Complaint·June 11, 2026

(Continuation from LIC9099) LPAs observed a white and black device, approximately four inches in length, mounted on a wall in R1’s bedroom. Interview with Staff #1 (S1) reported the facility requested family approval prior to installing a motion sensor device in the selected resident bedrooms. During a tour of R1’s bedroom, LPA observed the motion sensor device angled towards R1’s sleeping area. LPA Flores was granted access to the device’s notification system and discovered that the device did not capture audio or video footage. When activated, the device sends a notification to the tablet on what resident bedroom detected movement. Interview with S1 reports that the motion sensor is calibrated to identify the resident by weight and height. LPA inquired if consent records were obtained for the motion sensor device for R1. An interview conducted with S1 reported that S1 contacted R1’s responsible party to gain consent to install the motion sensor device in R1’s bedroom. S1 provided LPA Flores with their cellphone to view the text message chain. A text message sent to R1’s responsible party on 01/16/2026 by S1 revealed that S1 contacted R1’s responsible party requesting permission to install a sensor in R1’s bedroom. R1’s responsible party responded to the text messages agreeing to the installation of the motion sensor. LPA verified the text messages validity by comparing the telephone number from the text messages to R1’s responsible party telephone number listed on file. Additional interviews conducted with R1’s responsible party reported during a visit to the facility on 06/10/2026, R1’s responsible party learned that the device was a motion sensor device. R1’s responsible party reported that staff did not demonstrate how the motion detectors operate. R1’s responsible party reports that they did not recall the text exchange occurring. R1’s responsible party reports that there is a possibility prior text message exchanges were deleted with S1 and could not verify if prior authorization was given to install the sensors. LPA attempted to interview R1; due to R1’s cognitive ability, the interview attempt was unsuccessful. Information received alleged staff placed a tag alarm on R1 in an inconvenient place. An interview conducted with R1’s responsible party reported that during a visit with R1, R1 was observed to have a clip on the collar of their sweater along with a “garage remote” sized device clipped on the mid-left side of R1’s back. R1’s responsible party reports that the alarm was placed in a location where it may cause potential harm to R1 if R1 fell backwards and landed on the alarm. (Continue to LIC9099C2) (Continuation from LIC9099C1) An interview with S1 confirmed that R1 has a tag alarm that clips onto the clothing. S1 reported that due to R1’s frequent falls, the facility was attempting to reduce the potentiality of R1 falling by implementing the tag alarm. S1 stated that R1’s responsible party did not report concerns to facility staff utilizing the tag alarm. On 06/06/2026, LPA Flores observed R1 stand up from the rollator seat and began walking away from the rollator. When the tag alarm was activated, it triggered an alarm that nearby staff can hear. LPA observed Staff #2 (S2) approach R1 and encourage R1 to grab onto their rollator but R1 ignored S2’s attempts of redirection. (3) Three subsequent visits were conducted after the initial visit on 06/06/2026, where LPA did not observe R1 to be utilizing the tag alarm. LPA attempted to interview R1; due to R1’s cognitive ability, the interview attempt was unsuccessful. Information received alleged staff are not providing a comfortable environment to R1. An interview conducted with R1’s responsible party reported that facility staff never divulged to R1’s responsible party that staff of the opposite sex would assist R1 with dressing, bathing, or toileting. R1’s responsible party reports that on 5/31/2026, R1’s responsible party learned that Staff #3 (S3) assisted R1 with self-care needs and expressed feeling uncomfortable to managing staff. R1’s responsible party reports that staff have made accommodations since reporting concerns to staff but is not sure if the preferences are being enforced throughout every shift. Interview with (3) three staff report that since learning concerns from R1’s responsible party, the facility has made accommodations by providing selected residents to receive care from specific staff only. Interviews with Staff #4 (S4) reports that each care staff are assigned to set resident bedrooms and will rotate weekly. When the residents are known to have a specific staff preference, coordination will occur to switch off a resident to ensure the workload is equal. S4 reports that the accommodations are provided for every shift. LPA attempted to interview R1; due to R1’s cognitive ability, the interview attempt was unsuccessful. Therefore, the allegation of staff installed a camera in resident's room, staff placed a tag alarm on resident in an inconvenient place, and staff are not providing a comfortable environment for resident are deemed unsubstantiated. Unsubstantiated means the preponderance of evidence standard has not been met. An exit interview was conducted with Medication Technician Lead Aileen Padilla, and a copy of this report was provided to Business Office Manager Nicole Anguiano.