Illustration — no photo of this home on file yet

Trinity Care Home

Small home·Licensed for 6·Elk Grove, California

Licensed since 2004Licence #347002711
  • Care approvals on fileWheelchairState licensing record · September 27, 2026
  • Estimated starting rate$3,500 a monthCovelight estimate · likely $2,850–$4,300
  • Home sizeLicensed for 6Small care home · a licensed care home (RCFE)
  • Room at the last state visit5 of 6 beds occupiedNovember 4, 2024 · not a current opening
  • Ways to payAsk the homeMedi-Cal ALW participation not on file
  • Last state visitDecember 5, 2025CDSS inspection record

Trinity Care Home is a small care home in Elk Grove — a licensed residential care facility for the elderly (RCFE), the licence category behind “assisted living” and “board and care.” It is licensed for 6 residents since 2004. Dementia care, hospice care and bedridden care are not on file.

Built from CDSS public records · September 27, 2026. Every fact below names its source and date.

Quick answers and the state record

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

Quick answers about Trinity Care Home

Is Trinity Care Home licensed?

The state lists this license as “Licensed,” per CDSS records as of September 27, 2026.

How many residents is Trinity Care Home licensed for?

6 residents — a small home, per CDSS records as of September 27, 2026.

Has Trinity Care Home been cited?

0 Type A and 0 Type B citations since 2004, per CDSS records as of September 27, 2026. Those records count 8 state visits over the same years.

Is Trinity Care Home still open?

This license was on the CDSS roster as of September 28, 2026.

What does Trinity Care Home cost?

$3,500 a month to start is a Covelight estimate, likely $2,850–$4,300. This home’s own rate is not on file. Ask: “What is the all-in monthly rate, and what would push it higher?”

Covelight’s estimate starts from the rates 12 small homes and similar homes within 10 miles publish, then adjusts for this home’s size, state care approvals, Medi-Cal waiver participation, years licensed and the area’s prices. In testing, the likely range held the real rate for 6 in 10 homes. This home’s own rate is not on file.

Among 51 other homes of a similar licensed size across Sacramento County that publish a starting rate, the middle half runs $3,500 to $5,000 a month, and the middle figure is $4,000 (n = 51 other homes publishing a starting rate).

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

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

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

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

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

Does Trinity Care Home take Medi-Cal?

On Medi-Cal’s Assisted Living Waiver: this home is not on the DHCS participation list dated September 23, 2026. Ask the program about current options. The waiver pays for care services, not room and board.

Who holds the license?

The license is held by Enriquez, Helen, per CDSS records as of September 27, 2026.

Is there a hospital nearby?

Methodist Hospital of Sacramento is 3.5 miles away in a straight line, per the CDPH licensed-hospital list dated September 16, 2026. See licensed care homes near it.

Can Trinity Care Home keep a resident on hospice?

Not on file — the state’s record does not list hospice care on this license. Ask: “Can a resident stay here on hospice, and under what conditions?”

Trinity Care Home license and inspection record

  • Name on the license: “TRINITY CARE HOME”, per the CDSS roster as of May 25, 2025.
  • License #347002711. The state lists this license as “Licensed,” per CDSS records as of September 27, 2026.
  • Licensed for 6 residents — a small home, per CDSS records as of September 27, 2026.
  • Licensed to Enriquez, Helen, per CDSS records as of September 27, 2026.
  • First licensed in 2004, per CDSS records as of September 27, 2026.
  • 8 state inspection visits since 2004, per CDSS records as of September 27, 2026.
  • 0 Type A and 0 Type B citations on file since 2004, per CDSS records as of September 27, 2026. The same records count 8 state visits in that period.
  • 1 complaint and 0 substantiated allegations on file since 2004, per CDSS records as of September 27, 2026. One complaint can carry several allegations.
  • The most recent state visit on file is December 5, 2025, per CDSS records as of September 27, 2026.
Type A citationa violation that poses an immediate risk to health, safety or personal rights if it is not correctedType B citationa violation that could become a risk if not corrected, or one involving records, resources or required services

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

See the state’s own record

Can they support the care needed?

California licenses a home for specific kinds of care. The state’s record lists what this home is approved for; the home’s own answers fill in what changes as needs change.

  • Wheelchair / non-ambulatoryApproved · covers up to 6 residents
  • Dementia / memory careNot on file · ask the home
  • Hospice careNot on file · ask the home
  • BedriddenNot on file · ask the home

State licensing record · September 27, 2026. An approval may cover specific rooms or residents; it does not establish an opening.

Read the state’s own wording
LICENSED TO SERVE SIX (6) NON-AMBULATORY RESIDENTS AGES 60 AND ABOVE. APPROVED FOR UP TO TWO (2) HOSPICE RESIDENTS.

935 - ELDERLY

CDSS record, verbatim · September 27, 2026

As needs change

5 questions to ask the home — nothing on file yet
  • Two-person transfers or a lift

    Not on file

    Ask: “If two people or a lift are needed to transfer, can the person stay?”

  • Someone awake overnight

    Not on file

    Ask: “Who is awake overnight, and how do residents ask for help?”

  • Medicines

    Not on file

    Ask: “Who manages the medicines, and what happens when a dose is missed?”

  • Staying through hospice

    Hospice waiver not on file

    Ask: “If hospice is needed, can care continue here until the end?”

  • If memory loss develops

    Dementia-care designation not on file

    Ask: “If memory loss develops, what would change — and when would a move be needed?”

What it costs here

Covelight estimate

$3,500a month to start

Likely $2,850–$4,300

From 12 nearby homes that publish rates · this home’s rate is not on file

Likely monthly total

$3,500a month

Likely $2,850–$4,500

With a shared room and basic help.

An estimate for planning, not a quote. The price is made in the phone call.

See the full cost breakdownRoom, care and fees · how people pay · how this estimate works
Room
Daily care
Sharing the room

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

  • Starting monthly rate$3,500likely $2,850–$4,300

    Covelight’s estimate starts from the rates 12 small homes and similar homes within 10 miles publish, then adjusts for this home’s size, state care approvals, Medi-Cal waiver participation, years licensed and the area’s prices. In testing, the likely range held the real rate for 6 in 10 homes. This home’s own rate is not on file.

  • Basic help with daily careUsually includedup to $600

    Basic help is usually part of the starting rate. Homes that price care by level start around $600 a month (45 California homes publish a care-level range, seen in September 2026).

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

    Homes that list a one-time entry or community fee charge a median of $2,000 (134 California listings; middle half $1,000–$4,000). Many homes list none — ask.

Likely monthly totalLikely $2,850–$4,500
$3,500
First monthWith a one-time move-in fee · likely $3,350–$7,750
$5,500
How people payPrivate pay, Medi-Cal waiver, SSI/SSP, veterans, insurance
  • Private payMost residents pay from savings, a home sale or family help. Ask for the rate and what it includes in writing.
  • Medi-Cal Assisted Living WaiverThis home is not on the DHCS participation list dated September 23, 2026. Ask the program about current options. The waiver pays for care services, not room and board.
  • SSI/SSPCalifornia’s 2026 standard is $1,626.07 a month; $1,444.07 of it goes to the home and $182 stays with the resident. Whether this home accepts it is not on file — ask.
  • VeteransVA Aid & Attendance can add to a veteran’s or surviving spouse’s pension. Ask whether residents here have used it.
  • Long-term care insuranceMost policies pay for licensed care homes. Ask what paperwork the home provides for claims.
  • MedicareDoes not pay for room and board in a care home. It can still cover hospice or home-health visits inside one.
If the money runs out, what Medi-Cal covers
Avoid surprises on the billWhat changes the price, and what to ask
  • The care level

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

  • What is billed separately

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

  • Move-in costs

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

  • Increases

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

  • What is the full monthly cost for the room and care we need, and what does it include?
  • What would the next care level cost, and who decides when it changes?
  • What is billed separately, and is there a one-time fee or deposit at move-in?
  • Is any private-pay period required before another payment program can begin?
How this estimate worksWithin 25% for 7 in 10 homes in testing

Covelight’s estimate starts from the rates 12 small homes and similar homes within 10 miles publish, then adjusts for this home’s size, state care approvals, Medi-Cal waiver participation, years licensed and the area’s prices. In testing, the likely range held the real rate for 6 in 10 homes. This home’s own rate is not on file.

