California · Morgan Hill

Loma Clara Senior Living.

RCFE · Memory Care89 bedsDementia-trained staff
Loma Clara Senior Living
Loma Clara Senior Living — photo 2
Loma Clara Senior Living — photo 3
Loma Clara Senior Living — photo 4
© Google · Loma Clara Senior Living
Facility · Morgan Hill
A 89-bed RCFE · Memory Care with 6 citations on file.
Licensed beds
89
Last inspection
Dec 2025
Last citation
Apr 2025
Operated by
Steadfast Collin Morgan Hill Llc;integral Sr Lg Mg
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
27th%
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
29th%
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

Loma Clara Senior Living has 6 citations on record. Know the moment anything changes.

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

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
Cited Jul 2023+
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 Loma Clara Senior Living's record and state requirements.

01 /

The facility has 6 serious citations on file across all inspections — can you provide your corrective-action plan for each 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 /

13 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 facility has been cited twice under Title 22 §87705 or §87706 (dementia care requirements) — can you provide the written dementia-care program required by §87705 and your corrective-action plan for the cited deficiencies?

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

Full Inspection Record

Every inspection visit, verbatim.

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

12
reports on file
6
total deficiencies
4
severe (Type A)
2025-12-30
Other Visit
No findings
Inspector · Chihhsien Chang

Plain-language summary

A resident had a stroke on November 13, 2025, and was later found to have taken multiple doses per day of a sleep medication that was prescribed at one pill per day; the resident had ordered additional medication online without staff knowledge and hidden it in the room. The facility's investigation found no violation, as staff were unaware of the resident's unauthorized medication and did not have access to packages delivered to the facility due to privacy practices. The resident was moved to a rehabilitation facility following hospitalization.

Read raw inspector notes

On 11/20/2025, LPA interviewed Executive Director (ED), ED stated resident R1 lives in the assisted living unit. ED stated R1 had doctor prescription medication 25 mg M1 to take one pill as needed at bedtime to help for sleeping. ED stated the facility did not know that R1 ordered the medication M1 by himself/herself and hid in his/her room. ED stated on 11/13/2025, R1's family member (FM) visited R1 and found R1 had symptoms of stroke and called 911. R1 was sent to hospital. ED stated on 11/14/2025, R1 told hospital nurse that he/she had trouble of sleeping and took several pills of medication M1 per day. ED stated R1 ordered M1 online and the package of M1 was delivered to the facility. ED stated the facility did not open R1's package because of the right of privacy. ED stated R1 did not tell any facility staff that he/she ordered medication M1 online. ED stated the facility staff did not see medication M1 in R1's room because R1 hid it. ED stated R1 had packages from Amazon delivered to the facility on 09/30/2025, 10/102025, 10/142025, 10/15/2025, and 11/10/2025 but were unable to know which packages had medication M1. ED stated on 11/17/2025, FM came to R1's room to search R1's room and took all medication M1 from R1's room and R1's Amazon account was closed by FM. ED sated on 11/17/2025, R1's doctor stopped the prescription of medication M1. On the same day, LPA interviewed R1 in R1's room. R1 stated he/she had medication M1 several pills per day before but not recently. R1 stated he/she does not remember the exact date that he/she stared to take M1. R1 stated the reason that he/she takes M1 is because he/she wants to have good sleep. R1 stated there is no more M1 in the room because FM removed all M1 from the room. R1 stated he/she ordered M1 from store and hid in the room but did not tell any staff. R1 did not want to reveal where he/she hid M1. LPA interviewed Director of Assisted Living (S1). S1 stated he/she received a phone call from the hospital nurse on 11/14/2025 that R1 had several sleeping medication M1 pills per day for several days. S1 stated R1 had doctor prescription medication M1 one pill per day as needed at bedtime. S1 stated the facility did not know R1 ordered M1 online. S1 stated the facility does not open resident's package without resident's permission because of privacy rights. S1 stated on 11/17/20205 FM came to R1's room and removed medication M1 from the room and closed R1's Amazon account. LPA interviewed staff S2. S2 stated R1 had p rescription PRN medication M1 one pill per day at night. S2 stated the facility only gave M1 one pill at night per day when R1 requested. Continue on LIC9099-C. Page 2 of 3. 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 S2 stated he/she never saw R1 had his/her own medication M1. S2 stated he/she never saw M1 left in R1's room. LPA interviewed 2 caregivers. Both stated they did not administer medication to R1 and did not see any medication M1 in R1's room. Based on the review of R1's doctor order, R1's had prescription medication M1 one pill per day as needed at bedtime, and was stopped on 11/17/2025. Based on the review of R1's Medication Administration Records, a 25 mg M1 pill was administered to R1 on 11/01/2025 to 11/06/2025, and 11/08/2025 to 11/12/2025. Based on the review of the incident report, on 11/21/2025, the facility conducted a room search for R1's room by Director of Assisted Living and Med Tech, a bottle of medication M1 was found under the mattress. The bottle of M1 was removed from the room. R1 was sent to hospital for evaluation. R1 was sent to skilled nursing Rehabilitation facility . The department has investigated the above allegation. Based on the observations, records reviewed, and interviews conducted, the Department found that the above allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED . An unsubstantiated finding indicates that although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove that the allegations did or did not occur. No deficiencies or citations noted at today’s compliant investigation visit. Exit interview conducted with BD. A copy of this report was provided to BD. Page 3 of 3.

