Concord Post Acute
1050 San Miguel Road, Concord, CA 94518 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 190 certified beds · (925) 825-4280 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (28% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- CMS has flagged it for abuse
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited May 2026
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0607, F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- a high number of inspection citations overall (38) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $30,820 in federal fines (most recent 2026-05-29)
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
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 | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 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, and staffing on its payroll (PBJ) submissions — 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 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 held steady at 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 | 3.4% | 10.2% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 1.8% | 4.0% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.8% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.1% | 1.2% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 2.1% | 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 | 1.9% | 1.6% | 3.3% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 3.4% | 9.8% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 6.6% | 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 | 1.5% | 4.3% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 6.8% | 10.2% | 21.2% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 21.4% | 12.0% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.0% | 1.5% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 99.0% | 93.2% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 24.4% | 23.0% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 12.4% | 11.2% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.49 | 2.25 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.30 | 1.57 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ 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.
50.3% 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 162 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 81.3% 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 75 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 0.21 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 24% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 16% 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 | 50.3%CMS range 41.5–59.3 | 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 | 10.1%CMS range 7.8–14.7 | 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 | 81.3% | 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 | 58.7% | 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 | 61.3% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | 97.1% | 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 | 1.0% | 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 4.4–11.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.05 | 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 190 beds and averages 188.0 residents a day — about 99% occupied, or roughly 2 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 3.87 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.26 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.55 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 3.62 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.97 on weekdays — 9% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.28 to 0.22 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 fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. 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.
38 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 27 are one tap away and print in full.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2026-05-29 · 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, and record review, the facility failed to ensure for one out of four sampled residents (Resident 1), was protected from sexual abuse (non-consensual sexual contact of any type with a resident) when Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 1 was witnessed with his face on Resident 1's exposed right breast.This failure resulted in Resident 1 experiencing sexual abuse.This failure had the potential to cause emotional distress, feelings of shame, embarrassment, and an unsafe living environment due to Resident 1 experiencing sexual abuse from CNA 1.Findings:During a record review of the facility's Report of Suspected Dependent Adult/Elder Abuse form SOC 341 sent to the State Agency, the form indicated that on 4/30/26 at 3:14 p.m., CNA 1 was reported to have sexually abused Resident 1.During a review of facility's admission Record (AR) printed on 5/14/26, the AR indicated Resident 1 was admitted on [DATE], with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's Disease With Late Onset and Other Specified…
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 before2026-02-05 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — patternProtect 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 and record review the facility failed to protect four of six sampled residents (Resident 2, Resident 3, Resident 4, and Resident 5) from physical abuse when following was noted:1. Resident 2 and Resident 3 got into a physical altercation with each other resulting in Resident 2 sustaining a one-inch scratch (shallow cut in the skin caused by trauma), to the left neck; and Resident 3 sustaining redness to the right forehead.2. Resident 4 and Resident 5 got into a physical altercation with each other resulting in Resident 4 sustaining a skin tear, (traumatic wound occurring when the top layer of skin separates from the underlying layer), to the front of the left arm, top of head, hand and forearm and a scratch to the right cheek and Resident 5 sustaining a scratch to the left upper lip. 1. During a review of admission Record for Resident 2 printed on 1/28/26, the record indicated Resident 2 was admitted to the facility in March 2025 with a diagnosis of dementia (a loss of brain…
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 before2026-02-05 · 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 and record review the facility failed to implement a comprehensive care plan for one of five sampled residents (Resident 1). The facility did not provide supervision to Resident 1 when she was in facility's patio.This failure resulted in Resident 1 falling on the ground sustaining a cut and bump to the back of the head and transfer to the acute care hospital for further care and evaluation.During a review of Resident 1's admission Record printed on 1/28/26, the record indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility in January 2017. During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a resident assessment instrument used to identify resident care problems to be addressed in an individualized care plan), dated 5/7/25, indicated Resident 1's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS, is a scoring system used to determine the resident's cognitive status in regard to attention, orientation, and ability to register and recall information), score was zero (0) out of 15, indicating severe cognitive…
