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 | S1 stated there was no scratch or injury that occurred. S1 stated, R1 scratched their hand on their walker. S1 offered to clean the skin tear, but R1 refused, it’s unknown how exactly R1 sustained the scratch. Outside source interview revealed the day the resident stated the incident occurred, there were no visible scratches or wounds. R1 also stated the same incident occurred at their prior facility. LPA observed the wall in the bedroom that R1 stated they were pushed against and noticed it was not possible as there was a bed located in the area reported. Resident interviews revealed they have never been pushed or injured by staff. Residents also reported not being aware of the incident. Staff interviews revealed they have not witnessed or heard S1 push R1 against the wall. Staff interviews stated R1 had a scratch on their hand, but they didn’t know how R1 sustained it.
It was also alleged that S1 locked R1 in their room by tying rubber bands around the doorknobs to lock R1 in their room. S1’s interview revealed they were sleeping on a cot in the hallway located outside of R1’s room. S1 stated they used large rubber bands around the two (2) doorknobs to hold the door closed due to the lighting coming through the door opening. The double doors to R1’s room do not close completely, allowing lighting through the opening of the double doors. S1 explained the door was not locked with the rubber bands, as the doors could easily be opened. R1’s interview confirmed their doors were never locked and they were able to enter and exit their room at any time. R1 was not aware of any rubber bands on their doorknobs.
It was also alleged that staff did not ensure R1 had access to incontinent equipment. It was reported that staff were hiding R1’s urinal at night. R1 is able to ambulate and use the restroom independently. R1 has a urinal for nighttime use to ensure safety from getting up to go to the bathroom at night. On 02/03/25, LPA observed two (2) urinals located in R1’s bedroom. R1 denied not having access to their urinal. Staff interviews confirmed R1 has two (2) urinals for nighttime use, as R1 uses the bathroom independently during the day. Staff explained that the urinals are only taken by staff to discard the urine and clean the urinals, then it’s returned to R1. R1 denied not having access to their incontinent equipment.
Lastly, it was alleged that staff did not refill R1’s medications. R1’s responsible party’s interview confirmed that they manage R1’s finances and the out of pocket cost for the medication was costly. Therefore, they didn’t always purchase it for R1. Also, due to R1’s medical insurance, some medications were held. R1’s responsible party explained the facility was not responsible for any errors with R1’s medications and R1’s primary care physician (PCP) was involved. R1’s responsible party also indicated R1’s physician’s assistant was calling in the refills to the pharmacy not the facility. In addition, R1 was no longer taking the medication in question, therefore, it was not refilled.
During the course of the investigation, interviews were conducted, and records were reviewed. Investigation revealed inconsistent statements and information obtained did not present a preponderance of evidence to support or corroborate the allegations. The allegations are deemed unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted and a copy of this report along with Licensee Rights (LIC 9058 03/22) were provided to Administrator, Sheik Hafiz whose signature below confirms receipt of these rights. [See LIC 811 Confidential Names List to identify Resident #1 and Staff #1]
|