Bayshire Carlsbad

Allegation investigated: Staff did not allow resident to return to the facility

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Ramin Hashemi conducted an unannounced visit to deliver findings for the complaint investigation regarding the above-mentioned allegation. LPA identified themselves and met with Resident Services Director Pam Talamantes to discuss the purpose of the visit and elements of the complaint. It was alleged on 07/07/26, "Staff did not allow resident to return to the facility" meaning that staff did not allow Resident 1 (R1) to return to the facility following discharge from the skilled nursing facility (SNF). The Department’s investigation consisted of unannounced facility visits, interviews with facility staff, outside sources, and records review. (Continued on LIC9099C, Page 2) Unsubstantiated (Continued from LIC9099, Page 1) Interviews with staff revealed that staff unanimously stated they did not issue an eviction notice to R1. Staff 1 (S1) and Staff 2 (S2) stated that the facility had not refused R1’s return and stated that R1 could not initially return due to the SNF orders indicating daily wound care requirements; exceeding the facility’s licensed scope of care. Staff documented reassessments of R1 to find reasonable accommodations for the resident to return to the facility with the help of outside agencies in order to remain in compliance. Interviews with Outside Sources revealed that Outside Source 1 (OS1) believed facility staff were delaying R1’s return and questioned whether concerns about past refusals of care influenced the facility’s decision-making. OS1 stated that they did not think the wound care orders were a requirement for R1 to return. The LPA asked OS1 if R1 was currently receiving wound care to which they confirmed that R1 was receiving those services at the SNF. Records review revealed that R1 required a higher level of daily wound care than the facility could provide per the SNF physician's orders. Review of email correspondences between the facility and R1's family demonstrated clear communication of the circumstances in which R1 would/would not be able to return to the facility. This corroborates staff interviews stating they did not refuse the return of R1 outside the scope of their responsibilities. Based on interviews and records review, a preponderance of evidence does not exist to prove that the alleged violation occurred, therefore the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. An exit interview was conducted with Resident Services Director Pam Talamantes, to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jul 23, 2026 · control 08-AS-20260707152857

Allegation investigated: Staff are not allowing the resident to use the telephone to speak privately with family

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Ramin Hashemi conducted an unannounced visit to initiate a complaint investigation regarding the above-mentioned allegations. LPA identified themselves and met with Resident Services Director Pam Talamantes, to discuss the purpose of the visit and elements of the complaint. During the visit LPA collected facility records. It was determined that based on the records of the facility and a phone call with the reporting party that Resdient 1 (R1) named in the complaint is not currently residing at the Assisted living facility and is instead at the skilled nursing facility with the same name. Therefore the allegation is unfounded. An exit interview was conducted with Resident Services Director Pam Talamantes. A copy of this report and Licensee's Rights (LIC 9058 03/22) were provided and their signature on this report confirms receipt of the Licensee Rights. Unfoundedthe state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jul 23, 2026 · control 08-AS-20260720104902

Type of visit: Required - 1 Year

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Ramin Hashemi conducted an unannounced Required Annual Inspection. The facility file was reviewed prior to the visit. LPA was welcomed by and discussed the purpose of the visit to Executive Director (ED) Ozz Daynes. The facility's license shows a maximum capacity of 125 residents ages sixty (60) and above. The facility is approved for delayed egress doors and has a hospice waiver for twenty-seven (27). LPA and ED Daynes toured the interior and exterior of the facility and inspected rooms. 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, screens, toilets, and showers were in working order. The facility had sufficient space and equipment to facilitate dining, laundry, visitation, meetings, and resident activities. The facility contained at least 2 days of perishable food, and at least 7 days non-perishable food, all safely stored. Cooking, dining equipment, and utensils were present. No toxic chemicals or poisons were accessible to residents. Medications were labeled, as required, and stored in locked areas. No pools or bodies of water exist on the premises. Per ED Daynes, no firearms or ammunition are kept at the facility. Carbon monoxide detectors, emergency lighting, and facility telephone were all in working order. Fire extinguisher(s) were serviced within the last 12 months. First aid kit(s) were complete and readily accessible. Required licensing postings were observed in visible areas of the facility. LPA interviewed staff and reviewed facility records. The files reviewed by LPA contained required documents. Confidential records were stored in locked areas. No deficiencies were cited during the inspection. An exit interview was conducted with ED Daynes to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, May 19, 2026

Allegation investigated: Facility did not safeguard residents belongings

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Ramin Hashemi conducted an unannounced visit to initiate and close a complaint investigation regarding the above-mentioned allegations. LPA identified themselves and met with Executive Director Ozz Danes to discuss the purpose of the visit and elements of the complaint. On 05/06/2026 it was alleged "Facility did not safeguard residents belongings." The Department’s investigation consisted of unannounced facility visit, interviews with facility staff, residents, and records review. Regarding the allegation, "Facility did not safeguard residents belongings" it was alleged that the facility did not put preventions in place to safeguard Resident 1 (R1)'s jewelry. (Continued on LIC9099C, Page 2) Unsubstantiated (Continued from LIC9099, Page 1) Interviews with staff confirmed that staff are following the procedures established by licensing guidelines. Staff were able to tell the LPA of the steps they follow when a lost/stolen item comes to the administrative departments. Staff were unable to determine if facility staff were responsible for the theft but are reimbursing the resident within regulatory guidelines of $100.00 per item. LPA notes that the action of reimbursement does not suggest culpability on the facility's part. Additionally, staff demonstrated they had knowledge of procedures and preventions to help residents safeguard their belongings when they are admitted to the facility and beyond. Interviews with Residents confirmed that staff have been helpful with trying to recover missing jewelry and following theft and loss policies. Resident 1 (R1) stated that they do not lock their door when they leave and up until the missing jewelry was noticed, left it unlocked all day. R1 also told the LPA they had concerns because facility staff/people are coming in and out of their apartment all day. LPA notes R1 receives bed turn down and trash services which are at most, once and twice a day, respectively. Records review confirmed that R1 and their POA were provided and signed resident safeguard documents including: Client/Resident Personal Property and Valuables list, Theft and Loss Policy and Documentation, and the Admissions Agreement summarizing these policies. Some of the items listed as missing were not present on the valuables form. Based on interviews and records review, a preponderance of evidence does not exist to prove that the alleged violation occurred, therefore the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. An exit interview was conducted with Ozz Danes, to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, May 13, 2026 · control 08-AS-20260506160425

