It is alleged that staff did not take proper measures to ensure Resident #1 (R1) would not be harassed by another resident. Reports indicate that (R1) was being harassed by Resident #2 (R2). The facility had no specific plan of action to ensure (R1’s) safety and that (R1) would not be accosted by (R2) any further.

On April 23, 2026, between 9:30 AM and 11:59 AM the Department interviewed staff members identified as Staff #1 through Staff #8 (S1-S8). Eight (8) out of the eight (8) staff members could not support this claim. All staff members indicated that they have observed occasional instances of mutual misunderstanding or agreements to disagree between (R1) and (R2). It is noteworthy that these situations are often initiated by (R1). However, it has been agreed that no instances of harassment have been reported. Staff interviews confirmed they are trained in resident supervision, de-escalation practices, and reporting requirements. Staff indicated they intervene promptly when any resident-to-resident conflict arises.

On April 23, 2026, between 01:00 PM and 3:37 PM, the Department interviewed resident members identified as Resident #2 through Resident #8 (R2-R8). (7) out of the (7) could not support this claim. All residents, including (R2), who is mentioned in the harassment allegation, have reported that there are no persistent or unresolved harassment issues within the community. They noted that staff members are effective in managing conflicts among residents. (R3-R8) provided statements regarding the matter, indicating that (R2) is unlikely to be the cause of any issues and that (R1) appears to have arrived at this conclusion based on insufficient observations.

(R2) acknowledged the concern, noted (R2) positive interactions with (R1), and stated that there have been no conflicts or negative interactions between them.

On June 3, 2026, June 11, 2026, and June 16, 2026, the Department attempted to contact Resident #1 (R1) multiple times, but the calls went unanswered.

The Department reviewed resident records, staff training documents, facility policies, and the facility’s incident logs. The review of records indicated no documented cases of resident harassment that facility staff ignored or improperly managed.

Evaluation Report continues LIC 9099-C)

Based on information gathered, there was insufficient evidence to support that staff failed to take appropriate measures to substantiated that staff neglected supervision or failed to intervene.

Allegation #2: Staff did not conduct a proper reassessment for residents.

It is alleged that the staff did not properly reassess Resident #1 (R1). Reports indicate a lack of transparency about increased care assessment charges that staff communicated on February 20, 2026. These charges are considered unwarranted because staff provided no justification or calculation details. Additionally, further reports state that staff failed to give the required notice of the change in care within two days. Staff did not inform (R1) or their representatives of any issues with the standby shower time frame, preventing them from addressing the problem or disputing additional charges. No further information is available on this matter.

On April 23, 2026, between 09:30 AM and 11:59 AM, the Department conducted interviews with staff members identified as Staff #1 through Staff #8 (S1-S8). Eight (8) out of the eight (8) staff members could not corroborate this claim. (S1-S5) reported that (R1’s) representative was informed, in an in-person Care Conference held on March 11, 2026, about (R1’s) changes in (R1’s) care assessment, and that the facility communicated with all care management staff who were present as witnesses, which facilitated transparency in discussing the new care assessment, including itemized charges for stand-by shower supervision and an increase in medication management. (S1) stated that several updates have been made to (R1's) care assessment and that (R1's) representative was notified by email. (S1) emphasized that the Residence and Services Agreement outlines all optional services, care charges, and care levels, which (R1's) representative acknowledged. (S1-S3) confirmed that optional services, such as an increased time frame for standby shower supervision and increased medication management, affect (R1's) level of care and an increase in care fees. Staff interviews consistently indicated that reassessments are performed when a resident's condition changes and are reviewed annually, in accordance with facility policy and Title 22 regulations.

(Evaluation Report continues LIC 9099-C)

On June 3, 2026, June 11, 2026, and June 16, 2026, the Department attempted to contact Resident #1 (R1) multiple times, but the calls went unanswered.

The Department reviewed (R1’s) Resident Assessment (dated 03/18/26, 02/20/26 & 12/09/25), Care Fees Notification (dated 10/01/25), Email communications (dated 09/30/25 through 07/20/26), Itemization for Charges (dated 12/01/25 through 04/01/26), Resident Monthly Statement (dated 07/01/26) and Formal Demand for Prorated Refund Letter (dated 07/24/26). Further review of (R1’s) Residence and Service Agreement (dated 10/12/21) refers to page 6, under the sections for Fees for Optional Services, Care Fees, and Level of Care, as well as section 4, Adjustments to Fees or Services, subsection (b), regarding Services. In accordance with licensing requirements, Ivy Park may modify the scope and/or frequency of services provided under this agreement at its discretion.

Based on the information gathered, there is insufficient evidence confirms that staff failed to conduct proper reassessments. Documents show that staff completed and maintained reassessments in resident files, and interviews raised no concerns about reassessment practices.

Based on the information collected from the facility inspection, observations, interviews, and records analysis, the Department found no evidence to support the above allegations. The allegations may have happened or are valid, but there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violations occurred. Therefore, the allegations are Unsubstantiated.

No deficiencies cited.

An exit interview was conducted with Wendy Caudle, and copies of the reports were provided.