complaint·August 13, 2024

Continued from 9099..... Statements made by 2 of 3 individuals state R1 and the visitor (V1) were afforded a visit in private, but requested by S1 to be brief due to R1 being tired and the visit occurring after visiting hours. A short time later S1 requested that visitor (V1) leave and return during regular visiting hours. Based on LPA’s interviews the allegation that R1's Personal Rights were violated are unsubstantiated , although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation(s) did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is unsubstantiated . In addition, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Nakagawa also concluded the investigation and deliver findings on the allegation that Facility is in violation of fire clearance. LPA met with Administrator, Paramjit Sandhu. LPA Nakagawa reviewed documents, conducted interviews and made observations. The complaint alleges that the facility does not have a fire clearance for bedridden residents and believed that Resident (R1) was bedridden at the time of admission prior to the hospice placement. Review of admission agreement indicates R1 was admitted to the facility on 03/02/2024. The Physician’s Report dated on 03/01/2024 indicates that R1 was not bedridden nor were they bedbound prior to R1 beginning hospice care on 6/17/2024, therefore the allegation that Facility in violation of fire clearance is unsubstantiated . Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation(s) did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is unsubstantiated.