California · Citrus Heights

Cogir of Stock Ranch.

RCFE99 bedsDementia-trained staff(916) 725-7418
Facility · Citrus Heights
A 99-bed RCFE with 5 citations on file.
Licensed beds
99
Last inspection
Mar 2026
Last citation
Dec 2025
Operated by
Welltower Cogir Tenant Llc;cogir Mgt Usa Inc
Snapshot

A large home, reviewed on public record.

Cogir of Stock Ranch

© Google Street View

Map showing location of Cogir of Stock Ranch
© Mapbox · OpenStreetMap
Peer Comparison

Compared to 54 California facilities with a similar number of beds.

RCFE · 36-month window. Higher percentile = better performance on inspection record. Source: California Dept. of Social Services · Community Care Licensing.

Severity rank
60th%
Weighted citations per bed.
peer median
0
100
Repeat rank
Not enough repeat citations
among peers to rank.
Repeat deficiencies as share of total.
Frequency rank
40th%
Deficiencies per inspection.
peer median
0
100

Rankings based on 36-month CDSS inspection data. Severity and frequency: fewer citations = higher percentile. Repeat rate: lower repeat citation share = higher percentile.

FACILITY WATCH · FREE

Cogir of Stock Ranch has 5 citations on record. Know the moment anything changes.

New findings, complaint investigations, or status changes — emailed to you free.

Where are you in the process? (optional)

Save for comparison:
The Rulebook

The rules that apply to this facility.

State requirements with the exact regulation citation, plain-language explanation, and a question to ask on tour. Rules this facility has been cited for appear first.

What dementia-care training must staff complete?22 CCR §87705 / HSC §1569.625
+
Plain language

Because a facility markets dementia or Alzheimer's care, state law mandates higher training standards: 12 hours of initial dementia training (6 hours before a staff member works independently with residents, 6 more within the first 4 weeks), 8 hours of annual dementia in-service every year thereafter, and an administrator must include 8 hours of dementia-specific continuing education in every 2-year recertification cycle. Training must cover individualized care plans, behavioral expressions, appropriate supervision, and the facility's dementia care philosophy.

Ask on tour

Can you show me each direct-care staffer's most recent dementia training certificate, and tell me when their next refresher is due?

Tour Prep

Questions to ask before you visit.

A short pre-tour checklist tailored to Cogir of Stock Ranch's record and state requirements.

01 /

The facility holds an active CDSS license for 99 beds and has zero deficiencies or complaints on file — can you provide documentation of the most recent state inspection visit and confirm the license remains in good standing?

Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.

02 /

No formal memory-care designation appears in the CDSS licensing record — does the facility operate under a standard RCFE license only, or has a specialized dementia-care program been approved by the state under Title 22 §87705?

Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.

03 /

With zero complaints filed with CDSS, what internal quality-assurance protocols does the facility use to track incident reports, family concerns, and regulatory compliance between state inspections?

Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.

Full Inspection Record

Every inspection visit, verbatim.

16 inspections in the public record, most recent first. Click any row to expand — cited rows open automatically.

16
reports on file
5
total deficiencies
2026-03-02
Other Visit
No findings
Inspector · Lavinia Muscan
2026-03-02
Complaint Investigation
Unsubstantiated
No findings
Inspector · Lavinia Muscan

Plain-language summary

A complaint investigation found no evidence of medication errors—all medications were properly administered and logged according to doctors' orders, and staff and residents interviewed reported no problems. A second complaint about staff not responding to call buttons was also unsubstantiated; call logs and interviews showed staff typically responded within 5–12 minutes, and interviewed residents had no concerns, though staff occasionally forgot to clear call button requests after assisting residents.

Read raw inspector notes

Staff are mismanaging resident's medication Based on documents obtained and statements reviewed for September and October of 2025, the department determined that there was insufficient evidence that any medication errors have occurred. Documents obtained show that all current medications were administered and logged correctly for residents per their doctor’s orders. Eight staff interviews (8) indicated that staff were not aware of any medication errors. Four resident interviews (4) expressed no concerns with medication administration. Based upon the information obtained during investigation, the above allegation is unsubstantiated. A finding that the complaint is UNSUBSTANTIATED means that although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred. Staff did not respond to resident's calls for assistance During the investigation, the Department conducted interviews and reviewed documentation pertinent to the investigation. The results of the investigation are as follows: Based on call logs and interviews, the typical response time for staff responding to a resident’s call alert ranges from 5–12 minutes. Residents interviewed stated they have not had issues with staff not responding to call buttons timely. Staff interviews indicated that staff usually respond to resident’s call buttons within 10-15 minutes. Staff did state that occasionally after assisting a resident, staff will forget to clear the call button request whereas documents may seem that residents are waiting for assistance longer. Based upon the information obtained during investigation, the above allegation is unsubstantiated. A finding that the complaint is UNSUBSTANTIATED means that although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred. Exit interview conducted. Report left with facility.

2026-02-05
Other Visit
No findings

Plain-language summary

During a follow-up inspection of an incident reported in February 2026, inspectors reviewed a choking emergency in which a resident stopped breathing and lost consciousness while eating. Staff performed the Heimlich maneuver and CPR, the resident was taken to the hospital, and recovered fully with no lasting harm. The facility had no violations and was found to have responded appropriately to the emergency.

Read raw inspector notes

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Sabrina Calzada arrived unannounced to conduct a case management inspection to follow up on an incident report submitted to the Department on February 4, 2026. LPA met with Alyssa Kayl, Resident Care Coordinator, and Robert DeVol, Health and Wellness Director (HWD) stating the reason for today's inspection. LPA later met with Jose Barajas, Administrator Designee. LPA discussed the incident more in detail when staff went to get (R1) from their room and bring them to the dining room for lunch, and (R1) had started choking while eating." Care staff began the Heimlich maneuver, and then (R1) turned blue, lost consciousness and no pulse was detected. (S1) then began CPR and (R1) began breathing, and was taken to the emergency room for further medical evaluation. The facility was advised by the family that (R1) had been diagnosed with an upper respiratory infection and was doing much better the following morning, January 31, 2026, after being administered antibiotics. (R1) returned to the community on February 2, 2026 with no new medications or diet changes. The HWD stated the family instructed the facility to cut (R1's) food in small bites, with sips of liquid in between each bite. LPA reviewed and obtained copies of paperwork related to resident (R1). The Physician's Report (5/3/2025) does not indicate (R1) had any special diet prior to the incident. Since (R1) returned form the hospital, staff have been trying to encourage and bring (R1) to the dining room for all meals so they can have more supervision/eyes on them. (R1) has been adjusting fairly well to this new routine and has recovered fully from this incident. It appears the facility took appropriate steps in responding timely to (R1's) choking. There are no deficiencies issued in this report. Exit interview. Copy of report provided to Administrator Designee.

2026-01-15
Complaint Investigation
No findings

Plain-language summary

A licensing inspector conducted an unannounced annual inspection on January 15, 2026, and found the facility to be clean, safe, and in good repair with proper staffing, maintained emergency equipment, and appropriate food supplies. The inspector reviewed resident and staff files, checked medications for five residents with no discrepancies found, and confirmed all staff had required criminal clearances. No deficiencies were identified during the inspection.

Read raw inspector notes

On 01/15/2026 Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Cheyenne Ratajczak arrived unannounced at the facility to conduct a required 1-year annual inspection. LPA met with Executive Director (ED),Ricky David JR, and explained the purpose of the visit. LPA and ED conducted a tour of the facility. Areas toured included but not limited to: ten (10) resident rooms, kitchen, dining room, library, theater, mail area, medication room and common areas. There are special provisions made for individuals with special dietary needs. The residence was found to be clean, safe, sanitary and in good repair. LPA observed the facility to have the mandated posters posted. Fire extinguishers are maintained and ready for emergency use. Facility has required food supplies. There are appropriate staff present to meet the needs of residents. LPA compared medications to those being given for five (5) residents and found no discrepancies. LPA reviewed ten (10) resident files. Resident files contain signed admission agreements, physician's reports, appraisals, identification sheets, releases, and resident's rights. LPA reviewed ten (10) staff files. A review of staff records indicates that all facility staff has received criminal record clearances and/or are associated to this facility. LPA completed the full care tool and no deficiencies was observed. Exit interview conducted and a copy of the report was left at the facility.

2025-12-29
Annual Compliance Visit
Type B · 1 finding
Inspector · Cheyenne Ratajczak

Plain-language summary

A routine inspection in May 2025 found that staff were not properly removing discontinued medications from the medication cart—inspectors discovered that medications ordered to be stopped for three residents were still available in the cart, creating a risk of accidental administration. Six other allegations about resident care, including showering, hygiene, incontinence management, repositioning, pressure injury prevention, and room cleanliness, were investigated and found to be without basis or accurate.

Type B22 CCR §87465(a)(4)
Verbatim citation text · 22 CCR §87465(a)(4)

Based on medication audit, facility is retaining residents discontinued medication and ordered medications are not in the facility.

