complaint·March 7, 2025

(Continued from LIC9099 p.1) Facility management stated that the move was urgent due to the scheduling of the contracted flooring replacements. Management confirmed that verbal notice was provided to all Responsible Parties for the affected residents, however a 30-day written notice was unable to be issued. Staff interviews further revealed that confusion existed among staff and residents/resident families regarding whether the resident moves were temporary or permanent. Review of facility resident rosters before and after the timeframe of complaint confirmed that the Memory Care residents on the second floor were reassigned to first floor rooms. No records were found to show that the Licensee provided the responsible parties involved the required 30-day written notice. The Residence and Care Agreement states that the facility will provide 30-day written notice to residents if a substitute apartment is necessary for a resident. Regarding the allegation, "Licensee did not answer communications from a representative promptly", it was alleged that the Licensee did not respond to inquiries, voicemails, or messages left by a responsible party. Staff interviews corroborated the allegation, informing that management staff did not consistently respond to resident families timely. Staff informed having knowledge of family members contacting the facility multiple times without response from management. Three (3) outside sources familiar with the facility were interviewed regarding the allegation. Two of the outside sources were unfamiliar with the response time from management. One outside source informed of circumstances where messages had been left with management multiple times with no return response. Review of facility records showed written requests made by a resident's responsible party to be responded to by management. The records showed that three attempts were made to three persons in management by the responsible party over a twelve (12) day period with no return response from management. Based on relevant interviews and records review, the preponderance of evidence has been met that alleged violations occurred and are therefore substantiated. Deficiencies are cited per California Code of Regulations, Title 22 (refer to the attached LIC 9099-D). A Plan of Correction was jointly developed with the licensee. An exit interview was conducted with Resident Services Director Nae Brownell, to whom a copy of this report, the LIC811 Confidential Names List, and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided. (Continued from LIC9099 p.1) Evidence exists that the Licensee did not provide written notice within the required timeframe of a resident's permanent room substitution in order for the responsible party to set up the phone. However, due to the facility having a communal telephone for use, the telephone access requirement was met. During an unannounced facility visit on 02/21/2025 LPA directly observed the communal phone provided by the facility and confirmed that it was in working order. Based on interviews, direct LPA observations and records review, a preponderance of evidence does not exist to prove that the alleged violation occurred, therefore the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. An exit interview was conducted with Resident Services Director Nae Brownell, to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided.