California · Claremont

Ivy Park at Claremont.

RCFE · Memory Care81 bedsDementia-trained staff
Ivy Park at Claremont
Ivy Park at Claremont — photo 2
Ivy Park at Claremont — photo 3
Ivy Park at Claremont — photo 4
© Google · Ivy Park at Claremont
Facility · Claremont
A 81-bed RCFE · Memory Care with 4 citations on file.
Licensed beds
81
Last inspection
Feb 2026
Last citation
Jun 2025
Operated by
Transformer Opco Llc;oakmont Mangement Group Llc
Snapshot

A large home, reviewed on public record.

Peer Comparison

Compared to 56 California facilities with a similar number of beds.

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

Severity rank
38th%
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
44th%
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 · BETA

Ivy Park at Claremont has 4 citations on record. Know the moment anything changes.

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

Save for comparison:
The Record

Citation history, plotted month by month.

4 deficiencies on record. Each bar is a month with a citation.

Peer median 1 · dashed
Last citation: JUN 2025. Compared against peer median (dashed).
peer median
JUN 2025
Jul 2024as of Jun 2026

Finding distribution

2 total · 36 months

Scope × Severity (CMS A–L)

Isolated
Pattern
Widespread
Sev 4 · IJ
J1
K
L
Sev 3
G
H
I
Sev 2
D1
E
F
Sev 1
A
B
C
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 Ivy Park at Claremont's record and state requirements.

01 /

The facility has 1 serious citation on file across all inspections — can you provide your corrective-action plan for the cited item, and show families any documentation of remediation steps taken?

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

02 /

Four complaints are on file with CDSS — were any substantiated, and what remediation did the facility take in response to substantiated findings?

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

03 /

The most recent inspection was February 26, 2026, and resulted in 2 deficiencies — can you provide the deficiency notice and corrective-action documentation for each cited item?

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

Full Inspection Record

Every inspection visit, verbatim.

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

9
reports on file
4
total deficiencies
1
severe (Type A)
2026-05-07
Complaint Investigation
Substantiated
Citation on file
Inspector · Gabriela Castro

Substantiated — the state found a violation and issued a citation. Full citation details are on file with the state.

Read raw inspector notes

Allegation: Staff Did Not Distribute Resident’s Medication as Prescribed It is alleged that facility staff did not ensure that R1’s medication was properly handled and made available as prescribed. During interviews and record review, it was determined that in or around August 2024, there was an incident in which R1’s medication was received by the facility but was subsequently misplaced prior to being provided to R1. Staff acknowledged the incident and reported that corrective action was taken, including reimbursement to R1. During R1’s interview, R1 stated that his medication was delivered to the facility but was not located in his room as expected. R1 reported that he went one day without the medication, requested an overnight delivery, and subsequently received it. R1 further stated that staff provided him with $90 in cash as reimbursement for the misplaced medication. Documentation reviewed included a copy of the funds issued to R1, confirming the reimbursement. However, the Department could not confirm whether a dosage medication was missed as a result of this incident. Based on LPA's observations and interviews which were conducted and record review, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation is found to be SUBSTANTIATED . California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 6 and Chapter 1 are being cited on the attached LIC 9099D.

2026-04-30
Complaint Investigation
Unsubstantiated
No findings
Inspector · Gabriela Castro
Read raw inspector notes

