Complaint·July 11, 2023

Additionally, R1’s family member indicated that it would take days or even weeks for the ED to return the call, despite R1’s family member calling daily. At one point, R1’s family member mailed a certified letter to ED Spitznogle requesting additional information regarding rent increase and packages. R1’s family member stated after a certified mail was delivered on 04/12/2022, they received an email on 04/26/2022 by ED Spitznogle. Email conversation, on 07/11/2022, between R1’s family member and ED Spitznogle indicated that ED Spitznogle was reaching out to R1’s family member due to ED Spitznogle receiving a certified letter, while R1’s family member indicated that the letter was delivered on 04/12/2022 and it took more over a week for ED Spitznogle to get back to them. Fifteen (15) days would pass before the email was sent by ED Spitznogle. Additionally, another email was observed, dated on 04/29/2022 from R1’s family member requesting a call from ED Spitznogle. A continuation of that email revealed that on 05/03/2022, a telephone call was conducted between ED Spitznogle and R1’s family member. Four (4) days after requesting to chat with the ED. A review of the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, 87468.1 Personal Rights of Residents in All Facilities, indicates that: (a) Residents in all residential care facilities for the elderly shall have all the following personal rights: (9) To have communications to the licensee from their representatives answered promptly and appropriately. Promptly, meaning immediately or without delay. Even though R1’s family member requested to speak to the ED on various occasions, ED Spitznogle returned the family members request by a call or email. However, based on the Title 22 regulation, ED Spitznogle did not promptly and appropriately communicate with the R1’s family member as various days passed before a response was generated by ED Spitznogle. Thus, the allegations, staff is not communicating with authorized representative in a timely manner is deemed substantiated at this time. 1 Citation was issued today. Per the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 8, the following deficiencies are cited: (Refer to LIC 9099-D). Exit interview conducted and a copy of the report and appeal rights were issued to ED Whittington. File review also revealed no documentation within home health, hospice and facility notes indicating the necessity of podiatry services. Interview with a podiatry Health Service Coordinator, on 06/29/2023, starting at 1:54 p.m., revealed that R1 was seen by the podiatrist on two (2) separate occasions: once (1) on 03/11/2021 and another on 06/05/2022. That same day, interview with a hospice representative, at 2:15 p.m., revealed that although a resident can be on hospice services, podiatry care is a service not offered under hospice care. If the resident requires podiatry services, the hospice agency will reach out to a podiatrist. Also, that same day, interview with Staff #1 (S1), starting at 2:35 p.m. confirmed what hospice representative stated. In addition, S1 added that if a resident is not on hospice services, Pacifica will reach out to a podiatrist to come out and provide services. On 07/11/2023, a review of Pacifica’s Admission Agreement form indicated that on page four (4), section J. Observation and Consultation: The staff at the Community will observe your health status to identity your dietary, social, and health care needs and will provide you with the consultations regarding social and health-related issues. The community will notify family, responsible parties and other appropriate persons and/or agencies of your significant needs. Additionally, Section II. Personal Assistance and Care, on page six (6) indicated that: We will also assist you, as needed, with the scheduling of medical and dental appointments and with accessing community resources and transferring to outside facilities, as needed and prescribed by your primary physician. Although there was a significant time gap between podiatry services for R1, 03/22/2021 and 06/05/2022, review of home health, hospice and facility documentation did not indicate that R1 needed podiatry services. Based on information gathered, there is insufficient evidence to support the claim that staff are not providing adequate care to resident in care. The allegation is deemed unsubstantiated at this time. LPA Ascencio spoke with ED Whittington regarding the Admission Agreement policies and reiterated the importance to observe a resident’s health status needs and provide consultation on those issues and notifying the appropriate persons or agency. Exit interview conducted and a copy of the report was issued to ED.