Skip to main content

Inspection visit

complaint

AMBER HOUSELicense 496800153
Clean visit · 0 citations

Inspector’s narrative

What the inspector wrote

Continued from LIC9099... “Resident needs are not being met” and “Facility is not ensuring resident’s safety” - Complainants alleged that Resident 1 (R1) needed a higher level of care due to increased agitation and that R1 was not safe at the facility because they weren’t being properly supervised. Complainants stated that R1 would go on walks by themselves and that the facility only had 1 staff member to care for 4 to 5 residents. Review of R1’s Physician’s Report dated 08/25/2023 states that R1 is able to leave the facility unassisted. During visits conducted on 06/06/2024 and 07/03/2024, LPA observed that there were 2 staff members on site. Interviews conducted with R1 and Resident 2 (R2) stated that they were happy at the facility and that they had no concerns about the care being provided at the facility. These allegations are Unsubstantiated . “Facility is not notifying responsible party of change in condition and/or needed medical care” - Complainants alleged that the responsible party for R2 was not notified when they went to the hospital. Complainants also stated that R1 was prescribed a new medication and that the responsible party was not notified of the medication change. Review of R1’s file indicated that R2 is their responsible party. Interview conducted with R1 and R2 stated that R2 is the responsible party for R1. Review of R2’s file indicated that they are their own responsible party. Requests to the Complainant for additional documentation to verify the responsible parties were unsuccessful. Review of incident reports for R1 indicated that the facility would notify R2 appropriately. Interview conducted with R2 stated that they went to the hospital and was picked up by a family member. These allegations are Unsubstantiated . “Facility failed to meet mandatory reporting requirements due to lack of staff training” - Complainants stated that facility staff told them that they haven’t received training for mandated reporting or for dementia behaviors such as wandering. Complainants also stated that facility staff did not report that R1 was hitting other residents. Review of staff files indicated that all staff have received training for mandated reporting and for dementia behaviors. Staff interviews conducted indicated that staff are aware of when they need to report incidents related to mandated reporting and for dementia behaviors. Staff interviews conducted provided conflicting statements. 3 of 4 interviews stated that while R1 has been observed to be verbally aggressive towards other residents, they have not seen R1 hit or be physically aggressive towards R2 or other residents in the facility, while 1 of 4 interviews conducted stated that they did not observe R1 hitting R2 or other residents but heard that it was happening. This allegation is Unsubstantiated . Continued on LIC9099C... Continued from LIC9099C... “Personal Rights” - Complainants alleged the following: R1 hit R2 on multiple occasions, Facility Licensee changed R1 and R2’s emergency contact/responsible party information to themselves, and Staff Member 1 (S1) impersonated a family member when R2 went to the hospital. Staff interviews conducted provided conflicting statements. 3 of 4 interviews stated that while R1 has been observed to be verbally aggressive towards other residents, they have not seen R1 hit or be physically aggressive towards R2 or other residents in the facility, while 1 of 4 interviews conducted stated that they did not observe R1 hitting R2 or other residents but heard that it was happening. Interview conducted with Licensee denied that R1 and R2’s emergency contact information was changed to be the Licensee and denied that S1 impersonated a family member. Interview conducted with S1 denied the allegation and stated that they introduced themselves to hospital staff as R2’s caregiver. Review of R1’s file indicated that R2 is their responsible party. Interview conducted with R1 and R2 stated that R2 is the responsible party for R1. Review of R2’s file indicated that they are their own responsible party. Requests to the complainant for additional documentation to verify responsible party information were unsuccessful. This allegation is Unsubstantiated . A finding that the complaint allegation is Unsubstantiated means that 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. No Deficiencies Cited during visit. Exit interview conducted. Copy of report and Confidential Names (LIC811) discussed and provided to Caregiver/Designated Responsible Party . Signature on form confirms receipt of documents.

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 October 17, 2024 inspection of AMBER HOUSE?

This was a complaint inspection of AMBER HOUSE on October 17, 2024. The inspection found no deficiencies and no citations were issued.

Were any citations issued to AMBER HOUSE on October 17, 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.