Complaint·January 28, 2026

(Continued from Page 1) R2 was not available for an interview. R2’s responsible party was interviewed and reported R2 was receiving hospice services prior to being admitted to this facility. The allegation of being forced to place R2 on hospice was denied. R3 was interviewed and was not able to answer questions. R3’s responsible party was interviewed and they were not sure if R3 was receiving hospice services or not. They also denied being forced to place R3 on hospice. It was reported that it was possible another family member could be aware of R3 receiving hospice services. A review of R3’s Admission Agreement revealed R3 was admitted on 10/28/2024. R3’s hospice admission document was reviewed and it revealed hospice services were initiated on 12/05/2025. The hospice admission document did not have a spot for signatures. R1 and R3 were receiving hospice services from the same hospice agency, however R2 was receiving hospice services from a different hospice agency. Therefore, based on interviews and facility record reviews, the allegation is unsubstantiated. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is no preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur. An exit interview was conducted with Zainab Choudry and a copy of this report along with LIC811- Confidential Names list was provided.