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 | Relevant party also reported concerns regarding potential neglect resulting in an incident on March 5, 2024. Per incident report received by the Department, R1 was experiencing cough and was advised to be sent out to ER via ambulance. R1's authorized representative was notified. R1 was admitted and went back to the facility on March 8, 2024 with oral antibiotics. A follow up visit by R1's primary care physician was conducted on March 11, 2024. Medical records for March 5, 2024 incident indicate that R1 presented with shortness of breath and hypotension concerning for underlying pneumonia versus urinary tract infection meeting criteria for sepsis. A 10 mm nodule midlung is nonspecific and not seen on previous exams. R1 was treated with antibiotics and fluids and discharged back to facility on March 8, 2024.
R1 was noted with cognitive and physical changes one (1) to two (2) months prior to their hospitalization on May 25, 2025. All staff interviewed noted the changes to be slow and gradual. As claimed by MCD, family and doctor were made aware. R1 was sent out by facility when resident was experiencing acute changes, and R1's family was also notified. Based on the medical records in the hospital, resident was admitted for (but not limited to) acute metabolic encephalopathy, severe sepsis secondary to community-acquired pneumonia, and mass of upper lobe of left lung. There is no evidence that R1 was neglected by facility for this incident. As for the incident on March 5, 2024, there is no specific evidence that R1 was neglected by facility.
LPA conducted an interview with R1's authorized representative, who confirmed that facility reported changes in R1's condition. LPA conducted interviews with residents R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, and R6 during investigation. R2, R3, R4, R5, and R6 stated that they are treated well by facility staff and that their care needs are being met. R2, R3, R4, R5, and R6 stated that they have not witnessed any residents in need of care and not receiving assistance from facility care staff.
Based on interviews conducted and records reviewed, the preponderance of evidence standards have not been met. Therefore, the above allegation is found to be UNSUBSTANTIATED. A finding that a complaint allegation is unsubstantiated means that, although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred.
Exit interview was conducted. A copy of this report was provided. Signature on these forms acknowledges receipt of these documents. |