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 | Page 2 of 2.
Facility staff did not administer resident's medication as prescribed by physician.
It was alleged that resident R1 was not being administered Medication #1 as prescribed by physician.
On 3/19/2025, the Department interviewed 2 staff (S1-S2). S2 stated R1 did not have physician’s order for facility to administer Medication #1, which was not a routine medication but as need (PRN) medication. S2 stated the Hospice RN was able to administer the medication but they only had orders signed by a nurse and not a physician. S2 stated Hospice agency was aware of this and they would administer the medication #1 as it was a PRN medication.
On 3/19/2025, the Department interviewed 2 residents (R1-R2). Two out of two residents were not able to answer the questions requested at the time of the visit.
On 3/19/2025, the Department interviewed 1 witness (W1). W1 stated that they did not see or hear any issues with facility staff not administering medications to the residents.
Based on review of resident R1’s file, R1’s Hospice medication orders for Medication #1 was signed by a nurse and not a physician. Based on review of R1’s hospice visit log, R1’s nurse stated medication #1 order, but order was signed by nurse and not physician.
Facility staff installed a security camera in resident's room without resident's consent.
On 3/19/2025, the Department interviewed 2 staff (S1-S2). Two out of two staff stated resident’s responsible party was aware of security camera and signed consent forms to have camera in resident’s room.
On 3/19/2025, the Department interviewed 2 residents (R1-R2). Two out of two residents were not able to answer the questions requested at the time of the visit.
Based on review of resident R1’s Admission Agreement, page 35 out of 36, R1’s responsible party signed to have non-recording video monitors in the resident’s living space.
The Department has completed the investigation of the above allegations. Based on interviews conducted and record reviews, the department has found that the above allegations were UNFOUNDED, meaning that the allegations were false, could not have happened and/or are without a reasonable basis.
No deficiencies cited from California Code of Regulations, Title 22. Exit interview conducted with Administrator and a copy of the report was provided. |