Complaint·May 19, 2026

Interviews with staff confirmed awareness of R1’s dietary preferences, including vegetarian choices and preferred snacks such as bananas and warm milk. Staff reported that R1 was offered appropriate meal options and had the ability to choose foods consistent with their preferences. While one witness reported that R1 was occasionally offered food items inconsistent with a vegetarian diet, this information was not corroborated by other sources. Interviews showed that R1 had memory issues and often chose to eat only a few preferred foods, even when other meal options were available. Interviews with residents showed that three out of five felt the facility meets their dietary needs. While food choices may sometimes be limited, other options are available. The Culinary Services Director (CSD) Freddie Harbor stated that residents can request changes to meals based on their preferences and that the facility is working to offer more food choices for those with diabetic restrictions. Regarding the allegation that staff do not ensure residents’ rooms are clean, LPA conducted observations of R1’s room and bathroom, which were found to be clean and well-maintained at the time of the visit. Although the complaint indicated concerns about bathroom cleanliness, the observed condition appeared related to the toilet not being flushed rather than a lack of cleaning. Interviews with residents indicated that four out of five residents were satisfied with the cleanliness of their rooms. Staff, including the Maintenance Director (MD) Daniel Guerrero, reported that rooms are cleaned on a scheduled basis and additionally as needed. Staff also indicated that some residents may refuse cleaning services, which can impact room conditions. Based on the evidence obtained, there is insufficient information to conclude that the facility failed to follow R1’s special diet. Also there is insufficient evidence to support the allegation that the facility failed to maintain resident room cleanliness. Therefore, the allegations mentioned above has been determined to be UNSUBSTANTIATED meaning that although the allegations may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violations occurred. No deficiencies cited at this time and an exit interview was conducted with the facility. A copy of the report and list of confidential names were provided to the facility.