Skip to main content

Inspection visit

Complaint

Clean visit · 0 citations

Inspector’s narrative

What the inspector wrote

On 02/02/22, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) M. Yang arrived unannounced to deliver complaint findings on the above allegations. LPA met with Administrator Ramona Eleco and stated purpose of visit. During the course of the investigation, the Department conducted interviews, toured the facility and reviewed records. LPA reviewed resident’s and facility record which show proper pre-assessment was conducted prior to accepting the resident to the facility. Resident’s physician report, California Assisted Living Waiver program (ALW), and assessment were reviewed and confirmed resident did not need higher level of care. LPA toured facility and observed doorways to have proper passage. Records were review and staff interviews confirm adequate staffing. Based on records reviewed, observations, and interviews which were conducted, the preponderance of evidence standard has not been met, therefore the above allegations are found to be UNSUBSTANTIATED. Exit interview conducted. As a COVID-19 precautionary measure, a copy of this report will be provided via email. Report signed on-site.

Citations

1 citation recorded*CCLD

What does Type A vs Type B mean?

Type A. Serious citation. Imminent or substantial risk to children. The regulator requires corrective action immediately and may impose a civil penalty.

Type B. Lower-severity citation. Corrective action required, no imminent risk. The regulator monitors compliance on the next visit.

  • 87465(e)Type B

    Require physician order and label for PRN medication

    87465(e) For every prescription and nonprescription PRN medication for which the licensee provides assistance there shall be a signed, dated written order from a physician, on a prescription blank, maintained in the residents file, and a label on the medication. Both the physician's order and the label shall contain at least all of the following information.This requirement is not met as evidenced by: Based on records reviewed and interviews conducted, the licensee did not comply with the section cited above when staffs applied Calmoseptine ointment to blisters on R1's bottom which poses/posed a potential health, safety or personal rights risk to persons in care.

FAQ · About this visit

Common questions about this visit

What happened during the February 2, 2022 inspection of JASMIN TERRACE AT BAKERSFIELD?

This was a complaint inspection of JASMIN TERRACE AT BAKERSFIELD on February 2, 2022. The inspection found no deficiencies and no citations were issued.

Were any citations issued to JASMIN TERRACE AT BAKERSFIELD on February 2, 2022?

No citations were issued during this inspection. The facility was found to be in compliance with all applicable regulations.

What type of inspection was this?

This was a complaint inspection. Complaint inspections are triggered when someone reports a concern about the facility to CCLD.

Share this reportEmail

Next steps

If this is your facility,claim this pageand correct anything the record gets wrong. Free.

Researching this visit professionally?Book a 15-minute calland we will walk through what we have on file.

Data from CCLD public records. Last updated . If you believe any information is inaccurate, report it here.