Skip to main content

Inspection visit

complaint

CON CARINO BRAEBURNLicense 197610087
Clean visit · 0 citations

Inspector’s narrative

What the inspector wrote

Allegation: Facility staff did not ensure the resident's call buttons were within reach of the resident. It was alleged that R1 had no call button within the reach and could not attain anyone’s attention for 1.5 hours. To investigate this allegation LPAs conducted an interview with the House Manager and were informed that the facility provides bells to all residents. However, Alzheimer's residents are not being provided with the bell, due to not being able to comprehend and or use it. Interview with four (4) staff members revealed that all residents are being checked every one to two hours. Moreover, the facility has an awake staff at night and all residents are being checked regularly, as scheduled. Lastly, two (2) out of six (6) residents interviewed expressed no concerns regarding this allegation. Therefore, based on the interviews and LPAs observation this allegation is deemed Unsubstantiated at this time. Allegation: Facility staff not available to meet the needs of the resident. It was alleged that R1 could not attain anyone’s attention for 1.5 hours, believed the overnight care staff S1 had fallen asleep. To investigate this allegation LPAs conducted an interview with the House Manager and S1 and concluded that facility has overnight awake staff, also every 1 to 2 hours the staff regularly check on all residents. In addition, LPAs interviewed two (2) out of six (6) residents and they stated staff always responds to their calls during the nighttime. Moreover, interview with a family member also revealed that all facility staff provide a great care and are available to assist residents upon request. Therefore, based on the interviews and LPAs observations this allegation is deemed unsubstantiated at this time. Allegation: Facility staff do not ensure resident's hygiene needs were met. It was alleged that R1 had long, unkempt nails and the staff did not ensure the hygiene needs were met. To investigate this allegation LPAs conducted an interview with the Administrator and a House Manager and were informed that R1 has very high standards and is always out from the facility. Although, the facility has a scheduled Podiatrist come to the facility every two (2) months, R1 stopped receiving his services due to other personal appointments. During the interview with five (5) residents, LPAs observed all residents manicure and pedicure is well taken care of. Lastly, interview with two (2) out of six (6) residents expressed no concerns regarding this allegation. Therefore, based on the interviews and LPAs observations this allegation is deemed unsubstantiated at this time. Continue on LIC9099-C Allegation: Staff violated residents rights. It was alleged, that R1 had a small purple bruise on the back of his/her right hand, about the size of a dime, which was also caused by S1. To investigate this allegation, LPAs reviewed R1s Centrally Stored Medication and Distraction Record (CSMDR) and observed that R1 is currently receiving a blood thinner that can cause bruising. Moreover, LPAs conducted interviews with the Administrator, House Manager and four (4) staff members and all parties interviewed denied ever abusing residents. In addition, two (2) out of six (6) residents interviewed expressed no concerns regarding this allegation and informed LPAs that they are very pleased with the staff's care provided. Lastly, interview with a family member also revealed that no resident was ever witnessed to be abused by the staff. Therefore, based on the interviews and file reviews, LPAs found this allegation is deemed Unsubstantiated at this time. Exit interview conducted and copy of this report signed and delivered.

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.

  • 87355(e)(1)Type A

    Criminal record clearance: (e) All individuals subject to a criminal record review... (1) Obtain a California clearance or a criminal record exemption as required by the Department.This requirement is not met as evidenced by: Based on interview and record review, the licensee did not comply with the section cited above by hiring one (1) staff member on 03/02/2021 without fingerprint clearance, which poses an immediate health, safety risks to persons in care.

FAQ · About this visit

Common questions about this visit

What happened during the June 11, 2024 inspection of CON CARINO BRAEBURN?

This was a complaint inspection of CON CARINO BRAEBURN on June 11, 2024. The inspection found no deficiencies and no citations were issued.

Were any citations issued to CON CARINO BRAEBURN on June 11, 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.