complaint·March 21, 2025

(Continued from LIC9099 p.1) Staff informed that R1's machine was kept clean and dry when not in use. Staff informed that R1 used their CPAP machine every night. Records review corroborated staff statements regarding R1's consistent use of the machine and its cleaning regimen. R1's Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed that R1's CPAP machine was consistently administered each evening and cleaned. The record showed that the machine was checked each morning to ensure it was working effectively. Facility Narrative Charting and Outside Agency Reports showed communication between the facility, R1's Primary Care Physician, and R1's pharmacy regarding the CPAP machine. The records showed that the facility was in communication with all relevant agencies regarding R1's former CPAP machine being in disrepair. The records additionally showed that a hold was placed on R1's CPAP machine while R1's outside provider made arrangements for it to be repaired. No records were found to show that the machine was not cleaned after each use or that staff did not assist or attempt to assist R1 with putting the machine on each night. Two outside sources were interviewed regarding the allegation. An outside protective agency also investigated the claims and informed that no evidence was found to corroborate the allegation, and that R1's machine was observed to be clean and regularly administered by staff each night. A second outside source familiar with the issue informed that R1's CPAP machine was new and additional information was not provided regarding details of the claims such as witnesses, dates/times occurred, or specific staff members who had been accused. LPA directly observed R1's former and new CPAP machines during an unannounced facility visit. The formerly used machine showed wear, however, the nasal canal that made contact with R1's face was clean and dry. The new machine was not observed to have any wear and the nasal canal was clean and dry. Both machines were stored in individual, labeled boxes in a secure location. LPA also observed three (3) signs above R1's bed with detailed instructions regarding the CPAP machine's administration. The signs included photos and wording to show what the mask should look like when it is placed on correctly. R1 was not able to be interviewed due to not being at the facility during the visit. Based on interviews, direct LPA observations and records review, a preponderance of evidence does not exist to prove that the alleged violation occurred, therefore the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. An exit interview was conducted with Marketing Manager/Administrator Maria Flores, to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided.