Skip to main content
CovelightCare
  • Start your search

    • MapExplore homes by area and what matters to you.
    • Directory
    • Guided search
    • Medi-Cal care homes

    Take a closer look

    • Check a home
    • Compare homes
    • Ask homes for me
  • Step by step

    • All care guidesEvery guide, in the order you’ll need them.
    • 1Step 1: Learn the kinds of care homes
    • 2Step 2: Ways to pay for care
    • 3Step 3: Find homes and check them
    • 4Step 4: Visit, and get the papers before you sign
    • 5Step 5: Move in
    • 6Step 6: The first months, and your rights

    Start with a question

    • Who pays for a care home?
    • Does Medi-Cal pay for a care home?
    • Board and care or assisted living?
    • Leaving the hospital soon?
    • Can a care home make someone leave?
    • Print a visit checklist
    • Check a home’s license
  • Professional tools

    • All professional tools
    • Discharge planning
    • Care management
    • Fiduciaries
    • Elder-law attorneys
    • Public-record worklist

    Care home operators

    • Manage your home’s profileYour home’s information and family inquiries.
    • Claim a home
    • Operator sign in
  • Get to know Covelight

    • How we work
    • Our data & sources
    • What’s new
    • Suggest a correction
    • Contact us
Saved homesGuided search
  • Start your search

    • MapExplore homes by area and what matters to you.
    • Directory
    • Guided search
    • Medi-Cal care homes

    Take a closer look

    • Check a home
    • Compare homes
    • Ask homes for me
  • Step by step

    • All care guidesEvery guide, in the order you’ll need them.
    • 1Step 1: Learn the kinds of care homes
    • 2Step 2: Ways to pay for care
    • 3Step 3: Find homes and check them
    • 4Step 4: Visit, and get the papers before you sign
    • 5Step 5: Move in
    • 6Step 6: The first months, and your rights

    Start with a question

    • Who pays for a care home?
    • Does Medi-Cal pay for a care home?
    • Board and care or assisted living?
    • Leaving the hospital soon?
    • Can a care home make someone leave?
    • Print a visit checklist
    • Check a home’s license
  • Professional tools

    • All professional tools
    • Discharge planning
    • Care management
    • Fiduciaries
    • Elder-law attorneys
    • Public-record worklist

    Care home operators

    • Manage your home’s profileYour home’s information and family inquiries.
    • Claim a home
    • Operator sign in
  • Get to know Covelight

    • How we work
    • Our data & sources
    • What’s new
    • Suggest a correction
    • Contact us
Guided search
St. Anthony's Board and CareLicense #374600449 · Covelight Care
Covelight CareSt. Anthony's Board and CareLicense #374600449 · 6533 Plaza Ridge Road, San Diego, CA · (619) 470-4571Record printed from covelightcare.com — data as of the dates shown on each item.
Home/California/San Diego County/San Diego/St. Anthony's Board and Care
Map · 6533 Plaza Ridge Road

© Protomaps © OpenStreetMap

Estimated starting rate$3,900/mo

Covelight estimate · likely $3,200–$4,800 · See costs

Check availability

Request a tour

More days
  • AskThe cost, or your own question
  • (619) 470-4571

    From the state licensing record · October 26, 2026

Free for families. A home gets your number only if you say yes.

SA

Call St. Anthony's Board and Care

San Diego · Licensed for 6

(619) 470-4571

From the state licensing record · October 26, 2026

or

Let us do the legwork

  • We ask about availability, price and the care you describe.
  • If it’s a fit, you choose whether they call you. Either way, you get every answer.
Check availabilityFree

Small home · Licensed for 6 · San Diego

St. Anthony's Board and Care

6533 Plaza Ridge Road, San Diego, CA 92114 · Licensed since 1996

  • Overview
  • Care
  • Costs
  • Daily life
  • Location
  • State record

St. Anthony's Board and Care

Overview

Estimated starting rate

$3,900 a month

Covelight estimate · likely $3,200–$4,800 See costs

No openings reported

  • Approved by the state: Wheelchair · HospiceState licensing record · October 26, 2026
  • Licensed for 6: a small care homeThe state license record

Ask this home

Check availability

Request a tour

More days
  • AskThe cost, or your own question

Free for families. A home gets your number only if you say yes.

Care and support

  • Wheelchairup to 4 residents
  • Hospiceup to 2 residents

Not on file: dementia and bedridden approvals.

Approved by the state · State licensing record · October 26, 2026. An approval may cover specific rooms or residents; it does not establish an opening.

Read the state’s own wording
FACILITY SERVES SIX (6) ELDERLY RESIDENTS, AGES 60 AND OVER, FOUR (4) NON-AMBULATORY RESIDENTS APPROVED IN ROOMS 1 & 5. HOSPICE WAIVER FOR TWO (2) RESIDENTS.

935 - ELDERLY

CDSS record, verbatim · October 26, 2026

As needs change

  • Staying through hospice

    Hospice waiver on file · covers up to 2 — care may continue at the end of life

    State licensing record · October 26, 2026

We’ll ask for you. Not on file for St. Anthony's Board and Care: two-person transfers or a lift, who is awake overnight, help with medicines and care if memory loss develops. When we check availability, we ask about these too.

Check availability

What it costs here

Covelight estimate

$3,900a month to start

Likely $3,200–$4,800

From 10 nearby homes that publish rates · this home’s rate is not on file

Monthly cost breakdownWith a shared room and basic help · room, care and fees$3,900likely a month
Room
Daily care
Sharing the room

Memory care is not priced here: a dementia-care designation is not on file for this home. Ask the home.

  • Starting monthly rate$3,900likely $3,200–$4,800

    Covelight’s estimate starts from the rates 10 small homes within 3 miles publish, then adjusts for this home’s size, state care approvals, Medi-Cal waiver participation, years licensed and the area’s prices. In testing, the likely range held the real rate for 6 in 10 homes. This home’s own rate is not on file.

  • Basic help with daily careUsually includedup to $600

    Basic help is usually part of the starting rate. Homes that price care by level start around $600 a month (44 California homes publish a care-level range, seen in September 2026).

  • One-time move-in fee$2,500one time · likely $0–$4,000

    Homes that list a one-time entry or community fee charge a median of $2,500 (133 California listings; middle half $1,000–$4,000). Many homes list none — ask.

Likely monthly totalLikely $3,200–$5,000
$3,900
First monthWith a one-time move-in fee · likely $3,800–$8,250
$6,400
How people payPrivate pay, Medi-Cal waiver, SSI/SSP, veterans, insurance
  • MedicareDoes not pay for room and board in a care home. It can still cover hospice or home-health visits inside one.
  • Private payMost residents pay from savings, a home sale or family help. Ask for the rate and what it includes in writing.
  • Medi-Cal Assisted Living WaiverThis home is not on the DHCS participation list dated October 1, 2026. Ask the program about current options. The waiver pays for care services, not room and board.
  • SSI/SSPCalifornia’s 2026 standard is $1,626.07 a month; $1,444.07 of it goes to the home and $182 stays with the resident. Whether this home accepts it is not on file — ask.
  • VeteransVA Aid & Attendance can add to a veteran’s or surviving spouse’s pension. Ask whether residents here have used it.
  • Long-term care insuranceMost policies pay for licensed care homes. Ask what paperwork the home provides for claims.
If the money runs out, what Medi-Cal covers
Rates at nearby homes10 nearby homes publish starting rates of $3,000 to $7,000

$3,000$7,000

EstimateLikely rangeA nearby home’s published starting rate

10 homes like this within 3 miles publish starting rates mostly between $3,250–$5,250.

  • Villa Victoria Care HomeSan Diego · 0.7 mi · Small home
    $3,000Listed on Seniorly · assisted living shared bedroom · seen September 9, 2026
  • Archangel's Residential CareSan Diego · 0.9 mi · Small home
    $4,000Listed on Seniorly · assisted living shared bedroom · seen September 9, 2026
  • Daleina's Home CareNational City · 1.3 mi · Small home
    $4,000Listed on Seniorly · seen September 9, 2026
  • Mayflower Home CareSan Diego · 1.4 mi · Small home
    $4,500Listed on Seniorly · assisted living shared bedroom · seen September 9, 2026
  • Morningside ManorSan Diego · 1.5 mi · Small home
    $4,500Listed on Seniorly · assisted living private room · seen September 9, 2026
  • Ideal Home CareNational City · 1.9 mi · Small home
    $5,000Listed on Seniorly · assisted living shared bedroom · seen September 9, 2026
  • Seniors Dignity Home and CareSan Diego · 2.1 mi · Small home
    $3,500Listed on Seniorly · assisted living shared bedroom · seen September 9, 2026
  • Ohana Care HomeSan Diego · 2.3 mi · Small home
    $7,000Listed on its own website · monthly service fee · seen October 27, 2026
  • Sarasona Home CareBonita · 2.4 mi · Small home
    $4,500Listed on Seniorly · assisted living shared bedroom · seen September 9, 2026
  • Warm Heart Senior LivingBonita · 2.6 mi · Small home
    $7,000Listed on Seniorly · assisted living private room · seen September 9, 2026
How this estimate worksWithin 25% for 7 in 10 homes in testing

Covelight’s estimate starts from the rates 10 small homes within 3 miles publish, then adjusts for this home’s size, state care approvals, Medi-Cal waiver participation, years licensed and the area’s prices. In testing, the likely range held the real rate for 6 in 10 homes. This home’s own rate is not on file.

  • Only prices a home put out itself count: its own website, a listing it supplied, or a price Seniorly says the home confirmed. Prices a listing site shows without saying where they came from are left out.
  • Nearby homes are the nearest of the same size that publish a rate, widening from 3 to 40 miles until at least 8 do. The estimate starts from what they charge, then adjusts for this home’s size, state care approvals, Medi-Cal waiver participation, years licensed and the area’s prices.
  • Room, care-level, second-person and move-in lines come from what California homes publish on listing sites. Memory care uses Covelight’s researched premium over assisted living.
  • Totals add each line’s figure and combine the lines’ ranges as separate charges, because a home is rarely at the top, or the bottom, of every line at once.
  • We tested this estimate on 1,546 California homes that publish their own starting rate. It was within 10% of the real rate for 3 in 10 homes and within 25% for 7 in 10; the likely range held the real rate for 6 in 10 (September 12, 2026).
  • It cannot see this home’s specials, how it assesses care, or which rooms are open.
Avoid surprises on the billWhat changes the price, and what to ask
  • The care level

    Some homes charge one all-inclusive rate. Others add levels or points as needs grow. Ask how the level is set, who decides, and what the next level costs.

  • What is billed separately

    Medication management, incontinence supplies, transportation and a second person in the room are often extra. Ask for the list in writing.

  • Move-in costs

    A one-time move-in fee or deposit is common. Ask what it covers and whether any of it comes back if the stay is short.

  • Increases

    California requires at least 90 days’ written notice, with reasons, before a rate rises (Health & Safety Code §1569.655). A change in the resident’s care level is the section’s own exception and can be billed sooner.

Ask for the price

An estimate for planning, not a quote. A home sets the price after hearing about the care needed.

Daily life

Daily life here is not on file yet. Most small homes haven’t published it, and that says nothing about the home.

The best way to see it is a visit.

Request a tour

Where it is

6533 Plaza Ridge Road, San Diego, CA 92114Address from the public record · October 26, 2026. Confirm the entrance with the home before visiting.

Opening the neighborhood map…

  1. 1Paradise Valley HospitalHospital · General acute care, on the state’s list1.6 mi

Straight-line distances; check the drive or the walk. Hospital: the nearest general acute care hospital on the state’s list (CDPH, September 16, 2026).

Open directions ↗

The state record

California inspects every licensed home and publishes what it found. A citation does not make a home unsafe, and an empty file does not make a home good.

CDSS public record, read October 26, 2026 · License #374600449 · See the state’s own record ↗

The last 36 months — 6 of 13 documents

Complaint outcomes in these 36 months, in the state’s words: 2 “Substantiated”.

20261 state visit · 1 document

Oct 5, 2026Facility evaluation reportReport on file

We haven’t transcribed this report yet. The complete document is on the state’s site.

20252 state visits · 2 documents

Dec 5, 2025Facility evaluation reportRoutine visitReport on file

Type of visit: Required - 1 Year

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Carmen Lopez conducted an unannounced required Annual Inspection. The facility file was reviewed prior to the visit. LPA identified herself and was granted entry by caregiver Benachloe Sabio. LPA discussed the purpose of the visit with caregiver Sabio. According to the facility’s license, there may be a maximum of 6 residents, 4 of whom may be non-ambulatory in approved bedrooms 1 & 5 at any given time at the facility site. The facility is approved for 2 hospice residents. During today’s inspection, the facility’s current census is 5 residents living at the facility. There were no residents present at the facility site during the inspection. LPA inspected the interior and exterior of the facility and inspected each room. The facility was clean, sanitary, and in good repair. Pathways were free of obstruction and slip hazards. Client bedrooms contained the required furnishings. Doors, windows, toilets, and showers were in working order. Extra linens and hygiene supplies were present, as well as Personal Protective Equipment. The facility had sufficient space and equipment to facilitate dining, laundry, visitation, meetings, and activities. There were at least 2 days of perishable food, and at least 7 days of non-perishable food present. Cooking, dining equipment, and utensils were present and all safely stored. There were no toxic chemicals or poisons accessible to residents. Medications were properly labeled, as required, and stored in a locked cabinet, which LPA inspected. The facility-maintained medication logs, which LPA reviewed. [CONTINUED ON LIC 809-C] [CONTINUED FROM LIC 809] No pools or bodies of water on the premises. There is was a fireplace which was not in use and inaccessible to clients. Per caregiver Sabio, no firearms or ammunition are kept at the facility. Carbon monoxide detectors, emergency lighting, and the facility telephone were all working. A fire extinguisher was present (01) but needed to be serviced within the last 12 months. A first aid kit was complete and readily accessible. LPA spoke with a staff and resident, and reviewed staff and resident records. LPA interviews did not raise any licensing concerns. The files that LPA reviewed contained the required documents. Confidential records were stored in a locked area. Required licensing postings were observed in a visible area of the facility. There were deficiencies observed and cited during today's annual inspection, as well as Technical Violations (TV) and Technical Advisories (TA) issued, which may be found within this report. An exit interview was conducted with caregiver Benachloe Sabio, to whom a copy of this report, along with the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22), were provided at the conclusion of the visit. The signature below confirms that the documents were received. LPA requested caregiver Sabio to submit a current Designation of Administrative Responsibility (LIC 308), Personnel Report (LIC 500), and Emergency Disaster Plan (LIC610-E) to the licensing office within 10 business days. Forms are available at www.ccld.ca.gov.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Dec 5, 2025

The state marks this report as 13 pages; the online copy we transcribed has 6. You can request the full file from the county licensing office.

