Inspection Reports for
Brookdale Monrovia

The complaint involved allegations that staff member S6 spoke inappropriately to resident R1, refused to provide incontinence care, and intentionally deactivated call light pendants without assisting residents. Interviews with residents and staff, as well as police investigation, did not corroborate these allegations. The allegations were determined to be unsubstantiated.

The investigation included interviews with staff and residents, a facility tour, and record reviews. The allegations were found to be unsubstantiated due to lack of corroborating evidence from residents, staff, and police investigation. The staff member involved voluntarily resigned during the investigation.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated based on interviews with residents and staff, review of records, and the Monrovia Police Department's closure of their investigation. Allegations involved inappropriate remarks by staff member S6, refusal to provide incontinence care, and failure to respond to call lights. S6 voluntarily resigned during the investigation.

The investigation found insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations. Interviews with residents and staff did not corroborate the complaints, and the facility's internal investigation found no evidence of violations. The allegations were determined to be unsubstantiated.

The complaint alleged the facility failed to credit the correct amount of Resident #1's refundable community fee ($2,000), claiming an 80% credit was due but only 60% was provided. The investigation concluded the 60% credit was appropriate based on the timing of the resident's notice to vacate and admission agreement terms. The allegation was unsubstantiated due to lack of sufficient evidence.

The investigation found that the facility credited Resident #1 with 60% of the refundable community fee as per the admission agreement for a resident leaving within the second month of residency. Interviews with staff and residents supported that the facility was responsive and fair regarding fees and credits. There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation, and it was determined to be unsubstantiated.

The complaint alleged the facility failed to credit the correct amount of Resident #1’s refundable community fee ($2,000), expecting an 80% credit but receiving only 60%. The investigation concluded the 60% credit was appropriate based on the timing of the resident's notice to vacate and admission agreement terms. The allegation was unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The investigation found that the facility credited Resident #1 with 60% of the refundable community fee as per the admission agreement for a resident leaving within the second month of residency. Interviews with residents and staff supported that the facility was responsive and fair regarding fees and credits. There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation, and it was determined to be unsubstantiated.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included staff not cleaning resident rooms, inadequate staffing leading to neglect, unqualified staff performing glucose testing, improper staff training on injectable medication, and failure to administer injectable medication. All allegations were not corroborated by resident or staff interviews or record reviews.

The investigation found no corroboration for any of the allegations after resident and staff interviews, facility tours, and record reviews. Staff were found to clean rooms regularly, adequately staff the facility, not perform glucose testing themselves, be properly trained, and administer medications appropriately. The allegations were determined to be unsubstantiated due to lack of evidence.

The facility was found to be in compliance with no deficiencies cited. Infection control practices, operational requirements, physical plant safety, staffing, personnel records, resident records, food service, and disaster preparedness were all reviewed and found satisfactory.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included staff not cleaning resident rooms, inadequate staffing, unqualified staff performing glucose testing, improper staff training, and failure to administer medication. Interviews and reviews found no corroboration of these allegations.

The investigation included resident and staff interviews, facility tours, and record reviews. All allegations were unsubstantiated as residents and staff denied the claims, and no evidence was found to support the allegations. Staff met residents' needs, no residents were on injectable medication, and glucose testing was conducted by residents themselves.

The inspection found no deficiencies cited under California Code of Regulations, Title 22. The facility demonstrated compliance in infection control, operational requirements, physical plant safety, staffing, personnel records, resident records, food service, and disaster preparedness.

The complaint was unsubstantiated after investigation. Allegations included a resident sustaining a fall due to lack of supervision, staff not answering call buttons timely, and residents receiving cold meals. Interviews and document reviews did not corroborate these claims.

The investigation found insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations. Interviews with residents and staff indicated that falls were promptly assisted, call light requests were answered timely with an effective notification system, and food was generally served warm with procedures in place to maintain temperature.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated based on interviews with residents, staff, and review of records. Allegations included lack of supervision leading to falls, delayed response to call buttons, and cold food delivery, none of which were corroborated by sufficient evidence.

The investigation found insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations. Interviews with residents and staff indicated that falls were promptly assisted, call light requests were answered timely, and food was generally served warm. The allegations were therefore unsubstantiated.

The complaint involved two allegations: 1) Facility failed to refill a resident's prescription; 2) Facility failed to inform the responsible party that the prescription was not filled. Both allegations were investigated and found unsubstantiated.

The investigation included interviews with residents, staff, and review of records. All interviewed residents and staff denied the allegations, and medication records were found to be current and updated. The allegations were determined to be unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The complaint involved two allegations: 1) Facility failed to refill a resident's prescription; 2) Facility failed to inform the responsible party that the prescription was not filled. Both allegations were found unsubstantiated after investigation.

The investigation included interviews with residents, staff, and review of records. All interviewed residents and staff denied the allegations, and medication records were found to be current and updated. The allegations were determined to be unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The complaint investigation was triggered by allegations that a resident was mistreated by staff and that facility staff did not safeguard the resident's personal property. The allegations were found to be unsubstantiated based on interviews and prior investigations.

The investigation found insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations of resident mistreatment and failure to safeguard personal property. The allegation of mistreatment was related to a dispute over reimbursement, and the facility had provided partial rent credit as a gesture of good faith. The property safeguarding allegation had been previously investigated and found unsubstantiated.

The complaint involved allegations that a resident was mistreated by staff and that facility staff did not safeguard the resident's personal property. The allegations were found to be unsubstantiated based on interviews and prior investigations.

The investigation found insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations of resident mistreatment and failure to safeguard personal property. The resident denied abuse, and prior investigations had also found the property allegation unsubstantiated.