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 | [CONTINUED FROM LIC 9099] CCLD’s investigation consisted of three unannounced facility visits, interviews of relevant staff, and review of the facility’s infection control policies and training sheets, vaccination records, laboratory testing results, and contractor invoices. The Department also revisited its own database of previous COVID-19 reported cases and notes from past phone calls with the administrator on infection control.
Staff interviews and CCLD’s collected data revealed Staff #1 (S1) was the first COVID-19 positive person within the specific outbreak that is the subject of this complaint. S1 last worked at the facility on 08-21-2022, developed symptoms on 08-22-2022, and was COVID tested on 08-23-2022, with a positive result. A facility manager said S1 was interviewed as part of a CDSS-endorsed process called “contact tracing”; it revealed S1 “worked only on the facility’s 3rd floor in the 72 hours before [S1] became COVID-19 positive.” CDSS Provider Information Notice (PIN) 22-16-ASC was the testing guidance in force during the timeframe of the allegation. According to this PIN, in facilities where more than 90% of both residents and staff were fully “fully vaccinated,” and where contact tracing was feasible, licensees were authorized to limit their weekly response testing to the those who had “close contact” with the infected person, rather than response testing all staff and all residents at large. According to facility records, around 98% of its staff and 93% of its residents were “fully vaccinated” when S1 became COVID-19 positive.
Consistent with PIN guidance, licensee waited 48 hours to overcome the virus’ incubation period. Then on 08-24-2022, licensee response tested 21 residents who lived on the facility’s 3rd floor plus two staff who had contact with S1; all results returned negative. On 08-29-2022, licensee tested R1 individually, since they developed new COVID-19 symptoms; the result was positive. Licensee immediately tested R1’s spouse/roommate, Resident #2 (R2), but R2 remained asymptomatic and COVID-negative. Leveraging a nurse-staffing contractor, licensee performed its second-week response testing on 08-31-2022, expanding the sweep to 100 persons tested (going beyond “close contacts”). This time, R2 and Staff #2 (S2) were COVID-positive. On 09-07-2022, licensee used the same nurse-staffing contractor to execute a third week of response testing involving 112 persons (again going beyond “close contacts”). There were no new positive cases, and this remained true even during the next week’s response testing, effectively ending the COVID-19 outbreak. The above chronology of licensee’s response testing was corroborated by laboratory results, contractor invoices, and CDSS records.
[CONTINUED ON LIC 9099-C, 2 of 2] |