complaint·October 2, 2025

The investigation revealed the following: Allegation: Facility staff failed to provide resident responsible parties with all requested records. It was alleged that the resident responsible party request resident record from the facility and the facility failed to provide all requested records. On 08/28/2025, between the hours of 9:51am - 10:11am, LPA interviewed A1 denied the allegation, stating the facility provides requested resident records within 48 hours. Requests from responsible parties for R12 and R9 were fulfilled, all records were provided and acknowledged in writing, no records were withheld, and none were reported lost or misplaced. On 08/28/2025, between 9:18am - 2:17pm, LPA interviewed 8 staff regarding the allegation: 8 out of 8 denied the allegation. Of the 8 staff who denied the allegation: 5 staff stated not being involved in handling nor responding to request for records from family members or responsible parties while the other 3 staff stated yes to be involved in providing records by request. On 08/28/2025, between the hours of 10:20am - 11:18am, LPA interviewed 11 residents regarding the allegation: 7 out 11 residents denied the allegation. 3 out of 11 resident were unsure of the allegation. 1 out of 11 residents were unable to confirm nor deny the allegation. Of the 11 residents: 7 residents who denied the allegation stated yes the facility has given their records request for themselves and or by their family, while the 3 residents who stated being unsure and would imagine the facility did provide the records ask for by their family and or themselves. Also 1 resident could not answer and went off topic in regards to the allegation. On 10/01/2025 between the hours of 11:12pm - 12:00pm, LPA reviewed records and observed the following: The responsible party or designee signed and dated on 04/23/2025 receiving the description of records in-person were provided by the facility such as admission records (given on 04/23/2025), medical records such as physician orders, discharge paperwork, labs (given on 04/23/2025), care/service plan, medication list and outside provider forms.  LPA reviewed the resident record and did not observe any documents that were not released as requested at the time of visit. Report continues on LIC 9099-C Based on information gathered, interviews, and record reviews, there is not enough evidence to support the allegation mentioned above. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore, the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. An exit interview was conducted with Robert Jakini (Executive Director) and a copy of the report was provided. The investigation revealed the following: Allegation: Facility staff violated residents personal rights by not obtain consent for the use of GPS tracking devices. It was alleged that a GPS tracking and monitoring device was placed on the resident body without consent, and without the consent of the resident's representative. On 8/28/2025, between 9:51am - 10:11am, LPA conducted an interview with the Administrator A1 regarding the allegation. A1 denied the allegation and clarified that the facility had installed emergency call devices specifically, (Care Predict pendants) designed to detect falls, not to function as GPS trackers. A1 stated that residents and their responsible parties were informed of the devices, and consent was documented in the Admission Agreement. While some residents may choose to decline the devices, staff and visitors are not required to wear them. A1 further explained that licensing approval was not sought, as the devices were considered a product update rather than a new service requiring regulatory review. On 08/28/2025, between the hours of 10:21am - 11:23pm, LPA interviewed 8 staff regarding the allegation: 4 out of 8 staff were unsure of the allegation and stated not having any knowledge of consent being obtained for the devices. 4 out of 8 staff did not confirm nor denied the allegation stated families were informed about the devices during the family meeting.' On 8/28/2025, between the hours of 10:20am -11:18am, LPA interviewed 11 residents regarding the allegation. 9 of the 11 residents confirmed the allegation. 1 of the 11 residents was unsure, stating they did not remember but might have signed something consenting to the use of the device. 1 of 11 residents was unable to confirm or deny the allegation and went off topic during the interview. Of the 9 residents who confirmed the allegation, all stated they did not recall signing any form of consent for wearing the device. On 09/25/2025, between the hours of 11:35am -11:45am, LPA interviewed Witness 1 (W1) regarding the allegation. W1 stated that the CarePredict devices are tracking tools used exclusively to monitor residents within the facility. W1 clarified that the devices do not record audio or listen to conversations. According to W1, the devices collect medical and behavioral data such as heart rate, location patterns, time spent in specific areas, wake times, and bathroom usage. Additionally, the devices track staff response times to resident alerts, which are monitored by the facility through a centralized dashboard. On 10/01/2025 between the hours of 11:06am - 11:11am and 10/02/2025 between the hours of 12:50pm -1:02pm, LPA conducted a records review and observed the following: Report of Tempo Worn Report (dated 08/21/2025 - 08/28/2025 at 10:17am) which is from the Care Predict dashboard which tracks the amount of hours the tempo is worn by the residents. Also, in the resident lease agreement for R9 (dated 08/24/2024), R10 (dated 10/29/2024), and R11 (dated 01/23/2024) it does not state the use of a pendant nor the use of the tempo worn tracker. On 10/01/2025 at 4:45pm, LPA conducted a review of Regency Palms Long Beach file located in the El Segundo Regional Office and did not observe any documentation that Community Care Licensing Division approved the use of Care Predict (watch-style device). Based on the evidence gathered, interviews conducted, and records reviewed, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met; therefore, the above-mentioned allegation is found to be SUBSTANTIATED. California Code of Regulations (Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 8), the above-mentioned deficiency was observed, and citation issued (ref. LIC 9099D). An exit interview conducted with Robert Jakini (Executive Director) and a copy of this report was provided with the appeals rights.