Leisure Court Nursing Center
1135 Leisure Court, Anaheim, CA 92801 · For profit - Individual · 115 certified beds · (714) 772-1353 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (28% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Jan 2026
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (46) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 5 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 21.5% | 10.2% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.0% | 4.0% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.4% | 0.8% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.8% | 1.2% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 4.7% | 7.3% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.4% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.2% | 1.6% | 3.3% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 6.8% | 9.8% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 14.2% | 13.7% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 98.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.0% | 4.3% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 14.1% | 10.2% | 21.2% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 51.3% | 12.0% | 17.1% | check this† — see note marked dagger below the table |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 11.1% | 1.5% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.3% | 93.2% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 11.0% | 23.0% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 4.1% | 11.2% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 3.36 | 2.25 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.82 | 1.57 | 1.80 | better |
† This value is several times the typical-state benchmark. It can be real, or it can be a coding artifact in what the facility submitted. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
59.6% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 119 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 77.4% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 133 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.32 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 53% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 6% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 59.6%CMS range 45.3–69.2 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.1%CMS range 8.0–15.2 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 77.4% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 85.7% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 70.7% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 96.5% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 97.1% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 96.7% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.6% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.9%CMS range 3.9–11.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.37 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 115 beds and averages 109.4 residents a day — about 95% occupied, or roughly 6 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.50 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.35 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.14 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 4.14 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.65 on weekdays — 11% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.40 to 0.25 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 28% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
46 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 36 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-05-06 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility document review, the facility failed to ensure for a safe and secure environment for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1). * Resident 1 left the secured facility without the staff's knowledge, and was located two days later in an emergency department approximately 50 miles away. This failure put the resident at risk for injury while unsupervised in the community, without medications and medical care for an extended period of time.Findings: Review of the facility's faxed notification to CDPH dated 4/25/26 at 1339 hours, showed on 4/24/26 at around 2150 hours, Resident 1 was noted to be missing from the facility. The facility reported Resident 1 was alert with forgetfulness, and able to propel herself in a wheelchair. The resident was last seen by a staff at around 2015 hours. On 4/27/26 at 0854 hours, a telephone interview was conducted with the DON by a HFES. The DON stated Resident 1 had not been located. On 4/27/26 at 1608 hours, the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-23 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from physical abuse by another resident. * Resident 2 pushed Resident 1, causing Resident 1 to fall on the floor. This failure resulted in Resident 1 sustaining a left lateral superior pubic ramus and left inferior pubic fractures and/or psychosocial harm to the resident.Findings: Review of the facility's P&P titled Abuse Reporting and Prevention revised 4/2024 showed to ensure resident rights are protected by providing a method of investigation and reporting of alleged violations involving mistreatment, neglect, abuse including injuries of unknown sources, unusual occurrences, unauthorized photographs, unauthorized video recordings, unauthorized postings on social media of nursing home residents and misappropriation of resident property. This also includes any physical or chemical restraint not required to treat a resident's symptoms. Abuse is defined as the willful…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-23 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, medical record review, facility document review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to implement the P&P to ensure the reporting of a reasonable suspicion of a crime in accordance with section 1150B of the Act for one of two sampled residents (Resident 1). * The facility failed to report an allegation of abuse in a timely manner when Resident 2 pushed Resident 1, causing Resident 1 to fall on the floor. This failure had the potential for abuse to go unreported and uninvestigated timely.Findings: Review of the facility's P&P titled Abuse Reporting and Prevention revised 4/2024 showed the administrator, or his/her designee, will report each alleged abuse to the Ombudsman's office and the Department of Public Health immediately or within 2 hours per Section 1418.91 of the Health and Safety Code. If the alleged violation does not involve abuse and does not result in serious bodily injury, the facility should report the violation within 24 hours. Serious Bodily Injury - 2-hour limit: If…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-01-23 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, medical record review and facility P&P review, the facility failed to provide the required skilled nursing services for one of four sampled resident (Resident 1). * The facility failed to timely notify the physician of Resident 1's abnormal radiology result. * The facility failed to manage Resident 1's pain after a fall. These failures had the potential to negatively impact the resident's well-being.Findings: Review of Resident 1's medical record was initiated on 1/22/26. Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident 1's H&P examination dated 6/20/25, showed the resident did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. a. Review of the facility's P&P titled Laboratory and Radiology Documentation revised 8/2016 showed the radiology reports and the abnormal laboratory results are to be called to the physician promptly by the licensed nurse. Review of Resident 1's Order Summary Report showed a physician's order dated 1/8/26, for right and left hip…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-01-27 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, facility document review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the sanitary requirements were met in the kitchen as evidenced by: * The facility failed to ensure the correct cutting board was used for raw poultry. * The facility failed to ensure the sanitizing solution used to sanitize food preparation surfaces was the proper concentration. * The facility failed to ensure kitchen equipment and utensils were clean . * The facility failed to ensure kitchen equipment and utensils were air dried . * The facility failed to ensure maintenance tools were stored in a sanitary manner . These failures had the potential to cause bloodborne illness in a medically vulnerable resident population of 94 who consumed food prepared from the kitchen. Findings: Review of the facility's undated matrix showed 94 of 106 residents received food prepared in the kitchen. 1. According to US Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) Food Code Section 3-302.11 Packaged and Unpackaged Food - Separation, Packaging, and Segregation. (A) Food shall be protected from…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-27 · tag F0554 — isolatedAllow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to assess if it was safe for one nonsampled resident (Resident 56) to self-administer the medications. * The facility failed to assess and develope a plan of care to address the self-administration of the medications when Resident 56 had a bottle of Flax Seed Oil (supplement) and Omegas + Tumeric (supplement) at the bedside. This failure had the potential for Resident 56 to administer the medications inaccurately and negatively affect the Resident 56's well-being. Findings: Review of the facility's P&P titled Medication Self-Administration dated 1/2017 showed the following: - Residents have the right to self-administer medications if the interdisciplinary team (IDT), determines that this practice is clinically appropriate; - On admission or shortly thereafter, each resident will be assessed to determine if they want to self-administer their medications; - It is the responsibility of the IDT to determine if its is…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-01-27 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and medical record review, the facility failed to ensure one of 24 final sampled residents (Resident 106) received a Level II mental health evaluation, after a Level 1 Screening was positive for serious mental illness, for one of three final sampled residents, reviewed for PASRR. This failure posed the risk for Resident 106 not receiving specialized services beneficial to the resident's wellbeing. Findings: Medical record review for Resident 106 was initiated on 1/21/25. Resident 106 was discharged from Acute Care Hospital 1 on 11/19/24, and then admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident 106's Level 1 PASRR screening (completed at Acute Care Hospital 1) dated 11/18/24, showed Resident 106 was positive for serious mental illness and a Level II mental health evaluation referral was required. Review of Resident 106's Unable to Complete Level II Evaluation for Serious Mental Illness dated 11/18/24, showed a Level II Mental Health Evaluation was not scheduled for the following reason:…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-27 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, medical records, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure two of three final sampled residents (Residents 28 and 53) reviewed for PASRR were accurately screened. * The facility failed to ensure Residents 28 and 53 PASRR screenings were completed by the appropriate facility staff member. In addition, the facility failed to verify with DHCS when Resident 53's PASRR Level 1 screening was closed due to the facility staff not responding to two or more separate attempts of communication by DHCS. These failures posed the risk for Residents 28 and 53 not properly screened, and the risk to not receive adequate level of services, comprehensive assessment, intervention and evaluation for conditions related to Residents 28 and 53's mental disorder. Findings: 1. According to https://www.dhcs.ca.gov/services/MH/Pages/PASRR_faq_level1.aspx: -It is the facility's responsibility to designate a qualified staff that can complete Level 1 screenings. The facility staff must have knowledge of medical…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-01-27 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and medical record review, the facility failed to provide the necessary services as ordered by the physician for one of one sampled resident reviewed for physician's consult (final sampled resident, Resident 82). * The facility failed to ensure the dermatology consult was provided to Resident 82 as ordered. This failure had the potential for the resident not to receive the necessary care and services. Findings: During the initial tour of the facility on 1/21/25 at 0905 hours, Resident 82 was observed awake and lying in bed. Resident 82's left forearm was observed with an intact foam dressing. Resident 82 stated he had a wound in his left forearm, and he was getting treatment for it. Medical record review for Resident 82 was initiated on 1/23/25. Resident 82 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Review of Resident 82's H&P examination dated 7/3/24, showed Resident 82 had no capacity to understand and make decisions. Review of Resident 82's Order Summary…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-27 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, medical record review, interview, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to provide the necessary restorative nursing services for one of three final sampled resident (Resident 53) reviewed for positioning and mobility. * The facility failed to ensure Resident 53 was applied carrot splint to both hands, and AFO to both feet for four hours as tolerated, per the physician's order. This failure had the potential for Resident 53's hand and foot contractures to worsen. Findings: Review of the facility's P&P titled Splint Application revised date 5/2017 showed the following: -It is the policy of the facility that splints be applied correctly to maintain the resident's range of motion and prevent contractures and further loss of range of motion; -Once the orthosis is received, the RNA is responsible of the application and removal of the splint; and -The splint is usually left in place for six days a week for a period of two hours per day, as tolerated. On 1/21/25 at 0948 hours, during the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 36 citations
