complaint·July 16, 2021

**Amended** Continued from 9099 Based on interviews conducted and documents gathered LPA learned that the facility provided an emergency plan to the resident’s responsible parties which is different then the Emergency Disaster Plan on file with Community Care Licensing (CCL). Interviews further revealed that on 8/19/20, when the facility received a mandatory evacuation notification due to approaching fires the facility did not follow the emergency disaster plan that was on file with CCL which identified two evacuations sites and a transportation plan different than what was executed. Based on interviews with the administrator, staff and various outside parties LPA learned that upon being alerted that the facility was to be evacuated, the Administrator contacted two of four residents (R2 &R3) responsible parties and asked that they transport the residents to an evacuation location of their own. One of four residents (R1) responsible party arrived at the facility and picked up R1 from the facility before the Administrator could call. Because residents (R4) responsible party lived out of the area facility staff allowed R4 to be transported by another resident’s responsible party (video footage on file). A review of R4s care plan identifies that the resident requires 24-hour care and supervision. R4 remained with this individual, who was not R4’s responsible party or staff member for several hours before they were able to make contact with the licensee and make arrangements to transport R4 to staff (S1’s) residence rather than the evacuation site identified on the facility’s emergency plan. The Administrator then picked up R4 and transported them to the evacuation location. Although R4s responsible party was notified of the evacuation Licensee did not to provide full details how R4 was evacuated and where they were initially evacuated to. Continued on 9099 C **Amended** Continued from 9099 C Based upon statements received, records reviewed and video footage it was determined that the Licensee did not evacuate residents to the two emergency sites listed on the facility emergency disaster plan dated 9/25/18 and because R4 was required to remain with R1s responsible party for several hours following the evacuation, it is determined that staff failed to provide care and supervision for R4. Therefore, both allegations are SUBSTANTIATED. Based upon the records reviewed and statements received during interviews the preponderance of evidence standard has been met. Therefore, the allegation is SUBSTANTIATED. The following deficiencies were observed (see LIC 9099D) and cited from the California Code of Regulations and or Health Safety Code, Title 22, Division 6 of California Regulation. Failure to correct the deficiency and/or repeat deficiencies within a 12-month period may result in civil penalties. Exit interview conducted and appeal of rights provided. **Amended** It was alleged that Facility did not have transportation to evacuate all residents during a mandatory evacuation on 8/19/20 due to a wildfire. Based on Interviews conducted with staff and various outside parties, LPA's observations and records reviewed LPA learned the following: Per the Administrator the facility had transportation, but did not transport resident as outlined in their disaster plan to transport residents to safety (failure to use their vehicles is cited under the allegation that facility failed to execute facility’s emergency disaster plan). Instead responsible parties were asked that they transport residents to a safe location. Although interviews with staff and outside parties confirmed that transportation was there, LPA was unable to prove or disprove if the transportation would support all residents. A finding that the complaint allegation facility did not have transportation to evacuate all residents is unsubstantiated meaning that although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED.