Oakwood Gardens Care Center
3510 East Shields, Fresno, CA 93726 · For profit - Corporation · 103 certified beds · (559) 222-4807 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (28) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 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 improved from 2 to 5 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 | 5.8% | 10.2% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.5% | 4.0% | 5.4% | typical |
| 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 | 0.0% | 1.2% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 2.9% | 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 | 2.2% | 1.6% | 3.3% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 6.2% | 9.8% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 6.2% | 13.7% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 98.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.6% | 4.3% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 13.5% | 10.2% | 21.2% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 3.1% | 12.0% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 85.1% | 93.2% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 25.1% | 23.0% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 16.3% | 11.2% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.89 | 2.25 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.03 | 1.57 | 1.80 | better |
‡ 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.
43.3% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 296 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 80.5% 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 87 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 0.62 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 89% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 19% 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 | 43.3%CMS range 37.9–49.8 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.6%CMS range 8.1–13.0 | 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 | 80.5% | 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 | 77.0% | 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 | 62.1% | 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 | 99.5% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 98.2% | 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 | 95.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 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 | 2.1% | 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 | 8.4%CMS range 5.3–11.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.28 | 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 103 beds and averages 96.8 residents a day — about 94% occupied, or roughly 6 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.01 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.30 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.58 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 3.73 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.12 on weekdays — 9% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.31 to 0.27 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 52% is about the same as 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.
28 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 18 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-09 · tag F0573 — isolatedLet each resident or the resident's legal representative access or purchase copies of all the resident's records.
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 fulfill a record request for one of one residents (Resident 4), when they had record of a request from 11/5/25 and still had not sent the records as of 12/15/25.This failure put the resident at risk of not receiving his records in a timely manner.During a review of Resident 4's admission Record (a summary of important information regarding a patient which include patient identification, past medical history, insurance status, care providers, family contact information and other pertinent information), dated 10/1/25, the admission record indicated, Resident 4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis which included Rhabdomyolysis ( a rare muscle injury where your muscles break down. This is a life-threatening condition that can happen after an injury or excessive exercise without rest), muscles weakness and altered mental status (This condition causes changes in consciousness and symptoms that can affect many organ systems).…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-09 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) received an accurate fall risk assessment when on admission the licensed vocational nurse supervisor (LVNS) did not accurately account for history of falls at home and hip fracture, mobility deficits in calculating the risk for falls for Resident 1.These failures resulted in assigning a moderate risk rather than a high risk for falls with the potential not to implement an individualized care plan to prevent falls and could have contributed to his fall on 11/15/25.Findings:During a review of Resident 1's skilled nursing facility admission Record (a summary of important information regarding a patient which include patient identification, past medical history, insurance status, care providers, family contact information and other pertinent information), dated 12/16/25, the admission record indicated, Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis which included an unspecified fracture…
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 · D2025-04-22 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure compliance with its policies and procedures regarding resident appointment coordination and verification for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1), when Resident 1 was mistakenly prepared and transported to a medical appointment that was not scheduled for her. This failure resulted in unnecessary physical and emotional distress to Resident 1 and potentially exposed to inappropriate treatment or risk. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's admission Record (AR- a document containing resident medical and personal information), dated 4/22/25, the AR indicated, Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included, unspecified nondisplaced fracture of fifth cervical vertebrae, unspecified fracture of right acetabulum (concave surface of the of the pelvis), age related Osteoporosis (weak and brittle bones due to lack of calcium and Vitamin D), and dementia (a progressive state of decline in mental abilities). 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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-04-02 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure services provided met professional standards of quality for one of 12 sampled residents (Resident 6) when Resident 6 ' s low air loss (LAL - a special mattress used to prevent skin injuries, often occurring in individuals who are bedbound) mattress setting was not used according to the manufacturer ' s recommendation. This failure had the potential to result in Resident 6 to develop pressure ulcer (injury to the skin and underlying tissues by prolonged pressure on the skin) and placed Resident 6 at an increased risk for falls and discomfort. Findings: During a review of Resident 6's admission Record (AR- a document that provides resident contact details, a brief medical history, level of functioning, preferences, and wishes), dated 4/2/25, the AR indicated, Resident 6 was admitted from an acute care hospital on 2/12/25 to the facility, with diagnoses that included Squamous Cell Carcinoma of Skin (a type of skin cancer most commonly caused by long-term exposure from the sun), Open Wound to Left Cheek, Muscle…
