The investigation into the allegation, staff did not provide documentation regarding resident in care to their responsible party as necessary, revealed the following. It was reported that the responsible party for R1 requested the shower records for R1 and they were not provided. The Executive Director and the Resident Care Coordinator reported that shower records are not kept for residents but they offered to call the Responsible Party each time R1 had a shower. The Responsible Party denied this report. The Responsible Party reported that no records were provided and staff only offered to give general status information about R1. There is no regulatory requirement to keep shower records and in the facility plan of operation there is no mention of keeping shower records for evidence. The information requested is not required to be provided by the facility, therefore the allegation is deemed the allegation is deemed unsubstantiated, although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is no preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur.

The investigation into the allegation, staff are badgering resident in care, revealed the following. It was reported that staff badger the resident to force R1 into wearing the Wanderguard. Reportedly staff will continue to badger the resident until they are compliant. R1 reported that staff have never badgered or spoken to residents inappropriately. Eight (8) out of 8 staff members deny badgering R1 or speaking to them inappropriately. No names or dates were provided as to who and when this badgering took place. The Executive Director reported that speaking inappropriately or badgering a resident would not be tolerated. The Executive Director reported that there have been no reported incidents regarding this type of behavior. None of the evidence gathered supports the allegation.

The investigation into the allegation, staff are coercing resident in care, revealed the following. It was reported that the staff are forcing R1 to wear a wanderguard against their will. Staff reported that because R1 has been diagnosed with Dementia it is facility policy that R1 wear the wanderguard, so the staff know when they exit the building. R1 reported they do not want to wear the wanderguard and they only sit outside the front of the facility and don’t leave the property. R1 reported they have told staff they don’t want to wear the wanderguard, but they insist they wear it for safety reasons and said they must wear it. Six (6) out of 6 caregivers interviewed reported that anyone diagnosed with Dementia must wear the wanderguard and that they have told R1 that they must do it for safety reasons. Two (2) out of 6 caregivers reported that they told R1 they must wear the wanderguard because they have to, without providing an explanation. R1’s responsible party reported that they do not want R1 to wear the wanderguard and stated they never approved it. The Executive Director reported that the facility policy is that every resident diagnosed with Dementia must wear the Wanderguard. A review of records shows that the R1 previously signed a form agreeing to wearing the Wanderguard. However R1 has since changed their mind and no longer wants to wear the Wanderguard. Facility staff continue to tell R1 he must wear it. The preponderance of evidence standard has been met therefore the allegation is substantiated.

Deficiencies are being cited per Title 22, Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). An exit interview was conducted and a copy of the report provided along with appeal rights.