Oakmont of Folsom

Allegation investigated: -Staff does not ensure resident records are kept safely secured

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Angela Hood arrived at the care home today and met with the Executive Director (ED), Benjie Doctolero, and Health Services Director, Sathish Ramasamy to deliver complaint investigation findings regarding the above stated allegation. During the course of the investigation, LPA conducted interviews and obtained documentation pertinent to the investigation. According to the facility's ledger, resident (R1) paid their first month's rent by check on June 3, 2026. Interview with the Business Office Director (BOD) indicated that they and the ED are the only staff that have access to the residents financial files, which are also locked. Interviews indicated that the facility is in partnership with a resident portal, Loft Living, that provides residents with an alternative way to access and pay their monthly rent online. Interview with Loft Living representative indicated that R1 logged into the portal on June 1, 2026 and successfully deleted their card information at 2:18pm on that date. Interview with representative indicated that no transactions were made through the Loft Living portal and R1 terminated ************************************************Continued on LIC9099-C**************************************************** Unsubstantiated their account on August 11, 2026 at 5:13pm. According to the facility's payment authorization form, R1 signed up for autopay beginning July 1,2026 and ending "upon my death". Interviews indicated that R1 began receiving emails indicating balances due to the facility. Interviews indicated that R1 attempted to obtain information from the BOD and Former ED regarding the emails, specifically received from Loft Living. However, facility staff were unable to provide R1 with answers regarding anything pertaining to Loft Living. R1 also attempted to obtain information regarding ACH transactions, which showed up in their bank statement after paying with check. Email correspondence with the BOD to R1 indicated that the checks are not ran as ACH. Due to R1's concerns regarding safeguarding their financial information, they placed stop payments on ACH transactions with their financial institution. According to letters received from R1's financial institution, dated July 4, 2026, R1 requested stop payments on July 3, 2026 for $7,064.20 and $7,139 for "New Village at P". Interviews indicated that R1 attempted to obtain information from facility staff regarding what the New Village at P was and why there were attempts for payment with the dollar amounts similar to their monthly rent. However, the facility was unable to provide any information regarding the letters R1 received. On September 4, 2026, September 8, 2026, and September 9, 2026, R1 and LPA contacted R1's financial institution. It was found that the financial institution made an error on the letters received by R1 that indicated New Village at P. The financial institution representative indicated that the letter should have specified Oakmont of Folsom. They indicated that they conducted the stop payment based on the Merchant ID number, which multiple businesses share, and entered the wrong business name. They stated that they would provide an updated letter to R1 with the correct business name. Also, they stated that, based on audio recordings, R1 placed the stop payments for the dollar amounts indicated on the letters. The investigation revealed that check scans at the care home and autopay will indicate ACH on a bank statement due to it being an electronic payment. Loft Living's portal is partnered with the facility's information, which reflected in the emails to R1 regarding balances due. However, if residents do not want to utilize Loft Living, then they can provide the facility with a check or authorize the autopayment system. The financial institution made an error on the letters; however, R1 requested the stop payments. The financial institution staff also indicated that there were no attempts made to withdraw unauthorized monies from R1's account. Interview with ED indicated that they provided R1 with any checks they submitted for payment instead of storing in their facility file. ED indicated that R1 will be reauthorizing the autopayment system to allow one (1) monthly payment for the same dollar amount each month. Also, ED stated that they will provide R1 with their ledger for each month's rent payment made to ensure it matches with their banking statement. Based on interviews conducted and documentation obtained, although the allegation may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur. Therefore, the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. No deficiencies are being cited. Exit interview conducted. A copy of the report was provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Sep 17, 2026 · control 59-AS-20260713141829

Allegation investigated: -Staff are mismanaging resident's medications. -Staff are not providing adequate food services. -Staff do not provide records to resident's responsible party in a timely manner. -Staff do no accord resident privacy.

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Angela Hood arrived at the care home today and met with the Executive Director, Anyssa Hill, to deliver complaint investigation findings regarding the above stated allegations. During the course of the investigation, LPA conducted interviews, made observations, conducted a medication count, and obtained documentation pertinent to the investigation. Allegation: Staff are mismanaging resident's medications On February 19, 2026, LPA conducted a medication count for residents (R1, R2, and R3), comparing the residents’ medication lists on file with medication centrally stored for the residents. LPA did not observe any medication errors. Interviews with residents (R4, R5, and R6) indicated that they receive all medications as prescribed. Interviews with staff (S1, S2, and S3) indicated that medications are being given as prescribed. ***********************************************Continued on LIC9099-C************************************************** Unsubstantiated Allegation: Staff are not providing adequate food services. On February 12, 2026, LPA toured the kitchen area for the ability to prepare and store food. The kitchen appeared to be in good repair, and the care home had the required 2-day perishable and 7-day nonperishable food supply on hand. The meal menu for the months of January-February indicated a variety of food offered to the residents in care. LPA was also provided the winter everyday menu and everyday breakfast menu with daily specials. Interviews with R4, R5, R6, S1, S2, and S3 indicated that the facility provides adequate food services. Allegation: Staff do not provide records to resident's responsible party in a timely manner. Interviews with R4, R5, R6, and resident (R7) indicated that facility will provide records to the resident and/or their responsible party when requested. Interviews with S1, S2, and S3 indicated that the facility staff provide records to a resident's responsible party in a timely manner. The complaint did not specify a particular resident or responsible party. Allegation: Staff do no accord resident privacy. Interviews with R4, R5, R6, and R7 indicated that the facility staff provide them privacy. Interviews with S1, S2, and S3 indicated that staff give residents their privacy. S1, S2, and S3 indicated that they have never witnessed or heard of any staff wearing meta glasses to records residents. S1, S2, and S3 also stated that they would inform the ED or any supervisor as it would be a violation of the residents' privacy. On February 12, 2026 and February 19, 2026, LPA observed several staff in the care home and did not observe anyone wearing meta glasses used to record. Interview with ED indicated that they have never witnessed any staff wearing meta glasses and have not heard any complaints of staff wearing meta glasses. Based on interviews conducted, medication count, observations made, and documentation obtained, although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur. Therefore, the allegations are UNSUBSTANTIATED. No deficiencies are being cited. Exit interview conducted. A copy of the report was provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Feb 19, 2026 · control 59-AS-20260202094237

Allegation investigated: -Facility staff did not maintain infection control of scabies.

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Angela Hood arrived at the care home today and met with the Executive Director (ED), Anyssa Hill, to deliver complaint investigation findings regarding the above stated allegation. During the course of the investigation, LPA conducted interviews and obtained documentation pertinent to the investigation. Interviews conducted with the ED, Memory Care Director (MCD), and Health Services Director (HSD) indicated that resident (R1) was observed, on November 7, 2025, to have what appeared to be a rash and was seen at urgent care the same day. According to visit summary, dated November 7, 2025, R1 was seen by a physician and was prescribed medication to treat scabies. Interviews with ED, MCD, HSD, and staff (S1 and S2) indicated that R1 was provided the prescription treatment that evening. Interviews indicated that the facility took all environmental precautions ensuring R1's room, clothing, and linens were cleaned. Interviews indicated that staff utilized appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE), ***********************************************Continued on LIC9099-C************************************************* Unsubstantiated when necessary, to prevent the spread of scabies. Interviews indicated that memory care residents do not have shared items in their bedrooms, if in a shared room, and that residents utilize locked cabinets to keep their personal belongings. Interview with ED indicated that R1 did not have a roommate until 7-days after the treatment for scabies. Interviews with ED, MCD, and HSC indicated that the facility has been conducting skin checks of all residents in memory care. Interviews with S1 and S2 indicated that, if any observations of skin concerns were made by care staff, they would notify the Med Tech on duty. S1 and S2 indicated that memory care staff have not observed any additional residents exhibiting signs or symptoms of scabies. There have also not been any staff exhibiting signs or symptoms of scabies in the care home. Interview with ED, MCD, and HSC indicated that R1's responsible party contacted Sacramento County Public Health regarding R1's scabies. Sacramento County Public Health contacted the facility on November 21, 2025 and provided the facility guidance information regarding scabies. The facility also contacted CCLD on November 21, 2025. Interview with Sacramento County Public Health indicated that they provided the facility with scabies prevention and control information. Sacramento County Public Health provided LPA a copy of the information. Sacramento County Public Health did not express any concerns regarding the steps the facility took to ensure infection control in the facility. However, Sacramento County Public Health indicated that the facility should contact them even if there is one (1) resident that is being treated for suspected scabies to ensure the facility is following the appropriate prevention and control guidance. According to visit summary, R1 was seen by a physician, on November 19, 2025, and was instructed to continue scabies medication treatment. The physician also performed skin scrapping on R1's left wrist to rule out scabies and fungal infection. The results indicated that there was no fungal infection to date and that the culture will be examined weekly for a total of 28 days incubation. A change in status will result in an updated culture report. To date the facility does not have any additional suspected cases of scabies. The facility utilized their scabies management policy to maintain infection control in the care home. Based on interviews conducted and documentation obtained, although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur. Therefore, the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. No deficiencies are being cited. Exit interview conducted. A copy of the report was provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Dec 23, 2025 · control 59-AS-20251121083547

