complaint·October 10, 2025

The investigation revealed the following: Allegation #1: The facility failed to ensure designated substitute coverage. It was reported that the facility failed to ensure that a designated substitute was at the facility for coverage during the absence of the Administrator Nathaniel Venzon. LPA conducted interviews with staff member 1-8 (S1-S8) and of those interviewed 8 out of 8 stated that there is always coverage in the absence of the administrator Nathaniel Venzon. The interviews with S1 stated they have their Administrators License on file which LPA observed during the visit and S2 and S3 confirmed that S1 has their Administrators certificate. LPA also conducted interviews with residents 1-9 (R1-R9) and of those interviewed 9 out of 9 residents stated there is always someone there to cover when the administrator Nathaniel Venzon is not at the facility. On 10/10/25, LPA reviewed the infection control plan and staff were found to be following protocols. During the tour of this facility, LPA did not observe any PPE stations being used due to there not being any current covid cases. Based on the evidence gathered,observations, and interviews conducted during the investigation, the above allegation is found to be Unsubstantiated; meaning that although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur. An exit interview was conducted where this report was discussed and provided to Nathaniel Venzon at the conclusion of the visit with appeal rights.