Complaint·April 24, 2024

LPA interviewed R1 who stated that there is bedbugs on his/her mattress and he/she gets bit all the time at night. Based on documents provided by the facility, LPA observed Terminix services were provided on a regular basis. After the investigation, this allegation is deemed to be substantiated. Although the facility has regular Terminix services to treat the bedbugs and daily cleaning by staff, residents are still being affected. Based on interviews and record reviews during the investigation, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met. Therefore, this allegation is determined to be substantiated. Deficiencies of the California Code of Regulations, Title, 22 cited on the LIC9099-D. Failure to correct the deficiencies may result in civil penalties. Report was discussed with caregiver and Administrator who was on the phone. A copy of this report and the Appeal Rights provided. According to staff #1(S1) who was at the facility during the incident. When R1 reported being hit by R2, S1 called the administrator immediately and reported the incident. S1 stated that they are monitoring both residents more frequently but it could be a challenge as both residents are ambulatory, and they come and go as they please. After the investigation, this allegation is deemed to be unsubstantiated as R1 was hit by R2 on January 11, 2024. However, there is no indication of staff neglect as residents are ambulatory, physician's orders stated that they could leave the facility unassisted and they come and go multiple times on a daily basis. Regarding to the allegation of - staff are not ensuring that a resident is able to sleep at night, the reporting party stated that R1 is unable to sleep as R2 returns to the facility sometimes late at night after roaming around the city. As part of the investigation, LPA interviewed the administrator and R1. According to the administrator, both residents are ambulatory and they can leave the facility unassisted. R2 leaves the facility everyday and R2 goes in and out of the facility frequently to smoke so R2 may be disturbing R1's sleep. The administrator has offered both of them room transfers but they declined. The administrator discussed room transfer with R1's responsible party who also declined. The administrator offered R1 to move to another facility and it was also declined and currently, the administrator is working with Public Health SW on seeking a different facility for R2. After the investigation, this allegation is deemed to be unsubstantiated as the facility offered different interventions to ensure R1 gets sleep at night, however, all of them were declined by R1 and R1's responsible party. The administrator is working with Public Health SW to seek for another facility for R2. Although the above investigations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. This report is reviewed and discussed with caregiver and administrator on the phone. A copy is provided. Regarding to the allegation of - facility is illegally evicting a resident from the facility, the reporting party stated that the facility is trying to evict R2 as R2 assaulted R1 on January 11, 2024. As part of the investigation, LPA interviewed the administrator who stated that the facility was advised by SF Department of Public Health Social Worker to issue an 3-day eviction notification to R2 and the administrator generated the letter and faxed it to CCL for approval. However, the letter was never given to R2 as the administrator did not get an approval from CCL. In addition, the administrator stated that they are working with SF Public Health to discharge R2. During the 10-day visit, LPA attempted to interviewed R2 but R2 did not want to be interviewed. Based on documents provided by the administrator, the facility faxed the eviction notification CCL for approval and the notification was not presented to R2 because an approval was not obtained from CCL. After the investigation, this allegation is deemed to be unfounded because the facility requested an approval from CCL prior to delivering a 3-day eviction notification for R2 and it was not given to R2 as it was not approved by CCL. Based on interviews, the department has determined that the allegations were false, could not have happened and/or is without a reasonable basis, therefore the allegations are UNFOUNDED. This report is reviewed and discussed with caregiver and administrator over the phone. . A copy is provided.