Allegation: Staff did not follow proper eviction procedure It is alleged that the facility did not follow proper eviction procedures when issuing R1 a 30-day eviction notice. Based on record review and interviews conducted, it was determined that R1 is his own responsible party; therefore, the facility is not required to notify an additional responsible party regarding the eviction. Record review indicates that R1 signed the Resident Admission Agreement on 11/05/2021, acknowledging understanding of facility policies. Article II, “Responsibilities and Representation of the Resident,” specifies that the resident shall not engage in disruptive behavior, create unsafe conditions, or physically or verbally abuse other residents or staff. Documentation further reflects that the facility provided multiple written notices and letters of concern to R1 addressing behavioral issues and expectations prior to issuing the eviction notice. These documents demonstrate that R1 was informed of ongoing concerns and expectations for compliance with facility rules. Additionally, based on review of the eviction notice, it was determined that the notice is consistent with Title 22 requirements. Allegation: Staff do not serve residents food of good quality It is alleged that the facility does not provide residents with food of good quality, including concerns that meals may be improperly prepared or contain spoiled or moldy items. During staff interviews, all staff denied concerns regarding food quality, including any reports of spoiled or moldy food. Staff stated that meals are prepared in accordance with proper food handling procedures and that any concerns raised are addressed immediately. Staff further reported that the facility conducts regular meetings to discuss dining services and address resident feedback. Resident interviews were consistent, with the majority of residents reporting satisfaction with the food and denying any observations of mold or spoiled meals. Additionally, LPA toured the facility kitchen and observed proper food handling and storage practices. All food items appeared to be in good condition, with no visible signs of spoilage. Allegation: Staff Do Not Maintain Facility in Good Repair It is alleged that the facility is not being properly maintained in good repair, including concerns related to the elevator not functioning and other potential maintenance issues within the facility. During staff interviews, staff reported that the facility is maintained in good repair. Staff acknowledged that the elevator experienced a temporary malfunction in March 2026; however, repairs were completed as soon as the necessary part was obtained. Staff further reported that residents were notified of the repair status and were assisted as needed during the outage. Documentation reviewed indicates that Community Care Licensing (CCL) was notified of the elevator malfunction. Staff indicated that the elevator is maintained every six (6) months, and maintenance logs were provided and reviewed. Additionally, a recent fire alarm inspection was conducted with no issues identified, and copies of the inspection records were observed. LPA conducted a walkthrough of the facility and observed the elevator to be operational. The fire alarm system was not activated at the time of the visit, and no issues were observed. During interviews, R1 and other residents reported no current concerns regarding the fire alarm system. (continued on 9099C) 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 did not report incidents to appropriate parties It is alleged that the facility failed to report incidents involving R1’s behavior to appropriate parties, including failing to document and communicate concerns as required. During staff interviews, staff reported that incidents involving R1’s behavior were documented and maintained in the resident’s file. Staff stated that notes were completed following incidents and that, when necessary, witnesses were present during interactions due to R1’s communication style. Staff also reported that multiple letters of concern were issued to R1 addressing behavioral issues and expectations. Record review corroborated staff statements, as documentation including incident notes, letters of concern, and related records were observed in the resident’s file. Additionally, it was determined that R1 is his own responsible party. Based on the investigation conducted, which included interviews with staff and residents, as well as a review of relevant records, there was insufficient evidence to support the reported allegation. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED . Exit interview was held, and a copy of this report was provided.

2026-02-26
Other Visit
No findings
Inspector · Gabriela Castro

Plain-language summary

An investigation found that the facility had a temporary water shutoff on February 11, 2026, to repair a water pressure regulator and pipe leak, during which hot water was not available for a few hours; staff notified residents of the planned repair, and when the inspector visited, hot water was working properly throughout the facility and tested at safe temperatures. A complaint that staff did not wash their hands properly could not be confirmed—the inspector observed adequate hand-washing supplies and posted guidelines in the kitchen and dining areas, and staff reported following proper hygiene practices, but there was insufficient evidence to prove the allegation either happened or didn't happen.

Read raw inspector notes

Allegation: Facility does not have hot water. It is alleged that the facility did not provide hot water at resident bathrooms and common area sinks, including the bathroom near the kitchen and the dining room sink, for several days. Staff consistently reported there was no complete loss of hot water at the facility. Staff reported temporary issues involving low water pressure and a required water shutoff on 2/11/2026 after approximately 8:00 p.m. to complete plumbing repairs, including replacement of a water pressure regulator and repair of a piping leak. Staff stated hot water remained available outside of the repair period, although pressure was reduced at times. Staff reported residents were notified of the temporary disruptions. Plumbing services were contacted and repairs were completed, as reflected in work orders and invoices reviewed by LPA dated 2/11/2026 and 2/17/2026. R1 reported experiencing a lack of hot water for several days, including the date of the investigation visit. R1 stated they were not notified of any water shutoffs and reported maintaining a log documenting days without hot water. During resident interviews R2–R7, Residents provided varied statements. Several residents denied experiencing issues with hot water or reported having continuous access to hot water. At the time of the visit, all residents interviewed confirmed that hot water was available. LPA verified hot water was accessible in resident rooms and common areas during the visit. During Witness One (W1) interview, W1 confirmed plumbing services were rendered at the facility and that repairs were conducted on 02/11/26 after approximately 8:00 p.m., once the kitchen was closed, in order to minimize disruption to residents in care. W1 stated that certain repairs may take several hours to complete and explained that during active plumbing repairs, water service must be shut off. W1 further stated that if a resident attempted to use water during the repair period, water may not have been available. W1 explained that for certain repairs, such as a piping rupture, initial work may be completed during daytime hours to patch the pipe, with follow-up visits occurring in the evening to complete full repairs, which require shutting off the water supply. During the facility walk through, LPA tested the dining area sink and observed hot water available. LPA documented the observation with a photograph and observed posted hand-washing guidelines. LPA toured the kitchen and observed hot water available, hand-washing signage posted throughout the kitchen, and hand sanitizer present at workstations. (continued on 9099C) 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 received Unusual Incident Reports related to both the pipe leak and the hot water pressure issue, which included notification of a temporary and slight water shutoff. LPA observed the bathroom near the dining area to be clean, with hot water accessible. LPA inspected a total of eleven (11) resident bedrooms, including R1’s room, and observed hot water available in each room, meeting regulatory temperature requirements between 105°F and 120°F. Some faucets required additional time to reach the required temperature; however, hot water was available. LPA reviewed work orders and invoices related to the water pressure regulator replacement and the piping leak repair, which reflected that the issues were addressed and corrected. Allegation: Staff did not observe personal hygiene and sanitation practices to maintain infection control. It is alleged that staff did not wash their hands using warm water and soap while performing duties. During resident R1 interview, R1 alleged that dining room staff (servers) did not consistently practice proper hand hygiene. R1 reported observing servers assist residents with walkers and then proceed to other duties without washing their hands. R1 further alleged that staff did not wash their hands using warm water and soap and stated that on the date observed, hot water was not available. During staff interviews, staff consistently reported they follow proper hand hygiene practices. Staff stated they wash their hands with soap and water, use gloves as required, and follow posted hand-washing guidelines. Kitchen and dining staff reported hands are typically washed in the kitchen area, where hand-washing supplies and signage are posted. Staff reported that hand hygiene is routinely practiced during resident care. During the facility walkthrough, LPA observed sufficient supplies of hand soap and hand sanitizer available in the kitchen, dining area, and common areas. Based on the investigation conducted, which included interviews with staff, witness, and residents, as well as a review of relevant records, there was insufficient evidence to support the reported allegations. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED . Exit interview was held, and a copy of this report was provided.

2025-08-28
Other Visit
No findings

Plain-language summary

This was a routine annual inspection of the facility, and no deficiencies were found. Inspectors verified that the building met safety standards including working smoke alarms and carbon monoxide detectors, bathrooms had grab bars and non-slip surfaces, medications were properly stored, staff had current training and background clearances, and activities and resident rights information were available. The facility is currently caring for 12 hospice residents and is approved to house up to 81 residents.

