Seabright Assisted Living and Memory Care

Type of visit: Required - 1 Year

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Arian Golbakhsh conducted an unannounced, required Annual Inspection. The facility file and personnel report was reviewed prior to the visit. LPA was welcomed by, identified themselves to, and discussed the purpose of the visit to Caregiver Angelica Escalante. Administrator Katherine Sandez arrived within 30 minutes of LPA's arrival. The facility's license shows a maximum capacity of six (6) non-ambulatory residents, one (1) of which may be bedridden. Bedridden may reside in bedroom #3. Additionally, the facility is approved for three (3) hospice waivers. During today’s inspection there were six (6) residents in care, with three (3) currently on hospice. LPA and Administrator Sandez 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. Client bedrooms contained the required furnishings. Doors, windows, screens, toilets, and showers were in working order. Hot water temperature at taps accessible to clients were all compliant: kitchen sink was 110F. 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. LPA noted a variety of games and activities present in the living room area. 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. Knives were locked and inaccessible to residents. [Continued on LIC 809-C] [Continued from LIC 809] The hallway closet containing chemicals was locked, however, as LPA toured the garage area, a full jug of laundry detergent was present beside the door inside the garage. The door to the garage was not secured and was accessible to residents in care. Administrator Sandez immediately moved the jug from the garage to the locked storage cabinet. One type A deficiency was cited for the accessible chemical. Medications were labeled, as required, and stored in locked areas. No pools or bodies of water exist on the premises. Per Administrator Sandez, no firearms or ammunition are kept at the facility. Smoke and carbon monoxide detectors, emergency lighting, and facility telephone were all in working order. Fire extinguisher was purchased within the last 12 months, dated for May 2025. Fireplace had an appropriate screen in place. First aid kit was complete and readily accessible. Required licensing postings were observed in visible areas of the facility. The backyard area offered plenty of space for residents and walkways were free of obstructions and trip hazards. LPA interviewed two (2) staff and one (1) client, and interviews did not reveal any licensing or regulatory concerns. LPA reviewed facility records and confidential records were stored in locked areas. LPA noted that the files were well organized and routinely updated. While reviewing staff records, LPA noted that two (2) staff members (identified as S1 and S2) were not associated to the facility. Further review of the Guardian background check system revealed S1 and S2 had eligible clearances, just that they weren't associated to this facility. One type A Deficiency is being cited per California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 6 on the attached LIC 809-D for the two (2) staff working without having their clearances associated to the facility. A Civil Penalty was assessed for the total amount of $1,000.00 and details are noted on the attached LIC 421BG form. S1 and S2 were able to be associated during the visit. Two (2) deficiencies were cited during the inspection. An exit interview was conducted with Administrator Sandez to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC 9058) were provided. Their signature below confirms receipt of these documents.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Apr 16, 2026

Allegation investigated: Unlawful eviction Lack of supervision resulted in resident eloping

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Hannah Rodgers conducted an unannounced visit to deliver findings regarding the above complaint allegations. LPA introduced themselves and disclosed the purpose of the visit to Administrator Katherine Sandez. On June 10, 2025, it was alleged that the licensee unlawfully evicted Resident #1 (R1) and lack of supervision resulted in R1’s elopement [See LIC811 Confidential Name List for identification of select person identifiers used in this report]. It was alleged that R1 was admitted to the Emergency Room after being found wandering in the street and the licensee refused to take them back. The Department’s investigation consisted of an unannounced facility visit, records review, and staff, resident, and outside source interviews, (CONTINUED ON LIC9099-C) Unsubstantiated Interviews with internal and external sources revealed that R1 does not have a responsible party. Review of R1’s medical assessment dated April 4, 2025, revealed that R1 had a primary diagnosis of Senile Degeneration of the Brain (Dementia). Per the assessment, R1’s severe cognitive impairment limits their ability to self-manage, they require assistance with all Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), and they could leave the facility unassisted, but they frequently wander and require supervision. R1 could not be used as a reliable historian to aid in this investigation due to their baseline memory loss. Interviews revealed that R1 stated on multiple occasions that they do not want to live at the facility. Interviews revealed that on June 7, 2025, R1 used their cellphone to make a phone call and arrange transportation to leave the facility. Staff then witnessed R1 packing up their personal belongings and leave in an unknown vehicle from the facility. Based on interviews and records review, the investigation did not yield a preponderance of evidence to conclude that the licensee conducted an unlawful eviction and lack of supervision resulted in resident eloping. Based on the foregoing, the allegations are unsubstantiated. This finding means that although the allegations 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 Administrator Katherine Sandez, to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Sep 10, 2025 · control 08-AS-20250610130511

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 Caregiver Natalia Marquez. The facility's license shows a maximum capacity of six (6) non-ambulatory residents of which one (1) may be bedridden in bedroom #3. Hospice waiver for three (3). Administrator Katherine Sandez arrived later during the visit. LPA with Administrator Sandez 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 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 Administrator Sandez, 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 was complete and readily accessible. Required licensing postings were observed in visible areas of the facility. 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 Administrator Sandez to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Mar 28, 2025

Allegation investigated: Licensee failed to provide a preadmission fee refund Staff not properly trained Staff failed to allow resident to make and receive confidential calls Staff camouflaged medication without the consent or knowledge of the resident. Staff failed to administer correct dose of medication to resident.

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Ramon Serrano conducted an unannounced visit to deliver investigative findings. LPA was granted entry into the facility and met with Caregiver Celeste Valdivia to whom LPA explained the purpose of the visit. Community Care Licensing (CCL) has investigated the above listed complaint allegations. The investigation consisted of review of records and interviews with staff, residents and outside sources. It was alleged that Licensee failed to provide a preadmission fee refund to Resident 1 (R1) (an LIC 811 Confidential Names List was provided to the facility representative to identify the resident) LPA interviewed administrator who stated that R1's accountant did not pay for R1's final month at the facility and instead wanted to only pay for three days. Administrator further stated that R1 has a remaining balance due since R1's accountant never paid for facility fees including a haircut that was paid for by the facility. Unsubstantiated Upon review of records and the facility's admission agreement it was determined that the preadmission fee refund policy was clearly outlined and adhered to appropriately. It was alleged that staff were not properly trained. It was reported that staff did not have proper medication training. LPA interviewed staff member 1 (S1) who stated that she feels properly trained and she also helps the other caregivers in the facility. The training includes; medication disbursement, PRN's, new medications, etc. Interviews with staff members and examination of training records indicated that the facility maintains comprehensive training programs for all staff members in accordance with licensing requirements. There were no indications of inadequate training. It was alleged that facility staff failed to allow R1 to make and receive confidential calls. LPA interviewed Resident 2 (R2) who stated that R2 has their phone at there bedside and are able to make private phone calls. R2 further stated that R2 has never had any incidents where staff were "eavesdropping" during R2's phone calls. LPA interviewed S1 who stated that if a resident is not able to hold the phone the staff will advise the person on the phone if it is okay that they hold the phone. The staff will then do as they are told. There were no documented instances of interference with resident communication rights. It was alleged that facility staff camouflaged medication without the consent or knowledge of R1. LPA interviewed S1 who stated that S1 stated that caregivers are not allowed to "crush" medication or PRN's. S1 stated that she has advised other staff that they are not allowed to crush medication. S1 stated that the Administrator is "on top" of the policy and procedures. Review of medication administration procedures and interviews with staff members and residents revealed no evidence to support the claim of medication camouflage without consent. The facility adheres to strict medication administration protocols. It was alleged that staff failed to administer correct dose of medication to R1. Interviews with facility personnel and records review confirmed that the facility follows established protocols to ensure accurate dosage administration to residents. There were no documented instances of incorrect medication dosage administration. LPA interviewed outside agency (OA) who stated that they had no information or knowledge regarding these allegations. OA further stated that there was "nothing in the system" for the time period of the complaint. LPA interviewed Administrator who stated that all of the facility staff are well trained in every area including medication. Administrator stated that R1 was only at the facility for a short while. Administrator stated that R1's family was bringing in medication for R1 without a doctor's order and were telling staff to give the medication to R1. Administrator advised the family that they needed a doctor's order and also advised the family of the fee to be seen by a doctor. Administrator stated that the family did not want to pay the fee and that is when the "issues" started. Based upon the foregoing, the above listed allegations are unsubstantiated. This finding means that the preponderance of the evidence standard has not been met and the allegations are not valid. An exit interview was conducted with Celeste Valdivia . A copy of this report along with licensee rights (LIC 9058, 3/22) was provided to Celeste Valdivia whose signature below verifies receipt of these rights.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, May 29, 2024 · control 08-AS-20200825110415

Type of visit: Required - 1 Year

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Nacole Patterson 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 Caregiver Celeste Valdivia. The facility's license shows a maximum capacity of six (6) non-ambulatory residents, one (1) of whom may be bedridden in room number 3 only. During today’s inspection there were five (5) residents in care. LPA and Caregiver Celeste Valdivia 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. Client 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. 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 clients. Medications were labeled, as required, and stored in locked areas. No pools or bodies of water exist on the premises. Per Caregiver Celeste Valdivia, 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 clients, 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 Caregiver Celeste Valdivia 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 15, 2024