Complaint·September 9, 2022

A review of the signed admission’s agreement indicated the above-mentioned amount. However, R1 moved out of the facility on 8/17/2022. Per the agreement, as the contract was terminated during the second month of residency, R1 would be entitled to a refund of 60% of the balance after a $500 deduction. It was alleged that as of today, R1 had not received a refund per the admission agreement. In addition, concerns were raised due to the claim that R1 was charged a full month’s rent from 8/15/2022 – 9/14/2022, even though R1 was moved out of the facility on 8/17/2022. R1’s responsible party provided notice to the licensee on 8/15/2022 that R1 would be moving out of the facility. Interviews confirmed it was not a 30 day notice, but notice that R1 would be leaving the facility immediately. However, per the admission’s agreement, ‘if the Resident leave the facility other than a medical condition, a thirty (30) day notice to the facility is required’. If the thirty-day notice is not provided, the remaining 30 days are due to the facility. Interviews confirmed that R1 moved out of the facility on 8/17/2022, two days after providing notice to the facility. In addition, whereas R1 moved into the facility on 7/15/2022, paperwork was signed on 7/11/2022. Per the documents and interview, the room was designated for R1 as of 7/11/2022. Based on the information obtained, whereas R1 is responsible for paying the remaining thirty (30) days as R1's responsible party did not provide thirty (30) day notice to the facility, R1 is entitled to a partial refund of the pre-admission fee, even though the pre-admission fee was decided upon at a discounted rate. The allegation ‘facility did not follow resident’s admission’s agreement’ is Substantiated at this time. See 9099-D for deficiencies. Exit interview conducted. A copy of the report and appeal rights were issued. Staff interviews revealed that residents have the option to have fresh fruit and vegetables throughout the day. Staff admitted that residents will also eat food items such as lasagna, sandwiches, different proteins and so on, but stated that they also will attempt to customize meal options per the preference of the resident. Interviews and records review revealed that R1 was on mechanical/chopped diet. However, R1 did not have specific restrictions on food items that they could or could not eat. The LPA observed both refrigerators on the property and observed an abundance of raspberries, strawberries, and blueberries, as well as fresh vegetable options for resident consumption. The LPA also observed oranges, bananas, and apples on the counter in good condition. At the time of the visit, the facility had a sufficient supply of perishable and non-perishable food. A review of the facility menu displayed a variety of foods that was of good quality and quantity. It was communicated that grocery shopping takes place weekly, and staff are able to obtain a variety of fresh foods as needed and/or requested. Staff admitted that if concerns were raised regarding what R1 was consuming, it was more so due to preference and not necessarily due to an inability to provide nutritious and food of good quality to R1. Based on the information obtained, there is insufficient evidence to support the claim that the facility did not serve resident fresh and nutritious foods while in care. This allegation is deemed Unsubstantiated at this time. No deficiencies cited at this time. Exit interview conducted. A copy of the report was issued.