Evidence/Findings:
<p>Based on documentation review, record review, and interview, the governing authority failed to ensure compliance with Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 36-411(C), for three of five sampled employees. The deficient practice posed a risk if the employees were a danger to a vulnerable population.</p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p>Findings include:</p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p>1. A.R.S. § 36-411(C)(1) and (4) states: "C. Each residential care institution, nursing care institution and home health agency shall make documented, good faith efforts to: 1. Contact previous employers to obtain information or recommendations that may be relevant to a person's fitness to work in a residential care institution, nursing care institution or home health agency…4. On or before March 31, 2025, verify that each employee is not on the adult protective services registry pursuant to section 46-459.”</p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p>2. A review of E1's personnel record revealed E1 was hired as the manager before March 31, 2025. The review revealed a “TEAM MEMBER DOCUMENT CHECK LIST” which indicated facility personnel verified E1 was not on the Adult Protective Services (APS) registry on May 9, 2025. The review revealed a printout from the APS registry which confirmed facility personnel did not verify E1 was not on the APS registry until May 9, 2025.</p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p>3. In an interview, E1 reported facility personnel verified E1 was not on the APS registry in November 2024. However, E1 reported the verification had not been documented and printed until facility personnel checked the registry again on May 9, 2025.</p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p>4. A review of E5’s personnel record revealed E5 was hired as a caregiver. The review revealed an application and resume which indicated E5 had previous employers. However, the review revealed facility personnel contacted E5’s previous co-workers and not E5’s previous employers.</p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p>5. A review of E6’s personnel record revealed E6 was hired as a caregiver. The review revealed an application which indicated E6 had previous employers. However, the review revealed facility personnel contacted E6’s family and friends and not E6’s previous employers. The review revealed E6’s driver license and fingerprint clearance card which confirmed E6’s legal name. The review further revealed a printout from the APS registry which indicated facility personnel used E6’s middle name and not E6’s legal first name to verify E6 was not on the APS registry.</p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p>6. A review of the APS registry website revealed E6 was not on the registry.</p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p>7. In an interview, E1 acknowledged facility personnel did not use the correct name to verify E6 was not on the APS registry. E1 acknowledged facility personnel contacted friends, family, and previous co-workers and not previous employers for E5 and E6.</p>
Summary:
The following deficiencies were found during the on-site compliance inspection and investigation of complaint 00129033 conducted on May 14, 2025: