Inspection Reports for
Arcadia Gardens Retirement Hotel

The facility was found to be in compliance with all applicable regulations, including infection control, physical environment safety, staffing, resident care, food service, disaster preparedness, and resident rights. No deficiencies were observed during the visit.

The facility was toured and inspected, including resident rooms, food supply, medications, and safety equipment. No deficiencies were observed, and all areas were found to be in compliance with California Code of Regulations, Title 22.

During the visit, a health and safety check was conducted with no concerns observed. The facility has sufficient staffing and supplies to accommodate 162 residents. One resident was placed by licensing due to the fire, but no residents were relocated from the referenced facility.

The complaint alleged that staff prohibited a visitor from seeing resident R1 without any court order or restraining order. Staff expressed concerns about the visitor's conduct due to the resident's cognitive impairment. Resident R1 had signed visitor restriction forms but sometimes agreed to visits. Interviews and record reviews showed the visitor was still allowed to visit. The allegation was unsubstantiated due to insufficient evidence.

The investigation found insufficient evidence to corroborate the allegation. Interviews with residents, staff, family, and review of visitation policies indicated that the visitor was still allowed to visit the resident, and visitation rights were not infringed upon. The allegation was determined to be unsubstantiated.

The complaint alleged that staff prohibited a visitor from seeing resident R1 without any court or restraining order. Staff and resident interviews indicated concerns about the visitor's conduct and the resident's cognitive impairment. Resident R1 had signed visitor restriction forms but sometimes agreed to visits. The allegation was found unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The investigation included interviews and record reviews and found insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. The resident's visitation rights were not infringed upon, and the visitor is still allowed to visit the resident.

The complaint alleged that staff did not abide by the admission agreement regarding Resident #1. The investigation revealed that Resident #1 was not admitted due to a prohibited health condition and lack of hospice care, and the community fee was refunded. Interviews and records did not support the allegation, resulting in an unsubstantiated finding.

The investigation found insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. Interviews with staff and residents, along with record reviews, indicated that the facility refunded the community fee for Resident #1 and that Resident #1 never signed an admission agreement. Staff and residents denied the allegation, and the complaint was determined to be unsubstantiated.

The complaint alleged that staff did not abide by the admission agreement for Resident #1. The investigation revealed that Resident #1 was never admitted due to a prohibited health condition and that the community fee was refunded. Interviews with staff and residents did not corroborate the allegation. The complaint was unsubstantiated.

The investigation found insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. Interviews with staff and residents, as well as document reviews, indicated that the facility refunded the community fee and did not admit the resident due to a prohibited health condition. The allegation was determined to be unsubstantiated.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included lack of care resulting in medical treatment, neglect, failure to provide resident documents, failure to provide services per agreement, illegal eviction, non-adherence to admission policy, and staff threatening residents. Interviews with nine residents and four staff members, record reviews, and observations did not corroborate the allegations. The resident involved in some allegations was deceased. The final rent statement was adjusted to zero with no payment required.

The investigation found no substantiated evidence to support any of the allegations. Resident and staff interviews, record reviews, and observations indicated that care was provided timely, admission agreements were given, services were provided as agreed, no illegal eviction occurred, billing was adjusted appropriately, and staff did not threaten residents.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included lack of care resulting in medical treatment, neglect, failure to provide resident documents, failure to provide services per agreement, illegal eviction, failure to adhere to admission policy, and staff threatening residents. Interviews with nine residents and four staff members, record reviews, and observations did not corroborate the allegations. Resident #1 had deceased, limiting direct interview. The final rent statement for resident #1 was adjusted to $0 and no payment was required.

The investigation found no substantiated evidence supporting the allegations. Resident and staff interviews, record reviews, and observations indicated that care was provided timely, admission agreements were given, services were provided as agreed, no illegal evictions occurred, billing was properly adjusted, and staff did not threaten residents. The allegations were determined to be unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The complaint alleged that on 05/21/2024, the law office requested resident #1's records which were not received by the facility by the due date. The facility received the request on 05/24/2024, but the administrator was out until 05/27/2024. Records were prepared after the administrator's return and were available for review on 05/30/2024. The law firm agreed to accept the records by the end of 05/30/2024. The allegation was unsubstantiated.

The investigation found that although the facility did not provide the requested records by the initial due date due to administrator absence and document volume, the records were made available for review during the visit and arrangements were made to provide the records by the end of the day. The allegation was determined to be unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The complaint alleged the facility failed to provide resident #1's records to an attorney following a request dated 05/21/2024. The facility received the request on 05/24/2024 but was delayed in responding due to the administrator being out of the facility. Records were made available by 05/30/2024, and the law firm accepted the delay. The allegation was unsubstantiated.

The investigation found that although the facility received the records request late due to the administrator's absence and was unable to provide all records by the due date, the resident's records were available for review during the visit and the law firm accepted a delay until the end of the visit day. The allegation was unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The complaint alleged that staff were prohibiting resident R1 from having visits with a friend. Interviews with staff, residents, and the friend, as well as review of a Visitor Restriction form, indicated that visits were allowed and privacy was provided. The allegation was determined to be unsubstantiated.

The investigation included interviews with staff, residents, and review of resident files. The allegation was found to be unsubstantiated due to lack of sufficient evidence, with staff and residents denying the claim and documentation supporting that visits were allowed.

The complaint alleged that staff were prohibiting resident R1 from having visits with a friend. Interviews with staff, residents, and the friend, as well as review of the resident's file, indicated that visits were allowed and privacy was provided. The allegation was determined to be unsubstantiated.

The investigation included interviews with staff, residents, and review of resident files. The allegation was found to be unsubstantiated as there was insufficient evidence to prove that staff prohibited visits.

No issues were observed during the visit. The facility's new dementia unit expansion, fire clearance, structure, bedrooms, hygiene supplies, smoke detectors, staff and resident files, water temperature, and fire safety equipment were all found to be in compliance with regulations.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included staff not responding timely to residents, not providing privacy, not safeguarding personal belongings, and not providing a comfortable environment. Resident and staff interviews, as well as observations, did not corroborate these allegations.

The investigation found no preponderance of evidence to substantiate the allegations. Interviews with residents and staff, facility tours, and record reviews indicated that staff responded timely to calls for help, provided privacy during visits, safeguarded residents' belongings, and maintained comfortable room temperatures.

The complaint involved allegations that facility staff overcharged resident #1 an additional $2000 monthly rent for care and services in 2023, and that staff threatened to evict a resident. The investigation included interviews with eight residents and six staff members, a facility tour, and record review. No corroborating evidence was found, and the allegations were unsubstantiated.

The investigation found no evidence to substantiate the allegations. Interviews with residents and staff, as well as record reviews, showed that the facility did not overcharge residents or threaten eviction. The allegations were determined to be unsubstantiated.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included staff not responding timely to residents, not providing privacy, not safeguarding personal belongings, and not providing a comfortable environment. Interviews with residents and staff, as well as observations, did not corroborate these allegations.

The investigation found no preponderance of evidence to substantiate the allegations. Residents and staff interviews, as well as observations, indicated that staff responded timely to calls for help, provided privacy during visits, safeguarded residents' belongings, and maintained comfortable room temperatures.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included overcharging a resident an additional $2000 monthly rent and threatening eviction. Interviews and record reviews did not corroborate these allegations.

The investigation included interviews with residents and staff, a facility tour, and record reviews. No evidence was found to substantiate the allegations; residents and staff denied the claims, and records showed no improper charges or eviction notices.

The facility was found to be in compliance with all applicable regulations. Resident rooms and bathrooms were clean and well maintained, safety systems were operable, food supplies were adequate, and medications and records were properly stored. No deficiencies were cited.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included resident injuries, failure to meet resident needs, leaving residents in soiled clothing, and failure to safeguard personal belongings. Interviews with 10 residents and 4 staff members did not corroborate the allegations. Observations and record reviews supported that care was provided appropriately and personal belongings were not stolen.

The investigation found no preponderance of evidence to substantiate any of the allegations. Resident and staff interviews, observations, and record reviews indicated that care was timely and appropriate, residents were not left in soiled clothing, and personal belongings were generally safeguarded.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included resident injuries, failure to meet resident needs, leaving residents in soiled clothing, and failure to safeguard personal belongings. Interviews with 10 residents and 4 staff members did not corroborate the allegations.

The investigation found no preponderance of evidence to substantiate any of the allegations. Resident and staff interviews, observations, and record reviews indicated that care was timely and appropriate, residents were not left in soiled clothing, and staff assisted in safeguarding residents' belongings.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included staff not dispensing medication as prescribed, poor food quality, and presence of ants. Interviews with 11 residents and 6 staff members, record reviews, and facility tours did not support the allegations.

The investigation found all allegations to be unsubstantiated after interviews with residents and staff, review of medication administration records, facility tours, and documentation. Residents and staff denied the allegations, and no evidence of ants was observed. The facility was found to be in compliance with medication administration, food quality, and pest control measures.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included staff not dispensing medication as prescribed, poor food quality, and presence of ants. Interviews with 11 residents and 6 staff, record reviews, and facility tours did not corroborate the allegations. The facility had a pest control contract and no ants were observed.

The investigation found all allegations to be unsubstantiated after interviews with residents and staff, review of medication administration records, facility tours, and documentation. Residents and staff denied the allegations, and no evidence of ants was observed. The facility was found to be providing medication as prescribed and good quality food.

The complaint investigation was unannounced and conducted due to allegations of insufficient staffing, inaccessible ombudsman contact information, and unlawful insurance changes. All allegations were found unsubstantiated based on resident and staff interviews, observations, and document reviews.

The investigation found no substantiation for the allegations. Residents and staff interviews, facility tours, and record reviews showed adequate staffing, proper posting of ombudsman contact information, and that insurance changes were communicated and voluntary due to termination of a health insurance agency's service with the facility.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included insufficient staff to meet resident care needs, inaccessible ombudsman contact information, and unlawful insurance changes. Interviews and observations did not support these claims, and the facility provided proper notifications and options regarding insurance changes.

The investigation found no substantiation for the allegations. Residents and staff interviews, facility tours, and record reviews showed adequate staffing, proper posting of ombudsman contact information, and that insurance changes were communicated properly with residents' voluntary consent.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included residents not being provided activities and inadequate food service. Interviews with residents and staff, file reviews, and facility tours showed compliance with COVID-19 protocols and that activities and adequate food service were provided.

The investigation found that the allegations were unsubstantiated. Most residents and all staff denied the allegations. The facility followed COVID-19 protocols by modifying activities to in-room events and delivering meals in 'to-go' containers to ensure food was served hot. The facility was in compliance with dietary and activity protocols during the lockdown.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included failure to assist resident #2 with ADLs and social activities, failure to provide lunch in a communal dining setting, and serving cold food. Interviews with residents and staff, file reviews, and facility tours revealed compliance with care and COVID-19 protocols, and no evidence supported the allegations.

The investigation found no preponderance of evidence to substantiate the allegations. Staff and most residents denied the allegations, and the facility followed COVID-19 protocols restricting communal dining and ensuring meal delivery. The report concluded the allegations were unsubstantiated.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included residents not being provided activities and staff not providing adequate food service. The investigation included resident and staff interviews, file reviews, and facility tours. Findings showed the facility complied with COVID-19 protocols and provided activities and adequate food service despite lockdown restrictions.

The investigation found that the allegations were unsubstantiated. Most residents and all staff interviewed denied the allegations. The facility followed COVID-19 protocols including modified social activities and meal delivery procedures to ensure safety and adequate service during lockdown.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included failure to assist residents with ADLs, failure to provide lunch in a communal dining setting, and serving cold food. Interviews and documentation showed compliance with care and COVID-19 protocols, and no evidence supported the allegations.

The investigation included resident and staff interviews, file reviews, and facility tours. The findings were unsubstantiated as most residents and staff denied the allegations, and documentation showed the facility followed COVID-19 protocols restricting communal dining and ensuring meal delivery. There was no preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations occurred.

No deficiencies were observed or cited during the visit. The facility was found to be in compliance with Title 22 regulations, including infection control, medication administration, staff records, and physical plant conditions.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included failure to provide transportation to a resident for a doctor's appointment and failure to safeguard resident belongings. Interviews and file reviews showed transportation was arranged but the appointment was rescheduled, and residents' belongings were returned appropriately.

The investigation found that the facility did provide transportation to residents for doctor appointments, and the allegation regarding failure to safeguard residents' belongings was not substantiated. Resident and staff interviews, as well as file reviews, supported these findings. The allegations were determined to be unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included failure to provide transportation to a resident's doctor appointment and failure to safeguard residents' belongings. Resident and staff interviews, as well as file reviews, did not support the allegations.

The investigation found that the facility did provide transportation to residents for doctor appointments, including arranging transportation for the resident in question, although the appointment was rescheduled and the ride canceled. Regarding safeguarding belongings, the investigation revealed that the facility returned clothing items to residents and did not fail to safeguard residents' belongings. The allegations were unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included neglect/lack of care for not assisting residents with ADLs, personal rights violation for not providing lunch, and food service issues for serving cold food. Evidence and interviews did not prove the alleged violations occurred.

The investigation found that Resident #2, who is wheelchair bound, was assisted with ADLs as needed, residents did not recall missed meal services during communal dining shutdown, and food was served in a manner to ensure it was hot. All allegations were found to be unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The complaint investigation was triggered by allegations received on 12/23/2020 regarding lack of resident activities and inadequate food service. After review of interviews, records, and virtual and on-site tours, both allegations were found to be unsubstantiated.

The investigation found that the facility was following COVID-19 protocols by modifying activities and meal delivery methods to ensure safety and compliance. Both allegations were found to be unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included staff not dispensing medication as prescribed, poor food quality, and presence of ants. After interviews, record reviews, and facility tours, none of the allegations were substantiated.

The investigation found no preponderance of evidence to substantiate the allegations. Medication was administered as prescribed, food quality was satisfactory, and no ants were observed during the visit. All allegations were determined to be unsubstantiated.

The complaint investigation was triggered by allegations of neglect/lack of care (not assisting resident with ADLs), personal rights violation (not providing lunch), and food service issues (food served cold). All allegations were found to be unsubstantiated after review of records, interviews with residents and staff, and virtual tours.

The investigation found no preponderance of evidence to substantiate the allegations. Resident care, meal service, and food temperature were found to be in compliance based on interviews, record reviews, and virtual tours. All allegations were determined to be unsubstantiated.

The complaint investigation was unannounced and based on allegations that residents were not provided activities and staff were not providing adequate food service. After review of records, interviews, and virtual tours, the allegations were found to be unsubstantiated.

The investigation found that the facility was following COVID-19 protocols by modifying activities to maintain social distancing and providing meals in a 'to-go' style during communal dining shutdown. There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations; therefore, both allegations were found to be unsubstantiated.

The allegation was that the facility was not allowing visitor #1 to visit resident #1. The investigation included interviews with staff and residents, review of resident records, and a facility tour. The allegation was unsubstantiated.

The investigation found that six residents and five staff denied the allegation, and the resident in question did not want the visitor to visit. There was no court-ordered restraining order to deny visits. The allegation was unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The complaint alleged that the facility was not allowing visitors for a resident. The investigation revealed no violation of the resident's personal rights, and the allegation was unsubstantiated.

The investigation found that six residents and five staff denied the allegation, and there was no court-ordered restraining order to deny visits. A letter from the resident indicated they did not want the visitor to visit. Therefore, the allegation was unsubstantiated.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included a resident being left on the floor for an extended period and denial of visitors. Interviews with residents and staff, record reviews, and observations did not support the allegations. The facility followed a POA's letter restricting a visitor, and law enforcement was involved when the visitor acted aggressively.

The investigation found no evidence to substantiate the allegations. Interviews with residents and staff, review of records, and observations did not confirm that a resident was left on the floor for an extended time or that residents were denied visitors. The facility complied with a power of attorney's request to restrict a specific visitor, and no court-ordered restraining order was in place.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included a resident being left on the floor for an hour and denial of visitors. Interviews with seven residents and five staff members did not corroborate the allegations. The facility followed a POA's letter restricting a visitor, and law enforcement was involved due to visitor's aggressive behavior. No court-ordered restraining order was in place.

The investigation found no evidence to substantiate the allegations. Interviews with residents and staff, review of records, and observation did not support the claims. The facility complied with a power of attorney's request to restrict a specific visitor, and no violation of residents' rights was found.

The complaint involved allegations that a resident was isolated and that residents were served cold food. The investigation was unannounced and included interviews, virtual and physical tours, and review of protocols. The allegations were found to be unsubstantiated due to insufficient evidence.

The investigation found insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations. Residents were quarantined in their rooms due to COVID-19 precautions, which some residents felt caused isolation, but the facility provided activities and support. Food was served in styrofoam containers with heat packs, and most residents had microwaves; only one resident reported food arriving cold without a microwave. The kitchen and food service were observed to be compliant with regulations.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included resident isolation and residents being served cold food. Interviews and observations showed quarantine measures due to COVID-19, with staff efforts to mitigate isolation and proper food handling. There was no preponderance of evidence to prove violations occurred.

The investigation found insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations. Residents were quarantined in their rooms due to COVID-19 precautions, which some residents felt caused isolation, but staff provided activities and regular check-ins. Food was served in styrofoam containers and most residents had means to warm food; only one resident reported food arriving cold without a microwave. The kitchen and food handling protocols were observed to be compliant and sanitary.

The complaint involved four allegations: 1) Facility not allowing visitors for a resident; 2) Facility staff failed to meet resident's needs; 3) Facility staff failed to safeguard resident's personal belongings; 4) Facility staff failed to provide activities for resident in care. All allegations were found unsubstantiated based on interviews, observations, and document reviews.

The investigation found insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations. Interviews with residents, staff, and the Executive Director, along with observations and document reviews, indicated that visitors were allowed following COVID-19 protocols, residents' needs were met, personal belongings were not missing, and daily activities were provided and attended.

The complaint included allegations that the facility did not allow visitors for a resident, failed to meet resident's needs, failed to safeguard resident's personal belongings, and failed to provide activities. The investigation concluded all allegations were unsubstantiated due to lack of sufficient evidence.

The investigation found insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations that the facility restricted visitor access, failed to meet resident needs, failed to safeguard personal belongings, or failed to provide activities. Interviews with residents, staff, and the Executive Director, along with observations and document reviews, supported that the facility met regulatory requirements and resident needs.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included a resident being left on the floor for an hour and staff not allowing residents to have visitors. Resident and staff interviews, as well as record reviews, did not support these claims.

The investigation found no preponderance of evidence to substantiate the allegations that a resident was left on the floor for an extended period or that staff did not allow residents to have visitors. Interviews with residents and staff, as well as record reviews, did not corroborate the complaints, resulting in an unsubstantiated determination.

The complaint investigation addressed two allegations: 1) Facility staff left a resident on the floor for an extended period after a fall, and 2) Facility staff did not allow residents to have visitors. Both allegations were found to be unsubstantiated based on interviews and record reviews.

The investigation found no preponderance of evidence to substantiate the allegations that a resident was left on the floor for an extended period and that residents were not allowed visitors. Interviews with residents and staff, as well as record reviews, did not corroborate the complaints, resulting in an unsubstantiated determination.

The complaint alleged inadequate hot water availability. The investigation found no preponderance of evidence to substantiate the allegation, resulting in an unsubstantiated finding.

The investigation included interviews with staff and residents, review of repair invoices, and water temperature measurements in resident bathrooms. The allegation was found to be unsubstantiated as water temperatures met Title 22 guidelines and residents confirmed hot water availability.

The complaint was unsubstantiated after investigation, with no evidence found to prove the alleged violation regarding inadequate hot water availability.

The Licensing Program Analyst tested water temperatures in multiple resident bathrooms and bedrooms, all within Title 22 guidelines. Interviews with residents and staff indicated hot water was available. The allegation was found to be unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included staff not assisting a resident with walking and staff not protecting resident's personal items. Interviews and document reviews did not support these allegations.

The investigation found both allegations unsubstantiated based on interviews with residents, staff, administrator, and document reviews. Staff assist residents with walking when requested, and residents usually misplace personal items rather than them being stolen by staff.

The complaint investigation was triggered by allegations that staff did not assist residents with walking and did not protect residents' personal items. After interviews with residents, staff, and the administrator, and document review, the allegations were found unsubstantiated.

