complaint·October 25, 2024

Additionally, despite noticing changes in R1’s health condition, the staff failed to notify R1’s physician, as required. The administrator admitted, “I did not contact the physician because I was told that the niece was the main point of contact,” which directly contributed to gaps in R1’s medical care and oversight. Therefore the allegation is SUBSTANTIATED On the allegation "Staff did not prevent resident from being financially abused while in care" it was found that staff were aware of financial issues involving R1 as early as November 2023 but did not act promptly to prevent further financial abuse. The administrator admitted, “ We knew the POA was not paying, and the niece would sometimes pay R1’s rent, ” but a financial abuse report was not filed until March 22, 2024. Additionally, despite being advised to contact Adult Protective Services (APS), staff did not make an immediate report. The administrator further acknowledged that “ we waited too long to do anything because we were trying to be nice and help R1, ” which resulted in prolonged financial vulnerability for R1. Therefore the allegation is SUBSTANTIATED. On the allegation " Staff did not adequately address resident's change in condition" it was found that Staff failed to respond adequately to changes in R1’s health condition. The administrator disclosed that R1’s niece, who was not the designated Power of Attorney (POA), was making significant healthcare decisions on R1’s behalf. When asked about this, the administrator stated, “ We listened to the niece and let her make decisions for R1, even when R1 had a change in condition. ” This deference to an unauthorized individual led to a delay in medical intervention. Staff was unable to adequately provide care to the resident because of the condition change. The administrator admitted that she did not notify R1’s physician, explaining, “ I was told that the niece was the main point of contact. ” However, there was no POA documentation stating that the niece could make decisions for R1. Therefore the allegation is SUBSTANTIATED. LPA also obtained POA documentation along with other documents for R1. LPA was unable to make contact with R1 or any responsible parties for R1. Based on LPAs observations and interviews which were conducted and record reviews, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegations are found to be SUBSTANTIATED . California Code of Regulations (Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 8), are being cited on the attached LIC 9099D.