Silverado Senior Living-beach Cities.
Silverado Senior Living-beach Cities is Ranked in the bottom 19% on citation frequency among California peers with 6 CDSS citations on record; last inspected Apr 2026.
A large home, reviewed on public record.
Compared to 94 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.
among peers to rank.
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
Silverado Senior Living-beach Cities has 6 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)
Citation history, plotted month by month.
6 deficiencies on record. Each bar is a month with a citation.
Finding distribution
5 total · 36 monthsScope × Severity (CMS A–L)
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.
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?”
Questions to ask before you visit.
A short pre-tour checklist tailored to Silverado Senior Living-beach Cities's record and state requirements.
The facility has 2 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.
10 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.
The March 20, 2026 inspection is the most recent on file — can you provide families with a copy of that inspection report and walk through any deficiencies that were cited?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
Every inspection visit, verbatim.
9 inspections in the public record, most recent first. Click any row to expand — cited rows open automatically.
2026-04-29Complaint InvestigationSubstantiatedCitation on file
Substantiated — the state found a violation and issued a citation. Full citation details are on file with the state.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
On 01/27/26, LPA interviewed Staff #12 (S12). On 03/23/26, LPA received the second-floor facility sketch. On 04/29/26, LPA interviewed attempted to interview ten residents in memory care but they were unable to coherently answer the questions. Investigation revealed the following: Regarding the allegation, “Due to staff neglect, resident sustained injuries,” it is alleged Resident #1’s (R1) fall resulted in lacerations all over R1’s body. Record review of R1’s Hospital Physical Therapy OPIB Plan of Care revealed R1 fell (04/08/25) prior to admission and sustained a fracture on part of the hip joint. R1 was non-weightbearing for six weeks. Record review of R1’s Physician’s Report (04/21/25) revealed R1 is non weight bearing on right lower extremity and needs assistance with toileting needs. Review of Service Plan (06/01/25) revealed R1 was dependent on staff members for all mobility/ambulation needs, required hands on assistance by staff members, able to hold weight for few steps with one-person assist but then becomes weak. R1 was a fall risk and needed to be monitored and assisted as needed for safety. R1 requires routine toileting program. Review of Incident Report (Occurred 07/04/25) indicated that R1 had an unwitnessed fall in R1’s room that resulted in skin tears on both hands, an abrasion on the left knee, and noted hypotension. R1 was transferred to the hospital for further evaluation. Review of Hospital Record (ED Provider Note, 07/04/25) revealed R1’s open right finger wound (laceration with tendon exposed) was repaired using local anesthesia and suturing. R1 was given intravenous antibiotics to prevent infection of the open wound. Interview with Staff #1 (S1) indicated R1 had dinner, watched television in the common area, and then went to R1’s bathroom. S1 indicated R1 was toileting and had an unwitnessed fall. R1 was found on the floor with the walker in front of R1. S1 indicated staff does assist R1 but if R1 goes there [bathroom], R1 will toilet independently. Two out of three caregivers (S10 – S12) working on the second floor at that time indicated they did not assist R1 to the bathroom. The third caregiver could not recall R1's incident nor working that day. Regarding the allegation, “Due to staff neglect, resident sustained injuries” based on record reviews and interviews, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation(s) is found to be substantiated. California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 6 and Chapter 8 are being cited on the attached LIC 9099D. Civil penalties are being assessed, see LIC421IM. At this time, an additional civil penalty determination is pending in reference to Health & Safety Code 1569.49(f) For a violation that the department determines constitutes physical abuse, as defined in Section 15610.63 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, or resulted in serious bodily injury, as defined in Section 15610.67 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, to a resident. An exit interview was conducted, plans of correction were developed and appeal rights provided on 04/07/26 and a copy this report was left with Administrator Lourdes Menchaca.