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 · D2025-04-02 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an effective infection control program when one of six sampled residents' (Resident 5) oxygen concentrator (a device that concentrates the oxygen from the ambient air) was being used without a filter. This failure placed Resident 5 at an increased risk to develop respiratory and healthcare-associated infections. Findings: During a review of Resident 5's admission Record (AR, a document that provides resident contact details, a brief medical history, level of functioning, preferences, and wishes), dated 4/7/25, the AR indicated, Resident 5 was admitted from an acute care hospital on 2/19/25 to the facility, with diagnoses that included Interstitial Pulmonary Disease (a condition that causes inflammation and scarring in the lungs), Congestive Heart Failure (CHF- weakness in the heart where fluid accumulates in the lungs), Hypertension (high blood pressure), Anxiety Disorder (a mental health disorder characterized by feelings of worry, anxiety, or fear that are strong enough to interfere with one's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-03-17 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — patternTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to report two unwitnessed falls with injury to the California Department of Public Health (CDPH- State survey agency) within the required time frame for two of three sampled residents (Resident 1 and Resident 2) when Resident 1 was found on the floor in his room, and Resident 2 was found on the bathroom floor in his room. Resident 1 and Resident 2 required transportation to the emergency Department (ED) for higher level of care. This failure resulted in Resident 1 and Resident 2 falls not investigated timely within the required time frame and had the potential to result in Resident 1's and Resident 2's safety needs not being met. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's admission Record (AR- a document containing resident medical and personal information), dated 03/17/25, the AR indicated, Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia (a progressive state of decline in mental abilities) . Alzheimer's (a disease…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-01-30 · 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, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to have a medication error rate of less than 5%. There were 2 medication errors out of 26 medication opportunities which resulted in a medication error rate of 7.69% affecting 1 (Resident #26) of 6 residents observed during medication administration. Findings included: A facility policy titled, Administering Medications, revised 04/2019, specified, 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. An admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident #26 on 06/26/2024. According to the admission Record, the resident had a medical history that included a diagnosis of protein-calorie malnutrition. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 12/24/2024, revealed Resident #26 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10, which indicated the resident had moderate…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-07-08 · tag F0620 — isolatedNot require residents to give up Medicare or Medicaid benefits, or pay privately as a condition of admission; and must tell residents what care they do not provide.
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 their admissions policy and procedure for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) when the facility admitted Resident 1 from the general acute care hospital (GACH) for intravenous (IV-within a vein) antibiotics (medication that fight bacterial [small organism which can cause disease] infections) therapy and the facility did not have registered nurse (RN) on duty to administer the IV antibiotic medication. This failure resulted in Resident 1 not receiving his prescribed IV antibiotic medication and Resident 1 had to be transported back to the GACH just 3 hours after being admitted to the facility. Findings: During a telephone interview on 7/3/24 at 5:02 p.m. with Family Member (FM) 1, FM 1 stated Resident 1 was transferred from the GACH and admitted to the skilled nursing facility for IV antibiotics therapy. FM 1 stated shortly after Resident 1's admission, she received a phone call from the charge nurse informing her the facility did not…
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 · F2023-02-17 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — widespreadEnsure 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility were stored and labeled in accordance with current accepted professional standards of practice when: 1. Resident 34's Lorazepam (a medication used to treat anxiety disorders, trouble sleeping, severe agitation, active seizures including status epilepticus, alcohol withdrawal, and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting) was discontinued on 2/11/13 and the medication was not separated from active medications and was stored in medication cart. 2. Resident 5's Lorazepam with directions that did not match current physician Lorazepam orders and the medication cards of Lorazepam did not have change of direction stickers. These failures had the potential for Lorazepam to be administered past the discontinued date which could result in medication being distributed without physician orders and for Lorazepam to be administered incorrectly without updated directions as prescribed by physician. 3. 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 · Fcited before2023-02-17 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure 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 food was stored, prepared, and served in accordance with the professional standards for food safety service and safety for 73 residents when: 1. The ice machine curtain had calcium build up. 2. The walk-in refrigerator food storage shelving contained a black fuzzy, brown, and white substance, the floor had decomposed food, the wall had black substance, and the door had brown and black grime. 3. The fan located above the dishwashing station was covered with brown debris, and was blowing directly on the cleaned dish area. 4. The can opener based in the kitchen was not kept in a sanitary condition and had black and brown grime build up. 5. The baseboard located under the ice machine had a hole, debris and trash. 6. The floor under the dish machine and dry storage room contained trash, debris, and food crumbs. 7. The reach in meat freezer, reach in refrigerator and reach in vegetable freezer gaskets were torn and contained black and brown grime. 8. The stainless-steel food preparation table had brown…
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 18 citations
- Potential for harm · E2023-02-17 · tag F0552 — patternEnsure that residents are fully informed and understand their health status, care and treatments.
