Inspection Reports for
Park View Estates Assisted Living & Memory Care

The Licensing Program Analyst conducted the visit, met with the Executive Director, and explained the purpose of the visit. An exit interview was conducted and a copy of the report was provided.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated for all allegations: staff neglect resulting in death of resident, failure to provide prescribed medication, falsifying medication charts, untimely response to call lights, and unqualified staff administering insulin. The investigation included interviews, record reviews, and corroboration with hospice and witnesses.

The investigation found all allegations to be unsubstantiated after interviews with staff, residents, witnesses, and review of records including medication administration records and incident reports. The resident's death was due to natural causes with hospice present, medication was administered as prescribed, call light response issues were not confirmed, and only qualified staff administered insulin.

Inspection was related to Complaint Control Number 22-AS-20250919161621; the purpose was to deliver amended findings.

During the inspection, the Licensing Program Analyst and Staff #1 reviewed and discussed previously delivered findings and amended findings. The amended report was delivered and signed by the facility representative on behalf of the Administrator. An exit interview was conducted and copies of the report were provided to the facility representative.

During the visit, the Licensing Program Analyst obtained hard copies of all residents’ progress notes, in-service training on catheter care, hospice record for one resident, staff roster, and resident roster. An exit interview was conducted with the Executive Director.

The visit was triggered by a complaint investigation under Complaint Control No 22-AS-20250929104833. The case management requires further investigation due to insufficient time and information during this visit.

During the visit, the Licensing Program Analyst requested full access to facility records but was provided limited access due to time constraints and the nature of the visit. Further investigation is required and a subsequent visit will follow.

The inspection was triggered by complaints identified by control numbers 22-AS-20250829102755 and 22-AS-20250919161621. Further investigation is required as stated in the report.

During the inspection, the Licensing Program Analyst interviewed the Administrator and staff, and reviewed resident records. The facility representative was advised that further investigation is required at this time.

Inspection was triggered by complaints under control numbers 22-AS-20250829102755 and 22-AS-20250919161621. Further investigation is required.

During the inspection, the Licensing Program Analyst interviewed the administrator and staff, and reviewed resident records. The facility representative was advised that further investigation is required at this time.

The visit was related to amending a previously issued complaint report under complaint number #22-AS-20220131170149.

The amended complaint report was reviewed and signed by the Executive Director along with this Case Management report. A copy of both reports was provided to the Executive Director for facility records.

The visit was related to amending a previously issued complaint report under complaint number #22-AS-20220131170149.

The amended complaint report was reviewed and signed by the Executive Director along with the Case Management report. No new deficiencies or findings are detailed in this report.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included resident injuries while in care, staff not properly assessing resident's change in condition, refusal to seek medical attention, shower bench disrepair, unmet laundry needs, dirty bathroom and rugs, and staff not showering resident. Investigations included interviews, record reviews, and facility tours. No violations were substantiated.

The investigation found no preponderance of evidence to substantiate any of the allegations. All complaints including resident injuries, failure to assess condition, refusal to seek medical attention, shower bench disrepair, laundry needs, bathroom and rug cleanliness, and failure to shower resident were determined to be unsubstantiated.

The complaint alleged unlawful eviction of Resident #1. The allegation was found to be unfounded based on record review, observations, and interviews.

The investigation found that the allegation of unlawful eviction was unfounded. There was no eviction notice served, and the facility did not tell the resident or family that Resident #1 would be evicted. The resident was allowed to return if safe and not a danger to self or others.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated based on the evidence collected. Allegations included failure to meet care needs, lack of access to clean water, unsecured cleaning supplies, improper medication disposal, medication dispensing errors, poor record maintenance, lack of privacy, failure to follow reporting requirements, unsecured facility records, and unavailable updated food menus. The Department found insufficient evidence to prove or refute these allegations.

The investigation found no substantiated evidence to support the allegations. Interviews with residents and staff, facility tours, and record reviews indicated that care needs were met, water and cleaning supplies were properly managed, medications were dispensed and discarded correctly, records were maintained and secured, privacy was provided, reporting requirements were followed, and updated food menus were available.

