complaint·May 23, 2025

Based on records review, interviews, and observations, LPA did not find sufficient evidence to support the above allegation Staff restricted resident’s ability to have visitors and Staff did not safeguard resident's personal belongings. Although the allegations may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. Exit interview was conducted a copy of the report was provided to Licensee Thi Nhu Mai Do. The investigation revealed the following: Allegation: Staff restricted resident’s ability to have visitors During LPA’s interview with the R1 around 9:20 AM, LPA observed resident (R1) kept repeating themselves and having short memory of the conversation. Later in the day around at 11:30 AM, R1 asked LPA if they were going to interview them. R1 did not recall speaking with LPA earlier that day. Based on record review, according to physician’s report dated February 21, 2025, R1 is confused and disoriented. R1 has a designated POA per review of resident’s Admission Agreement dated March 3,2025 POA instructed the facility through email dated May 12, 2025, not to permit a family member to visit and take resident off the facility for safety reason. Based on interviews conducted, one resident, two staff, and one witness denied all allegations. Witness #1 (W1) stated on May 16, 2025, Police came to the facility to instruct the family member not to see R1 in the facility and administrator was also informed. Based on the information gathered, there is no sufficient evidence to corroborate the above allegation. Allegation: Staff did not safeguard resident's personal belongings. It is alleged resident’s planner was missing. Based on interviews conducted, one resident, two staff, and one witness denied this allegation. Witness (W1) stated the POA informed that R1 has two planners and instructed them to take one from R1 to prevent confusion of their daily activities. Staff#1 stated POA instructed the facility to take one planner from R1 in the morning and keep it somewhere safe in the facility and return the planner the next day. During the visit, LPA observed R1 has their two planners with them while sitting at the dining room. LPA confirmed with R1 that those were R1’s planners and they were not missing. Based on the information gathered, there is no sufficient evidence to corroborate the above allegation. Continued on LIC9099C