Westmont at San Miguel Ranch

Allegation investigated: Staff did not speak to resident in an appropriate manner. Staff threatened eviction to resident in care. Staff did not ensure resident was provided with clean bedsheets. Staff did not ensure resident was served meal in a timely manner. Staff did not ensure resident was provided bathing assistance. Staff did not ensure altercations between residents were handled appropriately.

On May 29, 2026, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Marisela Garcia-Centeno conducted an unannounced visit to the facility to deliver findings regarding the above-referenced allegations. LPA was greeted by Business Office Director, Ellen Arguello with whom the investigative findings were discussed. The Department’s investigation included facility inspections, record reviews, and interviews with staff, residents, responsible parties, and outside sources. On November 12, 2025, Community Care Licensing (CCL) received a complaint alleging that staff did not speak to Resident 1 (R1) in an appropriate manner and threatened R1 with eviction. Additional allegations included staff not ensuring R1 received clean bedsheets, timely meals, bathing assistance, and appropriate intervention during resident altercations. Staff were provided with an LIC811 Confidential Names List identifying R1, S1, and S2. (continue at LIC9099C) Unsubstantiated (Continue from LIC9099) Background Information Review of R1’s admission agreement and other relevant records did not disclose any diagnosis or condition related to dementia. Records reviewed during the investigation confirmed that R1 moved into the facility in April 2025 and voluntarily moved out in October 2025, residing at the facility for approximately six months. Multiple interviews conducted during the investigation described R1 as alert and oriented to person, place, and time, capable of advocating for themselves, and considered a credible witness. Records and interviews further disclosed that R1 had a history of verbal disagreements with staff and other residents and was frequently described as difficult to redirect. Staff and outside sources consistently described R1 as unhappy living at the facility. During an interview conducted on May 28, 2026, R1 stated that S1 spoke inappropriately to them and threatened eviction. R1 alleged that on or about October 1, 2025, S1 told R1 “to get out by the end of the month or else they would wish they had.” R1 also stated that S1 brought dogs into the facility and that during one incident, a dog approached R1, causing R1 to lift their legs to avoid contact. According to R1, S1 yelled across the room, “Don’t you dare kick my dog.” R1 stated they were attempting to move away from the dog and denied attempting to kick it. R1 further alleged that following this incident, S1 instructed staff to withhold certain services, including clean bedsheets, timely meals, and shower assistance. However, during the investigation, R1 was unable to provide specific dates, times, or examples when services were allegedly not provided. R1 stated that residents and staff witnessed the incident but was unable to recall names or additional identifying information. R1 stated that S2 advocated on their behalf and often intervened during disagreements involving R1 and S1. On May 28, 2026, during an interview, S2 recalled assisting with de-escalating situations involving R1 and staff or other residents in general. S2 stated that R1 frequently became upset during interactions with others and that de-escalation interventions were often effective. However, S2 denied ever witnessing or hearing S1 threaten, mistreat, or speak inappropriately to R1. (continue at LIC9099C) (continue from LIC9099C) Interviews conducted with residents, staff, responsible parties, and outside sources did not produce corroborating evidence to support the allegations. During an interview, S2 stated that staff made significant efforts to accommodate R1’s preferences and care needs. S2 explained that R1 requested showers at approximately 5:30 a.m., and the facility accommodated the request by arranging for designated staff to arrive early once or twice weekly. Review of shower schedules and care records confirmed that R1 received showers twice weekly, consistent with R1’s service plan. Interviews with R1’s responsible party did not disclose concerns regarding the care or services provided by staff. The responsible party acknowledged staff efforts to accommodate R1’s requests and needs. Records reviewed during the investigation confirmed that R1 voluntarily moved out of the facility on October 20, 2025. There was no evidence that R1 was served with a 30-day eviction notice, and no corroborating evidence was obtained indicating that staff threatened eviction. It was also alleged that staff failed to appropriately intervene during altercations between residents. However, no specific dates, times, or details regarding alleged resident altercations were provided during the investigation. Interviews conducted with residents, staff, and outside sources did not disclose any incidents involving resident altercations. Additionally, a review of incident reports submitted to CCL during the relevant period did not disclose any resident-to-resident altercations. Staff interviews consistently indicated that direct care staff receive training regarding resident care, activities of daily living, and de-escalation techniques to ensure resident health and safety. Staff reported that care and supervision are provided in accordance with residents’ individualized service plans. Staff denied the allegations and stated they were unaware of any incidents involving inappropriate treatment of residents or unaddressed resident altercations. Interviews conducted with residents and responsible parties did not disclose concerns regarding unmet care needs. Residents and responsible parties stated that bedsheets were changed weekly or as needed when soiled, meals were served according to schedule, and shower schedules were followed in accordance with individualized service plans. (continue at LIC9099C) (continue from LIC9099C) During facility visits conducted on November 25, 2025, and February 11 and 25, 2026, resident rooms were observed to be clean and organized. Beds inspected during the visits contained clean sheets and linens. LPA also observed staff interactions with residents and did not observe concerns regarding staff conduct or resident care. Staff appeared attentive and responsive to residents’ needs. Additionally, sufficient staff were observed present during the visits to meet residents’ care and supervision needs. Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews conducted during the investigation, there was insufficient evidence to support the allegations that staff spoke inappropriately to R1, threatened eviction, failed to provide clean bedding, failed to provide meals in a timely manner, failed to provide bathing assistance, or failed to appropriately address resident altercations. Although R1 reported concerns regarding staff conduct and care, the allegations were not corroborated through interviews, records, or observations conducted during the investigation. Therefore, the allegations are deemed unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted with Business Office Manager, Ellen Arguello. A copy of this report, LIC811 Confidential Names List, and Licensee Appeal Rights (LIC 9058, 03/22) were provided at the conclusion of the visit.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, May 29, 2026 · control 08-AS-20251112112706

Allegation investigated: Resident sustained multiple unexplained injuries in care. Resident sustained multiple falls due to lack of supervision. AMENDED COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION REPORT DELIVERED ON 3-5-2025

AMENDED COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION REPORT On February 25, 2026, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Marisela Garcia-Centeno conducted an unannounced visit to the facility to deliver amended findings regarding the above-referenced allegations. LPA met with Executive Director, Jessica Zepeda, and discussed the purpose of the visit and elements of the complaint. This complaint investigation was previously completed on March 5, 2025. The complaint was subsequently reassigned to the undersigned LPA for further investigation. Community Care Licensing (CCL) conducted an amended investigation consisting of an additional review of facility and medical records, as well as interviews with facility staff who were present during the timeframe of the allegations, residents’ family members, and outside sources. (Continue at LIC9099C) Unsubstantiated AMENDED REPORT DELIVERED ON 3-5-2025 It was alleged that Resident 1 (R1) sustained multiple unexplained injuries while in care and sustained multiple falls due to lack of supervision. Regarding the allegation: Resident sustained multiple unexplained injuries while in care It was alleged that R1 sustained a skin tear to the forearm in June 2022, a bruise to the buttocks in August 2022, and a bruise to the forearm in October 2023. Record review revealed that during the timeframe of the alleged incidents, R1 was receiving services from an external health care provider and was bedbound. Records documented that R1 experienced intermittent skin integrity issues. Documentation indicated that each incident involving a skin issue was reported to R1’s responsible party, external health care provider, and R1’s primary care physician. Records further showed that R1’s skin conditions were monitored and treated in accordance with physician and external health care provider orders. Additional interviews conducted with facility staff who were present during the timeframe of the alleged incidents did not disclose concerns regarding unexplained injuries or neglect in care. Interviews with outside sources, including responsible parties of residents who were in care during the same timeframe, did not reveal concerns related to repositioning practices or the level of care provided by facility staff. Review of available medical records did not disclose any corroborating evidence indicating that the reported injuries were the result of neglect or improper care. Regarding the allegation: Resident sustained multiple falls due to lack of supervision It was alleged that R1 sustained multiple falls due to lack of supervision. Record review indicated that R1 had a witnessed fall on July 19, 2023, which did not result in injury. Documentation showed that the responsible party, external health care provider, and R1’s primary care physician were notified in accordance with reporting requirements as required in Tittle 22 regulations. Records further reflected that following the incident, R1’s fall risk was reassessed and addressed through updates to the facility’s service plan. (Continue at LIC9099C) AMENDED REPORT FROM 3-5-2026 (Continue from LIC9099C) Mitigation measures were implemented in response to the reassessment, including increased supervision, assistance with activities of daily living, and staff monitoring consistent with R1’s assessed needs to reduce the risk of future falls. Ongoing reassessment of R1’s fall risk and supervision needs was documented and incorporated into care planning as appropriate. Additional interviews conducted with staff present during the timeframe of the alleged incident did not disclose concerns regarding lack of supervision. Interviews with residents’ responsible parties and outside sources did not indicate concerns related to staffing levels, supervision, or the implementation of fall prevention measures for residents in care. Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews conducted during the course of both the initial and amended investigations, there was insufficient evidence to support the allegations that R1 sustained unexplained injuries due to neglect or sustained multiple falls due to lack of supervision while in care. The preponderance of evidence standard was not met; therefore, the allegations are deemed Unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted with Executive Director, Jessica Zepeda. A copy of this amended report, LIC811, and the Licensee Appeal Rights (LIC 9058, 03/22) were provided at the conclusion of the visit.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Feb 25, 2026 · control 08-AS-20240412101930

Allegation investigated: Staff handled resident in a rough manor causing injury

On February 25, 2026, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Marisela Garcia-Centeno conducted an unannounced visit to the facility to deliver the findings regarding the above-referenced allegation. LPA was greeted by Executive Director Jessica Zepeda, with whom the investigative findings were discussed. The Department’s investigation included a facility tour, record review, and interviews with staff, residents, and outside sources. On May 22, 2025, Community Care Licensing (CCL) received a complaint alleging that staff handled Resident 1 (R1) in a rough manner, resulting in injury. Specifically, it was alleged that during toileting assistance, R1 was handled with excessive force, causing swelling and bruising to the left wrist. Staff were provided with an LIC811 to identify R1. No specific dates, times, staff names, or additional details regarding the alleged incident were provided. (Continue at LIC9099C) Unsubstantiated (Continue from LIC9099) A review of facility and resident records revealed that R1 has a documented diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment. R1 was unable to recall specific details of the alleged incident. However, during interviews, R1 stated that staff were nice, treated them with respect, and did not intentionally hurt them, but were attempting to assist with incontinent care. Interviews conducted with residents, staff, and outside sources did not disclose any corroborating evidence to support the allegation. Residents and outside sources did not express concerns regarding staff mishandling residents in an inappropriate manner. Staff interviews consistently indicated that direct care staff receive appropriate training, including proper techniques for assisting with transfers and activities of daily living, to ensure the health and safety of residents. Staff reported that care is provided in accordance with residents’ individualized service plans. Staff denied the allegation and stated they were not aware of any incidents involving residents reporting pain or sustaining injury following toileting assistance. During a visit to the facility on February 11, 2026, R1 was observed with no visible signs of abuse or neglect. Additionally, a review of R1’s daily notes for the relevant time period did not reveal any documentation supporting the allegation. Based on observations, record reviews, and interviews conducted with staff, residents, and outside sources, there was insufficient evidence to support the allegation that staff handled R1 in a rough manner causing injury. The preponderance of evidence standard was not met; therefore, the allegation is deemed Unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted with Executive Director, Jessica Zepeda. A copy of this report and the Licensee Appeal Rights (LIC 9058, 03/22) and LIC811, were provided at the conclusion of the visit.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Feb 25, 2026 · control 08-AS-20250522101123

Allegation investigated: Staff did not provide adequate supervision of resident resulting in AWOL and serious bodily injury

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Marisela Garcia-Centeno conducted an unannounced visit to deliver investigative findings. Upon arrival, LPA was greeted by Business Office Director, Ellen Arguello. LPA identified herself and explained the purpose of the visit. Regarding the allegation of Staff did not provide adequate supervision of resident resulting in AWOL and serious bodily injury, Reporting Party (RP) stated that R1 wears a security bracelet due to R1 having wandering tendencies, RP states on 09/14/2024, staff allowed R1 to sit outside in the front area of the facility, and they turned off the alarm for R1s bracelet so that it would not continue to go off. RP states R1 was able to walk away and made it approximately 1000 yards down the street, slipped and fell, injuring R1s right knee. During the investigation, staff members were interviewed, and records were reviewed. (continue at LIC9099C) Substantiated (Continue from LIC9099) According to R1s records, facility staff will support the resident with orientation, redirection, and wayfinding. It is also noted R1 cannot leave the facility unassisted. The facility utilizes a system that activates alarmed doors when the sensor the resident is wearing is in close proximity to exiting the area. S1 stated R1 had this sensor and staff would watch R1 sit outside the front of the facility. S2 stated he/she saw R1 walk outside through the computer screen and called for staff assistance. From S2s vantage point behind the concierge’s desk, there is no line of sight to the bench in front of the facility. S3 responded to S2s call for assistance. While outside of the facility, S2 and S3 called out for R1. S3 stated, “We found R1 by the bus stop on the public street corner.” S2 and S3 did not see R1, nor did R1 say he/she fell or was injured. However, on initial assessment, S2 stated that S2 saw a wound on R1s right knee. R1 was able to elope from the facility on 09/14/2024. No supervision was being provided to R1 which allowed R1 to make his/her way to the bus stop and sustain an unwitnessed fall that resulted in serious injury. Based on observations and interviews which were conducted and record reviews, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation is found to be SUBSTANTIATED. A deficiency was cited under Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 8 of the California Code of Regulations and is detailed on LIC 9099-D. A Plan of Correction (POC) was developed with Business Office Director, Ellen Arguello. An immediate civil penalty of $500 was assessed today. In accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 1569.49, an additional civil penalty is under review by the Community Care Licensing Division. An exit interview was conducted with Business Office Director, Ellen Arguello, who was provided with a copy of this report, the LIC 9099-D Deficiency Report, the LIC 811 Confidential Names List, and the LIC 9058 Licensee Appeal Rights. (Continue from LIC9099A) The facility staff denied R1 exhibited signs and symptoms of serious injury upon return to the facility, and the days following the unwitnessed fall. The facility staff also denied R1 requested for emergency medical services as well. R1 received day care center services offsite. On 09/16/2024, a Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) assessed R1 right knee as it was scraped and swollen. A Registered Nurse (RN) documented the R1s fall at the facility on 09/14/2024. Basic wound care was provided for knee abrasion and complaints of right knee pain. During the interview with health care provider, Director of Quality and Compliance (DQC), stated R1 was seen each day at the clinic from 09/16/2024 to 09/19/2024, and the scrapes to the knee were cleansed. Documentation shows facility staff provided first aid to R1s knee on 09/14/2024, and the resident was also assessed by licensed medical professionals on 09/16/2024. Based on interviews and records review, the department has determined that 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 allegations are UNSUBSTANTIATED. An exit interview was conducted with Business Office Director, Ellen Arguello, who was provided with a copy of this report, and the LIC 9058 Licensee Appeal Rights. (continue from LIC9099A) Also on the records, it was noted that an RN from the hospital reviewed the care plan for R1 with the facility resident services director (RSD) and reported the services delivered are consistent with the care plan. For the allegation of Staff did not follow reporting requirements, the facility submitted an incident report to Licensing and also to R1s doctor. Responsible parties were also contacted. Regarding the allegation of Unlawful eviction, records show that upon discharge to the hospital, R1 hasn’t come back to the facility. Transition of care (TOC) team met with RSD on 9/25/24 and noted that RSD understands R1 needs to be discharged from skilled nursing facility and they are willing to accept R1 back temporarily while a new facility is found for her, due to R1 having a higher level of care needed. Per facility, R1, will have to move from the assisted living side and go to memory care side. On the same day, RSD noted that a call from a family member regarding expediting R1s discharge from skilled nursing, RSD educated family member regarding discharge process and resident's care. On 9/26/24, an inter disciplinary team (IDT) contacted responsible party to discuss the recommendation of memory care placement. Responsible party agreed with the plan to move R1. Based on records review, the department has determined that the allegations were false, could not have happened and/or is without a reasonable basis, therefore the allegations are UNFOUNDED. An exit interview was conducted with Business Office Director, Ellen Arguello , who was provided with a copy of this report, and the LIC 9058 Licensee Appeal Rights.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Feb 12, 2026 · control 08-AS-20241017162021

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type A · Section cited: CCR 87464(f)(1) · Plan of correction due date: Mar 13, 2026

87464 (f)(1)Basic Services Basic services shall at a minimum include: Care and supervision as defined in Section 87101(c)(3) and Health and Safety Code section 1569.2(c). This was not met as evidenced by: Based on interviews and records review, R1 was able to elope from the facility on 09/14/2024 due to lack of care and supervision which poses an immediate Health, Safety, or Personal Rights risk to persons in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Feb 12, 2026

Plan of correction: The licensee agreed to conduct staff training on regulations regarding providing care and supervision to meet residents' needs by an independent contractor. Documentation of the training will be submitted to CCL by the POC due date.

Allegation investigated: Facility failed to provide resident with higher level of care

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Marisela Garcia-Centeno conducted an unannounced visit to deliver investigative findings. Upon arrival, LPA was greeted by Business Office Director, Ellen Arguello LPA identified herself and explained the purpose of the visit. Regarding the allegation of Facility failed to provide resident with higher level of care, Reporting Party (RP) stated that resident (R1) was found to have buttocks abscess (boil) and will need wound care for 2-4 weeks. During the investigation, staff members were interviewed, and records were reviewed. On 02/07/2025, R1 had what appeared to be a small, red, bump similar to a pimple, which staff had reported. (Continue at LIC9099C) Substantiated (Continue from LIC9099) On 03/11/2025, it was noticed by the caregivers, that R1s abscess had some kind of drainage, but R1 was not complaining of pain or discomfort, the facility attempted to contact the hospital but there was no contact made. On 03/14/2025, a caregiver let a staff, S1, know there were two spots on R1s coccyx area, and one was open, but R1 had no complaints of pain or discomfort. An ointment was put on the area for comfort and the facility was observing the area. That same day S1 left a message for R1s doctor regarding the abscess discharge on R1s right buttock. Later that evening R1s doctor wanted to see R1, an appointment was scheduled for 03/15/2025, at 11:10 a.m. The facility contacted R1s family member but the appointment was cancelled for 11:10 a.m. On 03/15/2025, S1, then made arrangement for R1 to be sent out as a non-emergency transport, arriving at hospital at approximately 4:00 p.m. Records stated that R1s abscess looked quite large with possible extension to the muscle tissue, however on further evaluation the abscess did not extend into the muscle tissue and did not require operating room surgical intervention. The report stated there was no evidence of necrotic or infected tissue, however, R1 did have sepsis due to right gluteal abscess and cellulitis. Based on the information and evidence obtained, the facility did not meet the needs of R1 as R1s condition had changed due to the abscess having some kind of discharge. Even though staff did provide the required care the facility should have sent R1 out of the facility immediately, as the discharge from the open wound was now a portal for an infection as R1 had sepsis. Based on interviews which were conducted and record reviews, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation is found to be SUBSTANTIATED. A deficiency was cited under Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 8 of the California Code of Regulations and is detailed on LIC 9099-D. A Plan of Correction (POC) was developed with Business Office Director, Ellen Arguello. (Continue at LIC9099C) (Continue from LIC9099C) An immediate civil penalty of $500 was assessed today. In accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 1569.49, an additional civil penalty is under review by the Community Care Licensing Division. An exit interview was conducted with Business Office Director, Ellen Arguello who was provided with a copy of this report, the LIC 9099-D Deficiency Report, LIC411 IM, the LIC 811 Confidential Names List, and the LIC 9058 Licensee Appeal Rights. (Continue from LIC9099A) For the allegation of Staff did not meet resident's bathing needs, RP stated that R1 is only bathed 2x per week. S3 stated that R1s Service Plan says two times a week for showers. S8 added that R1 didn’t like showers, so R1 would have bed baths. Based on interviews and records review, the department has determined that although the allegations may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur, therefore the allegations are UNSUBSTANTIATED. An exit interview was conducted with Business Office Director, Ellen Arguello, who was provided with a copy of this report, and the LIC 9058 Licensee Appeal Rights. (Continue from LIC9099A) Based on interviews and records review, the department has determined that the allegation was false, could not have happened and/or is without a reasonable basis, therefore the allegation is UNFOUNDED. An exit interview was conducted with Business Office Director, who was provided with a copy of this report, and the LIC 9058 Licensee Appeal Rights.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Feb 12, 2026 · control 08-AS-20250317133349

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type A · Section cited: CCR 87465(a)(1) · Plan of correction due date: Mar 13, 2026

87465(a)(1) Incidental Medical and Dental Care. A plan for incidental medical and dental care shall be developed by each facility.....The licensee shall arrange, or assist in arranging, for medical and dental care appropriate to the conditions and needs of residents. This was not met as evidenced by: Based on interviews and records review, the facility did not meet the needs of R1 as R1s condition had changed due to the abscess having some kind of discharge. Even though staff did provide the required care the facility should have sent R1 out of the facility immediately, as the discharge from the open wound was now a portal for an infection as R1 had sepsis, which poses an immediate health and safety risk to residents in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Feb 12, 2026

Plan of correction: The licensee agreed to conduct staff training on regulations regarding providing assisting and arranging medical attention to meet residents' needs. Documentation of the training will be submitted to CCL by the POC due date.

Type of visit: Required - 1 Year

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Marisela Garcia-Centeno conducted an unannounced Required Annual Inspection. The facility file was reviewed prior to the visit. LPA identified herself upon arrival and was greeted by Executive Director Jessica Zepeda. The purpose of the visit was discussed with Executive Director Zepeda and Business Office Director Ellen Arguello. According to the facility license, the approved capacity is 105 residents, all non-ambulatory, with up to seven bedridden residents permitted on the first floor only. At the time of inspection, facility records indicated 89 residents in care, including 45 non-ambulatory residents and 23 residents in the memory care unit. No residents were bedridden. During the visit, the LPA toured the interior and exterior of the facility with Executive Director Zepeda, inspected common areas and a sample of resident bedrooms, reviewed staff and resident records, and conducted private interviews with staff and residents. All reviewed records contained the required documentation. The facility was clean, sanitary, and in good repair. Pathways were clear of obstructions and slip hazards. Resident bedrooms contained required furnishings. Doors, windows, screens, toilets, and showers were in working order. Adequate linens, hygiene supplies, and personal protective equipment were available. (Continue at LIC809C) (continue from LIC809) The facility had sufficient space and equipment to support dining, laundry, visitation, meetings, and resident activities. Confidential records and centrally stored medications were secured in locked areas. Food supplies met regulatory requirements, including at least two days of perishable food and seven days of nonperishable food. Cooking and dining utensils were sufficient for meal service. The walk-in refrigerator temperature measured 40°F and the walk-in freezer measured 0°F, both within required ranges. Emergency food and water supplies sufficient for three days for 110 persons were maintained. The facility’s ambient indoor temperature measured between 72°F and 74°F. Hot water temperatures in resident-use taps were within the compliant range. No sharp objects, toxic chemicals, poisons, fireplaces, or open-faced heaters were accessible to residents with dementia. No pools or bodies of water were observed on the premises. Per the licensee, no firearms or ammunition are stored at the facility. Smoke detectors, fire alarms, carbon monoxide detectors, emergency lighting, and the facility telephone were operational. Fire extinguishers were serviced within the past 12 months. A complete first aid kit was present and readily accessible. Proof of current business liability insurance was provided. Required licensing postings were observed in visible areas. Based on LPA observation and staff interview, the facility utilizes delayed-egress doors in the secured memory care unit. No deficiencies were cited during today’s visit. An exit interview was conducted with Business Office Director Ellen Arguello. A copy of this report and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC 9058 03/22) was provided during the visit.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Feb 11, 2026

Allegation investigated: Staff financially abused a resident while in care

On January 27, 2026, LPA visited the facility and interviewed residents, staff and the alleged victim (AV) about the alleged incident. Staff 1 (S1) explained that a resident had accused a staff member of stealing valuables from their room. S1 subsequently contacted R1’s responsible person (RS) to be aware of the situation, who then mentioned that AV had a history of accusing other people of stealing from them. RS also stated that those items “never existed”. When LPA asked about the staff being accused (S2), S1 clarified that they are not someone who usually enters residents rooms, but AV has a fixation with them. [CONTINUED ON LIC9099-C] Unsubstantiated [CONTINUED FROM LIC9099] S2 corroborated what was told by S1, and explained the fixation that AV had with them is due to AV’s mental state and the fact that when the resident first started with the facility, they were friendly with each other. On one occasion, AV mentioned that they lost money in their room and S2 offered to help, after which the accusations started. Resident 1 (R1), was familiar with AV and explained that AV had made accusations of stolen items in the past. R1 did not report the incidents due to doubts of the accusations being real, and due to AVs memory loss. LPA attempted to interview AV, however they were disoriented and not able to qualify for an interview, as they were not aware of the day nor were they able to confirm approximately how long they had lived in the facility. AV said they had no complaints against the facility at first, but after a while they stated that their objects and money was stolen and accused S2 of theft. On January 28, 2026, LPA interviewed AV’s responsible party (RS). RS stated that AV has a history of continuously reporting lost or stolen items and then finding them back. Per RS, that behavior has been repeated constantly affecting AV’s personal life due to accusing people close to them and loved ones. AV had also accused family members of stealing the same items for which they now accuse S2. RS was confident the items were not stolen. RS had no complaints about the facility or any of the staff and felt that AV could not be in a better place. On a visit on January 30, 2026, LPA interviewed the facility administrator (ADM) who provided records of the resident complaint as well as notes of the meeting held with AV and RS which corroborated that RS was aware of the situation and the proper actions were taken. Based on records reviewed, LPA observations, and interviews conducted with the victim, the victim’s POA, clients, and staff, the preponderance of evidence standard has not been met, and the allegation is deemed unsubstantiated. No deficiencies were cited in accordance with the California Code of Regulations. An exit interview was conducted with Facility Administrator Jessica Zepeda. A copy of this report and the Licensee Appeal Rights (LIC 9058, 03/22) were provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jan 30, 2026 · control 08-AS-20260126121801

Allegation investigated: Questionable death

On 11/10/2025, LPA Grace Donato conducted a telephone interview with the facility to deliver findings. LPA spoke with Business Office Director Ellen Arguello and explained the purpose of the call. Regarding the allegation of questionable death, reporting party (RP) stated that aspiration occurred due to routine medications being given to the resident by facility staff (not hospice) which led to aspiration pneumonia and the death of the resident. R1 was under hospice care. Facility staff were following doctors’ orders in administering medication. On 2/16/2025, around 12:41pm, facility received fax from doctor to discontinue medication. On the evening of same date, other medications were administered. R1 was routinely checked until passing on 2/17/2025. Death certificate did not indicate that R1 passed due to aspiration pneumonia. Based on records review, the department has determined that 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. Report is reviewed and copy is provided. Unsubstantiatedthe state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Nov 10, 2025 · control 08-AS-20250318135957

Allegation investigated: Resident charged for services not rendered

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Marisela Garcia-Centeno conducted an unannounced visit to deliver investigative findings. LPA was greeted by, identified herself to, and discussed the purpose of the visit with Business Office Director, Ellen Arguello. The Department investigated the above-listed complaint allegation. The investigation consisted of a tour of the facility, multiple interviews with staff and residents, and a detailed records review, including medical records, health and service evaluation/assessment reports, service care plans, invoice billing statements and other relevant evidence pertinent to this investigation. On May 31, 2024, Community Care Licensing (CCL) received a complaint alleging that Resident (R1) was charged for services not rendered. [an LIC 811 Confidential Names List was provided to staff to identify the Resident]. (Continue at LIC9099) Unsubstantiated (Continue from LIC9099) It was specifically alleged that R1 was charged for a level of care increase on December 20, 2023, despite no documented change in R1’s medical condition per R1’s attending physician. However, a detailed review conducted on June 4, 2024, of R1’s medical records, health and service evaluations, and service care plans from May 16, 2022, through June 1, 2024, indicated a significant decline in R1’s medical condition (see details of the change in R1’s condition below). Additionally, a comprehensive review of R1’s account summaries and billing statements for the period in question (October 24, 2023, through June 1, 2024) confirmed that the charges accurately reflected the level of care provided by facility staff (see details of the billing statements below). Lastly, interviews with staff and with external sources did not corroborate the claim that R1’s level of care remained unchanged. Details of R1’s change in condition: The physician's report at the time of admission, dated July 6, 2022, indicated that R1 was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease, secondary diagnosis dementia with behavioral disturbance, hypertension, (high blood pressure), hyperlipidemia (abnormally high levels of cholesterol, triglycerides or other lipids in the blood), DYNA (group of serious and complex conditions that are caused by malfunction of the autonomic nervous system), CHF (congestive heart failure), COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), A-fib atrial fibrillation (irregular and rapid beating of the ventricles. On May 16, 2022, when R1 moved into the facility under the Memory Care level 2 service care plan. R1's responsible party reviewed and signed the service care plan on July 12, 2022. On September 27, 2022, R1’s assessment indicated a change in condition and an increase in level of care due to increased checks to 4x additional checks per shift. The prior assessment showed that R1 did not need additional checks. The service care plan was signed by R1’s responsible party on October 1, 2022. (Continue at LIC9099C) (Continue from LIC9099C) On March 24, 2023, R1’s assessment indicated a significant change in condition. R1's level of care increased to MC- level 3. The main contributing factor for the increase in the level of care was due to incontinence care increased to maximum assistance. R1’s prior assessment showed that R1 was independent in this category. In addition, R1 required daily assistance with special medications (creams and hydrocortisone cream). In the earlier assessment, R1 did not require any special medications. The service care plan was reviewed and signed by R1’s responsible party on March 24, 2023. On June 8, 2023, R1’s assessment showed a significant change in condition. R1's level of care increased to MC - Level 5, R1 required a higher level of care due to several medical condition changes. R1 required maximum assistance with special care needs, and R1 required daily assistance with oxygen use. The care team assisted in meeting R1's care needs with oxygen use to improve R1's quality of life. In addition, R1's change in condition required moderate assistance to provide frequent help due to disorientation, memory loss, difficulty completing tasks, increased episodes of memory, and/or cognitive impairment. Moderate assistance with wandering to other residents' rooms and R1 attempting to leave the building. R1 required daily intervention due to disruptive, aggressive, or socially inappropriate behavior. R1 care team was required to intervene due to R1's uncooperative and resistance to care, R1 had significantly increased levels of depression, anxiety, and/or mood disorder. The assessment and service care plan were reviewed with R1’s responsible party on June 8, 2023. On December 20, 2023, R1’s assessment showed a significant change in condition. R1's level of care increased to MC Level 7 (highest level of care). R1 required maximum assistance in all areas of care to meet R1’s needs. R1’s level of care increased with transfers from 0 to 60 maximum assistance due to requiring 2-person assistance due to R1 becoming non-weight-bearing. Assistance with mobility increased from 0 to 65 maximum assistance requiring 2-person assistance with observation and fall management. R1’s meals and nutrition needs increased from 0 to 30 maximum assistance requiring special cutting/preparing food (mechanically soft) and/or prompting throughout the meal. R1’s responsible party reviewed and signed the assessment and service plan on April 13, 2024. (Continue at LIC9099C) (Continue from LIC9099C) On 2/16/2025 LPA Garcia-Centeno reviewed the invoice billings from October 24, 2023, to June 2024. The allegation was that the resident was charged for services not rendered for this period. (Continue to LIC9099C) (Continue from LIC9099C) Based on the review of R1's billing statements and account summaries from October 24, 2023, through May 21, 2024, R1 was billed correctly according to R1's level of care as indicated on service care plans. Based on observations, interviews with key staff and outside sources, and a review of pertinent records there was insufficient evidence found to support the allegation that R1 was charged for services not rendered. Due to a lack of evidence, the allegation is deemed to be unsubstantiated. A finding that is unsubstantiated means that although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence that the alleged violation occurred. An exit interview was conducted with Business Office Director, Ellen Arguello to whom a copy of this report, LIC 811, and Licensee Appeal Rights (9058 03/22) were provided at the conclusion of the visit.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Mar 10, 2025 · control 08-AS-20240531124436