The complaint investigation addressed two allegations: 1) staff retaliated against a resident by adding unnecessary care and charging without approval, which was unsubstantiated; 2) a resident's change of condition was not reported to the physician or responsible party, which was unfounded.

The investigation found the retaliation allegation unsubstantiated due to lack of evidence, with the facility acting according to policy regarding care needs and supervision. The allegation regarding failure to report a resident's change of condition was found unfounded, as the blood-stained bandage was expected post-surgery and properly managed.

The complaint alleged that staff represented themselves as the resident to authorize the bank to issue a check to the facility. The allegation was deemed unsubstantiated after interviews and document review.

The investigation included interviews, record reviews, and observations. The allegation was found to be unsubstantiated due to insufficient evidence to prove or refute the claim.

The complaint alleged that staff represented themselves as the resident to authorize the bank to issue a check to the facility. The allegation was unsubstantiated after investigation.

The investigation included interviews, a tour of the facility, and document reviews. The allegation was found to be unsubstantiated due to insufficient evidence to prove or refute the claim.

The facility was found to be in compliance with all reviewed areas from the Non-Compliance Conference plan agreement. No health or safety issues were observed, staff training and audits were in order, and sufficient staff were present during the visit. No deficiencies were cited.

The facility was found to be in compliance with all reviewed areas from the Non-Compliance Conference plan agreement. No health or safety issues were observed, staff training and audits were in order, and all records were within agreed conditions. No deficiencies were cited during this inspection.

The complaint alleged that staff did not provide authorized representatives with a 30 day eviction notice. The complaint was found to be unfounded, meaning the allegation was false, could not have happened, and/or was without a reasonable basis.

The investigation found the complaint to be unfounded after reviewing documentation, interviewing the resident and witnesses, and confirming that the eviction notice was properly served and understood. The eviction date was extended to June 10, 2025.

The complaint alleged that staff did not provide authorized representatives with a 30 day eviction notice. The investigation found the allegation to be false and without reasonable basis.

The investigation found the complaint to be unfounded after reviewing documentation, interviewing the resident and witnesses, and confirming that the eviction notice was served and understood. The eviction date was extended to June 10, 2025.

The complaint included allegations that a resident sustained fractures due to staff neglect, fell multiple times due to staff neglect, was unlawfully evicted, staff did not provide the resident's authorized representative with an itemization of fee increase, and the facility internet was in disrepair. All allegations were investigated and found unsubstantiated.

The investigation included interviews with residents, staff, and former directors, and review of documents. All allegations including resident fractures due to staff neglect, multiple falls, unlawful eviction, failure to provide fee increase itemization, and internet disrepair were found to be unsubstantiated due to lack of evidence.

The complaint included allegations of resident sustaining fractures due to staff neglect, multiple falls due to staff neglect, unlawful eviction, failure to provide itemization of fee increase to resident's authorized representative, and facility internet disrepair. All allegations were investigated and found unsubstantiated.

The investigation included interviews with residents, staff, and former directors, and review of documents. All allegations were found to be unsubstantiated due to lack of evidence to corroborate neglect or violations. The resident's fractures and falls were not proven to be caused by staff neglect, the eviction notice was deemed lawful, fee increase notifications were properly provided, and the facility internet was found to be working.

The complaint alleged that the resident call system was not operational. The investigation included interviews with residents and staff, review of resident records and pendant logs, and observation of the call system in use. The allegation was determined to be unsubstantiated.

The investigation found that the resident call system was operational with motion detectors and pendants working properly. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there was not a preponderance of evidence to prove the violation, so the allegation was unsubstantiated.

The complaint alleged that the resident call system was not operational. After investigation including interviews and testing of pendants, the allegation was found unsubstantiated.

The investigation found that the resident call system was operational, with motion detectors and pendants working properly. The allegation was unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The complaint alleged that staff did not ensure residents took their medication as prescribed. The investigation found no preponderance of evidence to prove the allegation, resulting in an unsubstantiated finding.

