complaint·March 12, 2025

INVESTIGATION REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: Allegation: Staff did not safeguard resident's personal belongings. The complaint stated that staff did not safeguard Resident #1 (R1’s) personal belongings. It is reported that someone at the board and care facility keeps stealing (R1’s) belongings. Furthermore, (R1) is independent and does not belong in an assisted living facility. There was no further details were provided. On March 12, 2025, between 10:00 AM and 11:40 AM, the Department interviewed three staff members, identified as Staff #1 through Staff #3, regarding the accusation. Three (3) out of three (3) could not corroborate this claim made against them. They stated that all residents are treated with dignity, respect, and privacy. All staff members have completed training in Workplace Sensitivity courses, which include topics such as Resident Rights, Working with Individuals with Dementia, and Cultural Competence, among others. (S1-S3) explained that there were no incidents involving Resident #1 (R1). (S1) explained that (R1) was admitted to this facility on December 23, 2024. (R1) resided in a private home and is still adjusting as a resident in a communal assisted living environment. (S2-S3) reported that (R1) had previously accused someone of taking personal items such as clothing, a calendar, a Bible, and hearing aids. All these items were later recovered as (R1) misplaced, and (R1) did not recall where (R1) had stored them. (S1) claimed the facility does not have a surveillance camera to capture daily activities. However, (S1) expressed that the facility has zero tolerance for employees for this behavior, so immediate action should be taken. On March 10, 2025, between 04:16 PM and 04:35 PM, the Department interviewed a resident member identified as Resident #1. (R1) claimed to be independent and did not required to be in an assisted living facility. (R1) claimed that several personal items went missing. (R1) was unable to provide descriptions of the items, dates when they occurred, or names and descriptions of individuals involved. (R1) did not present any demonstrative evidence to support the claim. Evaluation Report continues LIC 9099-C On March 12, 2025, between 10:45 AM and 11:30 AM, the Department interviewed four resident members identified as Resident #3 through Resident #6. Four (4) out of the (4) could not support this claim. (R3-R6) claimed no issues or concerns with their items. (R3-R6) are complementary of the staff for care and supervision provided and stated they are trustworthy staff. Residents #1 and #2 were out in the community or unavailable for an interview during the visit. On March 12, 2025, between 11:10 AM and 11:45 AM, the Department interviewed two witnesses identified as family representatives, Witness #1 and Witness #2. (W1-W2) reported they were unable to support this claim. (W1-W2) stated there have been no issues or concerns relating to the resident’s failure to safeguard the resident’s valuables. (W1) mentioned that (R1) had made these accusations, and later items were recovered. (W1) stated that (R1) was admitted with items of no value at this facility. A review of Resident #1’s service records, including the Physician Reports LIC 602A (dated 09/09/24 and 12/12/23), Appraisal/Needs and Services Plan LIC 625 (dated 12/19/23), revealed that (R1) is diagnosed with Major Neurocognitive Disorder (NCD). Admission Agreements for Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly LIC 604A (dated 12/23/24), Resident Personal and Valuables LIC 621 revealed (R1) only had two personal items listed a cell phone and hearing aids that are not claimed missing. Further review of staff training records verified staff have completed courses in Resident Rights, Cultural Sensitivity In Elder, Common Challenges in Aging, Communications Caring for Persons with Dementia, and Dementia. The Department observed during the visit that mandate posters, Resident Rights, Personal Rights, and California Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly Complaint Poster, were posted throughout the facility to inform residents of their rights. Based on the information gathered, there is not enough evidence to support the allegation mentioned above. Based on the information collected from the facility inspection, observations, interviews, and records analysis, the Department found no evidence to support the above allegation. While the allegation may be valid or have occurred, there is insufficient evidence to establish whether the alleged violation took place or did not. Therefore, the allegation is deemed Unsubstantiated . An exit interview was conducted with Katrina Baesa, and copies of the reports were provided.