Complaint Investigation Report

Upon review of the eviction notice, it was determined that additional information was required to bring notice into compliance. As a result, facility rescinded the notice and re-issued a revised notice on 4-21-2026 which met regulatory requirements. Based on additional review, there was no evidence of any additional attempts to evict resident in an unlawful manner. As a result, the preponderance of evidence standard is not met, and this allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED.

Allegation: Staff do not provide residents with medication as prescribed. LPA conducted interviews and record reviews as noted above. Medication logs from January to March 2026 were reviewed. Based on these reviews and interviews, it was revealed that R1 has been receiving medication as indicated in the medication logs and accompanying orders. A specific medication order for Parkinson’s disease was noted to be given at the specific times of 8am, 12pm, 4pm, 8pm, and 10pm (bedtime). Medication log sheets indicate these times noted and medication dispensed at these times. Investigation did not reveal any additional evidence of staff not providing residents with medication as prescribed. As a result, the preponderance of evidence standard is not met, and this allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED.

Allegation: Staff did not provide resident’s responsible party with requested records/logs. LPA conducted interviews and record reviews as noted above. Based on these reviews and interviews, it was revealed that Administrator and staff6 (S6) received information of the records request on 4-1-2026. Investigation also revealed that on 4-2-2026, an email was sent to the individual requesting records to inquire as to which specific records were requested, however, a response was not received by facility. Interviews conducted did not reveal additional specific dates of requested records. As a result, the preponderance of evidence standard is not met, and this allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED.

Allegation: Staff did not safeguard resident’s belongings. LPA conducted interviews and record reviews as noted above. Based on interviews and record reviews it was revealed that a video recording device was placed in the room of R1 without staff knowledge. Interviews further revealed that when discovered, the device was unplugged due to lack of proper signage informing others of a camera in use. Additionally, it was further revealed that the device remained in the room. Inventory sheet reviewed did not indicate any belongings of this sort inventoried. No additional evidence revealed that the device was not safeguarded properly. As a result, the preponderance of evidence standard is not met, and this allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED.