complaint·May 2, 2022

INVESTIGATION REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: Allegation: Illegal eviction. The details of the complaint state resident #1 (R1) was served with a 30-Day Notice to Terminate. The complainant contacted the Department and claims that (R1) is not treated fairly and that the staff does not like (R1). The complainant states (R1) is accused of having a physical altercation with another resident and that is the reason for the illegal eviction. An interview with (R1) states she was served with an eviction notice, and this is not the first time. (R1) states a prior 30-Day Notice to Terminate was issued in October 2021. An interview with staff #1-#5 (S1-S5) all confirmed that a 30-Day Notice to Terminate was served to (R1) on 03/15/22. The 30-Day Notice to Terminate, Proof of Service of 30-Day Notice to Pay or Quit were sent to (R1), (R1's) family representative, Long Term Ombudsman, and Community Care Licensing (CCLD). The documents were sent by facsimile to (CCLD) on 03/16/22 with an incorrect fax number. The El Segundo Regional (CCLD) did not receive these documents. The facility failed to follow up with (CCLD) for approval as written in Title 22 Regulations Section 87224 Eviction Procedures. The Department contacted the facility on 04/28/22 and spoke with the acting Executive Director and was informed that a Notice to Terminate was issued to (R1) on 03/16/22. It was determined the notice is not valid. Based on interviews and record reviews, there is sufficient evidence to support the allegation mentioned above. Based on interviews and record review conducted, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation is found to be SUBSTANTIATED. According to the California Code of Regulations (Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 8), The Department observed the following deficiency and issued a citation. An exit interview was conducted with Remon Pagels, and a hard copy was provided with signature and Appeal Rights. INVESTIGATION REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: Allegation: Resident sustained an injury while in care. It is alleged resident #1 (R1) sustained an injury while in care. The complainant claims (R1) sustained injuries on her left ankle. The complainant can not recall the date and time when it happened. The complainant was not present when the incident took place between (R1) and another female resident. An interview with (R1) claims it happened several years back in the Parlor room. (R1) is uncertain of the date and time. (R1) confirms she suffered injuries to her left ankle. (R1) claims there were no witnesses and the other female resident is no longer at the facility. Interviews with residents #2 and #3 (R2-R3) state they were made aware of the incident that had happened but did not have the privilege of any of the information. Interviews with staff #2-#5 (S2-S5) all verified that an incident between (R1) and another female resident had happened, however, no injuries were sustained. (S4-S5) both who knew the incident state (R1) is not the victim and was the one who instigated the incident. An interview with (S3-S4) claims the facility does not have cameras in common areas. Interviews with (R2-R3) and witness #2 (W2) all verified that (R1) has a history of creating problems with other residents and staff and will often time ignore the facility's house rules. Based on the information collected, there is no evidence to support the allegation mentioned above. Allegation: Resident sustained UTI while in care. It is alleged that resident #1 (R1) sustained UTI while in care at this facility. The complainant states that (R1) went to seek medical attention in March 2022, and it was revealed that (R1) had Urinary Tract Infection and it is caused by neglect of (R1's) care. However, the complainant contradicts her accusation, when she states that she has no issues with the care staff at this facility and praises them for their services. An interview with (R1) reveals it is common for elderly people to have UTIs. (R1) states she had a history of UTI about 50 years back and did not see it as a problem. A review of a current (R1's) physician's report dated 03/07/22 indicates (R1) can provide self-care. (R1) does not need assistance with toileting and does not wear adult diapers. Interviews with (S1-S5) all verify (R1) is cared for seven (7) days a week by a third-party home care services between 6 am - 2 pm paid by (R1's) family. An interview with staff #3 (S3) states it was under recommendation for the family member to have (R1) examined for UTI as she now exudes some behavior changes in condition. Witness #1 (W1) and (S3) confirmed (R1) did not have prior health issues that are the main causes of UTI. Interviews with (R2-R3) and (R1-R3) all claim that the care has never been an issue and that caregivers are attentive and responsive. Based on the information collected, there is no evidence to support the allegation mentioned above. Allegation: Staff failed to meet residents’ needs. The details of the complaint state staff failed to meet the resident's needs. According to the complainant, it is not the care that is the issue, (R1) is not granted dignity and respect at this facility. Interviews with (R1-R3) reported the staff is kind and respectful to all the residents. Interviews with (S1-S5) dispute this claim and state staff have mandated training on how to address residents' needs. (S1-S5) all verified that it is (R1) who is critical and will often cause attention to oneself with other residents. An interview with (R1) did not have comments to add and stated that the management staff has been unkind. (R1) did not have specific dates, times, and a witness who could collaborate on her statement. An interview with (W2) states she has observed the staff at this facility grants(R1) dignity and respect. Based on the information collected, there is no evidence to support the allegation mentioned above. Based on information gathered, an inspection of the facility, observation, analysis of service records, and interviews conducted, the Department found no evidence to support the allegations listed on this complaint report. Although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations, did or did not occur, therefore the allegations are Unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted with Remon Pagels and a copy of the report was provided.