Oct 15, 2025Complaint investigation reportSubstantiated

Allegation investigated: - Staff did not ensure resident is spoken to in an appropriate manner - Staff did not ensure medication is dispensed as prescribed - Licensee did not ensure staff is in good health to perform assigned tasks

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Carmen Lopez conducted an unannounced complaint visit to open a complaint investigation. While at the facility, LPA investigated and delivered findings regarding the above-mentioned allegations. LPA identified herself and was granted entry by Benachloe Sabio, caregiver. LPA stated the purpose of the visit and reviewed the findings of the complaint with Licensee Bessie Pascual. The Department’s investigation consisted of interviews with staff and residents, and records review of relevant documents pertinent to this investigation. On October 8, 2025, it was said that staff did not speak with residents in an appropriate manner; staff did not ensure medication is dispensed as prescribed; and licensee did not ensure that staff is in good health to perform assigned tasks. It was specifically alleged that staff scream at residents in care and licensee did not ensure that staff were in good health to perform assigned tasks. Interview with the residents #1, 2, and 4 confirmed that the staff #1 (S1) did scream at them while in their care. (Continuation on LIC9099-C) Substantiated According to R1, they had to tell S1 not to scream at resident #2 (R2) who is unable to defend themselves. R1 said that they informed the Licensee and their daughter. According to R2, they were able to understand the questions and answer them in small words and were able to articulate and scream how S1 would scream at them. While LPA spoke with them, they seemed in an altered state and their eyes started to tear up. LPA was able to inquire how they are currently being treated, and they were able to say they were being treated better. Resident #4 (R4) did confirm that S1 did yell at everyone. According to resident #3 (R3), they were treated fine and S1 did not yell at them. Resident #5 was unable to be interviewed as they were unable to hear well and would change the conversation when LPA asked them questions multiple times. According to staff #2 they confirmed S1 would yell at the residents. Staff and residents did confirm that S1 was hard of hearing which Licensee confirmed. Licensee did inform LPA that S1 was hard of hearing and had vision issues. LPA inquired if they had any PCP notes for the staff that indicated they had any issues with their hearing and they did not. Licensee said that when they had asked S1 about yelling at residents they had denied they yelled at them. S1 had informed Licensee that they were unable to hear. According to staff #3 and 4 (S3 and S4), they had not heard any staff yell at residents. According to S5 they had observed S1 being burnt out the last few weeks when they would speak to them but did not observe S1 yelling at residents. It was specifically said that staff were unable to administer medications as prescribed. The facility was unable to provide a medication profile sheet for R1, but they did have a MAR from R1s pharmacy. The facility had just recently received their MAR but were using their own medication log. LPA was unable to obtain the accurate medications R1 was to take but was able to compare the medications to the pharmacy MAR and the facility MAR. There were discrepancies found during the review. The pharmacy MAR did not have three medications the facility had on their medication log and in R1s medications that are being administered. There was one medication that the bubble pack and the facility MAR had as a PRN, but the pharmacy log had the medication being administered two times daily. The pharmacy MAR had a medication that the facility MAR and the facility did not have. Based on the Department’s investigation of the above-mentioned allegations and the evidence obtained during staff and resident interviews, and records reviewed, there is sufficient evidence to meet the preponderance of evidence standard. Therefore, the above allegations are deemed to be substantiated. California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 8, is being cited on the attached LIC9099D. The report was discussed, plan of correction was jointly developed, and an exit interview was conducted with Licensee Bessie Pascual. A copy of this report along with Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 3/22) were provided to Licensee Pascual at the conclusion of the visit. The signature below confirms the receipt of these documents. They believed that R4 had taken them as they had previously taken their food items that are on the facility cub board. According to S2, they were informed that R1 had missing hats for a few days and decided to look for them alongside R1. S2 had found the hats in their assigned closet under their television and the rest behind their television. According to R1, nothing further was taken. R1 said that they keep their food items in their room, which LPA observed and confirmed. According to R1 they had bug bites prior to the facility being tented. LPA inquired if they had any bites after they had returned and they denied having any new bug bites on them. LPA confirmed with staff #2 and Licensee that the facility had been tented within the last month, between 09/18 – 21/2025. Licensee said that they had to remove the pesticides from the facility as the bi-monthly services were inadequate and there were still bugs around. Licensee said that so far they had not see any bugs since their return. It was specifically alleged that the food they only eat is a peanut butter and jelly sandwich with a salad for dinner. According to R1, they are fine with the food they eat at the facility. The Licensee recently took them to the store to purchase some food, snacks and hygiene products they wanted. They said that the food there is okay but better than the last place they lived. According to R2, they do like the food at the facility and had no issues with it. They like eating meatballs and spaghetti. According to R3, they liked the food especially pizza nights which they have weekly and eating pancakes. According to R4, they used to eat a lot of Filipino foods, but no longer eat that and currently eat cereals, hard boiled eggs, tea and coffee which is better than before. According to S2 and S3 they assist with meal preparation. S2 cooks the food and they attempt to make the meals that the residents prefer such as french toast, pancakes, coffee, tea, cereals, oatmeal, eggs, beef stew and other meals they prefer. LPA observed that the facility did have two refrigerators and pantry which held sufficient food items. Based on the Department’s investigation of the above-mentioned allegations and the evidence obtained during staff and outside source interviews, records reviewed, and LPA observations, there is insufficient evidence to meet the preponderance of evidence standard. Therefore, the above allegations are deemed to be unsubstantiated. The report was discussed, and an exit interview was conducted with Licensee Bessie Pascual. A copy of this report along with Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 3/22) were provided to Licensee Pascual at the conclusion of the visit. The signature below confirms the receipt of these documents.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Oct 15, 2025 · control 08-AS-20251008160719

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: CCR 87468.1(a)(1) · Plan of correction due date: Oct 17, 2025

Personal Rights of Resident in All Facilities (1) To be accorded dignity in their personal relationships with staff, residents, and other persons... This requirement was not met as evidenced by: Based on the Departments investigation during interviews there was confirmation that staff #1 (S1) would yell at three of 5 residents in care which posed an potential risk to residents in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Oct 15, 2025

Plan of correction: According to LIcensee, S1 is not currently working at this facility. This is deemed cleared during the visit.

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: CCR 87411(f) · Plan of correction due date: Oct 17, 2025

Personnel Requirements - General: (f) All personnel, including the licensee and administrator, shall be in good health, and physically and mentally capable of performing assigned tasks...this requirement was not met as evidenced by: Based on the Department's investigation, during staff and resident interviews, they confirmed that S1, had hearing and vision conditions that needed to be addressed which posed an potential risk to 5 of 5 residents in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Oct 15, 2025

Plan of correction: Per the Licensee, S1 is no longer working at this facility. This is deemed cleared during the visit.

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type A · Section cited: CCR 87465(e) · Plan of correction due date: Oct 16, 2025

Incidential Medical and Dental: e) For every prescription and nonprescription PRN medication for which the licensee provides assistance there shall be a signed, dated written order from a physician, on a prescription blank, maintained in the residents file, and a label on the medication. Both the physician's order and the label shall contain at least all of the following information... this requirement was not met as evidenced by: Based on the Departments investigation during the records review, the facility did not maintain an accurate MAR for resident #1 (R1) of 5 residents in care which posed an immediate health risk to 1 of 5 residents in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Oct 15, 2025

Plan of correction: Licensee agreed to contact R1s pharmacy and obtain medication sheets for all their residents and schedule staff to obtain medication training by POC due date, 10/16/2025.

20242 state visits · 2 documents

Dec 4, 2024Facility evaluation reportRoutine visitReport on file

Type of visit: Required - 1 Year

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Carmen Lopez conducted an unannounced required Annual Inspection. The facility file was reviewed prior to the visit. LPA Lopez identified herself, was granted entry by caregiver Benachloe Sabio. LPA discussed the purpose of the visit with caregiver Sabio and Licensee Bessie Pascual who later arrived and joined the visit. According to the facility’s license, there may be a maximum of six (6) residents in care, four (4) of whom may be non-ambulatory in rooms 1 & 5 in at any given time at the facility site. Facility is approved for 2 hospice residents. During today’s inspection, the facility’s current census is five (5) residents living at the facility. There were 2 residents present at the facility site during the inspection. LPA, accompanied by Licensee Pascual, toured the interior and exterior of the facility, and inspected each room. The facility was clean, sanitary and mostly in good repair. Pathways were free of obstruction and slip hazards. Client bedrooms contained the required furnishings. Doors, windows, toilets, and showers were in working order. Sink in bathroom #1 was observed to be leaking. Extra linens and hygiene supplies were present, as well as Personal Protective Equipment. The facility had sufficient space and equipment to facilitate dining, laundry, visitation, meetings, and activities. The facility’s ambient internal temperature was comfortable and compliant, at 70 degrees Fahrenheit (F). Hot water temperature at taps accessible to clients were also compliant: Kitchen sink measured hot water at 109.9 degrees F; sink in restroom #1 delivered hot water at 109.9 degrees F; and sink in restroom #2 delivered hot water at 111.6 degrees F. LPA observed that there were cockroaches located in bathroom #1. There was at least 2 days of perishable food, and at least 7 days non-perishable food present. Cooking/dining equipment and utensils were present, and all safely stored. There were no toxic chemicals/poisons accessible to residents. Medications were properly labeled, as required, and stored in a locked cabinet which LPA inspected. The facility - maintained medication logs which LPA reviewed. [CONTINUED ON LIC 809-C] [CONTINUED FROM LIC 809] No pools or bodies of water on the premises. Per licensee Pascual, no firearms or ammunition are kept at the facility. Carbon monoxide detectors, emergency lighting, and facility telephone were all working. Fire extinguisher was present (01) and serviced within the last 12 months. First aid kit were complete and readily accessible. LPA spoke with staff and residents, and reviewed staff and resident records. During today’s visit there were 2 residents on the facility premise and three returned from their program during the visit. LPA interviews did not raise any licensing concerns. The files which LPA reviewed contained required documents. Confidential records were stored in a locked area. Required licensing postings were observed in a visible area of the facility. There were deficiencies observed and cited during today's annual inspection and may be found on the LIC809-D page of this report. An exit interview was conducted with Licensee Bessie Pascual and Assistant Administrator Blythe Pascual to whom a copy of this report along with the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided to Licensee Pascual at the conclusion of the visit. The signature below confirms the documents were received. LPA requested Assistant Administrator Pascual and Licensee Pascual to submit a current Designation of Administrative Responsibility LIC 308, Personnel Report LIC 500, Emergency Disaster Plan LIC 610-E, and Residential Infection Control Plan LIC 9282 (6/23), to the licensing office within 10 business days. Forms are available at www.ccld.ca.gov.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Dec 4, 2024

The state marks this report as 6 pages; the online copy we transcribed has 4. You can request the full file from the county licensing office.

Mar 18, 2024Complaint investigation reportSubstantiated

Allegation investigated: - Facility did not meet food supply requirements - Licensee did not provide client access to telephone

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Carmen Lopez conducted an unannounced complaint visit to open a complaint investigation. While at the facility LPA investigated and delivered findings regarding the above-mentioned allegations. LPA identified herself and was granted entry by Melchora Manalo, caregiver. LPA stated the purpose of the visit and reviewed the elements of the visit with caregiver Manalo. Licensee Bessie Pascual later arrived and joined the visit. LPA reviewed the findings of the complaint investigation with Licensee Pascual. The Department’s investigation consisted of interviews with staff and outside source, records review of relevant documents pertinent to this investigation and LPA observations. On March 12, 2024, it was alleged that the facility did not meet food supply requirements and Licensee did not provide client access to telephone. It was specifically said that the facility did not have sufficient food supply in the cabinets or for snacking. LPA spoke with the Licensee who said that they did not have sufficient food such as fruit and vegetables when they had an inspection from their third-party vendor. Substantiated As they did not have enough food supplies, they went grocery shopping to ensure items were enough. Licensee said that they did have more than enough meats in their freezer and their canned foods were in storage as they were cleaning their pantry. On March 18, 2024, during the visit, LPA observed that there were sufficient food items for three residents. There were at least 2 days of perishable food and 7 days of non-perishable food items stored which included fruit, vegetables, canned food items and snacks for the residents. Snacks included popcorn, crackers, muffins, and fruit. Based on the information obtained there is sufficient evidence to support the allegation and is being cleared during today’s visit. It was specifically said that the licensee did not provide residents access to a telephone. Interviews with Licensee said that during their inspection from their third party-vendor they found out that their phone was inoperable. According to the Licensee, they contacted their phone company and had them come out to inspect their lines. According to the Licensee their phone company said that it was their phone that was inoperable. That same day, Licensee was able to purchase a new phone. During the visit on March 18, 2024, while LPA toured the facility, Licensee was able to show LPA the former phones that were inoperable. LPA was able to take photos of the inoperable phones. During the visit, LPA saw a new phone in the kitchen area and able to make a phone call with no issues. Based on the information obtained, there is sufficient evidence to support the allegation and is being cleared during today’s visit. Based on the Department’s investigation of the above-mentioned allegations and the evidence obtained during staff and outside source interviews and LPA observations, there is sufficient evidence to meet the preponderance of evidence standard. Therefore, the above allegations are deemed to be substantiated. California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 8, is being cited on the attached LIC9099-D. The report was discussed, plan of correction was jointly developed, and an exit interview was conducted with Licensee Bessie Pascual. A copy of this report along with Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 3/22) was provided to Licensee Pascual at the conclusion of the visit. The signature below confirms the receipt of these documents. It was specifically alleged that the Licensee did not have the residents cash resources on the facility premise and was located off site. Interviews with Licensee said that they do have the funds on site in their room. Licensee demonstrated to LPA where the cash resource funds were located on the facility premise. On March 18, 2024, LPA toured the facility and observed where the Licensee kept the residents cash resources on the facility site. The binder was located where the Licensee resides when on the facility premise. Based on the information obtained there is insufficient evidence to support the allegation. It was specifically alleged that there was no emergency fire drills, but then said that there were drills observed at a later date. Interviews with the Licensee said that they do have the fire drills. A review of records revealed that the fire drills are located in a binder for the last three years and going ongoing to four years. On March 18, 2024, LPA observed that the records were located in a locked area and had the drills up to date. They currently will need to have their next drill this month. Based on the information obtained, there is insufficient evident to support the allegation. It was specifically alleged that the facility did not have the resident records current with Admission Agreements, IPPs and medical assessments. Interview with Licensee said that during their inspection with their third-party vendor they only mentioned that only one clients missing their Admission Agreement for their third party vendor. A review of records revealed that client records were all intact. There were three residents whom had their paperwork up to date. On March 18, 2024, LPA inspected their binders and was able to review the clients records. All records were up to date. Based on the information obtained, there is insufficient evidence to support the allegation. Based on the Department’s investigation of the above-mentioned allegations and the evidence obtained during staff and outside source interviews, records reviewed, and LPA observations, there is insufficient evidence to meet the preponderance of evidence standard. Therefore, the above allegations are deemed to be unsubstantiated. The report was discussed and an exit interview was conducted with Licensee Bessie Pascual. A copy of this report along with Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 3/22) were provided to Licensee Pascual at the conclusion of the visit. The signature below confirms the receipt of these documents.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Mar 18, 2024 · control 08-AS-20240312153517

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: CCR 87555 · Plan of correction due date: Mar 18, 2024

87555 General Fod Service Requirememts Supplies of nonperishable foods for a minimum of one week and perishable foods for a minimum of two days shall be maintained on the premises. This was not met as evidence by: Based on interviews, staff did not have sufficient food items during an inspection. This posed a potential health risk to 3 of 3 residents in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Mar 18, 2024

Plan of correction: POC has been cleared. LPA observed that there is 1 week of non-perishable food items and 2 days of perishable food items on the premise.

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: CCR 87468.1 · Plan of correction due date: Mar 18, 2024

87468.1 Personal Rights of Residents in All Facilities (14) To have reasonable access to telephones, to both make and receive confidential calls. This was not met as evidence by: Based on interviews, staff did not have a working telephone which posed a potential personal rights risk to 3 of 3 residents in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Mar 18, 2024

Plan of correction: POC has been cleared during the visit. LPA observed that there was an operable telephone working on the facility premise.

20231 state visit · 1 document

Dec 7, 2023Facility evaluation reportRoutine visitReport on file

Type of visit: Required - 1 Year

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Carmen Lopez conducted an unannounced required Annual Inspection. The facility file was reviewed prior to the visit. LPA Lopez identified herself, was granted entry by caregiver Nenita Abat. LPA discussed the purpose of the visit with caregiver Abat. Licensee Bessie Pascual later arrived and joined the visit. According to the facility’s license, there may be a maximum of six (6) residents; four (4) whom may be non-ambulatory approved in rooms 1 & 5, and two (2) approved for hospice, in at any given time at the facility site. During today’s inspection, the facility’s current census is 6 residents living at the facility. There were 5 residents present at the facility site during the inspection. The last resident returned from program during the inspection. LPA, accompanied by Licensee Pascual, toured the interior and exterior parts of the facility, and inspected each room. The facility was clean, sanitary and in good repair. Pathways were free of obstruction and slip hazards. Resident bedrooms contained the required furnishings. Doors, windows, toilets, and showers were in working order. Extra linens and hygiene supplies were present, as well as Personal Protective Equipment. The facility had sufficient space and equipment to facilitate dining, laundry, visitation, meetings, and activities. The facility’s ambient internal temperature was comfortable and compliant, at 68 degrees Fahrenheit (F). Hot water temperature at taps accessible to residents was not compliant before the visit was concluded: kitchen sink was a high of 135.1 degrees F; sink in restroom #1 delivered hot water at 130.8 degrees F; sink in restroom #2 delivered hot water at 129.6 degrees F. There was at least 2 days of perishable food, and at least 7 days non-perishable food present. Cooking/dining equipment and utensils were present, and all safely stored. There were no toxic chemicals/poisons accessible to residents. Medications were properly labeled, as required, and stored in locked areas. LPA inspected the medication room and found that medications were properly labeled and stored in a locked cabinet. The facility maintained medication logs which LPA reviewed. [CONTINUED ON LIC 809-C] [CONTINUED FROM LIC 809] No pools or bodies of water on the premises. Per licensee, no firearms or ammunition are kept at the facility. Carbon monoxide detectors, emergency lighting, and facility telephone were all working. Fire extinguisher was present (01) and serviced within the last 12 months. First aid kit(s) were complete and readily accessible. LPA interviewed residents, and reviewed staff and resident records. During today’s visit there were 6 residents on the facility premise. LPA interviews did not raise any licensing concerns. The files which LPA reviewed contained required documents. Confidential records were stored in a locked area. Required licensing postings were observed in a visible area of the facility. There was deficiencies observed and cited during today's annual inspection along with a technical violation and a technical advisory. The deficiencies observed during today’s inspection may be reviewed and is included on the LIC809-D page. The report was discussed, a POC was jointly developed, and an exit interview was conducted with Licensee Bessie Pascual to whom a copy of this report along with the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided at the conclusion of the visit. The signature below confirms the documents were received. LPA requested Licensee Pascual to submit a current Designation of Administrative Responsibility LIC 308, Personnel Report LIC 500, Emergency Disaster Plan LIC 610-E, and Residential Infection Control Plan LIC 9282 (6/23), to the licensing office within 10 business days. Forms are available at www.ccld.ca.gov.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Dec 7, 2023

The state marks this report as 6 pages; the online copy we transcribed has 3. You can request the full file from the county licensing office.

Earlier years2021 to 2023 · 7 documents

20234 state visits · 6 documents

Sep 14, 2023Complaint investigation reportSubstantiated

Allegation investigated: - Facility staff did not communicate resident's change of condition with residents responsible party

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Carmen Lopez conducted an unannounced complaint visit to deliver findings regarding the above-mentioned allegations. LPA identified herself and was granted entry by Benachloe Sabio, caregiver. LPA stated the purpose of the visit and reviewed the findings of the complaint with administrator Bessie Pascual. The Department’s investigation consisted of interviews with staff and outside sources, records review of relevant documents pertinent to this investigation, and LPA observation of the facility grounds. On May 3, 2023, it was alleged that the facility staff did not communicate resident’s change in condition with resident’s responsible party. It was specifically alleged that staff did not communicate resident’s primary care physician appointments with their responsible party. Interview with the Administrator acknowledged that they did not inform the resident’s responsible party of their medical appointments. According to the Administrator, they have since been informed that they will need to notify the resident’s family about their medical appointments due to the resident being conserved. Substantiated A review of records revealed that the facility staff will assist resident with scheduling healthcare appointments to maintain optimal health. Additional records confirmed that the resident was conserved by their family. Based on the interviews and records reviewed during the investigation there is sufficient evidence to support the allegation. Based on the Department’s investigation there is sufficient evidence to meet the preponderance of evidence standard. Therefore, the above allegation is deemed to be substantiated. California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 8, is being cited on the attached LIC9099D. The report was discussed, plan of correction was jointly developed, and an exit interview was conducted with Administrator Bessie Pascual. A copy of this report along with Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 3/22) were provided to Administrator Pascual at the conclusion of the visit. The signature below confirms the receipt of these documents. The morning medications had already been provided to the resident and their evening and bedtime medications were still intact in original packaging to be provided at the indicated timeframe. On May 10, 2023, LPA toured the facility and observed that the medications were placed in a locked and secured cabinet as required by Title 22. Based on the records reviewed and LPA observations of the medications, there is insufficient evidence to support the allegation. It was also specifically alleged that facility did not provide activities that R1 likes, such as board games. During the initial visit on 05/10/23, LPA was able to conduct an interview with resident #2 (R2) who said that they were allowed to do the activities they wanted within reason. R2 was non-ambulatory and had the ability to go out into the community unassisted, and according to R2 she did go out into the community. While at the facility she was able to communicate with family members and had the ability to go online on social media. LPA was able to interview R1, during a collateral visit on 05/24/23 at their day program, who said that they had homework they enjoyed when they went home. Some of the activities they enjoyed at the facility was coloring. According to R1, they had many colored pencils to color with and they liked going shopping with their family. A review of records revealed that among the activities R1 enjoyed there were board games, puzzles, writing in their notebook and arts and crafts. On May 10, 2023, LPA toured the facility and observed that the facility did have board games and puzzles to provide residents with activities. Based on the interviews, records review and LPA observations, there is insufficient evidence to support the allegation. Based on the Department’s investigation of the above-mentioned allegations and the evidence obtained during staff and outside source interviews, records reviewed, and LPA observations, there is not sufficient evidence to meet the preponderance of evidence standard. Therefore, the above allegations are deemed to be unsubstantiated. The report was discussed, and an exit interview was conducted with administrator Bessie Pascual. A copy of this report along with Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 3/22) were provided to administrator Pascual at the conclusion of the visit. The signature below confirms the receipt of these documents.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Sep 14, 2023 · control 08-AS-20230503131955

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: CCR 80072(a)(9) · Plan of correction due date: Oct 13, 2023

80072 Personal Rights (a)(9) To receive or reject medical care, or health-related services, except for minors and other residents for whom a guardian, conservator, or other legal authority has been appointed. … this requirement was not met as evidenced by: Based on interviews and records review, staff did not notify resident’s responsible party regarding their medical appointments. This posed a potential health risk to one [R1] of six residents in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Sep 14, 2023

Plan of correction: Administrator will obtain training from an outside service agency for residents Personal Rights and submit training certificate and/or documents to LPA by due date, 10/13/23.

