complaint·December 10, 2025

Continued from LIC9099 Investigation Findings: It was reported to the department that the facility did not timely respond to R1’s doctor for a potential UTI. LPA interviewed S2, who was on duty at the end of the day on Friday November 28th S2 reported that R1 informed staff that R1 felt symptoms of a urinary tract infection but not severe enough to need to go to the emergency room. R1’s primary care provider’s office is closed over the weekend. R1’s primary care provider was notified on Monday December first. The order for the urinary test and prescription for antibiotics came in on the first. The urine was collected on the second due to R1 not being able to provide enough urine when the test was available. LPA interviewed S3 who collected the urine sample. S3 reported to LPA that R1 had informed another med-tech that R1 had some discomfort, and mild symptoms of what R1 thought could be a urinary tract infection (UTI). S3 assessed R1’s symptoms. R1 had reported to S3 that R1’s symptoms were mild consisting of mild discomfort while urinating, but not a severe burning sensation. S3 reported no increase in confusion, agitation, nor other severe signs of a UTI being present for R1. R1’s primary physician was informed, and a urine sample and antibiotics were prescribed. S3 did the sample collection the day after the test was received due to R1 not having enough urine to fill the sample. S3 reported that R1 reported no discomfort nor burning sensation while providing the sample. S3 also reported there was no strong smell or other obvious signs of a severe UIT. A five (5) day supply of antibiotics was prescribed and received by the facility on Tuesday December second. Lab results for the urine test were not yet available. LPA interviewed R1. R1 did not recall the incident and stated that staff do respond to needs in a timely manner. As R1 had reported mild symptoms to staff with no urgency to see a health provider, and staff evaluations of R1’s symptoms and temperament were not above base line, staff did act in a timely manner in response to R1’s report of possible a UTI. Therefore, this allegation is unsubstantiated. Allegation: Staff did not ensure that resident's nutritional needs were met while in care. Continued on LIC9099-C Continued from LIC9099-C Investigation Findings: it was reported to the department that staff were encouraging balanced meals, however, W1 reported to the department that when R1 asked for a banana, R1 was offered flan instead. LPA interviewed R1. R1 did not recall the incident but reported to LPA that staff do not withhold snacks or meals and felt that staff do meet R1’s food needs. S1 reported that R1 has not been eating full meals as a way of getting R1’s family’s attention in hopes of being taken home. This was conveyed to R1’s primary care provider and responsible party. LPA interviewed S3 who reported that S3 will follow up with R1 in the late evening to ask if R1 would like something else to eat on days when R1 does not eat a full meal. S3 will provide a sandwich or other requested foods to R1 and ensures R1 is eating. S1, S2 and S3 reported that R1 had expressed depression like thoughts and a want to go home as a reason for not eating as much as before. Staff have been monitoring R1’s food intake and will follow up with R1 throughout the day and evenings to ensure R1 does eat enough. S1, S2 and S3 report that R1 prefers sweets, and asks specifically for sweets such as flan. Staff report trying their best to provide R1 with R1’s requests while encouraging R1 to eat more healthy options. S1 and S3 reported that staff do not withhold nutritional food from R1, and know what R1 prefers. If R1 were to ask for a specific food item, staff will offer an alternative that is readily available but will confirm with R1 if the alternative is acceptable. Staff never force residents to eat anything they do not want to eat. LPA toured kitchen and the facility has nutritional food options available. This allegation is therefore unsubstantiated. Although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did occur, therefore the allegations above do not meet Regulation Requirements are unsubstantiated. No deficiencies cited. Exit interview conducted and a copy of this report provided.