Read raw inspector notes

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Kimberly Ramirez and LPA Gabby Castro conducted an unannounced annual inspection visit and was greeted by Administrator Daisy Hernandez. LPA Ramirez explained the purpose of the visit. LPA utilized the Compliance and Regulatory Enforcement (CARE) tools for the visit today and observed the following: readily available to residents, were observed to be inaccessible to residents. LPA Ramirez observed carbon monoxide detectors and smoke alarms in hallways. LPA Ramirez inspected six (6) resident rooms. All resident bedrooms contained the required furniture, linens and lighting. Water temperatures in all grooming and bathing areas were measured to be with 105 – 120 degrees F. LPA Ramirez observed grab bars near toilets and inside shower. LPA Ramirez observed non-slip coating in showers. LPA Ramirez observed seated shower chairs in bathrooms. Food Service: LPA Ramirez observed a sufficient supply of nonperishables for one week and perishable foods for a minimum of two days in the facility kitchen area. Soaps, detergents, and cleaning compounds were observed to be stored away from food supplies. Freezers and refrigerators were observed to be clean and within temperatures of 0-degree F (-17.7 degree C), and refrigerators with maximum temperature of 40-degree F. (4 degree C). Planned Activities: LPA Ramirez observed board games, magazines, and other activities for residents. The facility employs a full-time activities director. See 809-C 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 Residents Rights-Information: LPA Ramirez observed the following postings in common areas throughout the facility: Complaint Poster (PUB 475), personal rights, and nondiscrimination notice. LPA Ramirez observed the facility land line. Disaster Preparedness: The facility has the Emergency Disaster Plan (LIC610D/9 pages) in place. The last documented emergency drills were conducted on 07/12/2025. LPA Ramirez observed facility sketches with exits and emergency exits routes throughout various locations of the facility. LPA Ramirez observed an emergency food supply. Residents with Special Needs : No large bodies of water were observed LPA Ramirez observed signs posted indicating “No smoking - Oxygen in Use” in various locations of the facility. LPA Ramirez observed several oxygen tanks in resident rooms secured in stands. Knives, sharps or other items that could pose a danger to residents with dementia, were observed to be inaccessible. Auditory devices were observed to be in working order. Health Related Services/Incidental Medical Services: The medications are centrally stored in the medication closet and in bubble packs and/or original containers. LPA Ramirez observed Centrally Stored Medication and Destruction Record. The facility provides incidental medical services. Staffing: Administrator Certificate for Daisy Hernandez 02/27/2027. Staff employed are over the age of 18 and are fingerprint cleared and associated to the facility. Personnel Records Training: Staff files are maintained at the facility. LPA Ramirez observed the required annual training, CPR and First Aid for four (4) out of the four (4) personnel record reviewed. LPA Ramirez observed TB testing results, Health screening, fingerprint clearance and job application for four (4) out of the four (4) personnel record reviewed. Infection Control: Staff are using appropriate hand hygiene and wearing gloves while assisting clients. Staff are cleaning and disinfecting often for high touched surfaces. Facility has an Infection Control Plan in place. No deficiencies were observed during this visit. Exit interview conducted. A copy of this report was provided via email. 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 Operational Requirements: The fire clearance is approved for eighty-one (81) residents over the age of 59 years old, of which eight (8) may be bedridden on the 1 st floor only. This facility may retain no more than twenty (20) hospice residents. There were twelve (12) residents on hospice during the time of inspection. Resident Records/Incident Reports: LPA reviewed resident records for four (4) residents in care. Resident records are maintained at the facility. Admission Agreement, Physician's Report (including T.B and Ambulatory Status), Consent for Medical Treatment, Preplacement Appraisal Information, Resident Pre-Appraisal, Care Plan/Appraisal/Needs and Services Plan, Resident Rights were observed. See 809-C

2025-06-20
Complaint Investigation
IJ · 1 finding

Plain-language summary

This was a follow-up visit on March 27, 2025 to check whether the facility had corrected an infection control violation found during a complaint investigation in early March. The facility appealed the original citation and the department agreed the citation paperwork had errors, so it was dismissed and a corrected citation was issued instead. No further action is required from the facility.

IJImmediate jeopardy22 CCR §87465(a)(9)
Verbatim citation text · 22 CCR §87465(a)(9)

Control Requirements. This requirement was not med as evidenced by: The licensee did not ensure infection control practices were maintained during an active epidemic outbreak. This poses a immediate risk to the health, safety, or personal rights of persons in care.

Read raw inspector notes

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Kimberly Ramirez conducted an unannounced Case Management-Other regarding the correction of deficiency issued on 03/11/2025. LPA Ramirez was greeted by Business Office Director- Lachaun Gill and explained the purpose of the visit. On 03/11/2025, LPA Ramirez issued a deficiency as a result of COMPLAINT CONTROL NUMBER: 28-AS-20250304162038. During this complaint investigation, it was determined facility staff were not following proper infection control practices. On 03/27/2025, Monterey Park Adult and Senior Care Regional office received an appeal response to deficiency issued on 03/11/2025. After review of the appeal, the department granted the dismissal of the deficiency. The Department agreed the required information on the deficient practice statement was not provided. However, since it was determined there was a violation of Section 87465(a)(9) as the facility failed to follow its own infection control plan, this citation was dismissed, and a corrected citation is being issued during today’s visit. One (1) deficiency was cited today. No further action is required on behalf of the facility in connection with this deficiency. Exit interview was conducted. A copy of this report, 809-D and appeals rights was provided.

2025-04-24
Complaint Investigation
Unsubstantiated
No findings

Plain-language summary

An investigator looked into a complaint that staff provided poor food service and over-salted meals on April 19, 2025. The kitchen met food safety standards, with proper food storage, labeling, and staff hygiene observed, and most staff and residents interviewed did not support the complaint. No violations were found.

