Inspection Reports for
Lake Park Senior Living

The visit was related to complaint 15-AS-20241030085123; no deficiencies were cited during this amended report delivery.

No deficiencies were cited during the visit. The Licensing Program Analyst met with the Executive Director, explained the purpose of the visit, and signed and printed the amended report.

The inspection found no deficiencies; all areas including resident and staff records were complete, safety equipment was operational, and environmental conditions were adequate.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included insufficient supplies for resident hygiene and infection control, inadequate staff training, failure to follow reporting requirements, failure to evaluate changes in resident condition, pest issues, inadequate food service, and poor facility maintenance. None of these allegations were substantiated based on evidence gathered.

All allegations were found to be unsubstantiated based on staff interviews, record reviews, observations, and documentation. The facility was found to have sufficient supplies, adequate staff training, proper reporting procedures, resident assessments, pest control measures, adequate food service, and proper facility maintenance.

The complaint investigation addressed multiple allegations including insufficient supplies for resident hygiene, inadequate staff training, failure to follow reporting requirements, lack of resident condition evaluations, pest issues, inadequate food service, and poor facility maintenance. All allegations were determined to be unsubstantiated based on staff interviews, document reviews, and observations.

All allegations were found to be unsubstantiated after interviews, record reviews, and observations. The facility was found to have sufficient supplies, adequate staff training, proper reporting, resident assessments, pest control measures, adequate food service, and proper maintenance.

The complaint alleged insufficient staffing for food services. The investigation included interviews and record reviews, concluding the allegation was unsubstantiated.

The investigation found that there is sufficient staff for food service and no resident requires assistance with feeding. The allegation was determined to be unsubstantiated due to lack of evidence.

The complaint investigation was unannounced and conducted based on allegations received on 2025-04-17. Both allegations were found unsubstantiated after interviews and record reviews.

The investigation found that the facility employs a qualified full-time food service employee and a dietician, and disaster drills are conducted monthly and properly logged. Both allegations were unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The complaint alleged insufficient staffing for food services. The investigation included interviews with staff and residents and review of relevant documents. The allegation was found unsubstantiated.

The investigation found that there is sufficient staff for food service and no resident requires assistance with feeding. The allegation was determined to be unsubstantiated due to lack of evidence.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included lack of a qualified food service consultant and failure to conduct required disaster drills. Both allegations were found unsubstantiated after interviews and record reviews.

The investigation found that the facility employs a qualified full-time food service employee and a dietician, and disaster drills are conducted monthly and properly logged. Both allegations were determined to be unsubstantiated due to lack of evidence.

The facility reported multiple lawsuits involving Pacifica Senior Living management, including a $25 million lawsuit in Bakersfield, a photography lawsuit, and a lawsuit against a Skilled Nursing Facility in Healdsburg. Despite these lawsuits, the CEO stated there was no financial impact on the properties, residents, or staff, and no vendor issues. Management communicated changes to staff and residents, and the bankruptcy did not affect the communities as Pacifica Senior Living was no longer the management company.

The meeting confirmed multiple lawsuits involving Pacifica Senior Living management companies, including a $25M lawsuit in Bakersfield and others related to photography and a Skilled Nursing Facility. It was stated that these lawsuits had no financial impact on the properties, residents, or staff, and there were no vendor issues. Management communicated changes to staff and residents, and the bankruptcy did not affect the communities as Pacifica Senior Living was no longer the management company.

The allegation was that the facility elevator was in disrepair. Interviews with residents and staff, and observation of the elevator repair technician, led to the conclusion that the allegation was unsubstantiated.

The investigation found that although the elevator had been closing on residents, no injuries were reported and the elevator was being repaired at the time of the visit. There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation, resulting in an unsubstantiated finding.

The complaint alleged that the facility elevator was in disrepair. Interviews with residents and staff, and observation of the elevator repair technician were conducted. The allegation was found unsubstantiated.

The investigation found that although the elevator had been closing on residents, no injuries were reported and the elevator was being repaired at the time of the visit. The allegation was unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The complaint alleged that the facility elevator was in disrepair. The allegation was unsubstantiated after review of interviews, service and maintenance logs, and correspondence with the elevator manufacturer.

The investigation found that although the elevator had stopped working and was in the process of being repaired, there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation of elevator disrepair. The facility had a plan and reasonable timeline for repair.

Allegation: Staff mismanaged resident's medication. Investigation Finding: Unsubstantiated.

The investigation included interviews and review of medication records and logs. The allegation was found to be unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The allegation that the facility’s Disaster Plan does not meet Regulation Requirements was investigated and found unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The investigation found the allegation to be unsubstantiated as the Disaster Plan was observed to be current and in compliance upon review and staff interview.

The complaint alleged that staff mismanaged a resident's medication. The investigation reviewed R1's MAR, medication count sheet, physician report, care plan, and medication staff communication log. Medication was removed from the facility before verification. The allegation was unsubstantiated.

The investigation included interviews and review of medication records and logs. The allegation of medication mismanagement was found to be unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The complaint alleged that the facility’s Disaster Plan was out of compliance, specifically that the Evacuation component had an expired date. The investigation found no evidence to substantiate this claim.

The investigation found the allegation unsubstantiated after review and interview, confirming that the Disaster Plan was current and met regulatory requirements.

The complaint investigation included two allegations: 1) Facility not complying with approved plan of operation, which was substantiated with no new deficiencies issued due to prior substantiation and deficiencies cited on 7/25/2024; 2) Staff mismanaged resident's medication, which was unsubstantiated due to insufficient evidence.

The allegation that the facility was not complying with the approved plan of operation was substantiated due to the use of an incorrect electronic admission agreement mixing language for independent individuals and licensed RCFE residents, previously substantiated on 7/25/2024. The allegation of staff mismanaging a resident's medication was unsubstantiated due to lack of sufficient evidence.

The complaint investigation included two allegations: 1) Facility not complying with approved plan of operation, which was substantiated; 2) Staff mismanaged resident's medication, which was unsubstantiated. The investigation involved interviews with staff and review of relevant documentation. The medication mismanagement allegation could not be substantiated because the medication was removed from the facility and exact pill counts could not be verified.

The allegation that the facility was not complying with the approved plan of operation was substantiated due to conflicting language in the electronic admission agreement. The allegation of staff mismanaging a resident's medication was unsubstantiated due to lack of sufficient evidence. No new deficiencies were issued during this visit due to previous substantiation and deficiencies cited on 7/25/2024.

The facility was toured and observed to be in compliance with all regulations, including adequate lighting, temperature control, food supply, medication storage, and safety equipment. No deficiencies were observed or cited during the visit.

The facility was toured and inspected, including resident and staff records review. No deficiencies were observed or cited during the visit. Safety equipment and environmental conditions were found to be in proper working order.

The complaint alleged staff interference with the designation of a responsible person for a resident. The investigation included interviews, record reviews, and document analysis. The allegation was found to be unsubstantiated due to lack of evidence.

The investigation found insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. The previous Executive Director followed appropriate procedures by contacting the resident's emergency contact and other relevant parties, and did not interfere with the designation of the responsible person. The allegation was determined to be unsubstantiated.

The complaint alleged staff interference with the designation of a responsible person for a resident. The investigation included interviews, record reviews, and document analysis. The allegation was found to be unsubstantiated due to lack of evidence.

The investigation found insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. The previous Executive Director followed appropriate procedures by contacting the resident's emergency contact and other relevant parties, and did not interfere with the designation of the responsible person. Therefore, the allegation was unsubstantiated.

The complaint alleged that the facility was overcharging a resident by charging a $250 late payment fee and a $50 NSF fee. The $250 fee was reversed but the $50 fee was not. The investigation concluded the allegation was unsubstantiated.

The investigation found that a $250 late payment charge was reversed but a $50 no sufficient fund (NSF) charge was not reversed because the facility was charged by the bank. The resident's bank statements showed sufficient funds and no bank charge for NSF. The allegation was determined to be unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The complaint investigation was triggered by information received on 09/17/2024 that the management and ownership did not have a surety bond.

No deficiencies were issued during the visit. The Executive Director confirmed the facility does not hold residents' cash, which may be managed by fiduciaries or bankers.

The visit was related to a complaint investigation (15-AS-20240811203347) concerning the lack of a surety bond by Northstar management and Pacifica ownership, reported on 09/17/2024.

No deficiencies were issued during the visit. The Executive Director confirmed that the facility does not hold residents' cash and that residents may have fiduciaries or bankers managing their money.

The complaint alleged that staff were not ensuring a healthful environment and that the licensee did not provide adequate food services. The investigation included interviews with the reporting party and residents, who stated the food issue had been resolved. The allegations were unsubstantiated due to lack of sufficient evidence.

The investigation found no preponderance of evidence to substantiate the allegations; the complaint was determined to be unsubstantiated after interviews and review.

The complaint alleged staff were not ensuring a healthful environment and inadequate food services. The complaint was unsubstantiated after investigation.

The investigation found that although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there was not a preponderance of evidence to prove them; therefore, the allegations were unsubstantiated. The food service issue was reported resolved by residents and the reporting party.

The complaint alleged that staff did not provide safe transportation for a resident. The complaint was investigated and found to be unsubstantiated.

The investigation found that residents who are wheelchair-bound were not transported by facility staff using the facility's vans because it was impossible to accommodate wheelchairs in the vans. Transportation for wheelchair-bound residents was arranged through a sister facility or a private company. The allegation was closed as unsubstantiated due to insufficient evidence to prove the violation occurred.

The complaint alleged that staff did not provide safe transportation for a resident. The allegation was investigated and found to be unsubstantiated.

The investigation included interviews with staff and residents, review of transportation records, and confirmation from a private transportation company. It was found that residents who are wheelchair-bound were not transported in the facility's vans due to accessibility issues, and alternative transportation arrangements were made. The allegation was closed as unsubstantiated due to insufficient evidence to prove the violation occurred.

The complaint investigation was related to questionable food availability for residents. The complaint was not substantiated as adequate food was found during the visit.

During the complaint investigation, it was observed that adequate food was available for residents, and no deficiencies were issued during the visit.

The complaint investigation was related to concerns about food availability for residents. The complaint was not substantiated as adequate food was observed during the visit.

During the complaint investigation, the Licensing Program Analyst observed that there was adequate food available and that food guest services were adequate for the residents. No deficiencies were issued during the visit.

The complaint alleged that the facility failed to replace a broken refrigerator as required by the admissions agreement. The complaint was investigated and found unsubstantiated.

The investigation found that four out of five residents interviewed had refrigerators in their units in working condition, and one resident whose refrigerator was not working had it replaced immediately without charge. The refrigerators inspected were observed to be operating. The allegation was closed as unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The complaint alleged that the facility failed to provide a working refrigerator as required by the admissions agreement. The complaint was investigated and found unsubstantiated.

The investigation found that four out of five residents interviewed reported having a working refrigerator upon move-in, and the fifth resident had a refrigerator replaced immediately by staff at no charge. The refrigerators inspected were observed to be in operating condition. The allegation was closed as unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The complaint was unsubstantiated after investigation. Pest presence was acknowledged but addressed with pest control company Clark, which recommended weekly visits to eliminate the issue. The Executive Director approved the recommendation.

The investigation found that although pests were present in the kitchen, the issue had been addressed with pest control services. Multiple traps were observed and pest control visits had recently resumed. The allegations were unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The complaint was unsubstantiated as there was insufficient evidence to prove the allegations of pests at the facility.

The investigation found that while there were pests in the kitchen, the issue had been addressed with pest control services. Multiple traps were observed and pest control company Clark had recently started weekly visits. The allegations were unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The visit referenced a prior complaint investigation (#15-AS-20240220153014) conducted on 2024-02-21 involving non-payment for caregiver services and related invoices.

