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 interviewed Witness #1 (W1) over the phone. LPA also obtained documents from R1’s file such as the face sheet, Physician’s Report, Medical Notes, and other pertinent documents. LPA also obtained staff training and other pertinent documents.
On 4/1/2026, LPA Konishi emailed the Executive Director, Associate Executive Director and obtained pertinent documents.
During today's visit the investigation revealed the following: LPA interviewed the Executive Director and Associate Executive Director.
The investigation revealed the following in regards to the allegation: “Staff did not properly report an incident involving a resident.” It is alleged that R1’s responsible party was informed by staff on 2/26/2026, which is two days after R1 sustained an injury that occurred on 2/24/2026. LPA interviewed ten out of twelve residents denied the allegations stating that incidents are immediately notified their families and doctors. LPA attempted to interview two (2) out of twelve residents but LPA was unable to interview those two (2) residents since they were unable to answer the questions. LPA interviewed five (5) staff that could not corroborate nor deny the allegation since they are not involved in notifying the incident that occurred on 2/04/2026 to appropriate parties. LPA interviewed the Executive Director, Associate Executive Director, and an additional five (5) staff that denied the allegation stating that the that the injury of a scratch and discoloration near R1’s right eye was notified to R1’s responsible party on 2/25/2026. LPA obtained a documented exchange of communication dated 2/25/2026 between R1’s responsible party and the facility staff regarding the incident. However, the facility failed to notify licensing since there was no special incident report (SIR) sent from the facility to the department of R1’s eye injury. LPA obtained progress notes dated 02/25/2026 which document R1’s eye injury. Facility did not take pictures of R1’s injury nor was there any documentation completed by facility staff indicating that a body assessment was completed for R1 after noticing this injury. The Executive Director, Associate Executive Director and one (1) out of ten staff also stated that the SIR was not sent to licensing since the Associate Executive Director claimed that the severity of the injury was minimal. However, facility staff felt it was severe enough to notify R1’s responsible party.
|