Complaint·April 14, 2022

sustaining any injuries as a result of neglect by the facility. R1 stated that they do not feel neglected. In regards to allegation #2, LPA Williams interviewed S1, S2, S3, who denied that residents are being overmedicated. S1 and S2 both stated that R1's medications are continuously audited by R1's hospice agency. S2 also stated that other residents' medications are audited frequently by the facility's medication technicians. S1 and S2 stated that residents' medications are being dispensed appropriately and in accordance with physician orders. LPA Williams interviewed W2, who stated that R1's medications are audited and W2 has not observed any discrepancy with R1's medication administration. W2 denied that R1, or other residents, appeared overmedicated. LPA Williams interviewed R1, Resident #2 (R2), and Resident #3 (R3), who all denied feeling overmedicated or unreasonably lethargic/disoriented while at the facility. In regards to allegation #3, LPA Williams inspected several areas of the facility. LPA Williams did not observe the facility to be unsanitary or malodorous. LPA Williams interviewed S1, S2, and S3, who all denied that the facility is not kept in a sanitary condition. S1, S2, and S3, stated that facility staff clean the facility on a daily basis. LPA Williams interviewed W1 and W2, who both denied that the facility is not kept in sanitary conditions. LPA Williams also interviewed R1, R2, and R3, who all denied that the facility is not kept in sanitary conditions. R2 and R3 stated that the facility staff members clean the facility frequently. In regards to allegation #4, LPA Williams interviewed S1, S2, and S3, who all denied that the facility is not providing residents with meals. S1 and S2 stated that all residents, including R1, receive three meals a day. S1, S2, and S3, stated that R1 is directly fed by the facility staff members. At the time of visit, LPA Williams observed that S3 was feeding R1. LPA Williams interviewed W2, who stated that they believe R1 is being provided with meals. W2 stated that there appeared to be no changes in R1's weight or appearance. Additionally, LPA Williams interviewed R1, R2, and R3, who all stated that they receive three meals a day. In regards to allegation #5, LPA Williams interviewed S1, S2, and S3, who all denied that residents hygiene needs are not being met. S1, S2, and S3, stated that facility staff bathe residents or provide assistance with showering to residents on their scheduled days. S1, S2, and S3 also stated that R1 was bathed by R1's hospice agency, in addition to baths provided by facility staff. LPA Williams interviewed W1 and W2 who both denied that R1's hygiene needs were not being met. LPA Williams also interviewed R1, R2, and R3, who all stated that the facility does meet the residents personal hygiene needs. In regards to allegation #6, LPA Williams interviewed S1 and S2, who both denied that facility staff fraudulently signed documents on resident's behalf. Both S1 and S2 stated that R1 is his own responsible party and requested that W1 sign R1's paperwork and make decisions on behalf of R1. LPA Williams interviewed R1, who confirmed that they requested W1 to be R1's decision maker and allowed W1 to sign for R1's paperwork. LPA Williams interviewed W1 who denied that they were coerced to sign any documents on behalf of R1. W1 stated that R1 requested that W1 sign R1's documents. Based on evidence obtained during the investigation, LPA Williams has determined that the above allegations are UNSUBSTANTIATED; meaning 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 this report (LIC 9099) was discussed and a copy was provided to Bridges at the conclusion of the visit.