Complaint Investigation Report

For the allegation: facility staff denied resident visitors, and email exchange on 05/30/23 between ADM, W1, W3, and W4 indicates that W4 is in support of denying visitation for C1. C1 stated that he/she did not visit with W2 on 05/28/23. Per C1’s signed House Rules #11, dated 05/17/23, visitation is encouraged during visiting hours. W2 stated that when he/she first arrived at the facility on 05/28/23, an unknown staff member brought C1 to the door. Shortly after, another unknown staff member came to the door and said C1 was not allowed visitors…not any visitors. W2 was not offered any alternatives and left the facility. ADM stated that C1 was not denied visitation. W1 stated that he/she has visited C1 about two (2) times after the complaint was filed on 05/30/23, but the visits were supervised. LPA and ADM discussed the facility’s admission agreement, and methods of ensuring the safety of clients without limiting the personal rights of clients in care.

Based on LPA’s interviews conducted and record reviews, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation is found to be SUBSTANTIATED . California Code of Regulations (Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 8), is being cited on the attached LIC 9099D.

Failure to correct the deficiency and/or repeat deficiencies within a 12-month period may result in civil penalties.

Exit interview conducted. A copy of this report and appeal rights provided to ADM.