Complaint·March 15, 2023

It was alleged that the facility admitted residents to the memory care unit without prior consent from the residents and/or their authorized representatives. It was reported that R1 and R2 were residing in the MCU without consent. Regarding R1, LPA confirmed per review of the Interdisciplinary Notes that the conservator of R1 verbally agreed to the terms of the residency on January 4, 2023. However, R1 was noted to be at the MCU for six days prior to the verbal agreement on the following days: December 28-29, 2022, December 31, 2022, and January 1-3, 2023. In addition, R1’s conservator provided the facility staff a handwritten note on January 1, 2023 indicating that the transfer requiring prior consent. R1 continued to be placed at the memory care on 01/01-03/2023 following the conservator’s official written request as indicated on the Interdisciplinary Notes. Regarding R2, the Advanced Health Care Directive appoints two out of three conservators to make healthcare decisions. The Interdisciplinary Notes revealed that two out of three conservators verbally agreed to the terms of the residency on February 20, 2023 and R2 was admitted on March 6, 2023. Interviews conducted revealed that three out of three individuals indicated that the resident was not admitted to the MCU prior to their consent. Per Title 22 Regulation, 87457 Pre-Admission Appraisal, facility admitted R1 prior to the agreed admission date, therefore the preponderance has been met. Based on the observations, interviews, and the records reviewed, the above allegations are deemed SUBSTANTIATED. Deficiencies are being cited per Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 8 of the California Code of Regulations. See LIC9099D. An exit interview was conducted with Executive Director Debbie Infield, and a copy of this report along with the LIC9099C, LIC811, LIC9099D, and the appeal rights were provided during this visit.