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 | Allegation were made that staff are not assisting residents with incontinence care in a timely manner. The investigation included observations, a review of records and interviews with residents and staff. On 10/12/2024, LPA Lee observed a caregiver assisting a resident with incontinence care the resident stated no concerns. LPA Lee reviewed three residents Task Logs, which included incontinence care for the month of August 2024, September 2024 and October 2024 and it was complete. It was also learned that each resident has an individual schedule but are usually checked and changed two to three times per shift. LPA Lee interviewed all 7 residents, none of whom expressed concerns regarding staff assistance for incontinence. Furthermore, resident 1 (R1) had no concerns with staff not assisting R1 with incontinence needs in a timely manner. Additionally, all 3 facility staff members denied the allegations. Based on the interviews and evidence gathered during the investigation, LPA Lee was unable to corroborate the allegation that staff are not assisting residents with incontinence care in a timely manner.
Allegation were made that staff are not providing meals to residents. The investigation included observations, interviews with residents and staff. Based on observation on 10/13/2024, LPAs Lee and Pascua observed a caregiver bring lunch to residents in his/her room. It was also learned that for those residents that can’t go to the dining room for meals the facility staff will make a room service order and deliver the meals to the residents. LPA Lee interviewed all 7 residents, none of whom expressed concerns about staff failing to provide meals. Additionally, all 3 facility staff members denied the allegations. Based on the interviews and evidence gathered during the investigation, LPA Lee was unable to corroborate the allegations that staff are not providing meals to residents.
Allegation were made that staff are not responding to call lights in a timely manner. The investigation included a review of records and interviews with residents and staff. The records showed that response times vary by situation, with an average response ranging from 22 seconds to 57 minutes after the call buttons are pushed. Additionally, the E-Call system log indicated that R1’s calls were responded to within 22 seconds to 30 minutes. LPA Lee interviewed 6 out of 7 residents, none of whom expressed concerns about the timeliness of staff responses to call lights. Residents noted that staff makes a good effort to answer calls promptly. It was also learned that sometimes care staff forget to clear the resident’s call pendant while attending to their needs. LPA Lee interviewed all 3 facility staff members, who denied the allegations. Based on the interviews and evidence gathered during the investigation, LPA Lee was unable to corroborate the allegation that staff are not responding to call lights in a timely manner.
The investigation revealed the preponderance of evidence standards have not been met; therefore, the above allegations are found to be UNSUBSTANTIATED. A finding that the complaint allegations are UNSUBSTANTIATED means that although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violation(s)occurred.
|