Read raw inspector notes

Allegation: Staff are mismanaging residents' medication-Substantiated On 05/01/2025 LPA Ratajczak and LPM Munoz conducted a medication audit for five (5) residents. During the medication audit, the following was found: Resident #5 (R5) Discontinued order for Baclofen on 04/25/25. LPM and LPA observed medication to still be in the medication cart. Resident #6 (R6) Discontinued order for Aspirin on 04/29/25; for Breztru inhaler on 04/29/25 and for PreserVision AREDS on 04/15/2025. It was observed that all discontinued medications were in the medication cart. R6 had an order for Norco on 03/16/2025, the medication was not ordered and not in facility . Resident #7 (R7) Discontinued order for Midodrine on 04/24/25. LPM and LPA observed medication to still be in the medication cart. Based on information obtained, the allegation is found to be SUBSTANTIATED - A finding that the complaint is Substantiated means that the allegation is valid because the preponderance of the evidence standard has been met. Exit interview conducted a copy of the report provided and appeal rights provided. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Allegation: Staff do not ensure residents' showering needs are being met- Unfounded Interviews revealed that residents receive their showers as scheduled. Sometimes showers are moved around but the shower is usually pushed back to the next shift. If a resident is not feeling well, they will ask staff to come back at a later time or to be moved to another day. Resident interviews revealed that some have hospice come in and give them showers also. Allegation: Staff do not ensure residents’ incontinence needs are being met-Unfounded Interviews revealed that staff check on residents every one to two hours for incontinence care needs. Depending on residents care needs, they may be checked more than every two hours. Residents will also push their pendants if they need any assistances between checks and staff respond. Allegation: Staff are not repositioning resident as needed- Unfounded The department conducted interviews with residents and staff regarding this allegation. Interviews with staff revealed that they reposition residents every two hours unless care plans specify otherwise. Resident interviews revealed that they have staff that come in and reposition them throughout the day. Allegation: Staff did not prevent resident from developing a pressure injury-Unfounded Interviews with residents revealed they currently do not have any pressure injuries or if they do they are being treated by hospice. Staff interviews revealed that those who do have a pressure injury they are already being treated by hospice. Allegation: Staff do not ensure residents' hygiene needs are being met-Unfounded Interviews with staff revealed that a resident’s care needs are documented on their care plan. Staff assist resident’s with hygiene needs based on a resident’s care plan and the resident’s preference. Allegation: Staff do not ensure that resident has clean bedding- Unfounded Interviews revealed that housekeeping will clean the bedding on the day the resident’s room is cleaned. In between that time care staff will observe to see if the sheets need to be changed in-between. If bedding needs to be changed, caregivers will change the bedding. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Allegation: Staff do ensure resident rooms are clean and sanitary-Unfounded Housekeeping cleans the resident’s rooms once a week. In between that time if some additional cleaning is needed caregivers will assist. LPA observed nine (9) residents bedrooms. All rooms were observed to be clean and sanitary. Some residents do have animals. Those animals are the residents responsibility and to clean up after them if they are to go in their rooms. Residents who can no longer care for their animals families will hire outside help to come in and care for the animal. Interviews revealed that staff will clean up the animal feces if they see it when they are in the rooms. Based on information obtained through interviews, the Department finds the allegation to be UNFOUNDED, meaning that the allegation was false, could not have happened and/or is without a reasonable basis. Exit interview conducted and a copy of the report was left at the facility.

2025-10-08
Complaint Investigation
Mixed
Type B · 1 finding
Inspector · Cheyenne Ratajczak

Plain-language summary

A complaint investigation looked into a resident's death in May 2025 following a ground-level fall in February 2025 that caused a small brain bleed, as well as allegations of multiple falls causing serious injury. The investigation found no evidence that the facility was negligent—the resident had only two major falls during two years at the facility and was not considered a fall risk, and a deputy coroner stated the brain bleed in a 100-year-old resident was a common outcome that could not be linked to any specific fall. Both allegations were unsubstantiated.

Type B22 CCR §87221(a)(1)(B)
Verbatim citation text · 22 CCR §87221(a)(1)(B)

Based on record review, the licensee did not comply with the section cited above in incident reports were missing or not created regarding R1’s fall which poses/posed a potential health, safety or personal rights risk to persons in care.

