Complaint Investigation Report

The investigation revealed the following: In regards to the allegation that "Staff did not transport resident to scheduled medical appointments," it is alleged that C1's physician recommended eye surgery in December of 2023, however C1 was not transported to their medical appointments until January of 2024, but by this time it was too late because C1 had lost vision in the eye. During interviews with the clients, zero (0) out of four (4) could not corroborate the allegation that they have not been receiving transportation to their medical appointments. LPA interviewed C1, however LPA was not able to obtain any information related to the allegation. During interviews with the staff, zero (0) out of four (4) interviewed did not corroborate that they did not transport residents to their scheduled medical appointments. During the interview with S1, they explained that the staff were transporting C1 to all of their medical appointments, however there was a delay in C1 obtaining the eye surgery because C1 required a prior authorization through their medical insurance to stay in a Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) for after care. S1 explained that the prior authorization was required because the facility was not equipped to handle the after care for C1. S1 also explained that there was delay on C1 obtaining the authorization because there was some miscommmunication between the East Los Angeles Regional Center (ELARC) service coordinator of C1 and C1's conservator regarding who was responsible for initiating the authorization. On 3/15/2024 C1 along with their conservator had a follow up appointment with C1's ophthalmologist, and during this appointment the physician recommended that C1 should not have the eye surgery due to the possibility of getting an infection due to their behaviors. During review of the record of medical conversations with C1's ophthalmologist, it is documented that C1's conservator agreed during the appointment on 3/15/2024 that C1 should not have their eye surgery due to the risks involved.

Based on statements and interviews conducted with staff, clients, review of client files and facility file records, there was not enough supportive evidence to concur with the reported allegations. Although the allegations 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 .

Exit interview held, and a copy of this report was provided.