The investigation into this allegation consisted of interviews with facility staff, record review of resident (R1)’s records, and observed R1’s room and condition.

In another interview, staff said that R1 had bottled water available at all times, received toileting checks every two to three hours, and showered after soiling themselves. In this same interview, staff reported that law enforcement inspected R1’s room, spoke with R1 and found no signs of dehydration or neglect. Staff also stated the Ombudsman visited and confirmed that R1’s condition and care were appropriate.

Record review showed consistent documentation of bowel movements, two-hour checks, and toileting assistance. Physician’s Report and Resident Assessment confirmed R1 requires assistance with toileting and regular status checks. LPA Valerio’s observation on 10/31/25 found R1 clean, groomed, and living environment odor-free and hazard-free.

{2}

The investigation into this allegation consisted of interviews and record reviews.

The former Administrator said the facility sometimes limited visits based on instructions from R1’s Power of Attorney (POA). The POA asked the facility to restrict certain visitors from going into R1’s room, including some R1’s friends. The Administrator said the facility only followed the POA’s directions and did not create its own restrictions.

Per interview with POA, which POA confirmed that for the safety of R1, POA restricted some individuals to visit R1 after the incident of trying to have R1 sign a document and R1 was unable to fully comprehend what they were signing.

Evidence shows the facility allowed R1 to have visitors. The changes to R1’s visitation procedures were made based on the POA’s request for R1’s safety, not because facility tried to interfere with visitation. Therefore, the allegation that staff interfered with the resident’s visitations were unsubstantiated.

The investigation into this allegation consisted of interviews and record reviews.

According to the former administrator, R1 did not have their own phone because the POA asked the facility to limit phone access because the POA was worried that phone calls made R1’s confused or upset. The administrator said that the facility followed the POA’s instructions and did not limit phone access to R1.

According to the former memory care director, the POA had given R1 a phone but R1 dropped it into the toilet twice and broke it. The POA talked about installing a landline but did not happen.

Alternatively, the facility can accommodate phone calls for residents. R1 could still receive calls. According to interviews, med techs are supplied with their own cellphones to be used while on duty. When a person calls for R1, the front desk would route the call to a med tech’s cellphone and give the phone to R1. On the other hand, interviews also revealed that if R1 needs to make a phone call, the med techs can provide their cellphone to R1 to use.

According to POA’s knowledge, the facility staff did not restrict R1 from receiving or making phone calls.

Record review of the Power of Attorney documents showed R1’s POA authority was properly assigned.

Based on the available information that were collected, there is insufficient evidence that the facility staff restricted R1’s telephone services. Therefore, this allegation was unsubstantiated.

Note that a finding that was unsubstantiated means that although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred.

No deficiencies were cited from today’s visit. Exit interview was conducted with Erica Diala. A copy of this report and the appeal rights were provided.