complaint·September 30, 2025

The investigation revealed the following in regards to the allegation: “Staff do not safeguard the resident’s confidential information,” it is alleged that staff did not safeguard the resident’s personal information by allowing a to third party business access to a resident’s personal information which resulted in the sale of resident’s personal property. LPA in terviewed Executive Director and six (6) out of six (6) staff denied the allegation staff stated that residents' personal and confidential information is never provided to anyone that is not staff or personnel who work at the facility. Executive Director and six (6) out of six (6) staff stated that the facility policy of providing the resident’s confidential information to third parties is not allowed. LPA interviewed nine (9) out of nine (9) residents, the residents denied knowledge of the allegation and stated that the facility staff safeguard the residents’ confidential information. Eight (8) out of nine (9) residents stated that the facility staff are not involved in selling residents personal property. One (1) out of nine (9) residents stated staff do not coerce or pressure the residents to sell the residents personal property. Nine (9) out of nine (9) residents stated feeling safe at the facility. LPA interviewed R1’s Power of Attorney (W1) and W2, and both W1 and W2 denied the allegation and reported that R1’s family is involved in the sale of the R1’s personal property and W1 states R1 is in agreement of the sale of R1s personal property. Two (2) out of two (2) witnesses also stated that the facility staff are not involved in the sale of R1’s personal property. W1 reported that staff did not allow access of R1’s confidential and personal information to a third party. LPA reviewed staff #1 (S1) in-service training and training records regarding Resident’s Personal Rights and HIPAA Laws. Per Executive Director, there are no staff that have been provided with verbal or written warnings regarding not safeguarding residents’ confidential and personal information. Therefore, the investigation did not reveal a preponderance of evidence to support the allegation. Based on statements and interviews conducted with staff, clients, review of client files and facility file records, there was not enough supportive evidence to concur with the reported allegations. Although the allegations may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. An exit interview was held and a copy of this report was provided to the Executive Director, Daniel Orozco.