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-01-27 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure one of three final sampled residents (Resident 28) reviewed for elopement was free from accident hazards. * The facility failed to document Resident 28's wandering and/or exit-seeking behaviors and failed to conduct her elopement assessment accurately. Resident 28 was not assessed to be a high risk for elopement; however, the facility staff had observations of the resident verbalizing she wanted to go home or she wanted to leave the facility with her daughter, wandering around the facility, episodes of going outside the facility, and standing by the locked front door to wait for her daughter so she could leave the facility. In addition, the facility failed to provide Resident 28 with an ID bracelet as per the elopement assessment plan. This failure had the potential to not follow the elopement protocol for Resident 28, and the risk for Resident 28 to not be identified immediately and could result to a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-27 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolatedEnsure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the necessary care and services related to the GT feeding were provided for one of three final sampled residents (Resident 62) reviewed for tube feeding. * The facility failed to ensure Resident 62's GT feeding rate was updated according to the physician's orders and failed to ensure Resident 62's GT feeding care plans were revised. These failures posed the risk for not providing the necessary GT care and interventions to Resident 62. Findings: Review of the facility's P&P titled Gastrostomy Tube Feeding via Continuous Pump revised 1/2017 showed it is the policy of the facility to provide nourishment via continuous pump to the residents who are unable to obtain adequate nourishment orally, as ordered by the resident's attending physician. On 1/22/25 at 1413 hours, Resident 62's GT feeding formula was observed running at 60ml/hr via GT feeding pump. Medical record review for Resident 62 was initiated on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-27 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services for one of one final sampled resident (Resident 37) reviewed for dialysis care. * The facility failed to ensure Resident 37's vital signs and weight were monitored post-dialysis. This failure had the potential for delay in the provision of care to Resident 37 for complications of the dialysis treatment. Findings: Review of the facility's P&P titled Dialysis Care revised 2/2018 showed the following: - The Pre-Dialysis Checklist will be completed by the facility each time the resident is scheduled for dialysis. This checklist includes the vital signs; - The Dialysis Unit Progress will accompany the resident to dialysis and requests that the dialysis unit complete with the pre- and post-dialysis weight and vital signs; and - The Post-Dialysis Checklist is to be completed by the facility upon the return of the resident. Information to be documented included the vital signs. Review of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-01-27 · tag F0700 — isolatedTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure one of four sampled residents (nonsampled resident, Resident 13) reviewed for side rail use remained free from accident hazards due to the use of side rails. * The facility failed to obtain the physician's order and informed consent, review the risks and benefits, provide the least restrictive alternatives, and develop the plan of care for Resident 13's use of the side rails. This failure had the potential to place the resident at risk for entrapment and serious injury. Findings: Review of the facility's P&P titled Side Rails or Bed Rails revised 8/2018 showed the following: - Informed consent for the physical restraint, including the use of bed or side rails even for episodic use is required to be obtained from the resident or legal representative. Potential negative outcomes and benefits should be discussed. The use of anything attached to a normal bed (i.e. one-fourth rails as an enabler, grab bar…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-01-27 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, medical record review, facility document review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to provide the necessary pharmaceutical services to one final sampled resident (Resident 82) and one nonsampled resident (Resident 20). * The facility failed to ensure Resident 20's medications were administered as ordered by the physician and accurately documented in the MAR. * The facility failed to ensure the documentation for Resident 82's controlled medication administrations were accurate and complete. * The facility failed to ensure the narcotic sheets inventory were properly conducted showing the nurses' initials and signatures for Medication Cart B. Theses failures had the potential for the resident not to receive the necessary medications and posed the risk for diversion of the medications. Findings: Reviewed of the facility P&P titled Medication Administration revised on 5/2019 showed the following: -Medications must be administered in accordance with the physician orders;…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-27 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and medical record review, the facility failed to ensure two of 24 final sampled residents (Residents 37 and 53) were free from unnecessary drugs. * The facility failed ensure Resident 37 was not administered metoprolol (medication to treat high blood pressure) and clonidine (medication to treat high blood pressure) medications when Resident 37's blood pressure was below the parameter prescribed by the physician. * The facility failed to ensure Resident 53 was administered with metoprolol medication when Resident 53's blood pressure was below the parameter prescribed by the physician. These failures had the potential for the residents to develop the significant side effects such as hypotension and negatively affect the residents' health condition and well-being. Findings: 1. According to DailyMed, the most common adverse effects of the metoprolol and clonidine medications included hypotension. Medical record review for Resident 37 was initiated on 1/21/25. Resident 37 was readmitted to the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-01-27 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, medical record review, facility document review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure 7 of 11 final sampled residents (Residents 12, 13, 28, 37, 44, 53, and 73) reviewed for unnecessary medications were free from unnecessary psychotropic drugs. * The facility failed to ensure Resident 37's was accurately monitored related to the use of Remeron (antidepressant medication). Resident 37's meal intake documentation was inconsistent, showing either a % or a hashmark, and did not