Ivy Park at San Ramon.
Ivy Park at San Ramon is Ranked in the bottom 12% on citation severity among California peers with 18 CDSS citations on record; last inspected Mar 2026.
A large home, reviewed on public record.
Compared to 93 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 · BETA
Ivy Park at San Ramon has 18 citations on record. Know the moment anything changes.
New findings, complaint investigations, or status changes — emailed to you free.
Citation history, plotted month by month.
18 deficiencies on record. Each bar is a month with a citation.
Finding distribution
17 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 Ivy Park at San Ramon's record and state requirements.
The facility has 4 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.
15 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 24, 2026 inspection is the most recent visit on record — can you provide the deficiency notice from that inspection and walk families through any corrective steps implemented since then?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
Every inspection visit, verbatim.
26 inspections in the public record, most recent first. Click any row to expand — cited rows open automatically.
2026-03-24Other VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
An investigation into an allegation that facility staff neglected a resident, contributing to their death, found no violation. The resident had multiple serious health conditions and was taking medications that can lower potassium levels; hospital records showed low potassium on two separate visits while the resident was at the facility, but medication administration records could not confirm the facility missed any potassium medication doses. The resident eventually passed away at a hospital from chronic respiratory and heart failure, and investigators could not establish a causal connection between the facility's care and the resident's death.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
PG. 2 On the allegation “Facility staff neglected resident contributing to questionable death” the following was found. R1 was admitted to the facility on 4/29/2024. On 8/8/24, the facility staff took over medication administration for R1 per their responsible parties request. On 8/27/24, R1 was having chest pains and was sent to San Ramon Valley Regional Hospital. R1 was diagnosed with low potassium. R1 was treated and sent back to the facility the same day with no new orders. On 9/11/24, R1 was having trouble breathing and was sent to the hospital on 9/12/24. R1 was diagnosed with low potassium levels and bloody fluid coming from the lungs. R1 was discharged from the hospital on 9/26/24. R1 did not return to the facility and was transferred to home health care at their responsible parties home. On 9/28/24, R1 was having shortness of breath and weakness and was transported back to the hospital while in their families care. On 10/4/24, R1 was transferred to a skilled nursing facility (SNF). On 11 /7/24, R1 was having trouble breathing while at the SNF. R1’s lungs were drained and appeared to be doing better. On 11/12/24, R1 tested positive for MRSA and went back to the hospital. R1 was placed on hospice and passed at the hospital on 11/17/24. It was alleged that Ivy Park San Ramon missed R1’s potassium medication however it could not be confirmed after a review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR ) For 7/01/2024-9/26/2024. R1 was also taking medication for congestive heart failure, medications were classified as a diuretic (water pill), a common side effect is a drop in potassium level (hypokalemia). According to Mayo clinic hypokalemia is, “Low potassium a condition in which the potassium level in your bloodstream is lower than is typical. The medical term for this condition is hypokalemia”. Report continues on LIC9099-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 PG. 3 R1 also had a complex past medical history with comorbidities and was taking multiple medications as prescribed. A copy of R1’s death certificate revealed R1 passed away on 11/17/2024 at JOHN MUIR MEDICAL CENTER-WALNUT CREEK and the cause of death was listed as chronic respiratory failure and heart failure; the etiology is unknown. A causal connection could not be established between the care at the facility and R1s expiration. Therefore, the allegation “Facility staff neglected resident contributing to questionable death” is Unsubstantiated. 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 deficiencies cited. Exit interview conducted and a copy of this report provided.
2026-03-24Annual Compliance VisitType B · 1 finding
Plain-language summary
During a complaint investigation on March 24, 2026, inspectors found that the facility failed to adequately supervise residents during mealtimes, allowing one memory care resident to enter another resident's room unsupervised on August 13, 2025, because staff were not monitoring residents being brought to the dining area. Staff told inspectors there was no system in place to prevent residents from wandering during this time and that wandering was common. The facility must submit a plan to correct this deficiency.
“Based on interviews the licensee did not comply with the section cited above by not having adequete staffing in memory care which allowed R2 to wander into R1's room unbeknownst to staff which posed a potential personal rights violation to residents in care”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
On 3/24/2026 at 10:50 AM, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) A. Gomez arrived unannounced to conduct a Case Management visit. LPA met with Executive Director, Gilbert Castro and explained the purpose of the visit. While LPA A Gomez was conducting a complaint investigation (15-AS-20250820161102) LPA found through interviews an incident reports that facility is not providing adequate care and supervision. LPA found that on 8/13/2025 R2 entered R1’s room without staff knowing during mealtime due to staff not monitoring residents being brought down to dining. LPA interviewed staff (S1) who stated that at the time of the incident “there was not a system in place to ensure the monitoring of residents being brought down to dining and that it was common for residents to wander off.” R1 and R2 were both memory care residents. The deficiency is cited per Title 22 California Code of Regulations and listed on LIC809D. Failure to submit proof of corrections (POC) by plan of correction due date and/or any repeat deficiencies within a 12-month period may result in civil penalties. Exit interview conducted. A copy of this report and appeal rights provided
2026-03-24Complaint InvestigationUnsubstantiatedNo findings
Plain-language summary
A complaint alleged that a resident was sexually abused due to lack of supervision when another resident entered their room on August 13, 2025. Investigators could not determine whether the interaction between the two residents was consensual or abusive, and the facility reported the incident to police and licensing within required timeframes, so both allegations were unsubstantiated. No violations were cited.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
PG 2 On the allegation, lack of supervision, resulting in resident being sexually abused at the facility LPA conducted interviews, reviewed R1 and R2’s care plan, R1 and R2’s physicians report, and care notes. LPA observed that R1 and R2 were both memory care residents with a diagnosis of dementia. On 8/13/2025 it is alleged that R2 entered R1’s room and sexually assaulted them. LPA interviewed S1 who is the lead for S3 who stated that on 8/13/2025 S3 had led R2 to Dining for breakfast. Approximately 30 minutes later, S3 noticed that R2 was not at dining. S1 states that other facility staff and S3 were still getting residents to dining for breakfast at this time. R2 was discovered in R1’s room during this time. S1 states that they were told that it appeared that R1 and R2 may have engaged in sexual activities. LPA conducted interviews with S2 S4 and S5. All staff stated that they had heard about the interaction between R1 and R2 however, residents have a personal right to engage in sexual activity, unless there is a court appointed conservator. LPA found that R1 and R2 are not conserved. LPA attempted to interview R1 but was unable to due to their dementia diagnosis. R2 was also unavailable to interview. LPA made attempts to contact S3 but was unable to interview S3 as they are not permanent staff. LPA was unable to determine if the interaction between R1 and R2 was consensual therefore, the allegation of lack of supervision resulting in resident being sexually abused at the facility is unsubstantiated. Report Continues on LIC 9099-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 PG. 3 On the allegation facility not following reporting requirements LPA reviewed records and unusual incident reports. LPA observed that the facility reported the interaction between R1 and R2 on 8/18/2025 which is within title 22 guidelines of reporting requirements. LPA observed that the incident happened on 8/13/2025 was reported to police, responsible parties, and to licensing therefore the allegation facility not following reporting requirements is unsubstantiated. Although the allegations 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 deficiencies cited. Exit interview conducted and a copy of this report provided.
2026-03-06Other VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
A state inspector visited the facility on March 6, 2026, for an annual required inspection and found no deficiencies during the tour of common areas, resident apartments, and bathrooms. The inspector verified that lighting, temperature control, grab bars, food storage, and fire safety equipment all met standards. The inspector plans to return for a follow-up visit to review additional records.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
On 3/6/26 at 1:00PM, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) A. Gomez arrived unannounced to conduct 1-Year Annual Required inspection. LPA met with Executive Director (ED), Gilbert Castro and explained the purpose of the visit. The facility’s fire clearance was approved for 162 residents of which 119 may be non-ambulatory and 4 bedridden. LPA toured the facility with ED including but not limited to residents apartments, bathrooms, multiple activity rooms, kitchen, common area and courtyard. There are no bodies of water observed. LPA observed lighting in all rooms are adequate for the comfort and safety of the residents. Hallway temperature was maintained at 69 degrees F. LPA observed lighting in all rooms are adequate for the comfort and safety of the residents. The hot water temperature in a sample of residents’ shared bathroom were measured at 129.2, 111.9, 111.8 degrees Fahrenheit. Residents’ bathrooms are equipped with grab bars and non-skid flooring/strips. Freezer measured at 0 degrees and refrigerator measured at 40 degrees Fahrenheit. There is a minimum of one week supply of nonperishable and 2-day of perishable foods. Fire extinguisher was last serviced on 5/30/2025. No deficiencies cited at this time. LPA will return at a later date to continue annual inspection, records review, and cite for deficiencies observed. Exit interview conducted and a copy of this report provided.
2025-11-19Other VisitType B · 1 finding
Plain-language summary
During an inspection, the facility failed to provide a family with written notice 30 days before moving a resident to a different room, even though staff members had different understandings about whether the move date had been confirmed with the family. The facility acknowledged that while the family knew a room change was coming, they never received the required advance written notice of when the move would happen.
“Based on record review and interview R1 did not receive a written 30 day notice of room change prior to the change which poses a potential personal rights risk to resident in care”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
LPA also received an email correspondence from Executive Director who stated that they were "under the impression that our Health Service Director confirmed the date of Oct 29, 2025 with the responsible party (RP). Turns out that was not the case." regarding R1 being moved rooms. It was explained to LPA by Business Office Director that the family was aware that R1 was going to move rooms however the facility never confirmed the date of the move and did not provide a written 30 day notice to the responsible party therefore the allegation " Staff did not give resident's responsible party proper notification of resident's room change" is substantiated. Based on LPAs observations and interviews which were conducted and record reviews, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegations are found to be SUBSTANTIATED . California Code of Regulations (Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 8), are being cited on the attached LIC 9099D. Exit interview conducted. Appeal Rights and a copy of this report provided.
2025-09-26Complaint InvestigationSubstantiatedCitation on file
Plain-language summary
A complaint investigation found that staff failed to give a resident medications as prescribed by the doctor, with some doses missed or delayed. Records showed staff did not follow the physician's orders for medication administration, which poses a health and safety risk to residents. The facility was cited for this deficiency and must correct it by the date specified in their plan of correction.
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
It was alleged that the Staff did not administer the resident's medications as prescribed- Substantiated During the course of investigation, LPA interviewed staff, record review, and other evidence gathered during the investigation, the allegation that staff did not administer the resident’s medications as prescribed was found to be substantiated. Records indicate that staff failed to follow the physician’s orders regarding medication administration, resulting in missed and/or delayed doses. This practice poses a potential health and safety risk to residents in care. The following deficiencies were observed see LIC 809D and cited from the California Code of Regulations, Title 22 and/or Health and Safety Code Failure to correct deficiencies by POC date may result in additional Civil Penalties. An exit interview was conducted, and a copy of this report and appeal rights is provided.
2025-09-16Complaint InvestigationMixedType B · 1 finding
Plain-language summary
A complaint investigation found that a resident's emergency call pendant was not working and staff were not receiving alerts when it was pressed, preventing timely assistance—the facility was cited and assessed a penalty for this repeat violation. A separate allegation that staff overcharged a resident for services was traced to an accounting error rather than intentional billing, and a third allegation about inappropriate staff communication could not be substantiated based on available evidence. The facility conducted exit interviews and provided the family with copies of the findings and appeal rights.