Allegation investigated: Lack of supervision, resulting in physical altercation

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Ramin Hashemi conducted an unannounced visit to deliver findings regarding the above complaint allegation. LPA introduced themselves and disclosed the purpose of the visit to Resident Services Director (RSD) Pam Talamantes. On 02/11/2026 it was alleged "Lack of supervision, resulting in physical altercation." The Department’s investigation consisted of unannounced facility visits, interviews with facility staff, residents, and records review. Regarding the allegation, "Lack of supervision, resulting in physical altercation," it was alleged that Resident 2 (R2) hit Resident 1 (R1) on the shoulder as a result of the facility not checking on the residents. (Continued on LIC9099C, Page 2) Unsubstantiated (Continued from LIC9099, Page 1) Interviews with staff revealed that due to the nature of the relationship and the behaviors of the residents, staff are to check on the residents every two (2) hours. R1 and R2 at the time of the allegation were in a consensual and committed relationship. S1 stated that the alleged incident required staff to intervene and separate R1 and R2 due to a verbal altercation. LPA notes that the alleged physical altercation in this instance was R2 allegedly hitting R1 on the shoulder in a light manner. S1 stated that both residents are able to leave the facility unassisted and they have returned to the facility in an inebriated state multiple times. S1 states that they try to remind both residents about making good choices and alert staff to check on these residents when they return from outings. Interviews with residents revealed that the facility checks on R1 several times a day. R1 stated that facility staff are nice to them and they have no concerns about the facility's ability to take care of them. This corroborates staff interviews about facility staff checking on residents. R1 insisted to the LPA that they were not hurt by R2 "hitting them on the shoulder" nor that the incident in question was considered a physical altercation. R1 expressed that this was R2's way of getting R1's attention and that there was no malice in the action. Records review of both R1 and R2 state in their needs and services that they will be checked at the beginning of every shift and as needed. Physician's reports for both R1 and R2 demonstrate the ability for both residents to leave the facility independently. Based on interviews and records review, a preponderance of evidence does not exist to prove that the alleged violation occurred, therefore the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. An exit interview was conducted with RSD Pam Talamantes, to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, May 6, 2026 · control 08-AS-20260211082752

Allegation investigated: Resident was touched inappropriately by an outside agency staff member Outside agency staff member took money from resident

Licensing Program Analyst Amy Rodgers sent this report to the licensee at their known mailing address via USPS certified mail and via email to deliver the investigation findings for the above allegation. The Department’s investigation included review of records, interviews with staff, residents, and outside sources. It was alleged that Resident #1 (R1) was inappropriately touched by an outside agency staff member who took money from R1, and that facility staff took money from R1. It was reported that R1 engaged in an inappropriate sexual interaction with an outside agency staff member and provided them with money after the interaction. Interviews with staff and record review also revealed that the resident had exhibited increasingly aggressive behaviors and was issued an eviction notice prior to the report of the incident. Interviews with the outside agency revealed that there was no staff person with the alleged abuser’s name. R1 later recanted and revealed that they had been upset regarding the eviction. (continued on LIc9099) Unfounded (Continued From LIC9099) Regarding the allegation that facility staff took money from R1. Interviews with staff and R1 revealed that R1 donated money to staff as a gift, and staff documented the cash gift as required. The Department has investigated the above-mentioned allegations and has found that the complaint was unfounded, meaning that the allegation is false, could not have happened, and/or is without a reasonable basis. We have therefore dismissed the complaint.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Feb 21, 2026 · control 08-AS-20220315094851

Type of visit: Case Management - Incident

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Rebecca Borunda conducted an unannounced case management visit to investigate a resident death. LPA identified herself to, was greeted by, and explained the purpose of the visit to Executive Director Thomas "Ozzy" Daynes. Care Coordinator Ariana Ventura arrived during the visit. On 12/15/2025, the Department received an incident and death report reporting Resident 1's (R1’s) death, which occurred on 12/13/2025. [Care Coordinator was provided with an LIC811 Confidential Names List to identify R1] During today’s visit, LPA conducted a health and safety check, observed residents in care, reviewed and obtained copies of facility records, and interviewed staff. LPA requested that the facility submit R1's death certificate to the Department when it became available. No deficiencies were cited on today’s date. An exit interview was conducted with Care Coordinator Ariana Ventura, whose signature below confirms receipt of a copy of this report, the LIC811, and the Licensee Appeal Rights (LIC9058 3/22).the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Dec 17, 2025

Allegation investigated: Lack of supervision resulted in resident elopement.

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Ramin Hashemi conducted an unannounced visit to deliver findings regarding the above complaint allegation(s). LPA introduced themselves and disclosed the purpose of the visit to Pamela Talamentes, Resident Services Director. On 08/12/2025, it was alleged that lack of supervision resulted in resident elopement. The Department’s investigation consisted of an unannounced facility visit, review of facility and outside source records, interviews with facility staff, outside sources, and LPA direct observations. (Continued on Page 2 LIC9099C) Unsubstantiated (Continued from Page 1 LIC9099) Staff interviews revealed that Resident 1 (R1) was alert, oriented, and independent with daily tasks. Staff 1 (S1) stated that as a result of the continued elopements, the facility arranged 1:1 caregiver support, used an Apple AirTag for monitoring, and held care conferences with the responsible party and healthcare providers. Despite these efforts, R1 often refused assistance and continued to leave the facility independently. Staff followed protocol by notifying the responsible party and law enforcement when R1 left and sought guidance from the Community Care Licensing Department regarding how to proceed. Staff also noted that R1 expressed a strong desire to live independently and had a history of returning from elopement safely. Outside source interviews revealed that R1 was described as cognitively intact, capable of making informed decisions, and able to manage personal affairs such as finances and medical care. Outside Source 1 (OS1) confirmed as Power of Attorney that the facility made efforts to supervise R1 and responded appropriately to elopement concerns. Outside Source 2 (OS2), a psychiatric nurse practitioner, stated that R1 retained reasoning, safety awareness, and the ability to plan and carry out their own departure. Both sources agreed that R1 was not at risk to themself when leaving the facility. Records review revealed that the facility documented R1’s behaviors, coordinated with healthcare providers, and implemented interventions in response to elopement concerns. R1's preplacement appraisal supported the assessment that R1 was not a harm to themselves or others and was mentally alert and oriented. Progress and Care notes indicate an almost daily log of ongoing supervision and concern for solutions to R1's eloping and independence. There was no evidence of harm or injury resulting from R1’s departure, and the facility’s actions were consistent with regulatory expectations. Based on relevant interviews and records review, a preponderance of evidence does not support that the alleged violation occurred. Therefore, the allegation is determined to be: UNSUBSTANTIATED. An exit interview was conducted with Pamela Talamentes, Resident Services Director, to whom a copy of this report, the LIC811 Confidential Names List, and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Nov 19, 2025 · control 08-AS-20250813123358

Allegation investigated: Licensee did not safeguard resident's personal belongings.

Licensing Program Analyst(LPA) Janet Ngallo conducted an unannounced subsequent visit to deliver findings regarding the above-mentioned complaint allegation. LPA introduced themselves and disclosed the purpose of the visit and elements of the complaint to Resident Services Director Pamela Talamantes. On October 23rd, 2025, it was alleged that the facility did not safeguard resident's personal belongings. The department's investigation consisted of unannounced facility visits, LPA observations, interviews with facility staff, and records review. (Cont. on LIC 9099-C) Unsubstantiated (Cont. from LIC 9099) Regarding the above-mentioned allegation, four(4) staff members and two(2) residents were interviewed. Staff interviews did not corroborate with the allegation, as staff stated there had been no occurrence of staff misconduct when it comes to stealing. Staff consistently stated that they will initially attempt to help locate the item(s), and if staff are unable to locate them, they will inform management for further investigation. LPA interview with Resident 1 (R1) revealed that R1 stated ongoing beliefs that a staff member had tampered with or stole their personal belongings. R1 stated that their computer was being hacked, their phone screen protector was altered, and that they have contacted law enforcement and federal agencies such as the FBI and the IRS, regarding these concerns. R1 stated that the agencies have only assisted with filling out some forms. The investigation did not produce evidence to support the residents’ claims, and the incidents stated by R1 could not be verified. The residents’ statements appeared inconsistent. Staff noted that R1 suffers from a mental health issue with instances of paranoia. During an unannounced facility visit, LPA observed med techs and housekeeping performing duties throughout the facility. LPA observed R1 and R2 groomed and cleaned with room clean and well maintained. Review of the facility records did not corroborate the allegation. LPA records review revealed several progress notes mentioning R1's paranoia and claims of missing items dating back to the beginning of 2025. Records review revealed that the facility has reported theft and loss to the police multiple times for R1 regarding missing items and requested a Psychological Evaluation for R1 through a medical service provider. R1’s medical provider was made aware by the facility that R1's level of care had increased to level 1 as opposed to an independent level related to increasing psychological needs. (Cont. on LIC 9099-C pg. 2) (Cont. from LIC 9099-C) R1's physicians report dated 11/13/2024 stated no history of behavioral expressions, and no mental/cognitive conditions, communication with R1’s medical provider dated 11/26/2024 revealed that R1 had severe increased confusion, decreased energy level, and slight slurred speech, as well as a request for a urinary analysis. The records review for the employee(S2) that R1 claimed may have stolen or tampered with R1's belongings had no disciplinary actions. Based on interviews, direct LPA observations and records review, a preponderance of evidence does not exist to prove that the alleged violation occurred, therefore the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. This finding means that although the allegation may have happened or may be valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred. An exit interview was conducted with Resident Services Director Pamela Talamantes to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Nov 18, 2025 · control 08-AS-20251023161310

Allegation investigated: Licensee did not ensure resident received timely medical care

Licensing Program Analysts (LPAs) Rebecca Borunda and Janet Ngallo conducted an unannounced complaint visit to open an investigation and deliver findings regarding the above mentioned allegation. LPAs were greeted by, identified themselves to, and explained the purpose of the visit and the basic elements of the complaint with Executive Director Thomas "Ozzy" Daynes. During today’s visit, LPAs reviewed and obtained copies of facility records and interviewed staff. Review of facility rosters and an interview with the Resident Services Director revealed that Resident 1 (R1) was not a resident of the facility. Due to evidence showing that R1 was not a resident of the facility, this allegation is deemed unfounded, meaning that the allegation is false, could not have happened and/or is without a reasonable basis. An exit interview was conducted with Resident Services Director Pamela Talamantes, whose signature below confirms receipt of a copy of this report and the Licensee Appeal Rights (LIC9058 3/22). Unfoundedthe state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Sep 19, 2025 · control 08-AS-20250917162632

Allegation investigated: Resident sustained injuries while in care. Resident's not allowed to go to their rooms during the day. Staff did not respond to resident's call light in a timely manner.

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Amy Rodgers met with Resident Services Director(RSD), Pamela Talamantes, to deliver findings on the above-mentioned allegation. LPA identified herself and disclosed the purpose of her visit, and conducted the meeting via phone call. On April 27, 2022, Community Care Licensing (CCL) received a complaint alleging that the Resident #1(R1) sustained injuries while in care, residents are left in a large room all day and cannot go to their rooms, and licensee staff did not respond to the call light in a timely manner. [See LIC811 Confidential Name List to identify select person identifiers used in this report]. The Department’s investigation consisted of an unannounced facility visit, records review, and staff, resident, and outside source interviews. (Continued on 9099-C) Unsubstantiated (Continued from 9099) Resident #1 (R1) was a resident of the facility’s memory care unit from 3/30/22 to 4/3/22 following discharge from skilled nursing. During R1's stay, they were non-ambulatory and required one to two person assistance with activities of daily living, including transfers, toileting, and mobility due to an unsteady gait when rising from their wheelchair. R1 was incontinent of bowel and bladder and demonstrated cognitive impairment, responding with limited verbal ability. Regarding the allegation, the resident sustained injuries while in care, and staff did not respond to the resident's call light in a timely manner. Records show the facility performed a skin assessment on 4/1/2022, and on 4/2/2022, R1 was assisted to the bathroom by a family member when another fall occurred during transfer. Interviews with staff and the family provided conflicting information regarding the timing and staff response.. Additionally, outside source interviews did not support the claim that staff neglected the residents’ needs. Review of the facility’s call light policy indicates proactive monitoring is encouraged, and there is evidence the team remains alert and responsive. Regarding the allegation, residents are not allowed to go to their rooms during the day. Outside source interviews and staff interviews do not support this allegation. Interviews with staff reveal that residents in the memory care typically leave their personal room door open. Interviews with staff reveal that the facility's policy is to promote resident engagement through group activities designed to encourage socialization and support active participation in the community. These activities generally take place in a large common area within the memory care unit. The Department has investigated the above-mentioned allegation and based on interviews and records review, the preponderance of the evidence has not been met, therefore, this allegation is deemed UNSUBSTANTIATED. An exit interview was conducted with Resident Services Director(RSD), Pamela Talamantes . A copy of this report was provided and their signature on this report confirms receipt.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jul 17, 2025 · control 08-AS-20220427154859

Type of visit: Case Management - Other

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Becky Kennedy conducted a visit to the facility. LPA identified herself and met with Ariana Ventura, Care Coordinator, and explained the reason for the visit was to sign an amended report. The only business conducted during this visit was signing the amended report. No violations were observed during the visit. An exit interview was conducted and a copy of this report and and Licensee's Rights (LIC9058) were left at the facilitythe state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, May 28, 2025

Allegation investigated: Staff handled resident in a rough manner Staff did not treat resident with dignity

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Hannah Rodgers conducted an unannounced visit to initiate and deliver findings regarding the above complaint allegations. LPA introduced themselves and disclosed the purpose of the visit to Executive Director Ozz Daynes. Resident Services Director Pamela Talamantes arrived later during the visit. On April 30, 2025, it was alleged that staff handled resident in a rough manner and staff did not treat resident with dignity. It was alleged that Staff #1 (S1) had shoved Resident #1 (R1) with their transfer board while also using inappropriate language toward R1 [See LIC811 Confidential Name List for identification of select person identifiers used in this report]. The Department’s investigation consisted of an unannounced facility visit, records review, and staff, resident, and outside source interviews. (CONTINUED ON LIC9099-C) Unsubstantiated Per record review and staff interviews, on April 27, 2025, R1 was receiving assistance from S1 and Staff #2 (S2) during a transfer to their wheelchair. R1 was in the restroom prepping to be transferred to their wheelchair. During this incident S1, while assisting R1, attempted to use their transfer board. R1 began to get frustrated with S1 and expressed this frustration verbally. Interviews did not reveal that S1 handled R1 in a rough manner nor did it reveal that S1 spoke to R1 inappropriately during this incident. Review of R1’s physician’s report dated March 21, 2025, revealed that R1 could feed themselves but required assistance with all other activities of daily living. Review of R1’s resident assessment dated March 27, 2025, revealed R1 needs a two-person total assist for transfers. Interviews verified this need for R1 and thus explained the presence of S2 to witness the incident with R1 and S1. Based on interviews and records review, the investigation did not yield a preponderance of evidence to conclude that staff handled resident in a rough manner and did not treat resident with dignity. Based on the foregoing, the allegations are unsubstantiated. This finding means that although the allegation may have happened or may be valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violations occurred. An exit interview was conducted with Resident Services Director Talamantes, to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, May 7, 2025 · control 08-AS-20250430092915

Allegation investigated: Staff did not treat resident with dignity. Staff did not safeguard resident(s) confidential information.

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Becky Kennedy conducted a visit to the faility to deliver findings on the above allegations. LPA identified herself and met with Ozz Daynes, Executive Director, and explained the reason for the visit. The Department’s investigation consisted of review of facility records, outside source records, and interviews w facility staff and outside sources. It was alleged that facility staff did not treat a resident with dignity. The investigation revealed through interviews and a review of documents that resident 1 (R1) was receiving hospice services. Facility staff observed R1 and did not see signs of life. Facility staff contacted the hospice agency and informed them of their observations. The hospice agency contacted the family and informed them that R1 had died. When R1’s family and hospice staff came to the facility they found that R1 was alive. Unsubstantiated Interviews revealed that the regular practice is for hospice to confirm a death prior to contacting the family. In this instance, the hospice agency staff contacted the family prior to confirming that R1 had passed away. Although this is an unfortunate incident, the facility staff operated within their roll and responsibility by alerting the hospice agency regarding their observations. This allegation is unsubstantiated. It was also alleged that facility staff did not safeguard resident(s) confidential information, by having the door to the medication room at the facility unlocked and unattended. Through interviews it was determined that this allegation was made second-hand. The investigation could not locate anyone with direct knowledge of the allegation, or under what the circumstances the door may have been unlocked. No evidence was revealed that any confidential information was compromised, nor was that alleged. This allegation is unsubstantiated. Based on the evidence obtained during the complaint investigation, both allegations above are UNSUBSTANTIATED, meaning there isn’t enough evidence to prove a violation occurred. An exit interview was conducted with Ozz Daynes, Executive Director; a copy of this report and Licensee's Rights (LIC9058) were provided to the facility.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, May 5, 2025 · control 08-AS-20210722142429

Type of visit: Case Management - Other

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Becky Kennedy conducted a visit to the facility. LPA identified herself and met with Ozz Daynes, Executive Director, and explained the reason for the visit was to sign an amended report. The only business conducted during this visit was signing the amended report. No violations were observed during the visit. An exit interview was conducted and a copy of this report and and Licensee's Rights (LIC9058) were left at the facilitythe state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, May 5, 2025

Allegation investigated: Insufficient staff to meet residents care needs. Facility is not kept clean.

