complaint·May 12, 2023

(continued from page 1; 9099) Upon arrival to the facility on 3/1/2022, LPA observed two staff at the facility not wearing facemasks. Both staff put their masks on when LPA pointed out they were not wearing their masks. LPA spoke with the administrator regarding the allegation staff were not wearing masks at the facility. Administrator stated that staff told her they had used the restroom and forgot to put it back on. LPA pointed out that both staff were not wearing masks but working with residents. Based on LPA’s observations, the allegation facility staff failed to wear facemasks around residents is deemed Substantiated at this time. It is noted that the California Department of Public Health COVID-19 masking requirements ended on 4/3/2023. The Centers for Disease Control may still recommend masks based on local community levels (by county). Administrator is aware she must stay up to date on any requirements which may change based on COVID-19 community levels. She will ensure all staff follow the most current mandates. Pursuant to Title 22, California Code of Regulations, the following deficiencies are cited (refer to LIC 9099-D). Exit interview conducted, appeal rights discussed, and a copy of this report issued. (continued from 9099-A; page 4) LPA reviewed R1’s admission agreement. R1 was admitted to the facility in 2015, therefore any preadmission fees are not refundable as R1 resided at the facility longer than three months. R1’s admission agreement stated the scenarios in which the facility would provide a prorated refund: death of resident or facility closure (both are Title 22 requirements), otherwise the facility requires a 30-day notice. R1 left the facility on 2/2/2022 to go to the hospital, R1’s health condition progressed and R1 needed a higher level of care so R1’s representative moved R1’s belongings out of the facility on 2/12/2022. Although R1’s representative did not provide the facility with a 30-day notice, the facility did provide a refund to R1 for 2/12/2022-2/28/2022 on 2/28/2022 which was not required by Title 22. Therefore, the allegation the facility failed to provide a refund is deemed Unsubstantiated at this time. LPA reviewed R1’s medical documents from R1’s dietician at the facility. The documents state the type of diet R1 was to have. R1 did not have any dietary restrictions, however due to R1’s condition all food must be pureed/soft, and liquids must be thickened. In addition, the facility was to provide R1 with Ensure for between meal snacks. Staff stated R1 was able to eat the pureed diet but must eat slowly and be constantly observed to ensure R1 did not choke on their food. Staff stated they provided R1 with thickened Ensure, however R1 didn’t like the type of Ensure he was sent by his representative and/or the VA. LPA interviewed R1 at the hospital, R1 indicated facility staff did provide Ensure but R1 didn’t like the Ensure. R1 said they liked living at the facility, staff treated R1 with respect, and R1 liked the pureed/soft food provided at the facility. LPA interviewed hospital staff to see if they were providing Ensure to R1. Hospital staff explained that due to R1’s condition progressing, R1 could not safely swallow, and they were not able to give anything by mouth at that time. Based on interviews and records review, the allegation facility staff failed to follow resident's prescribed diet is deemed Unsubstantiated at this time. Exit interview conducted and a copy of this report issued.