“Based on observations and interview the facility did not comply with the following by R1's call button being in disrepair which poses a potential safety and personal rights violation to residents in care”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
On 8/1/2025 LPA conducted tests on residents call button. LPA found that R1's pendant was not working properly and that staff were not notified when it was pressed therefore they were not able to meet the residents need in a timely manner. LPA asked staff when they came to help R1 get ready for meal time if they received a notification for R1's pendent being pressed and they stated "no". During the observation Health and Wellness Director was present. Therefore the allegations are substantiated. ***LPA assessed a civil penalty for repeat violation ($250)*** Based on LPAs observations and interviews which were conducted and record reviews, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegations are found to be SUBSTANTIATED . California Code of Regulations (Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 8), are being cited on the attached LIC 9099D. Exit interview conducted. Appeal Rights and a copy of this report 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 9/12/2025 LPA reviewed ledgers for a sample of residents. LPA observed that there was a substantial credit for R1. LPA spoke with BOD and ROS regarding the credit to see if they were connected to the allegation of " Staff charged resident for services not rendered". LPA found that the credit was because the resident was overcharged due to an accounting error. LPA reviewed R1's careplans from 2023-present and found that the level of care has not changed. LPA however did observe on one of the careplans that a special code was not inputted correctly which triggered the extra charges. On 8/1/2025 LPA visited with R1, R2, R3 and R4. LPA observed that R1 was refusing care as outlined in their careplan. R2, R3, and R4 did not note any concerns with the level of care that they were being provided and LPA did not observe any concerns. LPA was unable to interview R1 however R2, R3 and R4 all expressed satisfaction with the staff and did not express any concern with staff speaking to them inappropriately. On 9/12/2025 LPA spoke with BOA who stated that there was a concern with an interaction between S1 and R5 however it was found that it did not indicate S1 speaking inappropriately to R5. Therefore 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 violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED . Exit interview conducted and a copy of this report provided.
2025-08-21Other VisitType A · 1 finding
Plain-language summary
On August 21, 2025, inspectors conducted a health and safety investigation at the facility following a priority complaint and found repeat violations that resulted in a $250 civil penalty. The inspection found the facility's hot water temperature, food storage, refrigeration, medication storage, smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, and emergency supplies all met standards, with no obstructions in hallways or accessible bodies of water on the property. The facility was cited for failing to correct deficiencies from a prior inspection and has until a specified deadline to address these issues.
“Based on observation, the licensee did not comply with the section cited above inhot water temprature measuring at 126.1 which poses an immediate safety risk to persons in care.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
On 8/21/2025 at 3:45 PM, Licensing Program Analysts (LPAs) A. Gomez and Y Brown conducted a Health & Safety inspection as a result of a priority 1 complaint. LPAs met with Executive Director, Oriesha Morgan and explained the purpose of the visit. LPAs toured facility including but not limited to random apartments, bathrooms, common area, kitchen, and outdoor area. Hot water temperature was measured at 126.1 degrees F in room 259. 7-day of non-perishable and 2-day of perishable food supplies were sufficient. Facility orders food supplies on a weekly basis. Refrigerator temperature was observed at 39 degrees F. Resident's medications were kept locked in the med room. Smoke detectors are interconnected with the sprinkler system. Carbon monoxide detector observe. First-aid kit was complete. Fire extinguisher was observed to be full and last serviced on 12/8/24. There are no accessible bodies of water observed. Indoor and outdoor passageways are free of obstruction. **A civil penalty was assessed on todays date for $250 for repeat violations** The following deficiencies were observed (see LIC 809D) and cited from the California Code of Regulations, Title 22 and/or Health and Safety Code Failure to correct deficiencies by POC date may result in additional Civil Penalties. Exit interview conducted. Appeal Rights and a copy of this report provided.
2025-08-04Complaint InvestigationMixedNo findings
Plain-language summary
On April 23, 2025, inspectors investigated a complaint and found that medications were marked as given to a resident on the medication administration record when the resident was actually away from the facility and could not have received them—staff acknowledged this was a documentation error, possibly because the system requires two steps to mark medications as not given. Two other allegations in the complaint—that staff refused to accept the resident back into the facility and that staff denied access to the resident's records—were not substantiated by evidence.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
On 4/23/2025 LPA reviewed files and interviewed S1 and S2 and found the following: LPA observed that there were multiple instances on R1 MAR where medication was marked as administered however R1 was out of the community and unable to have taken the medicine. LPA identified that S1 made the error and found the following in the interview. S1 states that they pre pour medication based on the med list and then hand them out. After hand out they get marked off. S1 states it might have just been a mistake that medication was marked as given when it had not been administered. LPA then spoke with S2 to understand more about how a medication error like this could occur. S2 stated that the system where med-techs have to mark the medications given needs to be pressed twice to reflect not administered or else the system will mark as medication given. They believe that the medication being marked as given was an oversight. LPA already cited for 87465(a) on complaint: 15-AS-20241203085000 The following deficiencies were observed (see LIC 809D on complaint 15-AS-20241203085000) and cited from the California Code of Regulations, Title 22 and/or Health and Safety Code Failure to correct deficiencies by POC date may result in additional Civil Penalties. Exit interview conducted and a copy of this report 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 During the course of the investigation LPA interviewed W1 and reviewed correspondences with R1's responsible party. LPA was unable to identify where the facility refused to accept R1 back into care after R1 was sent out to the hospital. LPA also observed that R1's responsible party requested R1's the medication list on 8/28/2024 at 08:21:13 PM PDT via email and that the facility's Health and wellness director (HWD) at the time provided the medication list on 8/28/2024 at 9:30 PM. R1's power of attorney also requested R1's full record and provided proof of POA on 1/22/2025. The initial request was made on or around 1/14/2025 however the proof of POA documents still needed to be submitted based on the correspondences provided. At the time of the request R1 was not a resident of the facility and had passed away. R1 left Ivy park in September of 2024 and passed away a couple of moths later at an unrelated facility. The facility provided the requested records to R1's POA on 1/22/2025 via email as requested by the POA. Therefore the allegations of "Staff refused to accept resident back to the facility" and "Staff did not allow resident's representative to access resident's records" are Unsubstantiated. 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 deficiencies cited during visit. Exit interview conducted and a copy of this report provided.