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 a physician Informed Consent (a process in which residents are given important information of the possible risk and benefits of the use of psychoactive medications) for the use of psychotropic medication (medication capable of affecting mind, emotions, and behavior) for two of five sampled residents (Resident 34, and Resident 69) was obtain when: 1. Resident 34 was administered lorazepam (medication used to treat anxiety [intense, excessive, and persistent worry and fear about everyday situations]) without an Informed Consent. 2. Resident 69 was administered mirtazapine (a medication used to treat depression [mood disorder characterized by feelings of sadness and loss of interest]) on 12/6/22 to 12/31/22 and Informed Consent was not obtained prior to medication administration. These failures resulted for Resident 34 and Resident 69 to be administered with psychotropic medications and not fully informed of the risk and benefits 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 · E2023-02-17 · tag F0641 — patternEnsure 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 THE IDR REVIEW, RESIDENTS' 43, 52, AND 7'S FINDINGS WERE DELETED, THEREFORE, LOWERING THE SCOPE/SEVERITY TO E. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set assessment (MDS-assessment of physical and psychological functions and needs) accurately reflected resident's health and functional status for two of nine sampled residents ( Resident 9 & Resident 17) when: 1. Resident 9's anticoagulant medication (medication used to prevent blood clots in the legs) was inaccurately coded on the MDS section N (medications). 2. Resident 17's new pressure ulcer and current antibiotic were not coded in the MDS. These failures had the potential for Resident 9, and Resident 17's necessary care and services not met. Findings: 1. During a review of Resident 9's face sheet titled admission Record, undated, the face sheet indicated, resident 9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included fracture (break in bone) of shaft of right tibia (shin…
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 · E2023-02-17 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive, person-centered care plan (a plan that provides direction for individualized care of the resident) was developed and implemented to meet the identified needs for 3 of 4 sampled residents (Resident 9, Resident 79 and Resident 40) when: 1. Resident 9 did not have a care plan addressing the use of anticoagulant medication. This failure had the potential for Resident 9 to experience severe bruising and bleeding which could lead to serious medical condition and hospitalization. 2. The facility did not implement interventions and a plan of care to treat Resident 79's significant edema (when excess fluid collects in the body) to his bilateral (both right and left) upper extremities (arms). This failure had the potential for Resident 79 to experience medical complications including fluid overload (too much fluid in the body), worsening heart failure (heart does not pump blood effectively) and shortness of breath which could…
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 before2023-02-17 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — patternEnsure 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 residents were free of medication errors in excess of five percent when the facility's medication error rate was 9.52 percent. There were 42 opportunities for errors and 4 medication errors occurred with four of eight sampled residents (Resident 5, Resident 13, Resident 38 and Resident 41). This failure resulted in medication errors for Resident 5, Resident 13, Resident 38 and Resident 41 which placed residents at risk of experiencing adverse side effects without adequate monitoring. Findings: 1. During a medication pass observation on 2/14/23, at 7:58 a.m., with Registered Nurse (RN 1), RN 1 was observed preparing the following medications for Resident 13: Insulin Aspart (a man-made insulin used to control high blood sugar in adults and children with diabetes mellitus [a disease that result in too much sugar I he blood] 14 units (a unit of measurement) and Insulin glargine (is a long acting insulin used in adults with type 2 diabetes and adults and children (6 years of age and older) with type 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.
