Sierra View Care Center
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Baldwin Park, California.
- Location
- 14318 Ohio Street, Baldwin Park, California 91706
- CMS Provider Number
- 056466
- Inspections on file
- 24
- Latest survey
- August 4, 2025
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 1
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Sierra View Care Center during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
The facility failed to complete Advance Directive documentation for three residents, risking non-compliance with their treatment preferences. One resident's form was incomplete, another's AD was missing from the chart, and a third's form did not indicate if an AD was executed. The Social Services Director and Director of Nursing acknowledged these oversights, which could lead to inappropriate care.
The facility failed to create individualized care plans for two residents with PTSD, despite their diagnoses and observed behaviors. Both residents lacked care plans addressing PTSD, contrary to the facility's policy on Trauma Informed Care, which emphasizes minimizing triggers and re-traumatization.
The facility failed to follow infection control policies for three residents, leading to potential infection spread. A CNA did not wear the required PPE while changing a resident on EBP, and another resident lacked proper signage for contact isolation. Staff acknowledged the importance of PPE, and the DON emphasized reassessment and proper cohorting for residents on transmission-based precautions.
The facility failed to obtain informed consent for the use of a wander guard alarm on a resident with severe cognitive impairment and anxiety, violating their rights and potentially causing psychological distress. Despite the facility's policy requiring consent for such devices, there was no documented evidence of consent being obtained, as confirmed by interviews with an LVN and the DON.
A resident with dementia and fall risk had a call light out of reach, contrary to their care plan and facility policy. The resident was unaware of the call light's location, and staff confirmed it should be accessible. The facility's policy requires call lights to be within reach.
A facility failed to complete the required Level I PASRR for a resident readmitted with severe cognitive impairment and multiple diagnoses, including cancer and bipolar disorder. The resident was in the facility for over 30 days without the necessary PASRR I evaluation, which should have triggered a PASRR II. Staff interviews revealed a lapse in the process of coordinating PASRR evaluations, contrary to the facility's policy.
A facility failed to develop a care plan for a resident prescribed Zoloft for depression, despite the resident's diagnoses of major depressive disorder and hypertension. The absence of a care plan was confirmed by the RN Supervisor and DON, who acknowledged that a plan should guide staff in monitoring the medication's effectiveness. This oversight was contrary to the facility's policy requiring comprehensive care plans with measurable objectives and timeframes.
A resident with moderately impaired cognition and orthopedic aftercare was not provided with effective constipation management for five days. Despite complaints and the known side effect of Norco, the facility delayed administering Milk of Magnesia (MOM) and failed to document its effectiveness or follow up with additional treatment. The facility's policy on monitoring and reporting adverse reactions was not followed, leading to a delay in necessary care.
A facility failed to follow its catheter care policy for a resident with an indwelling catheter. The resident's catheter port was visibly soiled, and there was no securement device in place, contrary to the care plan and physician's orders. Staff interviews confirmed these oversights, which could increase the risk of infection and injury.
A resident receiving tube feeding through a gastrostomy tube was observed to have the feeding running while being changed in a supine position, contrary to the care plan requiring head elevation to prevent aspiration. The LVN and CNA involved acknowledged the oversight, and the DON confirmed the need to pause feeding during such procedures. The resident had a history of cerebral palsy, paraplegia, and aphasia, and was at high risk for complications.
A facility failed to ensure that pharmacy recommendations for a resident were signed and dated by the attending physician, as required for proper medical care. The SNPRs for September and December 2024 were not appropriately signed, and the last physician note was from December 28, 2024. The resident had severe cognitive impairment and used a wheelchair. The DON confirmed the importance of signed SNPRs for indicating physician evaluation.
The facility did not post nurse staffing information in a prominent place accessible to all residents and visitors. Observations showed the information was only available at the reception desk near Nursing Station A, leaving it inaccessible to those near Nursing Station B. The Director of Staff Development confirmed the limited posting and acknowledged the need for additional postings to comply with the facility's policy.
A facility failed to obtain informed consent for Trazodone 50 mg prescribed for insomnia in a resident with intact cognitive abilities. The resident did not sign the Physician Document of Informed Consent, indicating that the risks, benefits, and alternatives of the medication were not discussed, contrary to the facility's policy.
A resident with dementia and bipolar disorder was left alone with a family member during a visit, despite being on 1:1 monitoring for agitation. The family member hit the resident, causing physical harm, after the resident became verbally aggressive. The incident was reported after the resident called for a nurse, and the family member admitted to the abuse.
Failure to Complete Advance Directive Documentation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adhere to its policy on Advance Directives (AD) for three residents, leading to potential issues in honoring their medical treatment preferences. For Resident 31, the Advance Directive Acknowledgement Form (ADA) was not filled out completely, leaving it unclear whether the resident had an AD. This oversight was acknowledged by the Social Services Director (SSD) and the Director of Nursing (DON), who both noted the risk of providing services not aligned with the resident's wishes. Resident 17's case involved the absence of a copy of the AD in the medical chart, despite the resident's expressed desire to have one in place. The SSD confirmed that there was no follow-up with the resident's family to establish an AD, and the DON emphasized the importance of having the AD in the chart to guide care decisions. The facility's policy requires that ADs be determined and documented upon admission, which was not followed in this instance. For Resident 28, the ADA form was incomplete, failing to indicate whether the resident had executed an AD. The SSD and DON both recognized that this omission could lead to the resident receiving inappropriate services. The facility's policy mandates that the ADA form be completed upon admission to ensure that residents' treatment preferences are known and respected, which was not done in this case.
