complaint·November 26, 2024

**REPORT CONTINUED FROM 9099** LPAs interviewed S1. S1 stated that she has worked at the facility for about one year and has known R1 since R1 was admitted to the facility. S1 further stated that she well aware of R1's desire to move back to southern California and that R1 does not accept the fact that she has the diagnosis of Dementia. S1 stated that from time to time, she is able to get R1 to participate in the activities at the facility and that R1 seems to enjoy herself during that time. S1 stated that she feels that R1 is appropriately placed in the memory care unit.. LPAs interviewed R1 who stated that she is very unhappy and she wants go back to southern California to be with her friends. R1 does not think that she needs to live in Memory Care. R1 further stated that she is very unhappy with the fact that she was moved here against her will and feels like she should be able to determine where she lives and with who. R1 would like to live with a friend she has in southern California. LPAs interviewed W1 who stated he has known R1 for about four years. He lived at the same facility as R1 in southern California. W1 stated that R1 was recently diagnosed with dementia, and her driver license was taken away and needed a higher level of care that was not available at the facility in Southern California. W1 stated that he is very happy with the level of care that R1 is receiving at her current facility. W1 also knows that R1 is not happy and and refuses to accept that she has dementia and needs a higher level of care. This agency has investigated the complaint alleging facility staff are preventing resident from leaving the facility. We have found that the complaint was unsubstantiated. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED . Exit interview conducted, a copy of this report provided.