Complaint Investigation Report

Sonnet Hill, San Jose06/22/2022Licence 435202780

Census17
Date signed06/22/2022 04:45:50 PM
The inspector’s account

RP1 states that the facility did not provide an admission agreement for R1 when R1 was first being admitted into the facility. RP1 states that the only document that the facility had RP1 sign was the Reservation Agreement, which is dated 07/30/2021. The Reservation Agreement states that R1’s monthly charge does not include incontinence care and support product. It states the amount charged for the incontinence care and support product will be determined by the service plan at the time of physical occupancy of the living unit.

R1’s Physician’s Report (LIC 602) dated 09/28/2021 states R1 has bowel and bladder impairment and has incontinence.

R1’s Sonnet Hill Resident Evaluation form dated 10/05/2021 indicates that R1, “requires full assistance to manage continence; is routinely incontinent of bowel/bladder, requires regular cleaning and changing of undergarments and bedding.” During interview, staff S1 stated that RP1 was present with S1 during R1’s assessment at another facility. S1 stated RP1 was provided with a copy of the assessment during the care plan meeting.

R1’s Appraisal/Needs and Services Plan indicates R1’s move-in date is 10/05/2021.

During interview, Administrator (ADM) stated to have mistakenly given RP1 the original admission agreement because RP1 stated to have wanted to review the admission agreement closely. ADM states to have asked RP1 to return the Admission Agreement, but RP1 never returned it.

In email correspondences, ADM told RP1 that RP1 had taken the original Admission Agreement and it was never returned. RP1 responded to ADM that RP1 only had a copy and did not take the original. ADM stated to RP1 that the facility has taken accountability for not addressing the incontinence care in the initial contract and is willing to absorb the loss for the two months of October and November 2021. ADM stated the facility would like to begin charging RP1 for incontinence care going forward, to which RP1 responded that RP1 did not agree to the extra charge.

See LIC9099-C for more information. Page 2 of 3.

Source: California Department of Social Services, Community Care Licensing. Methodology · Report a correction