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Becky Kennedy conducted an unannounced complaint investigation visit to the facility to deliver findings on the above allegations. LPA identified herself and was granted entry to the facility. LPA met with Pamela Talmantes, Resident Services Directof and explaining the reason for the visit. It was alleged that the facility did not have enough staff to meet the resident’s needs. Specifically, it was alleged that the facility only had one care staff member for the entire facility. Lack of care staff resulted in Resident 1 (R1) being left on the toilet for over an hour two times, on another occasion R1 called for care and no one came and R1 soiled themself. The Department’s investigation consisted of review of facility records, outside source records, and interviews of facility staff and outside sources. Unsubstantiated Through interviews the investigation revealed that in the time frame covered by this complaint, facility staffing was of concern. Information was obtained that there was not any time when only one direct care staff had responsibility for the entire facility. Interviews revealed that the facility had strategies for when staffing is less than standard. The first is having all staff trained and required to supplement direct care staff as needed. An example is that medication staff will provide direct care. The other is to use a staffing agency to supplement regular employees. It was acknowledged that providing care for some residents may have taken longer than when they were fully staffed, but no evidence was revealed to determine that resident care needs went unmet or went unmet for an excessive period of time. Through interviews and a review of records, the investigation revealed that several of the specifics of the above allegations were regarding second-hand information. The extemporaneous notes from the individual who reportedly would have had the firsthand information did not mention any neglect or lack of care. Interviews did not reveal information that would support those allegations. This allegation is unsubstantiated. It was further alleged that the facility was not kept clean. Through interviews and observation it was revealed that the facility had stains on the on carpet and on a ceiling tile. Documents revealed that the facility had been licensed for one month when the allegation was made. The licensee had the carpets professionally cleaned two times in that month. The carpets were in place at the time the facility was licensed. The stained carpet, and the ceiling tile were replaced as verified by subsequent observation. Interviews revealed that housekeeping staff clean each room once a week. Minor cleaning, such as for spilled items, is conducted on an as needed basis by floor staff and larger cleanliness needs are reported to maintenance staff for a resolution. Although there were stains on the carpet, the investigation revealed that facility made appropriate efforts to eliminate the stains and replaced the carpet when those efforts were unsuccessful. This allegation is unsubstantiated. Based on the evidence obtained during the complaint investigation, both allegations above are UNSUBSTANTIATED, meaning there isn’t enough evidence to prove a violation occurred. An exit interview was conducted with Pamela Talmantes, Resident Services Director; a copy of this report and Licensee's Rights (LIC9058) were provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Apr 28, 2025 · control 08-AS-20210701105133

Type of visit: Case Management - Other

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Hannah Rodgers conducted an unannounced case management visit to deliver an amended report. LPA was greeted by, identified themselves to, and explained the purpose of the visit with Executive Director Ozz Daynes. During today’s visit, LPA obtained Executive Director Ozz Daynes' signature on the amended report dated April 15, 2025. An exit interview was conducted with Executive Director Ozz Daynes, whose signature below confirms receipt of a copy of this report and the Licensee Appeal Rights (LIC9058 3/22).the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Apr 23, 2025

Allegation investigated: Staff mismanaged resident's medication

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Hannah Rodgers conducted an unannounced visit to deliver findings regarding the above complaint allegation. LPA introduced themselves and disclosed the purpose of the visit to Resident Services Director Pamela Talamantes. On April 9, 2025, it was alleged that the staff mismanaged resident’s medication. The Department’s investigation consisted of an unannounced facility visit, records review, and staff, resident, and outside source interviews. According to the allegation received, Resident #1 (R1) was mistakenly administered another resident’s medications, to which R1 ingested. It was alleged that a staff member provided R1 with a different resident’s medication resulting in slight change of blood pressure. [Continued on LIC9099-C] Substantiated Review of facility records revealed that facility staff had self-reported this medication error for R1 to the department on April 2, 2024. The records reviewed stated that on April 1, 2025, R1 was administered another resident’s medication mistakenly during a routine medication pass. Review of R1’s medical assessment dated October 24, 2024, revealed that R1 is able to communicate their needs and unable to administer and store their own prescription and PRN medications. Review of R1’s medication log revealed that R1 was not prescribed the two medications they were administered and ingested on April 1, 2025. Interviews with staff, residents, and outside sources all corroborated that R1 has been administered another resident’s medication. R1 did not have any adverse reactions besides a slight decrease in blood pressure but returned to their baseline blood pressure the following day. The Department has investigated the above-mentioned allegation and based on interviews and records review, the preponderance of evidence exists to support the allegation. One deficiency is being cited per California Code of Regulations, Title 22 (refer to the attached LIC 9099-D). An exit interview was conducted with Resident Services Director , to whom a copy of this report, LIC 9099-C, LIC 9099-D, and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC 9058 03/22) were provided to.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Apr 15, 2025 · control 08-AS-20250402162550

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: CCR 877645(a)(4) · Plan of correction due date: Apr 15, 2025

87465 Incidental Medical and Dental Care: “(a)(4) The licensee shall assist residents with self-administered medications as needed.” This requirement was not met, as evidenced by: Based on interview and record review, the licensee did not comply with the section cited above as one (1) out of one hundred nine (109) residents received the incorrect medication, which posed a potential health and safety risk to persons in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Apr 15, 2025

Plan of correction: Licensee conducted an in-service training 4/01/2025 and 4/02/2025 as a result of the medication error. Licensee provided proof of the training with sign-in sheet and training topic. The deficiency was cleared during LPA's visit.