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 before2026-02-05 · 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 and record review the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to one of three sampled residents (Resident 1), when Resident 1 with a history of wandering (traveling aimlessly form place to place), sustained an unwitnessed fall while ambulating on her own in the facility's patio area.This failure resulted in Resident 1 falling on the ground, sustaining a cut and bump to the back of the head, transfer to the acute care hospital for further care and evaluation. During a review of Resident 1's admission Record printed on 1/28/26, the record indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility in January 2017. During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a resident assessment instrument used to identify resident care problems to be addressed in an individualized care plan), dated 5/7/25, indicated Resident 1's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS, is a scoring system used to determine the resident's cognitive status in regard to attention, orientation, and ability to…
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 · Ddisputed · IDR2025-12-11 · tag F0839 — isolatedEmploy staff that are licensed, certified, or registered in accordance with state laws.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure compliance with required employment and licensure verification procedures when a previous staff member, who falsely represented themselves as a Registered Nurse (RN), used another person's RN license, and had a revoked Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) license in 2020 was hired and employed by the facility.These failures had the potential to place residents at risk for harm including medication errors, delays in necessary nursing interventions, and improper clinical decision-making by unlicensed nursing personnel.During a record review of Unlicensed Nurse (UN) 1's employee file, a printed copy of the RN nursing license dated 8/28/23, reflected a missing middle name and different spelling of the first name than that of UN 1. The RN nursing license copy further indicated it was generated and printed approximately five months prior to UN 1's application for RN position at the facility.During a record review of UN 1's Offer Letter, dated 1/31/24 from the facility, the Offer Letter showed UN 1 was offered a full-time RN…
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 · D2025-04-17 · 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
Based on interview, record review, facility document review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse to the state survey agency within two hours that involved 1 (Resident #18) of 1 sampled resident reviewed for abuse. Findings included: A facility policy titled, Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation or Misappropriation - Reporting and Investigating, with a copyright date of 2001, indicated, All reports of resident abuse (including injuries of unknown origin), neglect, exploitation, or theft/misappropriation of resident property are reported to local, state and federal agencies (as required by current regulations) and thoroughly investigated by facility management. Findings of all investigations are documented and reported. Policy Interpretation and Implementation Reporting Allegations to the Administrator and Authorities 1. If resident abuse, neglect, exploitation, misappropriation of resident property or injury of unknown source is suspected, the suspicion must be reported immediately to the administrator and to other officials according to state…
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 before2025-04-17 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the accuracy of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) for 2 (Resident #7 and Resident #108) of 35 sampled residents. Findings included: A facility policy titled, Resident Assessments with a copyright date of 2001, revealed, 10. Assessments are completed by staff members who have the skills and qualifications to assess relevant care areas and who are knowledgeable about the resident's strengths and areas of decline. 11. All persons who have completed any portion of the MDS resident assessment form must sign the document attesting to the accuracy of such information. 12. Information in the MDS assessments will consistently reflect information in the progress notes, plans of care and resident observation/interviews. 1. An admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #108 on 07/10/2024. According to the admission Record, the resident had a medical history that included diagnoses of obstructive uropathy and non-pressure chronic ulcer of the lower leg. Resident #108's Care Plan Report included 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 · D2025-04-17 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a Level I preadmission screening and resident review (PASARR) was timely resubmitted after a resident remained in the facility longer than 30 days for 1 (Resident #145) of 4 sampled residents reviewed for PASARR. Findings included: A facility policy titled Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review, with a copyright date of 2001, revealed, All new admissions and readmissions are screened for mental disorders (MD), intellectual disabilities (ID) or related disorders (RD) per the Medicaid Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review process. An admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #145 on 12/02/2024. According to the admission Record, the resident had a medical history that included diagnoses of depression and bipolar disorder. An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 12/09/2024, revealed Resident #145 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicated the resident had intact cognition. According to the MDS,…
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 before2025-04-17 · 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
Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to develop and implement a person-centered care plan to address the use of antidepressant medication, antipsychotic medication, and address a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) for 1 (Resident #162) of 5 sampled residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Findings included: A facility policy titled, Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered, with a copyright date of 2001, revealed, A comprehensive, person-centered care plan should include measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial and functional needs. The policy revealed, 2. The Comprehensive person-centered care plan should be developed within the seven (7) days of the completion of the required MDS [Minimum Data Set] assessment. (Admission, Annual, or significant change in status), and should be completed within 21 days of admission. The policy revealed, 3. The care plan interventions should be derived from information obtained from the resident and his/her family/responsible party, with…
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 before2023-11-16 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on facility policy review, record reviews, interviews, and facility document review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's wheelchair was operable for 1 (Resident #7) of 1 sampled resident reviewed for accommodation of needs. Findings included: Review of a facility policy tilted, Maintenance Service, revised in December 2009, revealed 3. The Maintenance Director is responsible for developing and maintaining a schedule of maintenance service to assure that the buildings, grounds, and equipment are maintained in a safe and operable manner. A review of Resident #7's admission Record revealed the facility readmitted the resident on 09/23/2022, with diagnoses that included morbid obesity, retention of urine, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. A review of Resident #7's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 09/21/2023, revealed Resident #7 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 6, which indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment. The MDS revealed Resident #7 was totally dependent on staff for transfers…
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 · D2023-11-16 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to implement their abuse prohibition policy when staff failed to identify an allegation as abuse. This failure to identify an allegation of abuse resulted in the allegation not being reported to the state, investigated, and the accused staff not being removed from resident contact, as directed by the facility's abuse prohibition policy for 1 (Resident #327) of 2 sampled residents reviewed for abuse. Findings included: Review of a facility policy titled, Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation or Misappropriation-Reporting and Investigating, revised in September 2022, revealed All reports of resident abuse (including injuries of unknown origin), neglect, exploitation, and theft/misappropriation of resident property are reported to local, state and federal agencies (as required by current regulations) and thoroughly investigated by facility management. Findings of all investigations are documented and reported. Policy Interpretation and Implementation Reporting Allegations to the Administrator and Authorities 1.…
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 27 citations
- Potential for harm · D2023-11-16 · tag F0636 — isolatedAssess the resident completely in a timely manner when first admitted, and then periodically, at least every 12 months.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record reviews, document review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure timely completion of comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for 2 (Resident #142 and Resident #113) of 7 sampled residents reviewed for resident assessments. Findings included: Review of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 User's Manual, dated October 2023, revealed The admission assessment is a comprehensive assessment for a new resident and, under some circumstances, a returning resident that must be completed by the end of day 14. The document indicated, The ARD must be set no later than day 14, counting the date of admission as day 1. The document revealed, The Annual assessment is a comprehensive assessment for a resident that must be completed on an annual basis unless an SCSA [significant change in status assessment] or an SCPA [significant correction to prior comprehensive assessment] has been completed since the most recent comprehensive assessment was completed. A review of Resident #142's admission Record…
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 before2023-11-16 · tag F0638 — isolatedAssure that each resident’s assessment is updated at least once every 3 months.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record reviews, document review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure timely completion of quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for 3 (Residents #98, #85, and #110) of 7 sampled residents reviewed for resident assessments. Findings included: Review of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 User's Manual, dated October 2023, revealed The Quarterly assessment is an OBRA non-comprehensive assessment for a resident that must be completed at least every 92 days following the previous OBRA [Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act] assessment of any type. It is used to track a resident's status between comprehensive assessment to ensure critical indicators of gradual change in a resident's status are monitored. The document indicated, The MDS completion date must be no later than 14 days after the ARD. A review of Resident #98's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 10/15/2020. A review of Resident #98's quarterly MDS, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 07/07/2023,…
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 before2023-11-16 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
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 record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the discharge Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was accurate for 1 (Resident #176) of 3 sampled residents reviewed for closed record review. Findings included: A review of Resident #176's admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #176 on 07/04/2023. Per the admission Record, the resident discharged home on [DATE]. A review of Resident #176's discharge MDS, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 08/31/2023, revealed the resident discharged to an acute hospital on [DATE]. A review of Resident #176's discharge summary Progress Notes, dated 08/31/2023, revealed the resident discharged home on [DATE] at 11:20 AM. During an interview on 11/16/2023 at 11:28 AM, the MDS Registered Nurse (RN) stated he was responsible for ensuring the accuracy and completeness of the MDS assessments. The MDS RN stated that according to the Progress Notes, Resident #176 discharged home, and he verified the MDS assessment was coded incorrectly to…
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 before2023-11-16 · 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 record reviews, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to refer a resident with a newly evident serious mental disorder for a Level II Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) for 2 (Resident #48 and Resident #130) of 5 sampled residents reviewed for PASARR requirements. Findings included: A review of the facility policy titled, admission Criteria, revised in March 2023, revealed b. If the level I screen indicates that the individual may meet the criteria for a MD [mental disorder], ID [intellectual disorder], or RD [related disorder], he or she is referred to the state PASARR representative for the Level II (evaluation and determination) screening process. 1. Review of Resident #48's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 01/25/2022 with diagnoses that included bipolar disorder and unspecified psychosis. A review of Resident #48's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 10/15/2023, revealed the resident had active…
