VI at la Jolla Village

In the surveyor’s words

From the most serious findings on record at VI at la Jolla Village, in the surveyor’s own words.

• No harm, potential for more than minimal, patternF583Aug 12, 2025

  Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to protect one (Resident 1) of four Residents' PHI (protected health information) when Resident 1 was sent out to the emergency room with wrong resident information and documents.As a result, HIPPA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act- a U.S. federal law protecting sensitive patient health information from disclosure without the patient's consent or knowledge) was violated and allowed unconsented disclosure of another resident's PHI. Findings:Review of complaint intake indicated .[Name of SNF] sent a patient to .emergency department with the paperwork of another resident. […]

• No harm, potential for more than minimal, patternF656Sep 22, 2023

  Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident-centered care plans were developed for six residents when: 1. Four residents had symptoms of vomiting and/or diarrhea (Resident 2, Resident 3, Resident 4 and Resident 5); 2. Two residents had fall incidents (Resident 1 and Resident 6); 3. A resident ' s bladder incontinence was not addressed (Resident 1) These failures could potentially affect these residents in the care areas that were not care planned. […]

• No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF552Aug 28, 2025

  Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to obtained written consent for the use of a bed/chair sensor alarm (a device that detects movement or pressure changes to alert staff for residents at risk of falling) [Resident 51] and for the use of an antipsychotropic medication (treats mental health illnesses such psychosis and schizophrenia) [Resident 1] for two of seven residents reviewed for Resident Rights. This failure had the potential for residents and their responsible parties (RP-a designated person chosen by the resident to represent them in medical and financial decisions), to be uninformed of the risk versus the benefits, for the recommended treatment.1. […]

• No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF605Aug 28, 2025

  Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure non-pharmacological interventions (NPI) were done related to the use of an antidepressant (medication used to treat depression) for one of five residents (Resident 1) reviewed for unnecessary medications.This failure had the potential for Resident 1 to receive unnecessary medications, or more medication than necessary to treat depression (feelings of sadness, hopelessness, and loss of interest in activities).Findings:A review of Resident 1's Face Sheet record indicated the resident was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including major depressive disorder (also known as depression). […]

• No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF679Aug 28, 2025

  Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide an activity program to meet the interests of one of one residents reviewed for activities (Resident 3). As a result, Resident 3 was at risk for psychosocial isolation and boredom. Findings:Resident 3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include dementia (loss of memory, language, problem solving and other thinking abilities), per the Resident Face Sheet.An observation and interview was conducted on 8/25/25 at 9:49 A.M. with Resident 3 and his private duty caregiver (PCG 1). Resident 3 was in bed, asleep. PCG 1 stated he was with the Resident 3 five days a week to ensure he was safe and getting good care from the facility. […]