Inspection Reports for
The Rose Garden Elderly Care

The complaint alleged staff hit residents and spoke to residents in an inappropriate manner. Interviews with residents, staff, and the administrator, as well as review of records, found no substantiation. The facility does not have male staff, contradicting one allegation. The report concluded the allegations were unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The investigation found the allegations unsubstantiated after interviews with staff, residents, and family members, review of physician reports, and observations. No evidence supported that staff hit or yelled at residents, and no citations were issued.

The complaint alleged that staff hit residents and spoke to residents in an inappropriate manner. Interviews revealed no evidence of staff hitting residents; some residents reported a male staff yelling, but the facility has no male staff. The administrator and staff denied any abuse or yelling. The investigation concluded the allegations were unsubstantiated.

After interviews with residents, staff, and the administrator, and review of physician reports and facility records, the Department found the allegations unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence. No citations were issued during the investigation.

The complaint alleged that staff left resident R1 soiled for an extended period. Multiple witnesses provided conflicting observations. Interviews with staff and residents indicated regular checks and timely care. The resident in question no longer resides at the facility. The investigation concluded the allegations were unsubstantiated.

Based on interviews, observations, and records review, there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation that a resident was left soiled for an extended period. The allegations were determined to be unsubstantiated.

The complaint alleged that staff left a resident soiled for an extended period of time. Multiple interviews and observations were conducted. Some witnesses reported seeing the resident soiled on specific dates, but staff and other witnesses denied the allegation. The resident in question no longer lives at the facility. The allegation was unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The investigation included interviews with staff, residents, and witnesses, as well as a facility tour. Although some witnesses reported seeing the resident in a soiled state, the Department found insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. The complaint was determined to be unsubstantiated.

No deficiencies were cited during the visit. The Licensing Program Analyst met with the administrator, who provided information about his recent start date and the care plans for residents.

No deficiencies were cited during the visit. The Licensing Program Analyst interviewed the administrator and a staff member, confirming the administrator's recent start date and knowledge of resident care plans.

The complaint alleged staff were not meeting residents' dietary needs, not providing adequate food service, and leaving a resident in a soiled diaper overnight. Interviews with residents, staff, and the administrator, as well as observations, did not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate these allegations. The complaint was determined to be unsubstantiated.

The investigation found sufficient food supply and accommodations for residents' dietary needs, with staff providing additional servings upon request. Residents and staff interviews indicated that toiletry needs were met regularly. However, one resident reported insufficient food variety and occasional delays in assistance. Overall, there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations, and the complaint was unsubstantiated.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included inadequate dietary provision and leaving a resident in a soiled diaper overnight. Interviews and observations did not support these claims.

The investigation found that the facility provided sufficient food supplies and accommodated residents' dietary needs, including diabetic diets. Interviews with residents and staff indicated that food service was generally adequate, though one resident expressed dissatisfaction with breakfast quality. Regarding toiletry care, staff checked residents every 2-3 hours and complied with requests for changes. There was no evidence residents were left soiled for extended periods. Overall, the allegations were unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.

The facility was toured and inspected, found to be in good repair with functioning smoke detectors and fire extinguisher. No residents or staff were present. Some conditions for licensure remain, including creation of an emergency key set, obtaining liability insurance, and adjusting water temperature to between 105°F and 120°F.

The facility was found to be in good repair with functioning smoke detectors, fire extinguisher, clean and furnished resident bedrooms, and safe bathrooms. The facility currently has no residents or staff aside from the licensee. Licensure is recommended pending creation of an emergency key set, obtaining liability insurance, and adjustment of water temperature to between 105°F and 120°F.

The applicant and administrator successfully completed Component II of the licensing process, demonstrating understanding of facility operation, staff qualifications, training, grievance procedures, food service, medication management, and reporting processes. No deficiencies were noted.

The applicant and administrator successfully completed Component II of the licensing process, demonstrating understanding of Title 22 regulations, facility operation, staff qualifications, training, grievances, food service, medication management, and reporting processes.