Inspection Reports for
The Ivy at Golden Gate

The Licensing Program Analyst found that the incident had not been reported to the Department within the required 7 days, as it was reported after 10 days. No deficiencies were cited during the visit, and technical assistance was provided regarding compliance with reporting requirements.

The visit was triggered by a complaint alleging missing personal property from a resident's room. The resident was hospitalized and undergoing treatment at the time of the visit. The complaint investigation included interviews and documentation review.

The Licensing Program Analyst interviewed staff, collected relevant documentation, and reviewed the incident report with the Executive Director. No photographs or documented values of the missing items were available at the time of the report.

The visit was triggered by an incident complaint regarding a resident leaving the facility unassisted. The complaint was not substantiated as the resident was found safe and not at risk according to medical assessment.

The investigation found that the resident was not at risk of wandering according to a physician's report, all door alarms and delayed egress systems were functioning properly, and no deficiencies were cited during the visit.

The facility was found to be clean, well-maintained, and compliant with all regulations. No deficiencies were cited during the inspection.

Complaint alleged that client R1's care needs were not met by staff, with observations of poor condition. The allegation was unsubstantiated after investigation, meaning there was insufficient evidence to prove the alleged violation occurred.

The investigation found that the client's wounds were pre-existing and being appropriately treated by the facility along with outside medical care. Interviews and record reviews indicated the facility was providing appropriate care and meeting resident needs. The complaint allegation was determined to be unsubstantiated with no deficiencies cited.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included failure to distribute medication as prescribed, failure to maintain current resident records, and failure to communicate with the responsible party. Contradictory information was received, and no specific evidence of violations was found.

The investigation found no evidence to substantiate the allegations. Medication administration records were reviewed and no errors were identified. Resident records were maintained, and documented communication with the responsible party was confirmed. The allegations were determined to be unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

Complaint alleged the facility did not issue a refund to residents R1 and R2. The allegation was found to be unfounded after review of admissions agreements, interviews, and documentation.

The investigation found that residents R1 and R2 had signed an admissions agreement effective 7/31/2024 and had voluntarily refused to move their belongings into the facility. The facility provided the appropriate pro-rated community fees refund. The complaint was determined to be unfounded with no deficiencies cited.

The complaint included allegations of unsafe accommodations, failure to provide tray service when residents were ill, improper medication administration, lack of dignity in staff interactions, and failure to clean COVID positive resident rooms. The investigation concluded all allegations were unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The investigation found that the facility took appropriate actions such as issuing a work order for carpet cleaning and providing medication according to physician orders. There was a misunderstanding regarding meal delivery to an isolated resident. Allegations of disrespectful staff behavior and failure to clean COVID positive rooms were unsubstantiated due to insufficient evidence.

The facility was found to be clean, well-maintained, and compliant with safety and care regulations. No deficiencies were cited during the visit, and all reviewed resident and staff files, as well as medication records, were in order.

The immediate exclusion letter was delivered and reviewed with the Executive Director, Katherine Raukhman, who was advised that the excluded private companion is not allowed to work in the facility. The report was reviewed, discussed, and a copy was provided.

The facility was found to be clean, in good repair, and in compliance with Title 22 regulations. No safety hazards were observed, and required records and postings were maintained.

The applicant/administrator demonstrated understanding of facility operation, admission policies, staffing requirements and training, restrictive/prohibited health conditions, and general provisions. No deficiencies or violations were noted in the report.