Complaint Investigation Report

The investigation revealed the following. Regarding Allegation(s): Staff hit resident multiple times - It is alleged staff hit C1 multiple times. Three (3) out of the three (3) staff deny this allegation. Two (2) out of the two (2) clients interviewed deny this allegation. Due to two (2) out of the six (6) clients being non-verbal and lacking cognitive abilities, LPA Ramirez was unable to interview clients. C4 declined to be interviewed. Since June 2024, C1 relocated from the facility and was unable to be interviewed. LPA Ramirez attempted to contact C1’s responsible party, but request for a callback was not met. LPA Ramirez reviewed C1 file and did not observe any documenting C1 required medical attention for unexplained injuries. LPA Ramirez reviewed C1’s IPP and it revealed C1 has a history of making false accusations. Although the allegation 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.

Staff did not assist in helping resident after multiple falls- It is alleged staff would not assist C1 when C1 would have a fall. Three (3) out of the three (3) staff deny this allegation. Interviews with staff revealed C1, had difficulty walking and would sometimes lose a step but denied C1 would have constant falls. Two (2) out of the two (2) clients interviewed deny this allegation. Due to two (2) out of the six (6) clients being non-verbal and lacking cognitive abilities, LPA Ramirez was unable to interview clients. C4 declined to be interviewed. Since June 2024, C1 relocated from the facility and was unable to be interviewed. LPA Ramirez attempted to contact C1’s responsible party, but request for a callback was not met. During records reviewed, LPA Ramirez did not observe documentation that indicated C1 received medical attention for multiple falls from April 2024 through June 2024. Although the allegation 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.

Staff did not notify residents representatives of incidents- It is alleged staff did not notify C1’s representatives about C1’s falls. Three (3) out of the three (3) staff deny this allegation. Interviews with staff revealed C1, had difficulty walking and would sometimes lose a step but denied C1 would have constant falls. Two (2) out of the two (2) clients interviewed deny this allegation. Due to two (2) out of the six (6) clients being non-verbal and lacking cognitive abilities, LPA Ramirez was unable to interview clients. C4 declined to be interviewed. Since June 2024, C1 relocated from the facility and was unable to be interviewed. LPA Ramirez attempted to contact C1’s responsible party, but request for a callback was not met. According to staff interviews, staff would notify C1’s responsible party via telephone whenever C1 received medical attention or was feeling ill. Although the allegation 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 were cited during this investigation complaint. Exit interview was conducted. A copy of this report was provided.