2025-08-01Other VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
On August 1, 2025, licensing staff conducted a case management visit after the facility self-reported that one resident alleged another resident had hurt them on July 23, 2025. The investigating analyst reviewed medical records and observed that the accused resident is non-ambulatory and would not have been able to cause the alleged injury, and found no evidence supporting the allegation. No violations were cited, and the facility updated the first resident's care plan and is monitoring for any changes in condition.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
On 8/1/25 at 10:00 AM, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) A. Gomez conducted a case management visit as a result of an self-reported incident report received 7/24/2025. LPA met with Business Office Director Thaleana Jones and explained the purpose of the visit. It was reported that R1 alleged that R2 hurt them on 7/23/2025. Facility also self-submitted the required SOC341 report of abuse. LPA reviewed R1 physician report and observed that R1 has a diagnosis dementia. R1 and R2 share a room. It was observed that R2 is non-ambulatory and would not have been able to commit what was alleged, there also was no evidence of the allegations. The police and responsible party were also notified. R1 and R2 continue to live together by choice. R1 is being monitored for this change in condition and their needs and services plan has also been updated. No deficiencies cited during visit. Exit interview conducted and a copy of this report provided.
2025-07-01Other VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
On July 1, 2025, a licensing analyst conducted a case management visit to deliver an amended complaint report and met with the facility's executive director. No violations were found during the visit. The analyst provided a copy of the report at the conclusion of the visit.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
On 7/1/25 at 2:40 PM, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) A. Gomez conducted a case management visit as a result of delivering an amended complaint. LPA met with Executive Director Orisha Morgan and explained the purpose of the visit. LPA delivered an amended report for complaint #15-AS-20241203085000. No deficiencies cited during visit. Exit interview conducted and a copy of this report provided.
2025-07-01Complaint InvestigationType A · 2 findings
Plain-language summary
A memory care resident eloped from the facility on June 25, 2025, and was found in the parking lot around 10:10 PM without injury; the resident likely exited when a staff member left the memory care unit. The facility did not report the elopement within the required 24-hour timeframe and failed to prevent the resident from leaving. The facility has since updated the resident's care plan and provided staff training.
“Based on interviews the facility did not meet the requirement above staff neglecting to ensure that the memory care door fully closed behind them which led to R1s elopement which posed an immediate safety risk to residents in care”
“Based on interviews the facility did not meet the requirement above by not reporting the elopement of R1 within 24hrs to CCLD which poses a potential safety risk to residents in care”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
On 7/1/25 at 3:15 PM, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) A. Gomez conducted a case management visit as a result of an elopement that occurred on 6/25/2025. LPA met with Executive Director Oreisha Morgan and explained the purpose of the visit. While at the facility on an unrelated incident LPA was made aware that R1 had eloped from the facility on 6/25/2025. Facility faxed incident report for elopement on 7/1/2025 at 5:56AM. R1 is a memory care resident. All egress doors were operational at the time of elopement and it is suspected that R1 exited memory care into assisted living when an unknown staff member departed memory care. R1 was observed in the parking lot by a S1 when arriving to work around 10:10PM. R1 was last observed in their room at approximately 9:40PM. R1 was found without injury and assessed. R1's care plan has since been updated and staff were provided an in service. THE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCIES WERE OBSERVED DURING VISIT: Facility did not prevent R1 from eloping Facility did not report incident in required 24 hour time frame The following deficiencies were observed (see LIC 809D) and cited from the California Code of Regulations, Title 22 and/or Health and Safety Code Failure to correct deficiencies by POC date may result in additional Civil Penalties. Exit interview conducted. Appeal Rights and a copy of this report provided.
2025-06-04Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
On June 4, 2025, state inspectors conducted a health and safety inspection of the facility and found no violations. They checked hot water temperature, food storage, refrigeration, medication security, fire safety equipment, and emergency supplies—all were in proper working order. Indoor and outdoor areas were free of hazards and obstruction.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
On 6/4/25 at 5:00 PM, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) A. Gomez conducted a Health & Safety inspection as a result of a priority 1 complaint. LPA met with Business Director Thaleana Jones and explained the purpose of the visit. LPA toured facility including but not limited to the bedrooms, bathrooms, common area, kitchen, and outdoor area. A sample of the hot water temperature was measured at 119.6, 119.6, and 114.9 degrees F. 7-day of non-perishable and 2-day of perishable food supplies were sufficient. Facility orders food supplies on a weekly basis. Refrigerator temperature was observed at 40 degrees F. Resident's medications were kept locked in the med room. Smoke detectors are interconnected with the sprinkler system. Carbon monoxide detector observe. First-aid kit was complete. Fire extinguisher was observed to be full and last serviced on 5/30/25. There are no accessible bodies of water observed. Indoor and outdoor passageways are free of obstruction. No deficiencies cited during visit. Exit interview conducted and a copy of this report provided.
2025-05-29Complaint InvestigationSubstantiatedType B · 1 finding
Plain-language summary
During a complaint investigation, inspectors found that staff marked medications as given when residents were not present to receive them, that call buttons in memory care rooms were not working properly and staff were not aware of the failures, and that families were not informed when care plans were changed or when required incident reports should have been filed. A previous director made unauthorized changes to residents' care and services without notifying families of associated costs before resigning. The facility is now working to fix the call button system and has reimbursed families for undisclosed charges.
