Complaint Investigation Report

LPAs observed a white and black device, approximately four inches in length, mounted on a wall in R1’s bedroom. Interview with Staff #1 (S1) reported the facility requested family approval prior to installing a motion sensor device in the selected resident bedrooms. During a tour of R1’s bedroom, LPA observed the motion sensor device angled towards R1’s sleeping area. LPA Flores was granted access to the device’s notification system and discovered that the device did not capture audio or video footage. When activated, the device sends a notification to the tablet on what resident bedroom detected movement. Interview with S1 reports that the motion sensor is calibrated to identify the resident by weight and height. LPA inquired if consent records were obtained for the motion sensor device for R1. An interview conducted with S1 reported that S1 contacted R1’s responsible party to gain consent to install the motion sensor device in R1’s bedroom. S1 provided LPA Flores with their cellphone to view the text message chain. A text message sent to R1’s responsible party on 01/16/2026 by S1 revealed that S1 contacted R1’s responsible party requesting permission to install a sensor in R1’s bedroom. R1’s responsible party responded to the text messages agreeing to the installation of the motion sensor. LPA verified the text messages validity by comparing the telephone number from the text messages to R1’s responsible party telephone number listed on file. Additional interviews conducted with R1’s responsible party reported during a visit to the facility on 06/10/2026, R1’s responsible party learned that the device was a motion sensor device. R1’s responsible party reported that staff did not demonstrate how the motion detectors operate. R1’s responsible party reports that they did not recall the text exchange occurring. R1’s responsible party reports that there is a possibility prior text message exchanges were deleted with S1 and could not verify if prior authorization was given to install the sensors. LPA attempted to interview R1; due to R1’s cognitive ability, the interview attempt was unsuccessful.

Information received alleged staff placed a tag alarm on R1 in an inconvenient place. An interview conducted with R1’s responsible party reported that during a visit with R1, R1 was observed to have a clip on the collar of their sweater along with a “garage remote” sized device clipped on the mid-left side of R1’s back. R1’s responsible party reports that the alarm was placed in a location where it may cause potential harm to R1 if R1 fell backwards and landed on the alarm.