Read raw inspector notes

Allegation: Questionable death- Unsubstantiated A review of R1’s death certificate listed that they passed away in May 2025 due to a Traumatic Intracerebral Hemorrhage due to a ground level fall with a time interval between onset and death listed as months. On 02/13/2025, R1 sustained an unwitnessed fall and was sent to the hospital. Medical records show a “possible small left frontal Intracerebral Hemorrhage.” No fractures or other injuries were documented in the medical records. R1 was placed on hospice following this incident. Conflicting statements were provided on whether R1 sustained additional minor falls after 02/13/2025 and while being on hospice. Deputy Coroner (DC) stated that the multiple falls made the brain bleed “a little worse each time.” DC stated this is “common in older people though, especially with R1 being 100 years old.” DC was not concerned that R1 may have passed away due to neglect by the facility staff. DC stated there is “no way” of knowing which fall contributed to R1’s death. It is unclear if the major fall on 02/13/2025 was as a result of staff neglect. Prior to that, R1 had only sustained one fall at the facility on 05/20/2024 and did not require any specialized fall interventions or special checks. Allegation: Resident sustained multiple falls resulting in serious bodily injury- Unsubstantiated Records revealed that R1 resided at the facility for approximately two years and sustained two major falls during that time. The first fall occurred on 05/20/2024 and resulted in a skin tear. The second fall occurred on 02/13/2025 and resulted in a “possible small left frontal Intracerebral Hemorrhage.” No fractures or other injuries were documented in the medical records. Records and interviews support that R1 was not a fall risk and was primarily independent. R1 did not require specialized checks or specific fall measures. Conflicting statements were provided on whether R1 sustained additional minor falls while residing at the facility indicating need for specialized fall prevention interventions. R1 sustained an additional fall on 04/04/2025 while on hospice. Hospice care staff were notified and directed the facility staff to not send R1 to the hospital due to no injuries seen. Based on this information, these allegations are UNSUBSTANTIATED . Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred, and the findings are unsubstantiated. Exit interview conducted. A copy of the report and appeal rights left at the facility.

2025-02-11
Annual Compliance Visit
No findings
Inspector · Farhaan Sarangi

Plain-language summary

This was a routine annual inspection on February 11, 2025, and the facility was found to be clean, well-maintained, with proper food storage, locked medication storage, and accessible safety equipment. Two minor technical issues were noted: one missing elevator permit display and one medication order discrepancy for a resident, which the administrator said would be corrected. No deficiencies were cited overall.

Read raw inspector notes

On February 11, 2025 at approximately 10:15 AM, Licensing Program Analysts (LPA), Farhaan Sarangi and Kayla Adkison met arrived unannounced at Cogir of Stock Ranch for the purpose of conducting a Required 1 year inspection. LPA was greeted at the door by, Administrator, Ricky David Jr. and was granted access into the facility. LPAs and Administrator toured the facility. LPA observed the facility to be clean and at a comfortable temperature with all exits free from obstruction. LPAs observed a chair lift that is utilized in event of emergencies in the 3rd floor stairwell. LPA observed 1 out of 2 elevator permits not being displayed in the elevators (See LIC 9102-Technical Violation). Fire Extinguishers were found to be last charged on March 2024 at the time of the inspection. All smoke detectors sound directly to the fire station. Water temperature in facility bathroom is within Title 22 Regulation. LPA observed sufficient perishable and non-perishable foods located in the kitchen. There are special provisions made for individuals with special dietary needs. Food menu was presently available for viewing during the inspection. Medications were centrally stored and locked. Cleaning products and other toxins are located in the laundry room that was locked and inaccessible to residents in care. There was a supply of linens, cleaners, hygiene products and paper products available for residents. All bathrooms designated for residents in the common areas at the facility were supplied with individual paper towels and hand soap. Bathrooms in resident’s rooms have a towel and soap. Bathrooms were equipped with necessary grab bars, and non-slip floors/mats were present. A tour of vacant and occupied bedrooms were conducted, and bedrooms inspected have lighting and appropriate furnishing. LPA advised facility to contact County Public Health and Community Care Licensing immediately if symptoms of COVID-19 or other infectious diseases are present in the facility. First Aid kit was inspected and found to be appropriate during the inspection. Emergency Disaster Drill was last conducted in July 2024. (Report continued on LIC 809C) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 LPA reviewed 5 of 5 resident files and found those to be appropriate. LPAs reviewed 5 of 5 resident medication orders. However, during that review, LPA observed that 1 out of 5 residents had a discrepancy in the medication orders. LPA educated the Administrator on the importance of ensuring that documentation is up to date (See LIC 9102-Technical Violation). Administrator reported that he will follow-up with the Primary Care Physician and the Pharmacy. LPA reviewed staff files and found those files to be appropriate during the review. LPA requested the following documents to be sent: LIC 500- Personnel Report LIC 308- Designation of Facility Responsibility LIC 309- Administrative Organization Most up-to-date Liability insurance Emergency Disaster Plan Control of Property Register of residents Most updated Infection Control Plan Most recent Fire Inspection Report No deficiencies were cited during today's Required 1 year inspection. Exit interview was conducted, and a copy of this report was given to the Administrator.