2026-04-07Complaint InvestigationSubstantiatedType A · 1 finding
“Based on record review and interviews, on 07/04/2025, R1 was not provided with toileting assistance by staff, resulting in R1's fall and serious injuries, which posed an immediate safety risk to client in care.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Investigation revealed the following: Regarding the allegation, “Due to staff neglect, resident sustained injuries,” it is alleged Resident #1’s (R1) fall resulted in lacerations all over R1’s body. Record review of R1’s Hospital Physical Therapy OPIB Plan of Care revealed R1 fell (04/08/25) prior to admission and sustained a fracture on part of the hip joint. R1 was non-weightbearing for six weeks. Record review of R1’s Physician’s Report (04/21/25) revealed R1 is non weight bearing on right lower extremity and needs assistance with toileting needs. Review of Service Plan (06/01/25) revealed R1 was dependent on staff members for all mobility/ambulation needs, required hands on assistance by staff members, able to hold weight for few steps with one-person assist but then becomes weak. R1 was a fall risk and needed to be monitored and assisted as needed for safety. R1 requires routine toileting program. Review of Incident Report (Occurred 07/04/25) indicated that R1 had an unwitnessed fall in R1’s room that resulted in skin tears on both hands, an abrasion on the left knee, and noted hypotension. R1 was transferred to the hospital for further evaluation. Review of Hospital Record (ED Provider Note, 07/04/25) revealed R1’s open right finger wound (laceration with tendon exposed) was repaired using local anesthesia and suturing. R1 was given intravenous antibiotics to prevent infection of the open wound. Interview with Staff #1 (S1) indicated R1 had dinner, watched television in the common area, and then went to R1’s bathroom. S1 indicated R1 was toileting and had an unwitnessed fall. R1 was found on the floor with the walker in front of R1. S1 indicated staff does assist R1 but if R1 goes there [bathroom], R1 will toilet independently. Two out of three caregivers (S10 – S12) working on the second floor at that time indicated they did not assist R1 to the bathroom. The third caregiver could not recall R1's incident nor working that day. Regarding the allegation, “Due to staff neglect, resident sustained injuries” based on record reviews and interviews, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation(s) is found to be substantiated. California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 6 and Chapter 8 are being cited on the attached LIC 9099D. Civil penalties are being assessed, see LIC421IM. At this time, an additional civil penalty determination is pending in reference to Health & Safety Code 1569.49(f) For a violation that the department determines constitutes physical abuse, as defined in Section 15610.63 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, or resulted in serious bodily injury, as defined in Section 15610.67 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, to a resident. An exit interview was conducted and plans of correction were developed and a copy this report with appeal rights were left with the Administrator Lourdes Menchaca.
2026-03-20Annual Compliance VisitType B · 2 findings
Plain-language summary
During a routine annual inspection on March 20, 2026, inspectors found that one resident's medication records did not match the actual amount of medication available at the facility, and that the facility administrator's required certification had expired in April 2025. The inspection was not completed due to time constraints and will continue. The facility is licensed for 120 non-ambulatory residents and currently has all required annual fees paid.
“Based on record review and interviews, the licensee did not comply with the section cited above for one resident which poses a potential health and safety. Resident #1's (R1) Medication Administration Record (02/01/26 - 03/20/26) for six medications did not match the quantity of the medication on hand based on the package open date. S1 - S3 were unable to explain the inconsistencies. Plan of Operation revealed medication will be accurately documented. POC Due Date: 04/03/2026 Plan of Correction 1 2 3 4 The Administrator will submit a plan of correction, including medication administration training/meeting, to regina.cloyd@dss.ca.gov by the POC due date.”
“Based on record review, the licensee did not comply with the section cited above i poses/posed a potential hralth, safety or personal rights risk to persons in care. The Administrator's RCFE Certification has been expired as of April 2025. POC Due Date: 04/03/2026 Plan of Correction 1 2 3 4 The Administrator will submit proof of correction to regina.cloyd@dss.ca.gov by the POC due date.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
On 03/20/2026, Licensing Program Analysts (LPAs) Regina Cloyd and Socorro Leandro conducted an unannounced annual inspection and met with Administrator Lourdes Menchaca. The purpose of the visit was explained. The facility is licensed to serve one hundred twenty (120) non-ambulatory residents age range 60 and over and has a hospice waiver for thirty (30). Annual fees are current. During today's visit, LPAs reviewed resident and facility records, conducted facility tour, and reviewed one resident's medication. Deficiencies are being cited according to California Code of Regulations, see LIC809-D. During medication review, Resident #1's (R1) Medication Administration Record (02/01/26 - 03/20/26) for six medications did not match the quantity of the medication on hand based on the package open date. Interview with the Administrator (S1) revealed S1's Residential Care for the Elderly Certification has been expired as of April 2025. Due to insufficient time, an annual continuation is required. An exit interview was conducted and a copy of this report with appeal rights was provided to the Administrator Lourdes Menchaca.
2026-02-20Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
This was a routine inspection that investigated two complaints: that staff were slow to respond to call buttons and that the call system wasn't working properly. The inspector tested nine call buttons and found all responded in under a minute, interviewed staff and residents who reported the system works well, and reviewed maintenance logs showing regular testing—the inspector found no evidence to support either complaint.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Allegation: Staff do not respond to residents’ call buttons in a timely manner. The allegation alleges that when residents press their call button staff do not come in a timely manner or do not respond. During the facility inspection, LPA pressed nine (9) call buttons in resident rooms to document the staff’s response time. LPA pressed the call buttons in room’s 102,112, 203, 211, 303, 311, 403, 405, and 411 and the staff’s response time was under a minute for each room. When LPA pressed the call button, they could hear the staff’s walkie talkie announce “room (number) activated” and when it was cleared, by pressing the call button again, it announced “room (number) restored.” During record review LPA received and reviewed the Staff Schedule and observed during the NOC shift there are four (4) caregivers and two (2) LVNs scheduled. During the AM shift there are four (4) LVNs and ten (10) caregivers scheduled. Durning the PM shift there are four (4) LVNs and ten (10) caregivers scheduled. Additionally, LPA received and reviewed staff In-Service Log for 11/23/2025 regarding the Walkies and Routine Visual Checks Every 2 Hours. During interviews with Staff S1-S9, were asked how long it takes to respond to residents’ calls for assistance, nine (9) out of nine (9) stated they respond right away unless they are assisting another resident it could take five (5) minutes. During interviews with Residents R2-R11, were asked if staff respond to call buttons in a timely manner, ten (10) out of ten (10) stated staff come right away. During interviews with resident’s Responsible Party W1-W6, were asked if residents call for assistance is answered in a timely manner, six (6) out of six (6) stated yes staff respond right away. Allegation: Licensee does not ensure that facility call system is operable. The allegation alleges the walkie-talkies were not working properly and there were problems with the audio, and the volume does not work all the time. During the facility inspection, LPA tested nine (9) call buttons in resident rooms to document the staff’s response time. LPA pressed the call buttons in room’s 102,112, 203, 211, 303, 311, 403, 405, and 411 and observed they are working properly. During record review LPA received and reviewed the facility’s Plan of Operation that states on page 24 “A non-computerized nurse call system will be tested a minimum of every two weeks. The testing will include all call lights in resident rooms, bathrooms, showers, tub rooms and the call light panel.” Additionally, LPA received and reviewed the Call System Monitoring logs from 01/01/2025 to 11/16/2025. The logs indicate 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 that the system was tested on the following days in November 2025, 11/02/2025, 11/09/2025, and 11/16/2025. The only comment was listed on 11/09/2025 that states room 213’s battery was replaced. During interviews with Staff S1-S10, they were asked if the call buttons are operable, ten (10) out of ten (10) stated the call buttons are operable. Additionally, Staff S1 and S10 stated the call buttons are tested every one (1) to two (2) weeks. During interviews with Residents R2-R11, were asked to their knowledge do the call buttons work, eight (8) out of ten (10) stated yes, their call buttons work in their room. Two (2) out of ten (10) stated they do not use the call buttons and are not sure if they work properly. During interviews with resident’s Responsible Party’s W1-W6, were asked if their residents call button is operable, five (5) out of six (6) stated yes, their resident’s call button was operable. One (1) out of five (5) stated they are unsure if it works properly due to their resident not using it. During the course of the investigation, LPA was unable to find evidence to support the allegation(s). Although the allegation(s) may have happened or is valid, there is no preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation(s) did or did not occur, therefore the allegation(s) is/are unsubstantiated . During today’s visit, LPA did not observe or cite any deficiencies. An exit interview was conducted with Executive Director, Lourdes Menchaca, and a copy of this report was provided.