The investigation included interviews with residents and staff and review of medication administration records. The allegation was determined to be unsubstantiated as evidence showed residents received medications as prescribed and staff documented refusals appropriately.

The complaint alleged that staff did not ensure residents took their medication as prescribed. The investigation found no preponderance of evidence to prove the allegation, resulting in an unsubstantiated finding.

The investigation included interviews with residents and staff and review of medication administration records. The allegation was determined to be unsubstantiated as evidence showed residents received medications as prescribed and staff followed proper procedures.

The complaint involved allegations that staff hit and pushed residents and did not treat residents with dignity and respect. The investigation included eight staff interviews, four resident interviews, and record review. The allegations were unsubstantiated.

After interviews with staff and residents, and review of employee records, the allegations were found to be unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence. Seven of eight staff interviews and all resident interviews denied the allegations, and no disciplinary actions were found in the employee's file.

The complaint alleged that facility staff violated residents' rights, restrained residents to take the COVID-19 vaccine, and that the facility lacked PPE. The complaint was found to be unfounded.

The investigation found the allegations to be unfounded after interviews with residents and staff, and observations confirmed that residents' rights were not violated, no coercion or restraint for COVID-19 vaccination occurred, and PPE was adequately available.

The complaint involved allegations that staff hit and pushed residents and did not treat residents with dignity and respect. Eight staff interviews were conducted, with seven denying and one confirming the allegations. Resident interviews also denied the allegations. The employee had no disciplinary actions and left the facility in 2023. The complaint was unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

After interviews with staff, residents, and review of records, there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations. The employee in question no longer works at the facility. The complaint was determined to be unsubstantiated.

The complaint was investigated and found to be unfounded, meaning the allegations were false, could not have happened, or lacked reasonable basis.

The investigation found the complaints to be unfounded after interviews with residents and staff, and observations confirmed that PPE was available and residents were not coerced or restrained regarding COVID-19 vaccination.

The inspection found no deficiencies in the areas inspected. Resident files, staff files, physical plant, safety equipment, medication storage and administration, and resident activities were all in compliance with regulations.

The inspection found no deficiencies in the areas inspected, including resident care, facility safety, medication storage and administration, and physical plant conditions. All required documentation was present and the facility was observed to be clean and well-maintained.

The complaint alleged inadequate supervision of a resident who spilled hot tea on themselves resulting in third degree burns and hospitalization. The allegation was unsubstantiated after investigation.

The investigation included staff interviews, resident file review, and medical record subpoena. It was determined that the resident was able to follow instructions and self-feed, and staff were nearby to assist and contacted emergency personnel immediately. The allegation of inadequate supervision was found to be unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The complaint alleged inadequate supervision of a resident who spilled hot tea on themselves resulting in third degree burns. The investigation found no sufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation.

The investigation included staff interviews, resident file review, and medical record subpoena. It was determined that the resident was able to follow instructions and self-feed, and staff were nearby and contacted emergency personnel immediately. The allegation was found to be unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

Licensing Program Analysts met with the Executive Director, delivered amended reports, and provided an exit interview and copies of the amended reports to the facility.

Licensing Program Analysts met with the Executive Director and provided an exit interview along with copies of the amended reports. No deficiencies or violations were noted in the report.

The complaint alleged that facility staff were not trained to conduct proper emergency disaster response and that the facility failed to provide adequate staffing. The investigation concluded these allegations were unsubstantiated.

The investigation found that all staff interviewed stated they were trained on emergency response and that fire and disaster drills were conducted regularly. Staffing schedules and observations indicated adequate staffing levels. The allegations were unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The complaint alleged that facility staff were not trained to conduct proper emergency disaster response and that the facility failed to provide adequate staffing to meet residents' needs. The investigation found no evidence to substantiate these allegations.

The investigation found that all staff interviewed stated they were trained on emergency response and fire/disaster drills were conducted regularly. Staffing levels were adequate at the time of the visit, with no current staffing issues. The allegations were determined to be unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The facility was found to be in compliance with all regulatory requirements during the inspection. No citations were issued. The facility was operating within its licensed capacity, maintained cleanliness, safety, and proper storage of medications and supplies, and resident and staff files were in compliance.

