Complaint Investigation Report

During the interviews with staff, Staff 1 (S1) reported that the program offers all the services that are advertised. Per S1, the services depend on the clients' needs.

Regarding the allegation that staff did not allow resident access to a telephone , the following was revealed: During the investigation LPA reviewed the Client Personal Rights. Per Client Personal Rights, it states a right to access to telephone, to make and receive confidential calls. During the interviews with clients, C1 reported that he has access to the telephone during certain periods of the day. C3 stated that he has access to the telephone. During the interviews with staff, S1 reported that the clients are allowed to make calls throughout the day. Per S1, C4 would use the facility iPhone to call her husband.

Regarding the allegation that s taff did not accord resident privacy during telephone calls, the following was revealed: During the investigation LPA reviewed the Client Personal Rights. Per Client Personal Rights, it states a right to be treated with dignity, to have privacy and to be given humane care. During the interviews with clients, C1 reported that he has to use the landline telephone in the staff's office. C3 stated that when he uses the office telephone that staff can hear his conversation. During the interviews with staff, S1 reported that the clients can use the telephone anywhere private within the facility.

Regarding the allegation that staff spoke to resident in an inappropriate manner, the following was revealed: During the interviews with clients, C1 reported that staff have never spoke to him in an inappropriate manner. Per C3, staff have not spoken to him in an inappropriate manner. During the interviews with staff, S1 reported staff have never spoken to the clients in an inappropriate manner. S1 stated that staff are professional.

Based on the information gathered during the investigation and review of documents obtained, LPA is unable to ascertain if the allegations occurred as reported due to conflicting information. Although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove or refute the alleged violations occurred; therefore, these allegations are deemed UNSUBSTANTIATED.

For today’s visit, there were no citations issued per Title 22, Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations.

LPA conducted an exit interview with Program Director Hernandez Lazaro, and a copy of this report was provided to the facility.