complaint·March 4, 2024

Regarding the allegation, resident's representative was not informed of the bruise, the investigation revealed the following. It was reported that R1 sustained a bruise sometime in November or December 2023. 5 out of 5 staff interviewed reported seeing R1 with a bruise on their left arm but do not know when R1 got the bruise. 5 out of 5 staff reported that they remember seeing R1 with a bruise on their left arm in December 2023. 5 out of 5 staff reported that they did not report the bruise to anyone. R1 reported they did not remember when they sustained the bruise but reported they got it from the bed rail. A review of facility records and Agency records shows no incident report was sent regarding R1’s bruise. R1's responsible party reported they saw the bruise in December and it was not reported to them by facility staff. The facility could not provide any documentation that the bruise was reported to the responsible party. The preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore, the allegation, is found to be SUBSTANTIATED Violations are being cited per California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 8. An exit interview was conducted and a copy of this report along with citation and Appeal Rights was provided. Regarding the allegation, facility staff does not communicate properly with resident due to language barriers, the investigation revealed the following. It was reported that on December 3, 2023, staff ignored resident’s request to have the TV turned off because of a language barrier between the staff and residents. 5 out of 5 staff interviewed denied this report. None of the staff interviewed recall being asked to turn of a TV on December 3, 2023. R1 reported they do not remember the incident. 4 out of 4 residents interviewed reported they had no language issues with staff. Based on the information gathered through interviews the allegation is unsubstantiated, although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is no preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur. An exit interview was conducted and a copy of the report provided. The Administrator and staff interviewed reported that after the request was made Staff 1 (S1) was assigned to a different area and Staff 2 (S2) replaced S1 in assisting R1. Both S1 and S2 verified this report. R1 verified this report. None of the evidence gathered supports the allegation, therefore the allegation is unfounded, meaning that the allegation is false, could not have happened, and/or is without a reasonable basis. An exit interview was conducted and a copy of the report provided.