1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32 | [CONTINUED FROM LIC9099] However, Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (RCFE) dining rooms are not restaurants. The California Retail Food Code classifies a restaurant as a “food facility,” defined in Section 113789(a) as “an operation that stores, prepares, packages, serves, vends, or otherwise provides food for human consumption at the retail level.” Per Section 113789(c)(10), a food facility “does not include…a residential care facility for the elderly...” This notion is supported by a July 2020 E-mail bulletin from San Diego County’s public health agency, which stated, “Long-term care facilities’ indoor dining areas do not have to close, but should follow all precautionary guidelines as outlined by their licensing entities.” The facility's dining program was thus never required to follow California’s “Orange Tier” restrictions. Despite not being bound by 50% seating capacity, both dining rooms in practice still operated below 50% capacity, as confirmed by staff interviews and LPA's inspection.
Additionally, the facility was compliant with CCLD's PIN 21-17.1-ASC and PIN 20-23-ASC, which were the operative COVID-19 dining guidance documents during the time period that the complaint was lodged. The facility had no residents actively isolating or quarantining. LPA observed residents and staff of the facility wearing face coverings in and outside of the dining areas. They were screened for symptoms and had their body temperatures taken at least once daily. COVID-19 signs were posted in public areas, alcohol based hand sanitizer was available at the entrances to both dining rooms, and sinks were stocked with soap, paper towels, hand washing signs, and trash cans with liners. Dining table surfaces were kept free of linen tablecloths and were disinfected multiple times per day. Staff served all meals and snacks to persons in care, and meal delivery trays remained available at all times for those who could not or chose not to participate in communal dining.
Based on observations, records, and interviews, the above allegation was determined to be unfounded, meaning the allegation was false, could not have happened, and/or is without a reasonable basis. We have therefore dismissed the complaint. An exit interview was conducted with Cadmus and John, to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 01/16) were provided via E-mail. |