complaint·May 17, 2023

CONTINUED... Interview conducted with three of three staff confirmed (R1) was served jello however alternative desert options were readily available to (R1). Interviews conducted with two of three residents confirmed facility provides desert alternative with meals. Interview conducted with (R1) disclosed that (R1) did not care for alternative options made available and purchased his own ice cream of choice. (R1s) ice cream was initially stored in facility freezer. However, (R1) later reported Staff 1 (S1) had eaten their ice cream. Interviews with staff were unclear as to whether or not (R1) had consumed all of his ice cream or if it was mistakenly consumed by another staff or resident. Although, gelatin may contain cow and/or pig by-products and (R1) was served gelatin by the facility. The staff were unaware of jell-o containing pig by-product and non-pork related alternatives were readily available to (R1). Therefore based on the preponderance of evidence through interviews conducted, documentation review and observations conducted by LPA Quiroz, the allegation that the "The facility is not providing the special diet to the resident as ordered by the physician," and "Resident's personal rights were violated. One of the employees of the facility ate the resident's personal ice cream in the facility freezer" were found to be UNSUBSTANTIATED, meaning that although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violations occurred. No deficiencies cited during today's visit. An exit interview was conducted with Administrator Charles Eusey and a copy of this report was provided.