Inspection Reports for
Wildomar Senior Assisted Living

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included medication mismanagement, unmet hygiene needs, and delayed response to call buttons. Interviews and observations did not support these claims.

The investigation found that medications were administered as prescribed, hygiene schedules were followed, and call buttons were answered within 3 to 7 minutes. Based on evidence, all allegations were unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of proof.

The complaint alleged that on January 12, 2026, staff member S1 yelled and spoke rudely to Client #1 when the client attempted to enter the staff's office. The investigation included interviews with staff, residents, and outside sources, which did not support the allegation. The complaint was unsubstantiated.

Based on interviews and record review, the investigation did not find sufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation that staff did not treat the resident with dignity. The allegation was determined to be unsubstantiated.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included neglect/lack of supervision causing hospitalization, failure to provide wound care, and restricting resident's use of wheelchair and freedom to leave bedroom. Evidence did not support these claims.

The investigation found no preponderance of evidence to substantiate the allegations. Records and interviews showed the resident was receiving home health wound care, was not confined to their bedroom, and was not denied use of their wheelchair. The allegations were determined to be unsubstantiated.

The complaint involved allegations that Resident #1 was overcharged for seven months and that staff entered Resident #1's and Resident #2's bedrooms without permission. The investigation found no preponderance of evidence to support these claims, resulting in an unsubstantiated finding.

The investigation, including record reviews and interviews, did not find sufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations of overcharging or privacy violations. The allegations were determined to be unsubstantiated.

The complaint involved four allegations: staff not giving medication as prescribed, not ensuring residents' needs are met, lack of medication records for emergency care, and illegal eviction of a resident. All allegations were found unsubstantiated after investigation.

The investigation included interviews and record reviews and found all allegations to be unsubstantiated based on evidence gathered. Staff denied the allegations, residents confirmed medication receipt, and no documentation supported claims of illegal eviction or failure to provide medication records.

The facility was found to be operating within approved capacity and in good repair with safe conditions for residents. No deficiencies were cited during the inspection based on observations and record reviews.

The facility was found to be operating within approved capacity and in safe, clean, and good repair conditions. No deficiencies were cited during the inspection, and all reviewed resident and staff files were in order with appropriate certifications and clearances.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included staff not safeguarding resident's personal property, refusing medication, and restricting residents from leaving with family. Interviews with Administrator Karen Roper, staff, and residents denied these allegations. Resident #1 involved in the complaint was no longer at the facility and was not interviewed.

Based on interviews with the Administrator, staff, and residents, as well as record review, the allegations were found to be unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations occurred.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included staff not safeguarding resident's personal property, refusing medication, and not allowing residents to leave with family. Interviews with Administrator Karen Roper, staff, and residents denied these allegations. Resident #1 involved in the complaint was no longer at the facility and was not interviewed.

Based on interviews with the Administrator, staff, and residents, as well as record review, the allegations were found to be unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence to prove the violations occurred.

Based on observations during the visit, no deficiencies were cited per Title 22, Division 6, of the California Code of Regulations.

The visit was triggered by a complaint or incident involving Staff #1 and Resident #1; no deficiencies were substantiated.

Based on observations made during the visit, no deficiencies were cited according to Title 22, Division 6, of the California Code of Regulations.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated based on the findings. Allegations included unsanitary conditions, mal odors, lack of clean linens, inadequate eating utensils, insufficient staff training, and missing required posters. None of these were supported by the investigation.

The Licensing Program Analyst toured multiple areas of the facility and reviewed training documents and postings. The investigation found the facility to be clean and sanitary, free of mal odors, adequately supplied with linens and eating utensils, properly trained staff, and required posters prominently displayed. There was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated based on the findings. Allegations included unsanitary conditions, mal odors, lack of clean linens, inadequate eating utensils, insufficient staff training, and missing required posters. None of these were supported by evidence.

The Licensing Program Analyst toured multiple areas of the facility and found the facility to be clean and sanitary, free from mal odors, adequately supplied with linens and eating utensils, with proper staff training and required posters prominently displayed. The allegations were deemed unsubstantiated due to insufficient evidence.

The complaint investigation was based on two allegations: 1) the facility elevator was not in good repair, and 2) a staff member did not accord dignity to residents. Both allegations were found to be unfounded after interviews, observations, and record reviews.

The investigation found that the elevator at the facility was fully functioning and the allegation about elevator disrepair was unfounded. The allegation that a staff member did not accord dignity to residents was also found to be unfounded as the staff member named was not employed at the facility. Both allegations were determined to be without reasonable basis.

The complaint involved two allegations: 1) the facility elevator was not in good repair, and 2) a staff member did not accord dignity to residents. Both allegations were found to be unfounded based on interviews, observations, and review of records.

The investigation found both allegations to be unfounded. The facility elevator was observed to be fully functioning, and the staff member alleged to not accord dignity to residents was not employed by the facility. The facility is not affiliated with the independent living apartments where elevator issues were reported.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included mold presence and drugs on premises, both found unsubstantiated after staff and resident interviews.

The investigation found no evidence to substantiate the allegations. Staff and residents consistently reported no mold presence and no drugs on the premises. No deficiencies were cited during the visit.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated based on interviews with 2 staff and 6 residents who all denied the presence of mold or drugs on the premises.

