Skip to main content

Inspection visit

complaint

ATRIA CARMICHAEL OAKSLicense 347005251
Clean visit · 0 citations

Inspector’s narrative

What the inspector wrote

LPA interviewed care staff in which they stated R1’s appetite began to decline while on hospice care but R1 was still able to eat finger foods and staff continuously offered food. Due to the information gathered LPA finds allegation to be Unsubstantiated. LPA investigated allegation, “Staff did not assist resident with obtaining medical care”. LPA interviewed relevant parties and staff and reviewed resident medical documentation and facility documentation. LPA interviewed relevant party in which they stated R1 was on hospice care but R1 was declining rapidly due to an untreated Urinary Tract Infection(UTI). Relevant Party stated once R1 was moved, new care staff observed signs of an UTI and R1 was treated and began to regain their strength. LPA interviewed care staff in which they stated they did not observe any signs of an UTI. Care staff stated they changed R1 every 2 hours or as needed. LPA interviewed hospice staff in which they stated they had no concerns with R1 receiving proper continence care. Hospice staff stated once R1 did move, new facility staff did report signs of a UTI and antibiotics were provided to R1 to resolve the issue. LPA reviewed hospice documentation, and found no concerns related to an UTI or continence care. LPA reviewed facility documentation, and found no concerns or documentation concerning continence care or an UTI. Due to the information gathered, LPA finds allegation to be Unsubstantiated. LPA investigated allegation, “Staff did not assist resident with ambulating”. LPA interviewed relevant parties and staff and reviewed resident medical documentation and facility documentation. LPA interviewed relevant party in which R1 began needing more caregiver assistance toward the end of their stay and staff would not help R1 out of bed and R1 became bedbound. Relevant party stated that once R1 moved out of the facility and received treatment for an UTI, R1 was no longer bedbound. LPA interviewed care staff in which they stated R1 was ambulatory and walking around facility until August 2025 while on hospice care. Continuation on 9099-C. R1’s health was declining and by September 2025 R1 was unsafe to ambulate independently and was bedbound. Caregiver stated they would try to get R1 out of bed but R1 was too weak to be moved into a wheelchair. R1 moved out of the facility on September 17 th . LPA interviewed hospice staff in which they stated facility staff were assisting R1 with ambulating until September 2025 when R1 was needing more assistance to transfer and the facility had limitations with providing a lift assist. Hospice staff stated R1 needed a higher level of care and was moved shortly after. LPA reviewed facility documentation in which resident was ambulating in and out of bed until September 2 nd , and a care conference was scheduled with responsible parties concerning R1’s decline. LPA reviewed hospice documentation, and there was no documentation showing facility staff were not assisting resident with ambulation. Due to the information gathered, LPA finds allegation to be unsubstantiated. LPA investigated allegation, “Staff did not communicate with responsible party regarding resident's care”. LPA interviewed relevant parties and staff and reviewed resident medical documentation and facility documentation. Relevant party stated facility staff would not communicate with R1’s responsible party regarding resident’s care and billing. LPA interviewed care staff and memory care manager in which they stated they spoke to R1’s responsible party several times a week and had a care conference with responsible party prior to R1’s move out. Memory care manager provided LPA emails and text messages to and from R1’s responsible party showing communication. LPA interviewed hospice staff in which they stated a care conference was held on 9/4/25 with facility staff, hospice, and responsible party over the phone concerning R1’s health concerns. Hospice staff stated they scheduled another in-person meeting with responsible party and no one from the facility showed up. Due to the information gathered LPA finds allegation to be Unsubstantiated. Continuation on 9099-C. LPA investigated allegation, " Staff are charging resident for care not rendered". LPA interviewed relevant parties and administrator and reviewed documentation. R1 was placed on hospice in June 2025 and their rates increased. Relevant party stated they were charged for services that were not rendered from facility staff and therefore the responsible party should be reimbursed for that. LPA interviewed administrator in which she stated once R1 moved out of the facility the responsible party requested for a refund. Normally facility requires a 30-day notice during the move out process but administrator stopped the fees on 9/17/25, the day R1 moved out. No further refund was issued. LPA interviewed staff in which they stated they provided proper care to R1. LPA interviewed hospice staff in which they stated there were no concerns about neglect but R1 needed to move out to higher level of care. Due to the information gathered LPA finds allegation to be UNSUBSTANTIATED. Although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove that the alleged violations occurred, and the findings are unsubstantiated. Exit interview was conducted and copy of report provided.

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 February 25, 2026 inspection of ATRIA CARMICHAEL OAKS?

This was a complaint inspection of ATRIA CARMICHAEL OAKS on February 25, 2026. The inspection found no deficiencies and no citations were issued.

Were any citations issued to ATRIA CARMICHAEL OAKS on February 25, 2026?

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.