Illustration — no photo of this home on file yet

White Orchid Guest Home

Small home·Licensed for 5·Escondido, California

Licensed since 2011Licence #374603092
  • Care approvals on fileWheelchair · Dementia · HospiceState licensing record · September 27, 2026
  • Estimated starting rate$4,850 a monthCovelight estimate · likely $3,950–$5,950
  • Home sizeLicensed for 5Small care home · a licensed care home (RCFE)
  • Room at the last state visit4 of 5 beds occupiedApril 23, 2026 · not a current opening
  • Ways to payAsk the homeMedi-Cal ALW participation not on file
  • Last state visitJune 19, 2026CDSS inspection record

White Orchid Guest Home is a small care home in Escondido — a licensed residential care facility for the elderly (RCFE), the licence category behind “assisted living” and “board and care.” It is licensed for 5 residents since 2011. Bedridden care is 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 White Orchid Guest Home

Is White Orchid Guest Home licensed?

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

How many residents is White Orchid Guest Home licensed for?

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

Has White Orchid Guest Home been cited?

1 Type A and 0 Type B citation since 2011, per CDSS records as of September 27, 2026. Those records count 8 state visits over the same years.

Is White Orchid Guest Home still open?

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

What does White Orchid Guest Home cost?

$4,850 a month to start is a Covelight estimate, likely $3,950–$5,950. 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 17 small homes and similar homes within 3 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 32 other homes of a similar licensed size in Escondido that publish a starting rate, the middle half runs $4,000 to $6,000 a month, and the middle figure is $5,000 (n = 32 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 White Orchid Guest 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 Estepa, Stan, per CDSS records as of September 27, 2026.

Is there a hospital nearby?

Palomar Ucsd Medical Center Escondido is 1.7 miles away in a straight line, per the CDPH licensed-hospital list dated September 16, 2026. See licensed care homes near it.

Can White Orchid Guest Home keep a resident on hospice?

Hospice care is approved on this license, covering up to 2 residents, per CDSS records as of September 27, 2026.

White Orchid Guest Home license and inspection record

  • Name on the license: “WHITE ORCHID GUEST HOME”, per the CDSS roster as of May 25, 2025.
  • License #374603092. The state lists this license as “Licensed,” per CDSS records as of September 27, 2026.
  • Licensed for 5 residents — a small home, per CDSS records as of September 27, 2026.
  • Licensed to Estepa, Stan, per CDSS records as of September 27, 2026.
  • First licensed in 2011, per CDSS records as of September 27, 2026.
  • 8 state inspection visits since 2011, per CDSS records as of September 27, 2026.
  • 1 Type A and 0 Type B citation on file since 2011, per CDSS records as of September 27, 2026. The same records count 8 state visits in that period.
  • 1 complaint and 1 substantiated allegation on file since 2011, per CDSS records as of September 27, 2026. One complaint can carry several allegations.
  • The most recent state visit on file is June 19, 2026, 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 by the state
  • Dementia / memory careApproved by the state
  • Hospice careApproved · covers up to 2 residents
  • 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
FACILITY SERVES FIVE (5) ELDERLY RESIDENTS; AGE 60 AND ABOVE. TWO (2) OF WHOM MAY BE NON-AMBULATORY. HOSPICE WAIVER FOR TWO (2).

983 - RCFE / DEMENTIA

CDSS record, verbatim · September 27, 2026

As needs change

  • Staying through hospice

    Hospice waiver on file · covers up to 2 — care may continue at the end of life

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

    State licensing record · September 27, 2026

  • If memory loss develops

    Dementia-care designation on file

    Ask: “Can we read the dementia care disclosure and discuss how daily support works?”

    State licensing record · September 27, 2026

3 more questions to ask the home
  • 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?”

What it costs here

Covelight estimate

$4,850a month to start

Likely $3,950–$5,950

From 17 nearby homes that publish rates · this home’s rate is not on file

Likely monthly total

$4,850a month

Likely $3,950–$6,150

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
  • Starting monthly rate$4,850likely $3,950–$5,950

    Covelight’s estimate starts from the rates 17 small homes and similar homes within 3 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 $3,950–$6,150
$4,850
First monthWith a one-time move-in fee · likely $4,650–$9,250
$6,850
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 17 small homes and similar homes within 3 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.

