Skip to main content

Inspection visit

Complaint

ALL FOR SENIORSLicense 374600916
Clean visit · 0 citations

Inspector’s narrative

What the inspector wrote

Outside source interviews revealed R1 does not like dogs and was never bitten or scratched. Additional outside source interviews revealed the therapy dogs were hyper and once the incident occurred the dogs were no longer brought back to the facility and the issue was resolved. The current administrator’s interview revealed not being aware R1 was scratched by a dog in the facility. Current administrator stated R1 liked dogs and R1’s family would bring their large dog to the facility with them to visit, which is why the former administrator allowed her small dogs at the facility. It was alleged, Resident #1 (R1) did not receive medical attention for a dog bite. Outside source and staff interviews confirmed R1 was scratched, not bitten by the dog. As mentioned above the former administrator’s interview revealed the small dog belonged to her and was brought to the facility as therapy dog. The small dog accidentally scratched R1 trying to get away from R1. The scratch resulted in a 1-2 inch skin tear. The former administrator applied first aid along with gauze/bandage was placed on the skin tear. Former administrator also stated within three (3) days the skin tear was resolved, and the resident didn't complain of pain. Outside source interviews revealed witnessing the skin tear on R1 and alerted the staff on duty, who was not aware of the skin tear. The staff cleansed and bandaged the skin tear again. Interviews with outside sources and facility staff, agreed that medical attention was not needed, only first aid, which was applied. Conflicting statements were made regarding the medical attention and first aid. The former administrator stated she applied first aid, but the outside source stated they had to make the staff aware of the skin tear. Based on interviews conducted the investigation revealed inconsistent statements and information obtained did not present a preponderance of evidence to support or corroborate the allegations. Therefore, the allegations are determined to be unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted and a copy of this report along with Licensee Rights (LIC 9058 01/16) were provided to Administrator, Connie Banting whose signature below confirms receipt of these rights. [See LIC 811 Confidential Names List to identify Resident #1]

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 July 14, 2022 inspection of ALL FOR SENIORS?

This was a complaint inspection of ALL FOR SENIORS on July 14, 2022. The inspection found no deficiencies and no citations were issued.

Were any citations issued to ALL FOR SENIORS on July 14, 2022?

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.

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.