2024-09-26
Complaint Investigation
No findings
Inspector · Cheyenne Ratajczak

Plain-language summary

A complaint alleged the facility failed to update care plans for residents, but investigators found no violation of this requirement. During an inspection visit on August 20, 2024, staff were actively updating care plans for seven residents as required, and the facility has a system in place to notify staff when updates are due every six months for existing residents and at the two-week mark for new arrivals. Investigators confirmed through staff interviews that caregivers provide input on these updates, and the facility maintains records showing plans are being updated on schedule.

Read raw inspector notes

Allegation: Facility did not update Needs and Services Plans for residents.- Unfounded The Department reviewed records and conducted interviews to investigate the allegation that the facility did not update Needs and Services Plans for residents. During the course of the investigation, LPA reviewed the needs and service plans for seven (7) residents who were said to be due for a reassessment during the month of August based off the system that the facility uses.  Every six (6) months the system notifies staff that a reassessment is needed. It also notifies staff at the fourteen (14) day mark for a new resident in case changes need to be made to the assessment. Six (6) of the residents were due for a reassessment due to the fact it has been six (6) months since their last one. One (1) resident was due for a reassessment because they had just moved into the facility and was at their fourteen (14) day mark. During LPAs visit on 08/20/24 Staff #1 (S1) was in the middle of updating the seven (7) residents needs and service plan. S1 explained to LPA that at the beginning of the month they print out all needs and service plans that are due and post in caregiver office. Doing this allows all caregivers to give their input on each resident and make note of things that have changed. Based on information obtained through interviews, the Department finds the allegation to be UNFOUNDED, meaning that the allegation was false, could not have happened and/or is without a reasonable basis. Exit interview conducted and a copy of the report was left at the facility.

2024-07-24
Other Visit
Type B · 2 findings
Inspector · Cheyenne Ratajczak

Plain-language summary

During a case management visit in July 2024, inspectors found medication handling problems from an earlier investigation: staff were pre-pouring medications up to 24 hours in advance and storing them in individual locked cabinets, and there were discrepancies in medication counts for at least one resident, with extra tablets found that didn't match the medication records. The facility will receive citations for these violations.

Type B22 CCR §87465(a)(4)
Verbatim citation text · 22 CCR §87465(a)(4)

Based on observation and interview medications were not being documented accurately.This poses a potential health and safety risk to residents in care.

Type B22 CCR §87465(h)(5)
Verbatim citation text · 22 CCR §87465(h)(5)

Based on observation and interview, medications are being pre-poured more than 24 hours in advance. LPA interviews indicated that medication is pre-poured for four (4) days in advance. This poses a potential health and safety risk to residents in care.

Read raw inspector notes

On 7/24/24 Licensing Program Manager (LPM) Laura Munoz and Licensing Program Analysts (LPAs) Cheyenne Ratajczak and Graham Gunby arrived at the facility unannounced to conduct a Case Management visit. LPA met with Executive Director (ED) Ricky David and explained the purpose of the visit. On 03/28/24 LPAs conducted a medication audit during a complaint investigation. During the investigation, the following deficiencies were found: LPAs observed that R1 medication Amlodipine Besylate 5 MG had a start date of 03/09/24 had two (2) extra tablets than what was documented as dispensed. The MAR indicated that R1 had not missed or refused the medication. R1s medication for Metoprolol Succinate 25 MG with a start date of 03/14/24 had one (1) extra tablet than what was documented as dispensed. The MAR indicated that R1 had not missed or refused the medication. Medication audit revealed several staff are pre-pouring resident's medications for up to 24 hours. Additionally, it was learned staff are keeping their pre-poured medications locked in a cabinet that only that specific staff has access to. Violations were observed during the Department medication audit therefore citations will be issued and listed on the LIC809-D. Exit interview and appeal rights provided.

2024-07-24
Complaint Investigation
No findings
Inspector · Cheyenne Ratajczak
2024-05-15
Annual Compliance Visit
No findings
Inspector · Cheyenne Ratajczak

Plain-language summary

On May 1, 2024, a resident who was documented as unable to leave the facility without assistance went missing and was found later that night in Elko, Nevada; the resident had recently moved to the facility's assisted living section and did not want to be there. The inspection found that the facility did not follow its own documentation requiring staff to prevent this resident from leaving unassisted. The resident is no longer living at the facility.