Type of visit: Required - 1 Year

Licensing Program Analyst’s (LPA) Alyssa Ramirez conducted an unannounced Required Annual Inspection. The facility file was reviewed prior to the visit. LPA was welcomed by, identified themselves to, and discussed the purpose of the visit with Administrator Jessica Zepeda. According to the facility’s license, the facility has a maximum capacity of 105 residents, all which will be non-ambulatory and twelve may be bedridden, approved for delayed egress. During today’s inspection, according to records, there were a total of 80 residents in care, LPA, accompanied by staff, toured the interior and exterior of the facility, and inspected a sample of resident rooms. The facility was clean, sanitary, and in good repair. Hot water temperature was compliant. There was at least 2 days of perishable food, and at least 7 days non-perishable food present, all safely stored. Cooking/dining equipment and utensils were present. There were no sharp objects, toxic chemicals/poisons, fireplaces, or open-faced heaters accessible to residents. Medications were labeled, as required, and stored in locked areas. No pools or bodies of water were observed on the premises. Smoke alarms, carbon monoxide detectors, emergency lighting, facility telephone, fire extinguisher and first aid kit were present. Required licensing postings were observed in visible areas of the facility. LPA reviewed multiple staff and client records/files. Files reviewed contained required documents. Required licensing postings were observed in visible areas of the facility. No deficiencies were cited during today's annual inspection. An exit interview was conducted with Administrator to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided during the visit.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Feb 20, 2025

Allegation investigated: Staff is intoxicated of alcohol while caring and supervising residents in care.

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Alyssa Ramirez conducted an unannounced complaint visit to deliver findings on the above allegations. LPA met with Administrator Jessica Zepeda and discussed the purpose of the visit and elements of the complaint. Community Care Licensing (CCL) has investigated the above allegations. The investigation consisted of records review, interviews with facility staff, clients and outside agency. It was reported to CCL that facility staff (S1) was intoxicated while caring for and supervising residents in care. [Continued on LIC 9099-C] Unsubstantiated Regarding the allegation, it was alleged that facility staff (S1) smelled of alcohol and was seen yelling loudly and not being professional at the front desk. Records review revealed that S1 is in the sales department and job description does not include any caring for or supervising of residents. Interviews with facility staff confirmed that S1 does not provide care or supervision of residents. Interviews with staff revealed conflicting statements on whether or not S1 appeared to be under the influence of alcohol while at the facility. Staff interviews revealed there was a day when S1 showed up at the facility and was upset about a personal matter and was seen speaking loud due to being upset. Interviews with staff availed no witnesses to S1 consuming alcohol. Some staff interviews revealed that S1 generally speaks in a high pitch. Interview with outside source revealed no accounts of witnessing facility staff under the influence of alcohol while at the facility. Interviews with residents revealed no concern for staff being under the influence of alcohol at the facility. 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. No deficiencies were cited today. An exit interview was conducted with Zepeda. A copy of this report along with licensee rights (LIC 9058, 3/22) was provided to Zepeda whose signature below verifies receipt of these rights.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Oct 17, 2024 · control 08-AS-20240515104136

Type of visit: Case Management - Incident

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Alyssa Ramirez conducted an unannounced Case Management - Incident visit. LPA was welcomed by, identified herself to, and discussed the purpose of the visit with Executive Director Jessica Zepeda. Today's visit was in response to Licensee’s self-reported death of Resident #1 (R1), received at the CCLD San Diego Regional Office on 9/20/2024. [See LIC 811 Confidential Names List for a description of R1]. Per the report, R1 passed away on 9/9/2024. During today’s visit, LPA conducted health and safety check, finding no safety concerns. LPA also collected copies of and reviewed pertinent care records, and interviewed staff. No deficiencies were observed or cited during today’s visit. An exit interview was conducted with Zepeda, 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, Oct 17, 2024

Allegation investigated: Neglect/ Lack of supervision resulted in resident sustaining injuries

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Sabel Martinez conducted an unannounced visit to deliver complaint findings. The LPA introduced himself and disclosed the purpose of the visit to Executive Director Jessica Zepeda. Throughout the investigation the Department requested records, and conducted interviews with external and internal sources, including staff and residents. It was alleged staff neglect resulted in a resident sustaining injury while in care. A source alleged Resident # 1 (R1) suffered multiple falls, including one on June 4th, 2018, and a second fall on January 31st, 2019, that resulted in hospitalization, and lacerations requiring stitches. R1, a Seventy-Nine (79) year old memory care resident, was diagnosed with Dementia and assessed as a high fall risk during admission to the facility. A medical assessment revealed R1 could be confused and agitated at times. A service plan dated February 19th, 2019, revealed the facility assisted the resident with incontinence care, escorting, dressing, medication management, a puree diet, and hygiene, including two-person assistance with baths and showers. (See LIC 9099C form for continuation of report.) Substantiated Throughout R1 residing at the facility, interviews with staff and R1’s family revealed R1’s health declined from being ambulatory with the use of a walker, to eventually wheelchair bound. Assessments conducted by the facility for R1 on 1/4/18, 2/6/18, 8/1/18, 1/31/19, 8/16/19, 2/15/20, and 6/24/20, consistently revealed R1 was at high risk for falls. Narrative charting records documented on June 3rd, 2018, R1 sustained a witnessed fall, R1 hit a wall, and staff summoned medical attention due to R1 sustaining a skin tear to the head. On January 31st, 2019, during the overnight shift, staff found R1 on the floor next to R1’s bed with a laceration to the head, and staff summoned medical attention. R1 was transported to the hospital on both occasions, with the fall on 1/31/2019 requiring stitches. Review of photographs obtained from R1’s medical provider, confirmed R1 suffered lacerations on both occasions. From approximately March 24th, 2018, to October 11th, 2019, R1 sustained approximately twelve (12) witnessed and unwitnessed falls. On at least seven of the twelve noted falls, R1’s falls were unwitnessed. A Service Plan for R1 dated January 31st,2019, did not reveal any measures addressing R1's falls. On subsequent visits the Department requested records, but the facility was not able to produce such records, including service plans addressing R1’s falls. Although staff reported checking in on R1 every two hours, the facility did not implement any fall prevention measures for R1 until after the fall on January 31st, 2019, which resulted in a hospital visit and R1 sustaining a laceration requiring stitches. By January 31st, 2019, review of records revealed R1 had sustained approximately ten (10) falls with no severe injuries. Interviews with multiple staff and R1’s family corroborated the facility implemented fall prevention measures after January 31st, 2019. The measures included placing bed rails and lowering of the bed. An Outside Agency Form dated January 31st, 2019, revealed fall prevention measures were discussed with staff on that date. The measures discussed with the external agency included lowering R1’s bed, conducting frequent checks and cleaning R1’s room to minimize trip hazards. During the investigation the facility produced assessments and service plans for R1, but these did not indicate what fall mitigating measures were implemented, nor what staff actions were implemented to mitigate R1’s falls. (See additional LIC 9099C form for continuation of report.) R1’s diagnoses included Hypernatremia (High Concentration of sodium in blood) due to Hypovolemia (decreased volume of circulating blood). There were no diagnoses related to, nor suspecting lack of fluid intake noted in the discharge summary. At the time of discharge form the hospital, R1’s diet had changed to nothing by mouth, until R1 was “more awake, and passes swallow eval”. The hospital's progress notes dated June 25th, 2020, noted R1 was hospitalized from June 22nd, 2020, to June 24th, 2020, with bilateral pneumonia and hypernatremia. Although Hypernatremia was noted as a admitting diagnoses, there were mentions of dehydration being a diagnosis. Additional interviews with multiple residents did not reveal there were concerns with lack of assistance with food, nor with lack of fluids available to residents. It was alleged neglect resulted in pneumonia. A source reported R1 was hospitalized and diagnosed with Pneumonia. The reporting party questioned how R1 suddenly developed Pneumonia as it could not happen overnight. Records obtained from R1’s medical care providers, including a hospital discharge summary and progress notes dated June 25th, 2020, and a hospice agency revealed the Pneumonia was likely bacterial and the suspected cause was aspiration (inhalation of foreign object or substance into the airways). Interviews with staff revealed R1 was assisted and seated at 90 degrees, as there was concerns of aspiration due to R1’s difficulty swallowing. Interviews with staff also revealed R1 had developed a cough for approximately a week prior to being hospitalized on June 20th, 2020. Staff notified R1’s family and R1’s primary care physician. On June 205th,/20, emergency medical services were summoned as R1 presented low oxygen levels and was congestion. It was alleged staff did not administer medication as prescribed. A source alleged the facility staff over medicated R1, as R1 seemed to sleep more and was less responsive. Interviews with residents, staff, resident’s responsible parties, and the Long-Term Care Ombudsman office did not reveal any concerns with staff over medicating residents. The LPA reviewed the Department’s Guardian system to locate the staff who was mentioned, but contact attempts were not successful. Additionally, the LPA requested additional records for review, but the facility was not able to produce such records. Based on the investigation, there was not enough evidence to prove the alleged violations occurred, therefore, the allegations were Unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted with Zepeda, to whom a copy of this report, and Licensee/Appeals Rights (LIC 9058) were provided. Based on evidence obtained, the allegation of staff neglect resulting in resident sustaining injury, was Substantiated. The deficiency was cited in accordance with California Code of Regulations, Title 22, and listed on the LIC 9099D form. An immediate $500 civil penalty was assessed, and a plan of correction was jointly formulated with Executive Director Jessica Zepeda. Per Health and Safety Code Section 1569.49, an additional civil penalty is under review by the Program Administrator of the Community Care Licensing Division. An exit interview was conducted with Zepeda, to whom a copy of this report, LIC 9099D and Licensee/Appeals Rights (LIC 9058), were provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Sep 30, 2024 · control 08-AS-20200625151823