Allegation investigated: Staff handled resident in a rough manner resulting in injury

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Hannah Rodgers conducted an unannounced visit to deliver findings regarding the above complaint allegation. LPA introduced themselves and disclosed the purpose of the visit to Resident Services Director Pamela Talamantes. On December 6, 2024, it was alleged that the staff handled resident in a rough manner resulting in injury. The Department’s investigation consisted of an unannounced facility visit, records review, and staff, residents, and outside source interviews. According to the allegation received, Resident #1 (R1) was being assisted by a staff member in their transfer from their bed to their electric scooter. It was alleged that the staff member grabbed both of R1’s hands and pulled them to assist R1 out of bed. R1 informed that staff member that they were in pain from the pulling of their hands, but R1 was already in the process of being transferred to their electric scooter. [Continued on LIC9099-C] Substantiated Review of R1’s medical assessment records dated October 23, 2024, revealed that R1 was not confused or disorientated, had motor impairment/paralysis, was able to follow directions and could feed themselves but required staff assistance for all other activities of daily living (ADLs). R1 was not able to independently transfer to and from bed. Review of R1’s needs and service plan dated October 26, 2024, revealed that R1 requires one-person total assistance with transfers. Interviews with staff members corroborated R1’s need for assistance with transfers and explained that R1 has sensitive skin, thus there is a technique needed to be used when transferring R1. Interviews with staff revealed that, due to R1’s sensitive skin, R1 needs to be grabbed from under the palms when being transferred. In December of 2024, there was a new staff member in training. This staff member was assisting R1 with their transfer from their bed to their electric scooter. Per staff interviews, this trainee grabbed the tops of R1’s hands to transfer them from their bed to their electric wheelchair. Resident and staff interviews corroborated the incident of the trainee grabbing R1 from the top of their hands which resulted in bruising. Interviews with staff and residents revealed the observation of the bruising R1 sustained from the transfer and recalled the bruising lasting about a week. The Department has investigated the above-mentioned allegation and based on interviews and records review, the preponderance of evidence exists to support the allegation. One deficiency is being cited per California Code of Regulations, Title 22 (refer to the attached LIC 9099-D). An exit interview was conducted with Resident Services Director , to whom a copy of this report, LIC 9099-C, LIC 9099-D, and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC 9058 03/22) were provided to.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Apr 15, 2025 · control 08-AS-20241206105851

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: CCR 87468.2(a)(4) · Plan of correction due date: Apr 29, 2025

Additional Personal Rights of Residents in Privately Operated Facilities (a) …residents in ... facilities for the elderly shall have all of the following personal rights: (4) to care... and services that are delivered by staff that are sufficient in… competency to meet their needs. This requirment was not met by evidence of: Based on record review and interviews the licensee did not comply with the section cited above in that one (1) out of one hundred twelve (112) residents were handled in a rough manner, which posed a potential personal rights and safety risk to persons in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Apr 15, 2025

Plan of correction: At the time of LPA's visit, S1 was no longer employed by the facility. Licensee agrees to conduct an in-service training for proper transfer techniques of residents' and in-house personal rights training and submit proof and sign-in sheet of training to the Department by POC date 0f 4/29/25.

Type of visit: Required - 1 Year

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Hannah Rodgers conducted an unannounced Required Annual Inspection. The facility file was reviewed prior to the visit. LPA was greeted by, identified themselves to and discussed the purpose of the visit with Resident Services Director Pamela Talamantes and Executive Director Ozz Daynes. The facility's license shows a maximum capacity of one hundred twenty-five (125) non-ambulatory residents, of whom fifteen (15) may be bedridden. Hospice waiver for twenty-seven (27) and the facility is approved for delayed egress. During today’s inspection there were one hundred nine (109) residents in care. LPA with Resident Services Director Talamantes toured the interior and exterior of the facility, and inspected each room. Pathways were free of obstruction and slip hazards. Resident bedrooms contained the required furnishings. Doors, windows, screens, and showers were in working order. Extra linens and hygiene supplies were present. The facility had sufficient space and equipment to facilitate dining, laundry, visitation, meetings, and resident activities. The facility contained at least two (2) days of perishable food, and at least seven (7) days non-perishable food, all safely stored. Cooking, dining equipment, and utensils were present. No toxic chemicals or poisons were accessible to residents. Medications were labeled, as required, and stored in locked areas. No pools or bodies of water exist on the premises. Per Resident Services Director Talamantes, no firearms or ammunition are kept at the facility. Carbon monoxide detectors, emergency lighting, and facility telephone were all in working order. Fire extinguishers were serviced within the last 12 months. First aid kit was complete and readily accessible. Required licensing postings were observed in visible areas of the facility. [CONTINUED ON LIC809-D] [CONTINUED FROM LIC809] LPA reviewed facility records. The files reviewed by LPA contained required documents. Confidential records were stored in locked areas. No deficiencies were cited during the inspection. An exit interview was conducted with Resident Services Director Pamela Talamantes and Executive Director Ozz Daynes to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Apr 9, 2025

Type of visit: Case Management - Other

Licensing program Analyst (LPA) Kennedy conducted an unannounced visit to the facility. LPA identified herself upon entry. LPA met with Pamela Talmantes, Resident Services Director. . The purpose of today's visit was to sign an amended a prior report that was found to contain some erroneous information. The only business conducted today was the was the signing of the amended report. An exit interview was conducted with Pamela Talmantes, Resident Services Director. , of a copy of the amended report, this report and the Licensee Appeal Rights (LIC9058 3/22) were left at the facility.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Mar 26, 2025

Allegation investigated: Staff administered medications to resident not prescribed by a physician.