2025-11-13
Annual Compliance Visit
No findings

Plain-language summary

On November 13, 2025, the state visited the facility to deliver an immediate exclusion order for a staff member who had engaged in conduct determined to be unsuitable for working with residents; the staff member's last day was September 30, 2025. The facility was instructed to remove this person from the resident roster and ensure no contact with residents. No violations were found during the visit.

Read raw inspector notes

On November 13, 2025, Licensing Program Analyst Manuel Monter arrived at the facility unannounced to conduct a case management – other visit. LPA met with Kayree Shreeve Resident Care Director (RCD) The purpose of the visit is to hand deliver an immediate exclusion letter for an individual (S1) who the Department determined engaged in conduct inimical. RCD stated S1 was not currently working in the facility and his/her last day September 30, 2025. The immediate exclusion letter was handed to the RCD. The RCD was informed to remove S1 from any contact with clients and not allow S1 to be physically present in the facility. The RCD was advised to separate S1 from the facility roster. LPAs requested a copy of the updated LIC 500. No deficiencies were cited per California Code of Regulations, Title 22. This report was reviewed with Kayree Shreeve Resident Care Director and a copy of the report was provided.

2025-04-29
Complaint Investigation
Unsubstantiated
No findings
Inspector · Grace Donato

Plain-language summary

An investigator looked into three complaints about this memory care facility: an incident where one resident pushed another resident in the courtyard, concerns that a resident was not being fed adequately and was losing weight, and a claim that staff did not inform the family about a fungal infection on the resident's toes. The investigator found no clear evidence to support any of these complaints—the resident's weight records showed he actually gained weight between July and August 2024, he was observed to be eating and asking for food when hungry, and staff had no record of observing a fungal infection, though they noted his toenails were long (a podiatrist visits the facility to trim nails).

Read raw inspector notes

They couldn’t prove it. There wasn’t any action plan the facility covered with RP. They said they didn’t really think it happened and supposedly they were keeping eye on them, don’t know if R1 was following R2 around. After the incident on 08/09, they met with them that Saturday morning and Maria (former memory care director) said it was really odd that it happened. LPA Kabariti (Christine Dolores) interviewed staff members. According to ED, there was an incident that occurred between R1 and R2. Both residents are in memory care. There was a caregiver (S3), who saw them walking in the memory care's courtyard. There are windows to the courtyard and the caregiver clearly saw both residents. Both residents are ambulatory and independent. When R1 and R2 met at a crossing path, they don't know exactly what happened between them and what was said, but according to S3, R1 pushed R2 and R2 fell into the bush and ended up sideways from the walking path. LPA Donato was able to interview S3. S3 shared that he/she saw R1 push R2 so he/she ran to keep them away from each other. Based on records review, in one of the entries in the progress notes, the former memory care director had a meeting with family members on 8/10/2024 to go over the service plan regarding the incident that happened. Regarding the allegation of Staff did not ensure resident was adequately fed resulting in weight loss, RP stated that in the process of moving R1, RP learned he's lost 8 lbs. The reason R1 is in the facility is because R1 wasn't eating well at home and was only drinking calories so if anything, R1 should have gained weight with regular meals. According to interviews, ED said that there were no concerns regarding R1s weight. R1 did a lot of walking and had a personal trainer that come here every week. Personal trainer was to keep him active. R1 was able to articulate and verbalize what he/she wanted. ED didn't notice he was losing weight. ED added that R1 verbalizes what he/she wants. If R1 needs more food, he/she asks for it. page 2 of 3 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 Based on records review, R1 had a logged weight record done by the facility every month. The records show that while the weight of the resident differs every month it is between 2.8lbs-6lbs. For July 1, 2024, the weight on record is 177.6 and when R1 got weighed again on August, 12, 2024, the records show 182lbs. For the allegation that Staff did not inform resident's responsible party about resident's change of condition, RP shared that they have learned that R1 has a horrible nail fungus on the toes. Facility should have helped R1 shower so someone should have alerted us (RP) to the toe fungus problem. During the interview, ED shared that they were not aware of any infections, fungus on R1s body and toe fungus. Don't remember anything of that effect. ED was not aware of any change of condition. If there was any change of condition it should be in the progress notes. ED also shared that R1 always has socks on. S2 mentioned that R1 was independent and performed his/her own Activities of Daily Living (ADL). S4 shared that he/she only observed R1s toenails to be long. If the fungus is under, then they won’t be able to see it. There is a podiatrist that comes in the facility to cut the residents nails. S4 also shared that R1 is good at dressing himself/herself. According to the records reviewed, R1 is an ambulatory resident who can do his/her own bathing, dressing feeding and toileting needs. R1 is also capable of communicating his/her needs and can follow instructions. In R1s care plan, R1 needs verbal cue or reminders to shower, dress and groom. Care staff is to assist with setting out clean clothes and redirect verbally if needs change in clothing and show if needed. There is also verbal cueing to assist what comes next in grooming. Based on interviews and records review, the department has determined that although the allegations may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur, therefore the allegations are UNSUBSTANTIATED. Report is reviewed and copy is provided. page 3 of 3