match the CNA's Documentation Survey Report. In addition, the monthly behavior summary of the episodes of Resident 37's meal intake less than 50% did not match the MAR nor the CNA's Documentation Survey Report. * The facility failed to renew the informed consent related to the use of Depakene (mood stabilizer medication), Remeron (antidepressant medication), and risperidone (antipsychotic medication) for Resident 53. In addition, the facility failed to monitor Resident 53's blood pressure for orthostatic…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-27 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure one nonsampled resident (Resident 20) was free from the significant medication errors. * The facility failed to provide Resident 20's Zyprexa (antipsychotic medication) as ordered by the physician and accurately document the Zyprexa administration. This failure placed Resident 20 at risk for medical complications. Findings: Review of the facility's P&P titled Medication Administration dated 5/2019 showed the medications are administered in a safe and timely manner, and as prescribed. The medications must be administered in accordance with prescriber orders, including any required time frame. Review of the facility's P&P titled Physician Services and Orders dated 1/2017 showed: - Signed orders for drugs shall be transmitted to the issuing pharmacy within 48 hours of the receipt of the order; - The charge nurse or the DON shall place the order for all prescribed medications; and - Drugs and biologicals…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-01-27 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, facility document review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to provide the necessary pharmacy services to ensure proper storage of the medications for two of five Medication Cart (Medication Carts A and B) when: * The facility failed to ensure the orally administered medications were stored separate from externally used medications and supplies in Medication Cart A. * The facility failed to ensure Medication Cart B was not left unlocked and unattended by the licensed nurses while parked in the hallway. These failures had the potential to negatively impact the residents' well-being and opportunities for drug diversion or drug misuse. Findings: Reviewed of the facility's P&P titled Storage of Medications effective date 4/2008 showed the following: - Orally administered medications are kept separate from externally used medications. - Medication rooms, carts, and medication supplies are locked or attended by persons with authorized access. 1. On 1/23/25 at 1320 hours, a medication cart inspection for Medication Cart A was conducted with LVN…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-27 · tag F0802 — failed to prepare enough nourishing food — isolatedProvide sufficient support personnel to safely and effectively carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, facility document review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen staff were competent in their position related duties when: 1. Two of 13 kitchen employees (Dietary Aides 2 and 3) were unable to correctly test the sanitizing solution used to sanitize the food preparation surfaces in the kitchen and sanitize the food preparation equipment washed in the manual ware washing sink. 2. One of 13 kitchen employees (Cook 1) did not know the correct cutting board to be use when preparing raw poultry. These failures posed the risk for exposure to unsafe food handling practices which could lead to food borne illness in the 94 vulnerable residents who received food prepared in the kitchen. Findings: Review of the facility's undated matrix showed 94 residents received food prepared in the kitchen. 1. Review of the facility's document titled Employee Evaluation Form dated 10/3/24, signed by the CDM and Dietary Aide (DA) 2 showed DA 2 met expectations in quality of work; work was completed accurately (few or no errors) efficiently and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-27 · tag F0806 — failed to honor food preferences — isolatedEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food that accommodates resident allergies, intolerances, and preferences, as well as appealing options.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and facility document review, the facility failed to ensure the nutritional needs were met for two of 82 nonsampled residents (Residents 11 and 70) who received a vegetarian diet preference when the lunch meal served provided nine grams of protein vs 28 grams of protein per the regular menu. This failure posed the threat of the nutritional needs; specifically the protein needs for Residents 11 and 70 to not be met which could lead to medical complications. Findings: 1. According to the California Health and Safety Code Section 1265.10: Effective 1/1/19, the skilled nursing facilities must make available wholesome, plant-based meals of such variety as to meet the needs of patients in accordance with their physicians' orders. Review of the facility's document titled Cooks Spreadsheet showed the following: Week 4 Wednesday dated 1/22/25, showed for the lunch meal, four ounces Old Fashioned Meatloaf for the entrée for regular diets. The lunch meal entrée served for 1/22/25, was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-27 · tag F0813 — isolatedHave a policy regarding use and storage of foods brought to residents by family and other visitors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure food brought to the facility from family members or visitors was stored, prepared and safe food handling practices were followed. This failure had the potential for unsafe food handling which could lead to food borne illness in the 94 residents receiving an oral diet who resided in the facility. Findings: Review of the facility P&P titled Food and Liquids from Outside Sources or Other Than the Dietary Department revised 7/2019 showed the food and liquids brought in by visitors for the residents is discouraged due to problems of infection control and conflicts between diets and consistency .Visitors are discouraged from bringing in potentially hazardous foods, i.e. meat, fish, eggs, custards, milk products, etc. If such foods are brought to the resident, they should be consumed immediately and not shared with other residents within the facility .Food items brought into the facility for residents cannot be reheated or stored. They are to be consumed or discarded. On 1/21/25 at 1115 hours, an…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-27 · tag F0849 — isolatedArrange for the provision of hospice services or assist the resident in transferring to a facility that will arrange for the provision of hospice services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services for one of one final sampled resident reviewed for hospice services (Resident 49). * The facility failed to ensure Resident 49 received the hospice care visits three times a week by the Certified Home Health Aid and one to three visits a week from the Skilled Nurse. * The facility failed to assign a designated hospice coordinator for Resident 49. These failures posed the risk for delays in the communication between the hospice provider and the facility which may affect resident care. Findings: Review of the facility's P&P titled Hospice Care revised 9/2018 showed the following: - The facility is responsible for ensuring that hospice services meet professional standards and the timelines of the services. - The facility must designate a member of the facility's interdisciplinary team who is responsible for working with hospice representatives to coordinate care to the resident provided…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-01-27 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the appropriate infection control practices were implemented as evidenced by: * The employees and residents' personal belongings were in the laundry room's clean folding area. * The facility failed to clean the spoon container on the Medication Carts for two of five medication carts inspected (Medication Carts B and C). These failures had the potential for spread of infection. Findings: Review of the facility's P&P titled Infection Control Program System revised 1/2023 showed the personnel must handle, store, process, and transport linens to prevent the spread of infection. Review of the facility's P&P titled Policy for Laundry - Nursing P&P Manual revised 8/2016 showed the linens are handled, stored, processed, and transported in such a manner as to prevent the spread of infection. 1. On 1/27/25 at 1245 hours, a concurrent observation of the laundry room and interview was conducted with the Environmental Services Director (ESD). The following items were observed in the clean folding area: - a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-27 · tag F0908 — failed to keep essential equipment working — isolatedKeep all essential equipment working safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and facility document and facility's P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the essential equipment was maintained in proper working order when: * The ice machine manufacturer's guidelines for cleaning and sanitizing were not followed. * The microwave located on Station 1 was not maintained in a safe operating condition. * Two medication refrigerators and one specimen refrigerator were observed with ice buildup. These failures had the potential for equipment hazards or unsafe practices which could affect the residents' well-being in the facility. Findings: 1. Review of the facility's P&P titled Cleaning the Ice Machine revised date of 4/2022 showed the ice machine shall be cleaned for maintenance of sanitary conditions in order to prevent food contamination and the growth of disease- producing organism and toxins. The ice machine shall be cleaned in accordance with the manufacturer's requirements. Review of the [Manitowoc] ice machine model 1-300/420/620 manufacturer's instructions located on the inside panel of the ice machine cover showed in…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-01-27 · tag F0909 — failed to maintain a comfortable temperature — isolatedRegularly inspect all bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails (if any) for safety; and all bed rails and mattresses must attach safely to the bed frame.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY 3. On 1/21/25 at 0900 hours, during the initial tour of the facility, Resident 37 was observed in bed with bilateral grab rails elevated. Resident 37 stated she used the grab rails when turning and repositioning during incontinence care. Medical record review for Resident 37 was initiated on 1/30/25. Resident 37 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident 37's MDS dated [DATE], showed Resident 37 was cognitively intact, with impairment to the upper extremities, and required partial/moderate assistance for mobility. Review of Resident 37's Bedrail/ Grab bar use and Entrapment Risk Evaluation dated 1/3/25, showed the following: - The grab bars were requested by the resident, and the resident demonstrated the ability to use the grab bars; - The possible risks of entrapment were discussed, and verbalized understanding and agreement for continued use. - The Entrapment Zones 1 to 4, and the boxes for yes were checked off; and - The IDT recommended bilateral grab bars for bed mobility/repositioning.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-01-24 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) remained free from the accident hazards. * CNA 1 had provided ADL care to Resident 1 in bed by herself instead of two or more persons to assist as per the resident's MDS and plan of care. When CNA 1 turned the resident to the right side, the resident rolled and fell off the bed to the floor sustaining multiple bruises and a skin tear to the right cheek. This failure had the potential for Resident 1 to sustain serious injury. Findings: Review of the facility's P&P titled Fall Risk/Prevention revised 7/2018 showed the policy of the facility is to identify the residents that are at risk for falls and to implement a plan of care in an attempt to prevent falls. Upon admission, a Fall Risk Assessment will be completed for all residents. If the Fall Risk Assessment score is 10 or above, the resident is at risk for falls and a plan of care will be developed with approaches in an…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-10-24 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to develop and implement the individualized resident-centered plans of care for one of two sampled residents (Resident 2). * Resident 2's care plan interventions were not implemented as recommended in PASRR Level II evaluation. * Resident 2's desire to be discharged to a lower level of care was not assessed by the IDT team and reflected in the plan of care. These failures posed the risk of not providing appropriate and individualized care to Resident 2 to maintain her highest practicable physical well-being. Findings: Review of the facility's P&P titled Comprehensive Care Planning revised 3/2019 showed there should be coordination of the assessment with the Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) to ensure that residents with a mental disorder, intellectual disability or a related condition receive care and services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. Coordination includes incorporating…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2022-04-22 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the sanitary requirements were met in the kitchen as evidenced by: * The facility failed to ensure the ice machine was maintained in sanitary condition. * The facility failed to follow proper sanitation and food handling practices to prevent a potential outbreak of foodborne illnesses during the preparation of pureed foods. These failures had the potential to cause foodborne illnesses in a medically vulnerable resident population who consumed food prepared in the kitchen. Findings: 1. Review of the form CMS-672 titled Resident Census and Conditions of residents completed by the DON dated 4/18/22, showed 106 of 106 residents residing in the facility received food prepared in the kitchen. According to the FDA Food Code, 2017 4-601.11, it is the