Inspection Reports for
Brookdale Scotts Valley

The Licensing Program Analyst reviewed staff training on personal rights and proper resident approach as part of the facility's Action Plan. The facility is adhering to the Action Plan for staff training, and no deficiencies were cited per California Code of Regulations, Title 22.

The complaint included allegations that the facility did not have enough staff to meet residents' needs and that a resident sustained a pressure injury while in care. The investigation was unsubstantiated due to lack of sufficient evidence to prove the violations occurred.

The investigation found no preponderance of evidence to substantiate the allegations. Staff interviews and progress notes indicated residents were checked according to care plans and no deficiencies were cited. The resident's pressure injury was documented and communicated appropriately, with some communication issues noted with the home health agency.

The complaint alleged that the facility was charging a resident for services not rendered. The complaint was investigated through interviews with staff, residents, and the reporting party, as well as review of invoices and account history. The complaint was found to be unfounded.

The investigation found the complaint to be unfounded, determining that the allegation was false and without reasonable basis. The resident was not evicted and owed fees related to late payments, not for unrendered services.

The complaint included multiple allegations: improper transfer assistance, untimely staff response, unsanitary resident rooms, failure to follow infection control protocols, and staff engaging in verbal arguments in front of residents. The investigation involved interviews with 6 staff and 9 residents, testing of pendant response times, and review of training records. The complaint was determined to be unfounded.

After interviewing staff, residents, and reviewing training records and observations, the investigation found the complaint to be unfounded, meaning the allegations were false, could not have happened, or lacked reasonable basis. Staff were found to be trained and compliant with transfer assistance, timely response, room cleanliness, infection control protocols, and no evidence of verbal arguments in front of residents was substantiated.

The Licensing Program Analyst reviewed staff training on personal rights and proper resident approach, confirming adherence to the facility's Action Plan. No deficiencies were cited per California Code of Regulations, Title 22.

The visit was related to Complaint 26-AS-20250724093244. The findings were amended from unsubstantiated to unfounded.

During the visit, the Licensing Program Analyst amended the complaint findings from unsubstantiated to unfounded. No deficiencies were cited during this visit.

The visit was related to Complaint 26-AS-20250724093244. The findings were amended from unsubstantiated to unfounded.

During the visit, the Licensing Program Analyst amended the complaint findings from unsubstantiated to unfounded. No deficiencies were cited during this visit.

The inspection found no deficiencies cited during the visit. A technical violation related to Centrally Stored Medication and Destruction Records was issued. The facility was found to be in compliance with safety, food storage, medication storage, and emergency preparedness standards.

The facility was found to be in compliance with no deficiencies cited during the visit. A Technical Violation was issued related to Centrally Stored Medication and Destruction Records. The facility's environment, emergency preparedness, resident records, and staff records were reviewed and found satisfactory.

The complaint alleged that staff did not permit residents to choose their pharmacy and failed to notify the resident's responsible party of fee increases. After interviews and document reviews, including a mutual agreement meeting and refund of pharmacy fees, the complaint was determined to be unfounded.

The complaint was investigated and found to be unfounded, meaning the allegations were false or without reasonable basis. No deficiencies were cited during the visit.

The complaint alleged that staff did not ensure feeding assistance was provided, allowed a resident to be left in soiled clothing for extended periods, and did not reposition the resident. The investigation found these allegations unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

Based on interviews, document reviews, and observations, there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations. Staff and residents generally reported appropriate care practices, and no deficiencies were cited during the visit.

The complaint alleged that staff did not ensure feeding assistance was provided, allowed a resident to be left in soiled clothing for extended periods, and did not reposition the resident. The investigation found these allegations unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

Based on interviews, document reviews, and observations, there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations. Staff and residents generally reported appropriate care practices, and no deficiencies were cited during the visit.

The complaint was unsubstantiated. Allegations included delayed response to call buttons, staff yelling at residents, lack of dignity in staff-resident relationships, failure to follow doctor's orders for medication, and failure to deliver meals as per admission agreement. Investigations included interviews with staff and residents, random call button testing, and medication record review. Evidence did not support the allegations sufficiently to substantiate violations.

The investigation found that most call buttons were responded to within 15 minutes, with one instance of a 41-minute delay. Allegations of staff yelling at residents and not following doctor's orders for medication were mostly unsubstantiated based on staff and resident interviews. There was some indication that meal delivery did not always occur as agreed, but evidence was insufficient to substantiate violations. No deficiencies were cited.

The complaint was unsubstantiated after investigation. Allegations included delayed response to call buttons, staff yelling at residents, lack of dignity in staff-resident relationships, failure to follow doctor's medication orders, and failure to deliver meals as per admission agreement. Interviews and observations did not confirm violations.

The investigation found no preponderance of evidence to substantiate the allegations. Random testing showed most call buttons were answered within 15 minutes, staff mostly did not yell at residents, medication orders were generally followed, and meal delivery issues were not conclusively proven. No deficiencies were cited.

The complaint investigation addressed nine allegations including visitor restrictions, inappropriate isolation and punishment, medication mismanagement, unqualified staff administering medication, and failure to ensure residents are given showers. All allegations were found to be unfounded except the shower allegation which was unsubstantiated.

The investigation found all allegations to be either unfounded or unsubstantiated based on interviews with residents, staff, and review of records. No evidence supported visitor restrictions, inappropriate isolation or punishment, medication mismanagement, or unqualified medication administration. The allegation regarding residents not being given showers was unsubstantiated due to inconsistent shower schedules caused by staffing shortages but no neglect was found.

The complaint investigation addressed allegations that staff were not allowing residents to have visitors, were inappropriately isolating and punishing residents, mismanaging medication, unqualified staff administering medication, and not ensuring residents were given showers. All allegations were found to be unfounded except the shower allegation which was unsubstantiated due to lack of sufficient evidence.

The investigation found all allegations to be either unfounded or unsubstantiated after interviews with residents, staff, and review of records. No evidence supported visitor restrictions, inappropriate isolation or punishment, medication mismanagement, or unqualified staff administering medication. The allegation regarding residents not being given showers was unsubstantiated due to inconsistent shower schedules caused by staffing shortages but no neglect was found.

The complaint investigation was triggered by allegations received on October 25, 2023, regarding failure to notify the authorized representative of a hospital visit on August 18, 2023, and a resident being left on the floor for over two hours after a fall in July 2023. The findings were unsubstantiated.

The investigation found the allegations to be unsubstantiated due to insufficient evidence to prove or disprove the claims. Interviews and record reviews indicated that the resident's responsible party was notified promptly and staff responded to call pendants in a timely manner.

The complaint investigation was triggered by allegations that staff failed to notify the authorized representative of a resident's hospital transfer on August 18, 2023, and that a resident was left on the floor for over two hours after a fall in July 2023. Both allegations were found unsubstantiated after interviews with family members, power of attorney, staff, and residents, as well as review of progress notes and facility policies.

After interviews, record reviews, and investigation, the Department found both allegations unsubstantiated due to insufficient evidence to prove the claims. The facility followed protocols for notifying responsible parties and responded timely to resident calls.

The complaint alleged that staff were not meeting residents' laundry needs and that laundry machines were in disrepair. Interviews with staff and residents yielded mixed responses, but overall no preponderance of evidence was found to prove the allegations. The complaint was unsubstantiated.

Based on interviews with staff and residents, record reviews, and observations, there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations. Laundry machines were observed to be functioning properly, and laundry service once a week is part of the facility's basic service plan. The allegations were determined to be unsubstantiated and no deficiencies were cited.

The complaint alleged that staff were not meeting residents' laundry needs and that laundry machines were in disrepair. The investigation included interviews with staff and residents, observation of laundry machines, and review of records. The allegations were determined to be unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

After interviews with staff and residents, observation of laundry machines, and record review, the allegations were found to be unsubstantiated. Laundry machines were functioning properly during the visit, and laundry service once a week is part of the facility's basic service plan. No deficiencies were cited.

The Licensing Program Analyst reviewed staff training documentation and observed an all staff meeting. The facility is adhering to its Action Plan for staff training, and no deficiencies were cited.

The Licensing Program Analyst reviewed staff training on personal rights and proper resident approach, confirming adherence to the facility's Action Plan. No deficiencies were cited during this visit.

The complaint involved allegations of delayed response to call lights, insufficient staffing, and inadequate colostomy care. The investigation found no preponderance of evidence to substantiate the allegations. Specific incidents included a colostomy bag explosion and a resident fall related to attempting to catch a mouse, but these were not found to be due to facility negligence.

The investigation included resident and staff interviews and records review. The allegations were found to be unsubstantiated due to insufficient evidence. No deficiencies were cited. Staff schedules showed adequate staffing levels despite some call-outs. Residents reported generally attentive care.

The complaint was unsubstantiated. Allegations included delayed response to call lights, insufficient staffing, and inadequate colostomy care. Investigation found no evidence to prove violations. No deficiencies were cited per California Code of Regulations Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 8.

The investigation included resident and staff interviews and records review. The allegations were found to be unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence. Staff schedules showed adequate staffing levels, and no deficiencies were cited. Residents reported generally attentive care.

The visit was complaint-related, following two SOC341 forms alleging theft of residents' valuables. The allegations were investigated, with some items recovered and no confirmed theft within the facility. Staff S1 was suspended pending investigation.

The investigation revealed that staff member S1 was under local law enforcement investigation for thefts outside the facility, but no proof of theft within the facility was established. Residents R1 and R2 reported missing items, some of which were later found. No deficiencies were cited, but advisory notes were issued.

The visit was complaint-related, investigating allegations of theft involving staff member S1. Law enforcement investigated S1 for thefts outside the facility but could not prove theft within the facility. The facility had not submitted unusual incident reports for the thefts.

The investigation found that one resident recovered their missing necklace and cash, and another resident found their missing necklace after misplacing it. No deficiencies were cited, but advisory notes were issued.

The complaint alleged improper insulin administration by non-nurses and missed insulin doses for residents R1 and R2. The investigation included interviews with staff, residents, and review of physician reports and medication records. The findings were unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

Based on interviews, document reviews, and medication administration records, the allegations were found to be unsubstantiated. Staff nurses were confirmed to be administering insulin as prescribed, and missing medication entries were attributed to computer errors.

The complaint alleged that a non-nurse staff member was administering insulin injections and that residents were not receiving insulin as prescribed. The investigation included interviews with staff, residents, and review of medication records. The findings were unsubstantiated due to insufficient evidence to prove the allegations.

The investigation found the allegations to be unsubstantiated. Staff interviews, resident statements, and document reviews indicated that only licensed nurses administered insulin, and residents did not report medication errors. Missing insulin entries in records were attributed to computer errors.

The complaint involved allegations that a resident was handled roughly causing a skin tear, spoken to inappropriately, and did not receive timely medical attention. The allegations were unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence after attempts to interview the reporting party and review records. The facility no longer used the staffing agency involved and no deficiencies were cited.

The investigation found insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations. Although the complaint described an incident involving rough handling causing a skin tear and inappropriate comments by a staff member, and delayed wound care, the facility no longer used the staffing agency involved and records were limited due to the time elapsed. No deficiencies were cited.

The complaint involved allegations that a resident was handled roughly causing a skin tear, was spoken to inappropriately, and did not receive timely medical attention. Interviews with staff and the resident were conducted, but attempts to interview the reporting party were unsuccessful. The facility no longer uses the staffing agency involved. The resident recalled the incident but could not identify the staff member by name. The wounds were treated several days after the incident. The complaint was unsubstantiated due to insufficient evidence.

The investigation found insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations. Despite some reports of rough handling causing a skin tear and inappropriate comments by a staff member, the facility no longer uses the implicated staffing agency and no deficiencies were cited. The allegations were determined unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The complaint involved allegations that a resident's room had pests, that the resident was threatened by other residents, and that the resident was threatened by staff. Multiple interviews and documentation reviews were conducted, but no preponderance of evidence was found to substantiate the allegations. The complaint was unsubstantiated.

The investigation found no substantiated evidence to support the allegations. Pest control records showed no ant or cockroach activity, and interviews with residents and staff did not confirm threats by other residents or staff. The allegations were deemed unsubstantiated with no deficiencies cited.

The complaint involved three allegations: 1) Resident's room had pests; 2) Resident was threatened by other residents while in care; 3) Resident was threatened by staff while in care. The investigation included interviews with residents and staff, review of pest control records, and attempts to interview the reporting party. The allegations were unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The investigation found no substantiated evidence to support the allegations. Pest control services were documented as active, and interviews with residents and staff did not confirm threats by residents or staff. The allegations were deemed unsubstantiated with no deficiencies cited.

The visit was complaint-related regarding physiological abuse reported on April 30, 2024. A subsequent case management visit occurred on May 3, 2024. The complaint is under further review with requested corrective actions.

An informal meeting was held with the facility administrator and district director to discuss the abuse incident and to request an action plan addressing staff training on personal rights, handling residents with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI), respecting residents' personal rights, and reassessing residents with MCI. The facility was informed of increased monitoring and use of surveillance cameras.

The visit was complaint-related regarding physiological abuse reported on April 30, 2024. A subsequent case management visit was conducted on May 3, 2024. The facility was requested to provide an action plan by August 27, 2024.

The Department held an informal meeting with the facility administrator and district director to request an action plan addressing staff training on personal rights, handling residents with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI), respecting residents' personal rights, and reassessing residents with MCI. The facility was also informed about increased monitoring and the use of surveillance cameras.

The complaint investigation addressed allegations including failure to meet residents' needs (such as missed showers), loss of residents' personal items (laundry), failure to follow COVID-19 precautions, rough handling of residents, and lack of dignity and respect. Interviews with staff and residents revealed mixed reports on shower schedules and laundry, but no conclusive evidence of violations. The COVID outbreak was confirmed, but infection control measures were in place. Allegations of rough handling and disrespect were denied by staff and residents. The findings were unsubstantiated or unfounded.

The investigation included interviews with staff, residents, and witnesses, as well as facility observations. The department found all allegations to be either unsubstantiated or unfounded, indicating insufficient evidence to prove the complaints. The facility was found to be following infection control protocols during a COVID outbreak, and residents were generally treated with dignity and respect.

The complaint investigation addressed allegations including failure to meet residents' needs, loss of personal items, inadequate COVID-19 precautions, rough handling of residents, and lack of dignity and respect. Interviews with staff, residents, and witnesses, as well as observations and record reviews, led to findings that the allegations were unsubstantiated or unfounded.

The investigation found all allegations to be unsubstantiated or unfounded. Staff were found to be following infection control protocols during a COVID outbreak, residents generally received showers despite some scheduling issues, lost personal items were replaced or reimbursed, and there was no evidence of rough handling or disrespectful treatment of residents.

The complaint alleged that the licensee was charging a resident for services not provided while the resident was hospitalized and admitted to a skilled nursing facility. The investigation included interviews with facility staff and the resident's spouse, and review of billing and admission agreements. The allegation was determined to be unfounded.

The investigation found that the resident was admitted to a skilled nursing facility and did not return to the facility. The facility reimbursed the resident for care services after 14 days of absence as per the Admission Agreement. The allegation was found to be unfounded with no deficiencies cited.

The complaint alleged that facility staff coerced resident R1 to pay for medication administration when R1 was able to manage medication. The investigation included interviews with staff and the resident, and review of physician reports and medication assessments. The allegation was found to be unfounded.

The investigation found the allegation to be unfounded after interviews and record reviews showed the resident was not capable of managing their own medication and the charges for medication management were appropriate and not coerced.

The complaint alleged that the licensee was charging a resident for services not provided while the resident was hospitalized and admitted to a skilled nursing facility. The allegation was investigated and found to be unfounded.

The investigation found that the resident was admitted to a skilled nursing facility and did not return to the facility. The facility reimbursed the resident for care services after 14 days of absence as per the Admission Agreement. The allegation was found to be unfounded with no deficiencies cited.

The complaint alleged that facility staff coerced a resident to pay for medication administration services despite the resident being able to manage medication. The investigation concluded the allegation was unfounded based on staff interviews, physician reports, and resident statements.

The investigation found the allegation to be unfounded. Interviews and record reviews showed that the resident was not capable of managing their own medication, and the facility staff were appropriately managing medication administration with physician agreement. The resident acknowledged awareness of the charges and did not feel coerced.

The complaint involved allegations of psychological abuse from staff S1-S4 reported on April 30, 2024. The investigation included interviews with resident R1 and the administrator, and requests for staff licensing and training documents, videos, and resident medical and service records.

The Licensing Program Analyst conducted interviews and requested documentation related to the allegations. The incident requires further investigation and the report was reviewed with the facility administrator.

The visit was triggered by a complaint alleging psychological abuse from staff S1-S4. The investigation is ongoing and requires further follow-up.

The Licensing Program Analyst interviewed the resident and administrator, requested staff licensing and training documents, videos, and resident's physician report and service plan. The incident requires further investigation.

The complaint was unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur.

The investigation included interviews and record reviews, but there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations. No deficiencies were cited during the visit.

The complaint was unsubstantiated as the investigation did not find sufficient evidence to prove the alleged violations occurred.

The investigation included interviews and record reviews but was unable to substantiate the allegations due to lack of preponderance of evidence. No deficiencies were cited during the visit.

The complaint alleged that facility staff had not been trained properly, the facility was understaffed, and staff was not following doctor's orders. The investigation was unable to prove these allegations, resulting in an unsubstantiated finding.

The investigation found no preponderance of evidence to substantiate the allegations. No deficiencies were cited during the visit, and the allegations were deemed unsubstantiated at this time.