Read raw inspector notes

On 05/15/2024, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Cheyenne Ratajczak arrived unannounced at the facility to conduct a case management visit regarding an absent without leave incident report the department received via fax on 05/3/2024. LPA met with Executive Director (ED), Ricky David and explained the purpose of the visit. The incident occurred on 05/01/2024 at approximately 5 PM facility staff observed R1 to be missing when a med tech went to R1s room to give R1 their PM medication. Facility staff conducted a search throughout the facility and it was noted that R1 was no longer in the facility. Resident was located later that night in Elko Nevada. Based on R1's LIC602 Physician's Report, signed on 10/24/2023, indicated that R1 was deemed unable to leave the facility unassisted. LPA and ED discussed ensuring that staff are aware which residents are able to leave the facility unassisted. ED informed LPA that R1 does not have a dementia diagnosis but a fall risk. LPA clarified that if the LIC602 indicates resident cannot leave unassisted then the facility is to comply. Additionally, LPA and ED discussed that R1 had recently moved from independent living to assisted living and that R1 did not want to live at the facility any longer. R1 is currently not living at the facility. As a result of the incident, deficiencies cited. Please see LIC 809-D, per Title 22 Regulations. Exit interview conducted, a copy of the report and appeal rights left at the facility.

2024-01-30
Annual Compliance Visit
Type B · 1 finding
Inspector · Cheyenne Ratajczak

Plain-language summary

During a routine annual inspection on January 30, 2024, inspectors found the facility clean, safe, and sanitary, with appropriate staffing and proper maintenance of fire safety equipment. The inspection identified that staff files were missing current First Aid training certificates, though the facility scheduled training for February 28, 2024. All resident files contained required documentation, and residents were observed participating in activities and meals during the visit.

Type B
Verbatim citation text

Based on record review, the licensee did not comply with the section cited above in 8 out of 8 staff does not have first aid training which poses a potential health and safety risk to persons in care. POC Due Date: 02/13/2024 Plan of Correction 1 2 3 4 Licensee will submit to LPA Ratajczak a statement of understanding that all stuff must have First Aid training by POC due date. Licensee has a planned First Aid training scheduled for staff on 02/28/24.

Read raw inspector notes

On 01/30/24 Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Cheyenne Ratajczak arrived unannounced at the facility to conduct a required 1-year annual inspection. LPA met with Executive Director (ED),Ricky David JR, and explained the purpose of the visit. LPA and ED conducted a tour of the interior and exterior of the facility. Areas toured included but not limited to: ten (10) resident rooms, three (3) laundry rooms, kitchen, dining room, library, theater, mail area, medication room and common areas. LPA observed residents in common areas participating in activities and in the dining room having lunch. The residence was found to be clean, safe, sanitary and in good condition. LPA observed the facility to have the mandated posters posted. Fire extinguishers are maintained and ready for emergency use. Facility has required food supplies. There are appropriate staff present to meet the needs of residents. LPA conducted a file review of eight (8) resident files and eight (8) staff files. Resident files had all the required documents present in files. Staff files are missing First Aid training. ED stated they are having First Aid training on 02/28/2024. LPA completed the full care tool and deficiencies was observed. Please see LIC 809-D. Exit interview conducted and a copy of the report and appeal rights was provided.

2023-12-27
Complaint Investigation
Unsubstantiated
No findings
Inspector · Sarena Keosavang

Plain-language summary

A complaint alleged that a resident died after staff turned off their oxygen concentrator and did not replace it with backup oxygen. The investigation found inconsistent accounts from staff and confirmed that the oxygen machine was not working, but medical experts could not determine whether the lack of oxygen caused or contributed to the resident's death, so the allegation could not be substantiated.

Read raw inspector notes

On 07/19/2023, Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Personnel were dispatched to Cogir of Stock for a resident (R1) with shortness of breath. Upon arrival at the facility EMS personnel observed that R1’s oxygen concentrator was turned off. Two (2) EMS personnel reported that they heard staff (S1) state the machine had been turned off the prior night because it was beeping. S1 was asked about a back-up oxygen tank and nasal cannula was not in place. S1 stated they had called for a new machine and were told one would be delivered the next day. S1 told EMS, “We didn’t know what else to do.” The Department interviewed and received statements from a total of eleven (11) facility staff and two (2) residents. Interview statement received from S1 indicated that the concentrator was alarming on 07/18/2023, and S1 called Apria Health Care to request a new concentrator. S1 made inconsistent statements about when S1 first noticed R1’s oxygen concentrator was turned off and cannula not in place, before calling 911. When S1 was first interviewed, S1 stated R1’s oxygen was off and nasal cannula was not in place when S1 first checked on R1. During a follow-up interview, S1 stated did not remember noticing R1’s nasal cannula and only recalled being aware of the concentrator being off during the second medication passing, when S1 discovered R1 having shortness of breath and calling 911. S1 denied telling EMS that the machine had been turned off and stated S1 had later assumed that the overnight shift must have turned the machine off. Multiple staff were interviewed, and all denied turning the machine off. Interview statement received from overnight staff (S2) admitted that the machine had been alarming and had quit working sometime early in the night, but that S2 had been able to reset the concentrator to get it working again. Medical records obtained and witness statements provided that R1 had been previously diagnosed and treated for ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction in June 2023. It was noted that R1 had a history of chronic respiratory failure. Medical personnel were interviewed and stated it would be difficult to determine if a lack of supplemental oxygen preceded or contributed to R1’s death. R1’s pronouncing physician was interviewed and stated R1’s respiratory failure could have happened for several reasons, regardless of R1 being on or off oxygen. Therefore, there is not sufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation of wrongful death. Based on the Department’s investigation as stated above, the preponderance of evidence standards has not been met. Therefore, the above allegations are found to be UNSUBSTANTIATED . A finding that a complaint allegation is unsubstantiated means that although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred. Exit interview conducted and report provided.