“Based on interview the facility did not comply with the following by not reporting incidents as required which poses a potential safety and personal rights violation to residents in care”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
On the allegations Staff mismanaged residents’ medications, Facility staff failed to notify resident and responsible party, Staff did not respond to resident's call button in a timely manner the following was found: On 4/23/2025 LPA reviewed files and interviewed S1 and S2 and found the following: LPA observed that there were multiple instances on R2 MAR where medication was marked as administered however R2 was out of the community and unable to have taken the medicine. LPA identified that S1 made the error and found the following in the interview. S1 states that they pre pour medication based on the med list and then hand them out. After hand out they get marked off. S1 states it might have just been a mistake that medication was marked as given when it had not been administered. LPA then spoke with S2 to understand more about how a medication error like this could occur. S2 stated that the system where med-techs have to mark the medications given needs to be pressed twice to reflect not administered or else the system will mark as medication given. They believe that the medication being marked as given was an oversight. On 5/14/2025 LPA also tested the call buttons in memory care and found that the systems to notify staff of calls are not properly working. Memory care coordinator states that they are actively working towards a solution and are currently training staff on how to ensure residents safety without call buttons.On 5/29/2025 LPA tested the call buttons in the room which was occupied by R1. LPA found during the test that the call button in the bathroom was not operational. The ED was not aware that the call button did not work and did not have a work order for it to be serviced. On 12/09/2024 LPA reviewed interviewed ED . ED states that the prior Health and Wellness Director (HWD) would change the residents needs and services and that they would receive the care but that the families were not aware of the cost associated with the care. The ED states that because of the discrepancy they have reimbursed credits. ED states that HWD resigned when confronted with the discrepancy. It was also found before the HWD resigned that reports were not being reported as required. ED states that there were instances where residents care plan did not match the care they needed or did not require. Report continues on LIC9099-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 Pg 3 Based on interviews, record reviews, and observations the allegations Facility is in disrepair, Staff are not following the residents care plan, Facility does not send incident reports as required, and Staff are not providing medication as prescribed is SUBSTANTIATED . Based on LPAs observations and interviews which were conducted and record reviews, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegations are found to be SUBSTANTIATED . California Code of Regulations (Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 8), are being cited on the attached LIC 9099D. Exit interview conducted and a copy of this report provided.
2025-05-14Complaint InvestigationMixedType B · 4 findings
Plain-language summary
A complaint investigation found that the facility failed to maintain the building properly (with torn carpet and broken appliances), did not always follow residents' care plans, missed required incident reporting, and had instances where staff marked medications as given when residents had not actually received them—including one case where a resident was out of the facility when medication was marked administered. The investigation also found that call buttons in the memory care section were not working properly. Other allegations about cleanliness, staffing levels, and care quality were not substantiated by the investigation.
“Based on observations and interview the facility did not comply with the following by the elevator, fireplace, and other utilities being in disrepair which poses a potential safety and personal rights violation to residents in care.”
“Based on interview the facility did not comply with the following by not reporting incidents as required which poses a potential safety and personal rights violation to residents in care”
“Based on record review the facility did not comply with the following by having an inaccurate MAR which put into question the validity of the entries which poses a potential safety and personal rights violation to residents in care.”
“Based on record review and interview the facility did not comply with the following by previous HWD updating residents care plan and not notifying the appropriate parties and not providing the care specified which poses a potential personal rights violation to residents in care.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
On the allegations Facility is in disrepair, Staff are not following the residents care plan Facility does not send incident reports as required, and Staff are not providing medication as prescribed the following was found. On 12/09/2024 When ED was interviewed the LPA found the following. ED states that when they came in they felt like the facility was not lacking in sanitation and cleanliness in their opinion. However ED did acknowledge that prior to their on boarding the center elevator was down for about a month and a half. The ED states that they just discovered that one of the fireplaces is not operational last week when putting up Christmas decorations. ED states that they are aware of the dryers and washers being out of service but they are not aware of how long they have been out of service. ED stated that they are actively trying to get new carpets but will not know if it is approved by upper management. ED states that the prior Health and Wellness Director (HWD) would change the residents needs and services and that they would receive the care but that the families were not aware of the cost associated with the care. The ED states that because of the discrepancy they have reimbursed credits. ED states that HWD resigned when confronted with the discrepancy. It was also found before the HWD resigned that reports were not being reported as required. ED states that there were instances where residents care plan did not match the care they needed or did not require. On 4/23/2025 LPA reviewed files and interviewed S1 and S2 and found the following: LPA observed that there were multiple instances on R1 MAR where medication was marked as administered however R1 was out of the community and unable to have taken the medicine. LPA identified that S1 made the error and found the following in the interview. S1 states that they pre pour medication based on the med list and then hand them out. After hand out they get marked off. S1 states it might have just been a mistake that medication was marked as given when it had not been administered. LPA then spoke with S2 to understand more about how a medication error like this could occur. S2 stated that the system where med-techs have to mark the medications given needs to be pressed twice to reflect not administered or else the system will mark as medication given. They believe that the medication being marked as given was an oversight. Report continues on LIC9099-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 On 5/14/2025 LPA also tested the call buttons in memory care and found that the systems to notify staff of calls are not properly working. Memory care coordinator states that they are actively working towards a solution and are currently training staff on how to ensure residents safety without call buttons. Throughout all visits the LPA also observed that the communities carpet is in disrepair with rips throughout the community. The carpet observed in disrepair is only located throughout the assisted living side of the community. Based on interviews, record reviews, and observations the allegations Facility is in disrepair, Staff are not following the residents care plan, Facility does not send incident reports as required, and Staff are not providing medication as prescribed is SUBSTANTIATED . Based on LPAs observations and interviews which were conducted and record reviews, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegations are found to be SUBSTANTIATED . California Code of Regulations (Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 8), are being cited on the attached LIC 9099D. 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 the allegations The facility is not clean and sanitary, The facility does not provide adequate care for its residents, Facility has insufficient staff to provide adequate care for residents, Facility staff are administering controlled substance inappropriately the following was found: LPA visited the facility on multiple occasions and observed it to be clean and sanitary. LPA also interviews ED who corroborated the cleanliness of the facility. During all visits LPA observed adequate staffing and observed enough staff had been scheduled ED also stated that they have been actively hiring additional staff. LPA interviewed R2, R3, and R4 who all stated that they were happy with the facility and the level of care being provided. Due to the reporting party not providing additional information in relation to the complaint allegations LPA was unable to speak with specific residents relating to the allegations and had to do a random selection of residents therefore the allegations The facility is not clean and sanitary, The facility does not provide adequate care for its residents, Facility has insufficient staff to provide adequate care for residents, Facility staff are administering controlled substance inappropriately is UNSUBSTANTIATED . 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 conducted and a copy of this report provided.
2025-02-20Other VisitType A · 2 findings
Plain-language summary
During a routine annual inspection on February 20, 2025, inspectors found that none of the six staff members reviewed had current first aid training, and hot water in one resident bathroom measured 133.6 degrees Fahrenheit, which is above safe levels. The facility was otherwise found to have adequate lighting, proper food storage, secured medications, and functioning emergency systems. The facility was cited for these deficiencies and given time to correct them.
“Based on observation, the licensee did not comply with the section cited above inhot water temprature measuring at 133.6 which poses an immediate safety risk to persons in care. POC Due Date: 02/21/2025 Plan of Correction 1 2 3 4 By POC facility agrees to adjust the water to regulations and notify CCLD.”
“Based on record review, the licensee did not comply with the section cited above in 6 out of 6 staff files reviewed not having first aid which posesa potential health and safety or personal rights risk to persons in care. POC Due Date: 02/27/2025 Plan of Correction 1 2 3 4 By POC facility agrees to have all staff update their first aid and notify CCLD”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
On 2/20/25 at 10:00 AM, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) A. Gomez arrived unannounced to conduct 1-Year Annual Required inspection. LPA met with Business Office Director, Thaleana Jones and explained the purpose of the visit. The facility’s fire clearance was approved for 162 residents of which 119 may be non-ambulatory and 4 bedridden. LPA toured the facility with maintenance director including but not limited to 5 residents apartments, bathrooms, multiple activity rooms, kitchen, common area and courtyard. There are no bodies of water observed. LPA observe lighting in all rooms are adequate for the comfort and safety of the residents. Hallway temperature was maintained at 72 degrees F. LPA observed lighting in all rooms are adequate for the comfort and safety of the residents. The hot water temperature in a sample of residents’ shared bathroom were measured at 105.8, 133.6, and 107.4 degrees Fahrenheit. Freezer measured at 0 degrees and refrigerator measured at 35 degrees Fahrenheit. Residents’ bathrooms are equipped with grab bars and non-skid mats. There is a minimum of one week supply of nonperishable and 2-day of perishable foods. Centrally stored medications, sharps and toxic are locked and inaccessible to residents in care. Fire extinguisher was last serviced on 12/08/2024. Emergency Disaster Plan was last posted on 03/18/2024. First aid kit was observed to be complete. Emergency disaster drill was last conducted on 2/18/2025. At 11:30am, LPA reviewed 5 residents records. At 10:30 am, LPA reviewed 6 staff records and 0 of 6 have current first aid training and associated to the facility. At 2:30pm, LPA reviewed a sample of resident’s medications. Report continues 809-D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 THE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCIES WERE OBSERVED DURING VISIT: LPA observed that no staff reviewed files have first Aid LPA observed the water in room 227 at 133.6 degrees F The following deficiencies were observed (see LIC 809D) and cited from the California Code of Regulations, Title 22 and/or Health and Safety Code Failure to correct deficiencies by POC date may result in additional Civil Penalties. Exit interview conducted. Appeal Rights and a copy of this report provided.
2025-01-13Complaint InvestigationUnsubstantiatedNo findings
Plain-language summary
A complaint was investigated on October 14, 2024, alleging that a staff member was taking pictures in residents' apartments and stealing blankets from their rooms. The investigator could not verify these claims—the person who made the complaint did not provide the promised pictures, local police had no records of allegations, and the facility found no evidence of missing blankets or items; the staff member has since left the facility. No violations were found.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
On 10/14/2024 LPA spoke with W1 over the phone who initially stated that S1 was taking pictures of residents apartments and was stealing blankets from their rooms. LPA requested that W1 send the pictures to them so they could verify this information. LPA never received pictures although W1 said they had access to them. When LPA called W1 back they stated that they have been advised to not discuss the matter further by police. LPA submitted a request to San Ramon Police Department for records related to S1 and any allegations and did not receive anything back. LPA spoke with ED and found that there were no reports of residents missing any blankets or other items from their rooms. Any items that were reported lost for residents were found and deemed to have been misplaced. S1 no longer works at the facility and resigned after taking a leave of absence for 2 weeks. S1 took a leave of absence due to the harassment from the individual making false claims. 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 deficiencies cited during visit. Exit interview conducted and a copy of this report provided.
2024-08-19Other VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
On August 19, 2024, inspectors conducted a follow-up visit after the facility reported that a newly admitted resident exhibited sudden and unexpected behaviors including climbing walls, running into the street, and jumping on cars—behaviors that contradicted the resident's pre-admission assessment—but the resident did not sustain injuries and has since moved out after being diagnosed with schizophrenia. The resident's admission paperwork indicated they could move about independently, and no violations were found during the inspection; the facility had already retrained staff on elopement procedures in early August.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
On 8/19/2024 at 12:00pm Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) A Gomez arrived unannounced to conduct a case management visit as a result of an Unusual Incident Report received 8/09/2024. LPA met with Regional Operations Specialist, Pari Manouchehri and Health Service Director, Anlisse Ramirez and explained the purpose of the visit. The current census is 140. On 9/9/2024 the department received an unusual incident report that stated " Resident (R1) was climbing walls outside the community and entering neighboring homes. (R1) was not responding to staff while running into the street. (R1) was jumping on parked cars; jumped into a car and was flipping off staff and passersby. Resident had just moved in less than 24 hours prior and had a clear 602, assessment and smooth move in. (R1's) behaviors were a direct contradiction to the totality of information gathered prior to move in." LPA reviewed R1's 602 (Physicians report). The 602 stated that R1 could leave unassisted and R1 was independent. R1 did not sustain any injuries. R1 has since been diagnosed with unspecified Schizophrenia and no longer resides at the facility. On 8/3/2024 and 8/6/2024 the facility retrained staff on elopement procedures. No deficiencies cited during visit. Exit interview conducted and a copy of this report provided.
2024-06-13Complaint InvestigationMixedNo findings
2024-03-27Other VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
This was a follow-up investigation into an incident reported in February 2024, in which a staff member pushed a resident in memory care on January 31, 2024. The resident, who had no memory of the event, did not sustain visible injuries and was able to steady themselves against a wall; a witness reported that the staff member pushed the resident away while ignoring the resident's repeated attempts to get their attention. The facility was cited for physical abuse.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
On 3/27/2024 at 1:50 PM Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) A. Gomez arrived unannounced to continue a Case Management visit in regards to an unusual incident report received 2/06/2024. LPA met with Executive Director, Caroline Frangieh and explained the purpose of the visit. It was reported that on 02/02/2024 that a team member allegedly observed another team member push a resident living in memory care. It was found that the incident actually occurred 1/31/2024. Resident was observed to have no injuries or recollection of the event. Resident did not fall as they were near a wall and was able to stabilize thyself. Health Services Director, Anelisse Ramirez-LVN, was called to assess for possible injuries. Assessment resulted in no visible injuries. Resident was asked about the event, which they were unable to recall. LPA interviewed witness S2 with the help of Health Services Director, Anelisse Ramirez to translate. S2 stated that while they were pushing the dish cart from the kitchen R1 was wandering in their briefs and approached S2 to ask a question. S2 responded with "OK" because they do not speak English. S2 then returned to the kitchen and came back out a few minutes later. S2 then observed R1 walking down the hall towards S1 who was looking at their phone. S1 ignored R1. S2 speculates that R1 was asking S1 to go to the bathroom based on the body language of R1. R1 raised their voice repeatedly to get the attention of S1 but S1 maintained looking at their phone. S1 then reached over to the left with phone still in hand to push R1 away. R1 then stumbled and braced thyself against the wall. S2 states that R1 looked down after balancing thyself and then walked away. S1 then made eye contact with S2 and rolled their eyes. S2 later reported what they witnessed. Report continues on 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 Resident was in memory care and unable to recall. At the time of visit resident was no longer at the facility. LPA spoke with ED about addressing reporting requirements for mandated reporters and ED informed LPA that they provided S2 as well as all facility staff with a training on the expectations. THE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCIES ARE BEING CITED S1 was observed physically abusing R1 The following deficiencies were observed (see LIC 809D) and cited from the California Code of Regulations, Title 22 and/or Health and Safety Code Failure to correct deficiencies by POC date may result in additional Civil Penalties. Exit interview conducted. Appeal Rights and a copy of this report provided.
2024-03-27Annual Compliance VisitType A · 3 findings
Plain-language summary
During a routine annual inspection on March 27, 2024, inspectors found that one resident designated as bedridden was living in a room not approved for bedridden residents, and that two staff members lacked required first aid training and health screening documents on file. The facility also received a penalty for a fire clearance violation. The facility was required to correct these issues by a specified deadline.
“Based on record review, the licensee did not comply with the section cited above by having R1 in room 194 which is not an approved bedridden room which poses an immediate health, safety or personal rights risk to persons in care. POC Due Date: 04/03/2024 Plan of Correction 1 2 3 4 By POC date Executive Director agrees to either have the resident evaluated for hospice or start the process of moving residents room to an approved bedridden room and notify CCLD”
“Based on record review, the licensee did not comply with the section cited above in 2 out of 5 staff records reviewed not having health screens and TB results which poses a potential health, safety or personal rights risk to persons in care. POC Due Date: 04/03/2024 Plan of Correction 1 2 3 4 By POC date Executive director agrees to review all staff files to ensure they have the required documentation and update the files if they do not and notify CCLD”
“Based on record review, the licensee did not comply with the section cited above in 2 out of 5 staff files reviewed not having valid first aid training or card on file which poses a potential health, safety or personal rights risk to persons in care. POC Due Date: 04/03/2024 Plan of Correction 1 2 3 4 By POC date Executive Director agrees to have required staff first aid certified and update their files in to be in compliance with regulation and notify CCLD.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
On 03/27/2024 at 9:30AM, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) A. Gomez arrived unannounced to continue the 1-Year Annual Required inspection. LPA met with Executive Director, Caroline Frangieh and explained the purpose of the visit. The facility’s fire clearance was approved for 162. Smoke detectors are interconnected with sprinklers and observed throughout the facility. Fire extinguisher was last serviced on 5/23/2023. Fire Drill was last conducted on 12/22/2023. Emergency Disaster Plan was last posted on 2/28/2024. At 11:20AM, LPA reviewed 8 residents records. At 3:20PM, LPA reviewed 5 staff records. THE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCIES WERE OBSERVED DURING VISIT: At 11:45 AM during file review LPA observed R1's physician report designating them as bedridden. R1 resides in room 194 which is not cleared for bedridden ( Immediate $500 civil penalty ) 87202(a)(2) At 3:20 PM during staff file review LPA observed that S2 and S3 do not have first aid training's and requirements on file. At 3:25 PM during staff file review LPA observed that S2 and S4 do not have a heath screen or TB result on file ***Immediate $500 Civil Penalty Assessed for Fire Clearance Violation*** The following deficiencies were observed (see LIC 809D) and cited from the California Code of Regulations, Title 22 and/or Health and Safety Code Failure to correct deficiencies by POC date may result in additional Civil Penalties. Exit interview conducted. Appeal Rights and a copy of this report provided.
2024-02-28Other VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
On February 28, 2024, inspectors arrived unannounced to investigate an incident report from February 2nd in which a staff member allegedly pushed a resident in memory care. The resident had no injuries and no memory of the event, a nurse assessed them and found no visible injuries, and the staff member involved was terminated on February 12th. The investigation was ongoing at the time of the visit.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
On 2/28/2024 at 11:16 AM Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) A. Gomez arrived unannounced to conduct a Case Management visit in regards to an unusual incident report received 2/06/2024. LPA met with Executive Director, Caroline Frangieh and explained the purpose of the visit. It was reported that on 02/02/2024 that a team member allegedly observed another team member push a resident living in memory care.Resident was observed to have no injuries or recollection of the event. Resident did not fall as they were near a wall and was able to stabilize thyself. Health Services Director, Anelisse Ramirez-LVN, was called to assess for possible injuries. Assessment resulted in no visible injuries. Resident was asked about the event, which they were unable to recall. The staff (S1) alleged of abuse was terminated effective 2/12/2024. LPA obtained a copy of the Disciplinary Action Notice for S1 and contact information for witnesses and all parties involved. LPA will return at a later date to continue investigation. No Deficiencies will be cited at this time Exit interview conducted. A copy of this report provided via e-mail.
2024-01-17Other VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
On January 17, 2024, a state licensing analyst conducted a follow-up visit to investigate an incident from November 10, 2023, when a resident left the facility without staff knowledge and was found in the parking lot about 15 minutes later. The resident's doctor confirmed the resident was capable of leaving unassisted, and the facility's care plan was reviewed during the visit. No violation was identified.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
On 1/17/2024 at 1:30 PM Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) A. Gomez arrived unannounced to conduct a Case Management visit in regards to an unusual incident report received 11/11/2023. LPA met with Executive Director, Caroline Frangieh, and explained the purpose of the visit. It was reported that on 11/10/2023 resident (R1) went awol from facility. At approximately 7:15AM the door alarm near apartment 285 went off. When facility staff went to look for R1 they were not found in their apartment. At approximately 7:30AM R1 was located in facility parking lot. During visit LPA reviewed R1's physicians report and care plan. R1's physicians report states that R1 is able to leave the facility unassisted. Exit interview conducted. A copy of this report provided.
2023-10-20Other VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
During an unannounced case management inspection on October 20, 2023, inspectors found that the facility was operating with 143 residents when its approved fire safety capacity is 140 residents. The facility was assessed a $500 civil penalty for this violation and must submit a plan to correct the issue.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
On 10/20/2023 at 12:30 PM Licensing Program Analysts (LPAs) P. Watson and A. Gomez arrived unannounced to conduct a Case Management inspection. LPAs met with Executive Director, Melissa Del Dosso , and explained the purpose of the visit. While LPAs were conducting another visit in the facility, LPAs were informed of the following deficiency. -Facility has an approved fire clearance capacity for 140 residents, however the facilities current census is 143. An immediate civil penalty will be assessed today of $500. Deficiency is cited from Title 22 California Code of Regulations and listed on 809D. Failure to submit proof of correction by plan of correction due date, and any repeat violation within 12 month period may result in civil penalty. Exit interview conducted, appeal rights and copy of this report provided.
2023-10-20Complaint InvestigationUnsubstantiatedNo findings
Plain-language summary
An investigator looked into a complaint about odors at the facility. Staff and residents confirmed there had been a smell from a broken kitchen exhaust fan, but said the facility has taken steps to address it by opening doors and windows and using a fan to clear the air, and residents reported not noticing odors recently. The complaint was not substantiated.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
S3 and S4 stated that the facility has taken action to alleviate any odor that has been caused by the disrepair such as opening doors and windows and placing a fan in the kitchen area to blow the smell away from dinning area. S2 and S3 stated that the smell is primarily in the kitchen area and can be smelled when kitchen staff open the doors to deliver food. S5 stated that at one point the odor did linger into the hallway closets to the kitchen area but recently they have not smelled any odors. Based on interviews with residents, R4 stated that they were informed by staff that the exhaust fan in the kitchen was broken and that there may be an odor, R4 stated that they smelled a slight odor in the kitchen area at one point but did not smell anything recently. Based on LPAs observations and interviews, although the allegations may have happened or is valid, the facility is taking action to make repairs and alleviate odors, therefore the allegations are UNSUBSTANTIATED . Exit interview conducted and a copy of this report provided.
2023-07-20Complaint InvestigationSubstantiatedType B · 1 finding
“Based on investigation, licensee did not comply with the section cited above by not providing R1 with diet prescribed by physician which poses a potential health and safety risk to the persons in care.”
6 older inspections from 2021 are not shown in the free view.
6 older inspections from 2021 are not shown in the free view.
Other facilities in Contra Costa County.
Other memory care facilities in Contra Costa County with similar care offerings.
Family reviews
No reviews yet — be the first to share your experience
Other memory care options nearby.
More options in neighboring cities
Licensed memory care in other cities within this county region — useful when your search radius crosses city limits.