complaint·December 22, 2022

LPA interviewed AD and S1 who stated that they are the facility’s only 2 care staff (apart from a weekly housekeeper), that they both live at the facility and provide care full time, all day every day, that they do not have any side businesses, and that they can provide all the care the residents need without difficulty because the residents do not need high levels of care. Regarding AD’s absence, AD and S1 stated that AD recently left the country for 3 weeks, but that S1 was able to handle everything while AD was gone without hiring additional staff. LPA interviewed 5 residents. 2 residents were unable to respond to questions. 3 residents interviewed stated they receive good care at the facility, that there are 2 staff (AD and S1) who provide care, that they have not received injuries at the facility, and that they have no problems at the facility and like living at the facility. It was also reported that R1 developed a bruise and claimed that S2, who is underage and not qualified to provide care, had been providing care and pulled too hard which caused R1 to fall and develop the bruise. R1 has since passed away and could not be interviewed. When interviewed, AD and S1 stated that their child S2 is not a staff, is under 18 years old and goes to school, does not provide any care to the residents, but does help around the house by doing small tasks such as arranging tables and handing items like water to the residents. Regarding R1’s bruise, AD and S1 stated that R1 was weak, but would try to get up or walk, and would fall and that was the cause of the bruise. AD denied that S2 provided care to R1 or otherwise caused the bruise. LPA interviewed S2 who stated they do not provide care to any residents, they did sometimes move R1 around on a wheelchair, but denied causing or having any knowledge of R1 falling or being injured because most of their time is spent in school or studying. 3 residents interviewed corroborated that S2 does not provide care to residents. 1 resident knew R1 well and stated that R1 fell because R1 would try to walk but was physically unable to do so. Review of R1’s Physician’s Report dated 02/06/20 and undated Resident Appraisal corroborated that R1 had physical limitations due to a history of stroke and also revealed that R1 had Mild Cognitive Impairment, occasional confusion, and mild forgetfulness. While it is possible that S2 contributed to R2 having a fall, the observations made, interviews conducted, and records reviewed revealed no issues with the number and quality of the facility’s staff and their ability to provide care and supervision to the residents. Based on the information gathered during the investigation and review of all documents obtained, the Department is unable to ascertain if the allegation occurred as reported. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove or refute the alleged violation occurred; therefore, this allegation is deemed Unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted and a copy of this report was left at the facility.