complaint·November 27, 2024

While interviewing S1, S2, and S3 LPA observed that there were chats on WhatsApp between all the caregivers including S5. However LPA was unable to obtain proof of the claims made by S1, S2, and S3 and their accounts appeared rehersed, leading LPA to question their credibility. LPA also interviewed the ED. ED acknowledged prior issues between S5 and S1, S2, and S3. ED described S5 as assertive but stated that they were always respectful and attentive to residents. ED noted that S5's assertiveness would sometimes rub other staff the wrong way. LPA also attempted to interview S4 but S4 stated that they had never worked with S5. S4 stated that they had no relevant knowledge to contribute regarding S5. LPA was unable to interview any residents as they all reside in memory care and have dementia. LPA also discussed with the ED if there were any incidents or reports regarding R1, R2, and R3 and found that any allegations made regarding these residents were internally investigated and that none of the investigations were substantiated and no injuries were ever found on any of the residents in care. LPA was unable to find any time that residents were not allowed to access their food besides through the interviews with S1, S2, and S3 whom LPA questioned their credibility. Although the allegations 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 . No deficiencies cited during visit. Exit interview conducted and a copy of this report provided.