complaint·January 21, 2026

Allegation: Staff did not provide resident with a pre-admission appraisal. It is being alleged that staff did not perform a pre-appraisal to assess and confirm if the facility is able to meet R1's needs. On 01/21/26 from 10:00 am- 12pm LPA conducted Interviews with R1-R10 regarding the allegation above. 7 of 10 residents interviewed denied the allegation above and reported that someone from Chateau of Long Beach spoke to them about the facility and the services offered. 2 of 10 residents interviewed confirmed the allegation above, 1 of 10 residents reported they do not remember if a pre-admission appraisal was conducted. On 01/21/26 from 1:15pm- 2pm LPA conducted interviews with S1-S4 regarding the allegation above. S1 denied the allegation above and stated that a resident assessment was conducted, however it was never dated. During interviews with S2-S4 regarding the allegation above, 3 of 3 staff interviewed confirmed the allegation above and stated that a pre- admission appraisal was not conducted for R1 prior to admission. On 01/21/26 LPA conducted a review of R1's facility file, LPA did not observe any documentation indicating that a pre-admission appraisal was completed prior to when R1 moving in and started receiving services at Chateau of Long Beach. Based on LPAs observations and interviews which were conducted record review(s), the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation(s) is found to be substantiated. California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division (6) and Chapter (8) are being cited on the attached LIC 9099D. Exit interview conducted, appeal rights explained, and a copy of this report was provided. It is being alleged that facility staff did not provide R1 with an admissions agreement per Title 22 regulations. On 01/21/26 from 10:00 am- 12pm LPA conducted Interviews with R1-R10 regarding the allegation above. 4 of 10 residents interviewed denied the allegation above and reported that a signed copy of their admission agreement was provided by facility staff, 1 of 10 residents interviewed confirmed the allegation above and stated they did not receive a signed copy of their admission agreement, and 5 of 10 residents interviewed stated that they cannot remember if they received a signed copy of their admission agreement. On 01/21/26 from 1:15pm- 2pm LPA conducted interviews with S1-S4 regarding the allegation above. During interview with S1, S1 denied the allegation above and reported that a copy of the signed admission agreement was offered to R1 and family, however R1 nor family wanted a copy. During interviews with S2-S4 regarding the allegation above, 2 of 3 staff reported that a copy of the signed admission agreement is always offered. 1 of 3 staff reported that a copy of a signed admission agreement is not provided unless requested by a resident. On 01/21/26 LPA conducted a review of R1's facility file, LPA observed that there was a completed admission agreement on file, LPA also observed that R1 signed the admission agreement dated 01/15/26. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation(s) did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is unsubstantiated. Exit interview conducted, and a copy of this report was provided.