complaint·March 24, 2023

During interview with R1’s family member (R1FM), R1FM stated that R1 had a history of pressure injuries prior to being admitted to the facility. R1 had a medical condition that caused R1 to spend a large amount of time in their bed. R1FM stated that R1 did not like to be moved around or rotated. R1 would regularly refuse staff to move and rotate R1. R1FM had only good things to say about the care and communication during the time R1 lived at the facility. R1FM did not believe that the facility had fault in R1 developing pressure injuries. During document review, LPA discovered that R1 was being treated by a wound care doctor for the entirety of their stay at the facility. For allegation, Staff did not notice a change in resident's condition: It was alleged that staff did not notice a change in condition for R1’s pressure injuries. During interviews with staff, LPA discovered that two (2) out of the three (3) staff interviewed did not work at the facility when Resident R1 was living there. Staff (S1) was present during the time R1 lived there. All three (3) staff stated that they pay close attention to their residents needs and report changes in conditions to the resident’s medical providers as well as their reasonable parties. S1 stated that R1 was under constant care and communication with R1’s medical providers. If R1 had a change in condition, it was reported to the necessary parties immediately. S1 stated that R1 had medical providers coming into the facility to closely monitor R1 and any changes noted in between visits with medical providers was reported to the necessary parties. During interview with R1FM, R1FM stated that the facility would call them, as well as R1’s medical providers, constantly to inform them of changes of conditions for R1. R1FM stated the facility did a great job caring for R1 and the staff paid close attention to changes in condition for R1. During document review, LPA discovered that outside medical providers were monitoring the change in condition of R1’s pressure injuries. Staff had constant communication with the R1’s medical providers to ensure all parties were up to date on R1’s care Based on the evidence found during the investigation, the two (2) allegations listed above are deemed UNSUBSTANTIATED. A finding that the complaints are UNSUBSTANTIATED means although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur. During today’s visit, no deficiencies were cited per Title 22, Division 6, of the California Code of Regulations. An exit interview was conducted, and this report was discussed and provided to Administrator Restituto “Resty” Calilung, along with a copy of the appeal rights.