Complaint·November 16, 2021

interviewed denied the allegation to be true. S2-6 either state the allegation is false, not true or they have been properly trained. S8 and S9 state they have never been asked to give medication in their role as caregivers. During interviews with residents, the investigation revealed the following. 4 out of 6 are enrolled in the medication administration program. Of the 4, they all denied the allegation to be true. R1 acknowledges the medication error but states there were no adverse effects. R2-4 all state not having their medication administered by an unqualified individual. Regarding the allegation: Resident's belongings are not being safeguarded while in care. It’s being alleged a resident is saying that people are taking their things. The investigation revealed the following: 9 out of 9 staff interviewed denied the allegation to be true. 9 out of 9 state the resident’s items are safely stored and safeguarded or that a resident has never made such claims. S6 states the facility discourages the families from leaving anything of value at the facility. S6 also states, in supporting residents with memory care needs, it isn’t unusual for them to allege something is missing. During interviews with residents, the investigation revealed the following. 6 out of 6 residents state their belongings are safeguarded while in care. R1-6 either state not having any issues with their belongings going missing or they have an additional safe for valuable items. During a record review, LPA verified all initials on Medication Administration Record (MAR) and found all initials to be of the Medication Technician (Med Tech). LPA also reviewed and verified trainings completed for Med Tech’s. Training include classroom training from a licensed professional, followed by shadowing and examinations. During a file review of admissions agreement, facility does not have a surety bond. Residents are discouraged from bringing items of high value to the facility. Per resident’s admissions agreement, the facility denies liability of a resident’s personal belongings. Which includes but is not limited to theft unless it is delivered to Watermark for safeguarding. Based on LPA’s observation, interviews conducted, and record review, the preponderance of evidence standard has not been met. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation(s) did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is unsubstantiated. An Exit interview was conducted, and a copy of the report was given.