complaint·August 27, 2025

Continued from LIC9099. During the interview with S1, S1 stated due to R1’s diagnosis R1 needed a private caregiver to keep him isolated and would not take him back into the facility without a private caregiver. S1 had spoken with Kaiser staff and R1’s responsible party. S1 stated R1’s responsible party refused to pay for a private caregiver. On August 1, 2025, R1 had a private caregiver provided by Kaiser and was transported back to the facility via ambulance. LPAs reviewed the facility’s infection control plan. On page 17 of the infection control plan it states “Hospital discharge and admission or re-admission to a facility should not be delayed or prevented due to the COVID-19 status of the patient.” Based on LPA's information obtained during investigation, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met; therefore, the above allegation is found to be SUBSTANTIATED . California Code of Regulations, Title 22, are being cited on the attached LIC9099D. Exit interview conducted. A copy of this report and appeal rights provided.