Complaint·August 11, 2021

R1's interview revealed that at the time of the interview, R1 felt comfortable speaking with the caller in question, and stated that they, "spoke to them when they felt like it". Interviews revealed that staff were adamant in asking R1 if they wanted to speak to the caller and although this information was relayed to the caller, the caller continued to persist in speaking with R1. Records review and interviews confirmed that due to the excessive amount of calls, staff would inform the caller that the resident is preoccupied or unavailable, even without asking R1 if they would like to speak to the caller. This incident took place as recent as 8/8/2021. Based on the information obtained, there is sufficient evidence to support the claim that staff failed to ensure R1 received phone calls. This allegation is deemed Substantiated at this time. Regarding the allegation: Facility staff failed to allow resident to have private visits while in care It was alleged that R1 was not allowed to have private visitation. Interviews conducted revealed that R1 received a visit from a specific visitor on 8/2/2021 and 8/3/2021. Interviews revealed that on 8/2/2021, R1 had a visitor and the visitor was escorted to R1’s room. However, R1’s Power of Attorney (POA) was contacted, and R1’s private visit was interrupted and ultimately stopped. It is alleged that the situation became volatile and it was in the best interest of R1's wellbeing to stop the visit altogether. On 8/3/2021, R1 had another visit from the same visitor whom arrived on 8/2/2021. R1 was able to have their visit in R1’s room, yet staff stood outside the door while the visit was taking place. It is alleged that staff overheard the visitor asking to take a picture of R1, to which staff interrupted the visit and stated that they did not have permission to take a photo of R1. Thereafter, the visit ended. An interview with R1 revealed that at the time of the interview, R1 felt comfortable seeing the visitor and did not communicate concern in seeing the vistor. Based on the information obtained, there is sufficient evidence to support the claim that the facility failed to ensure that R1 had private visits while in care. This allegation is deemed Substantiated at this time. The following deficiencies were observed (See LIC 9099-D.) and cited from the California Code of Regulations, Title 22 and California Health and Safety Code. Exit interview conducted. A copy of the report and appeal rights were provided. When asked if they have received mail at the facility, R1 responded with ‘No.’ However, that does not mean that R1 has not received mail at this time. Based on the information obtained, there is insufficient evidence to support the claim that staff failed to ensure that R1 received mail. This allegation is deemed Unsubstantiated at this time. No deficiencies cited at this time. Exit interview conducted. A copy of the report was issued.