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 | Pg. 4
On 10/22/2024, at approximately 4:00 p.m., LPA Urena interviewed R1’s representative (POA). The POA stated that R1 suffers from dementia and is non-ambulatory. R1 was at risk of falling because R1 was frail, and because R1 still insisted on getting up on their own to use the commode. R1 was admitted to the facility on 01/13/2023. On 04/03/2023, R1 had their first fall, but was not witnessed by staff. Staff found R1 laying on the floor and was observed to have a skin tear on the face, consequently POA was informed of the fall and took R1 to the hospital to be checked out. POA stated that they spoke to the Administrator about getting someone to provide 1-to-1 caregiver for R1, because R1 could get up from the bed on their own if they felt that they needed to use the commode, but needed assistance and was at risking of falling. POA stated that the administrator and the POA worked out a deal for each to pay half of the cost for 1-to-1 caregiver. The 1-to-1 caregiver provided care for about five (5) to six (6) weeks, then the caregiver left. On 06/15/2023, R1 had a second fall, sustained a cut to the face and R1 complained that they could not stand up. R1 was taken to the hospital to be evaluated.
Record review of the physician’s report dated 12/06/2022 indicate that R1 had diagnosis of Cognitive Disorder and was non-ambulatory. Page 2)-Under section PHYSICAL HEALTH STATUS for motor impairment: It indicated that R1 had no motor impairments. Page 4) under section CAPACITY FOR SELF-CARE: “Observation recommended for safety”. Review of the R1’s Resident Appraisal (LIC603A) states under SERVICES NEEDED: Needs special observation/night supervision (due to confusion, forgetfulness, wondering) YES. LPA Urena reviewed discharge papers from the hospital dated 06/18/2023. The discharge papers indicated a diagnosis of ‘weakness of bilateral legs, fall, and glabellar laceration (area between the eyebrows and above the nose).
Based on the information gathered through interviews and record review, the information revealed that it was agreed between the administrator and the POA that R1 required a 1-to-1 caregiver due to R1’s risk of falling. Furthermore, the Physician’s report stated that “observation was recommended for safety”; and although it does not specify what type of safety, it clearly stated that “observation was recommended for safety”. R1 sustained a fall that required a two (2) day hospitalization. Therefore, the allegation is deemed Substantiated at this time. Pursuant to Title 22, California Code of Regulations (CCR), the following deficiency is cited (refer to LIC 9099-D).
Citations were issued. Exit interview was conducted. A copy of the report and Appeal Rights were issued.
|