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 LIC 9099
S1 heard that two staff had alcohol issues and caused a scene to where they should have been sent home. Most of the staff smoked weed and some would bring their weed pens and use them during breaks. And then the usage of nicotine vapes inside the facilities was a constant battle for management. Management was not innocent in that aspect which is why the staff took advantage where they could. S1 could not confirm if S8 would do drugs. S1 confirmed S6 would use nicotine pens inside the facility. S1 stated S7 did not do drugs but would sell edibles to staff. According to an interview with Staff 2 (S2), S2 stated back in December of 2022, there were staff from a staffing agency that would smoke marijuana in the car before the shift. S2 does not remember any drug use inside the facility. S2 confirmed that vapes and cigarettes were used but not drugs. According to Staff 3 (S3), S3 never heard anything about staff doing drugs there. S3 reported that two staff got drunk while doing a NOC shift. One staff member got so drunk that the person had to go to the ER.
Staff is falsifying facility records
LPA attempted to reach out to the reporting party to obtain additional information regarding the allegation. LPA attempted 3 times, which were all deemed unsuccessful due to receiving zero response. LPA reached out to the facility to obtain records regarding resident's MAR documentation. LPA was unable to obtain documentation. According to interviews, the facility had an incident where S3 gave a resident an extra dose of their pain medication. According to an interview with S6, the facility found out this happened due to the medication count being off during a morning shift. According to the reporting party, management were trying to cover up the incident. According to interviews with Administrator Ernest and S7, there is no recollection of the incident occurring.
Management creates a hostile environment.
LPA attempted to obtain more information from reporting party. After the 3rd attempted, the interview was deemed unsuccessful. Based on interviews and observations conducted by LPA, there was not a preponderance of evidence to show this allegation did or did not occur.
Due to the above noted information, although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation(s) did or did not occur, and therefore the allegations are unsubstantiated. Per California Code of Regulations (CCRs) - Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 8, no deficiencies cited. Exit interview was held and a copy of report was given to Licensee Georgina Rodriguez. |