standard of practice to ensure non-food contact surfaces of equipment shall be kept free of an accumulation of dust, dirt, food residue, and other debris. Review of the facility form titled Monthly Cleaning and Sanitation of the Ice Machine with multiple…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-04-22 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to obtain a copy of advance directive for one of 22 final sampled residents (Resident 44). This had the potential for the residents' advanced care planning decisions regarding the health care and treatment options not being honored. Findings: Review of the facility's P&P titled Advance Directives revised 4/2017 showed prior to, or upon admission, the residents will be provided with written information concerning the residents' rights under State law to accept or refuse medical or surgical treatment and the residents' right to prepare an advance directive. The resident or their responsible party will be asked if the resident has completed an advance directive, and to provide a copy of the document for the resident's clinical record. Medical record review for Resident 44 was initiated on 4/18/22. Resident 44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the POLST dated 2/12/22, showed Resident 44 had an advance directive…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-04-22 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, medical record review, facility document review, and DHCS PASRR guidelines review, the facility failed to ensure PASRR Level II Mental Health Evaluation was conducted as required for two of 22 final sampled residents (Residents 44 and 60). This failure had the potential for the residents to not receive the specialized care and services appropriate for their condition. Findings: 1. According to the DHCS, federal law requires all individuals seeking admission to a Medicaid Certified Nursing Facility (NF) to receive a Level 1 Screening. The Level 1 Screening identifies if an individual has a suspected Mental Illness (MI) or an Intellectual/Developmental Disability or Related condition (ID/DD/RC). If MI is suspected, then a Level II Mental Health Evaluation may be conducted to determine if the individual can benefit from specialized mental health services. This process is known as the Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR). Review of the facility's P&P titled PASRR (Preadmission…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-04-22 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on the observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services for one of 22 final sampled residents (Resident 36) and one nonsampled resident (Resident 35). * Resident 36's Floranex (probiotic supplement) was not administered as ordered by the physician. * Resident 35's florastor (probiotic supplement) and carbonyl iron (supplement) were not administered as ordered by the physician. These failures posed the risk for possible complications related to residents not receiving the prescribed medications. Findings: Review of the facility's P&P titled Preparation and General guidelines IIA2: Medication Administration - General Guidelines dated 10/2017, under the section for Administration, showed the medications are administered in accordance with the written orders of the attending physician. 1. On 4/20/22 at 0929 hours, a medication administration observation for Resident 36 was conducted with LVN 2. LVN 2 prepared and administered…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-04-22 · tag F0700 — isolatedTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services for one of 22 final sampled residents (Resident 45). * Resident 45 who had bilateral ½ sides in bed was not assessed for risk for entrapment. This failure posed the risk for injury from side rail use. Findings: The FDA issued a Safety Alert entitled Entrapment Hazards with Hospital Bed Side Rails. Residents most at risk for entrapment are those who are frail or elderly or those who have conditions such as agitation, delirium, confusion, pain, uncontrolled body movement, hypoxia, fecal impaction, acute urinary retention, etc., that may cause them to move about the bed or try to exit from the bed. Entrapment may occur when a resident is caught between the mattress and ed rail or in the bed rail itself. Inappropriate positioning or other care related activities could contribute to the risk of entrapment. According to the facility's P&P titled Siderails or Bedrails revised…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-04-22 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on the observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to maintain the accurate medical record for one nonsampled resident (Resident 35). * LVN 1 documented on the MAR for Resident 35's Florastor (supplement) and carbonyl iron (iron supplement) as given when they were not administered during the medication administration observation. In addition, LVN 1 documented both of Resident 35's medications as administered even when they were not available. These failures had the potential for the resident's care not being met as his medication administration was inaccurate. Findings: According to the facility's P&P titled Preparation and General guidelines IIA2: Medication Administration - General Guidelines dated 10/2017, under the section for Documentation, it showed the following: - if a dose of a regularly scheduled medication is withheld, refused or given at other than the schedule time (e.g. the resident is not in the facility at scheduled dose time, or a started dose of antibiotic is needed, the space provided on the front of the MAR…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-04-22 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, medical record review, facility document review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure the appropriate infection control practices designed to provide a safe and sanitary environment were implemented. * The facility failed to use the appropriate disinfectant to clean the porous foam on Resident 45's bilateral siderails. This posed the risk for not adequately cleaning and disinfecting the resident's equipment. Findings: Review of the facility's P&P titled Infection Control revised 5/2018 showed the facility has established infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Review of the manufacturer's information for Clorox Bleach Germicidal Wipes showed the recommended use is for hard, non-porous surfaces. On 4/20/22 at 0838 hours, Resident 45 bed was observed with the bilateral side rails padded with a gray porous (full of tiny holes or opening, where fluids could go through) material.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-04-22 · tag F0909 — failed to maintain a comfortable temperature — isolatedRegularly inspect all bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails (if any) for safety; and all bed rails and mattresses must attach safely to the bed frame.