complaint·August 20, 2025

Second allegation: Resident did not have access to phone while in care. Regarding the allegation LPA conducted interviews with Staff#1-3 who informed LPA that resident #1 was in room #105 however, was transferred to 2nd floor Room#208 because R#1 phone/call light was not in working condition and because of that matter R#1 was relocated. LPA conducted a room inspection and observed that R#1 had access to a phone in addition, LPA inspected R#1 phone/call-light and discovered that R#1 phone was in working condition during the time of the inspection. Third allegation: Facility staff did not adequately clean resident’s bathroom. Regarding the allegation LPA conducted interviews with S#1-3 who informed LPA that on different occasions housekeeping has attempted to clean R#1 room however, R#1 refused for housekeeping to clean R#1 room. S#1-3 informed LPA that conversations with R#1 regarding safety precautions were held however, staff indicated that R#1 refused. LPA conducted a walkthrough in R#1 room LPA observed room to be in standard LPA inspected R#1 bathroom and observed bathroom to be in standard in addition, LPA observed that all bathroom fixtures were in working condition. LPA conducted interviews with Staff #1-3 who informed LPA that residents rooms along with bathrooms get cleaned daily. LPA conduced interviews with Resident #2-4 regarding housekeeping and all residents informed LPA that they have no issues pertaining to their bathrooms or rooms. R#2-4 informed LPA that their bathrooms get cleaned daily by housekeeping. Fourth allegation: Facility is in disrepair. Regarding the allegation stated above LPA conducted a walkthrough of the facility first and second floor, during the walkthrough LPA observed facility to be clean and free of clutter. During the walkthrough LPA observed that the inside of the facility was in good repair LPA observed that all safety features in the facility were in working condition. LPA conducted a walkthrough of the outer perimeter of the facility and observed that the outer perimeter was in good repair. Fifth allegation: Facility staff did not follow resident's diabetic diet. Regarding the allegation LPA conducted interviews with S#1-3 who informed LPA that R#1 was on a diet order based on resident diabetic diet. S#1-3 informed LPA that InnoVage would send the facility a new diet order if any changes will occur. S#1-3 informed LPA that meal orders are provided to kitchen who then follow all resident’s meal plans based on each resident[s] requirements. During review of records LPA observed that R#1 was on a regular texture with a diabetic plan. Based on corroborating evidence obtained during the course of the investigation, LPA has determined that the above allegation is Unsubstantiated. Unsubstantiated: meaning that 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. An exit interview was conducted where this report (LIC 9099) was discussed, and a copy was provided to Facility Administrator Heather O’Neel at the end of the visit. Substantiated; A finding that the complaint is Substantiated means that the residents’ is valid because the preponderance of the evidence standard has been met. Title 22 regulations 87465(a)(2), incidental medical and dental care from division 6, chapter, article 6, is being cited on the attached LIC 9099 D. An exit interview was conducted where this report (LIC 9099) was discussed, and a copy was provided, along with a copy of the appeal rights to Facility Administrator Heather O’Neel.