Inspection Reports for
Huntington Terrace North Senior Apartments

The complaint alleged that the facility did not allow resident visitation. The allegation was investigated and found unsubstantiated due to conflicting evidence and lack of preponderance of proof.

The investigation found conflicting information regarding the allegation. Interviews with residents and staff did not conclusively prove or refute the claim that visitation was denied. Therefore, the allegation was deemed unsubstantiated and no citations were issued.

The complaint alleged that the facility did not allow resident visitation. The allegation was investigated and found unsubstantiated due to conflicting information and lack of evidence to prove or refute the claim.

The investigation found conflicting information regarding the allegation. Interviews with residents and staff revealed no clear evidence that visitation was denied. The allegation was deemed unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The complaint alleged that the facility had a bed bug infestation and was not maintained free of vermin. The investigation was unsubstantiated due to conflicting information and lack of evidence to prove or refute the allegations.

The investigation found conflicting information with no preponderance of evidence to substantiate the allegations of bed bug infestation or vermin presence. Interviews with residents and staff, as well as pest control service records, did not confirm the allegations. No citations were issued.

The complaint alleged bed bug infestation and failure to maintain the facility free of vermin. The investigation included interviews with residents and staff, review of pest control service summaries, and facility tours. The complaint was unsubstantiated.

The investigation found conflicting information from interviews and pest control reports, with no evidence of bed bug infestation or vermin observed during visits. The allegations were deemed unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The complaint involved two allegations: 1) Staff threatened to evict a resident in care, which was deemed unsubstantiated; 2) Resident's signature was forged on a document, which was deemed unfounded. The investigation included interviews with residents, staff, and witnesses, and review of multiple documents. The Registered Nurse involved was a third-party contractor. The resident's Level of Care changes were documented without forged signatures.

The investigation found the allegation that staff threatened to evict a resident to be unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence, and the allegation that a resident's signature was forged was deemed unfounded after review of records and interviews.

The complaint involved two allegations: 1) Staff threatened to evict a resident in care, which was deemed unsubstantiated as the RN explained eviction could result from policy violations but did not issue threats. 2) Resident's signature was forged on a document, which was found unfounded as records showed no forged signatures and the resident refused to sign updated assessments.

The investigation found the allegation that staff threatened to evict a resident to be unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence, and the allegation that a resident's signature was forged was deemed unfounded after review of records and interviews.

The complaint investigation was unannounced and based on multiple allegations including roaches in rooms, patio moisture, lack of driver and van, communication issues with Administrator, and problematic smoke alarms. All allegations were deemed unsubstantiated after interviews, observations, and record reviews.

The investigation found no preponderance of evidence to substantiate any of the allegations. Roach issues were reported by some residents but pest control records showed regular treatment. Patio moisture was attributed to rain. The facility had a driver and van available. Communication difficulties with the Administrator and smoke alarm problems were not substantiated based on interviews and records.

The complaint investigation was unannounced and conducted by Licensing Program Analyst Jenifer Tirre. The allegations included roaches in residents' rooms, patio moisture accumulation, absence of driver and van for over a year, difficulty communicating with the Administrator, and problematic smoke alarms. Each allegation was investigated through interviews, observations, and record reviews and all were found unsubstantiated.

The investigation included staff and resident interviews, record reviews, and observations. All allegations were deemed unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence, with pest control records showing regular treatment, no ongoing patio water issues beyond rain, transportation and driver availability confirmed, mixed but mostly positive communication feedback about the Administrator, and no problematic smoke alarm issues observed.

The complaint investigation addressed three allegations: 1) Resident requires a higher level of care, 2) Responsible party placed a camera in resident's room, and 3) Administrator is rude to residents and staff. All allegations were investigated through interviews, record reviews, and observations and were found unsubstantiated.

The investigation found insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations that a resident required a higher level of care, that a responsible party placed a camera in a resident's room, and that the administrator was rude to residents and staff. All allegations were deemed unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included a resident needing a higher level of care, a responsible party placing a camera in a resident's room without proper waivers or signage, and the administrator being rude to residents and staff. Interviews and record reviews did not provide sufficient evidence to prove any violations occurred.

The investigation included interviews and record reviews and found insufficient evidence to substantiate any of the allegations. All three allegations—resident requiring higher level of care, unauthorized camera placement, and administrator rudeness—were deemed unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The complaint alleged that a resident sustained a fall while in care. The investigation found conflicting witness statements and record reviews, including a witnessed fall caused by seizure and subsequent hospital transport. The allegation was unsubstantiated due to insufficient evidence.

The investigation included interviews and record reviews and revealed conflicting reports regarding the resident's fall. Due to lack of preponderance of evidence, the allegation was deemed unsubstantiated.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included facility not in good repair, staff verbally harassing a resident, and unsafe environment for residents. Interviews with residents, staff, and administrators, as well as observations, did not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations.

The investigation found no substantiated evidence for the allegations. The facility was found to be in good repair with no water leaks or door malfunctions, no staff verbal harassment was witnessed or reported by residents or staff, and the facility was deemed to provide a safe environment with properly functioning doors and no unauthorized entries.

