complaint·September 1, 2022

Interview with staff #1 (S1) confirmed the facility did not accept R1 back to the facility after R1 was sent to the hospital on April 20, 2021. According to S1, staff believed the resident had a stroke and the facility was not able to care for R1’s higher care needs. R1 was moved out after April 20, 2021 and staff gave R1’s representative a book called New LifeStyles, Guide to Senior Living and Care, which is a book with names of board and cares and nursing homes. In review of resident records, there was no documentation of an eviction notice served to R1 or to R1’s representative, as required. Interview with an outside source revealed R1 used a unique type of incontinence device which Licensee was aware of prior to R1 being accepted into the facility. Outside source revealed the facility staff was given instructions on how to place the incontinence device and the facility agreed to assist and accepted R1 to the facility. Interview with staff confirmed the facility was aware R1 had a special incontinence device and was instructed how to place the device on R1. Staff opted to use incontinence pads but R1 refused to use the pads and would throw the incontinence pads on the floor. Per staff R1 would purposely remove the device at night and continuously ring the bell for staff assistance until staff entered the room to place the incontinence device back on. Review of resident records showed the facility did not complete records to show R1 needed assistance with incontinence care. During the subsequent visit on August 19, 2022, LPA toured the facility including the current resident’s bedrooms. When LPA entered two out of the five bedrooms, the rooms had a strong odor of urine. LPA observed that one resident had an incontinent device. A review of resident records indicated both residents had incontinence issues and needed additional assistance from staff. Based on the Department’s investigation of the above-mentioned allegations and the evidence obtained during staff and outside source interviews and records reviewed, there is sufficient evidence to meet the preponderance of evidence standard. Therefore, the above allegations are deemed to be substantiated. California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 8, is being cited on the attached LIC9099D. The report was discussed, plan of correction was jointly developed, and an exit interview was conducted with Licensee Celia A. Meneses. A copy of this report along with Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 01/16) was provided to Licensee Meneses at the conclusion of the visit. The signature below confirms receipt of the documents.