Failure to Protect Resident From Misappropriation of Funds by Staff
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to protect a resident from misappropriation of property by an employee. A male resident with dementia and moderate cognitive impairment, as evidenced by a BIMS score of 12, required supervision or partial/moderate assistance with ADLs and had a care plan for impaired cognitive function related to dementia and memory deficit. The facility’s Abuse Prevention and Prohibition Program policy stated that each resident has the right to be free from misappropriation of property and that the facility has zero tolerance for such conduct. According to interviews and record review, the resident requested assistance with his bank account while in the dining room. The Activity Director reported that the resident asked a housekeeper for help with his bank account, and the Activity Director told the housekeeper she could assist him, despite being aware that only the Activity Director and Activity Assistants were authorized to assist residents with financial matters. The Administrator later confirmed that only the Business Office, Activities employees, and Social Workers were authorized to assist residents with financial matters and that these responsibilities could not be delegated to other employees. Subsequently, an electronic transfer of $300 was made from the resident’s bank account to a cell phone number that matched the housekeeper’s number. The Social Worker learned from the resident that an employee had assisted him with sending money to a family member, but when they reviewed the transaction history, the resident did not recognize the name or phone number associated with the $300 transfer. A screenshot from the resident’s cell phone showed the $300 transfer to the housekeeper’s phone number. The resident reported that someone from activities obtained his debit card and that there were bank charges he did not recognize, which he reported to the Social Worker. The housekeeper admitted to helping set up the electronic transfer on the resident’s phone but denied taking the money or knowing how her number appeared on the transaction.
