Complaint Investigation Report

and Record of Client's Safeguarded Cash Resources (2021/2022) for Client #1 (C1); facility's staff and clients' rosters, Activities Calendar/Packet, monthly Menu for Cycles #1, #2, #3, #4; Photographs of Catered Meals.

Regarding Allegation #1 this investigation revealed that the facility had catered all their meals and snacks, effective March 2020 thru October 2022 due to the situation surrounding the COVID-19 disease. LPA/RA Ceniceros toured the commercial-size kitchen and observed today's dinner meal being prepared - which included: spaghetti and meatballs, tossed-green salad, garlic bread, fruit, dessert, and coffee/juice/water. Interviews conducted with C2 - C3 corroborated that they are offered three (3) meals a day and two (2) snacks per day. Administrator stated that when the clients are in attendance at their adult day program (Monday thru Friday 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.), breakfast and lunch is served at program. Clients confirmed that they enjoyed the catered food and meals provided at the facility. Staff members interviewed confirmed that the clients are offered three (3) meals per day and two (2) snacks per day and have not received complaints regarding the food not being of quality or quantity. LPA/RA Ceniceros observed a sufficient food supply of 7-days of perishables and non-perishables to meet the needs of 25 clients. LPA/RA also observed photographs of the catered meals delivered from a company called Health Guard which is a participant of the Mayfair Adult Daycare Program.

Based on the evidence gathered and interviews conducted and records reviewed, although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur; therefore, the allegation of FOOD SERVICE: Facility is not providing food of the quality or quantity necessary to meet client's needs is found to be UNSUBSTANTIATED.

Regarding Allegation #2 : this investigation revealed based on interviews conducted corroborated that Client #1 has a Conservator appointed by the L.A. County Superior Court of California, effective 07/21/16. A review of the client's court documents named Client #1's father as the power of attorney; therefore, no other next of kin was named in the client's facility records as a responsible or contact person. A review of Client #1's Identification and Emergency Information (dated 02/05/15) documented the person responsible to be the next of kin: Father. Administrator confirmed that once Client #1 had an appointee of Conservator it became the payee for the client; however, the facility did maintain the client's P & I funds. (LPA/RA Ceniceros reviewed Client #1's safeguarded cash resources for the year of 2021/2022 until C1 moved out on 04/01/22.