17 homes like this within 3 miles publish starting rates mostly between $4,000–$6,000.

  • 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 17 nearby homes behind this estimate

Where it is

  • 978 West 2Nd Ave, Escondido, CA 92025Address 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 2022, the state has filed 8 documents for this home, and its records count 8 visits since 2011. The most recent is a facility evaluation report, dated June 19, 2026.

On file since
2022
State visits
8
Most recent visit
June 19, 2026
Occupied · April 23, 2026 visit
4 of 5 bedsa count on that day, not an opening

We hold 3 complaint reports the state published for this home, dated April 9, 2026 to April 23, 2026. 3 of the 3 carry the state's recorded outcome word: “Substantiated” (3). 3 include the transcribed allegation the state investigated, word for word. Summary composed by computer from the 3 complaint reports 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 citations1typical 0
  • Type B citations0typical 0
  • Substantiated allegations1typical 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 2011.

Year by year
YearVisitsDocumentsSubstantiated2026453202411020231102022110

The last 36 months — 6 of 8 documents

20264 state visits · 5 documents
Jun 19, 2026Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Type of visit: Required - 1 Year

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Robert Campbell conducted an unannounced annual required visit. Upon entry, LPA were greeted by Jocelyn Estepa, Caregiver, and informed them of the purpose of the visit. At the time of the visit, there was one (1) staff member and three (3) residents present. Stan Estepa/Administrator, came out of a room later during the visit. Facility Overview: The facility is a one-story home with five (5) bedrooms and three (3) bathrooms, including an attached garage. There are no pools or known firearms on the premises. Infection Control: LPA observed that hygiene and cleaning supplies were available for regular facility maintenance. The facility has infection control plan in file. Physical Plant: The physical plant, including floors, windows, and doors, was clean and well maintained. Fixtures and furniture were in good repair. Laundry equipment was in good working condition. Sharp and dangerous objects were securely locked and inaccessible to residents. Both the smoke detector and carbon monoxide detector were operational, and the hot water temperature was 110°F. Fire extinguisher located at kitchen. LPA observed outside a lot of debris that needs to be thrown away detailed in the LIC809D form. Food Service: The facility’s kitchen was clean and equipped to prepare food. The facility maintained the required two-day supply of perishable foods and a seven-day supply of non-perishable foods. Continued on LIC809-C.... Care & Supervision/Administration: Adequate staff were present to supervise clients during the visit. The administrator holds a current administrator’s certificate. Record Review and Resident/Staff Files: LPA reviewed files for three (3) staff members, confirming criminal clearances, and CPR/First Aid certification. Three (3) resident files were reviewed and contained most required documents. LPA detailed the staff Type B deficiency on the LIC809D. Health-Related Services/Incidental Medical Services: All resident medications were securely locked in kitchen cabinet. LPA reviewed medications for three (3) residents, confirming that all medications were listed on the Medication Administration Record (MAR) and accounted for. Personal & Incidental Funds: All monies are not handled by the facility. Disaster Preparedness: LPA reviewed the facility’s emergency and disaster plan, including no documentation of the last emergency drill. LPA issued a technical violation for not have quarterly emergency drills. LPA will have all residents and staff participate in an emergency drill by 7/19/2026 submitted to LPA by email. All facility exits were clear of obstructions. An exit interview was conducted, during which this report was reviewed and provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jun 19, 2026
Apr 23, 2026Complaint investigation reportSubstantiated

Allegation investigated: Staff did not distribute resident's medication as prescribed