2023-11-30
Complaint Investigation
Unsubstantiated
No findings
Inspector · Sarena Keosavang

Plain-language summary

A complaint investigation found that the facility's kitchen flooded with water from a dishwasher on October 9, 2023, and the facility promptly hired contractors to clean and repair the plumbing damage within 13 days; no sewage issue was found, and all resident bathrooms were in working order. The allegations that the kitchen was not kept clean, that there was a sewage problem, and that toilets were not working were all unsubstantiated.

Read raw inspector notes

Allegation: Licensee is not ensuring facility kitchen is kept clean. – Unfounded. The Department received an interview statement from the complainant indicating that the facility’s kitchen was in disrepair. ED and upper management asked kitchen staff to produce food in an unsafe environment. The Department conducted interviews and received statements from a total of four (4) facility staff. It was discovered the kitchen was in disrepair on 10/09/2023 at approximately 8:30 PM. Interview statement received from staff (S1) indicated that kitchen staff was done prepping/cooking the food for residents in care before the kitchen was in disrepair. Interview statement received from S2 indicated, staff would clean kitchen twice a day from 2 PM and 7 PM. The floors are mopped and swept once a day. Interview statement received from S3 indicated kitchen was not dirty while staff were prepping and cooking food for residents in care. Everything was clean except the floor. There was soap water on the floor. The kitchen was flooding with water after dinner around 8 PM. Interview statement received from ED indicated that it was not a sewage issue. There was clear water coming from the dishwasher machine. ED notified Regional Vice President Operation the same day at approximately 8:30-9:00 PM. Regional Vice President Operation was present at the facility after being notified to help clean the kitchen and hired Blue Team to sanitize the kitchen. The Department requested a repair invoice for review. According to Blue Team Daily Field Report, the first responder cleaned and sanitized affected kitchen flooring on 10/10/2023. Blue Team inspected nearby walls and found no moisture. Allegation: Licensee is not addressing sewage problem at facility. – Unfounded. The Department conducted interviews and received statements from a total of four (4) facility staff. It was discovered that the facility’s kitchen was in disrepair on 10/09/2023. Interview statement received from ED indicated that it was not a sewage issue. There was clear water coming from the dishwasher machine. ED notified Regional Vice President Operation the same day at approximately 8:30-9:00 PM. Regional Vice President Operation was present at the facility after being notified to help clean the kitchen and hired Blue Team to sanitize the kitchen. The Department requested a building permit and repair invoice for review. The building permit indicated the facility was being billed for plumbing permit. According to Blue Team Daily Field Report, the first responder cleaned and sanitized affected kitchen flooring on 10/10/2023. Blue Team inspected nearby walls and found no moisture. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 The Department received the Heating and Air Design Corporation invoice for review. The Heating and Air Design Corporation have furnished the material and performed the labor necessary for the completion of: 1. Removal/replacement of a 4 “main kitchen drain line approximately 93 feet long to the main 6” in the hallway by bursting method. 2. Concrete-saw and dug two (2) additional connections in the kitchen for new connections for the employee’s bathroom and walk-in floor drain. 3. Floors drain behind steamer will be abandoned due to connection is under the walk-in freezer box. This line will be attached to far wall with ¾” copper tubing to drain to ice machine floor drain. 4. Library will need to be tented and the concrete floor saw cut 3’x5’ to access common area bathroom tie-ins. 5. Approximately 30’ of hallway will need to be tented and evacuation plans rerouted around the front area. 6. First priority is to dig down in all areas to affected pipe areas and attachments. 7. Put in shoring safety in for every 4’ and deeper. 8. Realign entire branch line by the bursting method/ensure grease trap has been drained. 9. First attach branch line to hallway line to continue flow and work backwards connecting common bathrooms, floor drain for walk-in freezer, employee bathroom, and outside grease trap line. 10. Leave open for a day to check for any leaks. 11. Start backfilling from kitchen to main hallway drain. Compact fill and have a concrete truck pump concrete back and contractor do smooth finish. 12. Remove all tenting after two (2) days of curing. Have a team come and clean all affected areas. The Department requested Citrus Heights Police Department, Code Enforcement Officer, to conduct a joint visit to the facility with LPA Keosavang on 10/19/2023. The Code Enforcement Officer received a work order from the facility and the case has been closed. The Department received interview statement from Blue Team inspector. Inspector stated the repairs took 13 days. It was discovered that the facility did their due diligence and addressed the issue by hiring outside vendors for repairs in a timely manner. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Allegation: Licensee does not ensure the facility has working toilets. – Unfounded. The Department conducted interviews and received statements from a total of four (4) facility staff. Interview statements received from all four staff indicated the bathroom in the staff break room is currently out of order. All four staff indicated there are other bathrooms in the facility that are available for staff to use. Interview statement received from ED indicated that all residents in care have a bathroom in their rooms. The only toilets that weren’t working were the toilets in the staff’s break room. No residents’ toilets were jeopardized. ED state staff can use any other bathroom. The facility has a couple of vacant rooms with bathrooms that staff can use. The Department received interview statement from Blue Team inspector. Inspector indicated toilet in staff's break room were out of service along with one common area bathrooms. The facility opened bathrooms down the hall from the common area bathroom. The toilets in the break room and common area was repaired in 7 days. Based on records reviewed, facility observations and interviews, all the above allegations are found to be UNFOUNDED . A finding that the allegations are unfounded means that the allegations are false, could not have happened, and/or is without a reasonable basis. Exit Interview conducted. A copy of this report has been provided to the facility. No citations have been issued during today's visit.

