Complaint·April 26, 2026

INVESTIGATION REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: Allegation #1: Facility staff did not notify resident's representative of a medical procedure conducted on the resident. The complaint alleges that the staff at the facility did not inform Resident #1’s (R1) representative about a medical procedure that took place. Specifically, it states that on February 4, 2025, a biopsy was performed on (R1), which required two stitches on (R1’s) lower left back, as reported by the hospice nurse. Additionally, it is claimed that the facility administrator was unaware of this procedure. No further information regarding the allegation has been provided. On April 25, 2026, between 9:45 AM and 11:59 AM, the Department interviewed resident members identified as Resident #2 through Resident #9 (R2-R9). Eight (8) out of the (8) were unable to support this claim. (R2-R9) appreciated the staff and reported no issues with notifying their representative about medical treatments, procedures, or hospitalization. (R2) shared that staff member #1 (S1) showed kindness by visiting (R2) during a hospital treatment. (S1) offered support and brought personal items during this difficult time. Resident #1 (R1) was not available for an interview as the resident had passed on April 8, 2025. On April 25, 2026, between 8:40 AM and 3:35 PM, the Department interviewed staff members identified as Staff #1 through Staff #5 (S1-S5). Five (5) out of the five (5) staff members could not corroborate this allegation. Staff members (S1-S5) reported that they are responsible for notifying resident representatives about medical events or procedures. (S1, S2, and S5) stated that a resident's authorized representatives are informed whenever a medical procedure is performed or the resident's condition changes. Specific forms, logs, and communication tools are used for this purpose, including phone calls, voicemails, emails, and written notifications. Additionally, (S1 and S5) indicated that in the case of (R1), the biopsy treatment was performed by Mismo Dermatology, an in-house service provider, who worked with (R1's) authorized representatives to obtain authorization and consent for the treatment. On February 9, 2026, and April 25, 2026, between 03:30 PM and 04:30 PM, the Department attempted to interview witness members identified as Witness #1 through Witness #3. (W1) was interviewed but decided not to proceed, stating that they are no longer affiliated with Vista Del Lago Memory Care. (Evaluation Report continues LIC 9099-C) (W1) thinks that their past connection might not reflect the current situation and could have caused some issues. (W2-W3) were unavailable for interviews as calls went unanswered. The Department reviewed Resident #1 (R1's) service file which included the Miso Dermatology Authorization and Consent Form (date 07/16/24) it indicated "I hereby authorize and consent to any of the following operation(s) or procedure(s) as deemed medically necessary by the provider": biopsy, liquid nitrogen freezing, local anesthetics, phototherapy, complex wound excision, and other skin procedures. Representative authorization appears in the patient's signature dated 07/16/24. A review of the Consent for Emergency Medical Treatment, LIC 627 (dated 06/04/24) indicated that an authorized representative signed the form. Further review of (R1’s) Physicians Report LIC 602A (dated 05/06/24), Preplacement Appraisal Information LIC 603 (dated 05/30/24), Move In Record (dated 06/13/24), Physicians Order for Life Sustaining Treatment (dated 05/06/24), Declaration of Health Agent (dated 06/04/24), Comfort and Peace Records (dated 01/16/25), Facility Progress Notes (dated 02/5/25 & 02/07/25), Medication Administration Record (dated 02/01/25 through 02/28/25), Miso Dermatology Notes (dated 02/04/25) and Residence and Care Agreement (dated 06/04/24). Based on the information gathered, there is not enough evidence to support the allegation mentioned above. Based on the information collected from the facility inspection, observations, interviews, and records analysis, the Department found no evidence to support the above allegation. The allegation may have happened or are valid, but there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred. Therefore, the allegation is Unsubstantiated . An exit interview was conducted with Brianna Garcia, and copies of the reports were provided.