Failure to Develop Trauma-Informed Care Plans for Residents with PTSD
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop specific and individualized person-centered care plans for two residents who were trauma survivors, leading to a deficiency in providing trauma-informed care. Resident 17, who was admitted with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), did not have a care plan addressing PTSD. Despite having a positive trauma screen and a history of PTSD, the care plans did not include interventions to manage triggers or prevent re-traumatization. Interviews with the Registered Nurse Supervisor and the Director of Nursing confirmed the absence of a care plan for PTSD, which was against the facility's policy. Similarly, Resident 54, who was readmitted with PTSD and spinal stenosis, also lacked a care plan addressing PTSD. The resident was cognitively intact and required assistance with daily activities. Interviews with a Licensed Vocational Nurse and the Director of Nursing revealed that Resident 54 exhibited behaviors such as non-compliance and hoarding, which could be related to PTSD. Despite these observations, there was no specific care plan to manage PTSD symptoms and triggers, which was acknowledged as necessary by the facility's staff. The facility's policy on Trauma Informed Care emphasized the need for care plans that recognize the interrelation between trauma and its symptoms, and the importance of minimizing triggers and re-traumatization. However, the facility did not adhere to this policy for Residents 17 and 54, resulting in a failure to provide the necessary care, treatment, and services for these trauma survivor residents.
Infection Control Deficiencies in PPE Usage and Signage
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adhere to its infection prevention and control policies for three residents, leading to potential cross-contamination and infection spread. For Resident 74, who was on Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) due to COVID-19, MRSA, and immunodeficiency, a Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA 5) was observed changing the resident's diaper without wearing the required gown, only wearing gloves. This was acknowledged by CNA 5, who admitted the importance of wearing a gown, mask, and gloves to protect both the resident and themselves. Interviews with other staff, including a Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 4) and the Infection Preventionist (IP), confirmed that proper PPE, including gowns and gloves, should be worn during high-contact activities for residents on EBP. Resident 59, diagnosed with ESBL in the urine, was on contact isolation, yet there was no appropriate signage outside the resident's room indicating the transmission-based precautions. The Treatment Nurse (TN) and Infection Prevention Nurse (IPN) confirmed the absence of documentation clearing the resident from contact isolation, emphasizing the need for proper signage to prevent infection spread. The Director of Nursing (DON) also stated that residents on transmission-based precautions should be reassessed and cohorted properly to ensure the safety of other residents. For Resident 10, who was on EBP due to a gastrostomy tube and risk for multidrug-resistant organism infection, a CNA (CNA 4) was observed changing the resident's linen while only wearing gloves, without the required gown. The CNA acknowledged the oversight and the importance of wearing the full PPE during high-contact activities. The Infection Prevention Nurse (IPN) and the Director of Nursing (DON) reiterated the necessity of wearing the required PPE to prevent the spread of infection, as outlined in the facility's policy.
Failure to Obtain Informed Consent for Wander Guard Alarm
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement its policy and procedure regarding informed consent for the use of a wander guard alarm for Resident 59. Resident 59 was admitted with diagnoses including osteoporosis, unsteadiness on feet, and anxiety, and was identified as being at risk for elopement. The Minimum Data Sheet indicated that Resident 59 had severely impaired cognition and required varying levels of assistance with daily activities. During an observation, Resident 59 was seen wearing a wander guard alarm bracelet, but there was no documented evidence that consent was obtained prior to its application. Interviews with Licensed Vocational Nurse 4 and the Director of Nursing confirmed that consent should have been obtained to ensure the resident or their responsible party was informed about the use of the wander guard. The facility's policy on informed consent requires that consent be obtained for medical interventions, including the prolonged use of devices like the wander guard. The failure to obtain informed consent violated Resident 59's rights and placed them at risk for psychological distress due to the discomfort and sound of the alarm.
Call Light Accessibility Deficiency
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a call light was within reach for a resident, identified as Resident 89, which had the potential to prevent the resident from receiving necessary care and services. Resident 89 was admitted with diagnoses including dementia, depressive disorder, and unsteadiness on feet, and was assessed to have severely impaired cognition. The resident required supervision or assistance with various activities of daily living and was identified as being at risk for falls. The care plan for Resident 89 included interventions to place the call light within reach and encourage its use for assistance. During an observation, the call light was found hanging on the wall, out of reach, and the resident was unaware of its location. A Certified Nurse Assistant confirmed that the call light should be placed where the resident could see and use it. The Director of Nursing also stated that the call light should be within easy reach to address needs immediately. The facility's policy on call lights, revised in December 2022, indicated that staff should ensure call lights are within reach and secured as needed.
Failure to Complete PASRR for Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to complete the Level I Pre-Admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) for a resident who had been in the facility for more than 30 days. This oversight was identified during a review of the resident's admission record and clinical documentation. The resident, who was readmitted to the facility with diagnoses including malignant neoplasm of the esophagus and bipolar disorder, was found to be severely cognitively impaired and dependent on assistance for personal care. Despite these conditions, the necessary PASRR I evaluation was not conducted upon the resident's readmission, which should have triggered a PASRR II evaluation. Interviews with facility staff revealed a breakdown in the process of coordinating PASRR evaluations. The Admissions Coordinator typically requests PASRR I from the hospital and passes it to the Minimum Data Set Assistant (MDS A), who is responsible for PASRR II. However, in this case, the MDS A acknowledged that a new PASRR I screening should have been completed upon the resident's readmission to determine if a PASRR II was still needed. The facility's policy requires that residents not screened due to certain exceptions must undergo a Level I screening if they remain in the facility for more than 30 days, which was not adhered to in this instance.
Failure to Develop Care Plan for Zoloft Use
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for a resident who was prescribed Zoloft, a medication used to treat depression. The resident, who had been admitted and readmitted to the facility with diagnoses including major depressive disorder and hypertension, had an active order for Zoloft 50 mg once a day. Despite this, there was no care plan in place to monitor the effectiveness of the medication or to guide staff in implementing specific interventions for the resident. This oversight was confirmed during a review of the resident's medical records and interviews with the Registered Nurse Supervisor and the Director of Nursing, both of whom acknowledged the absence of a care plan. The facility's policy and procedure on comprehensive care plans, revised in December 2022, requires that care plans include measurable objectives and timeframes to meet residents' needs as identified in comprehensive assessments. The lack of a care plan for the use of Zoloft for this resident had the potential to result in inconsistency of care and unnecessary use of psychotropic medication. The deficiency was identified during a survey, highlighting the need for a structured approach to monitor the resident's progress and document alternative interventions as needed.