Read raw inspector notes

The investigation revealed the following: regarding the allegation- “Facility staff do not provide adequate food service to residents.” It is alleged staff over salted food and did not provide quality food service to residents and their families on 04/19/2025. LPA Ramirez toured kitchen area and dinning room area during visit. LPA Ramirez observed facility walk in refrigerator temperature to read 40 degrees F, which is within regulation General Food Service Requirements- 87555(b)(21) . LPA Ramirez observed stored food in containers to contain labels that indicated “preparation date and use by date” on all containers with food. Food was stored away from chemicals and cleaning sinks. LPA Ramirez did not observe spoiled food while inspecting perishable foods and non-perishable foods. LPA Ramirez observed kitchen staff wearing hair nets and using gloves while handling food during today’s visit. Four (4) out of the four (4) staff interviewed did not corroborate this allegation. One (1) out of six (6) residents interviewed corroborated this allegation. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED . No violations were observed during this investigation visit. Exit interview conducted. A copy of this report was provided via email.

2025-04-03
Complaint Investigation
Unsubstantiated
No findings

Plain-language summary

A complaint investigation looked into three allegations: pest infestation, inadequate food service, and insufficient hot water in bathrooms. The inspector found no evidence of violations—the pest control service had performed a recent inspection with no rodent or insect activity, food storage and preparation met safety standards, and water temperatures tested within acceptable ranges. All three complaints were unsubstantiated.

Read raw inspector notes

The investigation revealed the following: regarding the allegation(s)- Facility staff are not properly addressing pest infestation in facility. It is alleged the facility has a mice and rodent infestation throughout the facility. Four (4) out of the four (4) staff interviewed did not corroborate this allegation. One (1) out of the five (5) residents interviewed corroborated this allegation. LPA inspected physical plant including kitchen, pantry, residents’ rooms, lobby, dining room, visitor bathrooms, memory care unit and outdoor patio. LPA did not observe any health and safety violations. LPA reviewed facility pest control contract services with Ecolab. According to pest control service contract reviewed, pest control services are performed monthly throughout the facility. LPA reviewed service report dated 3/11/25 (start time 9:38am- end time 10:56am), it revealed no rodent, no fly, no ant, and no cockroach activity was found during inspection. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED . Facility staff do not provide adequate food service to residents. It is alleged staff do not provide good quality food. Four (4) out of the four (4) staff interviewed did not corroborate this allegation. One (1) out of the five (5) residents interviewed corroborated this allegation. LPA inspected physical plant including kitchen, pantry, walk-in refrigerator, walk in freezers and dining room. LPA did not observe any health and safety violations. LPA observed kitchen staff wearing gloves while handling food and wearing hair nets. LPA observed perishable foods to contain labels that indicate discard date. LPA did not observe perishables to be spoiled or contain mold. Canned goods and dry foods stored in pantry contained labels that indicate discard dates. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED . Facility staff do not ensure that residents are delivered hot water throughout the facility. It is alleged facility staff do not maintain hot water temperatures in grooming areas, in the early morning hours. Four (4) out of the four (4) staff interviewed did not corroborate this allegation. One (1) out of the five (5) residents interviewed corroborated this allegation. LPA inspected random resident rooms to inspect, shared/visitor bathrooms throughout the facility and kitchen area. Water temperatures in grooming areas tested to be within 105 – 120 degree F. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED . No violations were observed or cited during this complaint investigation. Exit interview was conducted. A copy of this report was provided via email due to printer malfunction.

2025-03-11
Complaint Investigation
Substantiated
Citation on file

Plain-language summary

A complaint investigation found that during a COVID-19 outbreak beginning in February 2025, the facility did not follow its own infection control plan: staff were observed unmasked indoors in common areas despite the requirement to wear masks during an outbreak, communal dining was not suspended even though the county health department recommended it, and residents were allowed to use the dining room for activities while positive cases were still present. The facility's plan stated that meals should be delivered to residents' apartments during widespread transmission and that communal areas should remain closed until at least 14 days had passed with no new positive cases. This violation was substantiated.

Substantiated — the state found a violation and issued a citation. Full citation details are on file with the state.