2025-04-17
Complaint Investigation
Mixed
Type B · 1 finding
Inspector · Komal Charitra

Plain-language summary

A complaint alleged that the facility did not have enough staff and that residents were left soiled and without timely meals, with one resident still in bed unfed at 11am. The inspection found 6 caregivers and a medication technician in the memory care unit, and staff said residents are checked and changed every two hours or as needed; the investigator determined there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations.

Type B22 CCR §87309(a)
Verbatim citation text · 22 CCR §87309(a)

Based on observations 8 out of 10 resident apartments contained toxins and sharps that were accessible to residents which poses and immediate health and safety risk to residents in care.

Read raw inspector notes

Regarding the allegation, facility does not have enough staff to meet the residents needs, according to the reporting party, it was observed that it was 11am and Resident 1 (R1) was still in bed, the blinds were closed, room was dark, and he/she still had not been fed breakfast. During the investigation, LPA interviewed staff. Staff interviewed indicated that there is enough staff in memory care and they are also using agencies. In addition, staff interviewed indicated that staff work really closely together and are experienced. During the visit today, LPA observed 2 caregivers and 1 med-tech in the assisted living unit and 5 caregivers and 1 med-tech in the memory care unit. Regarding the allegation, staff are leaving residents soiled, according to the reporting party, the facility staff are supposed to change and toilet the residents every couple hour, however while helping Resident 1 (R1), he/she was observed to be completely soaked. During the investigation, LPA interviewed staff members. Based on staff interviews, residents are being checked on and changed every two hours or as needed if they soil themselves sooner. Based on interviews conducted, observations and record review, the Department has determined that the above allegations are UNSUBSTANTIATED. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur. Report is reviewed with the Business Office Manager and a copy is provided.

2025-04-04
Complaint Investigation
Mixed
Type A · 1 finding
Inspector · Christine Kabariti

Plain-language summary

A complaint investigation found that staff did not properly record a resident's as-needed cough medication given at 6:00 a.m. on February 7, 2025—the medication was documented in a staff note but not in the resident's official medication log, and staff then waited until 10:00 a.m. to give the next dose without recording the earlier dose's dosage or effectiveness. Two other allegations—that staff failed to prevent or report a spinal fracture the resident sustained in January 2025, and that staff did not adequately supervise the resident in the common area on February 26, 2025—were investigated but found unsubstantiated, meaning there was not enough evidence to prove the violations occurred.

Type A22 CCR §87465(c)(3)
Verbatim citation text · 22 CCR §87465(c)(3)

Based on interview, record review and observation the licensee did not comply with the section cited above wherein the licensee did not ensure a record of R1’s PRN medication on 02/07/2025 at 6:00am was recorded, to include the dosage taken and resident’s response which poses/posed a potential health, safety, and personal rights risk to persons in care.

