Inspection Reports for
The Ivy at Wellington

The complaint alleged that the facility failed to meet the needs of Resident #1. The complaint was investigated and found to be unfounded, meaning the allegation was false or without reasonable basis.

The investigation found that the resident in question resided in the Independent Living portion of the facility, which is not under the Department's licensing requirements. Therefore, the allegation that the facility failed to meet the resident's needs was deemed unfounded and dismissed.

The complaint alleged that staff did not allow a resident's medication to be delivered. The complaint was found to be unfounded as the resident lives in an area not covered by the facility's licensure.

The investigation found that the resident in question resides in the independent living side of the facility, which is not covered under the facility's licensure. Therefore, the complaint was determined to be unfounded and dismissed.

The complaint alleged the facility did not ensure a resident was accorded reasonable accommodations related to painting the resident's sunroom. The allegation was unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The investigation found that the sunroom had not been painted due to concerns from the resident's responsible party about paint toxins. The facility provided a VOC levels report which satisfied the responsible party. There was insufficient evidence to prove or refute the allegation; therefore, the complaint was deemed unsubstantiated.

The complaint investigation addressed multiple allegations: 1) Facility did not safeguard medications, 2) Facility staff are not trained in medication administration, 3) Facility allowing unskilled staff to perform injections, and 4) Facility staff falsifies documents. The medication-related allegations were deemed unfounded, meaning false or without reasonable basis. The injection and falsification allegations were deemed unsubstantiated due to insufficient evidence.

The investigation found that the allegations regarding medication safeguarding and staff training were unfounded, as medications were properly secured and staff were adequately trained. The allegation of unskilled staff performing injections was unsubstantiated, with no evidence staff performed injections. The allegation of staff falsifying documents was also unsubstantiated due to conflicting information and lack of evidence. No citations were issued during this visit.

The complaint alleged that the facility did not safeguard a resident's personal items. The allegation was unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The investigation found that the locker assigned to the resident did not have a lock and contained items not belonging to the resident. However, the resident had not accessed the locker for four years and did not provide an inventory of items. Due to insufficient evidence, the allegation was deemed unsubstantiated.

The complaint investigation addressed two allegations: 1) lack of supervision resulting in resident on resident sexual abuse, and 2) the facility allowing a resident to violate the gun policy. The investigation included interviews, record reviews, and inspections. The allegations were found to be unfounded.

The investigation found the allegations to be unfounded. There was no evidence that the facility failed to provide proper care and supervision regarding the sexual abuse allegation, and the facility enforced its gun policy promptly upon discovering a resident had guns and ammunition.

The complaint investigation was triggered by allegations that lack of supervision resulted in resident on resident sexual abuse and that the facility allowed a resident to violate the gun policy. The investigation included interviews, record reviews, and inspections. The allegations were found to be unfounded.

The investigation found no corroborating evidence to support the allegations. The facility staff and administration had no reason to suspect abuse, and the facility enforced its gun policy once aware of the violation. The allegations were determined to be unfounded.

The complaint was unsubstantiated after investigation. Allegations included staff tampering with resident belongings, not following the monthly menu, and serving poor quality food. Interviews and observations did not support these claims.

The investigation included interviews, facility tours, and document reviews. The allegations were found to be unsubstantiated due to lack of sufficient evidence to prove or refute the claims. Residents and staff interviews indicated no issues with food quality or menu adherence, and the physical plant tour confirmed the condition of the alleged tampered item.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included staff tampering with resident belongings, failure to follow the monthly menu, and serving poor quality food. Interviews with staff and residents, as well as observations, did not support these allegations.

The investigation included interviews, facility file and menu reviews, and physical plant tours. The allegations were found to be unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence to prove or refute the claims. Residents and staff interviews indicated no consistent issues with food quality or menu adherence, and no evidence of tampering with personal belongings was confirmed.

The inspection found no deficiencies in the areas inspected. The facility was observed to be well maintained with proper safety measures, adequate staffing documentation, and appropriate resident care and environment.

The inspection found no deficiencies in the areas inspected. The facility was observed to be well maintained with adequate food supply, proper medication storage, safe physical environment including pool fencing and fire safety equipment, and complete resident and staff records.

Complaint allegations included staff discarding residents' meals and dispensing medication not prescribed. The complaint was found to be unfounded and dismissed.

The investigation determined that the complaint was filed under the wrong facility license number and the allegations were unfounded, meaning they were false or without reasonable basis. The complaint was dismissed.

The complaint alleged the facility did not release Resident 1's records to the responsible party. The allegation was found unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The investigation found conflicting information from staff interviews and record reviews, and was unable to determine if the facility failed to release resident records. Therefore, the allegation was unsubstantiated.

The complaint was investigated and found to be unfounded; the allegations were false or could not have happened.

