Inspection Reports for
Brookdale Santa Monica Gardens

The complaint alleged that staff do not respond timely to residents' calls for assistance, residents must wait up to one hour for help, planned daily activities are not provided due to lack of an activities director, and the facility does not maintain an activities calendar. Interviews with staff (S1-S4) and residents (R1-R8) mostly denied these allegations, with the majority confirming timely assistance and presence of planned activities and calendar. The investigation concluded the allegations were unsubstantiated.

Based on interviews with staff and residents, review of records including staff rosters, activity calendars, and in-service trainings, and direct observations, there was insufficient evidence to substantiate any of the allegations. The staff were found to respond timely to calls, planned daily activities were provided, and the facility maintained an activities calendar. No citations were issued.

The complaint alleged that staff do not respond timely to residents' calls for assistance, residents are not provided with planned daily activities, and the facility does not maintain an activities calendar. Interviews with staff (S1-S4) and residents (R1-R8), review of records, and observations showed that the majority of residents and all staff denied these allegations. The investigation concluded the allegations were unsubstantiated due to insufficient evidence.

Based on interviews with staff and residents, review of records including staff rosters, activity calendars, and in-service trainings, and observations, there was insufficient evidence to substantiate any of the allegations. The staff were found to respond timely to calls, planned activities were provided daily, and an activities calendar was maintained. Therefore, all allegations were unsubstantiated and no citations were issued.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included uncomfortable accommodations due to noise from pipe repairs, poor food quality linked to use of Styrofoam containers causing gout and hospitalization, and incorrect refund amounts. After interviews and document reviews, no violations were found.

The investigation found no evidence to support the allegations. Resident and staff interviews, as well as record reviews, indicated that noise complaints were addressed appropriately, food quality was maintained despite temporary use of Styrofoam containers, and refund amounts were correctly applied as credits to resident accounts. All allegations were unsubstantiated.

The complaint investigation addressed three allegations: 1) the facility did not provide comfortable accommodations due to noise from repairs, 2) the facility did not provide quality food related to use of Styrofoam containers during repairs, and 3) the facility did not provide the correct refund amount for August services. All allegations were found unsubstantiated based on interviews and record reviews.

The investigation found no preponderance of evidence to support the allegations. Resident and staff interviews, record reviews, and observations indicated that noise complaints were addressed, food quality was maintained despite temporary use of Styrofoam dishware, and refund amounts were correctly applied as credits. All allegations were unsubstantiated and no deficiencies were cited.

The facility was found to be sanitary, appropriately furnished, and compliant with Title 22 regulations. No deficiencies were cited during this inspection visit.

The facility was found to be sanitary, appropriately furnished, and compliant with Title 22 regulations. No deficiencies were cited during the inspection, and infection control practices were observed to be adequate.

The complaint investigation addressed four main allegations: 1) staff not maintaining accurate records, 2) staff not monitoring a resident's change in condition, 3) resident left in soiled diapers for extended periods, and 4) staff not allowing resident's responsible party to remove the resident from the facility. Each allegation was investigated through interviews and document review, and all were found unsubstantiated due to lack of sufficient evidence.

The investigation found insufficient evidence to substantiate any of the allegations. Staff and resident interviews, document reviews, and observations indicated that while some concerns were raised, there was no preponderance of evidence to prove violations occurred. All allegations were determined to be unsubstantiated.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included inaccurate staff records, failure to monitor resident condition changes, residents left in soiled diapers, and staff not allowing responsible parties to remove residents. Interviews with staff and residents showed mixed knowledge but no preponderance of evidence to prove violations.

The investigation found insufficient evidence to substantiate any of the allegations. Staff generally maintained records and monitored residents, residents were not left in soiled diapers for extended periods, and staff allowed responsible parties to remove residents from the facility without resistance.

The complaint alleged that resident #1's representative was not provided with an itemized statement for a $2,000 rate increase beyond the contracted basic service rate of $6,094. The investigation reviewed the Residency Agreement, assessments, account reports, and interviewed staff. It was found that itemized charges were included in the contract and acknowledged by the resident's representative. Staff interviews and documentation did not support the allegation. The complaint was unsubstantiated.

The investigation found no evidence to support the allegation that the facility failed to provide the resident's representative with an itemized statement of charges. The allegation was determined to be unsubstantiated after interviews, record reviews, and facility inspection.

The complaint alleged that staff did not issue a refund. The investigation found that residents R1 and R2 were refunded their community fee as per the admission agreement, and accounting mailed the remaining credit balance. Interviews with staff and residents mostly disagreed with the allegation. The complaint was determined to be unsubstantiated.

