Complaint Investigation Report

The caregiver stated that the caregiver was busy and "could not accommodate" a visit. The Ombudsman wasn't allowed to visit the facility and the Ombudsman left the premises. S1 informed LPA that the Ombudsmans did arrive requesting to be let in. S1 informed the Ombudsman that S1 could not leave S1's post and asked if the Ombudsman to allow 15 to 20 minutes, to which the Ombudsman agreed. S1 stated that the Ombudsman initially agreed to wait. After about 10 minutes minutes the Ombudsman asked again to be let in. S1 asked to Ombudsman if wait the agreed upon 15 minutes to which the Ombudsman said “I do not need you to follow me around.”. S1 stated the Ombudsman did speak to R1 outside of the facility, and then left. The Ombudsman was did not speak to R2. Based on interviews, the Ombudsman was not granted access to the facility to visit with residents, therefore this allegation is SUBSTANTIATED.

Based on information obtained during investigation, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met; therefore, the above allegation is found to be SUBSTANTIATED.

Deficiency is cited from Title 22 California Code of Regulations (see LIC9099D). Failure to submit proof of correction by plan of correction due date and any repeat violation within 12 month period may result in an additional civil penalty.

Deficiency and plan and proof of correction were discussed with Administrator Yolanda French

Exit interview conducted, Appeal Rights, and a copy of this report provided.