No citations were issued during this visit. The Licensing Program Analyst reviewed documents related to non-payment for caregiver services and other accounts, and conducted an exit interview.

The prior complaint investigation (#15-AS-20240220153014) on 2024-02-21 involved interviews and review of documents related to non-payment for caregiver services and other accounts.

No citations were issued during this visit. The Licensing Program Analyst reviewed documents related to non-payment for caregiver services and other accounts during the prior complaint investigation.

The facility was found to be clean with no imminent health and safety concerns. Residents appeared safe and no deficiencies were cited during the visit.

No citations were issued during this visit. The Licensing Program Analyst met with the Executive Director and obtained relevant documents including lease agreements and rental applications. An exit interview was conducted and a copy of the report was provided.

The facility was toured and residents appeared safe with no imminent health and safety concerns. No deficiencies were cited during the visit.

No citations were issued during this visit. The Licensing Program Analyst gathered additional information and obtained documents including lease agreements and rental applications. An exit interview was conducted and a copy of the report was provided.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included lack of restroom grab bars, toiletries, and cleanliness. Observations and interviews did not support these allegations.

The investigation found that although there were no ADA-compliant grab bars in the public restrooms, this was due to supply delays during renovations expected to be completed by the end of February 2024. The restrooms did have toiletries and were kept clean. The allegations were determined to be unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated as there was not a preponderance of evidence to prove the allegations regarding restroom grab bars, toiletries, and cleanliness.

The investigation found that although there were no ADA-compliant grab bars currently in the public restrooms due to supply delays, the facility planned to complete updates by the end of February 2024. The restrooms did have toiletries and were kept clean. There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations, and the complaint was unsubstantiated.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated based on evidence gathered, including staff interviews and documentation review. Allegations included staff not following resident care plans and facility disrepair.

The investigation found both allegations to be unsubstantiated. Staff interviews and review of shower logs showed no disruption in resident care or facility conditions during renovations.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated based on evidence gathered, including staff interviews and documentation review. Allegations included staff not following resident's care plan and facility disrepair.

The investigation found both allegations to be unsubstantiated. Staff interviews and review of shower logs showed no disruption in resident care or facility services during renovations.

Allegation: Staff person entered resident's unit by force without authorization. Investigation included interviews with resident R1, staff S1 and S2, and resident R2. All evidence indicated no forced entry occurred; the resident had made an appointment and welcomed staff into the unit.

The allegation was found to be unsubstantiated after interviews with involved parties and witnesses. No deficiencies were cited during the visit.

The complaint alleged that a staff person forcibly entered a resident's unit without authorization. Interviews with the resident, staff, and another resident indicated that the resident had made an appointment and welcomed the staff into the unit. The allegation was determined to be unsubstantiated.

The investigation found the allegation to be unsubstantiated after interviews with involved parties and witnesses. No deficiencies were cited during the visit.

The complaint alleged that staff did not maintain the facility in good repair. The investigation included interviews and document review. The heating issue was acknowledged but was being addressed. The allegations were unsubstantiated due to insufficient evidence.

The investigation found that there was a known heating issue in the building with repairs scheduled, but the complaint was unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations occurred.

The complaint was unsubstantiated due to insufficient evidence to prove the alleged violations occurred.

The investigation found that although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there was not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur; therefore, the allegations were unsubstantiated.

The complaint allegation that facility staff does not ensure planned activities are posted in a readily accessible location for residents was investigated and found to be unsubstantiated.

The investigation found the allegation to be unsubstantiated after touring the facility, reviewing records, and interviewing staff. Planned activities were observed to be posted in accessible locations and additional copies were available for residents.

The facility was observed to be clean, bright, and in good repair with no deficiencies cited during the inspection. Remodelled areas were sectioned off to ensure residents were not impacted by renovations, and a permit was secured for new bathroom tiles.