12 homes like this within 10 miles publish starting rates mostly between $2,950–$4,350.

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

Where it is

  • 9513 Wadena Way, Elk Grove, CA 95758Address from the public record · September 27, 2026. Confirm the entrance with the home before visiting.

Opening the neighborhood map…

The state record

California inspects every licensed home and publishes what it found. Here are the dated documents and the state’s own words, beside what is typical for homes this size.

Since 2021, the state has filed 8 documents for this home, and its records count 8 visits since 2004. The most recent is a facility evaluation report, dated December 5, 2025.

On file since
2021
State visits
8
Most recent visit
December 5, 2025
Occupied · November 4, 2024 visit
5 of 6 bedsa count on that day, not an opening

We hold 1 complaint report the state published for this home, dated November 4, 2024. 1 of the 1 carries the state's recorded outcome word: “Unsubstantiated” (1). 1 includes the transcribed allegation the state investigated, word for word. Summary composed by computer from the 1 complaint report below — every count derives from them, and the documents themselves are the state's records, verbatim. We never grade, score, or color a record.

Beside homes the same size

  • Type A citations0typical 0
  • Type B citations0typical 0
  • Substantiated allegations0typical 0
  • Total complaints1typical 0

“Typical” is the statewide median across the 6,808 licensed small board-and-care homes (6 or fewer beds) in the state record — larger, longer-licensed homes accumulate more visits and reports, so compare like with like. One complaint can contain several allegations. Counts cover this licence since 2004.

Year by year
YearVisitsDocumentsSubstantiated20251102024340202311020221102021110

The last 36 months — 6 of 8 documents

20251 state visit · 1 document
Dec 5, 2025Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Type of visit: Required - 1 Year

On 12/5/2025, Licensing Program Analyst, Arvin Villanueva (LPA), arrived at this facility to conduct the annual inspection visit. LPA initially met with staff on duty, Janette Cuntapay, and stated the purpose of the visit. The Licensee/Administrator, Helen Enriquez (AD), arrived shortly after. Overview: Facility is a one-story home located in a residential neighborhood. Facility is licensed to serve up to 6 elderly residents, 6 of which may be non-ambulatory. Facility does manage residents’ cash resources. Facility is not cleared for bedridden, delayed egress, and locked interior/exterior. Facility is approved for up to 2 hospice residents. Initial Observation: Present upon arrival were 3 staff on duty with 5 residents. LPA observed required posters and facility license. Room temperature was at 74 degrees Fahrenheit upon arrival. Physical Inspection: Areas inspected include, but not limited to, the kitchen, resident bedrooms, resident bathrooms, living and dining room and outdoor areas. LPA inspected 6 of 6 resident bedrooms and 2 bathrooms. The hot water temperature was measured at 116 degrees Fahrenheit. In one resident bathroom, LPA observed Lysol sprays and other solutions were in unlocked cabinet, accessible to residents, including personal hygiene supplies. LPA also observed the grab bars in the shower were loose. Also in another bathroom, labeled EMPLOYEE, LPA observed a medicated cream (M1) inside the medication cabinet. Per review of 3 residents’ Physician’s Reports, at least 2 residents were assessed to be at risk if they have access to these items. {1 of 2} Fire extinguisher was observed and was purchased on 7/18/2025. Smoke and carbon monoxide detectors were observed throughout. LPA observed centrally stored medications and sharp objects were kept locked and inaccessible to residents in care. In the kitchen area, LPA observed at least seven-day non-perishable and two-day perishable food supplies. Kitchen refrigerator and freezer temperature were unknown. Outdoor area was inspected. LPA observed outdoor furniture for resident use. Ramps were observed to be in good repair at this time. Fence and gate were in good repair. Record Reviews: Review of 3 resident files was conducted, including but not limited to, review of Admission Agreement, Physician Reports, Needs and Services Plan, Centrally Stored Medication Record and Ambulatory Status. Medication reviews were conducted for 2 residents. Issues were discussed with AD. LPA reviewed Infection Control Plan and Emergency Disaster Plan. Issues were discussed with AD. Based on today's visit, this annual inspection will need a CONTINUATION. The Department will return at a later date to continue the inspection. Exit interview was conducted and a copy of this report was provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Dec 5, 2025
20243 state visits · 4 documents
Nov 14, 2024Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Type of visit: Required - 1 Year

Licensing Program Analysts (LPAs) Vincent Moleski and Holly Williams arrived unannounced to conduct an annual inspection. LPA Moleski met with staff member Elaine Enriquez and explained the purpose of the visit. LPA Moleski reviewed five resident files (R1-R5) and two staff files (S1-S2). S2's most recent first aid/CPR certification expired as of November 3, 2024. S2 said that they were not aware it was expired. LPA Moleski observed that R3's pre-admission appraisal was blank. LPA Moleski spoke with licensee Helen Enriquez over the phone and asked if R3 had a pre-admission appraisal. Helen Enriquez said that she never saw R3 before they were admitted. LPA Moleski toured the facility with staff and inspected common areas, the kitchen, bedrooms, bathrooms, and backyard areas. Furniture and furnishings were sufficient to meet the needs of residents. The facility temperature was 74 degrees Fahrenheit, which is within the required range of 68 and 85 degrees. The facility's water temperature measured 112 degrees Fahrenheit, which is within the required range of 105 and 120 degrees. LPA Moleski observed a minimum 2-day supply of perishable food and a minimum 7-day supply of nonperishable food. LPA Moleski observed a locked cabinet for the storage of medication. LPA Moleski observed a locked cabinet in the kitchen for the storage of cleaning solutions and knives. LPAs Moleski and Williams interviewed one staff member (S2) and two residents (R4-R5). This facility is hereby cited per 22 CCR Sections 87411(c)(1) and 87457(c). An exit interview was held with Elaine Enriquez. Appeal rights and a copy of this report were left with Elaine Enriquez.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Nov 14, 2024
Nov 4, 2024Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated

Allegation investigated: Resident suffered a fracture due to staff neglect

Licensing Program Analysts (LPAs) Vincent Moleski and Holly Williams arrived unannounced to deliver findings on this complaint investigation. LPA Moleski met with facility administrator Helen Enriquez and explained the purpose of the visit. This investigation consisted of interviews and record review. LPA Moleski interviewed Enriquez, five staff members (S1-S5), five residents (R1-R5), a case worker assigned to R1, and a home health nurse assigned to R1. LPA Moleski was informed by Enriquez that R1 had suffered a fracture to their right upper arm around the date of July 19, 2024. Enriquez had no documentation available regarding this injury, such as an incident report or other medical documentation, and no additional documentation regarding this resident. These deficiencies were previously addressed during a case management visit on 8/12/24. [continued on 9099-C] Unsubstantiated LPA Moleski received an incident report regarding R1’s injury on 8/12/24. The incident report stated that Enriquez was notified by a caregiver on 7/19/24 that R1 was complaining of right arm pain. R1 was taken to a hospital for treatment on that same date, according to the incident report. In an interview, Enriquez said that R1 did not fall, and did not suffer any other unusual injuries leading up to the discovery of the injury. She said her caregivers were made aware of the injury as described in the incident report when R1 started crying out when moving their arm in the shower. Enriquez said that R1 suffers from severe aphasia and is unable to articulate themselves well. However, she said that she asked the resident if they fell, to which they responded in the negative. LPA Moleski interviewed R1 at a skilled nursing facility. R1 was not able to speak clearly or elaborate upon their answers. However, when asked, R1 indicated that they had not fallen, and had not been abused or otherwise injured by staff while residing at this facility. When asked, R1 indicated that they did not know how they suffered the fracture. In interviews with all other residents of this facility (R2-R5), none indicated that they had observed any falls suffered by R1, and none had any pertinent information to share regarding the cause of R1’s injury. In interviews, no staff members (S1-S5) were able to provide pertinent information regarding the cause or circumstances surrounding R1’s injury. None of the staff interviewed had witnessed any falls immediately prior to the discovery of R1’s injury, and none of them had observed any physical abuse being perpetrated by other staff members. S1 said that R1 had never fallen, but said that they had observed R1 sleeping on their arm, potentially causing strain. S1 said they discovered the injury when R1 started repeating the word “hurt” while showering. S1 said that the administrator was called and R1 was sent to the hospital afterward. In an interview, R1’s home health nurse said that they suspected some sort of physical trauma had occurred in order to cause the injury, but had not observed any physical abuse being perpetrated by staff of this facility, and was not aware of any falls suffered by R1 while living at this facility. [continued 9099-C] In an interview, R1’s case manager said that medical documentation on file showed that R1’s injury was initially classified as pathological, but it was later determined by medical personnel that the injury was suspicious. The department has determined the following as it relates to the allegation that a resident suffered a fracture due to staff neglect: Based on interviews and record review, the above allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED, which 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. No deficiencies were cited regarding this allegation. An exit interview was held and a copy of this report was left with Enriquez.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Nov 4, 2024 · control 27-AS-20240806224550
Nov 4, 2024Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Type of visit: Case Management - Deficiencies

Licensing Program Analysts (LPAs) Vincent Moleski and Holly Williams arrived unannounced to conduct a case management visit. LPA Moleski met with facility administrator Helen Enriquez and explained the purpose of the visit. LPA Moleski closed a complaint investigation at this facility today. During the course of this investigation, LPA Moleski discovered deficiencies unrelated to the allegation made in the complaint report. LPA Moleski was previously informed by Enriquez that R1 had suffered a fracture to their right upper arm around the date of Friday, July 19, 2024. Enriquez had no documentation available regarding this injury, such as an incident report or other medical documentation, and no additional documentation regarding this resident. These deficiencies were previously addressed during a case management visit on 8/12/24. Enriquez said that R1 was sent to the emergency room on July 19, 2024 and returned on that same date with a sling provided by the hospital. Enriquez said that a physician had requested an outpatient orthopedic consultation visit for R1 to be held on the following Monday, July 22, 2024. Enriquez said that she was not able to take R1 to the hospital for this visit because she would be out of the area on that date. Enriquez said she asked the doctor to reschedule, but was told that R1 needed to be seen immediately. Enriquez said she told R1’s case manager she would be able to take R1 to the hospital, but not immediately. Enriquez said that R1’s case manager felt R1’s needs were not being met, to which Enriquez said R1 could be moved out. R1 was moved out by their case worker shortly afterward, on or around July 26, according to Enriquez. Enriquez said that one of her staff members has their driver’s license, but she would have to pay for a relief caregiver while they were transporting R1. Enriquez said that she was not compensated for transportation to R1’s medical appointments. [continued 9099-C] 22 CCR Section 87465(a)(2) states that licensees “shall provide assistance in meeting necessary medical … needs … [which] includes transportation” to medical facilities able to meet residents’ needs. It further states that, “in providing transportation the licensee shall do so directly or make arrangements for this service.” 22 CCR Section 87464 describes basic services which are required in order to obtain and maintain a license. Section 87464(f)(6) states that basic services shall at a minimum include “arrangements to meet health needs, including arranging transportation, as specified in Section 87465.” In an interview, R1’s case manager, who is also a nurse, said that R1 was never taken to the orthopedic visit while at Trinity Care Home, and did not receive the needed medical consultation until after being placed elsewhere. R1’s case manager said the visit was medically necessary, and R1 should have been seen immediately. In an interview, R1’s home health nurse said that R1 should have received this orthopedic consultation immediately. On July 22, 2024, R1’s home health nurse visited the facility to check on R1’s condition. In an interview, R1’s home health nurse said that they found R1 with their sling off, and with a shirt pulled over their head. The home health nurse said that staff present did not know where the sling was. Then, two days later, on July 24, 2024, the nurse arrived for another visit and found R1 was again without the sling provided by the hospital, but instead was wearing a wrist brace. In an interview, a staff member who was present during the home health visit on July 22, 2024 (S1) said that R1’s sling “went missing.” S1 said that another staff member had misplaced it, but said they later found it. Another staff member present on this date (S2) confirmed that R1 was not wearing their sling. S5 said R1’s sling was washed and later left in R1’s closet. S5 did not know why the sling had not been put back on R1 afterward. This facility is hereby cited per 22 CCR Sections 87465(a)(2) and 87464(f)(4). An exit interview was held with Enriquez. Appeal rights and a copy of this report was left with Enriquez.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Nov 4, 2024

