complaint·April 16, 2021

In regards to allegation #2, LPA interviewed S1, S2, and Staff #3 (S3) who all stated that the facility follows a menu which is reviewed by a registered Dietician. S1 and S2 stated that the facility provides three meals a day plus snacks. Both S1 and S2 stated that food service is always provided in a timely manner. LPA interviewed R1 who stated that at one point the food "wasn't that great' and they had lost weight because they chose not to eat it. R1 stated that as of now, they are currently happy with the food being provided by the facility. R1 stated that the facility provides as much food as a resident requests and the meals are provided on time. LPA interviewed R2 who stated that the food is not the greatest; however, they believe the food is nutritious and meals are provided on time and in adequate portions. R2 stated that they have gained weight and attributed that to the food provided by the facility. LPA interviewed R3 who stated that the food is "better" than previous months and meals are provided on time. R1, R2, and R3 all denied that the facility is providing "snacks" in lieu of a meal. LPA reviewed the facility's food menu in which menu items appeared to be nutritious and in adequate portions for residents. Due to conflicting interviewee statements and lack of evidence to corroborate the allegation, LPA has determined that the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. In regards to allegation #3, LPA interviewed S3, Staff #4 (S4), and Staff #5 (S5) who all stated that facility protocol is to notify residents authorized representative of changes in conditions, unusual incidents, and re-assessments in a timely manner. S3, S4, and S5, all stated that facility staff follow this protocol. LPA determined there was not enough evidence to meet the preponderance of evidence standard; therefore, the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. Based on evidence obtained during today’s visit, LPA 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 &LIC 9099C) were discussed and a copy was provided to Henry via email.