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 · D2023-11-16 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff followed professional standards of practice by not leaving medications at the bedside of 1 (Resident #128) of 8 residents observed for medication administration. Findings included: A review of Resident #128's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 08/26/2021, with diagnoses that included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), diabetes mellitus, fibromyalgia (nerve pain), hypertension (high blood pressure), malignant neoplasm (cancer) of the right breast, and chronic kidney disease. A review of Resident #128's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 09/04/2023, revealed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. A review of Resident #128's care plan initiated on 10/11/2021, revealed the resident had an alteration in neurological mental status related to disease process. Interventions directed staff to give medications as ordered.…
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 · D2023-11-16 · 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
Based on observations, interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure respiratory equipment was sanitized and properly stored for 1 (Resident #134) of 4 sampled residents reviewed for respiratory care. Findings included: Review of a facility policy titled, CPAP [continuous positive airway pressure]/BiPAP [Bi-level positive airway pressure] Support, revised in March 2015, revealed 8. Headgear (strap): Wash with warm water and mild detergent as needed. Allow to air dry. A review of Resident #134's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 09/30/2023 with diagnoses that included asthma and encephalopathy. A review of Resident #134's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 10/07/2023, revealed Resident #134 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 9, which indicated the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS indicated the resident used a non-invasive mechanical ventilator. A review of Resident #134's care plan, initiated on 10/01/2023, revealed the resident was at risk for…
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 · D2023-11-16 · 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
Based on observations, record review, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure bed rails were used properly per assessment for 1 (Resident #152) of 5 sampled residents reviewed for accidents. Findings included: A review of the facility policy titled, Bed Safety and Bed Rails, revised in August 2022, revealed, 3. The use of bed rails or side rails (including temporarily raising the side rails for episodic use during care) is prohibited unless the criteria for use of bed rails have been met, including attempts to use alternatives, interdisciplinary evaluation, resident assessment, and informed consent. A review of Resident #152's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 07/08/2023 with diagnoses that included traumatic subdural hemorrhage (brain bleed) with loss of consciousness, encephalopathy (brain disorder), and cerebral edema (swelling of the brain). Review of Resident #152's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 09/29/2023, revealed Resident #152 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status…
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 · D2023-11-16 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on the interviews, record review, document reviews, and policy review, the facility failed to act on a pharmacy recommendation to lower the dosage of medication for 1 (Resident #42) of 5 sampled residents reviewed for unnecessary medications, psychotropic medications, and medication regimen review. Findings included: Review of the facility's policy titled, Medication Monitoring Medication Regimen Review and Reporting, dated January 2023, revealed, 8. The nursing care center follows up on the recommendations to verify that appropriate action has been taken. Recommendations shall be acted upon within 30 calendar days. a. For those issues that require physician intervention, the attending physician either accepts and acts upon the report and recommendations or rejects all or some of the report and should document his or her rationale or why the recommendation is rejected in the resident's medical record. Review of Resident #42's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 08/14/2019 with diagnoses that included atrial fibrillation, Alzheimer's disease, 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 · Dcited before2023-11-16 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, record reviews, interviews, document review, and policy review, the facility failed to have a medication error rate less than 5%. Specifically, there were two medication errors out of 25 opportunities, which yielded a medication error rate of 8% for 2 (Resident #89 and Resident #380) of 8 residents observed for medication administration. Findings included: A review of the facility policy titled, Administering Medications, revised in April 2019, revealed, 10. The individual administering the medication checks the label THREE (3) times to verify the right resident, right medication, right dosage, right time and right method (route) of administration before giving the medication. 1. During medication administration observation on 11/15/2023 at 8:41AM, Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) #13 prepared and administered medications for Resident #89 that included one senna (a laxative) 8.6 milligrams (mg) tablet. A review of Resident #89's Order Summary Report with active orders as of 08/01/2023, revealed an order dated 10/29/2022, for senna-docusate sodium 8.6-50 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 before2023-11-16 · 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 observations, interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's urinary catheter drainage bag was not on the floor for 1 (Resident #7) of 3 sampled residents reviewed for urinary catheters. Finding included: A review of a facility policy tilted, Catheter Care, Urinary, revised in August 2022, revealed, Infection Control 1. Use aseptic technique when handling or manipulating the drainage system. 2. Be sure the catheter tubing and drainage bag are kept off the floor. A review of Resident #7's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 10/24/2017 with diagnoses that included dementia and retention of urine. A review of Resident #7's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 09/21/2023, revealed Resident #7 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 6, which indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment. The MDS indicated the resident was totally dependent on staff for toilet use and had an indwelling catheter. Review of Resident #7 s care plan 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 · D2023-09-20 · tag F0559 — isolatedHonor the resident's right to share a room with spouse or roommate of choice and receive written notice before a change is made.
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 record review the facility failed to ensure one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) received a written notification prior to being moved to another room within the facility. This failure placed Resident 1 at risk to experience increased anxiety and confusion related to spontaneous/unplanned change of environment. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's admission Record dated 7/25/23, the record showed Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis of Anxiety (worry that interferes with daily activities), Depression (a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest), Psychosis (loss of contact with reality), Mood disorder (inconsistent emotions leading to inability to function). During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool used to direct resident care) dated 5/23/23, the MDS assessment showed Resident 1's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS- a mental status exam) was 12 of 15, indicating…
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 before2023-09-20 · 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 an interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR- an assessment of necessity for special services relating to psychiatric and/or intellectual disability) assessment for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) was completed accurately. Resident 1's PASARR assessment did not reflect current diagnoses of Anxiety (a feeling of fear, dread, and uneasiness). This failure placed Resident 1 at risk to not receive care and services appropriate to her needs. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's admission record titled admission Record dated 7/25/23, the record showed Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The record showed Resident 1 had diagnoses of Depression (loss of pleasure or interest in daily activities), Adult Failure to Thrive (physical decline, inactivity and depression), Mood Disorder (inconsistent emotions leading to inability to function), Anxiety Disorder, Psychosis (loss of contact with reality) and Cognitive…
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 before2023-09-12 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) received incontinent care in a timely manner, when Resident 1 was left unchanged in a soiled incontinent disposable brief. This failure resulted in Resident 1 wearing a soiled/wet incontinent brief for an extended period of time and made him feel highly annoyed . Findings: During a review of Resident 1's Face Sheet, undated, the Face Sheet indicated Resident 1 was admitted in April 2023 with a diagnosis of muscle weakness. During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool used to direct resident care), dated 4/30/23, the MDS indicated Resident 1's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS-a mental status exam) was 14 out of 15, indicating cognitively intact mental status. The MDS assessment also indicated, Resident 1 required one staff's extensive assist with toilet use and he was incontinent of both bowel and bladder. During a review of Resident 1's Activities of daily living (ADL) care plan, dated 4/23/23, the care plan indicated…
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 · D2023-09-05 · 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 record review, the facility failed to ensure medications were stored in a secure location for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident 1), when Resident 1's medication was located unattended at the counter next to the sink near the door of Resident 1's room. This deficient practice had the potential for other residents, unauthorized staff, and visitors to have access to medications and the potential for misuse and ineffective treatment. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's, admission Record , printed on 8/24/23, the admission record indicated Resident 1 was originally admitted to the facility in 2017 and readmitted in 2022 with a medical diagnosis of acute and chronic respiratory failure ( a serious condition that makes it difficult to breathe on your own) and Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD- is a chronic inflammatory lung disease that causes obstructed airflow from the lungs and causes breathlessness). During an observation on 8/24/23 at 11:25 a.m., at Resident 1's room , a vial of medication labeled Acetylcysteine ( 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 · Ecited before2021-05-07 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — patternReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY 2. During a review of Resident 31's Minimal Data Set (MDS- An assessment used to plan care) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident 31 required extensive assistance with mobility. During an observation, on 5/5/21, at 9:10 a.m., in Resident 31's room, Resident 31's call light was clipped to the bed sheet at the head of the bed while Resident 31 was sitting in a wheelchair beyond the foot of the bed. During an interview, on 5/5/21, at 9:14 a.m., with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA 11), CNA 11 stated the call light should be within Resident 31's reach. CNA 11 also stated since Resident 31's room was kept closed for COVID-19 (a mild to severe respiratory illness that is airborne and is spread person to person or by contact with infectious materials such as respiratory droplets in the air and to lesser degree on high touch surfaces in the environment) she should have her call light within reach. During a record review of facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled, Answering the Call Light dated 10/2010, 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 · E2021-05-07 · 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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure two (Resident 599 and 140) of 21 sampled residents were provided a clean, safe and homelike environment when: 1. Resident 599 was missing a light fixture at the head of bed. This failure to provide a light fixture placed Resident 599 at risk for injury and the inability to perform his usual activities. 