Type of visit: Case Management - Deficiencies

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Angela Hood arrived at the care home today and met with the Executive Director (ED), Anyssa Hill, to conduct a case management visit in relation to a separate inspection conducted on today’s date, December 23, 2025. According to resident (R1's) visit summary, dated November 7, 2025, R1 was seen by a physician and was prescribed medication to treat scabies. Interviews with ED, Memory Care Director (MCD), and Health Services Director (HSD) indicated that R1's responsible party contacted Sacramento County Public Health (SCPH). SCPH contacted the facility on November 21, 2025 and provided the facility with scabies prevention and control guidance. Interview with SCPH indicated that management of a single case of scabies is the same as an outbreak as it can spread quickly. SCPH indicated that the difficult part about scabies is that sometimes the skin scrapping can come back negative, however, does not necessarily mean that the individual did not have scabies. SCPH indicated that physician's will typically treat scabies based on appearance and symptoms. SCPH indicated that facilities should notify them even if their is a single case of scabies to ensure the facility is following the appropriate prevention and control guidance. CCLD follows SCPH guidance regarding infection prevention and control. LPA obtained a copy of the SCPH scabies guidance, which indicated that management of a single case is essentially the same as for an outbreak. Also, that an outbreak cannot be conclusively excluded for at least 6 weeks following the last unprotected exposure to the case. On November 21, 2025, the facility contacted CCLD, however, no Unusual Incident/Injury Report LIC624 was received regarding R1's treatment for scabies on November 7, 2025. As a result of today's inspection, a deficiency is being cited pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 8. Deficiency is listed on 809-D pages. Exit interview was conducted. A copy of this report and appeal rights were provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Dec 23, 2025

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: CCR 87211(a)(1)(D) · Plan of correction due date: Jan 6, 2026

87211 Reporting Requirements (a) Each licensee shall furnish to the licensing agency such reports as the Department may require, including, but not limited to, the following: (1) A written report shall be submitted to the licensing agency and to the person responsible for the resident within seven days of the occurrence of any of the events specified in (A) through (D) below... (D) Any incident which threatens the welfare, safety or health of any resident, such as psychological abuse of a resident by staff or other residents, or unexplained absence of any resident. This requirement is not met as evidenced by: Based on records reviewed and interviews conducted, the facility did not ensure that they notified CCLD of R1's treatment for scabies within seven days, which poses a potential health, safety, and personal rights risk to the residents in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Dec 23, 2025

Plan of correction: Facility agrees to submit a statement of understanding to LPA by the POC due date of 1/6/2025

