complaint·October 2, 2024

Facility staff did not provide a resident a bathe for at least two months. On 5/14/2024, RP sent a written statement stating that "the facility administration knowingly did not bathe R1 from January 10, 2024 through March 6, 2024." Based on RP's written statement the Resident Services Director (RSD) specifically told his/her sibling that he/she was aware that R1 had not been bathed according to R1s level of care. Based on document review R1 refused to bathe for 8 weeks. On 9/4/2024 and 9/20/2024 LPA interviewed staff 1 to 6 (S1 to S6). 6 Out of 6 staff stated that they cannot force a resident if they refuse to bathe. 6 Out of 6 stated that they will try and ask 3 times to convince resident to bathe. Facility hired a private caregiver for a resident without resident's DPOA's consent. On 4/24/2024, LPA interviewed ED/ADM who stated that the third party vendor "The Key" is the provider for the 1:1 care. The Key is a separate entity from the facility. ED/ADM stated on 10/2/2024 the facility refunded RP for the amount of $3,462.00 for the remaining balance. On 4/28/2024, LPA interviewed responsible party (RP) and stated that former ED/ADM informed RP that R1 requires 1:1 care and have 24 hours to respond and make a decision. RP stated his/her sibling opted for the 1:1 care for R1 for one week and signed the electronic contract with "The Key" on 1/26/2024. RP stated they were able to speak with a representative from "The Key" and is able to change R1s care from 24/7 to 8 hrs a day. Based on review of RPs written statement, RP stated "I was able to obtain back $3,462 from the facility." Based on review of the facility's admission agreement, "if residents become a safety risk to self and others during their residency, the facility have the right at their sole determination, at the resident's expense, private duty personnel to provide supervision or assistance...The facility will communicate the decision on behalf of the resident to the respective responsible party and will occur in advance, if reasonably possible..." Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation(s) did or did not occur, therefore the allegation(s) are unsubstantiated. No deficiencies were during today's visit based on California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22. An exit interview was conducted with executive director/administrator Felicia Barkley and a copy of the report was provided. page 2 of 2 end of report