complaint·July 12, 2022

Regarding the allegation: “Facility did not address resident's medical condition:” Staff interviews revealed that R1 chooses not to utilize facility transportation, but has a private caregiver take R1 to all medical appointments. Prior to the COVID-19 outbreak, R1 would leave the facility frequently and did receive medical attention regularly. Staff and resident interviews later revealed that R1 attempted to change medical providers and subsequently could not find an alternate primary care provider. R1 refused to see medical professionals that conduct visits on site at the facility. R1 chose an alternate provider, but the provider required R1 change specialists, so R1 canceled services with the primary provider. R1’s family member does not help R1 find alternate care. Facility staff have attempted to assist R1 with scheduling appointments and locating adequate medical providers, however, R1 refused assistance. Record review indicated R1’s medical condition has not changed since R1 has resided at the facility. In fact, R1 was initially in recovery when R1 first moved into the facility and R1’s medical condition improved after initially moving in. Based on record review and interview, although the allegation may be valid, at this time there is insufficient evidence to prove a violation did occur, therefore the allegation “facility did not address resident’s medical condition” is deemed UNSUBSTANTIATED at this time. Exit interview conducted. A copy of this report and appeal rights were provided via email to Resident Care Director and Executive Director. Regarding the allegation: “Facility not meeting resident's dietary needs:” During the visit on 07/18/2021, LPA Dulek observed the dining room, kitchen, and interviewed Dining Services Director as well as Resident Care Director. LPA also reviewed R1’s care plan and facility file for any dietary needs. Interview revealed that if any resident has a special diet, there would be a diet slip for the orders, facility staff complete a communication paper. Interview revealed that there were no residents in Assisted Living with a special diet. LPA did not observe any indication in the kitchen of communication forms indicating special diets. However, record review indicated a physician’s order for a modified diet for R1, as well as one other resident. Additionally, R1’s personal service plan and assessment summary both also indicate R1 requires “texture modified foods” and R1 “chooses soft, low carbohydrate and low acid food from the menu.” During LPA’s in person visit, Dining Services Director located the diet orders for 3 residents and provided them to the LPA. Interview with R1 revealed that R1 purchases and prepares their own foods, as the facility has been unable to accommodate their dietary needs. Based on interview and record review, the allegation “facility did not meeting resident’s dietary needs” is deemed SUBSTANTIATED at this time. The following deficiency was observed (See LIC 9099-D) and cited from the California Code of Regulations, Title 22 and California Health and Safety Code. Failure to correct the deficiency may result in civil penalties. Exit interview conducted. A copy of the report and appeal rights were provided via email.