Allegation investigated: -Staff are not following refund conditions

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Angela Hood arrived at the care home and met with the Executive Director (ED), Anyssa Hill, to deliver complaint investigation findings regarding the above stated allegation. During the course of the investigation, LPA conducted interviews and obtained documentation pertinent to the investigation. ED indicated that the facility was informed of a potential resident (R1) through a placement agency. The facility met with R1 and their responsible party regarding potential move in. According to R1's Admission Agreement, R1's responsible party signed the agreement effective September 2, 2025. On September 6, 2025, R1 refused to move in and following ED offered that the facility could place R1 on the waiting list and refund any monies paid. ED indicated that R1's responsible party declined offer and R1 continued to refuse move in to facility. Interviews with the responsible party and relevant party indicated that they did not provide *********************************************Continued on LIC9099-C************************************************* Substantiated the facility with a written 30-day notice when it was determined that R1 did not want to move into the facility. The facility utilized a text message from R1's responsible party indicating that R1 would not be moving in as the official 30-day notice, beginning October 1, 2025. According to R1's Admission Agreement signed September 2, 2025, a resident "may terminate this Agreement at any time, with or without cause, by giving the Executive Director of the Community or his/her designee thirty (30) days' prior written notice of termination. You need not cite a specific reason for the termination. If You move out without providing thirty (30) days notice, You will be responsible for the amount of your Monthly Fee through the date You move plus one full month's fees". ED indicated that, although they didn't receive a formal written notice, they used the text message as notice and informed the responsible party that they will only be responsible for the rent through the 30-days, October 1, 2025- October 30, 2025, and will not be charged an additional months rent. ED indicated that the facility was able to find a new tenant for the apartment to move in October 19, 2025, so offered to prorate what the responsible party owed in rent for October 1, 2025-October 16, 2025. According to ledger, the facility needs to edit their prorating of rent. The facility did not charge R1 care fees and care fees were credited to the account as R1 never received care at the facility. Facility did not charge $500 pet fee as the pet fee of $500 was credited as well. According to the Admission Agreement, "If you leave Oakmont during the first (1st) month, You will receive a refund of 80% of the Community Fee (minus $500 for the assessment). If you leave Oakmont during the second (2nd) month, You will receive a refund of 60% of the Community Fee (minus the $500 for the assessment)". ED indicated that the facility was going to refund R1 and their responsible party 80% even though R1's move out date was during the second (2nd) month. R1 did not pay rent during the second (2nd) month so had a balance due of $3,852.42. R1 is due 60% of their Community Fee in the amount of $5,397. Originally, the facility applied the 80% fee towards R1's remaining rent balance due. However, the Community Fee is a separate charge than a resident's rent. The facility agrees to refund R1 the Community Fee. The facility sent R1's responsible party payment of $1,366.60 on November 3, 2025. Text correspondence between facility and responsible party indicated that the check for $1,366.60 was received on November 8, 2025. The facility owes R1 and their responsible party an additional $4,030.40. Based on records reviewed and interviews conducted, the preponderance of evidence standards have been met. Therefore, the above allegation is found to be SUBSTANTIATED. Per California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 8, a deficiency is being cited on the attached 9099-D page. Exit interview conducted. A copy of report and appeal rights were provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Nov 13, 2025 · control 59-AS-20251021131959

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: CCR 87507(g)(5)(E)(2)(b) · Plan of correction due date: Nov 27, 2025

87507 Admission Agreements (g) Admission agreements shall specify the following: (5) Refund conditions. (E) Preadmission fees shall be refunded according to the following conditions: 2. Unless Section 87507(g)(5)(E)1. applies, paid preadmission fees that are greater than five hundred dollars ($500) shall be refunded to an applicant, resident, or the applicant/resident’s representative in the following manner: b. A refund of at least 60 percent of the preadmission fee in excess of $500 shall be provided if the resident leaves the facility for any reason during the second month of residency. This requirement is not met as evidenced by: Based on documentation reviewed and interviews conducted, the facility did not refund resident (R1) 60% of their Community Pre-Admission Fee upon moving out of the facility, which poses a potential health, safety, and personal rights risk to residents in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Nov 13, 2025

Plan of correction: Facility agrees to refund R1 the Community Pre-Admission Fee. Facility will submit a statement of understanding to LPA by the POC due date of 11/27/2025.

Type of visit: Required - 1 Year

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Cheyenne Ratajczak arrived unannounced to conduct the annual inspection. LPA met with Executive Director (ED) Anyssa Hill and explained the purpose of the visit. Currently there are seventy-one (71) residents of which six (6) residents are receiving hospice services. LPA toured facility with ED to ensure health and safety of residents in care. LPA toured eight (8) resident rooms, medication room, bathrooms, kitchen, common living spaces, outdoor spaces, and activity areas. In the areas toured no immediate health, safety, or personal rights violations were observed. Hot water was measured at 105.6 degrees. LPA toured the assisted living side of the facility and the memory care unit with a delayed egress. There is a locked storage for medications and toxins. Food supply is adequate for 2-day perishable and 7-day nonperishable. LPA reviewed ten (10) resident files. LPA reviewed two (2) resident medications comparing with current physician orders. LPA reviewed ten (10) staff files. A review of staff records indicates that all facility staff has received criminal record clearances and/or are associated to this facility. No deficiencies are being cited as a result of todays inspection. Exit interview conducted and copy of the report and LIC809G was left at the facility.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Aug 7, 2025

