complaint·March 12, 2025

It is alleged facility did not provide R1's authorized representative with written refund policy in a timely manner. During their interview, R1’s RP denied the facility not providing them with written refund policy in a timely manner. LPA also obtained and reviewed a copy of R1's facility refund agreement signed and dated December 16, 2019. The Department has investigated the complaint alleging staff prevented resident's medical professional from caring for resident and facility did not provide resident's authorized representative with written refund policy in a timely manner. After interviews conducted with facility residents, witness, and R1's RP, We have found that the complaint was unfounded, meaning that the allegation was false, could not have happened and or is without a reasonable basis. An exit interview was conducted and a copy of this report was provided at the end of the inspection. Four of four residents interviewed were unable to corroborate allegation and stated they receive medical attention as needed and in a timely manner. Three of three staff interviewed denied medical attention being delayed or denied to any resident and stated medical attention is sought in a timely manner for all residents. It is alleged staff did not safeguard R1’s personal belongings. Interviews were conducted with R1’s RP, three facility staff, and four residents. During their interview, RP stated that R1's Ipad was stolen at the facility and was never recovered. Three staff of three staff interviewed denied having any knowledge of R1’s Ipad being stolen and stated missing property or valuables have not been reported by any other resident or their responsible party. Four of four residents interviewed could not corroborate the allegation and denied having any missing property or valuables. It is alleged facility did not answer communications from R1’s authorized representative promptly. Interviews were conducted with R1’s RP, three facility staff, and four residents. During their interview, RP stated that due to the pandemic, they were unable to visit R1 and there were days when they were unable to get a hold of R1 by phone. RP stated R1 had a phone and knew how to use it, however R1 was also hard of hearing and would often go without answering their phone because they could not hear it. Per RP, the facility for their part was responsive and they did not have any concerns. Three staff of three staff interviewed denied allegation and stated there is ongoing communication between the facility and residents’ authorized representatives, if any. Four of four residents interviewed also denied the allegation and stated the facility and facility staff have ongoing communication with their authorized representatives. Due to conflicting information received during interviews conducted, LPA is unable to determine if staff did not seek medical attention for resident in a timely manner, if staff did not safeguard resident's personal belongings, or if the facility did not answer communications from authorized representative promptly. Although the above allegations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur, therefore at this time the above allegations are unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted and copy of this report was provided at the end of the inspection.