Inspection Reports for
The Reutlinger Community

During the visit, the Licensing Program Analyst delivered an immediate exclusion letter for an individual (S1) who is no longer employed at the facility and will be removed from the facility's Guardian Roster. No deficiencies were cited during this visit.

During the visit, the Licensing Program Analyst delivered an immediate exclusion letter for an employee (S1), who was immediately removed from the schedule and informed not to return. No deficiencies were cited on this date.

The facility was toured and inspected with no deficiencies cited. All safety equipment was operational, environmental conditions were adequate, and records for residents and staff were reviewed and found compliant.

No deficiencies were cited during the visit. The Executive Director explained that the eviction notice was issued because the facility could not meet R1's needs without agreement from the responsible party on medication adjustments and care changes.

The complaint involved a resident alleging verbal abuse by staff. The resident could not identify the staff member, and interviews with other residents and staff did not substantiate the claim. The resident has a history of making false claims against caregivers.

The facility and Licensing Program Analyst were unable to confirm any verbal abuse by staff towards the resident. The resident was hard of hearing and unable to identify the staff involved. No deficiencies were cited.

The complaint involved a resident fall on 03/03/2025 with delayed injury discovery. Staff S1 and S2 were suspended pending investigation and received verbal warnings and in-service training. The resident is currently back at the facility and in physical therapy.

The investigation found that staff member S1 promptly checked on the resident after the fall but failed to wake the resident for a full assessment. Both staff members S1 and S2 received verbal warnings and additional training. No deficiencies were cited at this time.

The complaint was unsubstantiated. Allegations included staff mistreating a resident and preventing access to food. Interviews with staff raised credibility concerns, and no evidence was found in resident charts or incident reports. Residents could not be interviewed due to dementia and memory care status.

The investigation found no substantiated evidence to support the allegations. Interviews with staff and review of records did not confirm the claims, and no deficiencies were cited during the visit.

The Licensing Program Analyst toured the facility with the Skilled Nursing Administrator and found adequate lighting, appropriate temperatures, proper food supplies, and secured medications. No deficiencies were cited during the visit.

No deficiencies were cited during the visit. The inspection was not complete and will be continued at a later date. Fire clearance was approved, smoke detectors and sprinklers were observed, and staff training was current.

The complaint involved multiple allegations including insufficient staffing levels, false claims about caregiver to resident ratios, inadequate administrator duties, and failure to carry out planned activities. The investigation concluded all allegations were unsubstantiated.

The investigation involved record reviews, interviews, and document collection. The allegations were found to be unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence, with findings showing efforts to maintain staffing, communication during COVID-19, and activities delivered during isolation.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included resident injury, failure to seek timely medical attention, insufficient staffing, financial crisis, inadequate food service, and delayed response to family council concerns. Evidence did not prove violations occurred.

The investigation found that the resident injury occurred but first aid was provided and the resident was hospitalized and later transferred to skilled nursing. Staffing was generally adequate according to resident interviews. The facility is experiencing a financial crisis linked to occupancy decline due to COVID-19 restrictions. Food service was reported adequate by most residents. The facility's response to family council concerns was timely. All allegations were ultimately unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The complaint was unsubstantiated or unfounded for all allegations including improper incontinence care, unkempt facility, inadequate meals, and questionable death.

The investigation found no substantiated violations. Staff interviews and observations confirmed residents received proper incontinence care, the facility was sanitary and well kept, residents were provided adequate meals, and the questionable death allegation was unfounded based on review of hospice care and death certificate.

The facility was found to be in compliance with no deficiencies cited. Safety measures, staff training, resident records, and environmental conditions met regulatory standards.

The visit was complaint-related, triggered by multiple incident reports involving resident injuries and staff conduct. The internal investigation of one staff member was terminated without determination of substantiation. The licensing analysts requested submission of the internal investigation report by 09/08/2023.

The investigation reviewed multiple incidents including a resident with low oxygen levels, allegations of rough handling by staff, and multiple reports concerning a staff member accused of causing bruising and skin tears to residents. An internal investigation was conducted, resulting in suspension and reassignment of staff. No deficiencies were cited during the visit.

The complaint alleged that facility staff were interfering with resident sleeping by slamming doors at night. The allegation was found to be unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The investigation included interviews with staff and residents. Four residents stated that staff do not disturb residents during their sleep. There was insufficient evidence to prove the allegation, so it was determined to be unsubstantiated.

The complaint alleged that the facility was not preventing the spread of COVID-19. The allegation was unsubstantiated after investigation.

The investigation included interviews with staff and residents and a review of the facility's COVID-19 mitigation plan. Staff reported that COVID-19 positive residents were isolated in private rooms and redirected from common areas. The allegation was found to be unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

Adequate food, paper, and PPE supplies were observed, staffing was stable, and there were no imminent health or safety concerns on the date of the visit.

During the visit, the Licensing Program Analyst met with residents and staff, observed adequate supplies and stable staffing, and found no imminent health or safety concerns.

The complaint alleged that residents' care plans were increased without an updated plan. The investigation included interviews and record reviews, and concluded the allegation was unsubstantiated.

The investigation found that although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there was not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, resulting in the allegation being unsubstantiated.

The complaint was unsubstantiated due to lack of sufficient evidence to prove the alleged violations occurred.

The investigation included interviews with residents and staff and review of resident files. Findings indicated that staff used a shorter swab to minimize discomfort and residents did not report bad experiences. There was no preponderance of evidence to substantiate the allegations, and the complaint was determined to be unsubstantiated.

The complaint alleged that the facility was not taking precautions to mitigate risks of spreading COVID-19. The complaint was investigated and found to be unfounded, meaning the allegation was false or without reasonable basis.

The investigation found that the complaint was unfounded; the facility was not responsible for the valet parking service infection control issues, and no evidence supported the allegation that the facility failed to mitigate COVID-19 risks.

The facility was found to have adequate infection control measures including proper PPE use, sufficient food supply, visitor screening policies, and posted hygiene protocols. No deficiencies were cited during the visit.

The Licensing Program Analyst learned that the facility appropriately intervened in the incident and separated the two residents involved.