Complaint Investigation Report

**This report is amended to include details and reasoning for a substantiated finding, rather than an unsubstantiated finding, meaning that the evidence collected suggests, more likely than not, that the facility failed to provide timely medical treatment to a client in care.**

Additionally in record review of the DPOA agreement from the time of the incident, the DPoA was not signed by a doctor indicating it was active. DPOA should not be presumed active, and needs a doctors written order following an assessment of the client to become active. PIN 25-07ASC AUTHORITY OF CONSERVATORS AND AGENTS UNDER POWERS OF ATTORNEY RELATED TO CLIENTS’ RIGHTS and PIN 25-06 ASC CALLING 9-1-1 IN RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES FOR THE ELDERLY (RCFE) were provided during todays visit as reference.

Based on LPAs observations and interviews which were conducted and record review(s), the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation(s) is found to be SUBSTANTIATED. California Code of Regulations is being cited on the seperately attached 9099, LIC 9099D.

Licensee expressed that the is a Dr's Note that would explain the DPOA being estaablished, and that the facility did act appropriately in supplying timely medical attention, such as with offering medical transport assistance, and were it not for the DPOA's resistance to the care, would have reached an outcome where timely medical attention was delivered.

A copy of the report was read and given to the administrator, a copy of the appeal rights were provided. an exit interview conducted.