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 | Based on interview with R1, R1 denied ever being left soiled while in care of the facility.
4 staff members were interviewed. Based on staff interview, it was stated that staff check on the residents and change their undergarments as needed or as often as 1-2 hours to ensure the residents are kept dry and comfortable. 4 out of 4 staff denied the observation of a resident who was left soiled for an extended period of time. 4 out of 4 staff denied the observation of R1 left soiled. 4 out of 4 staff states that they will always assist residents if they know and observe that they are soiled.
It was alleged that staff do not ensure resident (R1)’s toilet is being flushed.
6 residents were interviewed. Based on resident interview, it was stated that if the resident is able toilet on their own, then the resident would flush their own toilet. Based on interview with R1, R1 states that he/she is capable of using the toilet on his/her own and flushes his/her own toilet after use. Another resident (R2) stated that sometimes the resident or staff would forget to the flush the toilet after use, however, if it’s brought to the staff or resident’s attention the toilet would get flushed.
On 05/29/2025, LPA interviewed 6 residents inside their apartments. 5 out of 6 of the resident’s toilets were observed flushed. 1 out of 6 residents toilets was not flushed and contained urine and toilet paper, however this resident is independent with toileting. No foul orders observed.
4 staff members were interviewed. Based on staff interview, R1 usually flushes his/her own toilet. 4 out of 4 staff members stated that if staff were to observe that a resident’s toilet is not flushed, then staff would assist in flushing the toilet.
The Department has investigated the above allegations. Based on interview, record review and observation the above allegations are unsubstantiated. An unsubstantiated finding indicates that although the allegations may have happened and/or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur. No deficiencies were cited per California Code of Regulations, Title 22. This report was reviewed with Kippie Castronovo and a copy of the report was provided. Page 4 of 4. |