2025-05-08Annual Compliance VisitType A · 2 findings
Plain-language summary
A routine annual inspection on May 8, 2025 found the facility clean and well-maintained, with adequate food, working fire safety equipment, and proper medication records. Two violations were cited: staff members were not properly associated with the facility, and hot water in resident bathrooms exceeded safe temperature limits at 126-129°F; the facility was fined $500 and ordered to correct these issues. The facility is currently licensed to serve 120 elderly residents, with 94 residing there at the time of the inspection.
“Based on [(observation) (interview) (record review)], the licensee did not comply with the section cited above in having of the caregivers associated at the closed facility which poses an immediate health, safety or personal rights risk to persons in care. POC Due Date: 05/09/2025 Plan of Correction 1 2 3 4 The licensee will adhere to Title 22 regulations at all times. Plan of correction corrected during LPA annual visit.”
“Based on [(observation) the licensee did not comply with the section cited above in the temperature of the water at 129F. in one of the residents bathrooms and 125.6F in another one which poses an immediate health, safety or personal rights risk to persons in care. POC Due Date: 05/09/2025 Plan of Correction 1 2 3 4 The licensee will adhere to Title 22 regulations at all times. As part of the plan of correction, the facility will create a water temperature log and measure water temperature every hour for the next 8 hours until the water is within the regulation. Proof of the log will be emailed to LPA before the POC due date.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
On 5/8/2025, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Alfonso Iniguez conducted an unannounced annual required visit using the CARE Inspection Tool. LPA met with Lourdes Yvette Menchaca/Administrator. LPA explained the purpose of today’s visit. The facility is licensed to serve (120) elderly adults ages 60 and above, of which (120) can be non-ambulatory. The facility has an approved hospice waiver for (30). Currently the facility has (94) residents. The facility is a four-story structure located in a commercial building in a residential neighborhood. The facility consists of: (110) bedrooms, (71) bathrooms, 1st floor, 2nd floor, 3rd floor, and 4th floor, which are mirror images of themselves. All the floors contain a lounge/movie room, a kitchenette, clean linen rooms, mechanical rooms, and an activities/dining room. Activities storage room, wellness room, nursing supplies, laundry chute room. 1st floor has a fireplace in the lounge room, a shaded side yard with a gazebo, plants, and a play area, 2nd floor has an incontinence room/staff lounge, and 4th floor has a PT/gym room. The basement has a kitchen, a laundry room, and PPE storage. LPA Iniguez and the Administrator toured the physical plant. There were no bodies of water or obstructions on the premises. LPA inspected a total of (10) bedrooms and (10) bathrooms. The beds and bedding supplies were in good condition, adequate lighting was provided, and storage for the residents’ personal belongings was observed. Smoke and carbon monoxide detectors were in operable condition. The water temperature measure 129.F°. and the room temperature ranged from 76°F to 78°F. The evaluation Report continues on the next page, LIC 809-C , providing further details of the inspection findings. 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 During the visit, LPA Iniguez observed that the facility was clean, sanitary, and appropriately furnished. Storage areas for personal hygiene were in place. Cleaning supplies, toxins, and sharp objects were stored in a way that made them inaccessible to residents in dementia unit. The kitchen was inspected, and there was sufficient perishable and non-perishable food available, which was adequately maintained. All fire extinguishers were charged and operable. The last Fire/Disaster Drills were conducted on 4/22/25. A review of (5) residents' service files and (5) staff personnel files was maintained in order. LPA reviewed (5) Medication Administration Records (MARs) and found no discrepancies. LPA observed the facility's infection control practices. All mandated inspection control posters were displayed throughout the facility. A copy of liability insurance was emailed to LPA. Facility Annual Fess current. Deficiencies cited under California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 8. See details below: -Facility staff not associated at the facility. Civil Penalty rendered for $500.00. -Water temperature in resident’s bathrooms at 129F and 126F. Note: *Citations not cleared by the due date will be a $100 fine assessed for each citation until it is cleared. Civil penalties will continue to accrue until Proof of Corrections (POC) is cleared. * An exit interview was conducted, and a copy of the Facility Evaluation Report was provided to Lourdes Yvette Menchaca / Administrator.
