Complaint Investigation Report

On 12/20/2022, the LPA toured the facility, interviewed staff at 11:20 a.m., 11:24 a.m., and 11:44 a.m., and interviewed residents at 12:05 p.m., 12:10 p.m., 12:15 p.m. A file review was conducted at 12:40 p.m., and the LPA also observed lunch service provided to the residents.

Interviews with acquaintances of R1 took place on 12/30/2022 at 11:34 a.m., 2:18 p.m., 2:55 p.m., 3:10 p.m., and 3:33 p.m.; staff interviews took place on 12/30/2022 at 3:50 p.m., and on 1/3/2023 at 12:20 p.m., and a follow up interview with a hospice representative took place on 1/3/2023 at 12:32 p.m.

Regarding the allegation: Facility staff did not ensure safe keeping of resident's personal possessions.

It was alleged that the facility contacted the incorrect parties to retrieve R1’s personal possessions when R1 passed away. Information obtained from the complainant supported claims that R1’s belongings were picked up from a friend of R1. A review of facility records indicated that R1 did not have a Power of Attorney (POA) on file, and per the Identification and Emergency Information sheet on file for R1, R1 indicated three (3) ‘friends’ as persons to contact in the case of an emergency. The LPA also reviewed the Hospice Face Sheet, and there wasn’t a ‘next of kin’, authorized representative, nor emergency contact listed. Interviews were conducted with the persons listed on R1’s Identification and Emergency Information sheet on 12/30/2022 at 11:34 a.m., 2:55 p.m., and 3:10 p.m., and all parties denied claims that they were contacted regarding R1’s passing nor did the facility staff contact them to pick up R1’s belongings.

An interview conducted with R1’s family member on 12/2/2022 at 1:23 p.m. supported claims that despite all efforts, R1 was their own responsible party and noted that R1 denied assistance from their family. Staff interviews supported claims that R1 had a lot of ‘friends’ and commented that R1 had a number of friends whom visited the facility. Staff claimed were not clear on the relationship that R1 sustained with their family member(s) and commented that R1 had a sibling that they ‘did not talk about’. Upon R1’s passing, staff felt it was best to contact someone whom had visited R1 frequently. After further discussion regarding R1’s next of kin, staff alleged they did not have the contact information of R1’s family on file. A follow up interview with the Administrator on 12/30/2022 at 3:55 p.m. revealed that they had asked R1 whom they should contact in the case of an emergency, and the Administrator listed a name of someone who was not listed on R1’s Identification and Emergency Contact sheet. The Administrator alleged that they had documented this in a ‘separate book’ but was unable to state why they did not contact the person(s) listed on R1’s Identification and Emergency Contact sheet.