Skip to main content

Inspection visit

Complaint

VARENNA AT FOUNTAINGROVELicense 496803049
Clean visit · 0 citations

Inspector’s narrative

What the inspector wrote

This includes, but is not limited to, a prospective resident/resident who depends upon mechanical aids such as crutches, walkers, and wheelchairs. It also includes a prospective resident /resident who is unable, or likely to be unable, to respond physically or mentally to a sensory signal approved by the State Fire Marshal, or an oral instruction relating to fire or other dangers, and if unassisted, to take appropriate action relating to such danger". Medical assessment identified that R1 uses a four wheeled walker, has motor impairment/paralysis, and requires assistance with repositioning and transferring with stand-by-assistance. R1's living unit was located on the third (3rd) floor which is fire cleared for ambulatory residents only by the Fire Department. Varenna's fire clearance approval is, "VILLETTA BLDG-132 NON-AMB, INCLUDES 8 BEDRIDDEN. THIRD FL 72 AMB. CASIITAS #1 THRU #27, 54 NON-AMB. NO & SO BLDGS-64 NON-AMB." Per investigation, it was revealed that Upon R1's reappraisal on 2/18/26, by LVN Jennifer Haney, it was found that R1 was non-ambulatory per medical information obtained and reassessment On 2/19/26, LVN Jennifer Haney and RN Kari Miller contacted R1's responsible party to discuss the reappraisal of R1, and the non-ambulatory status. Responsible party was made aware of the third 3rd floor fire clearance of ambulatory only. Licensee/Administrator did not provide a 30-day written notice to R1 on moving apartments; Administrator had contact with R1's responsible party/family regarding the resident's change in condition, fire clearance approval of the facility's 3rd floor, and R1's discharge back to the facility to a non-ambulatory unit, etc. Administrator had contact on several dates by phone/texts, letter correspondence, emails, and in person, per the following: 2/20 Phone Conversation Re: Discharge and Ambulatory Status 2/20 EM with Copy of License; with additional phone follow up 2/22 Apartment showing at 2Pm scheduled for responsible party 2/23 Care Conference held in person 11am 2/23 EM follow up to Care Conference 2/24 EM with Residency Agreement; EM with Addendum, Phone call at 920am & 350pm 2/24 Texts with questions; in person meeting to “touch base” 2/25 EM with care pricing; EM with notice of care conference; texts to coordinate in person meeting at 12pm; Texts re: Move on 2/26; phone call at 550pm 2/26 In person check ins through the day 2/28 Text to check in Continued on LIC9099C... 3/2 Text Re: Apt vacated 3/3 In person meeting at 12pm 3/5 EM regarding lighting 3/17 Test re: meeting on 3/18 3/18 In person meeting at 1030am regarding Apt & internal waitlist Licensee did not issue 30-day notices to transfer units to an appropriately fire cleared room due to resident's change in condition. If a unit is available the resident may choose to transfer to the unit if agreed upon by all parties. Licensee does provide 30-day written notice of eviction when applicable, but Licensee/Administrator had not issued a 30-day notice of eviction at that time. The Administrator was offering the only available non-ambulatory unit for R1's transfer, covering cost of move into the unit, and some additional agreed upon items regarding the contract, the move, and the unit's amenities. R1 did return from the hospital and into the appropriately fire cleared unit, meeting their needs. Regarding allegations of "staff are inappropriately making resident move apartments" and "staff did not give resident's authorized representative a 30-day notice to move apartments", there was information to support violations had occurred. T he information obtained in this investigation didn't support that violations had occurred regarding alleged allegations. Based on the interviews, record/document reviews, and related information obtained during the investigation, the allegations are UNFOUNDED. We have found that the complaint allegation(s) are/were unfounded, meaning that the allegation was false, could not have happened and/or is without a reasonable basis. No deficiencies cited during today’s visit. Exit interview was conducted with Administrator Douglas Blake.

Citations

2 citations recorded*CCLD

What does Type A vs Type B mean?

Type A. Serious citation. Imminent or substantial risk to children. The regulator requires corrective action immediately and may impose a civil penalty.

Type B. Lower-severity citation. Corrective action required, no imminent risk. The regulator monitors compliance on the next visit.

  • 87202(a)Type A

    Maintain fire clearance before retaining specified persons

    87202(a) Fire Clearance -All facilities shall maintain a fire clearance approved by the city, county, or city and county fire department, or district providing fire protection services, or the State Fire Marshal. Prior to accepting or retaining any of the following types of persons, the applicant or licensee shall notify the licensing agency and obtain an appropriate fire clearance approved by the city, county, or city and county fire department, or district providing fire protection services, or the State Fire Marshal. This requirement was not met as evidenced by: R1 had a medical assessment on 2/22/23 that identified a change in condition; R1 was marked as non-ambulatory, per physical condition, and was residing on the 3rd floor which is fire cleared for "ambulatory only". R1 remained residing on the 3rd floor until just recently, R1 was moved into an appropritely fire cleared unit 2/2026 This is a risk to residents health & safety.Immediate CP assessed $500.

    Read full inspector narrative
  • 87463(a)(b)Type B

    87463(a)(b) Reappraisals- The pre-admission appraisal, shall be updated in writing as frequently as necessary or once every 12 months, whichever occurs first, to note significant changes in condition. The reappraisal shall document significant changes in the redent's physical, mental, cognitive, behavioral, or functional condition, including those required to be documented. R1 did not have an appropriate reappraisal as required by change of condition after the medical assessment completed on 2/22/23. There was not a plan addressing resident's non- ambulatory status and move to an appropriately fire cleared unit, per a reappraisal meeting new needs of R1. This is a risk to residents personal rigthts and health & safety.

FAQ · About this visit

Common questions about this visit

What happened during the March 30, 2026 inspection of VARENNA AT FOUNTAINGROVE?

This was a complaint inspection of VARENNA AT FOUNTAINGROVE on March 30, 2026. The inspection found no deficiencies and no citations were issued.

Were any citations issued to VARENNA AT FOUNTAINGROVE on March 30, 2026?

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.

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.