1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32 | or answering any questions. The reporting party was unable to identify the name of R1, S1, or any witnesses to confirm these allegations.
Interviews with the administrator and staff deny the allegation. Both stated on the night of 01/19/26, R1 was experiencing some weakness and confusion. R1 was also unable to speak and was hard to understand. R1 was receiving hospice care, and the administrator proceeded to give hospice a call to advise them of these symptoms. When hospice advised administrator to call for immediate medical attention, as these symptoms appear to be an indication of a stroke, the administrator called 911, and R1 was taken to the hospital. R1's family notified. R1 stayed at the hospital for two days, and was discharged back to the facility with comfort measures. R1 has a DNR on file, and expired at the facility on 02/07/26. In addition to interviews with administrator and staff, a call was made to the hospice agency and R1's family. Both confirmed statements made by the administrator. R1's family deny any allegation of neglect and lack of supervision. Interviews with the three residents also deny allegation, stating their needs are met. LPA obtained copies of resident records, including the incident and death reports for R1, revealing consistent information provided by the administrator.
Based on the department’s observations, interviews, and record review which were conducted, there was insufficient evidence to prove that Staff did provide medical care in a timely manner. Therefore the allegation is deemed unsubstantiated at this time.
Regarding allegation: Staff left resident in soiled diaper for an extended amount of time, it was reported that when the Mobile Stroke Unit replied to a call on or around 02/02/2026, R1 was soiled in a diaper that evidently had not been addressed in over a day. No witnesses were identified to corroborate the allegation made by the reporting party. Interviews with both administrator and staff deny the allegation, stating R1 was dry and had not urinated on self when paramedics were called on 01/19/26. During admission at the hospital, admitting doctors and nurses there did not address any concerns of R1 arriving in soiled clothing. Moreover, paramedics made no mention of R1 being soiled in their clothing when arrived for treatment. Interviews with three residents deny any allegations of needs not being met, and are satisfied with care and supervision provided.
Based on the department’s observations, interviews, and record review which were conducted, there was
|