Stay Ahead of Compliance with Monthly Citation Updates


In your State Survey window and need a snapshot of your risks?

Survey Preparedness Report

One Time Fee
$79
  • Last 12 months of citation data in one tailored report
  • Pinpoint the tags driving penalties in facilities like yours
  • Jump to regulations and pathways used by surveyors
  • Access to your report within 2 hours of purchase
  • Easily share it with your team - no registration needed
Get Your Report Now →

Monthly citation updates straight to your inbox for ongoing preparation?

Monthly Citation Reports

$18.90 per month
  • Latest citation updates delivered monthly to your email
  • Citations organized by compliance areas
  • Shared automatically with your team, by area
  • Customizable for your state(s) of interest
  • Direct links to CMS documentation relevant parts
Learn more →

Save Hours of Work with AI-Powered Plan of Correction Writer


One-Time Fee

$49 per Plan of Correction
Volume discounts available – save up to 20%
  • Quickly search for approved POC from other facilities
  • Instant access
  • Intuitive interface
  • No recurring fees
  • Save hours of work
F0550
E

Failure to Ensure Resident Dignity and Privacy During Video Monitoring

Whittier, California Survey Completed on 07-18-2025

Penalty

No penalty information released
tooltip icon
The penalty, as released by CMS, applies to the entire inspection this citation is part of, covering all citations and f-tags issued, not just this specific f-tag. For the complete original report, please refer to the 'Details' section.

Summary

The facility failed to promote dignity and respect for residents by placing care view cameras in the rooms of four residents without proper notification, consent, or signage. Observations revealed that cameras were installed directly facing residents, and in several cases, there was no posted signage inside or outside the rooms to inform residents, families, or visitors of the video surveillance. Interviews with residents and their family representatives indicated that they were not educated about the cameras prior to their use, and some residents expressed discomfort, a sense of lost privacy, and concerns about being watched without their knowledge or consent. Resident records showed that all four affected residents had intact cognitive skills for daily decision-making and required varying levels of assistance with activities of daily living. Despite this, none of the residents recalled being informed about the cameras or signing any consent forms. One resident compared the experience to being watched in a bathroom, while another stated that the only privacy they had was when staff called to have the camera turned off during personal care. Family representatives also confirmed a lack of education or notification regarding the cameras. Facility policy required that signs be posted in rooms where video monitoring was in use and that residents or their representatives be educated prior to camera activation. However, staff interviews and observations confirmed that these procedures were not consistently followed. The Director of Nursing acknowledged that there was no official consent process and that signage and education should have been provided before cameras were used. This failure resulted in residents experiencing discomfort and a lack of personal privacy, in direct violation of their rights to dignity, self-determination, and communication.

An unhandled error has occurred. Reload 🗙