complaint·May 17, 2023

Inventory sheet further indicates music CDs were safeguarded and returned to R1 after a hospital stay on 4-14-23. Observation and interviews did not reveal decisively whether music CDs contained scratches or other form of damage to indicate ill safekeeping occurred. Interviews conducted did not reveal staff mishandled items of R1. Additional interviews did not reveal corroborated statements of staff members not practicing the safeguarding of residents’ personal belongings. As a result, the preponderance of evidence standard is not met, and this allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. Allegation: Staff did not provide resident with an extension cord. LPA conducted facility observations and interviews as stated above. Based on interviews conducted, it was determined that an extension cord was present in the room in addition to other wall sockets for resident use. Additionally based on interviews it was revealed that facility staff was asked by R1 for an additional extension cord and informed R1 of other options available including a multi-plug outlet. An observation of R1s room determined 5 outlets are available for use. Based on interviews and observations, there is not a preponderance of evidence to conclude an extension cord, or alternatives were not offered and available for R1. Therefore, this allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. Allegation: Staff are cutting off resident phone calls. LPA conducted interviews and facility observations as stated above. During facility observation, LPA attempted to utilize phone service in R1’s room and additional resident rooms. Observations revealed staff answered phone within 2-3 rings and under one minute without interrupting conversation. Interviews conducted did not reveal corroborated statements revealing staff interrupting or terminating resident private phone calls and conversations. As a result, there is not a preponderance of evidence to conclude staff are cutting off resident phone calls, therefore, this allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. Allegation: Staff are not able to communicate and understand resident’s needs. LPA conducted interviews as stated above and reviewed facility file documentation as stated above. Allegation refers to communication regarding dietary needs for R1. LPA interviewed dietary staff including on-duty cooks. Interviews revealed staff were able to effectively verbalize and follow instructions regarding dietary needs and instructions for residents in care. Additionally, staff interviewed were able to answer interview questions appropriately. Additional interviews conducted did not reveal corroborated statements of staff unable to communicate and understand resident needs. As a result, the preponderance of evidence standard is not met, and this allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. {Cont. on 9099C} Allegation: Staff are not meeting resident’s needs. LPA conducted interviews and facility observations as stated above. LPA also reviewed physician’s report for R1, individualized service plan for R1, and medication log sheets and physician’s orders for R1, and care notes for R1. Allegation refers to medication orders not followed as referenced in a previous complaint #27-AS-20230419101259. Based on records reviewed, it was revealed that facility attempted to address medication concerns with R1 on 4-13-23, 4-20-23, and 4-23-23, including a physician’s visit to facility on 4-21-23 to clarify and finalize orders. Additionally, care notes reviewed revealed staff was in communication with pharmacy for R1’s medication needs since admission date of 4-12-23 to clarify and receive any new medication. Based on care notes, a hospital visit was arranged on 4-14-23 to ensure resident receive appropriate medication regimen. It was further revealed through interviews and record reviews that facility was following medication orders as written and received during R1’s admission. Additional interviews conducted did not reveal corroborated statements of facility staff unable to meet medication and other resident needs at this time. As a result, there is not a preponderance of evidence to conclude facility staff did not meet the needs of R1 or other residents in care, therefore this allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. An exit interivew was conducted with Mark Baddas and a copy of the report was provided to Mark. Appeal rights provided.