2024-03-13Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
On March 13, 2024, state inspectors conducted a routine annual inspection of this 87-resident facility and found no deficiencies. Inspectors toured the building, checked resident rooms, bathrooms, kitchen, medication records, and safety equipment, and observed the facility to be clean, sanitary, and properly maintained.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
On 3/13/2024, Licensing Program Analysts (LPAs) Alfonso Iniguez and Darneisha Cross conducted an unannounced annual required visit using the CARE Inspection Tool. LPAs met with Lourdes Menchaca / Administrator. LPAs explained the purpose of today’s visit. The facility is licensed to serve (120) residents ages 60 and above. Of which (120) may be non-ambulatory. Approved hospice waiver for (30). Currently the facility has 87 residents. The facility is a (4) four story structure located in a commercial building in a residential neighborhood. The facility consists of; (110) bedrooms, (71) bathrooms, 1st floor, 2nd floor, 3rd floor, and 4th floor are mirror image of themselves. all the floors contain lounge / movie room, kitchenette, clean linen rooms, mechanical rooms, activities/dining room. activities storage room, wellness room, nursing supplies, laundry chute room. 1st floor has a fireplace in lounge room, shaded side yard with gazebo, plants, and play area, 2nd floor has an incontinence room/staff lounge, and 4th floor has PT/gym room. The basement has (kitchen, laundry room, and PPE storage.) LPAs toured the physical plant with administrator. There were no bodies of water or obstructions on the premises. A total of (8) rooms were inspected: Rooms: 105, 113, 202, 208, 301, 308, 404, 411. Beds and bedding supplies were in good condition, adequate lighting was provided, and storage for the resident’s personal belongings was observed. Bathrooms were found to be within Title 22 regulations and were operational. LPA reviewed last date fire inspection company came to check smoke detectors. The water temperature properly measured between 105F. and 120 F. Evaluation Report Continues LIC 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 LPAs Iniguez and Cross observed the facility to be clean, sanitary, and appropriately furnished at the time of the visit. Storage areas for personal hygiene were observed, cleaning agents and sharps objects were stored and not accessible to residents. The kitchen was inspected and there is sufficient perishable and non-perishable food available maintained properly. All fire extinguishers were charged and were operable. A review of (7) residents' service files, (7) staff personnel files were checked. (7) Medication Administration Records (MAR) were reviewed no discrepancies were found. First AID kit was checked. Last fire disaster drill was on:2/27/2024. LPA observed the facility's infection control practices. Liability insurance will be emailed to LPA. Facility Annual Fess not Current, LPA gave PIN:221826 to Administrator during the visit. Administrator stated that company will send an overnight check to CDSS. According to the California Code of Regulations (Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 8), LPAs did not observe deficiencies therefore no citations were issued at this time. An exit interview was conducted, and a copy of the Facility Evaluation Report was provided to Lourdes Menchaca /Administrator.
