Santa Rosa Post Acute: Sexual Abuse Investigation Failed - CA

The resident reported in April that a male aide exposed himself and forced her to touch his genitals after cleaning her following a bowel movement and taking her to the shower room. The facility suspended the aide within hours but declared the investigation complete after four days without interviewing key staff or the resident's roommate.

Federal inspectors found the facility's investigation violated its own policies and failed to protect 94 residents from potential harm.

The resident, identified only as Resident 1, was admitted with cardiomegaly, dementia, delirium and adult failure to thrive. Her March assessment showed moderate cognitive impairment and a need for substantial assistance with bathing.

On April 4 at 12:40 p.m., Resident 1 told another resident about the incident. She described a 6-foot tall Latino man with black hair and a muffled voice who cleaned her after a bowel movement, then took her to the shower room where "he exposed his chest then unzipped his pants, and asked [Resident 1] to touch him."

The Director of Staff Development approached Resident 1 at 12:30 p.m. that day. Resident 1 provided the same description and said the incident occurred "within the last month."

The Director of Nursing identified CNA 1 based on the description and immediately altered his schedule to exclude Resident 1. When CNA 1 clocked in at 3:31 p.m., the Director of Nursing interviewed him at 4 p.m.

CNA 1 admitted providing Resident 1 showers three times per week but documenting them under another aide's name. He was suspended after the interview.

The facility's shower documentation showed CNA 1's wet signatures on February 27, March 10, March 27 and April 3 for providing Resident 1 showers. But the facility's electronic system showed another aide, CNA 4, had documented those same showers.

CNA 4 later admitted she gave CNA 1 her password so he could document under her name because he couldn't access the electronic system. "I know it was wrong, but [CNA 1] couldn't document so I did it," she said.

The facility concluded its investigation April 8, determining the allegation was unsubstantiated because Resident 1's story "kept changing" and no other female residents complained about inappropriate behavior.

But inspectors discovered the facility had missed a second complaint.

Resident 7, who lived next door to Resident 1, told inspectors that CNA 1 "used to touch me on the leg" and "almost touched my private parts, but I pushed his hand away and said, 'No.'" She said he called her "baby" during the incident and that she had told the administrator, who "asked me if I wanted him to get rid of him."

The administrator denied receiving this complaint, stating he would have reported it if he had.

Another aide told inspectors that Resident 7 had described an incident where CNA 1 "washed my vagina- really washed it" during a shower while his wife was also present in the room.

The Long-Term Care Ombudsman interviewed both residents and found their details matched. She said she believed Resident 1 was "a good witness for herself despite her diagnosis of dementia."

The facility's investigation violated multiple requirements in its own abuse policy. The policy required interviewing staff members on all shifts who had contact with the resident, the resident's roommate, and other residents cared for by the accused employee. It also required consulting daily with the administrator and documenting the investigation completely.

None of this occurred.

The Director of Staff Development, who led the investigation, admitted she interviewed only three staff members but could remember the names of only one. She didn't include the staff interviews in her report "because she did not think it mattered."

She acknowledged she had not been trained on investigating abuse allegations and did not follow the facility's abuse investigation protocol. She said she considered the investigation concluded after Resident 1's "story kept changing," though she interviewed Resident 1 only once.

The administrator confirmed he did not formally train anyone on investigating abuse allegations and could not confirm the investigation was thorough. He acknowledged reading the follow-up report but hadn't noticed it contained no staff interviews.

Another aide suggested inspectors interview specific residents because "they would have stories to tell them about CNA 1." She added that staff working April 4 "did not feel comfortable talking about CNA 1 because his wife (CNA 4) was working at the facility on the same shift."

The facility's initial report to state health officials concluded: "The facility's investigation points to no substantiated abuse." It stated that reviewing Resident 1's chart showed "the resident has only had showers from female staff for the last 30 days."

This conclusion contradicted CNA 1's admission that he had provided the showers and CNA 4's admission that she had falsified the documentation.

The Director of Nursing said CNA 1 told her he usually avoided touching female residents near their private parts and would have his wife accompany him during showers. She called it "absolutely wrong" that CNA 1 documented under CNA 4's name and said she did not assist in the investigation or its conclusion.

CNA 1 had worked at the facility since August 2021. His timesheet showed he clocked in at 3:31 p.m. and out at 6:07 p.m. on April 4, the day the allegation was reported.

The facility's abuse policy stated that any employee accused of resident abuse should be "placed on leave with no resident contact until the investigation is complete." CNA 1 was suspended from April 4 to April 7 but returned to work while questions remained about his conduct with other residents.

Federal inspectors cited the facility for failing to thoroughly investigate the sexual abuse allegation and for not protecting residents from potential harm. The violation affected the facility's entire census of 94 residents.

Resident 1 had described her attacker as looking "exactly like an ex-boyfriend that she had [AGE] years ago." Despite her dementia diagnosis, the ombudsman and inspectors found her account credible and consistent with physical evidence of CNA 1's undocumented shower activities.

Full Inspection Report

The details above represent a summary of key findings. View the complete inspection report for Santa Rosa Post Acute from 2025-05-02 including all violations, facility responses, and corrective action plans.

Additional Resources

• View all inspection reports for Santa Rosa Post Acute
• Browse all CA nursing home inspections