The complaint investigation addressed three allegations: 1) Facility not in good repair, including issues with an exit door, laundry room leak, and torn carpet; 2) Staff verbally harassing a resident; 3) Facility not providing a safe environment due to an allegedly unsecured door allowing unauthorized entry. All allegations were deemed unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The investigation found all allegations unsubstantiated based on interviews and observations. The facility was found to be in good repair with no water leaks or door malfunctions, no evidence of staff verbally harassing residents, and no proof that the facility failed to provide a safe environment.

The complaint alleged unlawful eviction. The investigation found the eviction notice lawful but later rescinded by the facility. Resident 1 is no longer required to leave. The allegation was deemed unfounded.

The investigation found that the facility served Resident 1 an eviction notice for violating the Admission Agreement. The eviction notice was lawful and contained all required information. The facility later rescinded the eviction notice and informed Resident 1, who acknowledged the rescission. The allegation of unlawful eviction was deemed unfounded.

The Licensing Program Analyst toured the facility, conducted a health and safety check on all residents, and observed no health and safety issues. Pertinent resident documentation was reviewed and a questionable death report was completed.

The facility was found to be in compliance with all applicable regulations, with no deficiencies cited. The environment was safe, well-maintained, and residents' files were complete.

The visit was related to complaint investigation findings for Complaint Control No 22-AS-20250703124044. The findings were amended and delivered during this unannounced visit.

The report documents the delivery of amended complaint investigation findings to the facility's Executive Director. An exit interview was conducted and a copy of the report was provided at the end of the visit.

The complaint alleged that staff were not providing adequate food service to residents. The investigation found no evidence to substantiate this allegation, and it was deemed unsubstantiated.

Based on observations of meal service, interviews with residents and staff, review of menus, and a kitchen tour, the investigation found that residents were provided with adequate, nutritious meals with alternative options available. The allegation was deemed unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The facility was found to be in compliance with no deficiencies noted. Observations included proper infection control practices, adequate food and emergency supplies, operational safety equipment, and complete resident and staff files.

No deficiencies were observed during the visit. The Licensing Program Analyst conducted interviews and reviewed records related to the incident involving Resident 1.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated as there was insufficient evidence to prove or refute the allegations regarding staff behavior, infection control compliance, and disturbance preventing resident sleep.

The investigation found no substantiated evidence to support the allegations. Interviews with residents and staff, record reviews, and observations indicated that the allegations could not be proven or refuted, resulting in an unsubstantiated determination.

Complaint was unsubstantiated; investigation found no sufficient evidence to prove the alleged violations occurred.

The investigation included record reviews and staff interviews, revealing that the facility uses multiple methods to communicate changes in residents' conditions and incidents, including a messaging program and end-of-day reports. The allegation was found to be unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The complaint involved multiple allegations including failure to meet resident needs, delayed response to calls, insufficient staffing, medication dispensing issues, and personal rights violations. Interviews with residents and staff revealed mixed perceptions, and documentation review showed no conclusive evidence to support the allegations. The complaint was ultimately unsubstantiated.

The investigation included interviews with residents and staff and review of documentation. Conflicting reports were found, and although some allegations may have occurred, there was no preponderance of evidence to substantiate the claims. Therefore, all allegations were deemed unsubstantiated.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included failure to seek timely medical attention and failure to meet dietary needs for Resident 1 (R1). The investigation included interviews with staff, residents, witnesses, and review of documentation. Despite some concerns, evidence did not prove violations occurred.

The investigation found that although the resident was hospitalized with a stroke and dehydration and required special dietary needs, staff were communicating with the resident's approved doctor and following physician orders. It was unclear if timely services were sought, and the resident's refusal to eat complicated assessment of dietary needs. The allegations were determined to be unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The complaint alleged the facility failed to provide records to a family attorney. The investigation revealed the facility did submit the requested documents, and the allegation was unsubstantiated.

The investigation found that the facility did receive the records request and sent the requested documents to the law firm, which confirmed receipt. Therefore, the allegation was deemed unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The facility was toured and observed to be in compliance with department regulations including proper COVID signage, operating smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, emergency supplies, and secured medication storage. No deficiencies were noted during the visit.

Visit was related to serving an Amended Report from complaint investigation Control number 22-AS-20210602084614.

The Amended Report from the complaint investigation was served to the facility, and an exit interview was conducted with the Administrator. A copy of the report was left with the facility.

The complaint alleged that the facility was not following the admission agreement related to transportation for group and recreational outings. The allegation was found unsubstantiated after investigation.

The investigation reviewed admissions agreements, resident handbook, employment ads, and transportation logs. It was found that transportation was provided as indicated in the logs, though group outings may have been put on hold due to COVID-related staffing issues. The allegation was deemed unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The facility was found to be in compliance with no deficiencies noted. Observations included proper COVID signage, adequate supplies, current resident files, and functional safety equipment.