complaint·July 23, 2024

LPA Moleski reviewed notifications which were sent to residents and their responsible parties by text, phone, and/or email. On July 14, residents and their responsible parties were informed that the water heaters were down. On the morning of July 16, another notification was sent stating that one water heater was completely nonfunctional, while the other was having intermittent issues. Residents were asked to notify maintenance staff if the water was too cold. A notification sent on July 17 stated that the water heaters were still having issues, and maintenance staff were waiting on parts to arrive. A notification on July 18 stated that water would have to be shut off for one hour in order to make repairs. A second notification that same day stated that the water was back on and the water heaters were fully repaired. LPA Moleski interviewed the facility maintenance director (S1). S1 said that they were first notified that there was an issue with the water heater when residents began complaining of cold showers on July 14. S1 said they were able to get one of the two residential water heaters up and running that day, but with limited hot water capacity. S1 reached out to a plumbing company, which sent out a technician, who began to diagnose the water heaters. LPA Moleski reviewed a work order for this company which showed they had visited on July 14. S1 and S1's assistant, S2, said that the technician was supposed to return the next morning, but did not do so. Instead, facility staff reached out to a second third-party maintenance company, according to S1 and S2. A technician from this second company arrived on July 15, according to S2. S1 was off on July 15. S2 said this technician performed various diagnostic tests, replacing various parts and testing for functionality. S2 said a technician would need to return for troubleshooting the next day. S1 returned on July 16, and was once again able to make one hot water heater functional. S1 said that a technician returned on July 16 and identified the part which was needed to repair the water heaters, but since it was after hours by that point, the part could not be ordered until the following day, July 17. LPA Moleski reviewed an email thread which showed S1 had reached out to a supplier in order to source necessary parts for the water heaters on July 17. S1 said that a technician returned on July 18 and was able to install the necessary part, thus resolving the issue. S1 said the water heater had sprung a small leak, so water had to be shut off for about an hour while repairs were made. S1 and S2 said the water heaters have been functional since then. S1 said that hot water from the kitchen was available to residents during the time period that the residential hot water heaters were down. [continued on 9099-C] LPA Moleski reviewed an invoice from the second third-party maintenance company. Notes provided by the company corroborate the timeline provided by S1 and S2. The notes state that various diagnostic tests were performed on July 15 and 16, and that repairs were made to the water heaters and the water leak on July 18. LPA Moleski reviewed a list of six water tests performed by maintenance staff on July 18. All tests resulted in a reading of 118 degrees. LPA Moleski interviewed three floor staff (S3-S5) and three residents (R1-R3), including the resident council president. All staff interviewed said that residents were informed of the issues with the water heaters and that they were given the option to either shower normally with lukewarm water, or to have hot water delivered from the kitchen for their hygiene and grooming. R1 said staff had informed them of the situation as it developed and said staff "did everything they could" to bring hot water to residents who wanted it. R2 said staff were very accommodating, and offered various options while the water heaters were being repaired, including offering to give sponge baths. R3 said that they were notified that there was hot water in the kitchen while the hot water heaters were being repaired. LPA Moleski tested water at two sites in opposite wings of the facility, which draw water from separate hot water heaters, according to Cortez. LPA Moleski observed a reading of 111 degrees Fahrenheit at both locations, which is within the range of 105 and 120 degrees. The department has determined the following as it relates to the allegation that the facility is not delivering hot water for residents in care. Based on interviews, observation, and record review, the above allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED, which means that although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred. No deficiencies were cited regarding the above allegation. An exit interview was held and a copy of this report was left with Cortez.