2. The bathroom in Resident 140's room had brown, dried fecal matter sticking on the toilet bowl and the floor. This failure provided an unclean and unsanitary environment. Findings: 1. During an observation on 5/3/21, at 11:21 a.m., Resident 599 was lying in bed, with his privacy curtains closed. Resident 599's room was dark and the light fixture at the head of the bed was missing. During an interview on 5/3/21, at 11:21 a.m., with Resident 599, Resident 599 stated he had stayed in the room for the last couple of days. Resident 599 stated, it gets really dark, and he could not color his paper without the light. During an interview on 5/3/21, at 11:40 a.m., with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA3), CNA3…
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 before2021-05-07 · tag F0638 — patternAssure that each resident’s assessment is updated at least once every 3 months.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 38 residents (Resident 20, 26, 2, 30, 25, 6, 7, 69, 38, 1, 19, 5, 90, 23, 39, 85, 8, 11, 18, 16, 13, 12, 89, 57, 125, 21, 92, 141, 60, 83, 43, 28, 97, 52, 14, 129, 53, and 98) of 45 sampled residents were assessed comprehensively, when the facility did not complete their Quarterly Minimal Data Set (MDS- An assessment used to plan care for residents) assessments for a period of seven months. This failure had the potential for residents to not receive individualized care based on their physical, mental and emotional needs. Findings: During a concurrent interview and record review, with the MDS Coordinator (MDSC), on 5/5/21, at 12:22 p.m., the MDSC stated the facility was required to complete MDS assessments every quarter (every three months) for the residents staying at the facility. The MDSC reviewed the most recently completed Omni Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) required MDS assessments and stated following residents were still staying at the facility but the facility did not complete the following MDS…
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 before2021-05-07 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — patternProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide grooming assistance for four (Residents 106, 549, 140 and 497) of 32 sampled residents when: 1. Resident 106 was unshaved. 2 Resident 497 had long, fingernails with black dried substance underneath them. 3. Residents 549 had long fingernails with dark brown substance underneath them. 4. Resident 140 had long finger and toe nails with black substance underneath them. These failures to provide personal hygiene care to Residents 106, 549, 140, and 497 resulted in potential of low self esteem and self worth. Findings: 1. Review of the clinical record indicated Resident 106 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included dementia with behavioral disturbance, (a progressive disease that destroys memory) and age related macular degeneration, left eye (an eye disease that causes vision loss). A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool used to guide care) dated 3/17/2021 indicated Resident 106 required encouragement or cueing for all personal hygiene activities including shaving.…
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 before2021-05-07 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure 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
Based on observation, interview and medical record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident 249 was supervised by staff and the environment free from hazards. For Resident 249, this failure resulted in Resident 249 wandering, unnoticed by staff, in and out of residents' rooms, touching items that placed her at risk for injury and spread infection. Findings: During review of Resident 249's medical record, it indicated a history of impairment in cognitive skills for making daily life decisions and repeated falls. The Care Plan dated 7/20/20 indicated the resident was a wanderer with impaired safety awareness that included interventions to redirect or offer activity to divert the attention of the resident. According to the Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool used to direct resident care) dated 10/24/20, it indicated Resident 249 required supervision when moving through hallway and limited assistance with staff to provide guided maneuvering. During an observation and interview on 5/3/21 at 1:17 p.m., Resident 249 entered Room H. The resident in Bed-A stated Resident 249…
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 · E2021-05-07 · 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 record review, the facility failed to ensure that food was prepared, stored, and served under sanitary condition when multiple plastic containers of salad dressing beyond the consumption date was found in the walk-in refrigerator This failure had the potential of putting residents at risk for food contamination and food-borne illness. Findings: During the initial kitchen tour observation on 5/3/2021, at 10:15 a.m., with the Kitchen Supervisor (KS) the following were observed in the walk-in refrigerator: In a medium size pan, there were four small plastic containers of Italian dressing dated 4/19/2021, four small plastic containers of Italian dressing dated 4/28/2021, and ten small plastic containers of Ranch dressing dated 4/27/2021 with no used by date. In another medium size pan, there were six small plastic containers of Tartar sauce dated 4/21/2021 with no used by date. During an interview with Dietary Aide 1(DA 1) on 5/4/2021, at 10:05 a.m., DA 1 stated they should label the food with a date when prepared. Food should be labeled and was good…