Type of visit: Case Management - Incident

On 05/09/2025 Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Cheyenne Ratajczak arrived at the facility unannounced to conduct a case management visit. LPA met with Executive Director (ED) Anyssa Hill and explained the purpose of today's visit. The purpose of today's visit is to follow up on a Unusual Incident/ Injury Report that was sent to the Department on 04/28/2025. LPA received an incident report regarding a medication error. It was reported that during afternoon medications. Facility staff mixed up Resident #1 (R1) medication cup and Resident #2 (R2) medication cup. R1 did received R2s medication Seroquel 25mg. Facility staff did catch this error before R2 received any medication. R1 did not have any reaction to the medication. Facility staff immediately called poison control and R1s doctor. R1s responsible party was present at the facility during time of incident. Based on this information, deficiency is cited per California Code of Regulations, Title 22, and listed on LIC 809D. Failure to submit Proof of Correction (POC) by Plan of Correction date may result in civil penalties. Exit interview conducted. Appeal rights provided. Copy of the report left at facility.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, May 9, 2025

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: CCR 87465(a)(4) · Plan of correction due date: May 23, 2025

87465 Incidental Medical and Dental Care (a)A plan for incidental medical and dental care shall be developed by each facility. The plan shall encourage routine medical and dental care and provide for assistance in obtaining such care, by compliance with the following: (4)The licensee shall assist residents with self-administered medications as needed. This requirement is not met as evidenced by: Based on the gathered information the facility did not give R1 their medication as prescribed which poses a potential health and safety risk to residents in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, May 9, 2025

Plan of correction: Licensee to conduct a training with all staff who handle medication and send in proof of training to LPA once completed by POC due date.

Type of visit: Case Management - Incident

On 04/02/2025, Licensing Program Analysts (LPA) Cheyenne Ratajczak and Cassandra Mikkelson arrived unannounced to conduct a case management visit. LPAs met with Executive Director (ED) Anyssa Hill and explained the purpose of the visit. During visit LPAs were informed Michael Clymo is no longer the ED of the facility. Anyssa Hill is the ED now and has been since March 17, 2025. ED stated that they did send in the paperwork to Community Care Licensing (CCL) to make the change. LPA requested for facility to resend the documents. Facility sent an incident report into CCL concerning an incident that occurred on 03/15/2025. LPAs interviewed ED and Memory Care Director concerning incident and obtained resident documents. No deficiencies cited at this time. Exit interview conducted and a copy of the report was left at the facilitythe state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Apr 2, 2025

Allegation investigated: Facility staff mismanaged client’s medication

Licensed Program Analysts (LPAs) Cassandra Mikkelson and Kevin Mknelly arrived at the facility unannounced and met with Executive Director Michael Clymo to deliver findings for the above complaint allegation. During the investigation, LPAs conducted interviews, conducted a tour of the facility, and reviewed documentation pertinent to the investigation. The results of the investigation are as follows: ** Report continued on 9099-C *** Unsubstantiated During multiple visits conducted at the facility, LPAs observed resident’s medication MARs to be complete with no errors indicated. LPAs observed medication room to be clean and organized. Interviews conducted with staff members S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, and S6 indicated that they have not witnessed any mismanagement of resident medications. Interviews with thirteen (13) residents indicated that they have never received the wrong medication or not been given the correct dosage of their medications. Based on interviews conducted and observations, the preponderance of evidence standards have not been met. Therefore, the above allegation is found to be UNSUBSTANTIATED. Findings that the complaint is Unsubstantiated means that, although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred. Exit interview was conducted with Michael Clymo. A copy of this report was provided. Signature on these forms acknowledges receipt of these documents.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Dec 18, 2024 · control 59-AS-20241119170352

Allegation investigated: Facility is malodorous Staff are not meeting residents' hygiene needs Facility is unkempt

