Complaint·December 27, 2023

Based on the documents provided by the facility, R1's admission physician's report (LIC 602) dated on August 2, 2022 indicated that R1 was not supposed to have alcohol and an additional physician's order (LIC602) dated on August 11, 2023, reiterated that R1 was not permitted to have alcohol consumption due to current diagnosis and current medication regime. After the investigation, this allegation is deemed to be substantiated as per R1's physician's reported dated on August 2, 2022 and August 11, 2023 that R1 was not supposed to have alcohol. However, the facility failed to follow the physician's order dated on August 2, 2022 and served R1 alcohol. Based on interviews and record reviews during the investigation, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met. Therefore, this allegations were 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. This report is reviewed and discussed with the memory care Director, and Appeal Rights provided. According to facility director, R1 did not required assistance for bathing/showering until September 2023 when the facility received an order from R1's physician to treat R1's foot condition. After obtaining the physician's order, facility updated R1's functional evaluation and started providing assistance to R1 for bathing/showering. In addition, the facility director reported that there were many days that R1 did not want to take a shower and when that happened, it was re-offered to him/her again on the same day at a later time. Based on the documents provided by the facility, LPA observed facility was providing treatment to R1's foot per physician's order and facility staff assisted R1 for showers and when R1 refused, it would be offered again on a different shift. After the investigation, this allegation is deemed to be unsubstantiated as R1 stated that his/her foot condition has been a pre-existing condition and facility staff has been providing showers to R1 on a weekly basis. In addition, the facility provided activities of daily living based on the functional evaluation outcomes. Furthermore when R1 refused to take a bath/shower, facility staff encouraged and offered it again. Although the above allegation 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 the memory care director. A copy is provided. Regarding to the allegation of - facility failed to safeguard resident's property, the reporting party stated that facility destroyed R1's recliner that was brought from home. As part of the investigation, LPA interviewed the administrator, toured R1's apartment and reviewed documentation. LPA interviewed the administrator who acknowledged that the facility discarded R1's recliner because it was infested with bed bugs and they were instructed by the infection control company to get rid of it. However, the facility communicated to the responsible party that R1's account will be credited when a new recliner is purchased. Based on the documentation provided, it stated that facility has agreed to reimburse the responsible party when a new recliner is purchased. After the investigation, this allegation is deemed to be unfounded. Based on the above information, the Department has found that this allegation to be UNFOUNDED, meaning that this allegation was false, could not have happened and/or is without a reasonable basis. This report is reviewed and discussed with the memory care director and a copy is provided