Skip to main content

Inspection visit

complaint

PALM COURT ASSISTED LIVINGLicense 336403366
Clean visit · 0 citations

Inspector’s narrative

What the inspector wrote

Fruit and Harris indicated that the urine smell could have possibly been caused by R1’s dog as it was observed that R1’s dog would urinate in the room. Information obtained from an interview with R1 stated that the smell was originated from the mattress. R1 denied that their dog was the cause of the urine smell present in the room. At the time of the inspection and follow up visits, the mattress was no longer in R1’s room. LPA interviewed R1’s current roommate, Resident 2 (R2), who indicated that they had no issues with the odor in the room. LPA interviewed other residents’ who indicated that the facility was free from odors. LPA did not interview R1’s previous roommate due to the fact that the previous roommate had moved out of the facility and LPA was unable to obtain contact. Regarding the allegation that the sink was not in good repair, LPA interviewed Maintenance Director, Anthony Brown, who stated that the sink was in good repair. Maintenance Director indicated that the sink was operational and able to drain. Maintenance Director also noted that R1’s room did not have any work orders related to drain issues when he pulled up the work order history for the room. Observations during the LPA’s initial and subsequent visits showed that the sink was in good repair and draining properly. Information obtained from Resident stated that the facility took 24 hours to check the seals around the sink. LPA conducted a random sampling of residents regarding the facility’s condition. Information obtained from residents indicated that they had not experienced any issues with the facility being in disrepair. It was also stated that residents would submit a work order and the issue would be addressed in a reasonable amount of time. Information obtained from staff members also indicated that work orders are fixed within a reasonable amount of time. Based on the information obtained during the investigation, the allegations that facility staff does not keep residents' rooms free from odor and that the resident’s sink is in disrepair are unsubstantiated. Although the allegations may have occurred or may be valid, there is not enough evidence to prove that the alleged violations did or did not occur. Therefore, the allegations are unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted, and a copy of this report was discussed with and provided to the Administrator.

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 January 23, 2025 inspection of PALM COURT ASSISTED LIVING?

This was a complaint inspection of PALM COURT ASSISTED LIVING on January 23, 2025. The inspection found no deficiencies and no citations were issued.

Were any citations issued to PALM COURT ASSISTED LIVING on January 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.