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 | LPA conducted interviews with three (3) staff members, all of whom stated that R1's dog arrived about 1 week after R1's admission. All staff member interviewed stated that R1 never took the dog outside for daily walks. R1's room that was shared with a roommate was filled with the dog's waste which created health and safety concerns for R1 and the roommate. The previous administrator, Heather Scott, contacted R1's responsible person (RP) regarding the issue with R1's dog. RP discussed the issue with R1, and R1 agreed to send the dog to people who could take care. Two (2) out of three (3) staff members interviewed stated that R1 was in the room when the dog was picked up, and R1 knew whom they were. LPA conducted an interview with RP, who corroborated the statements from the staff members interviewed.
Based on interviews conducted and records review, the evidence found during the investigation did not meet the preponderance of evidence standard. Therefore, this allegation is unsubstantiated at this time.
It was alleged that staff did not safeguard resident’s personal belongings. Information received indicated that Resident #1's (R1) dog was taken by strangers because staff allowed the strangers enter R1's room. Interviews conducted by LPA revealed that R1 already knew that the dog was to be sent out to a place where the dog would be taken care of. R1 was in the room when the dog was picked up. Based on interviews conducted and records review, the evidence found during the investigation did not meet the preponderance of evidence standard. Therefore, this allegation is unsubstantiated at this time.
A finding that the complaint is UNSUBSTANTIATED means the allegation may have happened or is valid, but there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred.
An exit interview was conducted where a copy of this report was provided. |