Complaint·November 14, 2025

On 08/05/2025, the facility received further guidance from the doctor indicating that quarantine was recommended as a precautionary measure. In response, the facility activated its infection control procedures. Throughout the implementation of these measures, there was no indication that the physician advised against isolation; rather, it was recommended due to suspicion of an infectious skin condition. Additionally, the LPA’s review of facility records confirmed that the facility complied with the doctor’s orders and maintained appropriate communication with the physician regarding R1’s care. Based on the information gathered, there is not sufficient evidence to prove that the facility staff are not following doctors orders. Allegation: Facility staff are not allowing resident access to personal belongings It was alleged that facility staff are not allowing resident access to personal belongings. During the course of this investigation, LPA conducted interviews and reviewed facility records. Based on interviews conducted, it was learned that on 08/05/2025,a resident was placed on the facility's infection control protocol as a precautionary measure for a suspected contagious skin infection. In accordance with this protocol, the facility implemented specific treatment and containment procedures, including bagging and laundering the resident’s clothing, cleaning and disinfecting common areas, vacuuming the resident’s room, and isolating personal belongings for 14 days. However, it was also learned that the facility ensured that the resident had sufficient amount of clothing and belongings to ensure that they had clean clothes. An interview with 3 facility staff members was conducted. 3 out 3 deny that the resident did not have access to their belongings. Based on the information gathered, there is not sufficient evidence to prove that the facility staff were not allowing resident access to personal belongings. Allegation: Facility staff are not meeting residents grooming needs It was alleged that the facility staff are not meeting residents grooming needs. During the course of this investigation, the LPA conducted interviews and reviewed facility records. Based on the information obtained, it was determined that R1 was offered showers in accordance with the doctor’s orders and the facility’s infection control protocol. However, R1 frequently refused to participate. A review of facility records confirmed that R1 consistently declined showers, and the facility respected this decision, recognizing it as R1’s personal right. Based on the information gathered, there is not sufficient evidence to prove that the facility staff were not meeting the residents grooming needs. According to records reviewed, this policy was activated as a precautionary measure in response to a suspected contagious skin infection. Based on the information gathered, there is not sufficient evidence to prove that the facility staff did not follow infection diseases plan properly. Allegation: Staff did not ensure residents room was cleaned/infected properly. It was alleged that the facility did not ensure residents room was cleaned or infected properly. During the course of this investigation, the department conducted interviews and records review. Based on interviews conducted, a resident was placed on the facility's infection control protocol as a precautionary measure for a suspected contagious skin infection. In accordance with this protocol, the facility implemented specific treatment and containment procedures, including bagging and laundering the resident’s clothing, cleaning and disinfecting common areas, vacuuming the resident’s room, and isolating personal belongings for 14 days. LPA Pascua interviewed staff members, who denied failing to clean or disinfect. Staff stated that cleaning procedures were initiated immediately upon receiving information from the physician. Based on information gathered, there is not sufficient evidence to prove that the facility staff did not ensure residents room was cleaned properly. As a result of this investigation, this Department found the allegation to be UNSUBSTANTIATED. A complaint allegation finding of Unsubstantiated meant that although the allegations may have happened or was valid, there was not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred. An exit interview was conducted and a copy of this report was provided to the facility at the end of this visit.