*This is a superseded report to LIC 9099 dated April 22, 2026* On April 23, 2026, the Department conducted a subsequent visit to deliver this superseded report. The purpose of this report is to correct the 9099D deficiency page. Although this report supersedes the report dated April 22, 2026, it does not change the findings. On April 9, 2026, the Department of Social Services staff conducted an unannounced visit to this facility to continue investigation of the above allegation and to deliver findings. The Department was met by Jo Estepa and reason for visit explained Investigation consisted of the following: On June 21, 2023 the Department conducted an unannounced initial visit to the facility to investigate the complaint allegation mentioned above. During the visit, it was determined that the complaint required further investigation. On April 7,2026 via telephone the Department interviewed witness 1 (W1). On April 8, 2026 the department received documentation (written dispensation) from police report taken on 6/21/23. On April 9, 2026 The department obtained a copy of resident roster, incident report (dated: ) interviewed Administrator (A1) and 1 staff (S1) Page 1 of 3 Substantiated The investigation revealed the following: Allegation: Staff did not distribute resident's medication as prescribed The detail of complaint alleges on 6/21/23 staff gave R1 more medication than prescribed by R1’s physician. On April 9, 2026 at 10:52 am, the Department interviewed Administrator A1 via telephone regarding the allegation who did not deny allegation. When asked if R1 was given more medication than what was prescribed, A1 responded “Yes, but we were following the RN’s instructions, and she said it was okay to give medication like that.” On April 9, 2026 at 11:00am, The department interviewed S1, regarding allegations S1 admitted that she has made a mistake. S1 went on to explain the following to the Department: R1’s medication is (Metoprolol 25 mg) to be given 3 tablets in morning and 2 tablet in the evening (totaling 5 tablet in a day) but "I made the mistake of giving him all 5 tablets at once because he demanded it. so I gave it to him." S1 stated that she called his RN from the VA, and notified R1's family, and called 911. S1 further stated, “I know it was my fault that I made a mistake…I have learned from it, I go by doctor instructions only.” On 4/7/26, the Department spoke with Officer Austin (W1) of the Escondido PD who stated that he does remember going out on a call to facility with the Mental Health Clinician because it was reported that R1 was given “way too many meds that what was allowed” by the doctor. W1 further stated that R1 was refusing any medical attention and had a vague threat of suicide that is why the PD became involved. On 4/9/26 the Department attempted to interview R1 via telephone, there was no answer. Page 2 of 3 On 4/8/26 the Department obtained and reviewed police report # 230044925 which stated: “Subject was mistakenly given copious amounts of medication by the care giving staff. When he [R1] was told about the side effects of the medications, he [R1] made a vague Suicidal Ideation (SI) statement about, "not caring." Subject had his daughter in law present and has no access to means to harm himself. Denied SI just having a difficult time with the upcoming anniversary of his wife's passing. Subject connected to mental health services and has 24 hour care. Subject was alert and oriented and refused transport. Advised staff to monitor for medical issues and call 911 should he need assistance.” On April 9, 2026 The department obtained a copy R1 Physicians report (dated 6/17/25), R1's physician's order/Pharmacy list (dated 6/30/23), R1's Appraisal Needs and Services Plan (dated:4/9/25). R1’s physician order: Metoprolol Succinate 25mg tabs: take three tablets by mouth morning and take two tablets every evening for arrhythmia (heart rhythm) Based on the information gathered and reviewed, and interviews conducted, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation is found to be SUBSTANTIATED. California Code of Regulations, Title twenty-two (22), Division six (6), is being cited, please see attached LIC-9099D. An exit interview was conducted with Jo Estepa and A copy of this report and appeals rights were provided. Page 3 of 3the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Apr 23, 2026 · control 18-AS-20230628143136

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type A · Section cited: CCR 87465(a)(4) · Plan of correction due date: Apr 24, 2026

87465 Incidental Medical and Dental Care (a) A plan for incidental medical and dental care shall be developed by each facility. The plan shall encourage routine medical anddental care and provide for assistance in obtaining such care, by compliance with the following: (4) The licensee shall assistresidents with self-administered medications as needed. This requirement is not met as evidenced by: Based on records review and interviews conducted, the licensee did not comply with the section cited above as S1 didn't give R1 Metoprolol Succinate on 6/21/23 as prescribed. Which posed an immediate safety, or personal rights risk to persons in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Apr 23, 2026

Plan of correction: Licensee will ensure compliance by reviewing regulation Title 22 87465 (a)(4) for understanding and will retrain all staff on Medication Administration. Submit Training sign-in sheet by due date to LPA Deborah.Lee@dss.ca.gov.

