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 | Continued from LIC9099...On October 28, P1, their responsible party and Artist Coordinator met at Alchemia to review their concerns. In the meeting, P1 told Artist Coordinator, Mean. Fine. Cry. Don't cry. The facility conducted an internal investigation, P1 was removed from S1’s class, verbal statements were obtained from other three participants (P1-P3) and staff (S1-S4) who were present in class on the day of the reported incident, which they didn’t appear to witness any yelling or abuse at the class. S1 reported to Artist Coordinator that P1 appeared upset and was crying at lunch when they were FaceTiming with their responsible party, S1 asked P1 if they were OK, and S1 thought that P1's emotionality might have been related to any other issue. There was a consensus obtained from statements that on the day of the reported incident, S1 was working in a common area, where artists and mentors pass freely. On the morning of 11/11/24, Alchemia received and email reporting that P1 had told their comprehension and writing tutor that S1 had squeezed their arm hard and did not want to work with S1. On 11/19/24, the facility forwarded to CCL staff training records including abuse prevention and reporting policy. On 11/18/24, LPA received written communication from reporting party, lead reading specialist, confirming above information was disclosed to them during their meetings. Per Lead Reading Specialist written statement, “on 11/7/24, they have verified P1’s statements several times to ensure that there was no misunderstanding, and it appears thar the incident may have been related to a fidget toy”. Per Speech-Language therapist written statement, “on 11/12/24 during their meeting with P1, they were observed anxious as evidenced by shaky breathing, fidgeting, closed body language, and comfort seeking in animations. P1 primarily answered questions about the incident utilizing writing as this is an area of their strength in expressive language compared to their verbal language and wrote S1’s name when they were asked who squeezed their arm”. A copy of the written paper was submitted to CCL. LPA learned based on conflicting information obtained from interviews not enough information to support the allegation of staff handled client in a rough manner. A finding that the complaint allegation occurs of staff handled client in a rough manner is unsubstantiated meaning that although the allegations may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. Regarding allegation of staff yelled at client. According to reporting party, on 10/23/24 P1 was crying stating that S1 was mad, angry with them, but P1 did not specify what S1 yelled at P1 about. P1 does not have a history of making accusations, they have been clear and consistent when describing the incident to various individuals including P1’s therapist. On 11/18/24, LPA received written communication from reporting party confirming the above information. Based on LPA’s interviews conducted with staff (S1-S4) and participants (P1-P3) no information was provided that any staff is yelling at participants in care. No information of any yelling other than some participants whose usual behavior is to speak loudly when they attend to day program. The above allegation could not be determined based on interviews and information provided during investigation. A finding that the complaint allegation of staff yelled at client is unsubstantiated meaning that although the allegations may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. |