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.
On 2/22/2024, the Department interviewed ADM. ADM stated he is not aware of this issue but if there are multiple people requiring assistance, then there is a cue for when staff will respond. The facility does have a call bell system for the residents to press a button to request for help.
On 2/22/2024, the Department interviewed staff (S1). S1 stated there are times where multiple residents do request for help at the same time. S1 stated the residents do not wait for more than 20 minutes but the call bell system does not allow for them to check how long the resident has been waiting. S1 stated there are always 4 staff in the facility during AM shift and PM shift and 2 staff present during night shift. S1 stated the staff use the walkie talkie to communicate their location and which resident they are assisting. S1 stated the pager will notify when the resident has requested for help with the pendent.
On 2/22/2024, LPA Rai observed the call bell system, but the system does not log the calls, so LPA Rai was not able to review the call bell system for previous requests. During visit, LPA Rai observed the pendent being used by 5 different residents and the pendants were cleared within 5 minutes.
On 5/16/2024, LPA Rai interviewed 10 residents. 4 Out of 10 residents refused the interview. 6 Out of 10 residents agreed to the interview. 6 out of 6 residents use the call button to request for staff assistance. 6 Out of 6 residents stated it will take 5-10 minutes before staff will respond to the request. 5 Out of 6 residents stated they did not have any issues with the staff responding in a timely manner. 5 Out of 6 residents stated they cannot recall a time when the facility staff took more than 20 minutes to answer their call button. During one of the interviews, LPA Rai observed 1 resident press the call pendent and the staff checked the resident within 3 minutes.
Based on the interviews conducted with clients and staff and based on observation and records review, although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove that the above allegations did or did not occur, therefore the allegations are UNSUBSTANTIATED.
No deficiencies cited from California Code of Regulations, Title 22. Exit interview conducted with Licensee/Administrator, Saaj Kaiyom & Licensee, Lustana Kaiyom and a copy of the report was provided. |