The investigation determined that the complaint was filed under the wrong facility license number and found the allegations to be unfounded, meaning the allegations were false or without reasonable basis. The complaint was dismissed.

The complaint alleged that the facility did not release Resident 1's records to the responsible party. Staff interviews indicated no knowledge of denial of records, and record review showed documentation was present. Due to conflicting information, the allegation was unsubstantiated.

The investigation found conflicting information from staff interviews and record reviews, and was unable to determine if the facility failed to release resident records. Therefore, the allegation was unsubstantiated.

The amended report findings were discussed with facility staff including the Health Services Director and Executive Director. An exit interview was conducted and copies of the report and amended findings were provided.

The amended report findings were discussed with facility staff including the Health Services Director and Executive Director, and an exit interview was conducted with facility staff.

The complaint alleged that a resident sustained multiple unexplained bruises while in care. The allegation was unsubstantiated due to lack of evidence.

The investigation included interviews with staff and the resident, a tour of the resident's bedroom, and a review of records. The resident was being treated for edema and cardiovascular disease, which could explain bruising. No bruising was observed during the visit, and there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. The complaint was deemed unsubstantiated.

The complaint alleged that a resident sustained multiple unexplained bruises while in care. The allegation was unsubstantiated due to lack of evidence.

The investigation included interviews with staff and the resident, a tour of the resident's bedroom, and a review of resident records. The resident was being treated for edema and was on blood thinner medication, which could cause bruising. No bruising was observed during the visit, and there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. The complaint was deemed unsubstantiated.

The complaint was investigated and found to be unfounded, meaning the allegation was false, could not have happened, and/or was without a reasonable basis.

The investigation revealed that Resident 1 was hospitalized and upon return received appropriate assessment and care adjustments. Interviews and record reviews indicated the resident was independent except for bathing assistance. The allegation was deemed unfounded.

The complaint was investigated and deemed unfounded, meaning the allegation was false, could not have happened, and/or was without a reasonable basis.

The investigation found that the allegation was unfounded. Resident records and interviews indicated the resident was independent except for bathing assistance, and the facility had made appropriate assessments and care adjustments following the resident's hospitalization.

The complaint alleged that staff were not following infection control requirements. After investigation, the allegation was deemed unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The investigation included interviews, observations, and document reviews which found that the facility had infection control precautions in place, including mask usage, cleaning protocols, PPE availability, and notification procedures. Despite the allegations, there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the claim, and the complaint was deemed unsubstantiated.

The complaint alleged that staff were not following infection control requirements. After investigation, the allegation was deemed unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The investigation included interviews, observations, and document reviews which found that the facility had infection control precautions in place, including mask usage, surface cleaning, PPE availability, and resident notifications. Despite the allegations, there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the claim, and the complaint was deemed unsubstantiated.

The inspection found no deficiencies in the areas inspected. The facility was observed to be well-maintained with adequate staffing, proper medication storage, safe physical environment including pool fencing and emergency equipment, and compliance with health and safety regulations.

The inspection found no deficiencies in the areas inspected. The facility was observed to be well-maintained with adequate staffing, proper medication storage, safe physical environment, and compliance with health and safety regulations.

The complaint was unsubstantiated. The investigation included interviews with 7 staff and residents regarding call button response times and 3 staff interviews plus 4 resident interviews regarding bathing. The average call response time was between twelve to twenty three minutes based on pendant tracking reports. No evidence was found to prove or refute the allegations.

The investigation found that staff responded to call buttons within thirteen to fifteen minutes on average, with interviews from staff and residents not corroborating the allegations. Bathing schedules were tracked and refusals documented, with residents reporting no concerns. The allegations were deemed unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The complaint was unsubstantiated based on interviews, observations, and document review. Staff response times to call buttons averaged between twelve to twenty-three minutes, and bathing needs were met or documented refusals were handled appropriately.

The investigation found that staff responded to call buttons within thirteen to fifteen minutes on average, supported by interviews with staff and residents, and bathing schedules were tracked with documentation of refusals. There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations, and the complaint was deemed unsubstantiated.

The facility was inspected thoroughly including assisted living areas, common areas, and resident apartments. All elements verified appeared to be in compliance with regulatory requirements, including safety systems, furnishings, and emergency supplies. The facility is ready to be licensed pending final review and approval.

The inspection found the facility in compliance with regulatory requirements, including adequate resident accommodations, operational appliances, safety systems, and emergency supplies. The facility is ready to be licensed pending final review and approval.

The applicant/administrator demonstrated understanding of facility operation, admission policies, staffing requirements and training, restrictive/prohibited health conditions, and general provisions as confirmed by the CAB analyst during the COMP II interview.

The applicant/administrator demonstrated understanding of facility operation, admission policies, staffing requirements and training, restrictive/prohibited health conditions, and general provisions as confirmed by the CAB analyst during the COMP II interview.