The complaint was unsubstantiated due to lack of sufficient evidence to prove the alleged violations occurred.

The investigation included interviews and record reviews and found no preponderance of evidence to substantiate the allegations. No deficiencies were cited and the allegations were deemed unsubstantiated.

The complaint included allegations that the facility did not follow COVID mitigation prevention protocols, staff did not maintain the kitchen in a clean and sanitary condition, staff did not ensure the facility was free of pests, and staff retained a resident with a prohibited health condition (active MRSA). The investigation concluded these allegations were unsubstantiated or unfounded.

The investigation found that the allegations regarding COVID mitigation, kitchen sanitation, and pest presence were unsubstantiated or unfounded based on staff interviews, observations, and record reviews. No deficiencies were cited. The allegation about retaining a resident with a prohibited health condition (active MRSA) was also unfounded.

The complaint alleged failure to monitor a resident's declining health condition. The investigation included interviews with staff and review of resident records. The complaint was determined to be unfounded, meaning the allegations were false or without reasonable basis.

The investigation found that the allegations were unfounded. The resident was monitored daily for changes in condition, medication administration, and concerns. Staff interviews and record reviews supported that the facility appropriately monitored the resident until hospital transport.

The complaint alleged the facility did not monitor a resident's declining health condition. The investigation included interviews with staff and review of resident records. The complaint was found to be unfounded, meaning the allegations were false or without reasonable basis.

The investigation found that the allegations were unfounded based on interviews with staff and review of resident records, which showed the resident was monitored daily for changes in condition and medication administration. No deficiencies were cited.

The complaint included allegations that the facility did not follow COVID mitigation prevention protocols, staff did not maintain the kitchen in a clean and sanitary condition, staff did not ensure the facility was free of pests, and staff retained a resident with a prohibited health condition (active MRSA). The investigation included interviews with staff and residents, observations of the facility, and review of records. The findings concluded the allegations were unsubstantiated or unfounded.

The investigation found that the allegations regarding COVID mitigation, kitchen sanitation, pest presence, and retention of a resident with a prohibited health condition were unsubstantiated or unfounded. No deficiencies were cited, and observations and interviews did not support the allegations.

The complaint alleged that staff did not ensure the facility was free of pests. The investigation found no preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation occurred, resulting in an unsubstantiated finding.

The investigation included interviews, record reviews, and observations. The facility had a pest control contract with frequent service visits. Although mice droppings were found in three resident apartments on 2023-08-15, the pest control company applied measures to terminate the pests and the droppings were cleaned. The allegation was determined to be unsubstantiated due to insufficient evidence.

The complaint alleged that staff did not ensure the facility was free of pests. The allegation was investigated through interviews, record review, and observation and was found to be unsubstantiated.

The investigation found that the facility had a contract with a pest control company providing frequent and as-needed services. Although mice droppings were found in three resident apartments on 2023-08-15 and were cleaned, the allegation was determined to be unsubstantiated due to insufficient evidence of a violation.

The complaint alleged that staff admitted a resident with prohibited health conditions. The allegation was found to be unfounded with no preponderance of evidence to support it.

The investigation found the allegation to be unfounded based on interviews, observations, and document reviews. The resident was assessed and cleared to return to the facility, and their condition improved before moving to a higher level of care.

The complaint alleged that staff admitted a resident with prohibited health conditions. The allegation was investigated through interviews with the Executive Director, staff, residents, and a Home Health Care Provider, as well as review of medical and assessment documents. The allegation was determined to be unfounded.

The investigation found the allegation to be unfounded based on interviews, observations, and document reviews. The resident was assessed and cleared to return to the facility, and their condition improved before moving to a higher level of care facility.

The complaint was unsubstantiated based on interviews with 10 staff members and 8 residents, medication audits, and record reviews. Residents and staff did not confirm the allegations, and no violations were found.

The investigation found no preponderance of evidence to substantiate the allegations. Interviews with staff and residents did not confirm unqualified medication administration, and residents generally reported adequate food quantity and quality. No deficiencies were cited during this visit.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included unqualified staff administering medications and inadequate food quality and quantity. Interviews and audits did not support these claims.

After interviewing 10 staff members and 8 residents, and auditing medication storage, there was no preponderance of evidence to substantiate the allegations. No medications were missing, and residents generally reported adequate food quantity and quality, though one resident expressed dissatisfaction with food taste and temperature. The allegations were deemed unsubstantiated.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated based on observations, interviews, and records review. Although some concerns were noted, there was insufficient evidence to prove violations occurred.

