Complaint·August 24, 2022

When asked how R1 knew R1 was raped, R1 pointed to R1’s genitals and stated it did not feel normal when R1 would wake up. R1 was not able to explain what normal and not normal felt like. R1 disclosed this to an outside source and believed the outside source had not addressed it, because the outside source did not want R1 to move back home. R1 confirmed it was R1’s desire to move back home. Interviews with outside sources revealed R1 had fabricated allegations in the past in order to control certain situations. An outside source recalled previously being at R1’s home, R1 becoming upset and adamant something had occurred the way R1 recalled it. The outside source was present and confirmed it did not happen the way R1 was describing the incident. R1 had expressed a desire to move back to R1’s home, and outside sources believed this allegation was fabricated as an attempt for R1 to be moved back home. When outside sources had attempted to corroborate R1 allegation, R1 had said R1 knew R1 was raped only after waking up and stating R1’s genitals did not feel normal. R1 had not disclosed any staff names, and only described the suspected abuser as big, tall, and male. Outside sources had not witnessed any signs of physical trauma on R1’s body. Interviews with staff revealed R1 required assistance with multiple Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), including showering and toileting. Since moving into the facility, R1 had refused assistance from male and female staff, on multiple occasions. Management had maintained R1’s assistance with ADLs, while addressing R1’s need for independence. Management was aware of the sexual abuse allegation, and description of the abuser as big, tall, and male. Obtained facility schedules, interviews, and observations did not corroborate any staff to match the description provided by the R1. It was alleged staff speak to residents inappropriately. Interviews with outside sources revealed staff had addressed residents in a respectful manner. Interviews with staff revealed there is one resident with a hearing impairment requiring staff to raise their voice to properly communicate. This has caused another resident to become upset and believe the staff are mistreating the resident. Observation and records review confirmed the resident in question did have a hearing impairment and required auditory devices. It was alleged facility did not meet resident's dietary needs. Interviews with outside sources revealed the facility provided and had an appropriate amount of food for the residents in care. Interviews with residents and observation corroborated the facility had an ample amount of food and residents are able to request additional servings, if it is the resident’s desire. Interviews with residents and observation corroborated the facility had an ample amount of food and residents were able to request additional servings, if it is the resident’s desire. Based on the evidence gathered throughout the investigation, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations occurred, therefore, the allegations are unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted with, Ana Osborne, to whom a copy of this report along with the licensee Rights (LIC 9058 01/16 ) were provided to