complaint·November 19, 2025

(Continued from Page 1 LIC9099) Staff interviews revealed that Resident 1 (R1) was alert, oriented, and independent with daily tasks. Staff 1 (S1) stated that as a result of the continued elopements, the facility arranged 1:1 caregiver support, used an Apple AirTag for monitoring, and held care conferences with the responsible party and healthcare providers. Despite these efforts, R1 often refused assistance and continued to leave the facility independently. Staff followed protocol by notifying the responsible party and law enforcement when R1 left and sought guidance from the Community Care Licensing Department regarding how to proceed. Staff also noted that R1 expressed a strong desire to live independently and had a history of returning from elopement safely. Outside source interviews revealed that R1 was described as cognitively intact, capable of making informed decisions, and able to manage personal affairs such as finances and medical care. Outside Source 1 (OS1) confirmed as Power of Attorney that the facility made efforts to supervise R1 and responded appropriately to elopement concerns. Outside Source 2 (OS2), a psychiatric nurse practitioner, stated that R1 retained reasoning, safety awareness, and the ability to plan and carry out their own departure. Both sources agreed that R1 was not at risk to themself when leaving the facility. Records review revealed that the facility documented R1’s behaviors, coordinated with healthcare providers, and implemented interventions in response to elopement concerns. R1's preplacement appraisal supported the assessment that R1 was not a harm to themselves or others and was mentally alert and oriented. Progress and Care notes indicate an almost daily log of ongoing supervision and concern for solutions to R1's eloping and independence. There was no evidence of harm or injury resulting from R1’s departure, and the facility’s actions were consistent with regulatory expectations. Based on relevant interviews and records review, a preponderance of evidence does not support that the alleged violation occurred. Therefore, the allegation is determined to be: UNSUBSTANTIATED. An exit interview was conducted with Pamela Talamentes, Resident Services Director, to whom a copy of this report, the LIC811 Confidential Names List, and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided.