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-C, 1 of 3] [Interviews and later records aligned to show that R1, who had a history of chronic urinary tract infections (UTIs) predating their move-in to Stellar Care, also had an active UTI on 04/25/2026. According to the Mayo Clinic, UTIs can be a common cause of strong, foul-smelling, or ammonia-like urine odor.] S1, P2, and P4 unanimously reported that while no peri-area skin cleanser spray was initially used during the incident, S1 did start out by thoroughly wiping the skin in R1’s peri-areas with wet wipes designed for incontinence care, before putting the new/fresh pair of Depends on R1.
According to interview of R1’s assigned hospice agency registered nurse (RN) case manager: It was never an order/requirement from the hospice agency or R1's physician that facility staff use peri-area skin cleanser spray when changing R1’s Depends. The spray was provided by the hospice agency to facility staff simply as an optional tool. The RN further told LPA that use of wet wipes as a stand-alone cleaning tool for cleaning patients during Depends-changing was adequate/sufficient for good hygiene, and that they had no concerns about the frequency or quality of incontinence care that Stellar Care caregivers provided to R1 in practice. There was also nothing in R1’s LIC602 Physician’s Report, LIC603 Preplacement Appraisal, or LIC625 Appraisal/Needs and Services Plan that showed peri-area skin cleanser spray was ever required to be used on R1 during changing. Interview of R1’s responsible person (RP) and facility managers also showed that at the time that R1 moved into the facility, use of this spray was neither specifically requested/discussed by the RP, nor specifically promised by facility managers. Neither current RCFE regulation nor Licensee’s internal written policies mention peri-area skin cleanser spray being a specific requirement during changing of briefs/Depends, either.
The Complainant said R1 was witnessed wearing no dentures in their mouth around dinner time on 04/18/2026, and that staff did not bring them over to R1 until family members said something to the staff. The Complainant admitted to LPA that they never inquired with the staff as to why the dentures were not put in R1’s mouth. Multiple care documents on R1, E-mailed correspondence, and interviews of staff and outside sources aligned to show: R1 had an upper denture which was already broken, prior to their move-in to the facility. From the outset, facility managers provided R1’s RP with a list of local dentists (to include a mobile dentist) and requested their help in contracting a dentist to have the denture repaired. By the date the complaint was filed, R1’s upper denture still had not been repaired or replaced. R1 was on a soft-texture diet and was still able to consume food when they chose to eat, even without this upper denture in their mouth. Per interview of R1’s assigned hospice RN, R1 had lost almost twenty pounds of body weight between February 2026 and 04/13/2026, the date R1 moved into the facility. [CONTINUED ON LIC 9099-C, 3 of 3] |