Failure to Manage Resident's Constipation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to manage constipation for a resident over a period of five days, from February 15 to February 19, 2025. The resident, who had been admitted with orthopedic aftercare following surgical amputation and obesity, had moderately impaired cognition and required assistance with daily activities. Despite the resident's complaints of constipation and the known side effect of constipation from taking Norco, the facility did not administer Milk of Magnesia (MOM) until February 19, 2025, and failed to document its effectiveness or follow up with additional treatment when it proved ineffective. Licensed Vocational Nurse 2 (LVN 2) acknowledged the resident's complaints and administered MOM on February 19, 2025, but did not document the outcome or notify the physician when the medication was ineffective. The facility's Medication Administration Record (MAR) showed no bowel movement for the resident since February 14, 2025, and no administration of MOM on the preceding days. The facility's policy required monitoring and reporting adverse reactions to analgesic therapy, but this was not adhered to, resulting in a delay in necessary care and services for the resident.
Failure to Follow Catheter Care Policy
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adhere to its policy on foley catheter care for a resident, identified as Resident 50, who had an indwelling catheter. The resident was admitted with diagnoses including benign prostatic hyperplasia and sepsis and was noted to have severely impaired cognitive abilities. During an observation, the resident's catheter port was found to be visibly soiled with a brown substance resembling feces, and there was no securement device in place as required by the care plan and physician's orders. Interviews with facility staff, including the Infection Prevention Nurse, a Licensed Vocational Nurse, and the Director of Nursing, confirmed that the soiled catheter and lack of a securement device were not in compliance with the facility's policies. The staff acknowledged that these oversights could increase the risk of infection and injury to the resident. The facility's policy on catheter care, revised in December 2022, mandates appropriate care and maintenance of dignity and privacy for residents with indwelling catheters.
Improper Management of Tube Feeding for Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure proper management of tube feeding for a resident, identified as Resident 16, who was receiving nutrition through a gastrostomy tube. During an observation, it was noted that the tube feeding was running while the resident was being changed in a supine position, which is against the care plan that requires the head of the bed to be elevated at least 30-45 degrees during and after feeding to prevent aspiration. The Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) acknowledged that the tube feeding should have been paused during the resident's change to prevent choking or aspiration. Resident 16 had a medical history that included cerebral palsy, paraplegia, and aphasia, and was assessed as completely immobile and unable to make decisions. The resident's care plan indicated a high risk for complications such as aspiration, and the facility's policy required the head of the bed to be elevated during feedings. Despite this, the tube feeding was not paused during the resident's care, as confirmed by both the LVN and a Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA), who stated that the feeding sometimes resumed before the resident's care was completed. The Director of Nursing also confirmed that the tube feeding should be turned off during such procedures to prevent serious complications.
Failure to Ensure Physician Signatures on Pharmacy Recommendations
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that pharmacy recommendations for a resident were signed and dated by the attending physician, which is a requirement for maintaining proper medical care and continuity. Specifically, the Skilled Nursing Pharmacy Recommendations (SNPR) for September 2024 and December 2024 for Resident 22 were not appropriately signed and dated by the attending physician. The Medical Record Director (MRD) noted that the September 2024 SNPR was undated, and the December 2024 SNPR lacked both a signature and a date. The MRD also mentioned that the physician likely visited in January 2025, but there was no record of this visit, and the last physician note was from December 28, 2024. Resident 22, who was readmitted to the facility with diagnoses including gastrostomy and diabetes mellitus, was noted to have severely impaired cognition and used a wheelchair for mobility. The Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed that during physician visits, the physician should sign the pharmacy recommendations, emphasizing the importance of a signed SNPR for indicating the physician's evaluation and acknowledgment. The facility's policy requires that the medical care of each resident be under the supervision of a licensed physician, with orders and progress notes maintained according to OBRA regulations and facility policy.
Inadequate Posting of Nurse Staffing Information
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that nurse staffing information was posted in a prominent place readily accessible to residents and visitors. Observations on multiple dates revealed that the Nurse Staffing Sheet, which contains the facility's current resident census and total number and actual hours worked by licensed and unlicensed nursing staff, was only posted at the reception desk near the entrance across from Nursing Station A. This made the information inaccessible to residents and visitors on the opposite side of the facility by Nursing Station B. Interviews with the Director of Staff Development confirmed that the staffing information was only posted in the reception area and acknowledged that it should also be posted at Nursing Station B to ensure accessibility. The facility's policy and procedure indicated that staffing information should be posted in a prominent place readily accessible to residents and visitors, which was not adhered to in this instance.
Failure to Obtain Informed Consent for Psychotropic Medication
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure informed consent was obtained for the administration of Trazodone 50 mg every night for insomnia in one of the sampled residents. Resident 31, who was admitted with chronic pain syndrome and low back pain, had intact cognitive abilities and the capacity to understand and make decisions. Despite this, the Physician Document of Informed Consent (PDIC) form for Trazodone was not signed by the resident, indicating that the risks and benefits of the medication were not discussed with them. During interviews, both the Registered Nurse Supervisor and the Director of Nursing confirmed that the PDIC form was not signed, which meant that the resident was not informed about the medication's risks, benefits, or alternative treatments. The facility's policy requires that residents be educated on these aspects before administering psychotropic drugs, but this was not adhered to in the case of Resident 31.
Resident Abuse by Family Member During Visitation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect a resident from physical abuse during a visitation by a family member. The resident, who had diagnoses of dementia and bipolar disorder, was on 1:1 monitoring due to agitation and aggressiveness. However, the staff left the resident alone with the family member, who subsequently hit the resident, resulting in discoloration of the resident's right lower lip and left temporal area. The incident was reported after the resident yelled for a nurse, and the family member admitted to hitting the resident due to verbal aggression. The resident's progress notes indicated that the resident was given Tylenol for pain and was transferred to a general acute care hospital for further assessment. Interviews with staff and the resident's roommate confirmed the sequence of events leading to the abuse. The facility's policy on abuse, neglect, and exploitation defines abuse as the willful infliction of injury with resulting physical harm, pain, or mental anguish, which was not adhered to in this case.
