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]
At the time of the complaint allegation, R1 was being followed by a visiting nurse practitioner (NP), who operated as an extension of R1’s primary care physician (PCP), to help address R1’s health issues as they developed. Care records and interviews aligned to show that R1 was memory-impaired, wheelchair-bound, took blood-thinner medication, had very fragile skin, had a history of being prone to bruising and skin tears, and required staff assistance with bathing, among other tasks. Interviews of multiple staff and outside sources corroborated that during mid-July 2024, R1 sustained a skin tear on their lower left leg. CCLD obtained a photograph of the skin tear, showing that at one point, the open area of skin was around 3 inches long by 2 inches wide.
In their interview, Staff #1 (S1) confirmed that while cleaning R1’s lower left leg with a loofah during a shower, they scrubbed too hard and accidentally caused the skin tear. S1 admitted that they did not inform either R1’s NP or PCP, or facility management. S1 also admitted they did not inform the RP until eight (8) days after it had occurred, and only after the RP had visited the facility and confronted S1 with questions about the skin tear. Interviews of the PCP and NP confirmed that facility staff did not notify them of R1’s injury. Interviews of Staff #2, Staff #3, and outside sources confirmed S1’s account, and that Licensee’s staff did not notify RP of the injury until over a week later. LPA reviewed the CCLD San Diego Regional Office’s files, finding that Licensee did not submit a written incident report regarding R1 sustaining a skin tear on their lower left leg (which was required to be done within seven days of incident occurrence). By the start of CCLD’s investigation, the skin in the affected had already scabbed over and healed, yet 2 of 2 facility Licensees/managers and 2 of 5 caregivers (who directly cared for R1) interviewed were still unaware of said earlier skin tear on R1’s leg. There was also no written documentation of this skin tear on R1’s lower left leg in the facility’s records, as was required.
Interviews of facility Licensees/managers, caregivers, and outside sources aligned to show: During the time frame of the complaint, R1 and R2 were the only two residents in care at Oceanside Elderly Care Home 448. On a day in late July 2024, Licensee moved R1 and R2 to new bedrooms at Oceanside Elderly Care Home 452 (a separate CCLD-licensed care facility), to consolidate operations and reduce operating costs. Licensee did not prior notify CCLD of these transfers, or the fact that Oceanside Elderly Care Home 448 would become dormant. [CONTINUED ON LIC 9099-C, 2 of 2] |