complaint·February 23, 2023

LPA Marrufo obtained a copy of R1’s Continuing Care Residency Contract, which was signed by R1 on 11/11/2011. R1’s Service Plan states that R1 is independent of eating. It states, “Resident eats by herself, but Vi staff will serve plates.” It states R1 has no special dietary needs/diet/supplements. During visit on 11/17/2022, LPA Marrufo observed R1 during meal service. LPA Marrufo observed staff serve R1 a meal. LPA Marrufo did not observe staff assisting R1 with feeding. LPA Marrufo observed R1 eating shrimp, salmon, chopped fruits, and drinking orange juice. LPA Marrufo observed R1 use a spoon to eat fruits and mashed potatoes without assistance. LPA Marrufo interviewed 6 staff. 6 out of 6 interviewed staff stated R1 feeds himself/herself during meals. This agency has investigated the complaint allegations listed. Based on interviews, review of records, and observations, the CCLD has found that the complaint allegations are unfounded, meaning that the allegations were false, could not have happened and/or are without a reasonable basis. This report was reviewed with Valerie Alves and a copy of the report was provided. LPA Marrufo interviewed 6 staff. 2 out of 6 staff stated the staff allow R1 to refuse medications. 4 out of 6 staff said they did not know if staff allow R1 to refuse medications. LPA Marrufo interviewed 4 Memory Care residents, including R1, and 3 Assisted Living Residents. All of the interviewed residents stated they have not had a time when they were not allowed to refuse medications. Section 4.6(iv) of R1’s Admission Agreement states that all providers of home health care and private duty aide services must be employed by a licensed agency. DPOA #1 and DPOA #2 stated that the facility has not prevented them from choosing a home care companion for R1. DPOA #1 and DPOA #2 have both stated that DPOA #3 has been hired as R1’s private duty aid. LPA interviewed 6 staff. 6 out of 6 interviewed staff stated R1 has a home care companion. Staff S1 and S2 both stated during interview that the facility only allows residents to hire private duty care givers from agencies, but facility would not intervene in residents hiring their own family members as care givers, so long as the family members still adhered to the visitation policy and visitation hours. During interview, DPOA #3 stated S2 communicated to DPOA #3 that DPOA #3 would not be allowed to be a private care giver for R1 because DPOA #3 is related to R1. During interview, S2 stated to have not communicated to DPOA #3 that DPOA #3 could not be a private care giver for R1 due to being related to R1. S2 stated to have communicated to DPOA #3 that all private care givers must be hired through an agency and any family member being privately hired by a resident to provide care must still abide by the facility visitation policy. Based on information from interviews conducted with staff, and records reviewed, and observations, although the allegations listed above 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 allegations are unsubstantiated. No Deficiencies cited under California Code of Regulations Title 22. This report was reviewed with Valerie Alves and a copy of this report provided. Page 2 of 2. END REPORT.