Skip to main content

Inspection visit

complaint

AASTA ASSISTED LIVINGLicense 565850158
Clean visit · 0 citations

Inspector’s narrative

What the inspector wrote

Continued from LIC 9099... LPA Dulek met with the Administrator Monica Reyes and explained the reason for the visit. The LPA interviewed the Administrator at 1:30 p.m., and at various times throughout the visit. The LPA toured the facility with the Administrator at 1:50 p.m. and gathered copies of pertinent documents. No immediate health and safety concerns were identified during the facility tour. On 01/28/2023, Investigator Real conducted interviews with R1’s resident representative; on 02/13/2023, from around 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., with a hospice employee and facility employees; on 02/14/2023, at around 11:00 a.m., with Witness #1 (W1); on 03/14/2023, from around 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., with facility employees; on 04/10/2023 and 04/11/2023, from around 2:25 p.m. to 2:30 p.m., with facility residents; and on 04/23/2023, at around 2:42 p.m., with a hospice nurse. In addition, Investigator Real reviewed Physicians Preferred Hospice records, 01/24/2023 video camera footage of R1’s bedroom at the facility, R1’s Physician Report, and other case-related documents. The case was also referred to the Departments Program Clinical Consultant (PCC) for review. A review of R1’s Physician Report, dated 08/22/2022, indicated the primary diagnosis was metastatic breast cancer and secondary diagnosis was listed as back pain. R1’s health status was listed as poor and R1 was identified as confused and disoriented. On 08/25/2022, R1 was placed on hospice care with Physicians Preferred Hospice and had an order for oxygen as needed (PRN). On 10/01/2022, R1 was admitted to the facility. The video camera footage reviewed of R1’s room on 01/24/2023 revealed a med tech placed an oxygen tank next to R1’s bed and attached R1 to the tank via nose tube at around 9:16 a.m. The med tech checked on R1 later, around 10:40 a.m. and again at 11:35 a.m. No further checks by the med tech were done. Throughout the day various caregivers checked on R1. However, none of the caregivers nor the PM med tech checked on R1’s oxygen tank level until around 6:56 p.m. Continued on LIC 9099C... Continued from LIC 9099C... The video footage further revealed a med tech checked on R1 at 6:00 p.m. at which point it appeared the tank was discovered to be empty. At around 6:45 p.m., the video shows R1’s resident representative checked the oxygen tank and replaced the tank with another machine around 7:00 p.m. According to information obtained from Investigator Real’s interviews, R1’s resident representative felt R1 suffered brain damage because the oxygen had run out in the oxygen tank. However, records reviewed did not reflect a medical diagnosis of R1 suffering brain damage. The hospice employees reported R1 was on hospice and R1’s health had declined to the point they began using supplemental oxygen as a comfort care measure. The hospice staff had no abuse or neglect concerns regarding the facility employees. W1 regularly visited R1 in the facility and had no abuse or neglect concerns and did not believe R1 suffered any brain damage due to the oxygen tank running out. PCC review reflected that per facility staff and hospice nurses, the resident was not observed to be deprived of oxygen beyond slight shortness of breath as her baseline, there was no evidence that indicated the resident lost consciousness during that period, the lack of oxygen did not result in serious injury that meets the definition of Serious Bodily Injury as defined in Section 15610.67 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. The information and evidence obtained during the Department’s investigation did not sufficiently support the allegation, therefore the allegation “Neglect/Lack of Care and Supervision - the facility staff did not ensure Resident #1 (R1) had oxygen resulting in brain injury” is deemed Unsubstantiated at this time. Citations for violations unrelated to the complaint allegation will be cited on a separate report. Exit interview. A copy of the report was provided.

Citations

3 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.

  • 87468.2(a)(4)Type A

    Additional Personal Rights of Residents in Privately Operated Facilities. To care, supervision, and services that meet their individual needs and are delivered by staff that are sufficient in numbers, qualifications, and competency to meet their needs.This requirement is not met as evidence by: Based on interview, and record review, the licensee did not comply with the section above, as facility staff failed to regularly monitor R1’s oxygen and oxygen tank level, which posed an immediate health and safety risk to resident in care.

  • 87464(f)(1)Type A

    87464(f) Basic services shall at a minimum include: (1) Care and supervision as defined in Section 87101(c)(3) and Health and Safety Code section 1569.2(c).This requirement is not met as evidenced by: Based on interview and record review, the licensee did not comply with the above cited section, as facility staff did not assist R1 in rectifying the payment issue with the facility-contracted pharmacy nor assist R1 in obtaining medical care which poses an immediate health risk to residents in care.

  • 87465(a)(4)Type A

    Incidental Medical and Dental Care (a) A plan for incidental medical and dental care shall be developed by each facility....4) The licensee shall assist residents with self-administered medications as needed.This requirement is not met as evidenced by: Based on interview and record review, the licensee did not comply with the above cited section, as facility staff did not assist R1 in obtaining their medications, so no prescribed medications were available to administer for the month of December 2022, which posed an immediate health risk to residents in care.

FAQ · About this visit

Common questions about this visit

What happened during the March 21, 2024 inspection of AASTA ASSISTED LIVING?

This was a complaint inspection of AASTA ASSISTED LIVING on March 21, 2024. The inspection found no deficiencies and no citations were issued.

Were any citations issued to AASTA ASSISTED LIVING on March 21, 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.