Complaint·June 12, 2024

The agendas indicate emergency disaster topics such as storms, blackouts, and fire safety were discussed at each. A list of attendees is provided at each. Staff schedules and employee sign-in sheets from various dates were provided by Stumpf to verify attendance. The February meeting shows four staff members attended out of six staff members employed in the same month, per employee sign-in sheets. The May meeting shows five staff members attended out of seven staff members employed in the same month, per staff schedules. The July meeting shows five staff members attended out of six staff members employed in the same month, per staff schedules. The November meeting shows five staff members attended out of seven staff members employed in the same month, per staff schedules. For the year of 2023, LPA Moleski was provided staff meeting agendas from January, February, April, July, and October. The January meeting agenda indicates blackout and power outages were discussed, however, there is no list of staff in attendance. The meeting agendas for February, April, and October indicated emergency disaster topics were discussed and provided lists of attendees. The meeting agenda for October does not indicate any emergency disaster topics were discussed. For the year of 2024, LPA Moleski observed two staff meeting agendas. The first, from January 2024, did not contain a list of staff in attendance, and did not indicate that any emergency disaster topics were discussed. The second agenda, from April, contained a list of staff in attendance and indicated that a fire training was held. The department has determined the following as it relates to the allegation that staff do not ensure disaster drills are being conducted: Based on record review, 2022 emergency disaster drills were conducted, but not for all staff members of each shift as required, and, for the years of 2023 and 2024, drills were not conducted every quarter as required. Therefore, the above allegation is SUBSTANTIATED. A finding that the complaint allegation is substantiated means that the allegation is valid because the preponderance of evidence standard has been met. This facility is hereby cited per HSC Section 1569.695(c). An exit interview was held with Stumpf. An exit interview was held with Stumpf. Appeal rights and a copy of this report were left with Stumpf. The department has determined the following as it relates to the allegation that the facility does not have a sufficient amount of food for residents: Based on observations, interviews, 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 Stumpf.