complaint·October 25, 2025

In regard to the allegation” Facility failed to check on the safety of resident”, It is alleged that after three days of calling R1 with no answer family went to facility and found R1 on floor and had to tell staff for help. During interview with Executive Director, staff three (3) out of seven (7) stated that R1 required no level of care and was independent. Executive director stated that meal checks are the only way to check on residents for the day and that the meal checks have not being done properly in the past. S3 stated that R1 was marked as refused on 06/09/2002 and 06/10/2022 because he/she did not see R1 at mealtime and assumed R1 did not want to eat. S4 stated they were responsible for verifying and signing off the meal attendance report but had not been doing that. During interviews with residents nine (9) out of ten (10) stated that staff comes and checks on them. R2 stated it may take them awhile but they come eventually. Based on record review and conducted interviews, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegations are found to be SUBSTANTIATED. Deficiencies are being cited according to California Code of Regulations, Title 22 and Health and Safety Code. An exit interview was conducted, and a copy of this report was given to Crissy Panganiban. In regard to the allegation “Resident was found on the floor in his room with feces and urine”, it is alleged that staff failed to check on R1 and was found by family covered in feces and urine on the floor. During interviews with Executive Director and staff three (3) out of seven (7) stated that they never observed feces or urine on R1. Three (3) staff did not see R1 at time of incident. During record review LPA did not obtain any document that could collaborate this allegation. During interviews with residents nine (9) out of ten (10) residents stated they have never been left in urine or feces, and staff helps them with their incontinence needs. Based on interviews conducted and records reviewed, there is insufficient evidence to support the allegations. Although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove 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 provided.