Latest citations in California
Two residents with dementia, schizoaffective disorder, and major depressive disorder, both with moderately impaired cognition and needing moderate ADL assistance, were found unclothed together in one resident's bed. One resident later stated she did not want sexual activity and did not consent, while the other resident could not recall the encounter. An LVN reported that both residents verbally consented at the time but acknowledged no assessment had been done to determine their capacity to consent to sexual activity. The DON identified the incident as sexual abuse and confirmed that allowing sexual activity without prior capacity assessment was inconsistent with facility policy and that the resident was not protected from sexual abuse.
Two residents with dementia, schizoaffective disorder, major depressive disorder, and moderately impaired cognition, both needing moderate assistance with ADLs, were found unclothed together in one resident’s bed. The resident later stated she did not consent to sexual contact, while the other resident did not recall any sexual activity. An LVN documented the incident and acknowledged it constituted sexual abuse that should have been reported immediately to the abuse coordinator and appropriate agencies, but did not report it. The administrator, who serves as the abuse coordinator, stated she relies on staff to notify her immediately of such allegations so they can be reported to CDPH, law enforcement, and the Ombudsman, but this did not occur, resulting in the allegation not being reported as required.
A resident with Parkinson’s disease, osteoporosis, and osteoarthritis reported being punched in the face by another resident, resulting in facial bruising. The resident’s MDS showed intact cognition, and a change in condition evaluation documented the assault; however, the MD was not notified until more than a day later. The care plan directed licensed nurses to assess the resident’s body, and staff observed a purplish bruise on the right lower eyelid/orbital area, but this was not documented in the progress notes. Required every-shift monitoring for 72 hours after the change in condition was not documented on multiple day shifts. The DON confirmed lack of awareness of the bruise and acknowledged missing documentation and monitoring, despite facility policies requiring immediate provider notification and complete, accurate charting of changes in condition.
A nurse left a medication cart unlocked and unattended in the hallway while administering insulin to a resident with diabetes, cardiac, and post-surgical conditions. The cart was out of the nurse's direct line of sight, contrary to facility policy requiring medication carts to be locked when not in use. The DON confirmed that medications should be secured to prevent unauthorized access.
A resident’s legal representative requested copies of the resident’s medical records through a faxed request from a law office’s third-party service, but the records were not provided within the required timeframe. The MRD confirmed receiving the request and stated he had forwarded the documents to the DON for review over a month earlier and had not received them back to release. Upon review of federal requirements for record access, the ADON acknowledged that the facility did not comply with the regulation requiring provision of copies within two working days of request.
Two CNAs violated privacy and confidentiality requirements when one CNA used a personal cell phone to record and photograph two residents during a perceived altercation and then sent the video to another CNA. The residents, who had significant medical conditions including paraplegia, seizures, dysphagia, and severe cognitive impairment, were dependent on staff for ADLs. The second CNA reported that a family member later took her phone without permission, accessed the contents, and transmitted the videos and photos to facility leadership. Facility staff, including an LVN, the DSD, and the administrator, stated that HIPAA rules and facility policies prohibit staff from recording residents on personal devices and allow resident photographs only with consent and for medical purposes as part of the chart, and that the facility’s "Stop and Watch" process requires observation and reporting, not filming.
A resident with a stage 4 sacrococcygeal PI, Parkinson’s disease, hypertension, moderate cognitive impairment, and high assistance needs was not provided care consistent with the facility’s pressure injury prevention policy. Although the care plan included daily wound treatment and use of a LAL mattress, it lacked an individualized repositioning schedule and did not document education or reminders about repositioning. Facility documentation showed only that the resident was assisted to roll each shift, with no evidence of q2h turning in bed or of how often incontinence briefs were checked and changed. After the resident refused Foley catheter reinsertion, the IDT did not identify incontinence as a risk factor or add new wound-protective or moisture-preventive interventions, and the subsequent care plan for non-compliance omitted such measures. The TXN and DON confirmed that repositioning and protection of the wound from incontinence were not clearly implemented or reflected in the care plan, despite policy requirements.
A resident with Parkinson’s disease, cognitive impairment, and significant assistance needs for mobility and toileting experienced two early-morning falls resulting in head injuries. After the first fall, the IDT documented potential interventions such as a bed alarm and floor mat but did not identify the cause of the fall, did not obtain a physician order for the floor mat, and did not ensure the care plan addressed supervision or bed alarm function. Before and after the falls, the care plan lacked interventions for supervision despite poor safety awareness and failure to use the call light, and the second fall occurred when the resident slid from bed while reaching for a snack bag placed on the bedside table. IDT follow-up documentation for the second fall was incomplete, and staff acknowledged that fall causes were not identified and resident-centered interventions were not fully implemented.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and multiple neurological diagnoses was dependent on staff for hygiene and mobility. During an IDT meeting, the resident’s family member communicated specific care preferences, but facility staff did not develop or update a comprehensive person-centered care plan to include these preferences. Review of care plans over several months showed no documentation of the communicated preferences, despite facility policy requiring the IDT to create a measurable, time-framed care plan based on assessed needs and expressed preferences.
A resident with COPD and severely impaired cognition, dependent on staff for all ADLs and mobility, had a physician order for continuous supplemental O2 at a fixed rate of 2 L/min. During observations, the resident was found receiving O2 at 3 L/min. An LVN recognized the discrepancy and reported it to an RN supervisor, but there was no documentation of any clinical rationale for the increased flow, no physician notification, and no order change. The care plan directed staff to administer O2 as ordered, and facility policy required verification of the order, documentation of flow rate and rationale, and appropriate reporting, which were not followed.
