Complaint·May 11, 2026

Continued from LIC9099... Interview with Administrator indicated that the resident was brought back by the family of a staff member, this individual was a not a staff member themselves, after seeing R1 along the side of a street and recognized them. Interviews with seven (7) of seven (7) staff indicated that in-service training on elopement has been given following incident. Based upon evidence gathered, there is a preponderance of evidence to prove that the allegation has been SUBSTANTIATED and is valid. Deficiencies are cited from the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 6 of California Regulation and the Health and Safety Code. Failure to correct the cited deficiency(ies), on or before the Plan of Correction (POC) due date, or repeat violations within a 12-month period, may result in a civil penalty assessment. Appeal rights were provided. See LIC9099D. Exit interview conducted with Administrator, whose signature on form confirms receipt. Continued from LIC9099A... Staff did not provide responsible party with admissions agreement – RP alleges that an updated Admission Agreement was not provided upon Change of Ownership of facility. Review of facility information indicated that the facility has undergone a name change and has replaced management staff but has not completed a change of ownership. Following a Change of Ownership, facilities are not required to complete a new Admission Agreement for their residents and shall honor previous Admission Agreements upon resident requests. Staff did not provide resident or responsible party with reappraisal for alleged change of condition – RP alleges that facility did not provide an updated appraisal following facilities claim of a change of condition. Review of documents indicated that R1 eloped on 2/27/2026 and was taken out of the facility by family on 3/2/2026. Further review of documents indicated that an Elopement Risk Assessment, Mini-Mental State Examination, and Behavioral Expression Appraisal were conducted on 2/27/2026 with an updated Service Plan drafted on the same date. Interviews with management indicated that R1 moved out before the updated Service Plan was implemented and R1’s family did not sign off on the Service Plan. Although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur, therefore the allegations are unsubstantiated . No deficiencies cited. Exit interview conducted with Administrator, whose signature on form confirms receipt.