Read raw inspector notes

It was alleged that staff mishandled a resident (R1)’s medication the morning of 02/07/2025. It was stated that on 02/07/2025 around 7:00am, R1’s private caregiver requested a PRN medication for R1 due to increased coughing, but the medication was not administered until around 10:00am. Based on staff interview, it was stated that the NOC shift MedTech administered the PRN cough medicine around 6:00am, which was why the staff waited until 10:00am to give the next dose. Staff stated that they needed to wait until 4 hours had passed (per the physician’s order) before administering the next dose of the PRN cough medication. Based on record review of R1’s PRN log, on 02/07/2025 the 6:00am dose of PRN cough medicine was not recorded in R1’s PRN log. It was only recorded that R1 was administered the cough medicine at 10:12am the morning of 02/07/2025. The prior dose recorded was from 02/06/2025 at 8:27pm. The facility provided a written communication note on 02/07/2025 between MedTechs, which noted that R1 was administered a PRN medicine for cough at 6:00am, however, this note did not include the dosage and effectiveness of the medication. The Department has investigated the above allegation. Based on interview, record review and observation the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore, the above allegation is substantiated. A deficiency was cited per California Code of Regulations, Title 22. See LIC9099-D. This report was reviewed with Executive Director, Eugenia Smith and Generations Program Director Erin Wiley and a copy of the report and appeal rights was provided. Page 2 of 2. 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 It was alleged that on 01/25/2025, resident (R1) sustained an unexplained spinal fracture injury while in care. During R1’s hospital visit, R1 was diagnosed with a viral infection and spine fracture. It was unclear whether the spinal fracture was caused by an unwitnessed fall that was not reported by the facility or due to symptoms of the viral infection. 6 staff members were interviewed. Based on staff interview, 6 out of 6 staff stated that R1 was a fall risk. 5 out of 6 staff did not observe R1 sustain a fall and was not informed of a fall that R1 had sustained during their shift and prior to their shift. 1 out of 6 staff stated they believe R1 had a fall, which is how R1 sustained a spine fracture, however, this staff could not provide more details to include when and where the fall occurred. This staff stated that if there was a fall, it should have been documented in R1’s chart. Based on record review, there was no indication in R1's notes that R1 had sustained a fall prior to R1’s hospital visit on 01/23/2025. It was only noted that R1 wasn’t feeling well and complained of chest pain and coughing, in where R1 was taken to the emergency room. The review of R1’s medical records did not indicate how R1 sustained the spinal fracture. R1 is diagnosed with a health condition related to weak bones. A witness was interviewed, who was unsure how R1 sustained the spinal fracture. It was alleged that staff did not provide adequate care and supervision due to an incident that occurred on 02/26/2025. On 02/26/2025, a witness (W1) observed R1 bent over, pulling a heavy chair in the common area and there was no staff member in sight. It was stated that the facility was instructed by R1’s family member to ensure R1 is in sight of the caregivers 24/7. Based on record review, the facility was not providing 1:1 care for R1 during the day time. R1’s service plan indicated status checks for 4-6x a day. Page 2 of 3. 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 It was noted that staff are to make frequent checks for resident’s safety and to assist the resident during transitions from activities, meals, and back to the apartment. The service plan did not indicate a time frame of how often staff should be checking on the resident. A witness (W1) was interviewed. Based on interview, around 5:30pm W1 did not observe staff supervising the residents in the common area when R1 was bent over with a back brace pulling a heavy chair. W1 denied calling a staff for assistance or looking for a staff after the observation of the incident. W1 states there are usually around 2-3 staff working in memory care. 5 staff members were interviewed regarding this allegation. Based on staff interview, the caregivers check in on R1 very frequently if R1 is in his/her bedroom alone. It’s stated that R1 is normally in the common area during the day to allow for staff to observe R1 closely. Staff stated the facility has at least 3-4 caregivers, 1 medtech, and 1 activities staff working the morning shift; 3-4 caregivers and 1 medtech for the afternoon/evening shift; and 3 caregivers and 1 medtech during the NOC shift. Based on review of the facility’s staffing schedule in memory care, the facility has at least 3 – 4 caregivers and 1 MedTech scheduled in the morning and afternoon shift, and at least 2 caregivers and 1 MedTech during the NOC shift. The Department has investigated the above allegations. Based on interview, record review and observation the above allegations are unsubstantiated. An unsubstantiated finding indicated that although the allegation may have happened and/or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur. No deficiencies were cited per California Code of Regulations, Title 22. This report was reviewed with Executive Director, Eugenia Smith and Generations Program Director Erin Wiley and a copy of the report was provided. Page 3 of 3.

2025-03-12
Complaint Investigation
No findings
Inspector · Christine Kabariti

Plain-language summary

A complaint alleged that a staff member physically hurt a resident, but the investigation found this did not happen—the resident was actually pushed by another resident in August 2024, not by staff. Interviews with the resident, staff, and a witness confirmed that no staff member caused harm, and the facility's care arrangements (female caregivers only assisting this resident) were documented and verified.

Read raw inspector notes

Based on interview with staff (S1), it was stated that during R1's medical appointment, R1 informed his/her doctor of an incident that occurred with R1 and a former resident back in August 2024 wherein a male resident had pushed R1 in the courtyard. Since then, R1 had complained of leg pain. S1 denied any incidents of a staff member physically abusing R1. It was stated that R1 is fully ambulatory and is able to provide his/her ADL (activities of daily living) care to include getting in and out of bed. It was stated that R1 only needs assistance with medication and stand-by showers provided by female caregivers. S1 stated that they have 2 male caregivers in Generation who do not provide any care to R1, due to R1's preference. On 03/12/2025, a witness was interviewed. Based on interview, it was stated that the incident did not occur with a staff but rather with a former resident. The witness did not have any complaints or concerns regarding staff treatment towards R1. On 03/12/2025, resident (R1) was interviewed. Based on interview, R1 denied any staff members hurting him/her. R1 states that he/she does most ADL care by him/herself and only needs stand-by assistance during showers and assistance with medication. R1 denied any male caregivers providing any care to R1 and states only female caregivers provides care to R1. On 03/12/2025, a staff member was interviewed. Based on interview, the male caregivers do not provide any physical care to R1. Based on record review, R1 is diagnosed with vascular cognitive impairment. The Department has investigated the above allegation. Based on interview, record review and observation the above allegation is unfounded, meaning, the allegation is false, could not have happened and/or is without a reasonable basis. No deficiencies were cited per California Code of Regulations, Title 22. This report was reviewed with Business Office Director, Cassandra Pace and Generations Program Director Erin Wiley and a copy of the report was provided.

