complaint·March 12, 2026

Regarding the allegation: Facility staff did not provide required notice of rate increase. It is alleged that the facility staff is not providing required notice of rate increase to residents. Five of five staff interviewed denied this allegation. According to staff the increase to the rate is delivered to self-responsible residents and residents’ Power of Attorney(POA) by the information on file. R1 and R2’s rate of increase is delivered to R1 and R2’s family. LPA Vaid’s conversation with R1’s POA confirmed delivery of notice of yearly rental increase for R1. W1 stated that R2 is not familiar with payment of the facility dues, W1 stated the family is given 60-day notice of the yearly rate increases for R1. Eight of ten residents could not corroborate this allegation, five of ten stated their family handles their finances and is communicated the rate increases, six of ten residents stated they are given 60 days’ notice for the yearly rate increase. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is unsubstantiated. Regarding the allegation: Facility staff did not meet dietary needs of residents. It is alleged that staff are not meeting residents’ dietary needs by not delivering breakfast on time to residents’ room and meal portions are small. Five of five staff deny this allegation; residents are encouraged to eat meals in the dining room to promote socialization amongst the residents. A delivery charge is assessed for meals deliveries to residents’ rooms; delivery charge is not assessed for residents with serious medical conditions who cannot attend dining room meals. Seven of ten residents could not corroborate this allegation, residents stated they have the correct meals served according to their health and dietary plans, meal sizes are reasonable. Three of ten residents stated they have requested and received extra portions of meals. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is unsubstantiated. CONTINUED ON 9099C............................. Regarding the allegation: Facility staff did not meet incontinence care needs of resident. It is alleged that the staff is not meeting residents’ incontinent needs, staff left R1 in soiled diaper for 24-hours. Five of five staff deny this allegation, staff stated residents with incontinent needs are periodically checked throughout each shift by caregivers to ensure residents are dry and comfortable in their briefs. Seven of ten residents could not corroborate this allegation, residents interviewed don’t have incontinent needs. Two of ten residents stated staff checks on them periodically throughout the day. Their incontinent needs are met daily, two of ten residents stated being checked on very 2-hours due of over active health issue. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is unsubstantiated. Regarding the allegation: Facility staff spoke inappropriately to resident. It is alleged that staff spoke inappropriately to resident, and resident observed staff speaking rudely and making a resident cry. Five of five staff interviewed deny this allegation, staff stated they are respectful of the residents in memory care and assisted living and treat all residents with dignity and respect. Staff stated they do not speak about residents’ issues in public, rather meet in private and discuss issues with the residents and their families. R3 denied having a confrontation with S1 over past issue. Seven of ten residents could not corroborate this allegation; residents stated the staff does not speak to them in a rude or inappropriate manner and residents stated never having witnessed staff making residents feel sad. Residents stated staff is cheerful and helpful. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is unsubstantiated. Exit interview was held and copy of investigation report was provided to Administrator, LeeAnn Hefner.