Complaint·March 30, 2022

Based on records reviewed by the IB, the preponderance of evidenced standard is not met, therefore this allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. Allegation 2. Residents are not properly assisted with incontinence care, was found to be unsubstantiated based on record reviews and interviews with staff and residents. LPAs interviewed staff1 (S1), S2, S3, S4. LPAs also interviewed resident1 (R1), R2. Additionally, LPA interviewed two hospice staff members who manages a total of 6 hospice residents in care at facility. LPA also reviewed care logs for incontinence care. Care logs indicate incontence care is consistently performed for residents in care. Interviews conducted did not reveal a lack of incontinence care performed. Based on interviews conducted and records reviewed the preponderance of evidenced standard is not met, therefore this allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. Allegation 3. Facility is not following residents' hospice care plans, was found to be unsubstantiated based on interviews conducted with Hospice Case Managers. Based on interviews conducted and records reviewed the preponderance of evidence standard is not met, therefore this allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. Allegation 4. Facility is malodorous, was found to be unsubstantiated. LPA Maja Jensen visited the facility on three separate occasions to conduct complaint investigations and was not able to detect an unusual odor. The allegation is also unsubstantiated based on interviews conducted with residents. Based on interviews conducted and a physical sensory assessment of the facility the preponderance of evidence standard is not met, therefore this allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. An exit interview was conducted and a copy of this report was given to the facility. This allegation NEEDS FURTHER INVESTIGATION. This report is replaced by 9099 dated 4/15/22