Complaint Investigation Report

Interview with Witness #3 indicated that R1 did have a roommate but changing the resident was not a part of W3’s scope of work. W3 indicated that W3 was not present at the facility while R1 was changed. S1 indicated staff cover R1 by standing on the side of the bed to block him. The roommate is just looking at the TV. S1 indicated that the unknown adult could have been S1’s husband’s son in training but he left the room. On 03/28/25 around 1:30 PM, S1 clarified that the husband’s son was only visiting the facility and accidently went towards the room to say hello. S1 indicated that S1 immediately redirected the son because he was unaware that R1 was being changed. Interview with Staff #2 (S2) indicated the door is closed and the roommate watches TV while the resident is being changed. Two out of two resident interviews indicated they receive privacy during changes. LPA Cloyd did not observe a divider for shared bedrooms.

Regarding the allegation "Resident was not accorded with privacy,” based on interviews, the preponderance of evidence has been met therefore the allegation is Substantiated.

Deficiencies were issued. An exit interview was conducted and plans of correction developed. A copy of this report, and appeals rights was reviewed and left with the Administrator Antonia Dionisio.