Apr 22, 2026Complaint investigation reportSubstantiated

Allegation investigated: Staff did not distribute resident's medication as prescribed

*This is a superseded report to LIC 9099 dated April 9, 2026* On April 22, 2026, the Department conducted a subsequent visit to deliver this superseded report. The purpose of this report is to correct the 9099D deficiency page. Although this report supersedes the report dated April 9, 2026, it does not change the findings. On April 9, 2026, the Department of Social Services staff conducted an unannounced visit to this facility to continue investigation of the above allegation and to deliver findings. The Department was met by Jo Estepa and reason for visit explained Investigation consisted of the following: On June 21, 2023 the Department conducted an unannounced initial visit to the facility to investigate the complaint allegation mentioned above. During the visit, it was determined that the complaint required further investigation. On April 7,2026 via telephone the Department interviewed witness 1 (W1). On April 8, 2026 the department received documentation (written dispensation) from police report taken on 6/21/23. On April 9, 2026 The department obtained a copy of resident roster, incident report (dated: ) interviewed Administrator (A1) and 1 staff (S1) Page 1 of 3 Substantiated The investigation revealed the following: Allegation: Staff did not distribute resident's medication as prescribed The detail of complaint alleges on 6/21/23 staff gave R1 more medication than prescribed by R1’s physician. On April 9, 2026 at 10:52 am, the Department interviewed Administrator A1 via telephone regarding the allegation who did not deny allegation. When asked if R1 was given more medication than what was prescribed, A1 responded “Yes, but we were following the RN’s instructions, and she said it was okay to give medication like that.” On April 9, 2026 at 11:00am, The department interviewed S1, regarding allegations S1 admitted that she has made a mistake. S1 went on to explain the following to the Department: R1’s medication is (Metoprolol 25 mg) to be given 3 tablets in morning and 2 tablet in the evening (totaling 5 tablet in a day) but "I made the mistake of giving him all 5 tablets at once because he demanded it. so I gave it to him." S1 stated that she called his RN from the VA, and notified R1's family, and called 911. S1 further stated, “I know it was my fault that I made a mistake…I have learned from it, I go by doctor instructions only.” On 4/7/26, the Department spoke with Officer Austin (W1) of the Escondido PD who stated that he does remember going out on a call to facility with the Mental Health Clinician because it was reported that R1 was given “way too many meds that what was allowed” by the doctor. W1 further stated that R1 was refusing any medical attention and had a vague threat of suicide that is why the PD became involved. On 4/9/26 the Department attempted to interview R1 via telephone, there was no answer. Page 2 of 3 On 4/8/26 the Department obtained and reviewed police report # 230044925 which stated: “Subject was mistakenly given copious amounts of medication by the care giving staff. When he [R1] was told about the side effects of the medications, he [R1] made a vague Suicidal Ideation (SI) statement about, "not caring." Subject had his daughter in law present and has no access to means to harm himself. Denied SI just having a difficult time with the upcoming anniversary of his wife's passing. Subject connected to mental health services and has 24 hour care. Subject was alert and oriented and refused transport. Advised staff to monitor for medical issues and call 911 should he need assistance.” On April 9, 2026 The department obtained a copy R1 Physicians report (dated 6/17/25), R1's physician's order/Pharmacy list (dated 6/30/23), R1's Appraisal Needs and Services Plan (dated:4/9/25). R1’s physician order: Metoprolol Succinate 25mg tabs: take three tablets by mouth morning and take two tablets every evening for arrhythmia (heart rhythm) Based on the information gathered and reviewed, and interviews conducted, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation is found to be SUBSTANTIATED. California Code of Regulations, Title twenty-two (22), Division six (6), is being cited, please see attached LIC-9099D. An exit interview was conducted with Jo Estepa and A copy of this report and appeals rights were provided. Page 3 of 3the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Apr 22, 2026 · control 18-AS-20230628143136

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type A · Section cited: CCR 87456 · Plan of correction due date: Apr 23, 2026