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 before2021-05-07 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY 5. During an observation on, 5/5/21, at 9:19 a.m., in Resident 31's room, an incentive spirometer (a device with a mouthpiece and it helps the lungs to breathe deeply) was on Resident 31's bedside table. The incentive spirometer was left uncovered and its mouthpiece was touching the bedside table. During a concurrent observation and interview on, 5/5/21, at 9:25 a.m.,with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 7), LVN 7 stated that the incentive spirometer should be kept in a plastic bag for infection control. LVN 7 further stated that if the spirometer was not covered, it could have bacteria grow and Resident 31 could breathe it in because that goes in her mouth. During a review of Resident 31's Physician Order Summary Report dated 5/6/21, the report showed an order for Incentive Spirometer for at least 15 minutes every shift for (Pneumonia- A lung disease) PNA prevention for Resident 31. During a record review of facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled, Departmental (Respiratory Therapy) - Prevention of…
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 · E2021-05-07 · tag F0908 — failed to keep essential equipment working — patternKeep all essential equipment working safely.
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 record review, the facility failed toensure pateint care equipments were in safe operating conditions for two residents ( Resident 463 and 464) 0 f 32 sampled residents when:. 1. Resident 463's head of the bed cannot be elevated. 2. Resident 464 did not receive bedside rails to assist her with bed mobility and positioning. These failures resulted in the residents inabilities to achieve their highest practicable physical, mental and psycho-social well-being. Findings: 1. During an observation and concurrent interview with Resident 463 on 5/3/2021, at 2:00 p.m., Resident 463 stated she does not sleep well at all. Resident 463 stated she feels tired most of the time. She also stated her doctor wants the head of her bed to be elevated 30 to 40 degrees to help her breath better when she is in bed. Resident 463 demonstrated how she was not able to raise the head of her bed. Resident 463 stated she reported the problem with her bed on 4/1/21 on the day she was admitted and found out…
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 · D2021-05-07 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one (Residents 60) of 32 sampled residents were treated with respect and dignity when the staff failed to close the privacy curtain during Resident 60's treatment procedure. This failure had the potential for unnecessary body exposure and embarrassment. Findings: A review of Resident 60's physician's order dated 4/28/2021, indicated left hip, cleanse area with normal saline, apply hydrocoloid dressing every 3 days change PRN for soiling or dislodgement for 14 days then reassess. During a treatment observation on 5/5/2021, at 1:32 p.m., Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 5 assisted by CNA 8 approach Resident 60 (who was in bed A) and explained the treatment procedure to Resident 60. The privacy curtain surrounding Resident 60's bed on his right side all the way to the foot part was left open. LVN 5 pulled Resident 60's gown up above his left waist exposing Resident 60's left hip and leg. LVN 5 proceeded to provide treatment to Resident 60's left hip. During an interview with LVN 5 on 5/5/2021, at 1: 45…
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 · D2021-05-07 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to inform the physician of one of 32 sampled residents (Resident 31) worsening condition when Resident 31's physician was not informed of This failure had the potential to delay interventions and could lead to development of a wound infection. Findings: During an observation on, 5/5/21, at 9:15 a.m., Resident 31 was sitting in the wheelchair in her room. Resident 31 had a quarter sized, open wound on the left knee. The wound had a small amount of yellow and red colored drainage. During a concurrent observation and interview on, 5/5/21, at 9:17 a.m., with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA 11) and Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 7), CNA 11 stated Resident 31 had that wound on her left knee when she came back from the hospital. CNA 11 stated, they bleed a lot pointing at Resident 31's bed sheets with dried brown stains on it. During a concurrent interview and record review, on 5/6/21 at 10:30 a.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 8), Resident 31's Care plans were reviewed. LVN 8 stated there was no plan of care to…