Failure to Protect Cognitively Impaired Resident From Sexual Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a resident was free from sexual abuse when two cognitively impaired residents were found unclothed together in one resident's bed without prior assessment of their capacity to consent to sexual activity. One resident had dementia, schizoaffective disorder, and major depressive disorder, with documentation of fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions and a Minimum Data Set (MDS) indicating moderately impaired cognition and a need for moderate assistance with ADLs. During an interview at her bedside, this resident stated she did not want to engage in sexual activity and did not consent to sexual contact with the other resident. The second resident involved also had dementia, schizoaffective disorder, and major depressive disorder, with an MDS showing moderately impaired cognition and a need for moderate assistance with ADLs. In an interview, he stated he liked women and liked to socialize with women but could not recall whether he engaged in sexual activity with the first resident. An LVN reported observing both residents unclothed in the first resident's bed and stated that, at the time of the incident, both residents verbally consented to sexual activity, but she was not aware of any assessment having been performed to determine either resident's capacity to consent. The DON stated the incident was considered sexual abuse, that it was not the facility's practice to allow sexual activity without appropriate assessment, and that the facility failed to ensure the resident was protected from sexual abuse, contrary to the facility's abuse prevention policy.
Failure to Report Alleged Sexual Abuse Between Cognitively Impaired Residents
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to report an allegation of sexual abuse between two residents to the State Survey Agency, Ombudsman, and local law enforcement as required by federal regulations and the facility’s own abuse reporting policy. A nurse documented that one resident (Resident 2) and another resident (Resident 4) were found unclothed together in Resident 2’s bed, and the nurse acknowledged that this situation constituted sexual abuse and should have been reported immediately to the abuse coordinator and appropriate agencies, but she did not report the incident. The facility’s policy stated that all staff are mandated reporters and must notify appropriate authorities within two hours of becoming aware of abuse and immediately notify the Abuse Prevention Coordinator and their supervisor. Resident 2 had dementia, schizoaffective disorder, major depressive disorder, fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions, and moderately impaired cognition, and required moderate assistance with ADLs. During an interview at her bedside, Resident 2 stated she did not consent to sexual contact with Resident 4. Resident 4 also had dementia, schizoaffective disorder, major depressive disorder, moderately impaired cognition, and required moderate assistance with ADLs, and stated he did not recall engaging in sexual activity with any residents. The Administrator, who served as the abuse coordinator, stated she was responsible for reporting all abuse allegations to CDPH, law enforcement, and the Ombudsman, and that staff were responsible for notifying her immediately of sexual abuse allegations so they could be reported and investigated. The failure of staff to notify the Administrator and report the incident resulted in the sexual abuse allegation not being reported as required, causing a delay in an onsite investigation by CDPH.
Failure to Assess, Notify, and Monitor Resident After Facial Trauma
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to follow professional standards of nursing practice in assessing and monitoring a resident after a reported change of condition related to facial trauma. The resident was admitted with Parkinson’s disease, age-related osteoporosis, and osteoarthritis, and had intact cognitive skills for daily decision-making per a recent MDS. On the evening of 3/26/2026, a Change in Condition Evaluation documented that another resident hit this resident on the nose and both cheeks. The evaluation showed that the attending physician was not notified until 10 p.m. on 3/27/2026, approximately 26.5 hours after the reported incident, and the physician’s recommendation was to monitor the resident’s nose and cheeks for any changes and pain. The resident’s care plan, initiated on 3/26/2026, documented the report that another resident hit him on the nose and both cheeks and included an intervention for licensed nurses to check and assess the resident’s body. In an interview, the resident described that the other resident came into the room, stood on the left side of the bed, and punched him in the face. A photograph taken two days after the alleged incident showed a purplish-blue bruise on the right lower orbital area, although the resident declined to provide a copy of the picture. A CNA later reported observing a purple bruise on the resident’s right lower eyelid on 3/27/2026, described as extending from the inner to the middle lower eyelid and about the size of the tip of her fifth digit. During record review and interviews, an LVN stated that on 3/27/2026 the resident’s right lower eyelid had a dime-sized purplish bruise, but there was no documentation of this bruise in the progress notes. The LVN also stated that the resident should have been monitored every shift for 72 hours after the change of condition, yet there was no documented evidence of monitoring on the 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. shifts on 3/27/2026, 3/28/2026, and 3/29/2026. The DON reported not being made aware of the right eyelid bruise, confirmed that the resident should have been monitored every shift for at least 72 hours following the change of condition, and acknowledged there was no confirmed documentation of monitoring on the identified shifts. Facility policies required immediate physician consultation for significant changes in condition and complete, accurate documentation of changes and services provided, but the facility failed to identify, document, and monitor the resident’s change of condition in accordance with these policies.
Plan Of Correction
Facility Response Submission of the Plan of Correction does not constitute admission or agreement by the Provider of the truth of the facts alleged or conclusion set forth in this statement of deficiencies. The Plan of Correction is prepared and/or executed solely because it is required by the provision of Federal and State laws. This Plan of Correction constitutes the facility's credible allegation of compliance Corrective Action On 4/7/2026 Resident 1 was reassessed by LVN 3 and no skin issue was identified. On 4/7/2026 LVN 3 received one-on-one in-service by DON regarding importance of documenting details about resident's change of condition and monitoring every shift for 72 hours. Identification of other residents and corrective action On 4/8/2026 DON and/or designee reviewed audits provided by medical records for all change of condition in month of April to ensure proper documentation and monitoring are in place. No other deficient practice noted. Measures to prevent recurrence On 4/7/2026 LVN 3 received one-on-one in-service by DON regarding importance of documenting details about resident's change of condition and monitoring every shift for 72 hours. On 4/8/2026 Licensed nurses received in-service by DON regarding importance of documenting details about resident's change of condition and monitoring every shift for 72 hours. Monitoring and incorporation into the QA system HID will audit change of conditions using Change of Condition Audit form daily Monday-Friday and will report any finding during daily stand-up meeting Monday-Friday on-going. DON or designee will review change of conditions from prior day during daily clinical meetings (Monday -Friday) on going to ensure the nurse notified the attending physician regarding resident's significant change of condition and documented. Any deficient finding will be reported to DON and/or administrator for further corrective action/recommendation. Any trend of deficient finding(s) will be documented on Change of Condition Audit Form and will be reviewed during the monthly QA meeting for further review and/or recommendation(s). Administrator who will then report to the Quality Assurance (QA) team during monthly Quality Assurance (QA)/Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) for further evaluation/recommendation and to provide feedback and program modification if needed x3 months or until compliant. Date Corrective action to be completed: 4/8/2026
Medication Cart Left Unlocked During Medication Pass
Penalty
Summary
During a medication pass for a resident with a history of surgical aftercare, cardiac arrest, heart failure, and type 2 diabetes mellitus, a licensed nurse prepared and administered Novolog insulin using a pen-injector. The nurse left the medication cart unlocked and unattended in the hallway, approximately two feet outside the resident's bedroom doorway, while administering the injection inside the room. The cart was out of the nurse's direct line of sight during this time. The nurse acknowledged that the cart was left unlocked and should have been secured when not in direct view. Facility policy and procedure documents reviewed indicated that medication carts must be kept closed and locked when out of sight of the medication nurse or aide, and that compartments containing drugs and biologicals are to be locked when not in use. The Director of Nursing confirmed that medications should be locked and secured to prevent unauthorized access by unlicensed staff and residents. The failure to lock the medication cart during the medication pass was observed and confirmed through interviews and record review.
