|
May 28, 2025 Alicia Carey, Authorized Agent Olu’s Home, Inc. 1315 Twelfth Avenue North Minneapolis, Minnesota 55411 License Number: 1068807 (245D – HCBS) Dear Alicia Carey: The Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS), Licensing Division, received your request for reconsideration of 4 of 16 citations in the Correction Order (Attachment A) issued to you on November 21, 2024. After an independent review of the record, the Commissioner has determined that Citations 1 and 10c are affirmed and Citations 6a and 11 are rescinded, as described below. Reconsideration Determination Citation 1 For three of seven persons whose records were reviewed (P1, P3 and P5), the license holder did not provide a written notice that identified the service recipient rights as required. a. The license holder failed to provide P1 with a written notice that identified the service recipient rights in Minnesota Statutes, section 245D.04, subdivisions 2 and 3, and an explanation of those rights annually in 2023. b. The license holder failed to provide P3 and P5 with a written notice that identified the following service recipient rights annually in 2023 and 2024. · access to the person’s personal possessions at any time, including financial resources; · have access to three nutritionally balanced meals and nutritious snacks between meals each day; · have freedom and support to access food and potable water at any time; · have the freedom to furnish and decorate the person’s bedroom or living unit; · a setting that is clean and free to accumulation of dirt, grease, garbage, peeling paint, mold, vermin, and insects; · a setting that is free from hazards that threaten the person’s health or safety; and · a setting that meets the definition of a dwelling unit within a residential occupancy as defined in the State Fire Code. Applicable Law The license holder must provide each person or each person’s legal representative with a written notice that identifies the service recipient rights in Minnesota Statutes, section 245D.04, subdivisions 2 and 3, and an explanation of those rights within five working days of service initiation and annually thereafter. Minnesota Statutes, section 245D.04, subdivision 1. Your Response You contend that you provided P1, P3, and P5 (or their representatives) with annual notices that identified their service recipient rights as stated in Minnesota Statutes, section 245D.04, subdivisions 2 and 3. You submitted records on reconsideration that you state support your position. Reconsideration Determination You did not provide the notice of P1’s service recipient rights annually. On October 27, 2022 and on November 3, 2023, P1 or P1’s legal representative signed the written notice of service recipient rights. Minnesota Statutes, section 245A.02, subdivision 2b, defines “annual” or “annually” to mean “prior to or within the same month of the subsequent calendar year.” Because the November 3, 2023, notice was not signed prior to or within October 2023 (the same month of the subsequent calendar year), you did not provide the notice to P1 or P1’s legal representative on an annual basis. For the above reasons, Citation 1a is affirmed. The records show that the license holder gave P3 or P3’s legal representative a written notice of service recipient rights annually. The notice of service recipient rights must (1) include all of the protection-related rights listed in Minnesota Statutes, section 245D.04, subdivision 3 (which includes the seven protection-related rights listed in Citation 1b) and (2) be signed by the person and/or the person’s legal representative. For P3, the 2023 written notice was signed, but did not include the seven protection-related rights listed in Citation 1b. For P3, the 2024 written notice included the seven rights, but it was not signed. For the above reasons, Citation 1b as to P3 is affirmed. The records show that the license holder gave P5 or P5’s legal representative a written notice of service recipient rights annually. Both notices, however, did not include the seven services stated in Citation 1b. For the above reasons, Citation 1b as to P5 is affirmed. For the above reasons, all of Citation 1 is affirmed. Citation 6a For two persons whose records were reviewed (P4 and P5), the license holder did not meet requirements for safeguarding and handling funds and property. At the time of licensing review, the license holder indicated they were responsible for safeguarding and handling P4 and P5’s funds. a. The license holder failed to obtain written authorization to do so from P4’s case manager within five working days of service initiation. b. The license holder failed to obtain written authorization to do so from P5 or P5’s legal representative and P5’s case manager annually. Applicable Law Whenever the license holder assists a person with the safekeeping of funds or other property according to section 245A.04, subdivision 13, the license holder must obtain written authorization to do so from the person or the person’s legal representative and the case manager. Authorization must be obtained within five working days of service initiation and renewed annually thereafter. Minnesota Statutes, section 245D.06, subdivision 4, paragraph (a). Your Response As to Citation 6a, you contend that you obtained written authorization from P4’s case manager within five working days of service initiation. You submitted records on reconsideration that you state support your contention. Reconsideration Determination The records you submitted show that P4’s Funds and Property Authorization form was