Inspection Reports for
The Watermark at San Jose

The complaint included three allegations: 1) staff not following a resident's hospice care plan, 2) staff not responding to a resident's call button, and 3) staff leaving a resident in a soiled diaper. After investigation, including interviews and record reviews, all allegations were found to be unfounded.

The investigation included interviews with staff, residents, and family members, as well as review of care plans and records. The Department found all allegations to be unfounded, meaning the allegations were false or without reasonable basis. No citations were issued during the investigation.

The complaint involved three allegations: 1) staff not following a resident's hospice care plan, 2) staff not responding to a resident's call button, and 3) staff leaving a resident in a soiled diaper. The investigation found that the resident's family and hospice agency provided most care services, staff responded to call buttons within 15-20 minutes, and the family conducted catheter care. The allegations were determined to be unfounded.

The investigation included interviews with staff, residents, and family members, and review of care plans. The Department found all allegations to be unfounded, meaning the allegations were false or without reasonable basis. No citations were issued during the investigation.

The complaint investigation was triggered by multiple allegations received on July 7, 2025, including staff not preventing a resident from wandering, mishandling personal belongings and medications, failure to provide admission agreements and access to records, not following dietary needs, and lack of planned activities. The investigation concluded all allegations were either unfounded or unsubstantiated based on interviews with staff, administrators, residents, and review of records and logs.

The investigation found all allegations to be either unfounded or unsubstantiated after interviews, record reviews, and audits. The resident did wander unassisted within the facility but did not elope. The facility implemented policy changes to prevent future wandering. Allegations of mishandling personal belongings and medications were not substantiated, with the facility compensating for missing items. The facility provided activities and followed dietary needs appropriately. Documentation and access to records were provided as required.

The complaint included multiple allegations: rough handling of residents by staff, lack of dignity and respect, failure to meet residents' incontinent care needs, failure to provide adequate bedding timely, and inadequate laundry service. Investigations included interviews with residents and staff, observations, and record reviews. The complaint was found to be unsubstantiated.

After interviews with residents, staff, and facility management, observations, and record reviews, the investigation found no preponderance of evidence to substantiate the allegations. Staff were generally found to treat residents with dignity and respect, provide adequate incontinent care, bedding, and laundry services. The allegations were determined to be unsubstantiated.

The complaint included allegations that facility staff handled residents roughly, did not treat residents with dignity and respect, failed to meet residents' incontinent care needs, did not provide adequate bedding timely, and did not provide adequate laundry service. The investigation included interviews with residents and staff, observations, and review of records. The complaint was found to be unsubstantiated.

After interviews with residents, staff, and facility management, and observations, the investigation found no preponderance of evidence to substantiate the allegations. Residents and staff generally reported appropriate care, dignity, bedding, and laundry services. The allegations were determined to be unsubstantiated.

The complaint investigation addressed allegations about improper room maintenance, unmet hygiene and laundry needs, inadequate transportation, and incorrect incident reporting to a family. The findings were unsubstantiated or unfounded for all allegations after interviews, observations, and record reviews.

The investigation found the allegations regarding room cleanliness and hygiene needs to be unsubstantiated, with evidence showing residents' rooms were generally clean and laundry and showering needs were met according to schedules. The transportation-related allegations were found to be unfounded, with the facility providing scheduled transportation and addressing family concerns. The allegation of staff reporting wrong incident information was also found to be unfounded, with the facility promptly correcting misinformation and apologizing to the family.

The complaint investigation was triggered by multiple allegations received on 07/07/2025, including improper room maintenance, unmet hygiene and laundry needs, inadequate transportation, and incorrect incident reporting to a family member. The investigation included interviews with residents, staff, and administrators, tours of resident rooms and memory care units, and review of records. The findings were unsubstantiated or unfounded for all allegations.

The investigation found the allegations regarding room maintenance and hygiene/laundry needs to be unsubstantiated, with evidence showing rooms were generally clean and residents' hygiene and laundry needs were met according to schedules. The transportation and incident reporting allegations were found to be unfounded, with the facility providing scheduled transportation and correcting misinformation promptly.

The Licensing Program Analyst toured the facility including resident bedrooms, dining, kitchen, and common areas, and reviewed resident and staff records. No deficiencies were cited during this inspection.

The Licensing Program Analyst toured the facility including resident bedrooms, dining, kitchen, and common areas, and reviewed resident and staff records. No deficiencies were cited during this inspection.

The visit was triggered by an incident complaint reported on 2025-10-16; the case management requires further investigation.

No deficiencies were cited during the visit based on California Code of Regulations Title 22, but further investigation of the case management is needed.

The visit was triggered by an incident complaint reported on 2025-10-16. Based on gathered information, the case management requires further investigation.

No deficiencies were cited during the visit based on California Code of Regulations Title 22, but further investigation of the case management is needed.

The visit was triggered by an SOC 341 incident report submitted on 2025-07-18 concerning Resident R1. The complaint was investigated with interviews and document review, and no deficiencies were found.

No deficiencies were cited during the visit per California Code of Regulation Title 22. The Licensing Program Analyst interviewed staff and reviewed documentation. The facility will submit an LIC624 Incident Report by 2025-07-23.

The facility was found to be ready for licensing with no deficiencies noted. The inspection included a thorough tour of the facility, verification of safety features, environmental conditions, and compliance with health and safety standards.

The applicant and administrator participated in a COMP II telephone interview confirming their understanding of California Code Title 22 regulations, including facility operation, admission policies, staffing, health conditions, general provisions, emergency preparedness, complaints and reporting, and pre-licensing readiness.