complaint·April 24, 2023

Resident rights were violated . During the interview process, ten staff persons were interviewed. The residents were observed to be sitting in the living room watching a television program. They were checked in on and spoken to by LPA Gurriere; however, were not interviewed due to their dementia status. Various documents were obtained and reviewed to include Physicians Reports, Admission Agreements, Appraisal and Needs, and Medication Logs. Training documents for staff were obtained and reviewed also. During the investigation process, it was reported that a resident’s rights were violated when it was suggested by the family that when the resident (Resident 1) asks where his wife is, the staff are to tell him that his wife had died. Staff were interviewed and it was reported that at times, the staff have advised the resident that his wife had died. Due to the resident’s dementia status, it was reported that this caused the resident to be distraught, as he relived the news that his wife had died. It was reported that this issue was addressed in a meeting with staff by the administrator and the manager in which they provided training as to how to interact with the resident. In addition, it was reported that staff raised their voices at two residents (Resident 2 and Resident 3). It was stated by several persons that they didn’t believe that staff raised their voices; however, but that the staff were “stern” in asking Resident 2 to be seated. Residents are to be treated with dignity in their personal relationships with staff. Advising a resident several times, that his wife has died is a violation of personal rights, as it was reported that it caused the resident to be distraught. Staff that are stern with a resident indicates an assertion of authority and strictness over a resident. Both examples are personal rights violations. Based on investigation observations and interviews which were conducted and record review(s), the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation(s) are found to be Substantiated . California Code of Regulations, (Title 22), is being cited on the attached LIC 9099D. Staff are not properly trained to interact with dementia residents . During the investigation process, it was stated that because of the reported issue with Resident 1, advising that the resident’s wife had died, the administrator and manager provided training to the staff persons in the dementia unit. In addition, it was reported that staff have been “stern” with Resident 2, which indicates a lack of training of the staff persons. During the interview process, numerous staff persons stated that they felt that they could benefit from additional training. Based on investigation observations and interviews which were conducted and record review(s), the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation(s) are found to be Substantiated . California Code of Regulations, (Title 22), is being cited on the attached LIC 9099D. Appeal Rights were explained and provided to the facility representative listed above and an exit interview was conducted. If any of the cited deficiencies are not corrected by the noted due date; civil penalties may be assessed. Staff are not following appropriate medication dispensing methods . During the interview process, ten staff persons were interviewed. The residents were observed to be sitting in the living room watching a television program. They were checked in on and spoken to by LPA Gurriere; however, were not interviewed due to their dementia status. Various documents were obtained and reviewed to include Physicians Reports, Admission Agreements, Appraisal and Needs, and Medication Logs. Training documents for staff were obtained and reviewed also. During the investigation process, it had been reported that a staff person rubbed down a pill to make it smaller and then gave it to a resident. Several staff persons were interviewed, and it was reported that staff were unaware of staff not following appropriate medication dispensing methods. Although the allegation may have happened, or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred, and the findings are Unsubstantiated .