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type A · Section cited: CCR 87468.2(a)(8) · Plan of correction due date: Sep 30, 2024

87468.2 Additional Personal Rights of Residents in Privately Operated Facilities (a) In addition to the rights listed in Section 87468.1, Personal Rights of Residents in All Facilities, residents in privately operated residential care facilities for the elderly shall have all of the following personal rights: (8) To be free from neglect, financial exploitation, involuntary seclusion, punishment, humiliation, intimidation, and verbal, mental, physical, or sexual abuse. This requirement was not met as evidenced by: Based on review of records, and interviews, the licensee did not ensure R1 was free of neglect, which resulted in R1 sustaining injuries, this posed an immediate health, safety, and personal rights risk to 1 of 89 residents in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Sep 30, 2024

Plan of correction: Executive Director agreed to provide in service training to all care staff/ Med techs regarding the following topics; proper record keeping, change of condition, service planning, and internvention implementation, by 10/11/2024. The ED agreed to provide the LPA a log of who attended the trainings, by 10/11/24.

Type of visit: Case Management - Incident

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Alyssa Ramirez conducted an unannounced Case Management - Incident visit. LPA was welcomed by, identified herself to, and discussed the purpose of the visit with Executive Director Jessica Zepeda. Today's visit was in response to Licensee’s self-reported death of Resident #1 (R1), received at the CCLD San Diego Regional Office on 8/26/2024. [See LIC 811 Confidential Names List for a description of R1]. Per the report, R1 passed away on 8/19/2024. During today’s visit, LPA conducted health and safety check, finding no safety concerns. LPA also collected copies of and reviewed pertinent care records. No deficiencies were observed or cited during today’s visit. An exit interview was conducted with Zepeda, 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, Aug 27, 2024

Allegation investigated: Resident's care plan does not accurately represent the care provided

Licensing Program Analyst Becky Kennedy concluded the investigation which began on 3/18/21. LPA Kennedy made an unannounced visit to the above facility today and met with Ellen Argullo, Business Office Manager. LPA advised them of the reason for today's visit and delivered the investigation findings on the above allegation. It was alleged that Resident 1’s (R1) care plan does not accurately represent the care provided. The investigation included interviews with internal and external sources, review of records, and a virtual tour of the facility. Interviews revealed that R1 had an insurance Policy that would reimburse R1 for some services. R1 had multiple conversations with facility administration to modify the care plan so that R1 could access insurance reimbursements. It was further revealed that R1 would periodically refuse services that were on the care plan and request services that were not on the care plan. Unsubstantiated R1 was concerned about what care required an extra fee and what would be reimbursed. The primary concern raised in the investigation was what, and how services were written on the case plan to receive reimbursement form R1’s insurance company. The investigation did not reveal evidence that the care plan was not accurate regarding the services R1 was offered or received. The preponderance of evidence standard has not been met and this allegation is unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted with Ellen Argullo, Business Office Manager. A copy of this report along with Licensee Rights (LIC9058 01/2016) was left at the facility.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, May 22, 2024 · control 08-AS-20210212154050

Allegation investigated: Staff mismanaged resident's medication

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Alyssa Ramirez conducted an unannounced complaint visit to deliver findings on the above allegations. LPA met with Executive Director Jessica Zepedaand discussed the purpose of the visit and elements of the complaint. Community Care Licensing (CCL) has investigated the above allegations. The investigation consisted of records review, interviews with facility staff, clients and outside agency. It was reported to CCL that facility staff mismanaged resident’s medication. [Continued on LIC9099-C] Unsubstantiated [Continued on LIC9099] Regarding the allegation, it was alleged that resident (R1) was not getting their medication due resident spitting medication out when being administered and staff not trying to dispense medication again at a later time. Interview with outside source (OS) revealed that they have witnessed staff dispense medication to R1, R1 spit medication out and staff wrote down that R1 refused medication. OS reported that staff stated they could not dispense the medication again due to R1 refusing medicine. Interviews with facility staff revealed that staff are aware that residents have the right to refuse medication and are not to be forced to take medication. Facility staff reported that when a resident spits medication out staff dispose of the medication and note it in Quick MAR. Records review revealed that the facility had documentation of incident where R1 spit medicine out. Records review revealed that none of R1’s medication orders state that the medication is to be administered multiple times in the event that R1 spits medication out. 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. No deficiencies were cited today. An exit interview was conducted with Executive Director Jessica Zepeda. A copy of this report along with licensee rights (LIC 9058, 3/22) was provided to Zepeda whose signature below verifies receipt of these rights.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, May 21, 2024 · control 08-AS-20240122152834

Type of visit: Case Management - Other

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) conducted an unannounced Case Management visit. LPA disclosed the purpose the visit to Mainentance Director George Hayes and was allowed entry into the facility. Executive Director Jessica Zepeda met with LPA shortly after. The facility presently uses delayed-egress doors in its secured memory care area and requested the local fire authority to grant approval in writing for the use of the delayed-egress doors. The Fire Safety Inspection Request (STD850) was completed by the local fire authority and received in the RO on May 9, 2024. The requested fire clearance has been approved by the local fire marshal, which includes the facility's updated floor plan and the use of delayed egress. LPA reviewed the facility’s updated floor plan, which matches the STD850. LPA also observed that the new floor plan was posted in a visible area. No deficiencies were observed or cited during today's visit. An exit interview was conducted with Jessica Zepda, to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided during the visit.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, May 15, 2024

Allegation investigated: Staff did not meet resident's incontinence care needs.

Licensing Program Analyst Becky Kennedy concluded the investigation which began on 7/29/21. LPA Kennedy made an unannounced visit to the above facility today and met with Jessica Zepeda, Executive Director. LPA advised Ms.Zepeda that the reason for today's visit is to deliver the investigation findings on the above allegation. The investigation consisted of interviews with internal sources, a review of reports and records, and a tour of the facility. It was alleged that Resident 1 (R1) (see LIC 811 for confidential names) requested incontinence care from facility staff and the care was not provided for approximately six hours when R1 called again to request care. Substantiated The investigation revealed that R1 activated their call button at 9:17 PM to request care as they had defecated and needed to be cleaned. Staff 1 (S1) responded to the resident and informed them that they could not provide the care at that time as S1 was the only caregiver on duty at that time. S1 was near the end of their shift. S1 reported that they informed the relieving caregiver about R1’s need for care. The care need was not transferred to the next shift in writing violating facility policy. The relieving caregiver did not provide care to R1. R1 fell asleep without receiving care. R1 woke up about and called for care at 3:26 AM and the care staff provided the required care. R1 received care over six hours after their first request for assistance. R1 was left in soiled clothing for an excessive period of time. The preponderance of evidence standard has been met and this allegation is substantiated. A deficiency is cited in accordance with California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 6 Chapter 8, and is listed on the 9099D. An exit interview was conducted with Jessica Zepeda, Executive Director and a copy of this report, LIC 811, LIC 9099 D and Licensee/Appeals Rights (LIC 9058 01/16) was provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Apr 26, 2024 · control 08-AS-20210726092242

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: CCR 87464(4) · Plan of correction due date: Apr 26, 2024

87464 Basic Services(to include) (4) Personal assistance and care as needed by the resident …with those activities of daily living ... Based on interviews and record review 1 of 63 residents did not receive basic services when care was not delivered to R1 for six hours which posed a potential risk to the health of persons in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Apr 26, 2024

Plan of correction: Facility will coach S1 regarding edorsing care needs to other staff if unable to provide care, endorse in writing from shift to shift, and to elivate issues with specific residents to supervisor.