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type A · Section cited: CCR 87465(a)(2) · Plan of correction due date: Nov 5, 2024

87465(a)(2): “(2) The licensee shall provide assistance in meeting necessary medical and dental needs. This includes transportation which may be limited to the nearest available medical or dental facility which will meet the resident's need. In providing transportation the licensee shall do so directly or make arrangements for this service.” This requirement was not met as evidenced by: Based on interviews, transportation was not provided or arranged for R1 for a medically necessary appointment, which poses an immediate health and safety risk.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Nov 4, 2024

Plan of correction: Licensee agrees to submit a written plan of correction. vincent.moleski@dss.ca.gov

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type A · Section cited: CCR87464(f)(4) · Plan of correction due date: Nov 5, 2024

87464(f)(4): “(f) Basic services shall at a minimum include: … (4) Personal assistance and care as needed by the resident … as specified in Section 87608, Postural Supports.” This requirement was not met as evidenced by: Based on interviews, R1 was not provided assistance with a medically necessary postural support on at least one occasion, which poses an immediate health and safety risk.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Nov 4, 2024

Plan of correction: Licensee agrees to conduct a staff training and shall provide LPA Moleski with a sign in sheet of staff members in attendance. vincent.moleski@dss.ca.gov

Aug 12, 2024Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Type of visit: Case Management - Deficiencies

Licensing Program Analysts (LPAs) Vincent Moleski and Holly Williams arrived unannounced to open a complaint investigation, and observed unrelated deficiencies. LPAs Moleski and Williams met with facility administrator Helen Enriquez and explained the purpose of the visit. LPAs Moleski and Williams were informed by Enriquez that a resident (R1) during the month of July 2024 ripped out their catheter and lacerated themselves in doing so. The resident was taken to the hospital, according to Enriquez. Enriquez also said that R1 was taken to the hospital on July 19, 2024, and was diagnosed with a fracture to their upper arm. The Community Care Licensing Division (CCLD) did not receive any reports regarding these incidents. Enriquez confirmed that no incident reports were sent to CCLD. In an interview, a staff member (S1) confirmed that R1 had been taken to the hospital for their catheter, and for pain in their arm. LPA Moleski asked for R1's file. LPA Moleski was told by Enriquez and S1 that R1's file was not present. According to Enriquez and S1, S1 had mistakenly placed R1's file with their belongings when moving out in late July. The whereabouts of the file were unknown to Enriquez and S1. This facility is being cited per 22 CCR Sections 87211(a)(1)(B) and 87506(e). An exit interview was held with Enriquez. Appeal rights and a copy of this report were left with Enriquez.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Aug 12, 2024

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: CCR 87211(a)(1)(B) · Plan of correction due date: Aug 26, 2024

