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 | Page 3 of 3.
Facility staff do not evaluate the condition of skin exposed to urine and stool to ensure skin breakdown, such as rash, is not occurring.
On 01/23/2026, the Department interviewed 3 staff (S1-S2) including Administrator (ADM) Syeda Haroon. ADM stated there are 2 residents that need assistance with incontinence care. ADM stated there are no issues with incontinence care with the residents. ADM stated there are no issues with rash occurring on resident’s skin. ADM stated the staff will check the residents every 2-3 hours. ADM stated the facility did not have progress notes on file since there was no change of condition to report on the resident's skin, such as a rash.
On 01/23/2026, the Department interviewed 4 residents (R1-R4). 1 Out of 4 residents was not available to be interviewed since they were sleeping and 1 Out of 4 residents was not able to provide answers to the questions. 2 Out of 4 residents (R2&R4) stated the staff assist with incontinence care and they have no skin issues with rash occurring. R2 stated their skin was itchy but their responsible party brought in cream to put on the skin, but R2 stated they did not have a rash.
Based on review of 4 residents (R1-R4)’s LIC 602A Medical Assessment for Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly, 3 out 4 residents are both bowel and bladder incontinence and require assistance with toileting needs. 1 Out of 4 residents is bowel incontinence and require assistance with toileting needs. 2 Out of 4 residents have a history of skin conditions or breakdown.
Based on review of 5 residents (R1-R5)’s LIC 625 Appraisal/Needs and Services Plan, 4 out 5 residents need assistance with all ADLs. R3 can complete his/her own hygiene tasks but needs assistance with staff providing and preparing the supplies.
The Department has completed the investigation of the above allegations. Based on interviews conducted and record reviews, the department has found that the above allegations were UNFOUNDED, meaning that the allegations were false, could not have happened and/or are without a reasonable basis.
No deficiencies cited from California Code of Regulations, Title 22. Exit interview conducted with Administrator and a copy of the report was provided. |