- Potential for harm · E2023-02-17 · tag F0801 — patternEmploy sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service, including a qualified dietician.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Registered Dietician effectively monitored the food and nutrition services in accordance with the Registered Dietician job description when the Registered Dietician failed to monitor food services operations to ensure safe and sanitary food preparation and storage practices in the kitchen when: 1. Ice machine curtain had calcium build up. 2. The walk-in refrigerator food storage shelving contained a black fuzzy, brown, and white substance, the floor had decomposed food, the wall had black substance, and the door had brown and black grime. 3. The fan located above the dishwashing station was covered with brown debris and was blowing directly on the cleaned dish area 4. The can opener based in the kitchen was not kept in a sanitary condition and had black and brown grim build up. 5. The baseboard located under the ice machine had a hole, debris and trash. 6. The floor under the dish machine and dry storage room contained trash, debris, and food crumbs. 7. The reach in meat freezer, reach in refrigerator 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 · D2023-02-17 · tag F0676 — failed to keep up residents' daily-living abilities — isolatedEnsure residents do not lose the ability to perform activities of daily living unless there is a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure one of eight sampled residents (Resident 83) was provided a shower three times a week in accordance with the facility practice and the scheduled number of showers for Resident 83. This failure had the potential to result in a negative impact to the resident's quality of life and self-esteem. Findings: During a review of Resident 83's admission Record, (document providing admission date, name, date of birth , emergency contact, insurance information, and diagnoses), dated 2/16/23, the face sheet indicated Resident 83 was admitted on [DATE] for a short term stay with Resident 83's daughter as the first emergency contact. Resident 83 had the following diagnosis on admit: intracranial injury (a condition where a sudden, external, physical blow damages the brain), traumatic subdural Hemorrhage (a condition of bleeding inside the skull, and pressure in the brain), Type 2 Diabetes (an impairment in the way the body regulates and uses sugar), chronic…
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 · D2023-02-17 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
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 observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive and effective systematic approach was implemented to monitor and maintain acceptable parameters of nutritional status for one of 76 sampled residents as evidenced when: 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident 74 with severe unplanned weight loss was identify in a timely manner and recommend nutritional interventions. This failure resulted in Resident 74 experienced severe unplanned weight loss 21 pound (lb.) 16.2 percent (%) within five months from 7/1/2022, until 12/3/2022. 2. The Registered Dietician failed to reevaluate Resident 74's comprehensive nutrition assessment per facility policy. This failure had the potential risk to place Resident 74 for impaired nutrition status or compromised nutritional status. (Cross reference F801). Findings: During a review of Resident 74's admission Record (document containing resident demographic information and medical diagnosis), dated 2/15/23, the 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 · D2023-02-17 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free of unnecessary drugs for two of five sampled residents (Resident 5 and Resident 41) when: 1. Facility failed to remove lidocaine patch (used for relief of neuropathic nerve pain [occurs when a health condition damages the nerves that carry sensation to the brain]) to left knee within 12 hours as specified by manufacturer guidelines for Resident 5. 2. Facility failed to monitor, and order Thyroid Stimulating Hormone (TSH- a hormone produced by the pituitary gland [a gland in the brain]. It prompts the thyroid gland to make and release thyroid hormones into the blood) labs (a blood test which measures TSH) annually as clinically indicated for levothyroxine (used to treat thyroid hormone deficiency) for Resident 41. Theses failures had the potential for Residents prescribed medications to be inadequately monitored and assessed for the need and effectiveness of the medications being received. Findings: 1. During an observation of medication administration on 2/14/23, at 9:12 a.m., at…
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 · D2023-02-17 · tag F0836 — isolatedEnsure the facility is licensed under applicable State and local law and operates and provides services in compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and codes, and with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY BASED ON IDR REVIEW F756 WAS MOVED TO F836 Based on interview and record review, the facility's Pharmacy Consultant (PC) failed to follow standards of practice to identify irregularities and make recommendations for two of five sampled residents (Resident 5 and Resident 41) when: 1. Facility failed to remove lidocaine patch (used for relief of neuropathic nerve pain [occurs when the nerves that carries sensation to the brain is damage]) to left knee of Resident 5 within 12 hours as specified by manufacturer guidelines. 2. Facility failed to order Thyroid Stimulating Hormone (TSH- a hormone produced by the pituitary gland [a gland in the brain] which tells the thryroid how much hormone it [NAME] to make) labs - a blood test which measures the thyroid hormone level in the blood) annually as clinically indicated for Levothyroxine (used to treat thyroid hormone deficiency, including a severe form known as myxedema coma) for Resident 41. These failures had the potential to result in the residents increased 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 · Dcited before2023-02-17 · tag F0911 — isolatedEnsure resident rooms hold no more than 4 residents; for new construction after November 28, 2016, rooms hold no more than 2 residents.
