complaint·May 22, 2025

(Continuation of LIC9099) It was specifically said there were staff who are not being properly trained to assist residents in care. Interview with S1 and S2 said that they have been caregivers since about 2015. They had former training at their previous homes they worked, but according to S1, they had not received training at this facility. S1 said that former staff denied to train them and S2 when they first started. According to S2, they had a former certificates that expired and had no training for their current residents in care. S2 confirmed their CPR/First Aid were current. Upon LPA’s review of staff training documents, none of the training documents had been taken by any of the caregivers, S1 or S2. No additional training documents were observed in either of the facility’s staff files. It was specifically alleged that the Licensee did not inform the Department of the installation of the cameras and auditory devices throughout the facility. Interviews with staff confirmed that there were cameras installed at the facility when they initially visited the facility, but they were taken down. Both S1 and S2 were unaware whether the surveillance had an auditory device. According to S1, they were unsure if there were any auditory devices throughout the facility. Interview with R1 confirmed that there were cameras placed in the dining area and the living room area of the facility. They did not have any auditory devices installed in their immediate area. According to R2, they confirmed that they did have cameras at the facility and were not sure about them because it felt like a prison but were fine with it later. They were unaware if they had auditory devices. According to R3, there were cameras in the facility, but they had already been taken down. R3 did not recall when they were taken down. LPA spoke with Licensee Chapari, who confirmed that they had cameras installed but had been taken down due to an internal issue with a former staff. Licensee Chapari still had video clippings of their cameras and showed them to LPA. LPA confirmed that the video clippings had the auditory device installed with the surveillance. LPA toured the facility rooms and did not observe any additional devices auditory devices installed other than an third-party device that is voice activated in a residents room. Upon LPA’s review of the facility’s file, per the facility’s initial submission of their facility sketch, there is no indication that surveillance videos would be installed in the facility’s common areas. Upon review of the facility’s Plan of Operation, it did not indicate that the facility would be utilizing the use of cameras in any area of the facility. Upon review of the facility’s Admission Agreement, there was no indication that the facility provided notification that use of camera’s would be utilized at the facility. The Department had not received a waiver from the facility requesting to have surveillance installed. Upon LPA’s entrance to the facility, LPA observed that there were installations of a possible cameras that were installed in the dining area and in the living room area. (Continuation on LIC9099-C) (Continuation of LIC9099-C) It was specifically revealed the Licensee did not inform the Department of the alterations at the facility, which caused disruptions to the residents. According to S1, they spoke with the licensee who informed them that the caregivers will be staying in the newly built rooms that were constructed in the garage. According to R2, the rooms had been already completed when they arrived and only recently added the windows. Interview with R1 said there was construction in the garage and would hear the saws of the construction. The construction workers would work from about 3:30 PM through 8 or 9 PM, or until dark. According to R2, they were told about the construction, but that did not bother them. According to R3, the construction would start in the evenings. The strange thing was that the construction workers would go into the attic. Licensee Chapari confirmed that construction had been done from December 24, 2024 through this past weekend, January 25-26, 2025. According to the facility’s file, there was no indication that the Department had received information regarding the facility’s alteration. Upon LPA’s tour, the garage was remodeled to an office and a bedroom. The facility sketch on file did not have the rooms added to their garage. Based on the Department’s investigation of the above-mentioned allegation and the evidence obtained during staff and outside source interviews, records reviewed, and LPA observations, there is sufficient evidence to meet the preponderance of evidence standard. Therefore, the above allegations are deemed to be substantiated. California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 8, is being cited on the attached LIC9099-D of this report. The report was discussed, plan of correction was jointly developed, and an exit interview was conducted with administrator Cindy Chapari. A copy of this report along with Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 3/22) were provided to administrator Chapari at the conclusion of the visit. The signature below confirms the receipt of these documents. (Continuation of LIC9099-A) Interview with Staff #2 (S2) confirmed that both S1 and Staff #2 (S2) commenced their employment at the facility on 1/22/25. LPA was informed that they go by AKAs to make it easier for residents to call on them. LPA obtained S1 and S2’s full names and dates of birth. According to the Department records, both S1 and S2 are cleared staff and were associated with the facility before their start date at the facility. It was specifically alleged that staff had another staff person take their training to qualify for their training requirements. They said they had taken an online training and when the certificate was printed it said the name for Staff #3 (S3). According to S3, they did not have any staff take online courses for their requirements. They had taken their own requirements online recently. They provided LPA with their certifications which were dated between April 2025 and May 2025. They formerly had staff review their hard copied binder with caregiver training information. Once they completed the review, caregivers would need to take an exam at the end which was a hard copied exam. Based on the Department’s investigation of the above-mentioned allegations and the evidence obtained during resident, staff and outside source interviews, and records reviewed, there is insufficient evidence to meet the preponderance of evidence standard. Therefore, the above allegations are deemed to be unsubstantiated. The report was discussed, and an exit interview was conducted with administrator Cindy Chapari. A copy of this report along with Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 3/22) were provided to administrator Chapari at the conclusion of the visit. The signature below confirms the receipt of these documents.