Allegation investigated: Staff did not communicate with responsible party of fee increases for resident's care plan.

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Alyssa Ramirez conducted an unannounced complaint visit to deliver findings on the above allegations. LPA met with Resident Services Director Eva Amorim and discussed the purpose of the visit and elements of the complaint. Community Care Licensing (CCL) has investigated the above allegations. The investigation consisted of records review, interviews with facility staff, clients and outside agency. It was reported to CCL that staff did not communicate with responsible party of fee increases for resident’s care plan. [Continued on 9099-C] Unsubstantiated [Continued from 9099] Regarding allegation, “staff did not communicate with responsible party of fee increases for resident’s care plan”, it was alleged that the facility increased cost in care level for R1 without having a meeting with responsible party. Interviews with facility staff revealed that they do not schedule a meeting every time there is a change in care level pricing. Review of admission’s agreement had no mention of required meetings when changes in care level costs. Admission’s agreement section “Change in Services” states “If Westmont at San Miguel Ranch determines through an assessment, that you require additional services or a different care program than the one in which you are participating , you agree to the new additional services or care program appropriate to your needs. The rate for the new service or care program shall apply immediately. The community will give you written notice of a care change and corresponding rate increase within two (2) business days after providing newly assessed services.” Interview’s with outside sources revealed that R1’s responsible party did not receive notification of increase in care level cost. Facility provided LPA documentation showing that changes to service plan was emailed to R1’s responsible party on 12/20/2023. Review of records revealed that R1 required more assistance with ADL’s on updated assessment dated 12/20/2023. Interview’s with outside sources revealed that R1 did require more assistance with ADL’s since the last assessment that was conducted in 6/9/2023. 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. No deficiencies were cited today. An exit interview was conducted with Resident Services Director Eva Amorim . A copy of this report along with licensee rights (LIC 9058, 3/22) was provided to Resident Services Director Eva Amorim whose signature below verifies receipt of these rights.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Mar 27, 2024 · control 08-AS-20240112134103

Allegation investigated: Staff are not providing residents with food Staff did not meet the needs of incontinent resident (s) Staff did not administer medications as prescribed Facility staff falsified a document Staff are not following residents care plan Facility did not ensure that hazardous items were inaccessible to residents Facility did not maintain comfortable temperature for residents Facility staff failed to follow reporting requirements

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA), Sabel Martinez, conducted an unannounced complaint investigation visit to deliver complaint findings. The LPA introduced himself and disclosed the purpose of the visit to Executive Director Michael Sokolowski. Throughout the investigation, the Department requested pertinent records and conducted interviews with external and internal sources, including staff and residents. It was alleged staff did not provide residents food. It reported to the Department staff would not assist residents with feeding, and often food trays were witnessed to be untouched. Interviews with internal and external sources revealed the facility used food trays to deliver food to residents during the COVID-19 Pandemic. These sources did not corroborate witnessing lack of assistance with feeding, nor witnessing undelivered food trays. It was also revealed staff had provided the resident in question with different options, including cultural food choices. (See LIC 9099-C for continuation of report.) Unsubstantiated It was alleged staff did not meet the needs of an incontinent resident. It was reported to the Department residents were found with soiled incontinence briefs. Interviews with internal and external sources did not reveal any concerns regarding staff not providing incontinence care. Interviews did reveal some of the residents may have experienced an increase in bowel movements and this may have contributed to staff encountering residents with soiled briefs, but there were no concerns with lack of care. Additionally, there were no concerns with skin irritation, nor breakage due to lack of incontinence care. It was alleged staff did not assist residents with prescribed medication and that staff falsified documents. It was reported to the Department facility staff had witnessed medications had been dispensed, documented as taken by resident, but instead placed in a medication cart. Interviews with internal sources did not recall witnessing any similar incidents, nor the staff not assisting residents with medication. External sources did not have any concerns with lack of medication assistance. The facility did not produce the records requested by the Department, as they were not readily available. It was alleged Staff were not following a resident's care plan. It was reported to the Department staff had not assisted residents with showers. Interviews with internal and external sources did not corroborate staff were not assisting residents with showers, nor did they reveal any concerns with lack of assistance from staff. Interviews did reveal that during the time period in question, there were staff disagreements that had led to staff blaming each other. Records requested from the facility were not readily available for review. It was alleged staff did not ensure hazardous items were inaccessible to residents. It was reported to the Department that a Salon in the Memory Care unit was not secured; therefore, chemicals and sharp items were accessible to residents. An interview with the Executive Director at the revealed the facility had addressed the concern about the door not locking properly. Interviews with internal and external sources did not corroborate chemicals, nor sharp items being accessible to residents. During a visit to the facility, the LPA witnessed the salon to be locked and used for Personal Protective Equipment storage. Additionally, the Reporting Party disclosed having photographs corroborating the door was unlocked. These photographs were not provided to the Department. (See additional LIC 9099-C for continuation of report.) It was alleged staff did not maintain a comfortable temperature for residents. It was reported to the Department staff left residents windows open at night. Interviews with internal and external sources did not reveal any concerns regarding staff leaving residents windows open. Staff would close windows at the residents’ requests. Additional interviews revealed residents had reported rooms may have been warm and management addressed this with the facility maintenance personnel. There was no evidence to corroborate windows were left open, nor that this resulted in residents having cold like symptoms. It was alleged facility staff failed to follow reporting requirements. It was reported to the Department facility staff did not follow the facility's internal process of reporting concerns. External sources revealed some staff would report concerns to management team and would expect management to follow up with them when follow up was not required, or necessary.. Interviews with internal and external sources, including third party providers, did not reveal any concerns with lack of communication from staff. Based on the evidenced obtained throughout the investigation, there was not a preponderance of evidenced to prove the alleged violations occurred, therefore, the allegations were unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted with Michael Sokoloswky, to whom a copy of this report, and Licensee/Appeals Rights (LIC 9058), were provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jan 30, 2024 · control 08-AS-20200713094709

Type of visit: Case Management - Annual Continuation

Licensing Program Analysts (LPAs) Liliana Silveira and Dang Nguyen conducted an unannounced visit to continue a Required Annual Inspection which began on 01/16/2024. The facility file was reviewed prior to the visit. LPAs were welcomed by, identified themselves to, and discussed the purpose of the visit with Executive Director Michael Sokolowski. According to the facility’s license, the facility has a maximum capacity of 105 residents, all which will be non-ambulatory and seven may be bedridden (and the bedridden residents may only reside on the ground floor). During today’s inspection, according to records, there were a total of 71 residents in care, of which 43 were non-ambulatory and none were bedridden. During today’s visit, LPAs, accompanied by licensee’s staff, toured the interior and exterior of the facility and inspected common areas and a sampling of resident bedrooms. LPAs privately interviewed multiple staff and residents. LPAs also reviewed multiple staff and resident records/files. The files which were reviewed contained the required documents. The facility was clean, sanitary, and in good repair. Pathways were free of obstruction and slip hazards. Client bedrooms contained required furniture. Doors, windows and 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. Confidential records and centrally stored medications were kept in locked areas. The facility had at least two days of perishable food and seven days of non-perishable food present. The facility had cooking and dining utensils to facilitate resident meal service. The Walk-In Refrigerator’s temperature was compliant at 40 F, and the Walk-In Freezer’s temperature was complaint at 0 F. The facility’s ambient internal temperature was compliant at 74 F. [CONTINUED ON LIC 809-C] [CONTINUED FROM LIC 809] Where tested, hot water temperature at taps (which were used by residents for personal care) were compliant: Bedroom #107 sink was 116.1 F, Bedroom #131 sink was 115.5 F, Bedroom #214 sink was 109.7 F, Bedroom #229 sink was 114.5 F, Bedroom #246 sink was 112.4 F. There were no sharp objects, toxic chemicals/poisons, fireplaces, or open-faced heaters accessible to residents diagnosed with Dementia. No pools or bodies of water were observed on the premises. Per the licensee, no firearms or ammunition are kept at the facility. Smoke and fire alarms, carbon monoxide detectors, emergency lighting, and facility telephone were all working. Fire extinguishers were serviced within the last 12 months. A complete first aid kit was present and readily accessible. Licensee's staff also presented proof of current/active business liability insurance. Required licensing postings were observed in visible areas of the facility. Based on LPAs’ observation and confirmed by manager interviews: The facility presently uses delayed-egress doors in its secured memory care area. However, Licensee did not ensure that the facility’s local fire authority granted approval in writing for use of delayed-egress doors, as was required before their use. Per the facility license which CCLD issued to Licensee, approval for use of delayed-egress doors was also not expressly approved. One (1) deficiency was cited per California Code of Regulations, Title 22 (refer to the attached LIC 809-D). A Plan of Correction was jointly developed with Licensee. LPAs also issued Technical Assistance (TA) regarding Infection Control (see the LIC 9172-TA). An exit interview was conducted with Sokolowski, to whom a copy of this report, the LIC 809-D, the LIC9172-TA, and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided during the visit.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jan 19, 2024