Plan Of Correction
From 4/4/2025 through 4/7/2025, the DON, DSD, and ADSD completed 1:1 inservices with licensed staff regarding the facility policy and procedure titled Storage of Medications. Medication carts must be kept locked when unattended. DON, IP, MDS, ADSD, or DSD will monitor medication carts being locked when unattended 3 times a week for 2 weeks. DON, IP, MDS, ADSD, or DSD will monitor medication carts being locked when unattended 2 times a week for 2 weeks. DON, IP, MDS, ADSD, or DSD will monitor medication carts being locked when unattended 1 time a week for 2 weeks. DON, IP, MDS, ADSD, or DSD will random monitor medication carts being locked when unattended for 1 month. System effectiveness will be evaluated during the facility's monthly Quality Assurance Performance Improvement Committee meetings for three (3) months.
Failure to Timely Provide Resident Medical Records Upon Request
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide timely access to medical records as required under 42 CFR 483.10(g)(2) for one resident. The resident’s face sheet showed an admission date of November 18, 2025, with multiple diagnoses, but no additional clinical details were provided. A legal representative’s office faxed an initial request for the resident’s medical records on February 26, 2026. As of March 26, 2026, the legal representative’s staff reported that the office had not yet received the requested records from the facility. On April 2, 2026, the Medical Record Director (MRD) confirmed documentation that a third-party service for the law office had requested the resident’s medical records on February 26, 2026. The MRD stated he had submitted the requested documents to the Director of Nursing (DON) for review over a month prior but had not received them back to proceed with releasing the records. During a concurrent interview and record review, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) reviewed the State Operations Manual Appendix PP guidance on residents’ rights to access personal and medical records, which requires that copies be provided within two working days of request. The ADON acknowledged that this regulatory requirement was not followed by the facility.
Plan Of Correction
F0573 Right to Access/Purchase Copies of Records What corrective action(s) will be accomplished for those Residents found to have been affected by the deficient practice? Medical Records Director (MRD) released medical records for Resident 1 as requested by the legal representative (Legal Staff) on April 21, 2026. How will other individuals with the potential to be affected by this deficient practice be identified and protected? No other Resident was identified to have been effected by the deficient practice. What systemic changes will be implemented to ensure that the deficient practice does not recur? The Quality Assurance Committee met on April 14, 2026 to review the Policy and Procedure which was then forwarded to the Knolls West Post Acute legal team for further evaluation. Revision of the policy will be discussed and approved by the Quality Assurance Committee to ensure the facility meets all Federal and State Regulations. F0573 Right to Access/Purchase Copies of Records (CONT.)The Administrator and the Medical Records Director (MRD) are responsible for informing the requesting party for the demand for payment for the requested medical documentation being provided and until payment is received the facility will hold the chart copies.How corrective action(s) will be monitored to ensure solutions are being achieved and sustainedThe Resident's Responsible Party will be notified upon receipt of the Medical Records Request and review in the presence of the facility representative. Records will be provided if it does not pertain to any legal matters after payment is received. The Administrator and/or Designee is responsible for reporting to the Quality Assurance Committee on a monthly basis and monitoring to ensure that corrective action is implemented and evaluated for its effectiveness. The same will be reviewed on a quarterly basis to the Quality Assurance Committee meeting x 3 quarters or until 100% compliance is achieved and sustained.Date of CompletionApril 23, 2026
Unauthorized Resident Recording and Disclosure Violating Privacy and Confidentiality
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves a failure to protect residents’ privacy and confidentiality when a CNA used a personal cell phone to record and photograph two residents without their knowledge or consent, and then shared that content with another CNA. One resident had paraplegia, depression, muscle weakness, dorsalgia, and polyneuropathy, was cognitively intact, and dependent on staff for ADLs. The other resident had diagnoses including seizures, dysphagia, acute kidney dysfunction, and muscle weakness, was able to make needs known but could not make medical decisions, had severely impaired decision-making, and was also dependent on staff for ADLs. Both residents were therefore in a position of dependence on staff for care at the time of the incident. According to CNA 2, on a specific date she recorded a video of the two residents because one resident started an altercation with the other. She stated she recorded the incident for “evidence” and to show CNA 1, acknowledging that recording residents was not part of facility policy and that she should not have recorded or taken photographs of them. CNA 1 confirmed that she received the video on her personal cell phone from CNA 2 and stated that the recording was made for “safety purposes” due to a situation that was perceived as potentially escalating to physical aggression. CNA 1 reported that she did not share or post the video on social media or distribute it to others, but that a family member took her phone without permission and accessed its contents. CNA 1 further stated that this family member sent the video and pictures of the two residents to the facility, and that she notified the facility that her phone had been taken but did not disclose that it contained videos or photographs of the residents because she was unaware that the family member had accessed or distributed them. The DSD reported receiving a text message from an unknown number containing approximately two videos and an undetermined number of photographs of the two residents, along with the names of CNA 1 and CNA 2. The DSD, LVN 2, and the Administrator each stated that staff were required to follow HIPAA regulations, that staff were not permitted to record or possess videos or photographs of residents on personal devices, and that any photographs of residents required consent and had to be for medical purposes as part of the medical record. Facility policies on confidentiality, residents’ rights, and dignity stated that unauthorized release, access, or disclosure of resident information, including video or audio, was prohibited and that staff must protect resident privacy and treat residents with dignity and respect. The videos received by the DSD did not show an altercation between the residents, and staff interviews confirmed that filming residents was not part of the facility’s “Stop and Watch” process, which instead required observation, intervention, and reporting of changes in condition or behaviors to nursing staff.