2023-07-17Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
This was a routine annual inspection on July 17, 2023. The inspector reviewed staff and resident records, checked medications, safety equipment, resident rooms, bathrooms, and food storage, and found no violations or discrepancies.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
On 07/17/23, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Lizeth Villegas conducted an unannounced annual required visit using the CARE Inspection Tool. LPA met with DHS Jessica Ponce as the purpose of today’s visit was explained. The facility is licensed to serve 120 non- ambulatory residents ages 60 and over and have a hospice waiver for 30. The current census is 86. The facility is a (4) four story structure located in a commercial building in a residential neighborhood. The facility consists of; (110) bedrooms, (71) bathrooms, 1st floor, 2nd floor, 3rd floor, and 4th floor are mirror image of themselves. all the floors contain lounge / movie room, kitchenette, clean linen rooms, mechanical rooms, activities/dining room. activities storage room, wellness room, nursing supplies, laundry chute room. 1st floor has a fireplace in lounge room, shaded side yard with gazebo, plants, and play area, 2nd floor has an incontinence room/staff lounge, and 4th floor has PT/gym room. The basement has (kitchen, laundry room, and PPE storage.) LPA conducted a records review of 8 staff record, 8 resident records and medication Administration Records, LPA did not observe any discrepancies at the time of visit. Medications were centrally stored and properly locked, first aid kit was checked and fully stocked. The last fire drill was conducted on 05/06/23, fire extinguishers fully charged were observed throughout facility, carbon monoxide detectors observed, smoke detectors are operational, and a landline was observed. All resident rooms were checked, mattresses and box springs were in good condition, adequate lighting, plenty of dresser and closet space was observed. Bathrooms were found to be within Title 22 regulation, toilets and water faucets worked properly, shower was free of mold/mildew, and there are sufficient toiletries accessible to residents. The water temperature properly measured between 105-120 F.. 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 Perishable and non-perishable food supply was checked and adequately stocked at time of visit. Toxins and knifes were observed to be locked and inaccessible to residents. Exits/ Walkways around the facility were free of debris and hazards. During today’s visit no discrepancies were cited. Exit interview conducted with DHS Jessica Ponce, and a copy of this report was provided.
2023-07-14Complaint InvestigationUnsubstantiatedNo findings
Plain-language summary
An investigator looked into three complaints: that the fire alarm system wasn't working, the facility was in disrepair, and staff failed to give medications as prescribed. The investigator found no evidence to support any of these complaints—staff reported the fire alarm issue was limited to another tenant's side of the building, the facility was well-maintained, and medication records showed all prescribed medications were given correctly. The facility provided records and staff interviews that did not match the allegations.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Based on the LPA's investigation, the investigation revealed the following. Allegation 1 - Facility fire alarm system not working properly. Interviews conducted with S#1, S#2, S#4, S#3, communicated that the fire alarm had been going off, but the building (beach cities -health district) had the problem with the fire alarm. Silverado side had no issues with the fire alarm. The Silverado side could hear the alarm, but the beach cities side of the building had the issue, and they were working on resolving the fire alarm problem. Interviews conducted with resident #1 - #8, could not communicated with LPA. The entire building is named Beach Cities-health District. When Silverado leased the building space, they named themselves Silverado Beach Cities to separate themselves from the rest of the building. They just added their name to the buildings name. Therefore, there are two side to the entire building, the Silverado side and the Beach Cities-Health district side. Interviews conducted did not concur with the above allegation. Allegation 2 - Facility is in disrepair. Interviews conducted with staff #1 – S#9, communicated that the facility did not have problems with the lights in the common areas. S#1, S#2, and S#4 do not recall if R#1 rooms needed light bulbs or not, they can’t remember. S#1 – S#9, also communicated that if anytime any light bulbs are needed, maintenance will replace them right away as soon as it’s reported. The facility is in great condition, maintenance is real good at fixing anything that needs repair. Interviews conducted with resident #1 - #8, could not communicated with LPA. Interviews conducted did not concur with the above allegation. Allegation 3 - Facility staff failed to administer medications as prescribed. Interview conducted with S#9, communicated that they spoke with R#1 family member and informed them that they had not administered R#1 medication personally, someone had given R#1 medication, but they were not sure who had administered R#1 medication, they had to look at R#1 chart to see who administered medication. RP, misunderstood S#9, that they had failed to administered medication to R#1. LPA reviewed Mars for November and December 2022; medication was administered as prescribed by physician. Interviews conducted with staff #1 - S#8, communicated that they have never heard of any residents missing or not been given their medications. Interviews conducted with resident #1 - #8, could not communicated with LPA. Interviews and records reviewed did not concur with the above allegation. 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 Although the allegation may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur, therefore the allegations are unsubstantiated An exit interview was conducted with Lourdes Menchaca, Executive Director and a hard copy of report was provided.
2023-06-23Complaint InvestigationUnsubstantiatedNo findings
Plain-language summary
This was a complaint investigation into four allegations: that staff failed to keep a family member informed about their loved one's care, retaliated against a resident for complaining, did not properly maintain dentures, and did not properly maintain a hearing aid. The investigation found no evidence to support any of the allegations; staff confirmed the family was frequently present and in regular contact about care, dentures and hearing aid issues were caused by factors outside the facility's control (weight loss requiring refitting, and the family's responsibility to repair or replace the device per the admission agreement), and there was no evidence of retaliation.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Based on the LPA's investigation, the investigation revealed the following: Allegation 1 - Staff did not keep resident's authorized person informed regarding resident's care. Interviews conducted with staff #1, S#2, S#4, S#6, & S#9, communicated that R#1, family members were always at the facility. There was no way that the family members did not know what was happening with R#1, every time they would come to the facility, there were always asking about R#1 and telling staff what R#1 needed. R#1’s family members were very involved with R#1’s care. S#1 & S#2, also communicated that family members were always either calling or emailing facility about R#1’s care. Interviews conducted with resident #1 - #8, could not communicated with LPA. Interviews conducted did not concur with the above allegation. Allegation 2 - Staff retaliated against resident for complaining. Interviews conducted with staff #1 – S#9, communicated that they would never do anything like that to any resident for any reason and they would never allow that to happen to any resident, they would report it if they were aware of someone doing that to any resident. Interviews conducted with resident #1 - #8, could not communicated with LPA. Interviews conducted did not concur with the above allegation. Allegation 3 - Staff did not ensure that resident's dentures were adequately installed. Interviews conducted with staff #1, S#2, S#4, & S#9, communicated that R#1’s dentures were a bit loose, and they informed the family members. They believed they had become loose because R31 had recently lost weight. They did not fit properly. S#1 personally made sure that R31’s dentures were put in properly, cleaned and had enough paste to keep them on. S#1 asked staff to make sure they checked R#1’s dentures before every meal. The dentures would be fine but then they would move, again because they needed to be refitted and family members, never took them to get refitted for R#1. LPA reviewed admission agreement, family members were responsible for R#1’s dentures and their care. Interviews conducted with resident #1 - #8, could not communicated with LPA. Interviews conducted and records reviewed did not concur with the above allegation. 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 4 - Staff did not ensure that resident's hearing aid was charged and properly installed. Interviews conducted with staff #1, S#2, S#4, & S#9, communicated that R#1’s hearing aid was charged every night, but she could not hear even though, it had been charged and/or exchanged for another one. The family was responsible for providing their residents hearing aid and getting them fixed and/or replaced. The facility would let the family members know about the hearing aid and they would say that they would go and get them fixed, but the hearing aid still had the same problem. Interviews conducted with resident #1 - #8, could not communicated with LPA. LPA reviewed R\#1 admission agreement, and it was the family members responsibility to provide the hearing aids for their resident. Interviews conducted with resident #1 - #8, could not communicated with LPA. Interviews conducted and records reviewed did not concur with the above allegation. Although the allegation may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur, therefore the allegations are unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted with Idona Avila, Family Ambassador and a hard copy of report was provided.
7 older inspections from 2021 are not shown above.
Get the complete record, translated into plain language — emailed to you.
Free · Facility Watch
Family reviews
No reviews yet — be the first to share your experience
More options in neighboring cities
Licensed memory care in other cities within this county region — useful when your search radius crosses city limits.