Skip to main content

Inspection visit

complaint

REGENT VILLA RETIREMENT HOMELicense 198602039
Clean visit · 0 citations

Inspector’s narrative

What the inspector wrote

LPA also received three (3) declarations from Jenni Gordon (S1), Noemi Callimquim (S3) and Elizabeth Gibson (S4). The investigation revealed the following: Regarding the allegation: " Facility staff did not seek medical attention in a timely manner. " It has been alleged that Resident one's (R1) medical care departed from the prevailing professional standard of care . According to LPA's record reviews Noemi Calimquim, Med-Tech (S3), was the first to receive the call light provided from roommate Resident #2 (R2). R2 pulled the call light at 6:50PM, due to Resident #1's (R1) fall. Nelia Ramos, Caregiver (S6), responded to the call light at 6:54PM . At 6:55PM S6 then informed S4, who went to observe R1's heart-rate and blood-pressure, measured at 174mg/dl, recorded at 7:00PM. S4 requested S3 to call 911. According to LiveFireRECORDS Incident Report, Long Beach Fire Department (LBFD) received the alarm at 7:03PM and later arrived to the above-mentioned facility at 7:07PM. During that time, LBFD delivered CPR, beginning at 7:08PM. Anaphalaxis (EPI) was provided and a restart of a sustained heart rhythm (ROSC) was obtained at 7:20PM, which was sustained for two (2) minutes, after which R1 rearrested with Pulseless Electrical Activity (PEA). Sodium Bicarbonate and Calcium Chloride was given to R1 per base orders along with additional EPI for total of 4units. CPR was given to patient for 29 minutes, with a final rhythm of Asystole and R1 was then pronounced deceased at 7:37PM. According to LPA's interviews, the staff responded to the call light within four (4) minutes. After Staff's observations and assistance, Emergency Medical Services (LBFD) were contacted approximately eight (8) minutes after S3 received the non-responsive report of R1 from S6, around 7:03PM. LPA interviewed 7 staff (S1-S7). All staff have denied the allegation. LPA interviewed 10 residents (R2-R11). Nine (9) out of 10 residents have disagreed with the allegation and have stated that they feel that their medical needs are being appropriately met and that if emergency services were needed, their needs would be met. Based on record reviews and interviews conducted, the preponderance of evidence standard has not been met. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred. Therefore, the above allegation has been Unsubstantiated. There have been no deficiencies cited during this visit. An exit interview was held with Administrator, Jenni Gordon (S1) and a copy of this report has been provided.

Citations

No citations recorded on this visit

The inspector found no violations of California child care regulations during this visit.

FAQ · About this visit

Common questions about this visit

What happened during the November 30, 2023 inspection of REGENT VILLA RETIREMENT HOME?

This was a complaint inspection of REGENT VILLA RETIREMENT HOME on November 30, 2023. The inspection found no deficiencies and no citations were issued.

Were any citations issued to REGENT VILLA RETIREMENT HOME on November 30, 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.