2025-02-13
Annual Compliance Visit
Type B · 1 finding
Inspector · Christine Kabariti

Plain-language summary

This was the facility's annual inspection on an unannounced visit. Inspectors found that hygiene products were stored where two residents in the memory care unit could access them without supervision, creating a safety risk; the facility immediately added magnetic locks to address this, and inspectors also found that two residents' physician reports were outdated (from 2022 and 2023) and one resident's medical assessment was incomplete, prompting the facility to request updated forms from doctors. All other areas inspected—including food storage, temperatures, medications, fire safety equipment, and staff training—were in order or complete.

Type B22 CCR §87463(h)
Verbatim citation text · 22 CCR §87463(h)

Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee did not comply with the section cited above in 2 out of 4 counts in which 2 residents in Generation's medical assessment was last dated in 2022 and 2023 which poses/posed a potential health, safety or personal rights risk to persons in care. POC Due Date: 02/20/2025 Plan of Correction 1 2 3 4 Licensee corrected the deficiency by following-up with the 2 resident's physicians for the updated LIC602. Going forward, licensee will ensure that all resident's recieve an annual routine visit with a licensed medical profressional once every 12 months.

Read raw inspector notes

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Christine Kabariti arrived unannounced to conduct the facility's annual required - 1 year inspection. LPA met with Executive Director, Eugenia Smith. LPA toured Generations (aka Memory Care) with ED to include 4 apartments (RM 113, 109, 105, and 101), bathrooms, activity room, kitchen, and dining room. All fire exit routes were free and clear of obstruction. Temperature maintained between 70 - 72 degrees F. Kitchen refrigerator temperature maintained at 40 degrees F. The beverage refrigerator maintained at 38 degrees F. Freezer temperature maintained below 0 degrees F. Hot water temperature measured between 119.6 - 120 degrees F in RM 113 and 109. Chemicals and disinfectants observed locked. 2 residents in 1 out of 4 rooms is able to store their own hygiene products per their medical assessment. LPA advised ED to take appropriate measure to ensure all resident's safety for those who may wander and is at risk if given direct access to hygiene items. During visit, the facility added a magnetic log on the cabinets in the resident bedroom. Daily program / activities calendar observed posted for the month. During visit, resident's observed participating in activities. 2 resident files in Generations was reviewed. 1 out of 2 resident's who uses a postural support has a physician's order on file. 2 out of 2 resident's physician's report observed outdated from 2022 and 2023. Resident #1 had a medical assessment from a doctor's visit in January 2025. LPA observed the medical assessment did not contain all required information as stated in Title 22 Section 87458. During visit, ED faxed the resident #1 and #2's doctor the facility's physician form. The remainder of the resident files observed complete. LPA inspected 2 resident's centrally stored medication and records. 2 out of 2 resident medications were complete and no issues noted. See LIC809-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 LPA entered in the kitchen with the ED. The facility has at least 2 days worth of perishables and 7 days worth of non-perishable foods. Walk-in refrigerator temperature maintained at 34 degrees F. Walk-in freezer temperature maintained at -33 degrees F. Items inside the refrigerator and freezer observed covered. LPA toured Assisted Living with ED to include 4 resident apartments (RM 226, 223, 236, and 211). Hot water temperature was measured between 115.3 - 118.9 in RM 226 and 236. 1 out of 4 resident apartments observed with hygiene items and based on review of the resident's physician's report the resident may not have direct access to hygiene items. ED implemented the magnetic lock on resident's cabinet. 2 residents file in Assisted Living was reviewed. 2 out of 2 resident's files were complete. LPA inspected 2 resident's centrally stored medication and records. 2 out of 2 resident medications were complete and no issues noted. Fire extinguishers observed throughout the facility, last service date was 01/09/2025. Facility has carbon monoxide and smoke detectors present. Fire drills are being completed quarterly and the last drill was completed on 01/30/2025. Elevator observed in working condition. Activities calendar posted throughout assisted living. LPA observed first aid kits in the medication room in Generations and Assisted Living. Facility has a back-up generator and flash lights available, if needed. 4 staff files were reviewed and observed complete. 4 out of 4 staff members had over 20 hours of annual training. LPA advised to ensure appropriate staff receive at least 20 hours of training, in which 8 hours shall be dementia care and 4 hours of which shall be specific to postural supports, restricted health care conditions and hospice care. A deficiency was cited per California Code of Regulations, Title 22. See LIC809-D. Advisory note provided. This report was reviewed with Executive Director, Eugenia Smith and a copy of the report was provided.