Sep 14, 2023Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated

Allegation investigated: Lack of supervision resulting in resident-on-resident altercation

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Carmen Lopez conducted an unannounced complaint visit to deliver findings for a complaint investigation regarding the above-mentioned allegation. LPA identified herself and was granted entry by Benachloe Sabio, caregiver. LPA stated the purpose of the visit and reviewed the findings of the complaint with administrator Bessie Pascual. The Department’s investigation consisted of interviews with staff and residents and records review of relevant documents pertinent to this investigation. On August 28, 2023, it was alleged that the facility staff did not provide supervision resulting in resident-on-resident altercation. It was specifically alleged that resident #1 (R1) was pushed by resident #2 (R2). Interview with staff and Licensee said that staff had just finished providing incontinence care for another resident and needed to throw out the trash. When staff returned, they saw R2 push R1. Staff was unable to catch R1 as they were not close enough to prevent the fall. Two staff assisted R1 to a seat, and called 911 for R1 to be medically evaluated since R1 had hit their head. The ambulance arrived to take R1 to the hospital. Unsubstantiated R1 returned to the facility the following day. A review of hospital records showed that all scans returned normal. There were no acute fractures noted, and no significant soft tissue swelling was seen. Interviews with residents confirmed that there was a staff person nearby when the incident transpired. Interviews with residents also confirmed the incident and events that occurred were due to behavioral issues. A review of records that the confirmed the staff member was working the day of the incident. Staff contacted the police and an ambulance transported R1 to the hospital and determined there were no serious injuries. Based on the Department’s investigation of the above-mentioned allegation and the evidence obtained during staff and outside source interviews, and records reviewed, there is insufficient evidence to meet the preponderance of evidence standard. Therefore, the above allegation is deemed to be unsubstantiated. The report was discussed, and an exit interview was conducted with administrator Bessie Pascual. A copy of this report along with Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 3/22) was provided to administrator Pascual at the conclusion of the visit. The signature below confirms the receipt of these documents.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Sep 14, 2023 · control 08-AS-20230828144930
Sep 14, 2023Facility evaluation reportCase Management - OtherReport on file

Type of visit: Case Management - Other

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA), Carmen Lopez conducted an unannounced visit to deliver complaint findings and concurrently conducted a case management visit. LPA identified herself and was granted entry by Benachloe Sabio, caregiver. LPA stated the purpose of the visit and reviewed the basic elements of the visit with administrator Bessie Pascual. LPA provided the facility with additional guidance for resident records. During the course of investigation, LPA reviewed residents’ documentation and observed that resident documents needed signatures and obtain a copy of resident #1 (R1) Individual Development Plan (IPP). The facility is being issued technical advisory and can be found on the LIC 9102TA. An exit interview was conducted with administrator Bessie Pascual. A copy of this report along with Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided to administrator Pascual at the conclusion of the visit. The signature below confirms the documents were received.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Sep 14, 2023
Aug 30, 2023Facility evaluation reportCase Management - IncidentDeficiency page: Type B

Type of visit: Case Management - Incident

Licensing Program Analysts (LPA) Dang Nguyen and Amy Rodgers conducted an unannounced Case Management - Incident visit. LPAs were welcomed by, identified themselves to, and discussed the purpose of the visit with Caregiver Nanita Abat. LPAs also spoke with Administrator Bessie Pascual, who joined a portion of the visit via phone. Today's visit was in response to an LIC624 Incident Report, which licensee self-submitted to the CCLD San Diego Regional Office (received on 08/28/2023). According to the LIC624: during the morning of 08/25/2023, Resident #1 (R1) eloped from the facility (left without staff supervision). [See LIC 811 Confidential Names List for a description of R1.] Police located R1 unharmed and returned them to the facility, later the same morning. During today’s visit, LPAs performed a facility tour and welfare check. On the date of LPAs’ visit, R1 was off-site at a skilled nursing facility (for separate health reasons, not a result of the elopement). R1’s housemates were safe. LPAs also reviewed pertinent facility care records and interviewed relevant staff. According to their latest LIC602 Physician’s Report (dated 06/08/2023), R1 was diagnosed with schizophrenia and intellectual disability (among other diagnoses), and their doctor determined that they were not able to safely leave the facility unassisted. Staff interviews, corroborated by care records, showed: R1 was able to toilet, bathe, and dress themselves independently. R1 had not eloped or attempted to elope from the facility prior to the incident in question. On 08/25/2023, Staff #1 (S1) observed R1 use the shower at 1:00 AM, and then use the bathroom at 3:00 AM and 4:00 AM, respectively. Around 5:15 AM, S1 observed the facility’s kitchen door was left open, and first recognized that R1 was not present inside the facility. S1 notified the administrator, who joined the search for R1. [CONTINUED ON LIC 809-C] [CONTINUED FROM LIC 809] Not having located R1, the administrator phoned San Diego Police Department (SDPD) around 8:30 AM to report R1 as a missing person. Around 9:45 AM, a bystander encountered R1 at bus stop in another city and recognized that R1 needed help. With this tip, SDPD picked up R1 and returned them to the facility unharmed around 11:56 AM. Record review, corroborated by manager interview, showed: Licensee did not develop and maintain a written Absentee Notification Plan as part of the written record of care for 5 of 5 current residents in care (R1 through R5). One (1) deficiency was thus cited per California Health and Safety Code (refer to the attached LIC 809-D). A Plan of Correction was jointly developed with the licensee. LPAs also issued Technical Assistance (TA) regarding installing staff auditory alert devices on the facility's perimeter/exteriour doors. An exit interview was conducted with Pascual via phone. A copy of this report, the LIC809-D, the LIC9102-TA, the LIC811 Confidential Names List, and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided to her via E-mail, during the visit.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Aug 30, 2023

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: HSC 1569.317 · Plan of correction due date: Sep 29, 2023

1569.317 Absentee Notification Plan for Missing Residents: “Every residential care facility for the elderly…shall…develop and comply with an absentee notification plan…The plan shall include…a requirement that an administrator of the facility, or his or her designee, inform the resident’s authorized representative when that resident is missing from the facility…and the circumstances in which [they] shall notify local law enforcement.” This requirement was not met, as evidenced by: Based on records and interview, the Licensee did not develop an absentee notification plan for 5 of 5 residents (R1 through R5), which posed a potential safety risk to persons in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Aug 30, 2023

Plan of correction: Licensee agreed to author an Absentee Notification Plan meeting the requirements of California Health and Safety Code 1569.317. Licensee agreed to add it to the written record of care for R1 through R5 (and all future move-ins, too), and to train its direct care staff on it. Licensee agreed to send a copy of its Absentee Notification Plan, and the team training sign-in sheet, to LPA Nguyen, by the POC due date.

Jul 12, 2023Facility evaluation reportCase Management - IncidentDeficiency pages: Type A, Type B

Type of visit: Case Management - Incident

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Dang Nguyen conducted an unannounced Case Management - Incident visit. LPA was welcomed by, identified himself to, and discussed the purpose of the visit with Administrator Bessie Pascual. Today's visit was in response to an LIC624 Incident Report, which licensee self-submitted to the CCLD San Diego Regional Office (received on 05/30/2023). According to the LIC624, the facility had a cabinet where the personal monies of residents were kept. On the morning of 05/25/2023, Resident #1 (R1) went into this cabinet and took all the money for themselves. [See LIC811 Confidential Names List for a description of person identifiers used in this report.] Facility staff later recovered in full, all the money which R1 took. During today’s visit, LPA, accompanied by the administrator, performed a facility tour, audited cash resource records, reviewed resident records, and interviewed pertinent staff. In addition to R1, the other residents in care were Resident #2 (R2), Resident #3 (R3), Resident #4 (R4), and Resident #5 (R5). According to staff interview: During the incident, Staff #1 (S1) briefly stepped away from the cabinet where the resident monies were kept, to assist another resident in the bathroom. S1 left the cabinet unlocked, which allowed R1 to take the monies. Upon discovering that the monies had been taken, S1 alerted the administrator, who called staff at R1’s day program (where R1 had since traveled to). Staff at the day program secured R1’s permission to search their bag and located the monies in question (returning them to facility staff intact). A preponderance of evidence exists to show that during the above incident, licensee’s staff did not take appropriate measures to safeguard residents’ cash resources, as was required. [CONTINUED ON LIC 809-C] [CONTINUED FROM LIC 809] The facility is currently licensed to care for up to six (6) residents in total, of which four (4) may be non-ambulatory, and none may be bedridden. Per R3’s latest LIC602 Physician’s Report (dated 06/28/2023), R3 had recently become bedridden. (Per their prior LIC602 dated 09/29/2022, they were formerly non-ambulatory). Based on the latest facility license and latest fire clearance, Licensee was not authorized to care for bedridden residents. Prior to today’s visit, Licensee did not notify CCLD or their local fire authority that R3 had become bedridden, nor did Licensee start the process of applying for bedridden capacity. During records review, LPA observed: a) While Licensee maintained an active Surety Bond, the amount of the bond did not meet the minimum described in regulation, based on the actual amount of resident monies being safeguarded; b) Licensee did not possess a completed initial personal property inventory for R2, R3, and R4, as was required; and c) Licensee did not possess a completed Admissions Agreement for R3, as was required. Deficiencies were cited per California Code of Regulations, Title 22 (refer to the attached LIC809-D pages). CCLD determined one of these violations resulted in the facility not complying with its approved Fire Clearance from the local fire authority. An immediate Civil Penalty of $500.00 is thus charged and is noted on the LIC421-IM. LPA also issued one (1) Technical Violation (TV) to Licensee regarding ledger accounting of cash resources. An exit interview was conducted with Pascual, to whom a copy of this report, the LIC809-D pages, the LIC9102-TV, the LIC421-IM, the LIC811 Confidential Names List, and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided during the visit.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jul 12, 2023

