Complaint Investigation Report

Regarding the allegation: Staff failed to meet resident's incontinent needs and staff failed to meet resident's hygiene and grooming needs.

It was alleged that staff would leave Resident #1 (R1) soiled. A review of R1’s charting notes indicated that at times, R1 would not allow staff to assist with care. However, staff indicated that they would either ask another care staff for assistance, return at a later time to assist R1 when R1 was ready, and would ensure that they informed management and R1’s responsible party. Staff indicated that residents that required assistance with toileting were checked and changed at least every two (2) hours. Staff who provided care to R1 indicated that R1 would oftentimes refuse care and would act aggressively towards staff, but staff denied claims that R1 was ever left soiled. Staff also claimed that oftentimes, they had to use two (2) staff to provide care to R1, as R1 would oftentimes become aggressive when receiving care. Staff would also document the times in which R1 would refuse care. During the physical plant tour on 3/20/2023 and 7/26/2023, residents appeared well groomed. The LPA’s did not smell any odors nor did residents indicate that staff failed to meet their incontinent needs. Residents also denied claims that they had ever been left soiled for an extended period of time. The LPA attempted to reach out to R1’s family for additional information, but the LPA did not receive a response. Based on the information obtained, there is insufficient evidence to support the claim that staff failed to meet resident's incontinent needs or the claim that staff failed to meet resident's hygiene and grooming needs. These allegations are deemed Unsubstantiated at this time.

Regarding the allegation: Staff isolated resident in care

It was alleged that R1 had not left their room in ‘a long time’. During the physical plant tour on 3/20/2023 and 7/26/2023, the LPAs observed that many residents in the memory care unit were congregating in the common living room. Staff supported claims that they encouraged residents to leave their room for activities, but also respected if residents wanted to stay in their room for personal reasons. Staff stated that R1 would oftentimes opt to stay in the room, but also indicated that R1 was found to participate in certain communal activities. Residents did not indicate that they ever felt isolated in the community and stated that there were many activities to participate in. The LPA interviewed five (5) residents in the memory care unit, whom communicated no concerns and did not indicate that they were ever forced to stay in their room or were isolated from activities. Based on the information obtained, there is insufficient evidence to support the claim that staff isolated R1.This allegation is deemed Unsubstantiated at this time.