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 during the survey period of 2/13/23 through 2/17/23, the facility failed to ensure each bedroom accommodated no more than four residents in eight of 37 rooms (Rooms' 9, 11, 27, 29, 34, 36, and 38 and 39). This failure had the potential to adversely effect care provided to residents. Findings: Throughout the survey period from 2/13/23 through 2/17/23, observations and interviews were conducted for the following rooms: Rooms' 9, 11, 27, 29, 34, 36, 38 and 39. There was an open partition between room [ROOM NUMBER] and room [ROOM NUMBER] which would allow visitors, staff and residents to enter both rooms freely without accessing a door. There were four residents occupying room [ROOM NUMBER] and four residents in room [ROOM NUMBER], totaling eight residents with the shared open partition in the center wall of both rooms. The same configuration was observed for room [ROOM NUMBER] and room [ROOM NUMBER], room [ROOM NUMBER] and room [ROOM NUMBER], room [ROOM NUMBER] and room [ROOM NUMBER]. 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.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2020-03-05 · 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 food items and dishware were stored in a sanitary manner when: 1. One container of coffee creamer was torn and leaking onto other food items in the walk-in refrigerator. 2. Two steam table food pans were not air dried and stored away wet. These deficient practices placed residents at risk of consuming contaminated food and having food prepared in unsanitary food pans could lead to foodborne illness. Findings: 1. During a concurrent observation and interview on 3/2/20, at 8:13 a.m., in the walk-in refrigerator, a container of coffee creamer was on a tray with liquid leaking from the bottom of the coffee creamer carton. The Dietary Manager (DM) stated the coffee creamer needed to be discarded from the refrigerator because it was torn and leaking, and air could enter inside the carton and cause it to spoil. The DM stated if the coffee creamer were to become spoiled, staff would not be aware and could possibly serve spoiled coffee creamer to residents. The DM stated spoiled food items should not be given 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 · E2020-03-05 · tag F0813 — patternHave a policy regarding use and storage of foods brought to residents by family and other visitors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide for the storage of foods brought to residents from outside sources, when the facility policy did not allow residents to store food brought in by family or visitors. This failed practice prevented residents from exercising their rights to store food in the facility that was brought in from outside sources. Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview on 3/3/20, at 10:13 a.m., near the nursing unit, food items from the kitchen were stored in the unit refrigerator. The Dietary Manager (DM) stated food items stored in the unit refrigerator were from the kitchen. The DM stated food items were for nurses or activities personnel to distribute to residents if residents wanted a snack in the evening or throughout the day. The DM stated the facility did not allow food brought in by visitors from outside the facility to be stored in the unit refrigerator. The DM stated the facility policy did not allow storage of food brought in from outside sources. The DM stated residents had to eat food brought in…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2020-03-05 · 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 observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident call lights were easily accessible and within reach for one of 38 sampled residents (Resident 62). This deficient pra resulted in Resident 62's embarrassment when he did not have a call light to call for help which caused him to urinate on himself and prevented Resident 62's needs from being met. Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview, on 3/2/20, at 12:05 p.m., through 12:13 p.m., in Resident 62's room. Resident 62's call light was wrapped around the bed frame and out of Resident 62's reach. Resident 62 was lying on the bed in his room and stated, Move my leg. Take me to the hospital. Need the bathroom. Resident 62's words were garbled and difficult to understand. Resident 62 had a full-leg splint (a devise made of a rigid material used for supporting and immobilizing a bone) on his left leg. Resident 62 turned onto his left side and urinated on the mattress. Resident 62 continued to call out for help. Resident 62 was unable to activate the call light (pushed the button 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 · D2020-03-05 · tag F0655 — isolatedCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
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 develop a baseline care plan for one of 16 sampled residents (Resident 186) when Resident 186 was taking anticoagulation (AC - medications that slow down clot formation and have the potential to increase bleeding) medication and a baseline care plan was not developed for the use of the anticoagulation medication. This deficient practice placed Resident 186 at risk for episodes of bleeding not being detected and monitored timely. Findings: During a concurrent interview and record review on 3/4/20, at 11:04 a.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON reviewed Resident 186's admission physician order dated 2/23/20, which indicated rivaroxaban to (an anticoagulant medication) 20 milligram (mg - a metric measurement) tablet, one tablet by mouth daily. The DON stated Resident 186 was administered rivaroxaban since admission to the facility. The DON reviewed Resident 186's care plans and stated Resident 186 did not have a care plan to monitor rivaroxaban's high risk side effects such as bleeding and there…
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 · D2020-03-05 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide dialysis (the process of artificial filtering and removing excess water, solutes, and toxins from the blood in people whose kidneys can no longer perform these functions) services consistent with professional standards of practice for one of two sampled dialysis residents (Resident 188) when the SNF [Skilled Nursing Facility]/Dialysis Assessment Communication Form (SNF/DACF - form used to communicate pertinent dialysis resident assessment information between the facility nursing staff and dialysis center staff to ensure residents are in stable condition prior to and after dialysis treatment) was incomplete on three of three sampled forms. This deficient practice resulted in inaccurate pre (before) and post (after) dialysis assessment and communication of Resident 188's status and placed resident at increased risk of experiencing undetected adverse reactions from dialysis treatment. Findings: During a concurrent observation 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 · D2020-03-05 · tag F0919 — failed to provide a working call system — isolatedMake sure that a working call system is available in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.