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type A · Section cited: CCR 87202(a)(2) · Plan of correction due date: Jul 13, 2023

87202 Fire Clearance: “(a) All facilities shall maintain a fire clearance approved by the…district providing fire protection services, or the State Fire Marshall. Prior to accepting or retaining any of the following types of persons...the licensee shall notify the licensing agency and obtain an appropriate fire clearance…: (2) Bedridden persons.” This requirement was not met, as evidenced by: Based on records review and interviews, Licensee did not notify the licensing agency and obtain an appropriate fire clearance prior to retaining a bedridden resident (R3), who was 1 of 5 residents, which posed an immediate safety risk to persons in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jul 12, 2023

Plan of correction: By the POC due date, Licensee agreed to submit a cover letter and an LIC200 Application to the CCLD San Diego Regional Office (RO). The cover letter will state that R3 became bedridden on 06/28/2023, per their latest LIC602 Physician’s Report. The LIC200 will request permission for bedridden capacity of one (1) resident. These actions will prompt the RO to request a subsequent fire authority re-inspection for the facility.

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: CCR87217(b) · Plan of correction due date: Aug 11, 2023

87217 Safeguards for Resident Cash, Personal Property, and Valuables: “(b) Every facility shall take appropriate measures to safeguard resident cash resources, personal property and valuables which have been entrusted to the licensee or facility staff.” This requirement was not met, as evidenced by: Based on records and interviews, the licensee did not take appropriate measures to safeguard resident cash resources that were entrusted to them, affecting 4 of 5 residents (R2 through R5), which posed a potential personal rights risk to persons in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jul 12, 2023

Plan of correction: Per interviews, on 05/25/2023, Licensee retrained its direct care staff on the importance of keeping the cabinet where resident monies are held locked, whenever it is not in immediate use. Licensee agreed to send to LPA a training sign-in sheet reflecting this, by the POC due date.

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: CCR 87216(a)(1) · Plan of correction due date: Aug 11, 2023

87216 Bonding: “(a) Each licensee…who is entrusted to safeguard resident cash resources, shall…have on file with the licensing agency a copy of a bond issued by a surety company to the State of California as principal. (1) The amount of the bond shall be in accordance with the following schedule: $750 or less safeguard = $1,000 bond required; $751 to $1,500 safeguarded = $2,000 bond required, $1,501 to $2,500 safeguarded = $3,000 bond required. Every further increment of $1,000 or fraction thereof shall require an additional $1,000 on the bond.” This requirement was not met, as evidenced by: Based on record review and interview, licensee did not possess a surety bond meeting the minimum amount required per regulation, based on the actual amount of resident monies that Licensee was safeguarding, which affected 4 of 5 residents (R1 through R4), and posted a potential personal rights risk to persons in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jul 12, 2023

Plan of correction: Licensee agreed to contact its surety bond company to increase its bond to $5,000. Licensee agreed to send to LPA a copy of a new/updated surety bond certificate, by the POC due date. During today’s visit, LPA printed out the text of 87216(a)(1), and its associated table, and handed it to licensee. Licensee agreed to keep this document inside their private office for future reference.

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: CCR87218(a)(1) · Plan of correction due date: Aug 11, 2023

87218 Theft and Loss: “(a) The licensee shall ensure an adequate theft and loss program as specified in Health and Safety Code Section 1569.153. (1) The initial personal property inventory shall be completed by the licensee, and the resident, or the resident’s representative.” This requirement was not met, as evidenced by: Based on records and interviews, for 3 of 5 residents (R2, R3, and R4), Licensee did not maintain a personal property inventory, completed by the licensee and the resident and/or their representative, which posed a potential personal rights risk to persons in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jul 12, 2023

Plan of correction: Licensee agreed to coordinate with persons, as needed, to complete updated LIC621 Personal Property inventory forms for all current residents (R1 through R5), and to send copies of these forms to LPA, by the POC due date. Licensee agreed to review their internal policies/procedures, to ensure that the LIC621 is treated as a required document at time of move-in.

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: CCR 87505(a) · Plan of correction due date: Aug 11, 2023

87505 Admissions Agreements: “(a) The licensee shall complete an individual written admission agreement, as defined in Section 87101(a), with each resident or the resident's representative, if any.” This requirement was not met, as evidenced by: Based on LPA observation and staff interview, for 1 of 5 residents (R3), licensee did not complete an individual written admission agreement, which posed a potential personal rights risk to persons in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jul 12, 2023

Plan of correction: Licensee agreed to coordinate with persons, as needed, to complete an Admissions Agreement for R3. Licensee agreed to send a copy of the Admissions Agreement to LPA, by the POC due date. Licensee agreed to review their internal policies/procedures, to ensure that the signed Admissions Agreement is treated as a required document at time of move-in.

Feb 14, 2023Facility evaluation reportRoutine visitReport on file

Type of visit: Required - 1 Year

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Dang Nguyen conducted an unannounced Required 1 - Year Visit. The facility file was reviewed prior to the visit. LPA was welcomed by, identified himself to, and discussed the purpose of the visit with Caregiver Nenita Abat. LPA then met with Licensee Bessie Pascual, who arrived later during the visit. LPA conducted a brief tour of the facility and observed the staff and residents in care. In accordance with the Department’s Infection Control program, LPA provided technical assistance and observed and evaluated the facility's implementation of their COVID-19 Mitigation Plan, to include disinfection, screening protocols, and the use of personal protective equipment. No deficiencies were cited on this date. An exit interview was conducted with Pascual, to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 01/16) were provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Feb 14, 2023

20211 state visit · 1 document

Dec 7, 2021Facility evaluation reportRoutine visitReport on file

Type of visit: Required - 1 Year

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Lizzette Tellez visited the facility to conduct an annual required licensing inspection. LPA met with Licensee/Administrator, Bessie Pascual, and discussed the purpose of the visit. During today's visit, LPA toured the facility, and verified compliance with infection control practices. LPA and Ms. Pascual reviewed the facility’s Plan for Epidemic Outbreak Specific to COVID-19 Mitigation Plan Report. LPA observed one central entry point for universal entry screening; routine symptom screening initiated at entry for staff, residents and visitors; signs posted at facility entrance and signs throughout the facility to promote hand hygiene, cough/sneeze etiquette and physical distancing; face coverings worn by staff; hand sanitizer/hand washing stations readily available; a designated visitation area; and an adequate supply of cleaning products and PPE. No deficiencies were cited during today’s visit. An exit interview was conducted with Ms. Pascual, and a copy of this report, along with the Licensee Rights (LIC 9058 FAS 01/16) were provided to them via email. An electronic receipt of confirmation was requested to be sent by the Administrator upon receipt of the documents.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Dec 7, 2021

The state marks this report as 2 pages; the online copy we transcribed has 1. You can request the full file from the county licensing office.

5 of 6 beds were occupied at the October 15, 2025 state visit — a count on that day, not an opening.

License holder

Pascual, Feliciano E. and Bessie P., licensed since 1996.

The state’s totals for this licenseSince 1996, as the state’s facility page counts them
State visits on file
16
Total complaints
4
Substantiated allegations
6
Type A citations
1
Type B citations
5

These are the state’s own totals for this license since 1996, per CDSS records. The state counts them apart from the documents above, and they can differ from what those documents show; the documents say what each visit found. One complaint can contain several allegations.