The investigation found both allegations to be unsubstantiated based on interviews with residents, staff, the administrator, and review of relevant documents. Staff were reported to assist residents with walking when requested, and there was no evidence that residents' personal items were stolen by staff.

The complaint alleged that staff opened residents' mail. Interviews with eleven residents and ten staff members denied this allegation. Mail policy review and observations confirmed mail remained unopened and placed in residents' locked mailboxes. The allegation was unsubstantiated due to lack of evidence.

The investigation found no evidence to support the allegation. Interviews with residents and staff, as well as observations of mail handling practices, indicated that residents' mail was not opened by staff. The allegation was determined to be unsubstantiated.

The complaint alleged that staff opened residents' mail. After investigation, including interviews and observations, the allegation was found to be unsubstantiated due to lack of evidence.

The investigation included interviews with residents, staff, and review of mail policy. No evidence was found to support the allegation; residents and staff denied that mail was opened by staff, and mail was observed to be placed in locked mailboxes. The allegation was determined to be unsubstantiated.

The complaint alleged that a resident sustained multiple pressure injuries due to neglect and that staff left the resident in soiled diapers for an extended period. The investigation was unsubstantiated due to lack of evidence supporting the allegations.

The investigation found no evidence to support the allegations. Interviews with residents and staff, review of medical and facility records, and site observations indicated that care was provided appropriately, including timely changing of adult briefs and repositioning of residents. The allegations were determined to be unsubstantiated.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included neglect causing pressure injuries and leaving a resident in soiled diapers. Multiple interviews and record reviews failed to find evidence supporting these claims. The resident in question had been relocated and was unavailable for interview.

The investigation found no evidence to support the allegations. Interviews with residents and staff, review of medical and facility records, and site observations did not corroborate neglect or improper care. The allegations were determined to be unsubstantiated.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included staff not responding timely to resident calls and not safeguarding personal items. Interviews with staff and residents, and testing of the call system, showed timely responses and no evidence of personal items being lost due to staff negligence.

The investigation found that most residents reported timely staff response to calls, with a call system functioning properly, and that while some residents reported missing personal items, these were typically found elsewhere in their rooms. There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations, resulting in an unsubstantiated finding.

The complaint was unsubstantiated. Allegations included staff not responding timely to calls and failure to safeguard personal items. Interviews and observations did not provide sufficient evidence to prove violations occurred.

The investigation found that staff generally responded to call signals promptly, with 12 out of 14 residents confirming timely responses and a test call responded to within 2 minutes. Regarding safeguarding personal items, some residents reported missing items, but there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included staff not assisting residents with walking and not protecting residents' personal items. Interviews and observations did not support these allegations.

The investigation included observations, interviews with residents and staff, and review of resident files. The allegations were found to be unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence. Residents and staff reported that assistance with walking was provided and personal items were generally protected, with some items misplaced rather than missing.

The complaint involved two allegations: staff not assisting residents with walking and staff not protecting residents' personal items. Interviews revealed most residents reported staff assistance with walking and protection of personal items. Some residents reported missing items but staff assisted in locating them. The investigation did not find sufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations.

The investigation included observations, interviews with residents and staff, and review of resident files. The allegations were found to be unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence supporting the claims.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included denial of private visits during reasonable hours without prior notice and retaliation against a resident for filing complaints. Interviews and policy review did not support these claims.

The investigation included resident and staff interviews, resident file review, and visitor policy review. The allegations were found to be unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence, with residents and staff stating visitors were allowed private visits and no retaliation was evident.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included denial of private visits during reasonable hours without prior notice and retaliation against a resident for filing complaints. Interviews and policy review did not support these claims.

The investigation included resident and staff interviews, resident file review, and visitor policy review. The allegations were found to be unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence, with residents and staff stating visitors were allowed private visits and no retaliation was evident.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included unlawful eviction and physical plant disrepair. Interviews with staff, residents, and virtual room tour found no evidence supporting the allegations.

The investigation found no evidence to substantiate the allegations. The administrator confirmed no eviction notice was served and the resident could return when discharged from the Skilled Nursing Facility. The physical plant, including the resident's room, toilet, hot water, and A/C, were found to be in proper working order.