Skip to main content

Inspection visit

complaint

STUDIO ROYALELicense 198601566
Clean visit · 0 citations

Inspector’s narrative

What the inspector wrote

Investigation revealed the following: Allegation: Facility is not meeting the needs of the resident in care. It is alleged that the facility called 911 to transport Resident R#1 to the hospital for non-urgent medical needs. During this investigation, LPA Dabuet and Iniguez interviewed Residents (R#1-R#9), Staff (S#1-S#4), Responsible Party (W#1) for R#1, and the Wilfredo Guerrero/ Director of Wellness (S#1). Based on interviews with W#1 and S#1, LPA found that R#1 required immediate medical assistance on 5/30/2023. R1’s Responsible Party (W#1) was present on 5/30/2023 and observed R#1 was experiencing symptoms of illness. W#1 contacted R#1’s hospital and was given direction to have R#1 transported to the hospital by ambulance due to symptoms described. The facility placed the call to 911 and R#1 was assessed when EMS arrived. EMS conducted a medical evaluation and determined that R#1’s condition did not require a hospital visit. W#1 insisted EMS transport R#1 to the hospital based on the direction given by medical personnel at R#1’s hospital. R#1 was then transported to the hospital by EMS and assessed upon arrival. On 5/30/2023, the facility was contacted by a hospital representative after R1’s assessment and informed that R#1 was ready for discharge. The hospital representative reported that R#1 was not in need of medical attention based on the medical evaluation performed and should not have been sent to the hospital. During this discussion, S#1 requested the hospital complete a Physicians Report (LIC 602) prior to R#1’s discharge to confirm the facility remains an appropriate placement. On 6/2/2023, R#1 was discharged from the hospital. The hospital refused to provide a completed Physician’s Report to the facility, for R#1, prior discharge. LPA Dabuet and Iniguez conducted an interview with R#1. R#1 was unable to recall experiencing illness on 5/30/2023 and unable to offer details regarding health. The facility has plans for R#1’s primary physician to conduct a medical evaluation during the week of 6/5/2023 – 6/9/2023. LPA’s conducted interviews with S#1-S#4 reported when a change in a Resident’s condition is observed, the information is reported, and a health assessment is conducted to determine the needs of the Residents. LPA’s interviewed R#1-R#9. The Residents interviewed reported the facility is meeting their daily needs and reported no concerns related to the supports provided. Based on interviews conducted and records reviewed, LPA’s were unable to obtain sufficient evidence to support the above mentioned allegation. Continues on LIC 9099-C Unsubstantiated: “Based on LPAs observations and interviews which were conducted and record review, the preponderance of evidence standard has not been met, therefore the above allegations are found to be UNSUBSTANTIATED . California Code of Regulations. An exit interview was conducted, and a copy of the Facility Evaluation Report was provided to the Director of Wellness Wilfredo Guerrero.

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.

  • 87405(a)Type B

    87405 Administrator - Qualifications and Duties (a) All facilities shall have a qualified and currently certified administrator...The administrator shall have ... other responsibilities and shall be on the premises enough hours to permit adequate attention to the management and administration of the facility as specified in this section... This requirement was not met as evidenced by: Based on observation and interview, the licensee did not have an authorized administrator on file with CCLD. This citation poses a potential health and safety risk to residents in care.

FAQ · About this visit

Common questions about this visit

What happened during the June 2, 2023 inspection of STUDIO ROYALE?

This was a complaint inspection of STUDIO ROYALE on June 2, 2023. The inspection found no deficiencies and no citations were issued.

Were any citations issued to STUDIO ROYALE on June 2, 2023?

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.