complaint·July 13, 2025

The department conducted interviews with staff #1-#5 (S1-S5) and residents #3-#10 (R3-R10) and was unable to interview R1-R2. Furthermore, the department and Nathan Boese toured the facility and inspected rooms A202, A212, A124, A129, B101, B201 and common areas. The investigations revealed the following: Allegation: Staff are charging resident for services not rendered. It is being alleged that a resident is paying an additional $700.00 a month to include additional housekeeping but the service is not being provided. On 06/17/25, between 11:00 AM and 12:00 PM, the department interviewed S1-S5. Of those interviewed, 5 out of 5 staff denied the allegation. 5 out of 5 staff stated that residents are receiving the services they are paying for based on their care plan. S1 stated that all residents receive housekeeping once a week, and if additional housekeeping is needed then the residents will then pay an additional fee. S1 stated that this facility has care levels 1-6 with different rates, and staff will then follow the residents’ care plan to meet the residents needs. On 07/12/25 between 01:30 PM and 02:35 PM, the department interviewed R3-R10. Of those interviewed, 8 out of 8 residents stated they are not being charged for services not rendered to them. 8 out of 8 residents said they are satisfied with the services provided to them. The department conducted a review of records on 07/13/25. A Resident Functional Needs Care Profile for R1 dated: 06/21/24 revealed that R1 was receiving additional housekeeping needs. R1 was receiving assistance with making bed daily and taking trash out once per day at 10:00 AM. A Resident Functional Needs Care Profile for R2 dated: 06/21/24 revealed that R2 was receiving additional housekeeping needs. R2 was receiving assistance with making bed daily and taking trash out once per day at 08:30 AM. Based on observation, interviews conducted, and records reviewed, there is not sufficient 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. Continued on LIC9099-C Allegation: Staff are not providing residents with privacy. It is being alleged that staff were asked to stay in the resident’s apartment to watch over a resident. On 07/12/25, between 11:00 AM and 12:00 PM, the department interviewed S1-S5. Of those interviewed, 5 out of 5 staff said they did not know anything about the allegation. 5 out of 5 staff stated that they have not been asked to stay in a resident’s apartment to watch over a resident. S1 stated that they are not aware of staff in a resident’s apartment watching over them, but if that was to happen, it’ll only be in accordance with that resident’s care plan and the residents’ needs. On 07/12/25 between 01:30 PM and 02:35 PM, the department interviewed R3-R10. Of those interviewed, 8 out of 8 residents stated that they are not aware if a staff member was in a resident’s apartment to watch over them. 8 out of 8 residents stated that a staff member has not been asked to stay in their apartment to watch over them. 8 out of 8 residents said they are satisfied with the services provided to them at this facility. Based on observation, interviews conducted, and records reviewed, there is not sufficient 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 Business Office Director, Teresa Ramirez, and a copy of this report is provided.