"(a) Each licensee shall furnish to the licensing agency such reports as the Department may require, including, but not limited to, the following:... (B) Any serious injury as determined by the attending physician and occurring while the resident is under facility supervision." This requirement was not met as evidenced by: Based on interviews, the licensee did not submit required incident reports after R1 suffered a genital laceration due to a catheter being removed, nor when R1 was sent to the hospital for a fracture of their arm, which poses a potential health, safety, and/or personal rights risk.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Aug 12, 2024

Plan of correction: Licensee agrees to send in incident reports for these incidents by POC due date. vincent.moleski@dss.ca.gov

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: CCR87506(e) · Plan of correction due date: Aug 26, 2024

"(e) Original records or photographic reproductions shall be retained for a minimum of three (3) years following termination of service to the resident." This requirement was not met as evidenced by: Based on interviews, this facility did not retain R1's file after termination of service, which poses an potential health, safety, and/or personal rights risk.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Aug 12, 2024

Plan of correction: Licensee agrees to conduct a staff training regarding record retension, and will provide LPA Moleski with a sign-in sheet for the training by POC due date. vincent.moleski@dss.ca.gov

20231 state visit · 1 document
Oct 30, 2023Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Type of visit: Required - 1 Year

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Vincent Moleski arrived unannounced to conduct an annual inspection. LPA Moleski met with facility administrator Helen Enriquez and explained the purpose of the visit. LPA Moleski reviewed five resident files (R1-R5) and two staff files (S1-S2). LPA Moleski toured the facility with Enriquez and inspected common areas, the kitchen, bedrooms, bathrooms, and backyard areas. Furniture and furnishings were sufficient to meet the needs of residents. The facility temperature was 75 degrees Fahrenheit, which is within the required range of 68 and 85 degrees. The facility's water temperature measured 105 degrees Fahrenheit, which is within the required range of 105 and 120 degrees. LPA Moleski observed first aid supplies, a fully-charged and up-to-date fire extinguisher, and carbon monoxide/smoke detectors. LPA Moleski observed a minimum 2-day supply of perishable food and a minimum 7-day supply of nonperishable food. LPA Moleski observed cabinets for the storage of medication. LPA Moleski observed cabinets for the storage of cleaning solutions and knives. While inspecting the facility, LPA Moleski and Enriquez observed unsecured cleaning solutions, including bleach, left in unlocked cabinets in two bathrooms. LPA Moleski and Enriquez observed unsecured laundry detergents left in unlocked cabinets in a hallway. All cleaning solutions and detergents observed were placed in locked cabinets during this visit. LPA Moleski interviewed two staff members (S1-S2). Residents were not available to be interviewed. This facility is being cited per 22 CCR Section 87309(a). An exit interview was conducted and appeal rights and a copy of this report was left with Enriquez.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Oct 30, 2023
What the state’s words mean
Substantiatedthe state found the allegation more likely true than notUnsubstantiatedthere was not enough evidence to prove a violation occurred — not a finding of wrongdoingUnfoundedthe evidence showed the allegation was false, could not have happened, or had no reasonable basisType A citationa violation that poses an immediate risk to health, safety or personal rights if it is not correctedType B citationa violation that could become a risk if not corrected, or one involving records, resources or required services

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

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

Life here

Rooms, meals, the rhythm of a day, faith and language, pets and house rules — as the home describes them. Tap any detail for its source and date; nothing here is graded.

The home has not described daily life anywhere we have reviewed yet — that is the case for most small homes, and it says nothing about the home. These questions fill in the picture; keep the ones that matter to you.

Before you call

Ask every home the same questions — the state’s record does not answer these. Keep the ones that matter and they travel with your saved homes.

  1. What is included in the monthly rate, and what costs extra?
  2. Who is awake overnight, and how do residents ask for help?
  3. Which rooms does the non-ambulatory approval cover, and what transfer support is provided?
  4. What could change whether someone can stay here?
  5. Can we see a bedroom and share a meal during a visit?

Other homes nearby

The nearest licensed homes in Sacramento County, closest first. Every listed home appears on the same terms.

Explore Sacramento County