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure regular inspection of all bed frames, mattresses, and side rails as part of the regular maintenance program to identify areas of possible entrapment. This had the potential to negatively impact the residents in the facility. Findings: According to the facility's P&P titled Siderails or Bedrails revised 8/2018, the facility will make sure the bed dimensions are appropriate for the resident's size and weight. The maintenance department will check side rails and bed rails prior to resident's use and monthly for proper installation and functioning. The maintenance department will maintain a log of the side rails check. On 4/18/22 at 1432 hours, and 4/20/22 at 0838 hours , Resident 45 was observed lying in bed. Resident 45 had ½ siderails up on both side of the bed. On 4/20/22 at 1610 hours, an interview was conducted with the Maintenance Supervisor. When asked what the process was for the residents who needed a side rail installed, the Maintenance Supervisor stated the licensed nurses would inform…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2019-12-20 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure food safety and sanitation requirements were met in the kitchen. * The facility failed to ensure food in the walk-in freezer was free from contamination. * There was a lack of glaze observed on the dishware. * The facility failed to ensure a refrigerated food item was properly labeled and dated. These failures had the potential to contaminate the food which could lead to food borne illness in a medically vulnerable resident population who consumed food prepared in the kitchen. Findings: Review of the CMS 672 Resident Census and Conditions of Residents completed by the facility dated 12/13/19, showed 90 of 97 residents in the facility received food prepared in the kitchen. 1. According to the USDA Food Code 2017 Section 3-305.11 Food Storage, pathogens can contaminate and/or grow in food that is not stored properly. Drips of condensate .can be sources of microbial contamination for stored food. Review of the facility's P&P titled Food Storage (undated) showed proper food storage procedures are…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-12-20 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and medical record review, the facility failed to develop the comprehensive person-centered care plans for two of 21 final sampled residents (Residents 23 and 439). * Resident 23 was hearing impaired and required hearing aids. The facility failed to develop a care plan problem to address the resident's hearing deficit and use of hearing aids. This had the potential of Resident 23 not having their needs met due to inefficient communication. * The facility failed to develop a care plan problem to address Resident 439's use of an IV and increased sodium. This failure posed the risk of not providing appropriate, consistent, or individualized care to Resident 439. Findings: 1. Medical record review for Resident 23 was initiated on 12/13/19. Resident 23 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident 23's history & physical examination dated 12/4/19, showed Resident 23 was hearing impaired. Review of the MDS dated [DATE], under Section B, showed Resident 23 had moderate…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-12-20 · tag F0694 — isolatedProvide for the safe, appropriate administration of IV fluids for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to ensure a vascular access site was maintained and assessed as per the facility's P&P for one of 21 final sampled residents (Resident 76). This had the potential to place the resident at risk for developing a complication related to vascular access associated infections. Findings: Review of the facility's P&P titled IV Therapy dated 6/2018 showed peripheral IV sites will be rotated at least every 96 hours and as needed. Documentation of IV therapy should include IV site assessment. On 12/12/19 at 1540 hours, an observation was conducted of Resident 76. Resident 76 was observed lying in bed with a peripheral IV inserted into her right wrist. The IV site dressing was unlabeled. Medical record review for Resident 76 was initiated on 12/12/19. Resident 76 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident 76's medical record failed to show an order for IV therapy. On 12/12/19 at 1546 hours, a concurrent…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-12-20 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and medical record review, the facility failed to provide the necessary respiratory care and services for one of 21 final sampled residents (Resident 438). The facility failed to ensure the oxygen treatment was documented. In addition, the facility failed to develop a care plan for the oxygen and nebulizer treatment. These failures posed the risk for complications related to respiratory care. Findings: Medical record review for Resident 438 was initiated on 12/12/19. Resident 438 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident 438's Physician and Telephone Orders showed the following physician's orders: - 12/9/19, administer Duoneb (a bronchodilator, relaxes muscles in the airway) one unit dose every eight hours as needed for two weeks. - 12/10/19, apply oxygen inhalation 3 liters per minute via nasal cannula (flexible tube to deliver oxygen into the nose) to maintain the oxygen saturation above 90%. a. Review of Resident 438's Medication Record for December 2019…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-12-20 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and medical record review, the facility failed to ensure ferrous sulfate (an iron supplement) was administered as per the physician's order for one nonsampled resident (Resident 72). * Resident 72 had a physician's order for ferrous sulfate delayed release/enteric coated (DR/EC) 325 mg orally twice a day for anemia. Resident 72 received the incorrect dose (330 mg) and the incorrect form (non DR/EC) of ferrous sulfate on 10 occasions. This posed the risk of Resident 72 not receiving the therapeutic effect of the prescribed supplement. Findings: Medical Record review for Resident 72 was initiated on 12/12/19. Resident 72 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 72 had a diagnosis of anemia. On 12/17/19 at 0815 hours, LVN 3 was observed administering Resident 72's prescribed medications. LVN 3 stated Resident 72's medications needed to be crushed before being administered to Resident 72. Resident 72 had a physician's order dated 6/14/19, for ferrous sulfate DR/EC 325 mg…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-12-20 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and medical record review, the facility failed to ensure two of 21 final sampled residents (Residents 53 and 438) were free from unnecessary psychotropic medications. * The facility failed to ensure two psychotropic medications had a specific behavior manifestation for Resident 53 and failed to accurately monitor the behavior. * The facility failed to ensure the behavior manifestations were monitored for Resident 438 related to the use of Ativan (antianxiety medication). These failures had the potential to negatively impact the residents' well-being. Findings: 1. Medical record review for Resident 53 was initiated on 12/13/19. Resident 53 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident 53's Physician Order Report showed an order dated 7/29/29, for Depakene solution (a psychotropic medication used to treat mood disorders) 500 mg twice daily for yelling/screaming without provocation. Review of Resident 53's Physician Order Report showed another order dated 9/23/19, for buspirone (a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-12-20 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to store the drugs and biologicals in a safe manner. The facility failed to ensure the proper labeling of an insulin medication. * The facility failed to ensure orally administered medications were stored separate from externally used medications and failed to ensure the alcohol wipes were stored separately from medications. This posed the risk for cross-contamination of the medications. * The facility failed to ensure an insulin medication was accurately labeled with an open date for one of 21 final sampled residents (Resident 67). Findings: 1. Review of the facility's P&P Storage of Medications dated 4/2008 showed orally administered medications are kept separate from externally used medications, such as suppositories, liquids, and lotions. Potentially harmful substances such as urine test reagent tablets, household poisons, cleaning supplies, and disinfectants are clearly identified and stored in a locked area separately from medications. On 12/13/19 at 1400 hours, an inspection of Station 2's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · B2025-01-27 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to maintain a homelike environment for one of 24 final sampled residents (Resident 72) and one nonsampled resident (Resident 4). * Resident 72 resided in Room A and Resident 4 resided in Room B. Rooms A and B were observed with scratches and unpainted areas on the walls, adjacent to the residents' bed. This failure had the potential to negatively impact the residents' quality of life. Findings: 1. On 1/22/25 at 1211 hours, an observation and concurrent interview was conducted with Resident 72. Resident 72 was observed lying in her bed in Room A. Room A was observed with scratches and unpainted areas on the wall adjacent to Resident 72's bed. Resident 72 stated having the wall repaired and painted would be nice. 2. On 1/22/25 at 1217 hours, an observation and concurrent interview was conducted with Resident 4. Resident 4 was observed lying in her bed watching television, in Room B. Room B was observed with scratches and unpainted areas on the wall adjacent to Resident 4's bed. Resident 4 stated she spent most of her time in her…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · B2025-01-27 · tag F0623 — patternProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, medical record review, and facility P&P review, the facility failed to provide a notice of transfer/discharge to the Ombudsman for one of two sampled residents (Resident 109) reviewed for closed records. This failure posed the risk for Resident 109 and Resident 109's representative not being aware of their appeal rights and potentially jeopardizing the appeal process in the event Resident 109 and/or Resident 109's representative felt the facility-initiated transfer or discharge from the facility was inappropriate or involuntary. Findings: Review of the facility's P&P titled Discharge Process revised 1/2017 showed the facility will send a copy of the notice of transfer or discharge to a representative of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman and record the reasons for the transfer or discharge in the resident's medical record. On 1/23/25 at 0947 hours, a closed medical record review was initiated for Resident 109. Resident 109 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and discharged…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · Bcited before2025-01-27 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — patternSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and medical record review, the facility failed to ensure the medical record was complete and accurately maintained for one of 24 final sampled residents (Resident 8). * Resident 8's POLST and Advance Directive Acknowledgement form failed to show documentation as to whether Resident 8 had formulated an advance directive. This failure had the potential for the resident's wishes specific to health care interventions not being honored. Findings: Medical record review for Resident 8 was initiated on 1/21/25. Resident 8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. On 1/22/25 at 1554 hours, an interview and concurrent medical record review was conducted with the SSD. Review of Resident 8's POLST, Section D (advance directive) dated 10/14/20, failed to show documentation as to whether Resident 8 had formulated an advance directive. Review of Resident 8's Advance Directive Acknowledgement form dated 8/22/24, failed to show documentation as to whether Resident 8 had formulated an advance directive. The SSD…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to THE MANDELBAUM FAMILY — 18 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 4 of 5 | 3.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.9 | +0.1 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
The other 17 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.2★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| CASTRO-GARCIA, MARIA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/02/2019 |
| MANDELBAUM, JANET | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/02/2019 |
| CHUEH, DANIEL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/01/2023 |
| ESCALANTE, JANETY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/17/2014 |
| INSUNSA, JESSE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/23/2007 |
| MANDELBAUM, SIMCHA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/01/2026 |
| MARQUEZ, IMCY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/15/2024 |
| MONDRAGON, MARTIN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/19/2020 |
| PHAM, JULIE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/16/2000 |
| SCHACHTEN, JEFF | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/16/2025 |
| TUICO, MARIELLE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/12/2023 |
| WILLIAMS, CLINTON | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/04/2010 |
| MANDELBAUM, BRENDA | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/27/2026 |
| AMBROSIO LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2023 |
| HANSEN | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2023 |
| SKILLSERVE INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2023 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 30 rows in the source record cover these 16 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
3 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 71% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $1.2M paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in CA
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the California Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 555520. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-01-27, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.