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 | contact the facility regarding R1's return. Facility staff informed the hospital that only the administrator could approve R1's return and that the administrator was out of the country. Hospital staff were unable to reach the administrator and were also unable to leave messages for the manager because voicemail had not been set up.
During an interview, AD Mirabueno confirmed that she was outside of the country at the time and acknowledged that she did not have a designated substitute administrator available to make decisions in her absence. AD Mirabueno stated that she wanted to consult with a physician regarding R1's behaviors before approving their return to the facility. R1 remained hospitalized until they were readmitted to the facility on June 7, 2026. AD Mirabueno also confirmed that R1 had not been evicted and remained a resident of the facility.
Based on records reviewed and statements obtained during the investigation, the Department determined that the administrator failed to ensure adequate administrative coverage during her absence. As a result, no designated person was available to make decisions on behalf of the facility, which delayed R1's discharge from the hospital and return to the facility.
Therefore, the allegation that staff abandoned the resident at the hospital is determined to be SUBSTANTIATED, meaning the allegation is valid because the preponderance of evidence standard has been met.
Pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 8, a deficiency is being cited.
An exit interview was conducted with the facility. A copy of this report, the LIC 9099D, and appeal rights were provided to the facility. |