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 · D2021-05-07 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to provide daily wound care treatment to Resident 499 per physician orders. This failure had the potential to result in worsening wounds, increasing the risk for localized and/or systemic infection for Resident 499. Findings: During an interview on 05/03/21, at 1:05 p.m., Resident 499 stated the wound nurse was suppose to change my dressings every day, Resident 499 stated they never change my dressing every day. Resident 499 stated the last time the dressing to his feet was changed was Saturday, on 05/01/21. During a concurrent interview and record review on 05/03/21, at 2:20 p.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 1), Resident 499's treatment administration records (TARs) were reviewed. LVN 1 confirmed that dressings to the right lateral malleolus (knobby bone felt on outside of right ankle), right heel and left heel were to be changed daily. LVN 1 stated If the wound nurse is not there that day, then the dressing change is done by the medication nurse. During a concurrent interview and record review on 5/6/21,…
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 before2021-05-07 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure its medication error rate did not exceed five percent. There were two medication errors out of 29 opportunities, resulting in a 6.9 percent (%) medication error rate, when: 1. Licensed Vocational Nurse 1 (LVN 1) dispensed medication to Resident 45 from a medication container intended for Resident 498 ; and 2. LVN 1 dispensed high blood pressure medication to Resident 45 that should have been held per the physician's instructions on the prescription label. These deficient practices did not comply with safe medication administration practices and had the potential to cause harm and jeopardize Resident 45's physical health. Findings: During a review of Resident 45's admission Record, the review indicated the Resident 498 was admitted with multiple diagnoses, including a hip fracture, hypertension (high blood pressure), a pleural effusion (excess fluid between the two layers of tissue enveloping the lungs), iron-deficient anemia (lacking enough healthy red blood cells to carry sufficient oxygen 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 · D2021-05-07 · 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 and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of 32 sampled residents (resident 140) was free from significant medication error when Furosemide (commonly known as Lasix and water pill) was not administered as ordered by the physician. This failure resulted in Resident 140's edematous (swollen) lower leg to worsen. Findings: During an observation on 5/3/21, at 1:30 p.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON), in Resident 140's room, Resident 140 was sitting in wheelchair and it was observed that both lower legs were edematous. During observation and interview, on 5/6/21, at 9:20 a.m., with LVN 8, Resident 140's both lower legs were observed. LVN 8 stated I see a lot of edema on both legs, maybe +2 or +3. LVN 8 stated Resident 140 had the edema on both legs since she was admitted to the facility. During a review of Resident 140's nursing admission assessment dated [DATE], the assessment indicated Resident 140 had edema on right lower leg and left lower leg upon admission. During…
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.
“Disputed” is CMS’s own flag, not our reading: the CMS deficiency file records whether the home has formally contested a citation, and we reproduce that. IDR is Informal Dispute Resolution, run by the state survey agency that wrote the citation; IIDR is Independent Informal Dispute Resolution, a separate process before an outside entity, available when CMS has proposed a civil money penalty. They are different processes and we mark them differently. Two things to hold at once. A disputed citation is still a citation — it was written by a surveyor, it stands on the record unless and until it is changed, and we neither hide it nor discount it. And we cannot tell you how the dispute came out: CMS publishes that a citation is under dispute, not the outcome, so a tag marked here may since have been upheld, reduced, or deleted, and an unmarked tag may have been disputed and resolved before this file was cut. Ask the home what it disputed and why — it is entitled to tell you, and the answer is often the most informative thing on this page.
- 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
$30,820 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $30,820 — penalty dated 2026-05-29
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to PACS GROUP — 274 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 | 2 of 5 | 2.9 | -0.9 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 2.5 | +1.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 4.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
The other 273 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.9★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 273; lowest-rated first.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| DZERHACHOU, VASILI | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 11/28/2022 |
| ALLEN, FORREST | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 11/30/2022 |
| APT, FREDERICK | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2024 |
| HANCOCK, MARK | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2024 |
| JERGENSEN, JOSHUA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2024 |
| MITCHELL, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2024 |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
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.
This home reported $2.2M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 11% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
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 555104. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-04-17, 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.