| Allegation: Staff did not ensure resident received medical care in a timely manner
It is being reported that the facility staff failed to notify the family that R1 had a fall during the night of 1/6/26 and failed to seek medical treatment. Per interview with a family member of R1, during a visit on 1/8/26 the facility staff informed them that R1 had bruises and a skin tear on his right arm and they didn’t know how it happened. Per the family member the skin tear was already beginning to scab. On 3/19/26, LPA Shirley observed a Skin/Body Check form completed by S1 on 1/7/26 indicating an abrasion with mild pain and light bleeding on R1’s right arm. The family member took R1 to urgent care to be assessed on 1/9/26.
LPA interviewed staff 1 – staff 4(S-1 – S-4). Of those interviewed 4 out of 4 denied the allegation. LPA interviewed resident 2 – resident 5 (R2 – R5). Of those who interviewed 4 out of 6 denied the allegation. Two residents did not respond
Based on interviews, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation is found to be substantiated. California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 6, and Chapter 8 are being cited on the attached LIC9099-D.
Allegation: Staff do not follow reporting requirements
It is being reported that the facility staff failed to notify the family that R1 had a fall the night of 1/6/26. Per interview on 3/10/26, the facility administrator, S1 stated that R1 had an incident on 1/7/26, but she did not know that she was supposed to report the fall to Community Care Licensing Division, (CCLD). Per S1 she did not complete nor submit an incident report to CCLD. LPA Shirley advised S1 to complete an incident report and report the incident to CCLD right away. On 3/19/26, S1 sent a picture of a notice of an incident to LPA Shirley by text message advising of an incident involving R1 that occurred on 1/7/26 at 2am.
LPA interviewed staff 1 – staff 4(S-1 – S-4). Of those interviewed 4 out of 4 denied the allegation. LPA interviewed resident 2 – resident 5 (R1 – R5). Of those who interviewed 4 out of 6 denied the allegation. Two residents did not respond.
Based on interviews and records reviewed, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation is found to be substantiated. California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 6, and Chapter 8 are being cited on the attached LIC9099-D.
Con'd on 9099-C |