2024-09-05
Complaint Investigation
No findings
Inspector · Christine Dolores

Plain-language summary

A complaint was investigated regarding an argument between a resident and family members in the parking lot on August 25, 2024. Staff observed the situation and called a director for help, but were not involved in the argument itself, and the resident was already back inside the facility by the time the director arrived. The investigation found the complaint was unfounded and no violations were cited.

Read raw inspector notes

On 09/05/2024, 2 staff members were interviewed. Based on staff interviews, it was stated that on 08/25/2024 an incident happened between resident (R1) and R1's family members. The front desk staff observed R1 and R1's family member having an argument in the facility's parking lot. The front desk staff called the memory care director for assistance, and by the time the memory care director arrived the resident was already inside the facility. Based on interview and record review, the facility's staff were not in the parking lot and involved in the argument between R1 and R1's family members. Intervention with staff happened when R1 was already in the community. The Department has investigated the above allegations. Based on interview, record review and observation the above allegations are unfounded meaning the allegations are false, could not have happened and/or is without a reasonable basis. No deficiencies were cited per California Code of Regulations, Tile 22. This report was reviewed with Executive Director, Eugenia Smith and a copy of the report was provided. PAGE 2 OF 2.

2024-02-16
Other Visit
Type A · 1 finding
Inspector · Christine Dolores

Plain-language summary

This was the facility's required annual inspection. The inspector found the memory care and assisted living units in good condition with proper documentation, safe environments, and appropriate staffing and training, though one medication discrepancy was noted in the memory care unit where extra doses of medication were found but the facility could not explain how they accumulated despite daily sign-offs in the electronic records.

Type A22 CCR §87465(a)(4)
Verbatim citation text · 22 CCR §87465(a)(4)

Based on observation, interview, and record review the licensee did not comply with the section cited above in 1 out of 4 counts in which resident (R1) was not provided with the correct dosage for 4 medications, which contained extra dosages in the bubble packs which poses an immediate health, safety or personal rights risk to persons in care. POC Due Date: 02/17/2024 Plan of Correction 1 2 3 4 Licensee will provide an in-service training to appropriate staff regarding medication administration. Licensee will provide the in-service training document to LPA Dolores via email by the end of day of 02/17/2024.

Read raw inspector notes

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Christine Dolores arrived unannounced to conduct the facility's required - 1 year annual inspection. LPA met with Executive Director (ED), Eugenia Smith. LPA toured Generations (aka Memory Care) with ED to include 6 apartments (RM 119, 201, 204, 111, 114, and 115), bathrooms, activity room, dining room and kitchen. 6 apartments equipped with beds, linens, chairs, dressers, night stands and adequate lighting. LPA observed 2 residents who uses oxygen. Oxygen in use sign posted outside of resident apartments. Temperature in Generations observed between 72 - 76 degrees Fahrenheit. All fire exit routes were free and clear of obstruction. No observations of chemicals, sharp objects, or items which could pose a danger that are accessible to residents in care. LPA reviewed 4 resident files in Generations. 4 out of 4 resident files contained an updated medical assessment, TB result, service plan, emergency/contact information, admission agreement, safeguard of personal property and valuables, and personal rights form. LPA observed the residents who are using oxygen and half rails contained physician's orders on file. LPA reviewed 4 residents centrally stored medications and centrally stored medication records. Resident (R1)'s medications were counted and observed with extra dosages of medications for 4 bubble pack medications. Facility was unable to track where the discrepancy had stemmed from as the electronic MAR shows that staff had signed off on the administration of the medications daily. LPA entered the kitchen with ED. The facility has at least 2 days worth of perishables and 7 days worth of non-perishable foods. Refrigerator temperature maintained at 36 degrees Fahrenheit. Items inside the refrigerator observed covered and labeled. Freezer temperature maintained at 0 degrees Fahrenheit. SEE LIC809-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 LPA toured Assisted Living with ED to include 5 resident apartments (RM 226, 241, 239, 219, and 214), bathrooms, activity room, fitness center, salon, kitchen, and dining room. 5 resident apartments equipped with beds, linens, chairs, dressers, night stands and adequate lighting. Hot water temperature in RM 226 and 219 maintained at 110 degrees Fahrenheit. Temperature in assisted living measured at 72 degrees Fahrenheit. All fire exit routes are free and clear of obstruction. Fire extinguisher last serviced on 01/09/2024. LPA observed the presence of fire detectors / carbon monoxide detectors throughout the facility. Elevator observed in working condition. LPA reviewed 4 resident records in Assisted Living. 4 out of 4 resident files contained an updated medical assessment, TB result, service plan, emergency/contact information, admission agreement, safeguard of personal property and valuables, and personal rights form. Medication room observed locked. The medication room is equipped with supplies for hand hygiene, a lidded trash bin, and separate container for sharps. LPA observed the facility's electronic medication administration record which logs PRN medication. LPA reviewed 5 staff files to include a health screening, TB result, fingerprint clearance, job application, and employee rights. Facility has at least one staff present per shift who obtains a 1st Aid Certification to include Med-Techs and Directors. LPA reviewed 5 out of 5 staff training records. 3 out of 5 staff are provided at least 20 hours of annual training on topics to include but not limited to Alzheimer's, ADL care, Infection control, Dementia care, proper positioning, and hospice. Facility has an emergency disaster plan and is currently in the process of updating the plan. ED advised to provide the Department a copy of the updated plan once completed. Emergency drills are conducted quarterly, the last drills were completed on 08/02/2023, and 09/04/2023, 11/13/2023, and 01/29/2024. LPA observed flash lights located in the medication room. Facility has an updated and complete infection control plan. LPA observed the facility has sufficient PPE supplies. LPA observed residents participating in activities throughout my visit. A deficiency was cited per California Code of Regulations, Title 22. See LIC809-D. This report was reviewed with Executive Director (ED), Eugenia Smith, Julie Mayder, Maria Martinez, Cassandra Pace, Rubin Aguila, Anissa Padilla, Rebecca DiRubio and a copy of the report and appeal rights were provided.