2023-11-02
Complaint Investigation
Mixed
No findings
Inspector · Sarena Keosavang
2023-08-24
Complaint Investigation
Unsubstantiated
No findings
Inspector · Sarena Keosavang

Plain-language summary

A family member complained that a resident's room was dirty and smelly. The facility staff were interviewed, and most said the room did not smell, though one staff member said it sometimes smelled like urine and feces; the resident's family said the resident refused cleaning and personal care help from staff despite the facility offering support. The state found the complaint unsubstantiated because the evidence did not clearly prove a violation occurred.

Read raw inspector notes

On 8/23/20233, R1 moved out of the community. ED stated R1's bedroom was cleaned and provided pictures. LPA did not tour R1's bedroom due to the bedroom has been cleaned and was not in its original state. R1 is no longer living at the facility. LPA received interview statement from a total of four (4) facility staff. Statements from all four (4) staff were consistent. R1 bedroom was a "mess" and refused cleaning services. Interview statement received from S2 indicated, housekeeper is scheduled to clean residents rooms every once a week; however, housekeeper has been cleaning R1's room twice a week. LPA received interview statement from R1's responsible party (RP). RP stated the allegation is not true and that R1 refuses services from staff. Allegation: Resident room is malodorous. - Unsubstantiated. LPA received interview statement from a total of four (4) facility staff. Interview statement from three (3) staff indicated, R1's room is not malodorous and does not smell like urine or feces. Interview statement from S4 indicated, R1's room smells like urine and feces depending on which week it is, but housekeeper has not missed a cleaning day. Interview statement received from R1's RP indicated, R1 refuses staff to assist with toileting and showers. RP and facility head nurse had a meeting and a plan in place for R1. Head nurse suggest for R1 to participate by letting staff provide services and assist but R1 refuses. Based on department’s investigation as stated above, the preponderance of evidence standards has not been met. Therefore, the above allegations are found to be UNSUBSTANTIATED. A finding that a complaint allegation is unsubstantiated means that although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred. Exit interview conducted and report provided.

5 older inspections from 2021 are not shown above.

Get the complete record, translated into plain language — emailed to you.

Nearby

Other facilities in Sacramento County.

Other memory care facilities in Sacramento County with similar care offerings.

Family reviews

No reviews yet — be the first to share your experience

Related in this city

Other memory care options nearby.

Nearby cities · same county

More options in neighboring cities

Licensed memory care in other cities within this county region — useful when your search radius crosses city limits.

Is this listing wrong? Report an issue →
Reports help us maintain accurate facility information. Your report will be reviewed within 1-2 business days.
Editorial Independence

The memory care site on the family's side: StarlynnCare receives no referral commissions, lead fees, or paid placement from facilities.