complaint·November 2, 2023

LPA Moleski reviewed R1’s file and observed multiple medical records dating from March 2023 through October 2023 diagnosing R1 with an unspecified, itchy rash. LPA Moleski reviewed medical records for two other residents (R7, R8). R7 was prescribed an antihistamine for itchy spots, and R8 was diagnosed with a dry skin rash. LPA Moleski did not observe any skin rashes on residents other than R1. During an interview, R1’s responsible party said R1 has not had scabies. LPA Moleski interviewed six staff members (S1-S6). Of these, all six staff members denied that staff are rough with residents and denied that staff yell at residents. S1 and S5 said staff sometimes do have to speak louder for residents who are hard of hearing. LPA Moleski interviewed six residents (R1-R6). R2 said one staff member was too rough with R2. LPA Moleski interviewed R2’s responsible party, who said that R2 exaggerated the incident described. R3 said staff sometimes yell at residents if residents are yelling at them. R4 said staff sometimes yell at residents to get their attention, but said staff do not yell in a mean way. R5 said one staff member yells at R5. The department has determined the following as it relates to the allegations that staff did not prevent an outbreak of scabies, that staff handle residents in a rough manner, and that staff yell at residents: Based on observation, record reviews, and interviews, the above allegations are UNSUBSTANTIATED, which means that although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violations occurred. No deficiencies were cited during this visit. An exit interview was conducted and a copy of this report was left with Gaither. LPA Moleski reviewed R1’s file. Facility staff were aware of this rash since at least March 2023, based on a dermatologist’s prescription for medication to treat this rash dated 3/27/23. Following this date, LPA Moleski observed three after-visit summaries from medical appointments regarding this rash and three further prescriptions made by dermatologists addressing the treatment of R1’s rash. LPA Moleski reviewed R1’s MARs and observed that R1 had been receiving the medications prescribed. During interviews, Gaither and two care staff members (S1-S2) said R1 had been treated for the rash, but said that doctors were unable to determine the cause of the rash and that medications had not been very effective. A third care staff member (S3) was aware of the rash but did not handle any facility medications, so could not say what treatments had been given to R1. During an interview, R1’s responsible party (RP) said that although medications have not been effective, R1 has received medical attention for the rash. R1’s RP did not have any concerns regarding the facility. The department has determined the following as it relates to the allegation that staff did not seek timely medical attention for resident: Based on interviews and record review, the above allegation is UNFOUNDED. A finding that the complaint allegation is unfounded means the allegation is false, could not have happened or is without a reasonable basis. No deficiencies were cited during this visit. An exit interview was held and a copy of this report was left with Gaither.