1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32 | The Department has investigated the complaint alleging that resident’s medication was changed without authorization. During the course of the investigation, LPA De Perio conducted interviews with staff, residents as well as record reviews such as, but not limited to: resident’s physician report, medication log dated from November 2022-Janruary 2022, facility admission agreement, incident reports, communication between the facility, responsible party and medical providers. Initially, it appeared that that the facility staff were following the prescribed medications per physician orders, as was indicated on the resident’s centrally stored medication log. However, upon further review, it was determined that on one occasion, the resident’s responsible party and facility administrator were in communication, and the facility administrator informed the responsible party that the medication (Depakote) was being decreased, but there were no official orders for this change from the prescribing physician. LPA conducted a total of 6 interviews of which 3 of the interviews did not corroborate with the allegation due to the individuals not having any knowledge about medication changes and authorizations. 1 interview was unable to be conducted due to unavailability, and 1 interview corroborate with the allegation. Based on the LPA’s investigation, which consisted of interviews and record reviews the Department has found that the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation is SUBSTANTIATED.
The Department has investigated the complaint alleging that the facility failed to seek medical attention for resident #1 (R1). LPA De Perio conducted interviews with facility staff and residents. LPA conducted a total of 6 interviews, of which 4 out of the 6 interviews stated that the facility does contact 911 if medical attention is needed, and the 2 remaining interviews did not corroborate with the allegation due unavailability and having no knowledge in relation to the allegation. In this particular case, however, R1’s responsible party observed an injury on R1’s head and proceeded to inquire why the facility staff did not seek medical attention for R1. The facility administrator replied to R1’s responsible party that 911 was not contacted due to the injury being “just a scratch”. LPA reviewed the picture of R1’s injury and observed a raised, bruised bump on R1’s forehead above R1’s left eye with a scratch, which required medical attention. Based on the information gathered through the course of the investigation, the Department has found that the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation is found to be SUBSTANTIATED. |