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Bethany Mirlohi arrived unannounced to deliver complaint investigations. LPA met with administrator Michael Clymo during today’s inspection. LPA investigated allegation, “Facility is malodorous”. LPA toured the facility and interviewed staff. LPA toured the facility on 9/11/24 and observed the memory care unit to be clean, sanitary, and free from odor. LPA toured resident rooms, common areas, kitchen area, and dining room and did not smell an odor. LPA interviewed 5 staff members in which they stated housekeeping and other staff keep the memory care clean and free from odor. Staff stated due to resident incontinence care needs, at times their may be a temporary smell but staff take care of the problem in a timely manner. Due to interviews and observation LPA finds allegation to be UNFOUNDED. Continuation on 9099-C. Unfounded LPA investigated the allegation, “Staff are not meeting residents’ hygiene needs”. LPA toured the memory care unit, and observed common living spaces, and resident rooms. LPA observed resident rooms appeared to be clean and free from odor. LPA observed residents in care engaged in an activity, and residents appeared to be clean, dressed well, and comfortable. LPA interviewed 5 staff members in which they stated they provide routine incontinence care to residents in need and change them frequently throughout the shift. Staff stated they have not observed any of the resident’s hygiene needs not being met. Staff stated they believe they have enough staff per shift to meet resident needs. Relevant party indicated some residents have a smell to them and there are not enough staff to meet their needs, however no specific information was provided. Due to observation and interviews, LPA finds allegation to be UNFOUNDED. LPA investigated allegation, “Facility is unkempt”. LPA toured the memory care unit which included resident rooms, common areas, kitchen and dining room area, and outdoor areas. LPA observed the memory care unit to be clean and free from odor. LPA observed the kitchen and dinning room area to be sanitary and clean. LPA interviewed 5 staff members in which they stated housekeeping and other staff keep the memory care clean and free from odor. Relevant party indicated there was standing water and dirty fans in the memory care unit, LPA did not observe any of these issues. Due to observation and interviews, LPA finds allegation to be unfounded. The allegation is UNFOUNDED. A finding that the allegation is unfounded means that the allegation is false, could not have happened, and/or is without a reasonable basis. Exit interview conducted.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Oct 2, 2024 · control 59-AS-20240909131359

Type of visit: Case Management - Incident

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Bethany Mirlohi arrived unannounced to conduct a case management visit. LPA met with Health Services Director Kelly Kolodziej during today's inspection. LPA arrived to review a death report received from the facility. LPA requested copies of R1 resident file and documentation. LPA spoke to Health Services Director about the incident. During today's inspection no deficiencies were cited. Exit interview conducted and copy of report provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Aug 29, 2024

Type of visit: Required - 1 Year

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Bethany Mirlohi arrived unannounced to conduct the annual inspection. LPA met with Administrator Michael Clymo upon arrival. Currently there are 74 residents of which 2 residents are receiving hospice care. LPA toured facility with administrator to ensure health and safety of residents in care. LPA toured 8 resident rooms, medication room, staff area, bathrooms, kitchen, common living spaces, outdoor spaces, and activity areas. In the areas toured no immediate health, safety, or personal rights violations were observed. Hot water was measured at 110 degrees. LPA toured the assisted living side of the facility and the memory care unit with a delayed egress. There is a locked storage for medications and toxins. Food supply is adequate for 2-day perishable and 7-day nonperishable. LPA observed an adequate amount of linens and found the first aid kit to be complete. LPA reviewed 10 resident files and 10 staff files. LPA reviewed 3 resident medications comparing with current physician orders. A review of staff records indicates that all facility staff has received criminal record clearances and/or are associated to this facility. LPA observed a copy of current liability insurance. Deficiencies are being cited on the 809-D. Exit interview conducted and copy of report provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Aug 22, 2024

The state marks this report as 3 pages; the online copy we transcribed has 2. You can request the full file from the county licensing office.

Type of visit: Case Management - Incident

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Bethany Mirlohi arrived unannounced to conduct a case management visit. LPA met with Administrator Michael Clymo during today's inspection. LPA arrived to discuss two separate incident reports received from the facility. LPA interviewed administrator and staff concerning incident. It appears facility followed proper protocol and regulation on each incident that occurred. No deficiencies cited during today's inspection. Exit interview conducted.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, May 15, 2024