Inspection Reports for
Vi at La Jolla Village

The complaint alleged that Staff #1 stole $2880 from Resident #1, who had a Major Neurocognitive Disorder and was unable to manage their own finances. The check was determined to be forged by Staff #1, who was employed by a Home Care Agency and outsourced to provide care to the resident. Staff #1 was terminated from employment. Despite these findings, the investigation did not find a preponderance of evidence to substantiate the allegation.

The investigation included record reviews and interviews, revealing inconsistent statements and insufficient evidence to support the allegation. The complaint was deemed unsubstantiated.

The complaint alleged lack of supervision resulting in financial abuse, specifically that Staff #1 stole $2880 from Resident #1 who had a Major Neurocognitive Disorder and was unable to manage their own finances. The check was forged by Staff #1 and cashed on 04/24/25. Despite evidence of forgery and termination of Staff #1, the overall allegation was unsubstantiated due to inconsistent statements and lack of corroborating evidence.

The investigation included record reviews and interviews, revealing inconsistent statements and insufficient evidence to support the allegation. The staff member was found to have forged a check and was terminated, but the allegation was ultimately deemed unsubstantiated.

The visit was complaint-related, following three incident reports involving resident falls and injuries. The investigation found no substantiated licensing violations.

Interviews and health and safety visits revealed no licensing or regulatory concerns. The facility responded appropriately to each incident, with no deficiencies cited. Residents received timely medical attention and care plans were updated accordingly.

The visit was triggered by three incident reports involving residents R1, R2, and R3 who experienced falls resulting in injuries such as rib fractures and vertebrae compression fractures. The investigation found no substantiated violations or delays in medical attention.

Interviews and health and safety visits with the residents involved and staff revealed no licensing or regulatory concerns. The facility responded appropriately to each incident, conducted updated assessments and care plans, and no deficiencies were cited.

The complaint alleged that facility staff violated residents' personal rights by threatening residents if they did not choose certain home care agencies. Interviews showed residents felt comfortable and had the right to choose their own home care agency. The allegation was unsubstantiated.

The investigation included interviews, a facility tour, and records review. Interviews with residents and staff revealed no evidence of threats or intimidation regarding choice of home care agencies. The allegation was deemed unsubstantiated due to insufficient evidence.

The fire was contained to the laundry room with no impact on residents. Facility staff reacted appropriately, the area was remediated and in good repair, and no deficiencies were cited during the visit.

No deficiencies were cited during the visit. An Immediate Exclusion letter was delivered to Staff 1, and the facility representative acknowledged receipt of the documents.

The facility was found to be clean, sanitary, and in good repair with no deficiencies cited during the visit. Safety measures, proper storage, and adequate supplies were observed, and interviews with staff and clients revealed no regulatory concerns.

The visit included securing report signatures, delivering an amended report, and conducting an exit interview with the Executive Director. No specific deficiencies or violations are detailed in the report.

The complaint alleged unlawful eviction of a resident who was discharged from the hospital on April 27, 2025, and initially not accepted back into their independent living apartment. The investigation included interviews, record reviews, and observations, concluding the allegation was unsubstantiated due to lack of evidence.

The investigation found insufficient evidence to support the allegation of unlawful eviction. The resident returned to their apartment under 24/7 care and supervision, and the facility staff continued to monitor the resident's condition as required.

The complaint alleged that on May 16, 2025, staff entered resident R1's apartment without consent after knocking and receiving no answer, and that on May 19, 2025, staff called 911 leading to a wellness check. The allegation was unsubstantiated after investigation.

The investigation found insufficient evidence to support the allegation that staff violated the resident's privacy. Staff entered the resident's apartment only after knocking and announcing themselves, with the resident's awareness and permission for wellness checks.

The visit was related to a complaint investigation conducted on 2025-02-28; the amended report was delivered during this visit.

The amended report was reviewed with the Executive Director, Stephanie Boudreau, and signatures were obtained. An exit interview was conducted and appeal rights were provided.

The complaint alleged that staff repeatedly threatened Resident 1 with eviction if they continued to complain about the cold temperature in their room. Interviews and record reviews did not support the allegation, and multiple sources denied witnessing or hearing of any such threats.

The investigation included interviews, facility tour, and record review, and found insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation that staff threatened the resident with eviction. The allegation was determined to be unsubstantiated.

