Complaint·August 12, 2024

LPA Lee interviewed 5 out of 5 residents who stated that they have no concern with facility staff not meeting the resident’s hygiene needs. LPA Lee interviewed resident 1 (R1) using (R1)’s iPad. (R1) stated that (R1) has no concerns with facility not meeting (R1)’s hygiene needs. Based on interview with (R1)’s responsible party (RP), (RP) has no concerns and stated that facility staff are encouraging and reminding (R1) to take showers and that sometimes (R1) refuses services from the staff. Based on (R1)’s record review it was learned that (R1)’s personal grooming consisted of brushing teeth, facial wash, brush/style hair, shave facial hair, dressed appropriately, apply lotion/deodorant, nail care and maintenance and shower/sponge bath. (R1) is receiving (R1)’s personal grooming from the facility staff. Records review also indicated that (R1) is receiving 4 sponge bath and 3 showers from 04/15/2024 to 06/02/2024. LPA was unable to corroborate the allegation that facility staff is not meeting hygiene needs of residents in care. All resident interviewed denied the allegations. The investigation revealed the preponderance of evidence standards have not been met; therefore, the above allegation is found to be UNSUBSTANTIATED. Allegation: Staff did not ensure that resident was wearing shoes when being transported to the hospital. It was alleged that staff did not ensure that resident was wearing shoes when being transported to the hospital. This investigation consisted of observations and interviews with staff and residents. Throughout the course of the investigation, LPA Lee observe 5 out of 5 residents on 05/30/2024 who either had on shoes, socks and slipper. It was observed that (R1) was wearing socks and had on a slipper. LPA Lee also interviewed 5 out of 5 residents who did not witness (R1) being transported to the hospital without shoes. LPA Lee also interviewed (R1) who communicated with LPA Lee via iPad. LPA Lee asked resident to explain what happen when (R1) was transported to the hospital and if (R1) had any shoes and socks on and (R1) stated “good.” (R1) stated (R1) has no concerns. Based on interview with (R1)’s responsible party (RP), (RP) has no concerns and stated that (RP) visits (R1) occasionally and does observe (R1) to have socks and slippers on. It was learned from administrator that on 05/20/2024 the facility staff called EMT for (R1) since (R1) have been refusing (R1)’s medication from 05/17/2024 to 05/19/2024. It was also learned that (R1) was being combative with the EMT staff and the facility staff. (R1) was being combative because (R1) didn’t want to go to the hospital. Administrator stated that (R1) may have lost (R1)’s shoe during the altercation and is not sure since administrator was not present that day. Continued LIC 9099-C It is unclear if resident was transported to the hospital with or without shoe. Regarding the allegation that staff did not ensure that resident was wearing shoes when being transported to the hospital, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove that it occurred. LPA was unable to corroborate the allegation that staff did not ensure that resident was wearing shoes when being transported to the hospital. All resident interviewed denied any knowledge of the allegation and the described incident while (R1) was being transported to the hospital. The investigation revealed the preponderance of evidence standards have not been met; therefore, the above allegation is found to be UNSUBSTANTIATED . A finding that the complaint allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED means that although the allegation may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violation(s)occurred. An exit interview was conducted with the facility staff and a copy of this report was left at the facility with care giver Melvin Hindes at the end of today’s visit.