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 (page 1)
Allegation: “Facility staff are not meeting resident’s basic care needs:”
The complaint alleges that the facility staff are not meeting Resident #1 (R1)’s basic care needs, as R1 has been able to elope on the following dates: 06/05/2022, 06/07/2022, 06/29/2022, and 07/11/2022. R1’s physician’s report indicates that R1 has a diagnosis of dementia, can ambulate without the use of assistive devices, has wandering behavior and is unable to leave the facility unassisted. Following the first 2 (two) elopement incidents, R1 was given a Wanderguard bracelet and additional status checks were conducted on R1. However, interview revealed that the Wanderguard bracelet will only set off an auditory alarm if the resident exits from the Assisted Living common areas, not the secure Memory Care unit and R1 resided in the Memory Care unit. Additionally, following the second elopement, the facility had required that R1 have a private companion due to safety concerns and exit seeking behaviors. However, after noting that the private companion agitated R1 more, the facility allowed R1 to remain in the facility without a private companion. LPA conducted a case management visit and issued a citation related to R1’s elopements. On 06/09/2022, facility staff conducted a new needs and service assessment, which did not indicate the need for 1:1 supervision for R1, however did note R1’s exit seeking behavior. R1 then eloped a third time on 06/29/2022, which resulted in a Case Management visit and additional citation on 07/08/2022. A self-reported incident report was sent to CCL related to a 07/11/2022 incident which indicates that R1 “attempted elopement” on this date. However, care notes for R1 reviewed at the facility indicate R1 “eloped with another resident.” Interviews with staff present during the incident indicated that R1 was “found with another resident on the sidewalk outside Oakmont wandering toward the public sidewalk.” During the initial complaint visit, LPA Dulek and Regional Operations Specialist, along with Memory Care Director toured the facility. During the tour, Memory Care Director showed LPA an inconsistency with the door strike on the door R1 eloped through during all elopement incidents and all of R1’s additional elopement attempts. If the door was pushed on the door strike rather than pressing the exit bar, then the door would open without engaging the delayed egress nor would it sound an auditory alarm. Previous ED and Memory Care Director had discovered this immediately following R1’s elopement on 07/11/2022. However, during the initial complaint visit on 08/11/2022, the door strike had not been repaired. Further, in a conversation with R1’s family following the 07/11/2022 incident, management had indicated the facility cannot keep R1 safe. Based on interview, observation, and record review, there is sufficient evidence to support the allegation, therefore the allegation Continued on LIC 9099-C
|