The complaint alleged that on January 18, 2025, the resident experienced an unwitnessed fall due to cold temperatures causing sleep deprivation, resulting in injury. The allegation was unsubstantiated after investigation.

The investigation included a facility tour, interviews, and record reviews. It was found that the resident's apartment temperature was within regulatory standards and that multiple factors including medical conditions contributed to the resident's symptoms. There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation.

The complaint was investigated based on allegations received on 2024-12-11 regarding staff conduct and facility conditions. The complaint was found to be unfounded after interviews and records review.

The investigation found the complaint to be unfounded, determining that the allegations were false, could not have happened, and/or were without reasonable basis. The allegations were not pertinent to the licensed facility.

The complaint included allegations that staff did not maintain a comfortable temperature in resident R1's apartment, did not meet dietary needs, and charged R1 for services not rendered. The investigation was unsubstantiated based on observations, interviews, and record reviews.

The investigation found insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations. Temperature in the resident's apartment was within regulatory limits, dietary needs were met according to medical records and resident interviews, and billing statements showed correct meal credits with no evidence of overcharging.

The inspection found no violations. The facility was clean, sanitary, and in good operating condition with all safety equipment functioning properly. Staff interviews and record reviews did not raise any licensing concerns.

The complaint alleged that the facility did not follow the terms of the admission agreement by not allowing a resident to return to their independent living apartment after hospital discharge. The investigation found no evidence to support this allegation, and the complaint was unfounded.

The investigation included a tour, interviews, and records review. It was found that the resident was informed of care requirements and options, and the facility held the apartment for the resident during their stay in the care center. No evidence was found to support the allegation, and the complaint was determined to be unfounded.

The complaint alleged that facility staff overmedicated a resident. After review of records and interviews, the allegation was unsubstantiated.

The investigation found no evidence that the medication was administered outside of the prescription or when not needed. Staff were in communication with the resident's physician, Hospice agency, and DPOA. The allegation was determined to be unsubstantiated.

The visit was complaint-related due to a self-reported incident involving Resident #1, with reports submitted including a Special Incident Report and a Report of Suspected Dependent Adult/Elder Abuse.

During the unannounced visit, no immediate health or safety concerns were observed, and no deficiencies were cited.

Complaint allegation was unfounded, meaning the allegation was false, could not have happened, and/or was without a reasonable basis.

The investigation, which included observations, interviews, and records review, found no evidence to support the complaint allegation. The passageways were built to approved plans and complied with building and fire codes. The complaint was determined to be unfounded.

The complaint alleging unaddressed mold under a resident's bathroom sink was found to be unfounded after investigation, including observations, interviews, and record reviews.

The investigation found no evidence to support the complaint allegation. Maintenance records, staff interviews, and an independent inspection confirmed that repairs were completed and no mold or moisture was present under the sink at the time of the visit.

The meeting focused on sharing perspectives on communication styles and identifying mutual goals to ensure quality care and services to residents. Supportive measures were agreed upon to foster continued collaboration.

The complaint investigation addressed allegations including staff disrespect, failure to meet dietary needs, unsafe environment due to a light fixture, and failure to meet resident needs such as cleaning the light fixture and providing transportation without prior notice. All allegations were either unsubstantiated or unfounded based on the investigation.

The investigation found insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations that staff did not treat residents with respect or meet dietary needs. Additionally, allegations regarding unsafe conditions related to a light fixture and unmet resident needs were found to be unfounded after observations, interviews, and record reviews.

No deficiencies were cited during the visit. The analyst reviewed the resident's file, toured the facility, and interviewed staff about events leading up to the death.

No deficiencies were cited during the visit. The Licensing Program Analyst reviewed the resident's file, toured the facility, and interviewed staff regarding the events leading to the resident's death.

The facility was found to be in compliance with infection control practices as outlined in its COVID-19 Mitigation Plan. No deficiencies were observed during the visit.

No deficiencies were issued during the visit. The team conducted interviews and a walkthrough of the facility, concluding with a debriefing and exit interview with facility staff.

The inspection verified compliance with infection control practices including COVID-19 mitigation measures. No deficiencies were cited during the visit.

The Licensing Program Analyst verified through staff interview that Staff #1 has never been employed by the facility. No deficiencies were cited during the visit.

No deficiencies were issued during the visit. Further investigation is required and future visits may be necessary.