exit interview conducted. Copy of report and Appeal Rights issued at the time of the visit.
|