complaint·August 16, 2024

On this same evening, Administrator determined R1 required further evaluation due to increased confusion and notified emergency personnel who arrived and transported R1 to hospital. A review of R1's physician's report does not indicate a history of wandering or elopement behavior. Based on interviews and record reviews, it was determined that R1 did not elope from facility, therefore, the preponderance of evidence standard is not met and this allegation is UNFOUNDED. Allegation: Licensee did not provide responsible party with a refund. LPA conducted interviews and record reviews as stated above. Based on admission agreement, R1's responsible party signed the agreement on 8-7-24 coinciding with the date of R1's admission date. Based on interviews, R1 was sent to the hospital on 8-7-24 shortly after admission for a re-evaluation due to behaviors. Licensee and staff provided supervisory services and meals to R1 during his stay. A review of R1's physician's report does not indicate a history of wandering or elopement behavior. Interviews further revealed that although Licensee is willing to accept R1 back pending stabilization, hospital staff and R1's responsible party have opted for placement elsewhere at this time. Interviews and record reviews revealed R1 did not furnish a 30-day notice to move at this time. As a result, there is not a preponderance of evidence to conclude Licensee is entitled to issue a refund to R1, therefore, this allegation is UNFOUNDED. An exit interview was conducted with S1 and a copy of this report was provided to R1.