The investigation revealed that refunds were issued according to the terms of the signed admission agreement, and interviews with residents and staff did not support the allegation. Therefore, the complaint was unsubstantiated and no deficiencies were cited.

The complaint alleged that resident #1's representative was not provided with an itemized statement of charges, including a disputed $2,000 rate increase. The investigation reviewed the Residency Agreement, assessments, account reports, and interviewed staff. The allegation was found unsubstantiated.

The investigation included interviews, record reviews, and a facility tour. The Department found no evidence to support the allegation, concluding the complaint was unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The complaint alleged that staff did not issue a refund. The investigation included interviews with residents and staff, and review of records. The allegation was found unsubstantiated due to evidence showing refunds were properly issued.

The investigation found that refunds were issued according to the terms of the signed admission agreement, and interviews with residents and staff did not support the allegation. Therefore, the complaint was unsubstantiated and no deficiencies were cited.

The complaint involved two allegations: 1) staff failed to safeguard resident's personal property, including theft of items, and 2) resident was being financially abused through overcharging for services. Interviews and document reviews did not find sufficient evidence to support these allegations, resulting in an unsubstantiated status.

The investigation included interviews with residents and staff, review of relevant documents, and facility tours. No evidence was found to substantiate the allegations of theft or financial abuse. The allegations were determined to be unsubstantiated, and no deficiencies were cited during the visit.

The complaint involved two allegations: 1) staff failed to safeguard resident's personal property, including theft of items, and 2) resident was being financially abused through overcharging for services. Interviews and document reviews did not find sufficient evidence to support these allegations, resulting in an unsubstantiated status.

The investigation included interviews with residents and staff, review of relevant documents, and facility tours. No evidence was found to substantiate the allegations of theft or financial abuse. The allegations were determined to be unsubstantiated, and no deficiencies were observed or cited during the visit.

The facility was found to be sanitary, appropriately furnished, and in compliance with infection control protocols. No deficiencies were cited during this inspection visit.

The facility was found to be sanitary, appropriately furnished, and compliant with infection control protocols. No deficiencies were cited during the inspection.

The complaint alleged inadequate supervision, isolation of Resident 2 by Resident 1, and solicitation of funds. The investigation found the allegation unsubstantiated due to lack of evidence.

Interviews with staff and residents, record reviews, and observations found no preponderance of evidence to substantiate the allegation. Residents and staff stated that Resident 1 is not isolating Resident 2 or soliciting money, and Resident 2 is engaged in other activities and aware of their rights.

The complaint alleged inadequate supervision and isolation of Resident 2 by Resident 1, including solicitation of funds. The allegation was found unsubstantiated after investigation.

The investigation included interviews, record reviews, and observations. It was found that Resident 1 is controlling but not isolating Resident 2, and there was no evidence of solicitation of funds. Both residents and staff denied the allegations. The complaint was unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The complaint involved four main allegations: charging residents for unneeded services, improper assessment of residents, retaining residents with unstageable pressure injuries, and retaining residents requiring a higher level of care. The investigation found no evidence to substantiate these allegations.

The investigation included interviews with residents, staff, family members, and review of service records and facility documents. No evidence was found to support the allegations, and the complaints were determined to be unsubstantiated. No deficiencies were cited during this visit.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included facility charging residents for unneeded services, staff not properly assessing residents, retaining residents with unstageable pressure injuries, and retaining residents requiring a higher level of care. The investigation included interviews with residents, staff, witnesses, and review of service records and facility documents.

The investigation found no evidence to support the allegations. Interviews, record reviews, and observations indicated that residents were properly assessed, charges were transparent, pressure injuries were managed appropriately, and residents requiring higher levels of care were not improperly retained. The allegations were unsubstantiated and no deficiencies were cited.

The facility was found to be sanitary, appropriately furnished, and compliant with infection control protocols. No deficiencies were cited during this inspection visit.

The facility was observed to be sanitary, appropriately furnished, and compliant with infection control practices. No deficiencies were cited during this inspection visit.

The complaint investigation was triggered by allegations that a resident sustained multiple fractures, multiple pressure injuries, and multiple falls due to lack of supervision. After review of hospital and facility records and interviews with staff and family, the allegations were found to be unsubstantiated.

The investigation found no evidence to substantiate the allegations. Record reviews and interviews indicated that the resident did not sustain multiple fractures, pressure injuries, or falls while at the facility. All allegations were determined to be unsubstantiated.