Complaint Investigation Report

Interviews with staff revealed that staff unanimously stated they did not issue an eviction notice to R1. Staff 1 (S1) and Staff 2 (S2) stated that the facility had not refused R1’s return and stated that R1 could not initially return due to the SNF orders indicating daily wound care requirements; exceeding the facility’s licensed scope of care. Staff documented reassessments of R1 to find reasonable accommodations for the resident to return to the facility with the help of outside agencies in order to remain in compliance.

Interviews with Outside Sources revealed that Outside Source 1 (OS1) believed facility staff were delaying R1’s return and questioned whether concerns about past refusals of care influenced the facility’s decision-making. OS1 stated that they did not think the wound care orders were a requirement for R1 to return. The LPA asked OS1 if R1 was currently receiving wound care to which they confirmed that R1 was receiving those services at the SNF.

Records review revealed that R1 required a higher level of daily wound care than the facility could provide per the SNF physician's orders. Review of email correspondences between the facility and R1's family demonstrated clear communication of the circumstances in which R1 would/would not be able to return to the facility. This corroborates staff interviews stating they did not refuse the return of R1 outside the scope of their responsibilities.

Based on interviews and records review, a preponderance of evidence does not exist to prove that the alleged violation occurred, therefore the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. An exit interview was conducted with Resident Services Director Pam Talamantes, to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided.