complaint·August 13, 2021

The Administrator additionally provided LPA Colvin with a picture of the Return Receipt showing that the check was sent via Certified Mail, as well as the retail receipt showing the purchase for sending the mail. LPA Colvin was informed that the check was a refund for the remaining days of the month of May 2020 that R1 would not be residing in the facility, as R1 had previously been issued an eviction notice and the facility would not be accepting R1 back from the hospital. According to R1's Admissions Agreement with the facility, R1 was being charged $1,080 each month, or approximately $36 per day. Since R1 paid $1,080 for the month of May 2020, but only stayed at the facility for eight days (until 5/8/20), then if R1 was charged the $36 daily rent fee for eight days, R1 would owe the facility $288 for R1's time at the facility. Record review shows that R1 was effectively only charged $278.70 for the eight days in May 2020, as the facility issued a refund in the amount of $801.30 to R1's POA. Additionally, R1 is not entitled to any additional funds for time spent at the hospital during a previous hospitalization in February 2020, as page eight (item "J") of R1's signed Admissions Agreement clearly states "If a resident leaves the facility temporarily, the holding for his/her room is $36 per day. At the end of the item, there is a space for the resident to initial, which R1 did. This agency has investigated the complaint alleging "Facility denied resident a refund" . We have found that the complaint was UNFOUNDED, meaning that the allegation was false, could not have happened and/or is without a reasonable basis. We have therefore dismissed the complaint. An exit interview was conducted with Assistant Administrator Tae Kim and a copy of this report was provided. LPA Colvin was informed that the refusals were documented separately on staff notes, which LPA Colvin reviewed and observed, but these notes were not all-inclusive of the dates missing notation on the MARs log. LPA Colvin was additionally told through interviews that due to the number of times R1 would refuse the medications (more often than not), the dates were simply left blank and were known by staff to be refusals. Since it is not in Title 22 Regulations that a facility must utilize and maintain a MARs Log, LPA Colvin cannot impose upon the facility how they are to document the refusals (marking it on the log versus making a separate note in the file). Additionally, though the facility staff notes did not include all dates missing notation in the MARs log, R1 has a substantial documented history of refusing medication, which LPA Colvin confirmed through Home Health records as well. Therefore, it is plausible that facility staff made attempts to administer the topical medication to R1 as frequently as prescribed. Additionally, facility staff are unable to forcibly administer medication to any residents in accordance with Title 22 Regulations, therefore, dates where the resident refused and medication was not administered staff were unable to administer medication due to needing to uphold residents' rights to refuse treatment. Due to interviews, record review, and observations made by LPA Colvin, the complaint is UNSUBSTANTIATED. A finding of UNSUBSTANTIATED means 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 with Assistant Administrator Tae Kim and a copy of this report was provided.