Skip to main content

Inspection visit

complaint

VINEYARD RANCH AT TEMECULALicense 331881258
Clean visit · 0 citations

Inspector’s narrative

What the inspector wrote

Allegation #1: Facility staff serve poor-quality food. The complaint alleged that the facility served lukewarm soup, a sandwich, and undercooked fried food. On December 23, 2025, LPA interviewed the Administrator (A1), who denied the allegation and stated that the facility serves food upon request. The Administrator also mentioned that no residents had complained about receiving cold food. During the same visit, LPA interviewed five staff members #1-5 (S1-S5), all of whom denied the allegation and affirmed that food is served hot. Additionally, S4 explained that the kitchen serves both hot and cold food. If residents order hot food, they receive hot food; if they order cold food, they receive cold food; but otherwise, residents are not served cold or frozen food. On the same day, LPA interviewed five residents #2-6 (R2-R6), all of whom denied receiving cold food when they ordered. They all stated that the soup and French fries are served hot. On December 23, 2025, LPA reviewed the facility menu and the optional menu (dated 11/30 and 12/20/2025), which displayed a variety of food choices for the residents. LPA was unable to interview R1 because R1 moved out of the facility on 10/13/2024. 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. Report continued on LIC9099C. Allegation #2: Facility staff do not respond to residents’ call buttons in a timely manner. The complaint alleged that the residents pressed their call buttons for assistance but had to wait 35 minutes for assistance. On December 23, 2025, LPA interviewed the Administrator (A1), who denied the allegation and stated that a staff member could respond to the pendant alarm within 10 minutes. Or the closest staff member to answer the pendant alarm. On December 23, 2025, LPA interviewed five staff members #1-5 (S1-S5), all of whom denied the allegation and stated that as soon as the pendant alarm activates, any available staff member will assist the residents. They also stated that it takes less than ten minutes to respond to the alarm. On December 23, 2025, LPA interviewed five Residents #2-6 (R2-R6), all of whom denied that it took 30 minutes to respond to their alarms after pressing the alarm buttons. They also stated they never had to wait more than 10 minutes. On the same day, LPA observed a resident, R2, pressing the pendant. It takes only 2 minutes for a staff member to respond to the alarm. Furthermore, LPA reviewed the Needs of Service plan (dated 01/04/2024) for R1, which showed that R1 was independent and ambulatory. LPA was unable to interview R1 because R1 moved out of the facility on 10/13/2024. 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. Report continued on LIC9099C Allegation #3: Facility staff force residents to sleep. The complaint alleged that a staff member entered the resident's room, yelled at the resident, took the TV remote, and forced the resident to go to sleep. On December 23, 2025, the LPA interviewed the Administrator (A1), who denied the allegation and stated that staff would not force residents to go to bed early. The same day, the LPA also interviewed five staff members, #1-5 (S1-S5), all of whom denied ever asking any residents to go to sleep early. Additionally, on December 23, 2025, the LPA interviewed five residents, #2-6 (R2-R6), all of whom denied ever being asked to go to sleep early. They also stated that the staff are friendly and never force them to go to bed. The LPA was unable to interview R1 because R1 moved out of the facility on 10/13/2024. 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. No deficiencies were cited. An exit interview was conducted, and a copy of the report was provided to the Resident Services Director Dizon-Garcia Bituin.

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 December 23, 2025 inspection of VINEYARD RANCH AT TEMECULA?

This was a complaint inspection of VINEYARD RANCH AT TEMECULA on December 23, 2025. The inspection found no deficiencies and no citations were issued.

Were any citations issued to VINEYARD RANCH AT TEMECULA on December 23, 2025?

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.