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Becky Kennedy conducted an unannounced complaint investigation visit to the facility to deliver findings on the above allegation. LPA was granted entry to the facility and met with Pam Talamantes, Resident Services Director LPA identified herself and explained the reason for the visit. It was alleged that facility staff administered medications to a resident not prescribed by a physician. The Department’s investigation consisted of review of facility records, interviews with internal and outside sources, and a tour of the facility. The investigation revealed that on 7-30-2021, Resident 1(R1) (see LIC 811 for a list of confidential names.) was asked by facility staff member 1 (S1) who was recently hired and in training if R1 was Resident 2 (R2) using R2’s name and room number. R1 answered “yes”. S1 gave the medication prescribed for R2 to R1. Substantiated The facility immediately notified R1’s family and physician regarding the error upon discovery. R1 was sent to the hospital for observation. There were no adverse consequences to R1. Based on the evidence obtained during the complaint investigation, the allegation above are SUBSTANTIATED, meaning there is a preponderance of evidence to prove a violation occurred. An exit interview was conducted with Pam Talamantes, Resident Services Director a copy of this report and Licensee's Rights (LIC9058) were provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Mar 24, 2025 · control 08-AS-20210802083301

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: CCR 87028(a) · Plan of correction due date: Mar 26, 2025

Plan of Operation. The facility shall operate in accordance with the terms specified in the Plan of Operation and may be cited for not doing so. This requirement was not met as evidenced by: Based on interviews and a record review, licensee did not operate in accordance with the facility’s Program Design by medication staff giving a resident’s medication to another resident, (1 of 114). This posed potential health and to persons in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Mar 24, 2025

Plan of correction: The facility will hold a training for medtechs regarding Medication Rights and Resident identifiers.

Allegation investigated: Licensee did not dispense medications as prescribed. Facility staff falsified medication records

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Becky Kennedy conducted an unannounced complaint investigation visit to the facility to deliver findings on the above allegations. LPA was granted entry to the facility amd met with Pamela Talmantes, Resident Services Director. It was alleged that licensee did not dispense medications as prescribed, and that facility staff falsified medication records. The Department’s investigation consisted of review of facility records, outside source records, and interviews of facility staff and outside sources and a tour of the facility. Specifically, the above allegations were that Resident 1’s (R1) medications were not administered as prescribed and not as documented on the medication record. It was alleged that the failure to administer medication as prescribed exacerbated a chronic condition. R1 needed intensive medical care. A review of records determined that it not due to a failure to receive the prescribed medication. Unsubstantiated Based on interviews, a review of medication records and observations of the medication on hand, the investigation revealed that there was no apparent discrepancy in the documentation, and that the medication on hand at the facility reflected that medication was given to R1 appropriately. Based on the evidence obtained during the complaint investigation, the allegations above are UNSUBSTANTIATED, meaning the preponderance of evidence standard was not met to prove a violation occurred. An exit interview was conducted with Pamela Talmantes, Resident Services Director; a copy of this report and Licensee's Rights (LIC9058) were provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Mar 12, 2025 · control 08-AS-20240612085444

Type of visit: Case Management - Incident

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Liliana Silveira conducted an unannounced Case Management - Incident visit. LPA was welcomed by, identified herself to, and discussed the purpose of the visit with Care Coordinator Ariana Ventura. Executive Director Thomas Ozz Daynes arrived shortly after. Today's visit was in response to an LIC624 Incident Report, which licensee self-submitted to the CCLD San Diego Regional Office (received on 10/02/2024). According to the LIC624: on 09/26/2024, Resident #1 (R1) fell and suffered a fracture. [See LIC 811 Confidential Names List for a description of R1.] R1 was sent to the Emergency Room on 09/27/24, then transferred back to Bayshire Carlsbad Skilled Nursing Facility. During today’s visit, LPA performed a facility tour / welfare check, collected records, and interviewed R1 and the Care Coordinator. LPA did not observe and health and safety concerns. No deficiencies were cited during today's visit. An exit interview was conducted with Ariana, to whom a copy of this report, 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, Nov 6, 2024

Type of visit: Required - 1 Year

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Ryan Fulton conducted an unannounced Required Annual Inspection. The facility file was reviewed prior to the visit. LPA was welcomed by and discussed the purpose of the visit to Resident Services Director Pamela Talamantes . The facility's license shows a maximum capacity of one hundred and twenty-five (125) residents. During today’s inspection there were one hundred and eighteen (118) Residents in care. LPA and Pamela Talamantes toured 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. resident bedrooms contained the required furnishings. Doors, windows, screens, 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 client activities. There was at least 2 days of perishable food, and at least 7 days non-perishable food present, all of which are safely stored. Cooking/dining equipment and utensils were present. Toxic chemicals/poisons were locked and inaccessible to residents. Medications were labeled, as required, and stored in locked areas. The facility’s ambient internal temperature was compliant. Hot water temperature at taps accessible to residents were all compliant: Kitchen sink was N/A F; bathroom #1 sink was 113.6 F bathroom #2 sink was 108.2 F Bathroom #3 was 113.0 F and bathroom #4 was 110.9 F . No pools or bodies of water exist on the premises. Per licensee, no firearms or ammunition are kept at the facility. Carbon monoxide/Smoke detectors, emergency lighting, and facility telephone were all in working order. Fire extinguisher(s) were serviced within the last 12 months. First aid kit(s) were complete and readily accessible. Required licensing postings were observed in visible areas of the facility. No deficiencies were cited during the inspection. An exit interview was conducted with Pamela Talamantes to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jun 18, 2024