2023-12-27
Other Visit
No findings
Inspector · Christine Dolores

Plain-language summary

A licensing analyst conducted an unannounced educational visit to review the facility's policies on indwelling urinary catheters in memory care and explain state regulations about when residents with this condition can be admitted. The facility has one resident with an approved exception to remain; a second resident who had a temporary catheter did not require an exception request since it was brief. No violations were found, and staff were advised on the proper process for requesting exceptions for residents with restricted health conditions going forward.

Read raw inspector notes

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Christine Dolores arrived unannounced to conduct a case management - other visit. LPA met with Senior Resident Care Director (SRCD), Julie Mayder. The purpose of the visit was to advise the facility of Title 22 regulations regarding Restricted Health Condition for Indwelling Urinary Catheters. During visit, LPA advised SRCD on the Title 22 regulations for Indwelling Urinary Catheters and the exception request process. LPA advised that the facility may retain residents with a restricted health condition as long as the resident meets the circumstances in the Title 22 regulations section 87623. Based on interview, the facility currently has 1 resident (R1) who has an indwelling urinary catheter in Generations, also known as Memory Care. The resident had an exception request that has been approved by the Department in July 2023. The facility had another resident (R2) in Generations who had a temporary urinary catheter from 11/16/23 - 12/07/23. The Department did not receive an exception request for R2. LPA advised SRCD on going forward regarding the exception request process for restricted health conditions - indwelling urinary catheters. LPA advised the facility to reach out to the Department for any questions or concerns. LPA advised to review Title 22 Regulation Section s 87616 - Exceptions for Health Conditions, 87612 - Restricted Health Conditions, and 87623 - Indwelling Urinary Catheter. No deficiencies were cited per California Code of Regulations, Title 22. Advisory note provided. This report was reviewed with Senior Resident Care Director (SRCD), Julie Mayder and a copy of the report was provided.

2023-07-14
Other Visit
Type A · 1 finding
Inspector · Christine Dolores

Plain-language summary

An unannounced visit was conducted to deliver complaint findings after an investigation found that the facility did not notify a resident's physician during a week-long period (July 11-17, 2022) when the resident had tested positive for COVID-19, was showing symptoms, and was becoming progressively weaker—the resident was eventually hospitalized on July 18, 2022. The facility's own procedures required staff to inform the resident's physician of changes in condition, but there was no evidence this notification occurred or documentation that it happened. A violation was cited and discussed with facility leadership.

Type A22 CCR §87705(b)(1)
Verbatim citation text · 22 CCR §87705(b)(1)

Based on interview, record review and observation the licensee did not ensure to inform resident (R1)’s physician of any changes of condition while being diagnosed with COVID-19 which poses an immediate health, safety, and personal rights risk to persons in care.

