complaint·March 7, 2025

Interview with S2 corroborated that S2 did have a discussion with S1 in the facility lobby regarding work shifts and incidents S2 had reported to management that had occurred at the facility. Also, interview with staff present established there were no other people in the lobby other than S1 and S2. Based on observations and interviews, S1 and S2 had the discussion in the unlicensed portion of the facility and the possible tenants present were from the independent living portion of the facility. It was also alleged that Staff 3 (S3) did not treat residents with dignity and respect as S3 made joking statements about resident’s incontinence needs, washed resident’s faces with cold water and rushed resident during care. During interview, S3 denied such allegations. Interview established that S3 was communicating resident needs to staff that were in training and incontinence information specific to a resident was necessary to provide proper care. S3 also stated that on one date, S3 could not get hot water to come out of one resident sink and wet a small corner of a washcloth into the water and used it to clean resident’s eyes. S3 states they did not wash the residents whole face with this water. S3 states that they do not rush residents during care. S3 revealed that residents in Memory Care require additional time and though S3 does not rush residents some residents do require prompting. Interview with other staff present on the date of the incident could not confirm that S3 made any of the statements or actions against residents. Interview with an outside source could not confirm that the alleged incidents occurred. B ased on multiple interviews and record reviews there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove alleged violations occurred , therefore the allegations are unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted with Executive Director Kimberly Garcia to whom a copy of this report, and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC 9058 03/22) were provided.