complaint·October 10, 2025

Additionally, Sandy corroborated that S1 was encouraged to use translator tools when they needed to understand more complex conversations. Information obtained from resident interviews revealed that 2 out of 5 individuals experienced difficulty communicating with S1. Residents reported that S1 was unable to communicate effectively, noting that their requests were often misunderstood or disregarded. Interview with Additional Witness 1 (AW1), it was reported they observed S1 unable to communicate with the residents in care throughout their visit. AW1 further stated that during the exit interview, S1 relied on a translator device and did not verbally acknowledge AW1 to confirm their understanding of the information provided. AW1 further noted that, based on the interaction, it was unclear whether S1 would be capable of effectively communicating and responding properly in the event of an emergency. LPA was unable to interview S1 due to their resignation in February 2025 and their inability to contact them. Through file reviews, information obtained revealed that the Plan of Operation includes a Job Description stating that staff must be able to interact professionally and respectfully with residents, visitors, licensing agents, and other community agencies. Based on interviews and record reviews, the allegation that staff are not able to communicate effectively with residents in care is substantiated. A finding that the complaint is SUBSTANTIATED means that the allegation is valid because the preponderance of the evidence standard has been met. This poses a health and safety and or personal rights risk to residents in care. The facility will be cited. An exit interview was conducted. A copy of this report was provided to facility representative Osvaldo Nunez, along with a copy of the LIC9099-C, LIC9099D, and Appeal Rights were provided.