Skip to main content

Inspection visit

complaint

IVY PARK AT SIMI VALLEYLicense 565850299
Clean visit · 0 citations

Inspector’s narrative

What the inspector wrote

Report Continued from LIC 9099... It was alleged that staff do not communicate with responsible party regarding resident's care. It was reported that Resident #1’s (R1’s) responsible person repeatedly contacted the facility requesting to speak with the ED regarding concerns about R1’s care and billing. Record review and interviews conducted revealed that R1 is renting a two-bedroom apartment; however, payment has been received for only one bedroom for the month of January. Staff interviews indicated that the Business Director (BD) is responsible for handling all billing-related matters. As this issue involved billing, the BD contacted R1’s responsible party and informed them that the rent was past due. Additionally, staff reported that R1’s care has not changed. R1 remains independent, and the only service currently provided by the facility is medication management. Therefore, no changes to R1’s care plan have been made. Based on the information obtained and reviewed, although the allegation may have occurred or may be valid, there is insufficient evidence to determine whether the alleged violation did or did not occur. Therefore, allegation “staff do not communicate with responsible party regarding resident’s care” is deemed Unsubstantiated at this time. It was also alleged that staff did not allow resident to have visitors at the facility. It was reported that R1’s visitor was not permitted to enter the facility to visit R1 on 12/17/2025. Record review and interviews conducted revealed that an incident occurred involving R1’s visitor and another resident. Staff reported that R1’s visitor was not denied access to the facility; however, the visitor was instructed not to walk through the facility searching for or disturbing other residents. Staff stated that visitors are permitted to visit residents at any time; however, all visitors are required to comply with the facility’s house rules while on the premises. According to the admissions agreement, page 12 under “House Rules,” it states: “Residents and their families or visitors must not be disruptive, create unsafe conditions, or be physically or verbally abusive to residents or community staff.” The incident was communicated to R1’s responsible person, who was informed that R1’s visitor would be permitted to visit provided the visit was limited to interacting with R1 only and not with other residents. The ED reported being away from the facility at the time of the incident but stated that staff communicated with them to ensure R1’s responsible person was informed. Report Continued on LIC 9099C... Report Continued from LIC 9099C... Furthermore, during resident interviews, seven out of seven residents interviewed expressed no concerns regarding visitors at the facility and reported no concerns while living at the facility. Based on the information obtained and reviewed, although the allegation may have occurred or may be valid, there is insufficient evidence to determine whether the alleged violation did or did not occur. Therefore, allegation “staff did not allow resident to have visitors at the facility” is deemed Unsubstantiated at this time. It was further alleged that staff did not report an incident to responsible party. It was reported that R1 was not permitted to be inside Resident #2’s (R2’s) apartment and had been observed inside R2’s apartment. Records reviewed and interviews conducted revealed that on 12/16/2025, R1 was observed inside R2’s apartment; however, R2’s family members were also present in the apartment with both R1 and R2 at that time. Staff interviews indicated that the ED was not present at the facility during the incident but remained in communication with staff. Following the incident, R1’s visitor was informed that they would be permitted to enter the facility only for the purpose of visiting and interacting with R1 and not other residents. The ED directed facility staff to contact R1’s responsible party to communicate the incident involving R1, R2, and R1’s visitor. Although the ED was unable to personally contact R1’s responsible party, facility staff notified the incident to R1’s responsible party. Based on the information obtained and reviewed, although the allegation may have occurred or may be valid, there is insufficient evidence to determine whether the alleged violation did or did not occur. Therefore, allegation “staff did not report an incident to responsible party” is deemed Unsubstantiated at this time. Exit interview conducted. A copy of the report was provided.

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 January 16, 2026 inspection of IVY PARK AT SIMI VALLEY?

This was a complaint inspection of IVY PARK AT SIMI VALLEY on January 16, 2026. The inspection found no deficiencies and no citations were issued.

Were any citations issued to IVY PARK AT SIMI VALLEY on January 16, 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.

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.