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 call lights were functioning properly for one of 36 sampled rooms (Rm 39) and four of four sample residents (Resident 11, 13, 50, and 76) when the call light monitor in RM [ROOM NUMBER] was not blinking nor sounding at the nurse's station, and the Maintenance Director (MD) did not document call light equipment checks. This failed practice had the potential to result in resident call lights not being answered timely and for emergent situations to be undetected by staff which could lead to resident injuries and/or harm. Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview on 3/2/20, at 11:02 a.m., in room [ROOM NUMBER], Resident 50 stated his call light was not working. Resident 50 stated he needed assistance on 2/28/19 to put on his socks and noticed the call light was not functioning. Resident 50 pushed his call light, and call light monitor above room [ROOM NUMBER] did not light. Resident 50 did not recall who he informed about…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · Bcited before2025-01-30 · tag F0911 — patternEnsure resident rooms hold no more than 4 residents; for new construction after November 28, 2016, rooms hold no more than 2 residents.
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, record review, facility document, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure 4 (adjoined rooms [ROOM NUMBERS], 27 and 29, 34 and 36, and 38 and 39) of 33 bedrooms accommodated no more than four residents. This deficient practice had the potential to result in inadequate space for the delivery of care to each of the residents in each room or for storage of the residents' belongings. Findings included: A facility policy titled, Bedrooms, dated 05/2017, indicated, All residents are provided with clean, comfortable and safe bedrooms that meet federal and state requirements. The policy revealed the section titled Policy Interpretation and Implementation, included, 3. Each room is designed to provide full visual privacy for each resident (in the form of ceiling-suspended curtains that extend around the bed) and equipped for adequate nursing care. A Client Accommodations Analysis, dated as signed by the Administrator on 01/28/2025, revealed the following: - Adjoined rooms…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · Bcited before2020-03-05 · tag F0911 — patternEnsure resident rooms hold no more than 4 residents; for new construction after November 28, 2016, rooms hold no more than 2 residents.
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 and interview, the facility failed to ensure resident rooms accommodated no more than four residents each, when rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] housed a total eight residents, room [ROOM NUMBER] and 29 housed a total eight residents, room [ROOM NUMBER] and 36 housed a total eight residents, and room [ROOM NUMBER] and 39 housed a total eight residents. This failed practice had the potential for residents to not have a reasonable amount of privacy or adequate space. Findings: Throughout the survey period from 3/2/20 through 3/5/20, observations and interviews were conducted for the following rooms: room [ROOM NUMBER], 11, 27, 29, 34, 36, 38, and 39. There was an open partition between room [ROOM NUMBER] and room [ROOM NUMBER] which would allow visitors, staff and residents to enter both rooms freely without accessing a door. There were four residents occupying room [ROOM NUMBER] and four residents occupying room [ROOM NUMBER], totaling eight residents with the shared open partition in the center wall 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.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to 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 | 5 of 5 | 2.9 | +2.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.5 | +1.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.4 | +0.6 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 | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HUDSON RIVER OPCO LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 11/05/2021 |
| BAY BRIDGE CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 11/05/2021 |
| GROSSMAN, STEPHEN | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 06/01/2002 |
| HOBBS, BRETT | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 12/01/2022 |
| APT, FREDERICK | 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 |
2 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $774K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in CA
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the California Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 055204. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-01-30, 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.