The investigation included staff and resident interviews which found no evidence of mold or drugs on the premises. All allegations were deemed unsubstantiated and no deficiencies were cited during the visit.

The complaint alleged that facility staff did not assist a resident with medications as needed. The allegation was found to be unsubstantiated based on corroborating evidence and interviews.

The investigation included interviews, observations, and record reviews. It was determined that the allegation was unsubstantiated as the medication delay was due to a documentation error by the resident's primary physician, not the facility, and the facility was attentive to the resident's care needs.

The complaint alleged that facility staff did not assist a resident with medications as needed. The allegation was found to be unsubstantiated based on interviews and evidence showing the delay was caused by the resident's primary physician, not the facility.

The investigation included interviews, observations, and record reviews. It was determined that the allegation was unsubstantiated as the delay in medication was due to a documentation error by the resident's primary physician, not the facility. The resident confirmed the facility was attentive to care needs and timely with medication administration.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included failure to prevent pressure injuries, failure to ensure rooms were free from odors, failure to ensure clean linens, and failure to adequately assist residents. Evidence did not support these claims based on interviews, observations, and record reviews.

The investigation found insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations. Interviews with residents and staff, observations, and record reviews indicated that staff were providing appropriate care, maintaining clean linens, ensuring rooms were odor-free, and adequately assisting residents. The allegations were determined to be unsubstantiated at this time.

The complaint included allegations that staff failed to prevent a pressure injury, maintain odor-free rooms, ensure clean linens, and adequately assist residents with care needs. The investigation included interviews with residents, staff, and a hospice nurse, as well as observations and record reviews. The allegations were found unsubstantiated due to lack of evidence.

The investigation found insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations that staff did not prevent a resident from developing a pressure injury, did not ensure the resident's room was free from odors, did not ensure clean linens were used at all times, and did not adequately assist the resident with care needs. All allegations were determined to be unsubstantiated.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Despite the allegations, evidence did not support that violations occurred. The facility was found compliant with regulations.

The investigation found all allegations to be unsubstantiated based on resident and staff interviews and observations. No deficiencies were cited, and the facility was found to be clean and sanitary, residents were not isolated or prohibited from phone calls, and medical assistance was provided timely.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Although some allegations may have been valid, there was not a preponderance of evidence to prove violations occurred. No deficiencies were cited per Title 22, Division 6, of the California Code of Regulations.

All allegations were investigated through resident and staff interviews and document review. The investigation found no evidence to substantiate the complaints; residents and staff confirmed the facility is clean, residents are not isolated or prohibited from phone calls, assistance with medical appointments is provided, and medical assistance is timely. The dining room closure was due to a stomach flu outbreak and was temporary.

The complaint alleged that the licensee was charging a resident more than the allowed rate for Basic Services for SSI recipients. The allegation was unsubstantiated after investigation.

The investigation, which included interviews and document review, found no evidence to corroborate the allegation. The complaint was determined to be unsubstantiated as the resident was receiving more than the payment standard and had other income sources to cover fees.

The complaint alleged that the licensee was charging a resident in excess of the rate allowed for Basic Services for SSI recipients. The allegation was unsubstantiated based on interviews with the resident and family, and review of payment records.

The investigation found no evidence to corroborate the allegation. Interviews and documentation review indicated that the resident was receiving Social Security Benefits and other income sources to pay the required fees. The complaint was determined to be unsubstantiated.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included staff not ensuring call pendants were in good repair, staff not assisting residents timely, and licensee not maintaining the facility. Evidence did not support these allegations.

The investigation found that residents' call pendants were in good repair, staff assisted residents in a timely manner, and the facility was maintained in good repair. All three allegations were deemed unsubstantiated with no deficiencies cited.

The complaint investigation was unsubstantiated. Allegations included staff not ensuring call pendants were in good repair, staff not assisting residents timely, and licensee not maintaining the facility in good repair. Evidence did not support these claims.

The investigation found all three allegations unsubstantiated based on resident and staff interviews, facility tour, and record review. No deficiencies were cited during the visit.

The facility was found to be in good repair with no corrections needed. The physical plant, safety features, food storage, and medication storage areas were all compliant with regulations.

The physical plant was in good repair with no hazards observed. Bedrooms and bathrooms were adequately furnished and in good condition. Food storage and preparation areas were clean and sanitary. Safety equipment such as fire extinguishers, smoke alarms, and carbon monoxide detectors were present and functional. No corrections were needed.

The applicant/administrator participated in a COMP II telephone interview to verify identification and confirm understanding of California Code Title 22 Regulations, covering facility operation, admission policies, staffing, health conditions, emergency preparedness, complaints, and pre-licensing readiness.

The applicant/administrator participated in a COMP II telephone interview to verify identification and confirm understanding of California Code Title 22 regulations, including facility operation, admission policies, staffing, health conditions, emergency preparedness, complaints, and pre-licensing readiness.

The applicant and administrator demonstrated understanding of facility operation, admission policies, staffing requirements and training, restricted/prohibited health conditions, general provisions, emergency preparedness, complaints and reporting, and pre-licensing readiness. Signed LIC 809 with photo ID copies were obtained.

The applicant and administrator demonstrated understanding of facility operation, admission policies, staffing requirements and training, restricted/prohibited health conditions, general provisions, emergency preparedness, complaints and reporting, and pre-licensing readiness during the COMP II telephone interview.