Skip to main content

Inspection visit

complaint

Clean visit · 0 citations

Inspector’s narrative

What the inspector wrote

On May 2, 2024, LPA interviewed 6 staff, (S1-S6). All staff interviewed stated they give residents privacy when they are meeting with their case managers. S1 & S2 stated the front yard gazebo is sometimes used by staff to eat their lunch, but if a case manager is already there, the staff will give them privacy. S6 stated he/she and S4 were already eating lunch when R1 arrived with his/her case manager. Staff Forced Resident to Sign Documents On April 19, 2024 the department received a complaint alleging Staff forced resident to sign documents On April 26, 2024, LPA's interviewed residents R1-R10. 8 Out of 10 (R2-R3, R5-R10) residents interviewed stated the facility did not force them to sign documents. R4 stated he/she did not know if he/she was forced to sign documents. R1 stated he/she was forced to sign documents, but doesn't know what he/she was forced to sign or when he/she was forced to sign the documents. On April 26 & May 2, 2024, 2024, LPA interviewed facility ADM. ADM stated the facility does not force residents to sign documents. ADM stated if a resident does not want to sign, then they will write, "refused to sign." ADM stated he will then inform their case manager that the resident is refusing to sign. ADM confirmed that R1's social worker was present when R1 was admitted. ADM stated R1's social worker was explaining to R1 what was being signed. On May 2, 2024, LPA interviewed R1. LPA showed R1 his/her resident file. LPA showed R1 the signed documents and R1 confirmed those were the documents he/she signed, this included R1's Identification and emergency information form, Personal Rights, Admission Agreement, Photo release, House rules, Personal Property form, Consent for Emergency Medical Treatment & Release of Client medical information form. R1 stated he/she does not like to sign forms because he/she stated once she signs, she's responsible. R1 confirmed that he/she was not forced or coerced but the staff. R1 stated she likes living at the facility and likes her roommate, R1 confirmed his/her social worker was with him/her when he/she signed. Based on investigation, records reviewed, and interviews conducted, the Department found that the above allegations are UNSUBSTANTIATED . An unsubstantiated finding indicates that although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove that the allegations did or did not occur. No deficiencies cited, an exit interview conducted with Administrator, Sam Apostol and a copy of the report was provided. END OF REPORT.

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 April 26, 2024 inspection of SOUTH COUNTY RETIREMENT HOME INC.?

This was a complaint inspection of SOUTH COUNTY RETIREMENT HOME INC. on April 26, 2024. The inspection found no deficiencies and no citations were issued.

Were any citations issued to SOUTH COUNTY RETIREMENT HOME INC. on April 26, 2024?

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.

SourceView on CCLDView original report

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.