Allegation investigated: Facility staff forced resident to take a shower

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Ramon Serrano conducted an unannounced complaint visit to deliver findings on the above allegation. LPA met with Resident Services Director Pamela Talamantes and we discussed the purpose of the visit and elements of the complaint. Community Care Licensing (CCL) has investigated the above allegation. The investigation consisted of records review and interviews with facility staff and residents. It was reported to CCL that facility staff forced Resident 1 (R1) to take a shower. [an LIC 811 Confidential Names List was provided to the facility representative to identify the resident.] Records review revealed R1 refused to shower three times on February 6, 2024. The facility attempted a "change of face" or had a different staff member ask R1 if R1 would like to shower but R1 refused again. Facility staff notified both R1's doctor and the Resident Services Director. R1 refused to shower twice on February 28, 2024 and on the third attempt R1 agreed to shower. Unsubstantiated Records review of R1's progress notes dated October 2023 through March 2024 revealed facility staff documented R1's daily status, including; complaints of pain or discomfort, safety checks, shower refusals, unwitnessed falls, etc. LPA interviewed R1 at the facility. R1 stated that at first facility staff would ask R1 over and over if R1 wanted to shower whenever R1 refused to shower. R1 stated that now they only ask a few times whenever R1 refuses to shower. R1 further stated that staff have never forcefully made R1 shower or grabbed R1 by force to shower. Interview with facility staff (FS) revealed all of the residents have a shower schedule. FS stated that if a resident refuses to shower they come back later and encourage the resident to take a shower. FS stated that R1 usually refuses to shower and also refuses to go to their doctors appointments. FS stated that R1 immediately says no to shower on R1's shower day and throughout the day various staff will try to encourage R1 to shower. LPA interviewed facility staff II (FSII) who stated that if a resident refuses to shower they notify the doctor and discuss the importance of showering with the resident. FSII stated that staff will encourage the resident throughout the day to take a shower or a sponge bath if requested. FSII stated that R1 does not like to shower. FSII further stated that they have never heard of staff forcing R1 or any other resident to shower. LPA interviewed outside agency (OA) who stated that they believe the staff at the facility are doing the best they can. OA stated that the facility offers to help R1 but R1 thinks they are "forcing" R1. OA stated that R1 also refuses to go to their outside agency appointments to see a specialist. OA stated that they do not believe that the facility staff are actually forcing R1 to shower but that is how R1 "feels". The facility Resident Services Director (RSD) stated that community has attempted to care for R1 as best as they can and as much as R1 will allow them to. RSD stated that they do understand that a resident has a right to refuse ADLs, to include showers, however, they do have certain protocols that they implement when a resident refuses assistance with ADL’s. The facility will implement a change of face and a second or third attempt to assist the residents. As a result, a resident may see that protocol as the community being forceful. At no given time is a resident ever forced to take a shower or do something against their will. Based upon the foregoing, the above listed allegation is unsubstantiated. This finding means that the preponderance of the evidence standard has not been met and the allegation is not valid. An exit interview was conducted with Pamela Talamantes. A copy of this report along with licensee rights (LIC 9058, 3/22) was provided to Pamela Talamantes whose signature below verifies receipt of these rights.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Mar 28, 2024 · control 08-AS-20240227150051

Allegation investigated: Facility staff yells at residents in care.

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA)Tiffany Holmes conducted an unannounced complaint visit to the facility to open a complaint on the above-mentioned allegation. LPA gained access to the facility, identified herself, and met with Pam Talamantes, Head Nurse to discuss the purpose of the visit. LPA conducted interviews with residents, and facility staff. LPA also reviewed records and conducted a physical inspection of the facility. It was alleged that facility staff yells at residents in care. Interviews revealed that the staff are kind and have not been observed yelling at any residents. Interviews with staff revealed the staff may speak loudly to residents due to them being hard of hearing or deaf. Interviews with residents stated the same as far as some residents do not hear that well and so some staff speak louder than usual so the resident can hear them. Interviews with residents also revealed that the staff are persistant and very helpful and that they have not been yelled at by any of the staff. The investigation did not produce supporting evidence or supporting witness statements to substantiate facility staff yells at residents in care. Based on the evidence obtained from interviews, the complaint allegation is unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted with Pam Talamantes, Head Nurse and a copy of this report along with Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC 9058 03/22) was provided at the conclusion of the visit. Unsubstantiatedthe state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Feb 8, 2024 · control 08-AS-20240201141223

Allegation investigated: Staff are stealing resident's clothes

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Mark Mandel conducted an unannounced visit to follow-up on a complaint investigation regarding the above-mentioned allegation. LPA identified himself, was granted entry by Concierge, Karin Kammerer, and a few minutes later, met with Resident Services Director, Pamela Talamantes. LPA stated the purpose of the visit and discussed the elements of the complaint with Resident Services Director, Pamela Talamantes. LPA delivered the findings of the investigation that was initiated on 12/18/2023 to Director Talamantes. On 12/11/2023, the Department received a complaint alledging that facility staff are stealing the clothes of residents. The Department's investigation consisted of facility visits, record reviews and interviews with residents. During the initial visit conducted on 12/18/2023, LPA Mark Mandel and Licensing Program Manger (LPA) Simon Jacob, toured the facility and interviewed residents. Interviews revealed that Resident 1 (R1) claimed that $90 of her money had gone missing in her first month living at the facility, but stated the facility reimbursed her for the missing money. R1 also stated that some of her clothing items, including "mostly sweat pants" and approximately ten T-shirts had gone missing from her room, but said the facililty replaced some of the missing clothing items and gave her a $50 gift card for the T-Shirts. R1 said she has no idea who allegedly stole her clothing items and stated that the staff is wonderful. Then R1 acknowledged that her missing clothing items may have gotten lost in the laundry as opposed to having been stolen. (Cont. on LIC9099) Unsubstantiated (Cont. from LIC9099) Interviews with seven other residents revealed that only one, Resident 2 (R2), claimed to have had any personal items of their own go missing. R2 stated that she had some make-up disappear, but said that she had left her door open and anyone could have taken it. One other resident, Resident 3 (R3), stated a few people have experienced missing clothing, and Resident 4 (R4), who has lived at the facility for 7.5 years, stated a few residents have had "inexpensive" jewelry go missing. A records review revealed that R1 moved into the facility on 06/30/2022. During today's visit, additional records were reviewed by LPA Mark Mandel, which showed that R1 waived her right to list any items, including the items R1 reported as being stolen, on the Client/Resident Personal Property and Valuables Form, which she signed. In addition the Theft and Loss Policy states the facility can provide a lock for the resident's bedside drawer or cabinet upon request and residents are encouraged not to bring valuables to the facility. R1 did not state during a previous interview that the she requested a locked drawer or that it was broken into in relation to the money of hers that she said disappeared. Based on the interviews conducted and records obtained and reviewed, the allegation that facility staff are stealing residents clothes is Unsubstantiated, as the preponderance of evidence standard was not met. An exit interview was conducted with Resident Services Director, Pamela Talamantes, whose signature below confirms receipt of this report and the Licensee Appeal Rights (LIC9058 01/16).the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jan 29, 2024 · control 08-AS-20231211111802