Compare with homes the same size
This homeTypical
Type A citations10
Type B citations50
Substantiated allegations60
Total complaints40

“Typical” is the statewide median for licensed homes this size. It does not adjust for years licensed, and older licenses have had more visits and reports. The median is across the 6,916 licensed small board-and-care homes (6 or fewer beds) in the state record. The figures compared are the state’s totals, not the documents.

What the state’s words mean
Routine visita visit the state records as “Required” — a scheduled visit, not one made in answer to a complaintSubstantiatedthe state found the allegation more likely true than notUnsubstantiatedthere was not enough evidence to prove a violation occurred — not a finding of wrongdoingUnfoundedthe evidence showed the allegation was false, could not have happened, or had no reasonable basisType A citationa violation that poses an immediate risk to health, safety or personal rights if it is not correctedType B citationa violation that could become a risk if not corrected, or one involving records, resources or required services

CDSS citation definitions (PDF) ↗ · CDSS complaint outcomes ↗

An “unsubstantiated” complaint is not a finding of wrongdoing — it means the state investigated and could not confirm the allegation. Outcome words are the state’s own; we never grade, score, or color a record, and we publish no reviews — the state’s dated documents stand in their place.

Open CDSS facility search ↗Report a record errorOperate this home? Respond or correct, free →
Frequently asked questions

A citation does not make a home unsafe, and an empty file does not make a home good.

Quick answers about St. Anthony's Board and Care

Is St. Anthony's Board and Care licensed?

The state lists this license as “Licensed,” per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.

How many residents is St. Anthony's Board and Care licensed for?

6 residents — a small home, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.

Has St. Anthony's Board and Care been cited?

1 Type A and 5 Type B citations since 1996, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026. Those records count 16 state visits over the same years.

Is St. Anthony's Board and Care still open?

This license was on the CDSS roster as of November 11, 2026.

What does St. Anthony's Board and Care cost?

$3,900 a month to start is a Covelight estimate, likely $3,200–$4,800. This home’s own rate is not on file. Ask: “What is the all-in monthly rate, and what would push it higher?”

Covelight’s estimate starts from the rates 10 small homes within 3 miles publish, then adjusts for this home’s size, state care approvals, Medi-Cal waiver participation, years licensed and the area’s prices. In testing, the likely range held the real rate for 6 in 10 homes. This home’s own rate is not on file.

Among 51 other homes of a similar licensed size in San Diego that publish a starting rate, the middle half runs $4,000 to $6,000 a month, and the middle figure is $5,000 (n = 51 other homes publishing a starting rate).

Each of those is a home’s own published figure, gathered on its own date between September and October 2026 — not an average of ours, and not a survey. Similar size means small and mid-size homes counted together, and large communities counted on their own, because they are different markets.

A home outside the band is not overcharging or underpricing: a starting rate covers different things in different homes, which is the first thing to ask about.

The price is made in the phone call. Nothing here is a quote, an offer or a discount.

A starting rate is the room and the base care. California homes commonly bill care levels, medication management, supplies, transport and a second person in the room as extras. Many also charge a one-time fee at move-in. Ask for that list in writing before anything is signed.

Only prices a home put out itself count here: its own website, a listing it supplied, or a price a listing site says the home confirmed. Prices a site shows without saying where they came from are left out.

Does St. Anthony's Board and Care take Medi-Cal?

On Medi-Cal’s Assisted Living Waiver: this home is not on the DHCS participation list dated October 1, 2026. Ask the program about current options. The waiver pays for care services, not room and board.

Who holds the license?

The license is held by Pascual, Feliciano E. and Bessie P., per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.

Is there a hospital nearby?

Paradise Valley Hospital is 1.6 miles away in a straight line, per the CDPH licensed-hospital list dated September 16, 2026. See licensed care homes near it.

Can St. Anthony's Board and Care keep a resident on hospice?

Hospice care is approved on this license, covering up to 2 residents, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.

St. Anthony's Board and Care license and inspection record

  • Name on the license: “ST. ANTHONY'S BOARD AND CARE”, per the CDSS roster as of May 25, 2025.
  • License #374600449. The state lists this license as “Licensed,” per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
  • Licensed for 6 residents — a small home, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
  • Licensed to Pascual, Feliciano E. and Bessie P., per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
  • First licensed in 1996, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
  • 16 state inspection visits since 1996, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
  • 1 Type A and 5 Type B citations on file since 1996, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026. The same records count 16 state visits in that period.
  • 4 complaints and 6 substantiated allegations on file since 1996, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026. One complaint can carry several allegations.
  • The most recent state visit on file is October 5, 2026, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
Type A citationa violation that poses an immediate risk to health, safety or personal rights if it is not correctedType B citationa violation that could become a risk if not corrected, or one involving records, resources or required services

California writes these definitions for every licensed home, not for this one. CDSS citation definitions (PDF) ↗

See the state’s own record

Nearby

Other homes nearby

Licensed homes near this one in San Diego County, most information on file first. Every listed home appears on the same terms.

  • Map

    San Diego · 0.1 mi

    P & P Homes 2

    Small home · licensed for 6

    Estimated starting rate

    $4,550 a month to start

    Covelight estimate · likely $3,700–$5,600

    On the state record

    • Wheelchair: on the state record
    • Hospice: on the state record
    • Bedridden: on the state record
  • Map

    San Diego · 0.2 mi

    Tangem Guest Home

    Small home · licensed for 6

    Estimated starting rate

    $3,800 a month to start

    Covelight estimate · likely $3,100–$4,700

    On the state record

    • Wheelchair: on the state record
  • Map

    San Diego · 0.3 mi

    Tomas Residential Care

    Small home · licensed for 6

    Estimated starting rate

    $3,850 a month to start

    Covelight estimate · likely $3,150–$4,750

    On the state record

    • Wheelchair: on the state record
    • Dementia: on the state record
  • Map

    San Diego · 0.5 mi

    St. Joseph's Guest Home

    Small home · licensed for 5

    Estimated starting rate

    $3,750 a month to start

    Covelight estimate · likely $3,050–$4,650

    On the state record

    • Wheelchair: on the state record
    • Hospice: on the state record
  • Map

    San Diego · 0.5 mi

    Good Samaritan Board and Care Facility

    Small home · licensed for 6

    Estimated starting rate

    $3,450 a month to start

    Covelight estimate · likely $2,800–$4,250

    On the state record

    • Wheelchair: on the state record
  • Map

    San Diego · 0.6 mi

    Petal Guest Home

    Small home · licensed for 6

    Estimated starting rate

    $5,150 a month to start

    Covelight estimate · likely $4,250–$6,350

    On the state record

    • Wheelchair: on the state record
    • Dementia: on the state record
    • Hospice: on the state record
    • Bedridden: on the state record

Street maps © Protomaps · © OpenStreetMap

Explore San Diego County ↗

Do you run this home?

Add your photos, care details, and contact information. Your public profile is free.

Claim this home
Visiting in person? Print a visit sheetHow we source information
CallAsk this home
SA

Call St. Anthony's Board and Care

San Diego · Licensed for 6

(619) 470-4571

From the state licensing record · October 26, 2026

or

Let us do the legwork

  • We ask about availability, price and the care you describe.
  • If it’s a fit, you choose whether they call you. Either way, you get every answer.
Check availabilityFree

Ask St. Anthony's Board and Care

Check availability

Request a tour

More days
  • AskThe cost, or your own question

Free for families. A home gets your number only if you say yes.

Covelight Care

A free directory of every licensed care home in California, built from CDSS public records.

Find your next step

Find a homeSaved homesHelp me chooseCheck a home

Make sense of care

Care guidesMedi-Cal & careYour rightsHow we workAbout this site

Work with Covelight

For professionalsFor home operatorsSuggest a correctionDevelopersContact us

© 2026 Covelight Care LLC. Homes never pay to appear or rank higher.

Covelight Care is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by the sources named on this page.

3104 O St Unit #1023, Sacramento, CA 95816

PrivacyTermsText messages