Skip to main content

Inspection visit

complaint

MEADOWBROOK AT AGOURA HILLSLicense 197608878
Clean visit · 0 citations

Inspector’s narrative

What the inspector wrote

During the visit, the LPA interviewed the Interim Administrator at 11:00am, obtained copies of resident and staff records and other pertinent documents relevant to the investigation, toured the facility with Memory Care Director at 2:16pm and interviewed one staff at 3:30pm. The Operations Specialist/Interim Administrator was advised that the Community Care Licensing Division (CCLD) Investigations Branch (IB) Investigator Christine Ferris was assigned to investigate the allegation. Investigator Ferris conducted interviews on 09/26/2024, from approximately 11:00am to 1:40pm, with the facility Operations Specialist/Interim Administrator, R1, Memory Care Director, residents, and staff; on 10/24/2024, from approximately 1:30pm to 2:15pm, with staff and a resident; and on 11/05/2024, at approximately 10:00am, with S1. In addition, Investigator Ferris reviewed Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Report #024-04236-2223-139 and Supplemental Report; and facility file documents related to R1 and S1. According to the review of R1’s facility file documents, R1’s Physician Report, dated 09/14/2022, stated R1 is diagnosed with diabetes and heart failure, auditorily and visually impaired and wears hearing aids and glasses, is sometimes confused and disoriented, is able to follow directions and communicate needs, uses a walker and a wheelchair, and is non-ambulatory. R1’s placement in the assisted living portion of the facility was listed as 09/15/2022. According to the Special Incident Report (SIR) submitted by the facility, on 08/17/2024, R1 told two facility staff that S1 touched R1. The staff reported this to the Memory Care Director (MCD), who then spoke to R1. R1 stated that S1 was changing R1’s brief (diaper) as R1 lay in bed. R1 stated S1 touched R1 while pointing to R1’s vagina area. The MCD asked R1 to explain, who stated S1 was rubbing R1. When asked if S1 could have possibly just been cleaning R1, R1 stated “no, I am not dumb, I can tell the difference”. The MCD asked if R1 told S1 to stop and R1 stated they said no to S1 and moved S1’s hand. R1 said S1 did it 2 or 3 more times. No one observed the incident. When the Operations Specialist/Interim Administrator interviewed R1, R1 repeated the same story. R1 was asked if R1 wanted to see a doctor or contact the police, R1 declined. R1’s resident representative was contacted about the incident. S1 was interviewed and denied the allegation. S1 was suspended pending investigation. On 08/27/2024, S1 was terminated. Report will continue on LIC9099-C, 3rd page. The Department’s investigation did not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate sexual abuse against S1. R1’s statement changed during the Department’s interview from what R1 initially reported to staff and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. There were no witnesses to the incident. Staff interviewed stated there were no safety concerns with S1 prior to the incident. The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department closed the case with no further action. S1 denied the allegation. Therefore, the allegation “Sexual Abuse: Resident #1 (R1) was inappropriately touched by Staff #1 (S1)” is deemed Unsubstantiated at this time. Exit interview conducted, copy of this report issued.

Citations

2 citations 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.

  • 87468.2(a)(4)Type B

    87468.2(a)(4)residents…shall have all of the following personal rights: To care, supervision, and services that meet their individual needs and are delivered by staff that are sufficient in numbers, qualifications, and competency to meet their needs.This requirement is not met as evidence by: Based on interviews,records review, and observation the licensee did not comply with the section cited above as Staff did not respond to residents calls for assistance in a timely manner, which poses a potential health and safety risk to residents in care.

  • 87355(e)(1Type A

    87355(e) All individuals subject to a criminal record review ... shall prior to working, residing ... in a licensed facility: (1) Obtain a California clearance or a criminal record exemption as required by the Department or (2)Request a transfer of a criminal record clearance This requirement is not met as evidence by: Based on interviews and record review, the licensee did not comply with the section cited above. The Operations Specialist/Interim Administrator is not finger printed cleared and associated to the facility, which posed an immediate health and safety risk to residents in care.

FAQ · About this visit

Common questions about this visit

What happened during the December 12, 2024 inspection of MEADOWBROOK AT AGOURA HILLS?

This was a complaint inspection of MEADOWBROOK AT AGOURA HILLS on December 12, 2024. The inspection found no deficiencies and no citations were issued.

Were any citations issued to MEADOWBROOK AT AGOURA HILLS on December 12, 2024?

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.

SourceView on CCLDView original report

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.