Complaint·May 1, 2024

The facility directors acknowledged that facility staff locked R1's grooming items such as the toothpaste, and toothbrush for safety reasons but those items did not required to be locked as they are not harmful to the residents and residents shall have access to them when needed. According to facility staff, they locked R1's toiletries such as toothpaste and toothbrush for safety reasons and they were aware that items shall not be locked as they are not harmful to the residents. After the investigation, this allegation is deemed to be substantiated. The facility's action was to ensure resident's safety, however, the toiletries were approved and deemed by the facility to be safe, therefore, it shall not be locked and residents shall have access to their own personal possessions, including but not limiting to their toilet articles. Deficiencies of the California Code of Regulations, Title, 22 cited on the LIC9099D. Failure to correct the deficiencies may result in civil penalties. Report was discussed and reviewed with the administrator. A copy of this report and the Appeal Rights is provided. According to the resident service director and resident service supervisor, R1's functional needs care profiles were developed based on R1's LIC 602, their assessment and staff's observation while providing care to R1 and based on the observation details, R1 needed assistance/queueing with grooming such as tooth brushing even when the toiletries were available for R1, combing hair, etc. In addition, they stated that grooming is not only pertaining to brushing teeth, it also included combing hair, cleaning face, applying deodorant, etc. Furthermore, the resident service director and the resident service supervisor reported that R1's responsible party did not agree with the functional needs care profile for R1 as grooming was triggered resulted in additional monthly fee. Therefore, the facility conducted a meeting with the responsible party and other family meeting to discuss the accuracy of the functional needs care profile. During the meeting, adjustments were made, however, they were not significant enough to reduce the monthly fee. In addition, they stated that the functional needs care profile for R1 was developed according to the feedback from the direct care staff and R1's LIC 602. LPA interviewed 2 facility staff members and both of them reported that R1 needed queuing with brushing his/her teeth on a daily basis and sometimes needed assistance. They also reported that they assisted R1 with other grooming tasks such as combing hair, cleaning face, washing hands, etc. Based on documents provided by the facility and the reporting party, R1 had a change in health condition in January and resulted in hospitalization. Prior to R1's return, on January 30, 2024, the resident service supervisor conducted a preplacement appraisal. Upon R1's return, on February 1, 2024, the facility developed R1's Functional Needs Care Profile based on R1's LIC 602. On February 7, 2024, R1's Functional Needs Care Profile was revised and a meeting was held with R1's responsible party, other family members and facility directors to discuss R1' Functional Needs Care Profile as R1's responsible party disagreed with some of the tasks that were triggered. Based on the R1's care log that was completed by the direct care staff members, it revealed that R1 needed assistance with grooming such as dressing, brushing teeth, combing hair, etc. Based on interviews, observation and record review during the investigation, this allegation is deemed to be unsubstantiated as the facility conducted necessary appropriate steps to evaluate R1 prior to admission and revised the Functional Needs Care Profile for R1 accordingly. Regarding to allegation of- staff do not ensure resident is accorded privacy in personal accommodations, the reporting party stated that when R1 returned from visiting with family, there was another resident found laying R1's bed. The administrator acknowledged that another resident was found on R1's bed upon R1's return from visiting R1's family. However, the administrator stated that R1 resides in the Memory Care Unit and most of the residents wander around the unit but since the incident, they have started locking R1's room when R1 leaves to visit family to prevent this from happening again and R1 did not have any personal items missing from the incident. After the investigation, this allegation is deemed to be unsubstantiated. Although the above allegations 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 reviewer with the administrator and a copy is provided.