87465 Incidental Medical and Dental Care (a) A plan for incidental medical and dental care shall be developed by each facility. The plan shall encourage routine medical anddental care and provide for assistance in obtaining such care, by compliance with the following: (4) The licensee shall assistresidents with self-administered medications as needed. This requirement is not met as evidenced by: Based on records review and interviews conducted, the licensee did not comply with the section cited above as S1 didn't give R1 Metoprolol Succinate on 6/21/23 as prescribed. Which posed an immediate safety, or personal rights risk to persons in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Apr 22, 2026

Plan of correction: Licensee will ensure compliance by reviewing regulation Title 22 87465 (a)(4) for understanding and will retrain all staff on Medication Administration. Submit Training sign-in sheet by due date to LPA Deborah.Lee@dss.ca.gov.

Apr 9, 2026Complaint investigation reportSubstantiated

Allegation investigated: Staff did not distribute resident's medication as prescribed

On April 9, 2026, the Department of Social Services staff conducted an unannounced visit to this facility to continue investigation of the above allegation and to deliver findings. The Department was met by Jo Estepa and purpose for visit explained. Investigation consisted of the following: On July 6, 2023 the Department conducted an unannounced initial visit to the facility to investigate the complaint allegation mentioned above. During the visit, it was determined that the complaint required further investigation. On April 7,2026 the Department interviewed witness 1 (W1) via telephone. On April 8, 2026 the department received via documentation (written dispensation) from police report # 230044925 taken on 6/21/23. On April 9, 2026 The department obtained a copy of R1 Physicians report (dated 6/17/25), R1's physician's order/Pharmacy list (dated 6/30/23), R1's Appraisal Needs and Services Plan (dated:4/9/25). The department interviewed Administrator (A1) and 1 staff (S1), interview attempt (R1). Page 1 of 3 Substantiated The investigation revealed the following: Allegation: Staff did not distribute resident's medication as prescribed The detail of complaint alleges on 6/21/23 staff gave R1 more medication than prescribed by R1’s physician. On April 9, 2026 at 10:52 am, the Department interviewed Administrator A1 via telephone regarding the allegation who did not deny allegation. When asked if R1 was given more medication than what was prescribed, A1 responded “Yes, but we were following the RN’s instructions, and she said it was okay to give medication it like that.” On April 9, 2026 at 11:00am, The department interviewed S1, regarding allegations S1 admitted that she has made a mistake. S1 went on to explain the following to the Department: R1’s medication is (Metoprolol 25 mg) to be given 3 tablets in morning and 2 tablet in the evening (totaling 5 tablet in a day) but "I made the mistake of giving him all 5 tablets at once because he demanded it.. so I gave it to him." S1 stated that she called his RN from the VA, and notified R1's family, and called 911. S1 further stated, “I know it was my fault that I made a mistake…I have learned from it, I go by doctor instructions only.” On 4/7/26, the Department spoke with Officer Austin (W1) of the Escondido PD who stated that he does remember going out on a call to facility with the Mental Health Clinician because it was reported that R1 was given “way too many meds that what was allowed” by the doctor. W1 further stated that R1 was refusing any medical attention and had a vague threat of suicide that is why the PD became involved. On 4/9/26 the Department attempted to interview R1 via telephone, there was no answer. Page 2 of 3 On 4/8/26 the Department obtained and reviewed police report # 230044925 which stated: “Subject was mistakenly given copious amounts of medication by the caregiving staff. When he [R1] was told about the side effects of the medications, he [R1] made a vague Suicidal Ideation (SI) statement about, "not caring." Subject had his daughter in law present and has no access to means to harm himself. Denied SI just having a difficult time with the upcoming anniversary of his wife's passing. Subject connected to mental health services and has 24 hour care. Subject was alert and oriented and refused transport. Advised staff to monitor for medical issues and call 911 should he need assistance.” On April 9, 2026 The department obtained a copy R1 Physicians report (dated 6/17/25), R1's physician's order/Pharmacy list (dated 6/30/23), R1's Appraisal Needs and Services Plan (dated:4/9/25). R1’s physician order: Metoprolol Succinate 25mg tabs: take three tablets by mouth morning and take two tablets every evening for arrhythmia (heart rhythm) Based on the information gathered and reviewed, and interviews conducted, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation is found to be SUBSTANTIATED. California Code of Regulations, Title twenty-two (22), Division six (6), is being cited, please see attached LIC-9099D. An exit interview was conducted with Jo Estepa and A copy of this report and appeals rights were provided. Page 3 of 3the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Apr 9, 2026 · control 18-AS-20230628143136

