{"report_id":188,"form_id":"23","user_id":81,"organization_id":10,"question_id":"100","question_type":"Free_Text","text_answer":"The person\u2019s services being terminated by the provider were influenced by the person\u2019s behaviors and the overall \u201cmatch\u201d between the person and the provider. The person demonstrated physical intimidating behaviors to staff.  This would often occur when staff asked questions about concerns for the person\u2019s decisions.  The staff was prompted to ask these questions because belongings in the home were missing.\r\n\r\nThe provider determining there wasn\u2019t a good overall \u201cmatch\u201d was influenced by the following.  The adult foster care (AFC) home was a single staff person owner\/operator.  This did not allow for staffing changes to adjust to the individual\u2019s behaviors or staff exhaustion.  The majority of the time the individual chose to stay in their room and play video games; possibly to the level of an addiction\/obsession.   Staff felt the individual would benefit from participating in social and recreational activities besides video games.  Staff exhausted attempts and techniques to redirect the individual to engage in other activities besides playing video games.  The provider reached out to the case manager for support services when they were struggling to redirect the person\/address behaviors.  Due to COVID19, support services were not able to be offered.  The individual made a choice to discontinue therapy as well as employment, which led to more time in his room playing video games.  These decisions are supported by 245D (informed choice).\r\n\r\nAnother influence to the person not being a good match and services being terminated was this was the first person the provider had served since being licensed.  The provider was unfamiliar with the system and best practices for potential people to support.  Both influenced the match between the individual and provider.  \r\nAnother influence to the \u201cmatch\u201d and services being terminated was that the provider was unaware of the individual\u2019s history\/previous concerns with behaviors.  This was influenced by this being the first AFC the individual had resided and the case manager was unaware of the person\u2019s history so unable to share it with provider.  The case manager did not have a clear picture of the history because they just began working the individual and the person chose not to participate in the person-centered planning process.  The case manager and team reached out to the local high school in an attempt to learn more about the person. The teacher most familiar with the individual was unavailable to speak with the case manager or provider as it was the summer (school closed).  This influenced the lack of history and ability to determine the appropriateness of the match between the individual.","created_by":81,"updated_by":81,"updated_at":"6\/9\/2021 11:30:16 am","created_at":"6\/9\/2021 11:30:16 am","id":44147}