complaint·July 25, 2024

On June 22, 2021 the moving company received an email from R1 indicating that R1 wanted to remove the "unpacking" from their service. The moving company confirmed with R1 that R1 wanted to remove the "unpacking" service since the facility did not provide any unpacking services. Facility contact notes reveal that R1 was in regular communication with facility staff and outside vendor regarding R1's move to the assisted living section of the facility as well as R1's room accommodations. It should be noted that the R1 expressed a desire for facility staff to unpack R1's boxes. However, upon review of the admission agreement, it was confirmed that there was no explicit provision for staff unpacking boxes and personal belongings as part of the facility's services. This aspect was clarified through ongoing communication with R1 during the move-in process. It was alleged that staff were not following R1's special diet. It was reported that R1 had a "low carb diet" but staff continued to give R1 foods high in carbohydrates which caused R1's blood sugar levels to rise. LPA reviewed R1's meal order forms dated June 28, 2021 through August 22, 2021. R1's meal order forms revealed that R1 had the option of ordering "low carb" meals. Further review of the forms revealed an example of what R1 ordered for lunch; beef barley soup and crackers, ham and provolone and carrot and jicama sticks. An example of what R1 ordered for dinner; tossed salad, Salisbury steak and mixed vegetables. Review of dietary records and internal emails dated May 2021 through August 2021 revealed the Director of Dining Services was in regular communication with R1 regarding R1's special diet and R1's food options. Records review revealed R1's special diet was generally followed as prescribed, although R1 could select any items from the menu R1 desired, including carbohydrates. LPA Interviewed Director of Resident Services (DRS) who stated that R1 was at the facility less then six months. DRS stated that R1 was offered moving and unpacking services from a vendor that the facility utilized but R1 refused. DRS stated that R1 was unhappy with the facility meals and as a result the Director of Dining Services would sit down with R1 on a regular basis and R1 would select food items that met her dietary needs. Based upon the foregoing, the above listed allegations are unsubstantiated. This finding means that the preponderance of the evidence standard has not been met and the allegations are not valid. An exit interview was conducted with Corinna Norton. A copy of this report along with licensee rights (LIC 9058, 3/22) was provided to Corinna Norton whose signature below verifies receipt of these rights.