The facility was observed to be clean, bright, and in good repair with no deficiencies cited during the inspection. Remodelled areas were sectioned off to prevent impact on residents, and a permit was secured for new bathroom tiles.

The complaint allegation that staff does not ensure planned activities are posted in a readily accessible location for residents was investigated and found to be unsubstantiated.

The investigation found the allegation to be unsubstantiated after touring the facility, reviewing records, and interviewing staff. Planned activities were observed to be posted in accessible locations and additional copies were available for residents.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included facility disrepair, failure to provide appropriate transportation, failure to provide nutrition food service to meet residents' needs, failure to provide a comfortable temperature, and failure to adhere to residents' admission agreement. Each allegation was investigated and found unsubstantiated.

All allegations investigated were found to be unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence proving violations. The facility was found to have operational elevators (except one broken since November 2022), available transportation options, adherence to nutritional guidelines, temperature issues resolved, and compliance with residents' admission agreements.

The complaint included allegations that the facility was in disrepair, failed to provide appropriate transportation, failed to provide nutrition food service to meet residents' needs, failed to provide a comfortable temperature, and failed to adhere to residents' admission agreements. All allegations were investigated and found unsubstantiated.

All allegations investigated, including facility disrepair, transportation issues, nutrition services, temperature comfort, and adherence to admission agreements, were found to be unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The facility was undergoing renovations but maintained safety and cleanliness. Adequate food supplies, PPE, staffing, and safe environment were observed. No deficiencies were cited during the inspection.

The facility was observed to be undergoing renovations with appropriate containment measures. Adequate food supplies, PPE, and hygiene materials were noted. Staffing was sufficient, pathways were clear, and residents appeared safe and comfortable. No deficiencies were cited during the inspection.

The facility was found to be in compliance with no deficiencies cited. Observations included proper COVID-19 screening and infection control measures, adequate food and PPE supplies, and the presence of required plans and records.

The facility was found to be in compliance with no deficiencies cited. The evaluator observed proper COVID-19 screening, PPE use, sufficient food and supply stocks, and appropriate plans and records in place.

The facility was found to have adequate food, PPE, and emergency supplies, sufficient staffing, and no imminent health or safety concerns. Staff were observed wearing surgical masks and infection control posters were posted.

The facility was found to have adequate food, PPE, and emergency supplies, sufficient staffing, and proper posting of cough/sneeze etiquette and hand washing posters. Staff were observed wearing surgical masks, and pathways and hallways were free of obstructions and fire hazards. No imminent health or safety concerns were identified during the visit.

The inspection found adequate food, PPE, and staffing levels, proper COVID-19 symptom screening, and no imminent health or safety concerns. Staff and residents reported no noticeable changes in service or schedules.

The inspection found adequate food, PPE, and supplies, sufficient staffing, proper COVID-19 symptom screening, and no imminent health or safety concerns. Residents and staff reported no noticeable changes in service or work schedules.

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 Department reviewed expectations including staffing, facility oversight, and quality assurance audits with the applicants. The applicant agreed to the listed conditions and acknowledged licensing appeal rights.

The Department reviewed expectations including corporate liaison responsibilities, staffing requirements for memory care units, and facility administrator oversight. The applicant agreed to the listed conditions and acknowledged potential increased inspections for monitoring purposes.

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 Licensing Program Analysts conducted an unannounced case management visit and pre-licensing inspection, noting that the pre-licensing inspection was initially conducted under the old facility number and corrected to the new facility number. An exit interview was conducted and a copy of the report was provided.

The Licensing Program Analysts met with the Executive Director, explained the purpose of the visit, and noted that the pre-licensing inspection was conducted under the old facility number. The Executive Director signed under the new facility number and the report was delivered. An exit interview was conducted and a copy of the report was provided.

No issues were noted during the inspection. The Licensing Program Analysts observed that the facility is ready to be licensed, subject to final approval by the Central Applications Unit.

No issues were noted during the inspection. The facility was observed to be ready for licensing, with all areas and equipment meeting requirements. The report will be submitted for final review and approval.