complaint·January 12, 2023

R1 was not able to identify the visitor by name. Review of facility visitation log showed the individual in question signed in as a private visitor and was not a medical professional. Additional source documents determined the facility had subsequent negative contact with this individual. Staff concerns related to disruptive visitation were also reported to the Department during this time period. There was insufficient evidence to support the allegation that staff did not allow R1 visitation. It was also alleged that staff did not provide records to a resident’s authorized representative. Specifically, it was alleged that staff refused to provide a facility notebook that contained internal care annotations for Resident #2 (R2). There were inconsistent statements from outside sources regarding who had power of attorney for R2 and could access this information. However, records review determined the names of specific individuals who were designed as the resident’s authorized representatives on file. Neither of these individuals had made the request to staff to have access to the internal facility notebook concerning R2. No additional documentation was provided during the investigation. There was insufficient evidence to support the allegation that staff did not provide records to R2’s authorized representative. Based on evidence obtained from interviews and records review, there was insufficient evidence to support either allegation. The above allegations were therefore deemed to be unsubstantiated since the preponderance of evidence standard was not met. An exit interview was conducted with caregiver Quintero and Administrator's Kahnis' and a copy of this report along with Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) was provided at the conclusion of the visit. The signature below confirms receipt of these documents.