The investigation found no evidence to substantiate the allegations. The dishwasher was repaired promptly, no rodent infestation was observed, and infection control practices were largely followed with minor suggestions implemented. Resident and staff interviews supported these findings.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included medication mismanagement, inappropriate staff communication, and unmet toileting and showering needs. Interviews, record reviews, and observations did not substantiate these claims.

The investigation found no evidence of medication mismanagement or inappropriate staff behavior towards residents. Residents reported satisfaction with assistance for daily living needs, including showering. One resident reported a delayed response for bathroom assistance, but this could not be verified.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included failure to prevent spread of stomach virus, rodent infestation, dishwasher disrepair, and inadequate food service. Interviews with residents and staff, facility tours, and record reviews did not support the allegations.

The investigation found no evidence of rodent infestation, confirmed the dishwasher was repaired promptly after a brief breakdown, and determined the facility generally adhered to infection control and food service standards. The allegations were unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included medication mismanagement, inappropriate staff communication, and failure to meet residents' toileting and showering needs. Interviews, record reviews, and observations did not confirm these allegations.

The investigation found no evidence of medication mismanagement or inappropriate staff behavior towards residents. Residents reported satisfaction with assistance for daily living needs, including showering. One resident reported a delayed response for bathroom assistance, but this could not be verified. Overall, the allegations were determined to be unsubstantiated.

The facility was found to be clean, well maintained, and compliant with infection control measures including COVID-19 protocols. No deficiencies were cited during the inspection.

The facility was found to be clean, well maintained, and in compliance with regulations. COVID-19 safety measures were observed, and no deficiencies were cited during the inspection.

The complaint alleged failure to give resident medication as prescribed. The investigation included interviews with staff and residents, and review of Medication Administration Records and Medication Delivery Logs. The allegation was determined to be unsubstantiated due to insufficient evidence of violation.

Based on interviews with staff and residents, and review of medication records, the allegation was found to be unsubstantiated. Most residents received medications on time, and delays were linked to factors such as missing doctor's orders. The facility's medication policies did not specify timing for medication administration upon receipt.

The complaint alleged failure to give resident medication as prescribed. The investigation included interviews with staff and residents, and review of Medication Administration Records and Medication Delivery Logs. The allegation was determined to be unsubstantiated due to insufficient evidence of violation.

Based on interviews with staff and residents, and review of medication records, the allegation was found to be unsubstantiated. Most residents received medications on time, with one noted 24-hour delay in administering antibiotics, which was not required to be immediate per doctor's order or facility policy.

The facility was found not to be following the COVID-19 mitigation plan effectively, with issues such as lack of social distancing in the dining hall, insufficient PPE supplies, absence of precautionary signage, and inadequate staff break area separation. Multiple recommendations were made to improve infection control practices.

The facility was found not to be following the COVID-19 mitigation plan effectively, with issues such as residents eating in the dining hall without social distancing, lack of necessary PPE items, absence of precautionary signage, and inadequate staff separation for COVID positive residents. Multiple recommendations were made to improve infection control and safety during the outbreak. No deficiencies were cited during this visit.

The inspection found no deficiencies. The facility was observed to be following COVID-19 safety protocols, including vaccination rates, PPE availability, and visitor policies.

The inspection found no deficiencies. The facility was observed to be following COVID-19 protocols, including vaccination rates, PPE availability, and infection control measures. The facility environment and resident activities were reviewed and found satisfactory.

The complaint involved multiple allegations: neglect to assess a resident's injury, failure to feed residents during care, and staff not answering the facility telephone. The investigation found that residents were fed during evacuation, staff responded to the resident's injury with first aid and arranged home health care, and staff answered telephone calls. The allegations were determined to be unsubstantiated or unfounded.

The investigation included interviews with 11 residents and 7 staff, review of records, and telephone calls to the facility. The allegations were found to be unsubstantiated or unfounded due to lack of preponderance of evidence. No deficiencies were cited.

The complaint investigation was unannounced and focused on allegations that the facility neglected to assess a resident's injury, failed to ensure residents were fed during an evacuation, and staff did not answer the facility telephone. Interviews and record reviews showed that the resident's injury was assessed and treated, residents were fed during evacuation, and staff answered telephone calls. The complaint was unsubstantiated/unfounded.

The investigation included interviews with 11 residents and 7 staff, review of records, and telephone calls to the facility. The allegations were found to be unsubstantiated or unfounded due to lack of preponderance of evidence. No deficiencies were cited.