signed by P4’s case manager on December 1, 2023, which was within five days of service initiation (the date of admission was December 1, 2023). Therefore, Citation 6a is rescinded. Citation 10c For two persons whose records were reviewed (P2 and P5), the license holder did not meet requirements for service plan review and evaluation. a. Although the license holder did meet with P2, P2’s legal representative, and P2’s case manager annually in 2023, the license holder failed to summarize P2’s status and progress toward achieving one of the identified outcomes and make recommendations and identify the rationale for changing, continuing, or discontinuing implementation of supports and methods identified in subdivision 4 in a report available at the time of the progress review meeting. b. The license holder failed to, at least once per year, in coordination with P5’s support team or expanded support team meet with P5, P5’s legal representative, P5’s case manager, and other people as identified by P5 or P5’s legal representative to discuss how technology might be used to meet the P5’s desired outcomes and include a summary of this discussion in P5’s support plan addendum. c. The license holder failed to, at least once per year, in coordination with P5’s support team or expanded support team meet with P5, P5’s legal representative, P5’s case manager, and other people as identified by P5 or P5’s legal representative to discuss options for transitioning out of a community setting controlled by a provider and into a setting not controlled by a provider and include a summary of this discussion in P5’s support plan addendum. Applicable Law At least once per year, the license holder, in coordination with the person’s support team or expanded support team, must meet with a person receiving residential supports and services, the person’s legal representative, the case manager, and other people identified by the person or the person’s legal representative to discuss options for transitioning out of a community setting controlled by a provider and into a setting not controlled by a provider. The support plan addendum must include a summary of the discussion required in the above paragraph. The summary must include a statement about any decision made regarding transitioning out of a provider-controlled setting and a description of any further research or education that must be completed before a decision regarding transitioning out of a provider-controlled setting can be made. Minnesota Statutes, section 245D.071, subdivision 5, paragraphs (c) and (d). Your Response You challenged only part c of this citation. You contend that you discussed with P5 or P5’s team all items pertinent to P5’s support plan. You also contend that you were not required to discuss transitioning P5 out of a provider-controlled setting because that was not one of P5’s goals. You stated P5 does not have a goal of transitioning out of a provider-controlled community setting as referenced in the Correction Order. On reconsideration, you submitted a copy of P5’s Support Plan Addendum to support your position. Reconsideration Determination Even if the client did not have a goal of transitioning out of the facility, Minnesota Statutes, section 245D.071, subdivision 5, paragraphs (c) and (d) required you to meet with P5’s team annually to discuss this and to prepare a summary of the discussion. You did not have documentation showing you had the required discussion. This citation is affirmed. Citation 11 For one person whose record was reviewed (P4), the license holder did not maintain service recipient records as required. The license holder failed to obtain the following from P4’s legal representative: · a signed authorization to administer medications prior to the license holder administering medications to P4 and; · a signed statement authorizing the license holder to act in a medical emergency. The license holder obtained the authorizations from P4’s legal representative on January 18, 2024. Applicable Law The license holder must maintain health information that includes a signed authorization from the person or the person’s legal representative to administer or assist in administering medication or treatments, and a signed statement authorizing the license holder to act in a medical emergency when the person’s legal representative, if any, cannot be reached or is delayed in arriving. Minnesota Statutes, section 245D.095, subdivision 3, paragraph (b), clauses (3)(i) and (3)(ii). Your Response You contend that you properly obtained a signed authorization from P4’s legal representative to administer medications to P4 and a signed authorization from P4’s legal representative allowing you to act in a medical emergency. You submitted records on reconsideration that you state support your contentions. Reconsideration Determination The records you submitted show that P4’s legal representative signed both an authorization allowing you to administer medications and an authorization allowing you to act in an emergency. Both authorizations were signed on December 1, 2023, the date P4 was admitted. For the above reasons, Citation 11 is rescinded. Disposition The Commissioner has reviewed the relevant laws and all of the information you submitted in response to the Correction Order. Citations 6a and 11 are rescinded. The record supports Citations 1 and 10c, and they are affirmed. DHS will issue an Amended Correction Order rescinding Citations 6a and 11. This is a final agency decision. Sincerely,
James Song, Attorney Legal Counsel’s Office Office of Inspector General
|
