Follow-up on corrections·September 10, 2025

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Sabrina Calzada arrived unannounced to conduct a case management inspection and met with Evie Sloan, DSP and Dennis Abadilla, Administrator Designee. LPA stated the reason for the inspection. A case management inspection is being conducted today to follow up on (2) allegations made through a formal complaint on June 2, 2025, at a related facility. During the investigation, it was determined that the (2) staff/individuals referenced in the allegations did not work or were not present at the related facility, but at this facility. The (2) allegations and determinations are as follows: Uncleared adult(s) are present in the facility. The complaint alleged that staff (S1) was working at the facility without the required fingerprint clearances. Documentation was reviewed confirming that (S1) received a fingerprint clearance on May 1, 2024 and was associated to the facility on this same day. The allegation also stated individual (S2) who was not employed at the facility, stayed at the facility beginning in March 2025 and was not fingerprint cleared. The investigation revealed that (S2) entered the facility on/around March 10, 2025 and stayed there until as late as on/around May 18, 2025. The Administrator indicated that (S2) stayed at the facility for approximately two weeks. Staff (S3) stated (S2) was visiting the facility off and on starting on March 10, 2025. Review of department records showed that (S2) did not receive fingerprint clearance and was not associated to this facility, or any other licensed facility. Based on information obtained, this portion of the allegation is substantiated and a citation and penalties are being issued. *cont on 809C-1.. 809C-1.. Allegation: Residents were exposed to a staff member with Tuberculosis. The allegation states that individual (S2) was visiting and staying with staff (S3) and (S2) was recently discharged from the hospital for having a diagnosis of Tuberculosis (TB). The allegation states (S3) and the clients are/were possibly exposed to TB. During the investigation, LPA spoke with (2) public heath nurses in June 2025 regarding (S2) possibly being treated and hospitalized due to having TB. One nurse provided information on (S2's) TB status beginning on 5/20/25 and confirmed that (S2) was "approved to be discharged to a skilled nursing" on 5/29/25, after being hospitalized in San Diego County starting on 5/20/25. This nurse confirmed there was "no active TB" upon discharge but "(S2) has a history of TB from the Philippines" and (S2) completed all their treatments. A second public health nurse, in Sacramento County, confirmed that (S2) was in San Diego and Sacramento County was planning on seeing them again but (S2) was in the process of relocating to another area. The nurse stated that (S2) was not considered to have active TB; however, a "final determination is still needed" from her office, asserting (S2) "would not have had an active disease in March 2025" and the county was planning to see them. The nurse explained that (S2) could have had residual findings related to a positive test and "collective sputem on (S2)" which is not considered an active case. The Administrator stated (S2) is currently residing out of state and was recently hospitalized due to other medical conditions unrelated to TB. The Administrator stated that it's very common for individuals from (S2's) country of origin to test positive initially for TB after taking a Quantiferon TB test and then follow up with a chest X-ray which shows a negative result for TB. All staff and clients (4) at this facility had a TB test given from June 2025 through August 2025. All results provided showed a negative result, if not initially from the Quantiferon test, then from a follow up X-ray. (S3) was advised to have a follow up X-ray done on 6/16/25, and was not found to have active TB. Based on information obtained, this allegation is found to be UNSUBSTANTIATED- A finding that the complaint is Unsubstantiated means that although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred. Exit interview. Copy of report provided.