Inspection Reports for
The Ivy at Golden Gate

The Licensing Program Analyst found that the incident had not been reported to the Department within the required 7 days, as it was reported after 10 days. No deficiencies were cited during the visit, and technical assistance was provided regarding compliance with reporting requirements.

The visit was triggered by a complaint alleging missing personal property from a resident's room. The resident was hospitalized and undergoing treatment at the time of the visit. The complaint investigation included interviews and documentation review.

The Licensing Program Analyst interviewed staff, collected relevant documentation, and reviewed the incident report with the Executive Director. No photographs or documented values of the missing items were available at the time of the report.

The visit was triggered by an incident complaint regarding a resident leaving the facility unassisted. The complaint was not substantiated as the resident was found safe and not at risk according to medical assessment.

The investigation found that the resident was not at risk of wandering according to a physician's report, all door alarms and delayed egress systems were functioning properly, and no deficiencies were cited during the visit.

The facility was found to be clean, well-maintained, and compliant with all regulations. No deficiencies were cited during the inspection.

The facility was found to be clean, well-maintained, and compliant with all regulations. Resident and staff records were complete and updated, and no deficiencies were cited during the inspection.

Complaint alleged that client R1's care needs were not met by staff, with observations of poor condition. The allegation was unsubstantiated after investigation, meaning there was insufficient evidence to prove the alleged violation occurred.

The investigation found that the client's wounds were pre-existing and being appropriately treated by the facility along with outside medical care. Interviews and record reviews indicated the facility was providing appropriate care and meeting resident needs. The complaint allegation was determined to be unsubstantiated with no deficiencies cited.

The complaint alleged that a client's care needs were not met by staff. The allegation was found unsubstantiated after investigation, meaning there was insufficient evidence to prove the violation occurred.

The investigation found that the client had been transferred to an emergency room after an incident unrelated to the facility, and that observed wounds were pre-existing and appropriately treated. Interviews and record reviews indicated the facility was providing appropriate care and meeting resident needs. The complaint was determined to be unsubstantiated with no deficiencies cited.

The complaint alleged that staff did not distribute resident's medication as prescribed, did not maintain current resident records, and failed to communicate with the responsible party regarding resident's care service. These allegations were found unsubstantiated.

The investigation found no evidence to substantiate the allegations. Medication administration records and resident records were maintained properly, and documented communication with the responsible party was confirmed. The allegations were deemed unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The complaint alleged staff failed to dispense medication as prescribed and did not refill prescriptions timely. The investigation included interviews with staff and review of resident medication and hospice records. The findings were unsubstantiated due to lack of sufficient evidence.

The investigation found no corroborating evidence to support the allegations that staff did not ensure medication was dispensed as prescribed or that prescriptions were not refilled timely. Staff interviews and record reviews indicated medication was administered appropriately, and delays in physician orders were documented. The allegations were determined to be unsubstantiated.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included failure to distribute medication as prescribed, failure to maintain current resident records, and failure to communicate with the responsible party. Contradictory information was received, and no specific evidence of violations was found.

The investigation found no evidence to substantiate the allegations. Medication administration records were reviewed and no errors were identified. Resident records were maintained, and documented communication with the responsible party was confirmed. The allegations were determined to be unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included failure to dispense medication as prescribed and failure to refill medication in a timely manner. Interviews and record reviews did not support these allegations.

The investigation found no corroborating evidence to support the allegations. Staff observed the resident asleep and unable to administer PRN narcotic medication at that time but administered it later when the resident awoke. Medication delivery was delayed due to a missing physician order, but the medication was provided once the order was received. The complaint allegations were determined to be unsubstantiated due to lack of sufficient evidence.

Complaint alleged the facility did not issue a refund to residents R1 and R2. The allegation was found to be unfounded after review of admissions agreements, interviews, and documentation.

The investigation found that residents R1 and R2 had signed an admissions agreement effective 7/31/2024 and had voluntarily refused to move their belongings into the facility. The facility provided the appropriate pro-rated community fees refund. The complaint was determined to be unfounded with no deficiencies cited.

The complaint alleged the facility did not issue a refund to residents R1 and R2 for community move-in fees and first month rent. The allegation was found to be unfounded after review of admissions agreements, interviews, and documentation.

The investigation found that residents R1 and R2 had signed an admissions agreement effective 7/31/2024 and had undergone pre-appraisal assessments. Although the residents voluntarily refused to move their belongings into the facility, the facility provided the appropriate pro-rated community fees refund. The complaint was determined to be unfounded with no deficiencies cited.

The complaint included allegations that facility staff failed to provide safe, healthful, and comfortable accommodations; failed to provide tray service when a resident was ill; failed to provide medication according to physician's directions; failed to accord dignity in personal relationships; and did not clean and disinfect a COVID-positive resident's room. The investigation concluded these allegations were unsubstantiated.

The investigation found no preponderance of evidence to substantiate the allegations, including issues related to accommodations, meal service during isolation, medication administration, staff conduct, and COVID-19 room cleaning. The allegations were therefore unsubstantiated.

The complaint included allegations of unsafe accommodations, failure to provide tray service when residents were ill, improper medication administration, lack of dignity in staff interactions, and failure to clean COVID positive resident rooms. The investigation concluded all allegations were unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The investigation found that the facility took appropriate actions such as issuing a work order for carpet cleaning and providing medication according to physician orders. There was a misunderstanding regarding meal delivery to an isolated resident. Allegations of disrespectful staff behavior and failure to clean COVID positive rooms were unsubstantiated due to insufficient evidence.

The facility was found to be clean, well-maintained, and compliant with safety and care regulations. No deficiencies were cited during the visit, and all reviewed resident and staff files, as well as medication records, were in order.

The facility was found to be clean, well-maintained, and compliant with safety and care regulations. No deficiencies were cited during the visit, and staff files, medication records, and resident care were all in order.

The immediate exclusion letter was delivered and reviewed with the Executive Director, Katherine Raukhman, who was advised that the excluded private companion is not allowed to work in the facility. The report was reviewed, discussed, and a copy was provided.

The Licensing Program Analyst delivered an immediate exclusion letter to exclude a private companion from working in the facility. The Executive Director was advised and reviewed the letter. No other findings or deficiencies were noted.

The facility was found to be clean, in good repair, and in compliance with Title 22 regulations. No safety hazards were observed, and required records and postings were maintained.

The facility was found to be clean, in good repair, and in compliance with Title 22 regulations. No safety hazards or obstructions were observed, and required records and postings were maintained. Immediate licensure was recommended pending final approval.

The applicant/administrator demonstrated understanding of community care facility licensing laws, including facility operation, admission policies, staffing requirements, restrictive health conditions, and general provisions. Identification was verified and required documentation was obtained.

The applicant/administrator demonstrated understanding of facility operation, admission policies, staffing requirements and training, restrictive/prohibited health conditions, and general provisions. No deficiencies or violations were noted in the report.