complaint·December 16, 2025

Regarding the allegation : Staff refused to accept resident back to the facility. It is being alleged that resident #1 (R1) was not being accepted back to the facility. LPA received all unusual/incident reports that were sent to CCLD-Community Care Licensing Department in regards to R1’s falls and/or hospitalization. LPA interviewed three (3) staff that confirmed R1 returned to the facility more than once from the hospital. They have not refused R1 back into the facility at any time. One (1) staff did confirm that they spoke to someone at the hospital telling them that R1 will need a higher level of care because of the repetition of their falls and their concern for R1's safety. LPA also spoke to R1’s POA-Power of Attorney and the POA did confirm that the facility did mention a higher level of care because of R1’s falls and asked if R1 can have a 1:1 staff with them because R1 is now a fall risk and also confirmed with LPA that R1 was accepted back to the facility with no issues. During LPA’s physical tour on 11/26/25, R1 was at the facility and had just returned from the hospital a few days prior. LPA attempted to interview six (6) residents including R1 but to no avail none of the residents could understand what the LPA was asking and/or answer LPA's questions. Therefore, based on the LPA's record reviews, staff, resident and POA interviews conducted, the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED at this time. Regarding the allegation : Staff did not inform authorized representative of incidents. It is being alleged that resident #1 (R1)’s power of attorney (POA) was not informed of R1’s incidents. LPA interviewed four (4) staff that confirmed that since R1’s admission to the facility was in October of 2025, R1 has fallen multiple times and has gone to the hospital twice. Four (4) staff confirmed that for every incident they have informed R1’s POA and doctor. LPA reviewed all unusual/incident reports that were sent to CCLD-Community Care Licensing Department in regards to R1’s falls and/or hospitalization and it shows POA and doctor were informed. LPA called R1’s POA to confirm if they were aware of R1’s incidents and R1’s POA confirmed that they were aware of R1’s incidents and hospitalization because the facility let them know and they also had visited R1 at the hospital. Furthermore, R1's POA also confirmed that the hospital called them since they were on R1's emergency paperwork to let them know R1 was at the hospital. LPA obtained R1's Identification and Emergency Information showing who is R1's guardianship. LPA attempted to interview six (6) residents including R1 but to no avail none of the residents could understand what the LPA was asking and/or answer LPA's questions. Therefore, based on the LPA's record reviews, staff, resident and POA interviews conducted, the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED at this time. An exit interview was conducted, no citation(s) were issued, and a copy of this report was given to the Administrator.