Type of visit: Required - 1 Year

Licensing Program Analysts (LPAs) Dang Nguyen and Liliana Silveira conducted an unannounced Required Annual Inspection. The facility file was reviewed prior to the visit. LPAs were welcomed by and identified themselves to Executive Director Michael Sokolowski. LPA discussed the purpose of the visit with Executive Director Michael Sokolowski and Resident Services Director Eva Amorim. During today’s visit, LPAs briefly toured the facility, reviewed staff and resident records, and interviewed staff and residents. No deficiencies were cited during today’s visit. Due to time constraints, a return visit on a subsequent day is needed to complete the annual inspection. An exit interview was conducted with Michael Sokolowski, to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided during the visit.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jan 16, 2024

Allegation investigated: - Insufficient staff to respond to residents' call buttons timely

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Carmen Lopez conducted an unannounced complaint visit to deliver investigative findings regarding the above-mentioned allegation. LPA identified herself and was granted entry by Alyssa Antolin, concierge. LPA stated the purpose of the visit and reviewed the findings of the complaint with Executive Director Michael Sokolowski. The Department’s investigation consisted of interviews with residents and staff, and records review of relevant documents pertinent to this investigation. On September 20, 2023, it was alleged that there were insufficient staff to respond to residents’ call button timely resulting in injuries. Interview with residents did not coincide. Upon interviews, most residents did say that the staff response time once their call buttons were pushed were timely. One resident reported staff responding to call buttons untimely of about 20 minutes or not at all. None of the residents reported being injured in the process of staff response to their call buttons. Unsubstantiated Staff interviews said that there are times when the residents accidentally take their devices with them out into the community which staff are unable to answer. A review of the facility’s activity records for the months of August 2023 and September 2023, there were five residents whose call button were over the time frame of 30 minutes. Submission of incident reports (IR) were reviewed for the months of August 2023 and September 2023. Upon review of the IR’s, there was only one incident report on file submitted to the San Diego Regional Office that reported resident sustaining an injury due to a fall, but according to the Device Activity Report, there was no call to the room. According to that IR the staff responded accordingly by contacting emergency response. In review of additional submitted reports, residents who sustained falls were taken to the hospital for further evaluation and treatment. None of the IR’s displayed major injuries due to staff untimely response of call devices. Based on the Department’s investigation of the above-mentioned allegation and the evidence obtained during staff and outside source interviews, records reviewed, and LPA observations, there is insufficient evidence to meet the preponderance of evidence standard. Therefore, the above allegation is deemed to be unsubstantiated. The report was discussed, and an exit interview was conducted with Executive Director Michael Sokolowski. A copy of this report along with Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 3/22) were provided to Executive Director Sokolowski at the conclusion of the visit. The signature below confirms the receipt of these documents.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Dec 5, 2023 · control 08-AS-20230920152253

Allegation investigated: - Staff did not meet training requirements

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Carmen Lopez conducted an unannounced complaint visit to deliver findings of a complaint investigation regarding the above-mentioned allegation. LPA identified herself and was granted entry by Alyssa Antolin, concierge. LPA stated the purpose of the visit and reviewed the findings of the complaint with Executive Director Michael Sokolowski. The Department’s investigation consisted of interviews with residents and staff, and records review of relevant documents pertinent to this investigation. On October 2, 2023, it was alleged that staff did not meet training requirements. It was specifically alleged that staff #1 (S1) was inappropriately trained to provide medications to residents. Interview with S1 confirmed that they assisted with passing out medications, but there was always an assigned Medication Technician (Med Tech) dispensing the medications into a cup for the residents. Unsubstantiated S1 confirmed that they did not dispense the medications. The assigned Med Tech dispensed the medication into assigned cups that displayed the room number on the cup and onto a clipboard that had the same room number that matched the cup. There were no more than approximately 5 cups on the clipboard which S1 passed out along with the assigned Med Tech. Interview with staff #2 (S2) confirmed S1’s interview. LPA Lopez reviewed staff job descriptions, medication administration records (MAR’s), training logs, and Provider Information Notice (PIN). Records revealed that S1 did not have medication training, but the Med Tech who S1 assisted had records that showed they had medication training. S1’s job description say’s that S1 should have the ability to make independent decisions when circumstances warrant such action and to remain calm during emergency situations. A review of medication logs revealed that a Med Tech provided residents with their medications on 10/01/2023. There was no indication that S1 dispensed residents’ medications. S1’s training log showed active action towards their training for the months of June, July and September. In review of Med Tech's training log, it revealed that they were properly trained to dispense medications. In review of PIN 23-16-ASC, Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly Reference Guide to Administrator, Staff and Volunteer Training Requirements, the requirements that all staff require were fulfilled by S1 and S2 according to their training logs. Based on the Department’s investigation of the above-mentioned allegation and the evidence obtained during staff and outside source interviews, and records reviewed, there is insufficient evidence to meet the preponderance of evidence standard. Therefore, the above allegation is deemed to be unsubstantiated. The report was discussed, and an exit interview was conducted with Executive Director Michael Sokolowski. A copy of this report along with Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 3/22) were provided to Executive Director Sokolowski at the conclusion of the visit. The signature below confirms the receipt of these documents. Although residents confirmed their medications were provided late, they did not confirm that the medications were incorrect. Staff interviews confirmed that medications were formerly provided to residents late due to agency staff cancelling their shifts on their assigned shift date. Staff said that they were redirected to fill-in the vacant areas to ensure residents had their morning medications dispensed. They confirmed that due to a late start in passing medications, some of the medications were dispensed late. Interview with the Executive Director confirmed that they worked with an agency to fill the vacant positions as needed. Based on the Department’s investigation of the above-mentioned allegation and the evidence obtained during resident and staff interviews, there is sufficient evidence to meet the preponderance of evidence standard. Therefore, the above allegation is deemed to be substantiated. California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 8, is being cited on the attached LIC9099D. The report was discussed, plan of correction was jointly developed, and an exit interview was conducted with Executive Director Michael Sokolowski. A copy of this report along with Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 3/22) were provided to Executive Director Sokolowski at the conclusion of the visit. The signature below confirms the receipt of these documents.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Dec 5, 2023 · control 08-AS-20231002095754

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: CCR 87465(C)(2) · Plan of correction due date: Dec 22, 2023

87465 (C)(2) Incidental Medical and Dental Care … Once ordered by the physician the medication is given according to the physician's directions… this requirement was not met as evidence by: Based on staff and resident interviews, facility did not provide the residents their medications as prescribed, at the appropriate timeframe. This posed a potential health risk to 4 of 71 [R1, R2, R3, & R4] residents in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Dec 5, 2023

Plan of correction: Facility will assign a lead staff to ensure agency staff are trained and there is an assigned staff who are responsible for proper medication distribution. Facility will submit a month's calendar of the assigned leads by POC due date, 12/22/23.