Read raw inspector notes

The investigation revealed the following. Regarding Allegation : Staff are not following proper infection control practices at the facility – It is alleged facility staff did not follow infection control practices during an active infectious outbreak beginning on 2/23/2025. On 02/23/2025, facility staff reported to this licensing agency and to The California Department of Public Health (CDPH), that the facility had five (5) residents that had tested positive for COVID-19. Staff interviews revealed that on 02/24/2025, CDPH placed the facility on surveillance due to an active epidemic outbreak of COVID-19. On 02/27/2025, CDPH recommended the facility suspended communal dining and activities during an outbreak. Staff interviews conducted by LPA Ramirez revealed, communal dining was not suspended but residents that tested positive, self-isolated. According to the facility’s Coronavirus/COVID-19 Preparedness and Response Plan, I. “Upon widespread market-based transmission or suspected exposure within the community the following quarantine interventions will be followed: 5. Meals will be delivered to apartments, in accordance with Culinary Virus Protocol procedures.” On 03/04/2025, CDPH issued a violation for “ COVID-19 Employees Face Cover Required”. County of Los Angeles Official Inspection Report dated 03/04/2025, revealed multiple staff were observed to be unmasked while walking indoors in common areas. According to the facility’s Coronavirus/COVID-19 Preparedness and Response Plan, I. “Upon widespread market-based transmission or suspected exposure within the community the following quarantine interventions will be followed: 2. All team members will wear med-surg masks within the community.” According to the facility’s Coronavirus/COVID-19 Preparedness and Response Plan, Steps of Community Reopening Plan, Step 1 : Reopen the salon and indoor visits if: Request letter to the county has been submitted and no obligations have been raised and there have been no positive COVID residents or staff at the community for at least the past 14 days. There are no residents or staff suspected with COVID-19. Step 2 : Resume limited communal dining and small group activities if 14 days have passed since Step began and there have been no positive COVID residents or staff and there are no residents or staff suspected with COVID-19. Staff interviews revealed, the last resident or staff to test positive for COVID-19 was on 02/26/2026. On 03/11/2025, LPA Ramirez observed several residents utilizing the dining room for activities and dining, even though the facility is in an active epidemic outbreak. Based on interviews, observations, and records reviewed, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation is found to be Substantiated . One (1) type A violation was cited during this complaint investigation. Exit interview was conducted. A copy of this report, 9099-D and appeals rights was provided.

2024-08-22
Annual Compliance Visit
Type B · 1 finding

Plain-language summary

During a routine inspection, investigators found that a staff member shouted at residents and refused to help them with personal care on multiple occasions between May and August 2024, including leaving one resident in soiled condition for over four hours. Five of nine staff members interviewed confirmed witnessing this behavior, and written statements from facility staff documented the incidents. The staff member resigned on August 22, 2024.

Type B22 CCR §87468.1(a)(1)
Verbatim citation text · 22 CCR §87468.1(a)(1)

87468.1 Personal Rights of Residents in All Facilities (a) Residents in all residential care facilities for the elderly shall have all of the following personal rights:(1) To be accorded dignity in their personal relationships with staff, residents, and other persons. This requirement was not as evidenced by:

Read raw inspector notes

The investigation revealed the following. Regarding Allegation: Staff does not treat resident with respect - It is alleged that S10 shouted and did not treat R1 with dignity on or around 8/17/2024. Five (5) out nine (9) staff verbally interviewed corroborate this allegation. LPA Ramirez observed three (3) written statements by three facility staff that corroborate this allegation. S10 was not available for interview during visit and LPA Ramirez attempted to contact S10. According to staff, S10 resigned effective 8/22/2024. One (1) out of one (1) resident interviewed deny this allegation. Residents that reside in the Evergreen unit suffer from cognitive impairments; LPA Ramirez was unable to conduct additional resident interviews. During staff interviews and records reviewed, it was revealed that on multiple occasions S10 was observed by other staff to shout and refuse to assist residents with activities of daily living. Written statements by facility staff revealed on 7/15/2024, S11 documented that S10 left R3 soiled in feces for more than 4 hours. LPA Ramirez observed a written statement by S5 that documented on or around 5/15/24 or 5/16/24, S10 raised their voice at residents’ family while searching for a resident’s shirt. Interviews with staff revealed S10 was heard redirecting residents by shouting and refusing to assist other staff reposition residents upon request. Based on interviews and and records reviewed, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation is found to be Substantiated . One (1) deficiency is being cited during this investigation. Exit interview was conducted. A copy of this report, 809-D and appeals rights was provided.

Nearby

Other facilities in Los Angeles County.

Other memory care facilities in Los Angeles 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

StarlynnCare receives no referral commissions, lead fees, or paid placement from any operator. Rankings are derived solely from state inspection records and verified family reviews.