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: CCR 67465(a)4) · Plan of correction due date: Apr 23, 2026

87465 Incidental Medical and Dental Care (a) A plan for incidental medical and dental care shall be developed by each facility. The plan shall encourage routine medical anddental care and provide for assistance in obtaining such care, by compliance with the following: (4) The licensee shall assistresidents with self-administered medications as needed. This requirement is not met as evidenced by: Based on records review and interviews conducted, the licensee did not comply with the section cited above as S1 didn't give R1 Metoprolol Succinate on 6/21/23 as prescribed. Which posed a potential safety, or personal rights risk to persons in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Apr 9, 2026

Plan of correction: Licensee will ensure compliance by reviewing regulation Title 22 67465 (a)(4) for understanding and will retrain all staff on Medication Administration. Submit Training sign-in sheet by due date to LPA Deborah.Lee@dss.ca.gov.

Apr 9, 2026Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Type of visit: Case Management - Deficiencies

On April 9, 2026 Licensing Program Analyst(LPA) Deborah Lee conducted an unannounced Case Management- Deficiencies. During the course of investigation complaint 18-AS-20230628143136, the facility was unable to provide incident report for incident involving R1 not Metoprolol Succinate on 6/21/23 as prescribed. See attached 809D Title 22 Division 6 being cited An exit interview was conducted with Jo Estepa and A copy of this report and appeals rights were provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Apr 9, 2026

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: CCR 87211(a)(1)(D) · Plan of correction due date: Apr 23, 2026

87211 Reporting Requirements (a) Each licensee shall furnish to the licensing agency such reports as the Department may require, including, but not limited to, the following: (1) A written report shall be submitted to the licensing agency and to the person responsible for the resident within seven days of the occurrence of...(D) Any incident which threatens the welfare, safety or health of any resident, such as psychological abuse of a resident by staff or other residents, or unexplained absence of any resident. This requirement is not met as evidenced by: Based on interviews and records review, the licensee did not comply with the section cited above as the faciltiy was unable to provide incident report for incident on 6/21/23 where 911 and law enforcement were call.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Apr 9, 2026

Plan of correction: Licensee will ensure compliance by reviewing regulation Title 22 87211(a)(1)(D) for understanding and develop a plan for future compliance. Submit plan to LPA Lee Deborah.Lee@dss.ca.gov by due date.

20241 state visit · 1 document
Jun 27, 2024Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Type of visit: Required - 1 Year

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Janira Arreola conducted an unannounced annual required visit. LPA was granted entry and met with Administrator, Stan Estepa who was informed of the purpose of the visit. At the time of the visit there was (2) staff and (5) residents present. The facility is a one story home with (5) bedrooms and (2) bathrooms with attached garage. No pools or firearms are being kept at the facility. The LPA observed the hand washing stations in the facility restrooms and kitchen had hand hygiene supplies. LPA observed PPE equipment and cleaning supplies to do regular cleaning of the facility. Physical plant, floors, windows, and doors were observed to be clean. Fixtures and furniture were in good repair were present. The outdoor area was observed to be free of hazards. The sharp and dangerous objects were observed to be locked and inaccessible to residents. The carbon monoxide was operational, and the hot water temperature 117.8F. LPA observed facility kitchen had the ability to prepare food in clean environment and possessed equipment in good working condition. LPA observed the facility met the required food supply. LPA reviewed (2) staff files and training. All staff have criminal clearance and updated training along with CPR/First Aid Certification. Two (2) client files were reviewed, and possessed all required paperwork. All client medication was locked in closet. LPA reviewed documentation showing the facility's last fire drill 3/3/2024, which met the department requirements. LPA observed all facility exits were clear from obstructions. An exit interview was conducted where this report was reviewed and provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jun 27, 2024
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 San Diego County, closest first. Every listed home appears on the same terms.

Explore San Diego County