Park Regency Care Center: Elopement Plan Failure - CA
That is what inspectors found when they arrived at the nursing home at 1770 W. La Habra Blvd. on August 27, 2025. The resident, identified in inspection records only as Resident 2, had been flagged as an elopement risk. A care plan addressing that risk was not created until August 18, 2025. Inspectors did not document when the risk was first identified, but the facility's own staff confirmed the gap was real and the delay was wrong.
The registered nurse who spoke with inspectors, identified as RN 2, said the care plan was created on August 18. She acknowledged it should have been started right away.
That was the whole of the defense offered.
When inspectors sat down with the Director of Nursing later that afternoon, at 4:25 p.m., the response was the same. The DON reviewed the records, acknowledged what inspectors had found, and said the care plan should have been created as soon as Resident 2 was identified as an elopement risk. Nineteen minutes later, at 4:44 p.m., the Administrator was brought in. The Administrator acknowledged the findings too.
Nobody disputed anything. Nobody offered an explanation for why the plan wasn't written sooner.
Elopement, in nursing home terms, means a resident leaving the facility without staff knowledge or authorization. It is among the more serious risks a care team can document for a resident, because the consequences of an actual elopement can be catastrophic. Residents who elope are often cognitively impaired, disoriented, or physically vulnerable. They may not be able to find their way back. They may wander into traffic. They may not survive.
A care plan is the document that tells every staff member who touches that resident what the risk is and what to do about it. Without one, the concern exists in someone's head, or in a nursing note, or nowhere at all. It does not reliably travel from shift to shift or from one caregiver to the next.
Park Regency received a deficiency citation under F0656, which covers the requirement that facilities develop and implement comprehensive care plans for residents. The level of harm was listed as minimal harm or potential for actual harm. Few residents were listed as affected.
The inspection was triggered by a complaint, not a routine survey.
What the report does not say is when Resident 2 first came to the facility's attention as an elopement risk, or how long the gap actually was before August 18. It does not say whether Resident 2 attempted to leave during that period. It does not say what prompted someone to finally write the care plan on August 18, nine days before inspectors arrived.
Those are the questions the inspection record leaves open.
What it does say is that two senior clinical leaders, a registered nurse and the Director of Nursing, both looked at the timeline and said the same thing: it should have happened immediately. The Administrator, when told, did not push back.
The facility has been directed to submit a plan of correction to state and federal regulators. That plan is not included in the publicly available inspection record. Anyone seeking it can contact Park Regency directly or reach out to the California Department of Public Health.
For Resident 2, the care plan that should have existed from the start was written on August 18. Whether anything changed on the floor because of it, whether the staff who worked nights or weekends knew about the risk before that date, whether anyone came close to walking out a door, the record does not say.
Full Inspection Report
The details above represent a summary of key findings. View the complete inspection report for Park Regency Care Center from 2025-08-27 including all violations, facility responses, and corrective action plans.
Additional Resources
Data source: This article is based on inspection data downloaded directly from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) via Medicare.gov. CMS releases inspection reports in bulk; we publish the findings as documented by state surveyors in the official Form CMS-2567 Statement of Deficiencies.
Plan of correction: The CMS report we receive does not include the facility's plan of correction. Facilities submit plans of correction separately to state survey agencies and those responses may not be reflected in CMS data at the time of publication. The absence of a plan of correction in our data does not mean one was not filed. Readers who want information about corrective steps taken are encouraged to contact the facility directly or their state survey agency.
Corrections may have occurred: Inspection reports reflect conditions observed on the date of the survey. Facilities may have implemented corrections, staffing changes, additional training, or other remediation since the report was issued. We report what CMS provides and encourage readers to seek current information from the facility.
Editorial process: Inspection findings are extracted from CMS source documents and synthesized using AI, reviewed for factual accuracy against the original report by our editorial team.
Corrections: We strive for accuracy in everything we publish. If you believe any fact in this article is incorrect, please contact us with details, and we will review and correct it promptly.
Professional review: All content reviewed by Christopher F. Nesbitt, Sr., NH EMT & BU-trained Paralegal.
Last verified: November 3, 2026 · Our methodology
PARK REGENCY CARE CENTER in LA HABRA, CA was cited for violations during a health inspection on August 27, 2025.
That is what inspectors found when they arrived at the nursing home at 1770 W.
Health inspections identify deficiencies that facilities must correct. Violations range from minor documentation issues to serious safety concerns. Review the full report below for specific details and facility response.