complaint·March 21, 2024

Allegation: The facility admitted a resident with a prohibited health condition. It is alleged a resident was admitted and moved into the facility, in the beginning of March 2024, with a communicable disease prohibited health condition. During interviews with staff (S1-S8), they were asked if a resident with a prohibited condition was admitted, seven (7) out of eight (8) stated Resident R1 was admitted to the facility with a prohibited health condition. During an interview with the Administrator (S1) stated they were unsure if an exemption was submitted to Community Care Licensing (CCL). Additionally, S1 stated when they became employed at the facility, on March 18,2024, they had R1 placed on home health for the care of the condition, and since that time R1 has been cleared, by a physician, of the prohibited health condition. During an interview with S2 stated that once they found out R1 had a prohibited health condition, staff took precautions such as isolating R1, placing a PPE cart outside the room for staff to use. During file review of Resident R1, LPA observed the facility was informed of R1’s diagnosis of the prohibited health condition via fax on March 12, 2024, at 8:37AM PDT. R1 was admitted to the facility on March 12, 2024, after a diagnosis of the prohibited health condition. During interview with residents (R2-R7) six (6) out of six (6) stated they were unsure if the are any residents with a prohibited condition. During the course of the investigation, LPA was able to find evidence to support the allegation. Based on LPAs observations and interviews which were conducted and record review(s), the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation(s) is found to be SUBSTANTIATED. California code of Regulation, (Tittle 22, Division 6 & Chapter number 8), are being cited on the attached LIC 9099D. Allegation: The facility operates beyond condition and limitations specified on the license. It is alleged a client has come to the facility and uses it as a daycare and is participating in activities and meals then is picked up at 5:30pm. During interviews with staff (S1-S8), they were asked if there is a client who comes in and participates in daily activities and has meals, four (4) out of eight (8), stated C1 has been at the facility a few times and participated in activities. During an interview with S2, stated C1 has been in the facility twice when C1’s spouse has things they need to do. Additionally, S2 stated C1 will be a resident at the facility eventually but the family is not ready to place them here yet. S2 stated C2 receives minimal assistance while here and has been charged for the days they participated in the program. During file review, LPA observed on the Visitor Log, C1 was signed in on 03/06/24 at 8:30am, and on 03/15/24 at 8:25am till 6pm. During interviews with residents (R2-R7), six (6) out of six (6) stated they have no knowledge or concern of C1 coming in to participate in activities or meals. During the course of the investigation, LPA was able to find evidence to support the allegation. Based on LPAs observations and interviews which were conducted and record review(s), the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation(s) is found to be SUBSTANTIATED. California code of Regulation, (Tittle 22, Division 6 & Chapter number 8), are being cited on the attached LIC 9099D. Two deficiencies were cited on the attached LIC9099-D. An exit interview was conducted with Maintenance Director, Juan Talavera, and a copy of this report and the appeals rights were provided.