complaint·November 25, 2024

Per Witness 1 (W1) as of November 25, 2024 they have not received R1's records for March 2024. Regarding the allegation that facility did not allow resident to participate in care planning , the following was revealed: During the course of the complaint LPA reviewed documents including the Senior Doc New Provider orders dated February 10, 2024 for R1. Per Provider orders it states patient may remain in the community in a locked/secured area/unit. During the course of the interviews, W1 reported that she is the Authorized Representative for R1. W1 stated that on February 10, 2024 she was not notified regarding the updated care planning. Per W1 the Health and Wellness Director notified a family member but not the Authorized Representative. Regarding the allegation that facility did not allow resident to choose healthcare provider , the following was revealed: During the investigation LPA reviewed documents including the Personal Service Plan dated February 12, 2024 for R1. Per Personal Service Plan under comments it states Resident with Scan as of move in. Per Progress notes on February 10, 2024 R1 had a tele medicine visit with a provider from Senior Doc. LPA reviewed the Scan monthly visit dated February 12, 2024 for R1. Per Scan notes patient was seen and evaluated inside the Memory Care. Based on the interviews which were conducted and the records that were reviewed, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the following allegations: facility did not provide all requested records to authorized representative, f acility did not allow resident to participate in care planning and f acility did not allow resident to choose healthcare provider are deemed SUBSTANTIATED. California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 8 is being cited on the attached LIC 9099D. An exit interview was conducted with AD Miles and a copy of this report along with the Appeal Rights were provided at the time of this visit.