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 | Furthermore, R1 denied the allegations. LPA Lee was unable to obtain a statement from R2, as R2 refused to be interviewed. Due to the lack of documentation and insufficient information, there was no clear indication that the alleged incidents occurred. Based on the interviews and records review during the investigation, LPA Lee was unable to corroborate the allegations.
Additionally, it was alleged that staff did not follow resident’s care plan and staff do not provide proper incontinence care to resident in care. This investigation also involved interviews with facility staff and residents. 5 out of 5 staff members denied the allegations. LPA interviewed 2 out of 2 residents; both of whom stated they receive incontinence care from the facility staff. In an interview with R1, R1 confirmed receiving 1:2 assistance with transferring. A review of R1’s LIC 602 Physician’s Report does not indicate the need for 1:2 assistance; however, R1's LIC 625 Needs and Services Plan states that R1 requires 1:1 assistance if using a Hoyer lift or 1:2 assistance if using a person lift. According to R2’s LIC 602 Physician’s Report and LIC 625 Needs and Services Plan, R2 does not require 1:2 assistance. Based on facility notes, residents' briefs are being checked and changed as needed. Based on the interviews and records review during the investigation, LPA Lee was unable to corroborate the allegations.
The investigation revealed the preponderance of evidence standards have not been met; therefore, the above allegations are found to be UNSUBSTANTIATED. A finding that the complaint allegations are UNSUBSTANTIATED means that although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violation(s)occurred.
Per California Code of Regulations (CCRs) - Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 6, no deficiencies were cited.
A copy of this report was provided. Exit interview. |