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 LIC9099...
Review of Pest Control reports indicated that a third-party pest control has been visiting regularly due to reports of ants. Interview with exterminator indicated that all affected areas had been treated and no new areas had been observed, however, exterminator was still making regular visits. Interview with staff (S1, S2) indicated that they had observed ants and would report them to management as per facility policy.
Staff did not ensure resident's finances were safeguard from visitors – Reporting Party (RP) alleges that the facility allowed resident (R1) to receive visitors with a history of financial abuse without documenting the visit. Interview with R1 responsible party indicated that there was no restraining order or other court ordered action that would prevent R1 from receiving certain visitors, however, these visitors did have a history of theft in regard to R1’s finances. Responsible party also indicated that they have no knowledge of this occurring at this facility but it might have happened. Title 22 87468.1(a)(11) ensures a resident’s rights to a private meeting with their visitors. Management team indicated that visitors are not barred from the facility unless there is a court order, or if the resident states they do not want to meet with the visitor.
Staff do not provide resident adequate food service – Reporting Party (RP) alleges that facility is not encouraging resident (R1) to eat. Interviews with management indicated that care partners/MedTech’s are responsible for dining services in Memory Care. Staff will prompt residents to eat or provide full eating assistance, depending on care plan, and that alternate foods to suit taste will be offered upon refusal to eat. Should refusals continue, an assessment will be conducted to determine if there is an underlying cause. Management also indicated that R1 had their own schedule and would often have meals delivered to them instead of eating in the dining room. Interview with staff (S1) indicated that R1 would occasionally not want to eat at mealtimes and would have food prepared for them at different times, but this was not often. S1 also indicated that staff do not force food upon residents and would listen to their refusals and report them to management.
Although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur, therefore the allegations are unsubstantiated.
No deficiencies cited. Exit interview conducted with Regional Director of Operation, whose signature on form confirms receipt.
|