complaint·October 27, 2023

Interview with Licensee indicated that the Licensee picked up medications for R1 when they were due to be picked up. A receipt was provided to the Department by the Licensee that showed the Licensee picked up medications on 5/24/23 with medication order numbers. Upon examination, this receipt did not include any resident names. Evidence that was provided by a relevant party was examined, and revealed that the Licensee’s list of medications that they picked up, did not include any of R1’s. Thus proving R1’s medications were not, in fact, picked up to be dispensed by the facility. Review of the document indicated that Medication #1 (M1), and Medication #2 (M2) were dispensed on 5/2/23 and had a 30-day supply. M1, and M2 were not again filled until 6/22/23. Thus, this allegation was Substantiated. A finding that the complaint is SUBSTANTIATED means that the allegation is valid because the preponderance of the evidence standard has been met. An exit interview was conducted where a copy of this report was discussed with and provided along with copies of the LIC811, LIC9099D, and Appeal Rights were provided to Licensee/Administrator, Anahit Mesropyan. The Department found that through interviews conducted with relevant sources, R1 did not have many things upon arrival, and during their stay, R1’s clothes were purchased by different relevant parties. Due to conflicting information provided by relevant sources, and staff, and no other witness information available, this allegation was Unsubstantiated. It was alleged that R1 was not able to have visitors during “nap” or “quiet” time. LPA interviewed R1, staff, other residents, and relevant sources, and found that visitors had not been seen turned away by staff to see their residents. This allegation was Unsubstantiated as a result. It was alleged that R1 was not allowed to leave with R1’s responsible party. LPA conducted interviews with staff and residents and found that R1 was allowed to leave with their responsible party, and LPA reviewed documentation provided by the facility that corroborated this. Resident interviews stated that they were also allowed to leave with their responsible parties and had no concern that staff were preventing them from leaving, thus this allegation was Unsubstantiated. It was alleged that staff sleep in the facility and do not supervise residents in care. LPA conducted several interviews with residents and staff and found that staff have not been seen to sleep during the day while caring for residents. Due to interviews conducted, as well as a lack of other evidence available, this allegation was Unsubstantiated. It was alleged that R1 wore the same clothing for several days and looked dingy. LPA conducted interviews with staff, and residents, and found that some residents will wear the same clothing for a couple of days, and one resident interview revealed that it was due to their comfort. Other residents maintained that staff care for their hygiene, and that if residents need a change of clothing, staff assist them with that. Documentation provided by the facility revealed that showers were provided to R1 every 4 days. Interview with R1 revealed that R1 did not feel dirty, nor was in bad hygiene. R1 maintained that staff cared for them. All of the evidence reviewed concluded that this allegation was Unsubstantiated. A finding of UNSUBSTANTIATED means that although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur. An exit interview was conducted where a copy of this report was provided to Licensee/Administrator, Anahit Mesropyan along with copies of the LIC811 (confidential names list).