Read raw inspector notes

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Christine Dolores arrived unannounced to deliver the complaint findings for complaint control number 26-AS-20220830100730. During visit, a case management – deficiencies visit was conducted due to violations observed during the complaint investigation. LPA met with Interim Executive Director, Becca Black. On 07/10/2022, resident (R1) tested positive for COVID-19. From 07/11/2022 - 07/17/2022, R1 was noted to have symptoms and became progressively became weak. On 07/18/2022, R1 was sent to the hospital for medical treatment after being assessed by an outside agency medical professional. Based on record review, from 07/11/2022 – 07/17/2022, there was no indication that a physician was being notified of R1’s condition. The facility was also unable to produce documents to prove R1’s physician was being notified of R1’s condition during 07/11/2022 – 07/17/2022. Based on complaint investigation interviews, it was stated the facility’s procedures are to inform the resident’s physician and/or responsible party if a resident has a change of condition. A deficiency was cited per California Code of Regulations, Title 22. See LIC809-D. This report was reviewed with Interim Executive Director, Becca Black and Generations Program Director Maria Martinez and a copy of the report was appeal rights were provided.

2023-07-14
Complaint Investigation
Mixed
Type A · 1 finding
Inspector · Christine Dolores

Plain-language summary

A complaint investigation found that staff did not promptly notify a physician when a resident showed signs of weakness and declining health during a COVID-19 infection in July 2022, leading to a delay of a couple of days before the resident was sent to the hospital; the resident was hospitalized, discharged to hospice care, and passed away on August 2, 2022, with the death certificate citing complications from a neurodegenerative disease. A separate allegation that the facility was short-staffed was not substantiated by the investigation. The facility received a citation for the failure to timely notify a physician of the resident's condition.

Type A22 CCR §87465(g)
Verbatim citation text · 22 CCR §87465(g)

Based on record review, observation, and interview the Licensee did not ensure R1 was provided timely medical treatment after progressively being observed weak which poses an immediate health, safety, and personal rights risk to persons in care.

Read raw inspector notes

On 07/16/2022, staff observed R1 was weak when attempting to get R1 out of bed for meals. It was noted that R1 was still testing positive, and fluids were being provided. On 07/17/2022, R1 was given PRN medication for symptoms. That night, R1 refused dinner and only drank fluids. There was no indication that a physician was being notified of R1’s condition. On 07/18/2022 at 04:41am, R1 was observed very weak. Staff tried to hydrate R1 but R1 refused to drink fluids. A note on 07/18/2022 at 01:47pm states an outside agency Nurse Practitioner asked to have R1 sent out as R1 was not eating that morning, not responding to anything being told, and was only responding to pain. R1’s POA was at the facility. The nurse practioner assessed R1 and was sent to the hospital for medical treatment. The review of R1’s medical records on 07/18/2022 states R1 was admitted and was diagnosed with altered mental status, dehydration, and other medical conditions. The medical record notes that R1 was in quarantine for x10 days and has been progressive more confused. On 07/27/2023, R1 returned to the facility under hospice care. On 07/12/2023, 5 staff members were interviewed. Based on interview, staff (S3 – S5) stated to observe R1 was weak and tired during the time R1 had COVID-19 at the facility. Staff (S5) stated R1 was sent to the hospital due to a decline in R1’s health. Staff (S1) was unable to provide an explanation to why it took a couple days before R1 was sent out to the hospital despite showing signs of weakness. The Department has investigated the above allegations and the preponderance of evidence standard has been met. Therefore, the Department found the above allegation to be SUBSTANTIATED. A deficiency was cited per California Code of Regulations, Title 22. See LIC9099-D. A case management – deficiencies visit was conducted due to violations found during the complaint investigation. See LIC809 from 07/14/2023. This report was reviewed with Interim Executive Director, Becca Black and a copy of the report and appeal rights were 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 On 07/10/2022, resident (R1) tested positive for COVID-19. On 07/18/2022, R1 was transported to the hospital due the observation of weakness. R1 was admitted to the hospital and discharged back to the facility on 07/27/2022 under hospice care due a decline in health. On 08/02/2022, R1 passed away under hospice care. Based on review of R1’s hospice records, R1 was admitted under hospice care with a terminal diagnosis of a neurodegenerative disease. The cause of death based on R1’s death certificate states complications of clinically diagnosed neurodegenerative disease. The review of the staff schedule from July 2022 – August 2022 shows the facility was utilizing agency staff, most especially during the PM weekends of July 2022. The staff schedule shows the facility was providing at least 3-4 caregivers and 1 MedTech for AM/PM shifts and at least 2 caregivers and 1 MedTech for NOC shifts. Based on interview, there was no indication that the facility was short-staffed as they were utilizing outside agency staffing, when needed. The Department was investigated the above allegations. Based on record review, interview, and observation the above allegations are unsubstantiated. An unsubstantiated finding indicates that although the allegations may have happened and/or is valid there is not a preponderance of evidence to provide the allege violations did or did/not occur. No deficiencies were cited per California Code of Regulations, Title 22. This report was reviewed with Interim Executive Director, Becca Black and a copy of the report was provided.

8 older inspections from 2021 are not shown in the free view.

8 older inspections from 2021 are not shown in the free view.

Nearby

Other facilities in Santa Clara County.

Other memory care facilities in Santa Clara 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.