Inspection Reports for
Capriana

The complaint alleged staff failed to ensure resident hydration and feeding assistance. Interviews with staff, residents, and a witness were conducted. The resident's medical records and care plans were reviewed. The allegations were found unsubstantiated.

Based on record review, observations, and interviews, the allegations that staff did not ensure resident hydration and feeding assistance were unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The facility was found to be in compliance with Title 22 Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations with no deficiencies cited during this visit.

The complaint alleging inaccurate information on resident's physician's medication orders was investigated and found to be unfounded.

The investigation found that the medication record discrepancy was due to the use of an outside pharmacy and the in-house pharmacy's medication input process. Staff and witness interviews confirmed the licensee was complying with regulations. The allegation was determined to be unfounded.

The complaint alleged that staff neglected Resident #1 by leaving them in the room during carpet cleaning with an industrial fan and strong odors present. Interviews with residents, witnesses, and staff, as well as review of work orders and safety data sheets, were conducted. The allegation was found unsubstantiated.

The investigation found the allegation unsubstantiated based on record review, observations, and interviews. Staff were observed to have checked on the resident multiple times, provided a blanket when the resident appeared cold, and used an industrial fan to dry the carpet. There was insufficient evidence to prove the alleged neglect occurred.

The complaint investigation was triggered by allegations that staff engaged in inappropriate interactions with a resident, mismanaged medication, accessed a resident's cellphone without authorization, and failed to report resident incidents. Interviews with residents, staff, and witnesses, as well as record reviews, led to the conclusion that these allegations were unsubstantiated.

Based on observations, record reviews, and interviews, all allegations were found to be unsubstantiated due to lack of sufficient evidence. Some witnesses confirmed unauthorized cellphone access, but overall evidence did not prove violations occurred.

The complaint alleged inadequate staff supervision leading to resident-on-resident incidents. The investigation found no preponderance of evidence to prove the violation occurred, resulting in an unsubstantiated finding.

The investigation included review of incident reports, resident records, staff and resident interviews, and facility observations. Although the allegation may have occurred, there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the claim, and the complaint was determined to be unsubstantiated.

The complaint alleged that Resident #1 sustained unexplained injuries while in care. The resident had a swollen right hand and scratches under both eyes reported on July 28, 2025. Despite some witnesses confirming the allegation, the investigation found no preponderance of evidence to prove the violation occurred. The resident moved out on August 5, 2025.

The investigation included review of documentation, interviews with staff, residents, and witnesses, and a facility internal investigation. Although some witnesses confirmed the allegation, there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the claim. The allegation was determined to be unsubstantiated.

The complaint alleged that staff were not supervising residents, resulting in resident-on-resident incidents. The investigation included review of Unusual Incident Reports, resident documentation, interviews with residents and staff, and observations. One resident confirmed the allegation while five denied it. Staff confirmed inappropriate behavior by one resident and the presence of a 24-hour personal companion. The allegation was ultimately unsubstantiated due to insufficient evidence.

The investigation included review of incident reports, resident records, staff and resident interviews, and facility observations. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there was not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur. Therefore, the allegation was found to be unsubstantiated.

The complaint alleged that Resident #1 sustained unexplained injuries while in care. The investigation involved interviews with five witnesses (three confirmed, two denied the allegation), four residents (all confirmed quality care), and six staff members (all denied the allegation). The resident had a swollen right hand and scratches under both eyes reported on July 28, 2025. Medical assessments and hospital visits were conducted. The resident moved out on August 5, 2025. The allegation was unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The investigation included review of resident records, interviews with staff, residents, and witnesses, and examination of incident documentation. Despite some witnesses confirming the allegation, there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the claim, and the allegation was determined to be unsubstantiated.

The facility was found to be in compliance with Title 22 Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations with no deficiencies cited during this visit. Resident #1 experienced several falls resulting in injuries and subsequent hospice care, but the facility's care and documentation were appropriate.

The facility was found to be in compliance with Title 22 Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations with no deficiencies cited during this visit. Resident #1 had multiple falls resulting in injuries, but the facility had taken appropriate actions including hiring a private caregiver and initiating hospice services.

The facility was found to be in compliance with Title 22 Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations with no deficiencies cited. The inspection included physical plant checks, medication storage review, staff training records, and resident interviews.

The facility was found to be in compliance with Title 22 Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations with no deficiencies cited. The inspection included physical plant checks, medication storage review, staff training records, and resident interviews.

The visit was triggered by a complaint about an unwitnessed incident of inappropriate behavior between two residents. A report was submitted to the Licensing Regional Office on May 24, 2025.

Based on observations during the visit, the facility was found to be in compliance with Title 22 Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations, with no deficiencies cited on this date.

The incident was unwitnessed; one resident verbally reported the event to the Memory Care Director the following day, and a report was submitted to the Licensing Regional Office on May 24, 2025.

The facility was found to be in compliance with Title 22 Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations, with no deficiencies cited during this visit.

The complaint alleged that due to lack of supervision, a resident was left on the floor for an extended period following an unwitnessed fall. The allegation was found to be unsubstantiated based on staff interviews, medical record reviews, and discharge paperwork from UCI Medical Center.

The investigation found that the resident was discovered on the floor approximately 15 to 20 minutes after a family visit ended, with no evidence of lack of supervision. Medical records and staff interviews supported that the allegation was unsubstantiated. No deficiencies were cited during the visit.

The complaint alleged that due to lack of supervision, a resident was left on the floor for an extended period following an unwitnessed fall. The allegation was investigated through interviews, medical record review, and facility observation and was found to be unsubstantiated.

The investigation included staff interviews, facility tour, and medical record review. The allegation was found to be unsubstantiated as evidence showed the resident was found within 15 to 20 minutes after a family visit ended, and medical evaluation showed no acute injury. No deficiencies were cited.

The Licensing Program Analyst reviewed Resident #1's identification and medical documentation and spoke with the Health Services Director about the incident. An exit interview was conducted with the Business Office Director and a copy of the report was provided.

The Licensing Program Analyst reviewed Resident #1's identification, physician's report, needs and services plan, progress notes, and staffing schedule related to the incident. Discussions were held with the Health Services Director regarding the incident and its chronology.

The facility was found to be clean, organized, and compliant with all regulations. No deficiencies were cited. Safety features such as fire extinguishers, emergency evacuation chairs, and delayed egress doors were operational. Resident and staff files were reviewed with no discrepancies observed.

The facility was found to be clean, organized, and compliant with all regulatory requirements. No deficiencies were cited during this visit after reviewing resident and staff files, inspecting rooms, and verifying safety equipment and emergency procedures.

The facility was toured including the main building, individual homes, and a dementia care unit. All safety and regulatory requirements were met, including fire safety, emergency call systems, and secure windows. The facility has no deficiencies and is ready to be licensed pending final review and approval.

The Pre-Licensing evaluation found the facility to be in compliance with no deficiencies. All elements verified by the Licensing Program Analyst appear to meet regulatory requirements, and the facility is ready to be licensed pending final review and approval.

The applicant/administrator participated in a COMP II telephone interview to verify identification and confirm understanding of California Code Title 22 regulations, including facility operation, admission policies, staffing, health conditions, emergency preparedness, complaints, and pre-licensing readiness.

The applicant and administrator participated in a COMP II telephone interview to verify identification and confirm understanding of California Code Title 22 regulations, including facility operation, admission policies, staffing, health conditions, emergency preparedness, complaints, and pre-licensing readiness.