Plan Of Correction
This Plan of Correction is the facility's credible allegation of compliance. Preparation and/or execution of this plan of correction does not constitute admission or agreement by the provider of the truth or facts alleged, or conclusions set forth in the statement of deficiencies. The plan of correction is prepared and/or executed solely because it is required by the provisions of federal and state law. F0583 Personal Privacy/Confidentiality of Records How corrective action(s) will be accomplished for those residents found to have been affected by the deficient practice: Corrective actions were immediately implemented for Resident 1 and Resident 2 upon identification of the deficient practice. The facility initiated an investigation on 03/23/2026 and conducted immediate interviews with staff and residents utilizing structured interview tools to assess scope, impact, and additional potential concerns. Interviews confirmed the incident was isolated and no additional residents reported privacy violations or concerns. The staff members involved were removed from duty immediately. Following completion of the investigation, both employees were terminated in accordance with facility policy due to violation of resident rights, HIPAA, and facility confidentiality policies. Both employees completed formal Declarations and Attestations of Deletion of Unauthorized Recordings, confirming removal of all recordings and non-distribution of content. Documentation includes: Ashley Zelaya, CNA – Declaration executed 03/30/2026 at 9:21 AM, attesting deletion of all recordings and acknowledgment of policy violation Leslie Bram Reyes, CNA – Declaration executed 03/26/2026 at 10:42 AM, attesting deletion of all recordings and acknowledgment of policy violation Residents and/or responsible parties were notified. Social Services completed assessments with no identified psychosocial harm. All corrective actions were completed by 03/26/2026. How the facility identifies other residents having the potential to be affected by the same deficient practice and what corrective action will be taken. A facility-wide audit was initiated on 03/25/2026 using the Briarcrest Comprehensive Privacy, Recording, and Resident Rights Audit Tool. The audit included direct observation, staff interviews, and resident interviews to evaluate compliance with privacy practices, personal device use, and HIPAA requirements. Interviews were conducted using standardized staff and resident interview tools to ensure consistency and thoroughness in data collection. Findings from the audit confirmed that no additional residents were affected by the deficient practice and no additional incidents of unauthorized recording or disclosure were identified. Staff were immediately re-educated by Director and staff development on HIPAA Privacy Rule requirements, the facility's prohibition on personal device recordings, and the appropriate use of the Stop and Watch process for reporting changes in resident conditions. This corrective action was completed by 03/27/2026. What measures will be put into place or what systemic changes will the facility make to ensure that the deficient practice does not recur. The facility implemented systemic changes to prevent recurrence of the deficient practice by reinforcing a zero-tolerance policy for unauthorized recordings and strengthening staff accountability related to resident privacy and confidentiality. Staff completed mandatory re-training by the Director of Staff Development on Resident Rights, HIPAA, and Privacy/Confidentiality requirements. Staff were required to re-acknowledge facility policies related to confidentiality and personal device use. The facility implemented routine supervisory rounding to monitor compliance with personal device restrictions. In addition, the facility installed visible signage at the receptionist area clearly articulates that video recording is strictly prohibited inside resident rooms and in any facility areas where residents are present. The facility also posted signage throughout the entire facility, in both English and Spanish, indicating that video recording is not allowed to ensure clear communication to staff, visitors, and all individuals entering the facility. Privacy and HIPAA compliance were further integrated into new employee orientation, annual competencies, and ongoing in-service education. The Director of Staff Development completed initial re-education by 03/27/2026, and staff completed required training by 04/05/2026. How the facility plans to monitor its performance to make sure that solutions are sustained. To ensure sustained compliance, the facility incorporated privacy and confidentiality monitoring into its Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) program. The facility implemented an ongoing monitoring system beginning on 03/25/2026 utilizing the established audit tool, which confirmed that no additional residents were affected, and no further incidents occurred during the initial audit period. The facility will continue monitoring through weekly audits for four consecutive weeks, followed by monthly audits for three months. These audits will include direct observation of staff practices, verification of compliance with personal device policies, and evaluation of adherence to HIPAA and privacy requirements. Audit findings will be documented using standardized tools and reviewed by the Director of Nursing, with results reported to the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) Committee for analysis and trending. If any issues are identified, immediate corrective action will be implemented, including re-education and progressive discipline as appropriate. If no trends or repeat deficiencies are identified after the monitoring period, the facility will discontinue routine auditing and remove the issue from active QAPI monitoring. Dates when corrective action will be completed. 4/17/2026
Failure to Implement Repositioning and Moisture Management for Stage 4 Pressure Injury
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide care and services to prevent deterioration of a stage 4 sacrococcygeal pressure injury in accordance with its own pressure injury prevention policy. The resident had a documented stage 4 PI of the sacral region, Parkinson’s disease, hypertension, moderate cognitive impairment, and required substantial/maximal assistance with toileting hygiene, rolling, and transfers. A Braden Scale score of 16 identified the resident as at risk for pressure injury. The Skilled Evaluation Nurse note indicated a pressure-reducing device for the bed but did not indicate that the resident was to be turned and repositioned every two hours. The resident’s care plan for the stage 4 sacrococcyx PI included cleansing with normal saline, applying Santyl ointment, and covering with dry and foam dressings daily, as well as providing pressure relief and a low air loss mattress to support body alignment and position. However, the care plan did not include an individualized repositioning schedule or education and reminders about the importance of repositioning. Documentation from the facility’s records showed that the resident was assisted to roll left and right every shift, but there was no documentation that the resident was turned and repositioned every two hours while in bed, nor was there documentation of the frequency of incontinence brief checks and changes after each episode. After the resident refused reinsertion of a Foley catheter, nursing progress notes documented the refusal but the IDT wound management conference record did not identify incontinence as a risk factor affecting healing of the stage 4 PI and did not document any new recommendations following the catheter refusal. A subsequent care plan addressing the resident’s potential for worsening condition related to non-compliance with Foley catheter reinsertion did not include wound protective measures or moisture-preventive interventions. During interviews, the treatment nurse acknowledged uncertainty about how often the resident was turned/repositioned or how frequently incontinence briefs were checked and changed, and confirmed that the care plan did not include measures to ensure turning at least every two hours or effective measures to protect the sacrococcyx PI. The DON stated that staff were supposed to ensure turning at least every two hours and protection of the wound dressing from incontinence, and that the IDT did not address this risk, so the care plan was not revised, despite facility policy requiring prompt cleaning after incontinence, use of barrier products, individualized repositioning schedules, and ongoing review of interventions for effectiveness.
