complaint·June 24, 2024

The investigation revealed the following: Regarding the allegation: "Licensee does not allow resident to participate in private visitations while in care". It has been alleged that the Administrator, Jose Umana (S3), is not allowing resident one (R1) to have private visitations in his room. Record Reviews of the Provider Information Notices (PINs), PIN 21-48-ASC indicate that: “individuals who have Power of Attorney (POA), regarding both financial and health directive has no legal authority to control resident’s visitation rights, unless explicitly specified in the POA document and if the resident is not objecting. The resident has ultimate authority over such decisions.”. LPA did not observe any court order which would restrict family members from visiting R1. Interviews with R1 indicate that R1 is ok with private visits with family member(s), that R1 holds no preference as to who they hold private visits with, as well as having no preference as to who they can go with on any private outings. Records review of the POA documents indicate that there are no specific authority of control of a resident’s visitation rights. Interviews revealed that 4 out of 4 facilities’ staff claims to have followed a choice to disrupt a visit, based on the POA’s request. 3 out of 3 residents and 2 out of 2 witnesses have denied the allegation Based on record reviews, interviews conducted and LPA’s observation, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met. Therefore, the above allegation is found to be Substantiated . California Code of Regulations, Title twenty-two (22), Division six (6) is being cited on the attached LIC 9099D. Regarding the allegation: "Licensee is not allowing resident to participate in outings with family member(s).". It has been alleged that S2 is no longer allowing R1 to leave the facility with family member(s). Interviews revealed that 4 out of 4 staff, 3 out of 3 residents and 2 out of 2 witnesses have denied the allegation. While R1 has stated that they are O.K. to conduct outings with their family member(s), it has been recommended by the Power of Attorney (POA) that R1 should not be let out of the facility, for fear of relocation of R1. Record reviews revealed that, according to Provider Information Notices (PINs), PIN 21-48-ASC, R1 cannot be placed in a facility with secured perimeters. According to Health and Safety, Division 2 – Licensing Provisions, Chapter 3.2 Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly, Article 6.6 Secured Perimeters, 1569.698 (f) Any person who is not a conservatee and is entering a locked or secured perimeter facility pursuant to this section shall sign a statement of voluntary entry. The facility shall retain the original statement and shall send a copy of the statement to the department. R1 has not signed a voluntary entry for any secured perimeter facility and has not objected to conduct outings with family member(s). Report continues, see LIC9099C Based on record reviews and LPA observation, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met. Therefore, the above allegation is found to be Substantiated . California Code of Regulations, Title twenty-two (22), Division six (6) is being cited on the attached LIC 9099D. An exit interview was conducted with Elsa Roman, Assistant Administrator, and a copy of the appeal rights and this report has been provided.