On 04/22/2022, LPA Lopez conducted an inspection at the facility currently licensed as 565850169 under complaint control # 29-AS-20210409080302 and the LPA conducted an interview with Staff #4 (S4), reviewed medication records, and obtained copies of pertinent records.

On 04/25/2022, LPA Lopez conducted a telephone interview with Staff# 5 (S5) at 3:42 PM. On 04/27/2022 LPA Lopez conducted a telephone interview with Staff #2 (S2) at 2:29 PM. On 04/28/2022, LPA Lopez conducted a telephone interview with S1 at 1:19 PM and a telephone interview on 04/29/2022 with former Administrator Leatrice Bogoyvac at 2:11 PM. On 04/25/2022 and 04/26/2022, the LPA attempted to conduct telephonic interviews with Staff # 6 and Staff #7 but did not receive a returned call.

On 05/10/2023, the LPA conducted a Collateral Inspection at Oakmont of Camarillo 565850169 and conducted interview with four residents between 1:16 PM and 2:03 PM and reviewed nine resident files between 2:11 PM and 4:03 PM.

Allegation: Facility staff failed to complete pre-admission appraisals prior to move in.

The allegation alleges Facility Staff #1 (S1) failed to complete pre-admission appraisals prior to residents moving into the facility. Interviews with the Administrator revealed S1 was primarily responsible for conducting the pre-admission appraisals. Interviews with Staff #1 (S1) revealed a resident could not take over financial placement until the initial pre-admission appraisal is done. Once a resident moves in, the Memory Care Director and the Assisted Living Director were responsible for conducting the 14 day assessment. The LPA reviewed five resident files that resided at the facility during the time S1 worked at the facility and found all files to have pre-admission assessments in file. Based on the information obtained there is insufficient evidence to support the allegation occurred. Therefore, the allegation is deemed unsubstantiated at this time. Report continued on LIC 9099-C.

The allegation allege S1 would update assessments without observing the residents which resulted in the facility incorrectly charging the residents. During the interview with the Administrator, they stated the only complaints they received regarding being overcharged were assessments conducted by the prior Health Services Director before they were the Administrator. The Administrator stated they believe they reassessed everyone when she became Administrator and the charges were fixed. During the interview with S1, they stated the residents pre-admission assessments and 14 day assessments were conducted but Staff#9 (S9) did not go over them with the families although S1 did not believe this resulted in residents being overcharged. S1 said after S9 left, they had to reassess everyone and go over the assessments with families. Based on the information obtained, there is insufficient evidence to support the allegations occurred. Therefore, the allegations of Facility conducted inaccurate/improper updated assessments of residents and Facility incorrectly charged residents is deemed unsubstantiated at this time

Facility staff failed to communicate with residents’ POAs.

The allegation alleges there were complaints of lack of communication with the Administrator and Staff #1 (S1) by the residents’ POAs. During the interview with the Administrator, they stated they spoke with the families of residents frequently and got along well with the families. The Administrator stated when families would contact her with issues and they would work with the family on resolving them. During the interview with S1, they stated the prior administration had communication issues with families and S1 and the Administrator worked hard to communicate with the families. S1 stated they were not aware of any communication issues with any families. Based on the information obtained there is insufficient evidence to support the allegation occurred. Therefore, the allegation of Facility staff failed to communicate with residents’ POAs is deemed unsubstantiated at this time.

Allegation: Facility staff failed to adequately supervise residents.

The allegation alleges Resident #1 was allowed to freely roam outside of the memory care unsupervised. Information received revealed R1 initially moved into the memory care, but after R1 and their family complained, R1 was allowed access out of the memory care to attend assisted living activities or to do their own thing without supervision. Although, R1 was not considered a wander risk, there were concerns of a memory care resident being unsupervised. The allegation also alleges Resident #2 (R2) eloped from the facility and was found by a nearby freeway. Report continued on LIC 9099-C.

Allegation: Facility food was not adequate for residents.

The allegation alleges the facility had insufficient service and meals were not being delivered. During the Collateral inspection on 05/10/2023, the LPA conducted interviews with four residents who resided at the facility during the time the complaint was filed. Interviews conducted revealed insufficient evidence to support the allegation occurred. Interviews with staff also revealed insufficient evidence to support the allegation. Therefore, the allegation of Facility food was not adequate for residents is deemed unsubstantiated at this time.

Allegations: Facility did not have sufficient staff to meet residents' needs and Residents made to wait an excessive period of time for assistance.

The allegations allege lack of staffing, especially when the facility had a COVID-19 outbreak and a caregiver was instructed by Staff #2 (S2) to let residents wait when they use their pendant’s for assistance due to the staffing shortages. During the interview with S2, they stated staff shortages, especially when the facility had a COVID-19 outbreak would affect pendent response time but S2 denied ever instructing staff to not respond timely to a pendent call. S2 stated they were not aware of any injuries or incidents due to untimely response times. Other staff interviewed confirmed staffing shortages during COVID-19 outbreaks but could not recall any particular circumstance where a care need was not met. Based on the information obtained there is insufficient evidence to support the allegations occurred. Therefore, the allegations of Facility did not have sufficient staff to meet residents' needs and Residents made to wait an excessive period of time for assistance are deemed unsubstantiated. Report and appeals rights were emailed for signature.