complaint·July 9, 2025

the facility without any violation of R1's rights. R1 is legally blind, and requires supervision when going out, which is provided. Transportation for medical appointments and needs is also provided, with staff accompanying R1 for supervision. Transportation via share ride, ACCESS, or taxi, paid by the licensee. Administrator and staff both adds R1 has house visits by their doctor scheduled. Regarding R1 wanting to move out, administrator acknowledges that right, but R1's responsible party prefers for R1 to continue to reside in the facility. Interview with R1 could not confirm the report of staff yelling at R1 or allowing for R1 to leave. R1 could not provide or identify any witnesses to corroborate the allegations. Interviews with five (5) of five residents also could not confirm allegations. Some residents that were interviewed confirmed licensee assistance for transportation to their doctor appointments. These residents also state staff treat them with dignity and respect. Based on the information obtained, there wasn't enough evidence to prove that staff do not treat residents with dignity or respect, and not allowing for residents to leave the facility. Therefore, the allegation is deemed Unsubstantiated at this time. Staff did not allow resident to have access to a telephone: In regards to the allegation, it was reported that staff do not allow R1 access to the facility telephone. Interviews with the administrator and staff deny the allegation, stating R1 has access to the land line, and utilizes the land line at all times. Interviews with Five (5) of five residents deny the allegation, confirming they have access to the facility phone. During the investigation, LPA observed R1 with the facility telephone on hand, making a phone call. Based on the information obtained, there is insufficient evidence to corroborate the allegation of staff not allowing residents access to the facility telephone. Therefore, the allegation is deemed Unsubstantiated at this time. Staff did not provide food service to resident: In regards to the allegation, it was reported that facility staff have refused to provide R1 meals since R1 is vegetarian. Interviews with the administrator and staff deny the allegation. Both administrator and staff state they try to accommodate all their resident's dietary needs. In the case for R1, although R1 does not require a special diet (vegetarian), alternative meals, fresh vegetables, non-meat food items such as peanut butter and jelly, tofu, is offered and served at no charge. LPA conducted an inspection of the facility food supply and observed fruits, vegetables and non-meat food items on stock to accommodate R1. Interviews with five (5) of five residents could not confirm staff not providing them any food service, or have any complaints regarding food service. Review of R1's physician report does not indicate that R1 requires a special diet. Based on the information obtained, there is insufficient evidence to corroborate the allegation of staff not providing food service to residents. Therefore, the allegation is deemed Unsubstantiated at this time.