The facility was found to be in compliance with no citations issued. Observations included proper food supply storage, clean and operational cooking and bathing facilities, secure medication storage, unobstructed emergency exits, and compliant resident and personnel files.

During the inspection, no imminent health and safety concerns were observed. The facility was clean, organized, and compliant with regulations regarding food supply, utilities, and storage of medications, sharps, and toxins. No deficiencies were cited.

The inspection found no imminent health and safety concerns. The facility was clean and organized, with proper supplies and storage of medications, sharps, and toxins. No deficiencies were cited during this inspection.

The Licensing Program Analyst found no immediate or safety risks in or out of the facility during the visit. The resident involved in the incident was sent to the hospital and remains under observation.

The Licensing Program Analyst found no immediate or safety risks in or out of the facility during the visit. The resident involved in the incident was assessed and sent to the hospital for observation and remains there.

The complaint investigation was unannounced and conducted by Licensing Program Analyst Kimberly Lyman. The allegations were found to be unsubstantiated due to conflicting information and ultimately determined to be unfounded, meaning the allegations were false or without reasonable basis.

The investigation found that the facility had ample incontinence supplies and call buttons were available as needed. Staffing levels were verified with some staff indicating consistent staffing issues, but witnesses denied any neglect or staffing problems. Due to conflicting information, the allegations were deemed unsubstantiated and ultimately unfounded with no deficiencies cited.

The complaint investigation was unannounced and conducted by Licensing Program Analyst Kimberly Lyman. Allegations included insufficient incontinence supplies, failure to provide call buttons, and inadequate staffing. The investigation included facility tours, interviews with staff, residents, and witnesses, and review of documentation. The allegations were found unsubstantiated and ultimately unfounded.

The investigation found that the facility had ample incontinence supplies and call buttons were available as needed. Staffing levels were verified and found consistent with the administrator's statements, though some staff reported staffing issues while others denied them. Due to conflicting information, the allegations were deemed unsubstantiated and ultimately determined to be unfounded with no deficiencies cited.

The visit was related to complaint investigations and follow-ups for complaint control numbers #22-AS-20220525095746, #22-AS-20221207111938, and #22-AS-20230717085332.

During the inspection, the Licensing Program Analyst and Ombudsman Representative toured the Assisted Living and Memory Care Unit, conducted interviews, and made facility observations. An exit interview was conducted with the Executive Director, and a copy of the report was provided.

The visit was a follow-up complaint investigation related to complaint control numbers 22-AS-20220525095746 and 22-AS-20221207111938. No substantiation status was stated.

During the inspection, the Licensing Program Analyst and Ombudsman Representative toured the Assisted Living and Memory Care Unit, conducted interviews, and made facility observations. An exit interview was conducted with the Executive Director and a copy of the report was provided.

The complaint alleging illegal eviction of a resident was investigated and determined to be unfounded based on record reviews and interviews.

The investigation found that the allegation was unfounded. Documentation showed a Notice to Pay was delivered to the resident, but no eviction notice was sent to any current resident. The Executive Director confirmed eviction procedures require a 30-day notice.

The complaint alleging illegal eviction of a resident was investigated and determined to be unfounded based on record reviews and interviews.

The investigation found that the allegation of illegal eviction was unfounded. Documentation and interviews revealed that no eviction notice was sent to any current resident and the eviction process follows a 30-day notice as per regulation 87224.

The visit was conducted in response to complaint 22-AS-20230410115728. No deficiencies or citations were issued, indicating no substantiated violations.

No hazards or safety concerns posing a threat to residents were observed during the visit. No deficiencies or citations were issued.

Visit was conducted in conjunction with complaint 22-AS-20230410115728. No deficiencies or citations were issued, indicating no substantiated violations.

No hazards or safety concerns posing a threat to residents were observed. No deficiencies or citations were issued during this visit.