Failure to Identify Fall Causes and Implement Supervision and Safety Interventions
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency in the facility’s failure to keep the environment free from accident hazards and to provide adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for a resident with significant fall risk. The resident had diagnoses including stage 4 sacral pressure ulcer, Parkinson’s disease, and hypertension, and was assessed as moderately cognitively impaired, with poor decision-making and a need for assistance with toileting, transfers, and ambulation. On one occasion, the resident was found on the floor at approximately 4:05 AM with a right forehead laceration requiring transfer to an acute care hospital for suturing. Following this first fall, the IDT Fall Management Follow-Up record listed interventions such as a medication regimen review, bed in lowest position, landing floor mat, and bed alarm, but there was no documented evidence identifying the cause of the fall. The resident’s care plan addressing strength and safety awareness deficits did not include supervision for safety despite poor safety awareness and not remembering to use the call light. The care plan for the actual fall with minor injury did not include ensuring that the bed alarm was functioning. Additionally, physician orders from 9/10/2025 to 1/29/2026 did not contain an order for a floor mat, despite this intervention being recommended in the IDT record. A second fall occurred at around 4:10 AM when the resident was again found on the floor next to the bed, holding a snack bag. The resident, described as alert but forgetful, stated that she had been trying to reach a snack bag on the bedside table and slid down from the bed, and redness was observed on the left side of the forehead after reportedly hitting the bedside table. The IDT Fall Management Follow-Up record for this second fall was incomplete, with no checked interventions. Interviews with the MDS nurse and DON confirmed that the IDT records should have identified the causes of the falls, that frequent monitoring and supervision were not care planned despite the resident’s cognitive impairment and poor safety awareness, and that the recommended floor mat was never ordered or applied, contrary to the facility’s own policies on assessing falls and developing comprehensive person-centered care plans.
Failure to Incorporate Resident Care Preferences Into Person-Centered Care Plan
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a failure to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan that incorporated a resident’s specific care preferences. The resident was readmitted on 8/31/2025 with multiple diagnoses, including metabolic encephalopathy, Alzheimer’s disease, blindness in the right eye, a history of TIA, and cerebral infarction without residual deficits. An MDS dated 10/30/2025 documented that the resident’s cognition was severely impaired and that the resident was dependent on staff for oral hygiene, toileting hygiene, personal hygiene, and movement. On 3/17/2026, the IDT met with a family member, who communicated specific care preferences for the resident. During interviews, the SSD and DSD confirmed that the family member had provided detailed care preferences at the 3/17/2026 IDT meeting, but a review of the resident’s care plans from 8/31/2025 to 3/31/2026 showed no documented care plan addressing those preferences. The DSD stated that a care plan should have been developed to reflect the resident’s care preferences, that it is the MDS nurse’s responsibility to develop the care plan, and that the absence of such a care plan could result in the preferences not being honored. The Administrator stated that the care plan is essential as it is used by staff as a guide to understand and implement the resident’s plan of care. The facility’s policy on Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Plans required the IDT to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan with measurable objectives and time frames to meet identified needs, which was not done in this case.
Failure to Administer Oxygen Therapy as Ordered
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to administer oxygen therapy as ordered by the physician for a resident with COPD. The resident was admitted with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and had severely impaired cognition, requiring total staff assistance for all ADLs and mobility. A physician’s order dated 3/27/2026 directed that the resident receive continuous supplemental oxygen at a fixed rate of 2 L/min, with no indication that staff could adjust the flow rate. The resident’s care plan for altered respiratory status related to COPD instructed staff to administer oxygen as ordered. On 3/31/2026, during observations at the bedside at 8:45 a.m. and 9:40 a.m., the resident was noted to be receiving oxygen at 3 L/min, which did not match the physician’s order. An LVN reported that the resident was on 3 L/min when he checked vital signs that morning and stated this was not the ordered rate; he said he reported this to the previous shift’s RN supervisor but was unsure what action was taken. Another RN supervisor confirmed there was no documentation in the record to support an increased flow rate or any notification to the physician about the change from 2 L/min to 3 L/min, and reiterated that the order was for a fixed rate of 2 L/min. During a concurrent observation and interview, the prior RN supervisor acknowledged the resident was on 3 L/min and that the flow rate needed to be corrected to match the order. The facility’s oxygen administration policy required staff to verify a physician order, document the flow rate and rationale, and report information per professional standards, which was not followed in this instance.
Trusted data from CMS and state health departments
Every citation, penalty and Plan of Correction is sourced from public CMS records (latest release May 27, 2026) and official state health department websites — never guesswork.
Trusted by long-term care providers and associations.



