Palm Village Retirement Comm.
703 W Herbert Ave, Reedley, CA 93654 · Non profit - Church related · 120 certified beds · (559) 638-6933 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (33% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604) — 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 (33) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- 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) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 3 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 3 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 | 16.7% | 10.2% | 15.4% | typical |
| 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 | 0.7% | 0.8% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.7% | 1.2% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.1% | 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 | 2.5% | 1.6% | 3.3% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 15.1% | 9.8% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 17.9% | 13.7% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 99.1% | 98.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.1% | 4.3% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 19.2% | 10.2% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 12.6% | 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 | 97.4% | 93.2% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 13.2% | 23.0% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 6.9% | 11.2% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.08 | 2.25 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.31 | 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.
49.4% 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 102 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 57.9% 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 38 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 0.14 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 10% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 7% 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 | 49.4%CMS range 39.7–59.4 | 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 | 9.2%CMS range 6.5–12.5 | 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 | 57.9% | 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 | 50.0% | 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 | 60.5% | 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 | 97.8% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 | 2.2% | 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 | 6.2%CMS range 3.3–12.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.14 | 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 120 beds and averages 110.7 residents a day — about 92% occupied, or roughly 9 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 4.05 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.21 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.95 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 3.81 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.14 on weekdays — 8% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.24 to 0.14 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 33% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
33 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 22 are one tap away and print in full.
- Actual harm · G2019-07-22 · 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 ensure residents received adequate supervision and assistance based on the admission/fall risk assessment and care plan to prevent falls for one of four sampled residents (Resident 97) when Resident 97 with known history of falls, assessed as high risk for falls on 6/27/19 and required supervision while ambulating, was ambulating in his room unsupervised, fell and sustained injuries to his head and shoulder. This failure resulted in Resident 97's fall on 6/28/19, a head injury, a fracture (broken bone) of the left clavicle (collarbone), pain and suffering as a result of the injuries. Findings: During a concurrent interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) and clinical record review for Resident 97, on 7/15/19, at 11:38 a.m., the ADON reviewed Resident 97's clinical record and stated Resident 97 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a known history of falls. The ADON stated Resident 97 was admitted to the facility after 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 before2025-07-29 · 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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to properly store medications in two of three medication carts when: 1. Medication cart, referred to as, 900-WB, contained three expired prescription medications for two residents (Resident 59 and Resident 90). 2. Medication cart, referred to as, 300-600, contained one expired prescription medication for one resident (Resident 11) and one expired over-the-counter medication. This failure had the potential to decrease medication potency that could compromise the therapeutic effectiveness of stored medications.Findings: 1. During a concurrent observation and interview on 7/23/25 at 2:08 p.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 3, at medication cart 900-WB, Resident 59's travoprost 0.004% eye drops (prescription eye drop medication that helps lower pressure in the eye) were observed with an expiration date of 7/18/25. Resident 90's lorazepam (prescription oral medication used to treat anxiety) 0.5 MG (milligram- unit of measurement to determine strength of medication) tablets were observed with an expiration date…
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 · F2025-07-29 · tag F0802 — failed to prepare enough nourishing food — widespreadProvide sufficient support personnel to safely and effectively carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure kitchen staff used appropriate portioning utensils for food service, which is necessary to provide accurate and consistent meal portions to residents (Resident 12), when one staff member was observed using a regular metal teaspoon instead of standardized portioning utensil to serve cottage cheese during meal preparation.This failure had the potential to result in inconsistent portion sizes and negatively impact residents' nutritional intake and dietary orders. Findings:During an observation on 7/22/25 at 9:32 a.m. with Kitchen Staff (KS) 1, KS 1, was observed preparing cottage cheese and strawberry salads for lunch. KS 1 stated the salads were being prepared to accommodate resident special requests. KS 1 used a small, regular metal spoon to scoop and portion two scoops of cottage cheese into each container, followed by placing approximately 4 to 5 chopped strawberry slices on top. KS 1 then placed the resident label to the top 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 · Fcited before2025-07-29 · 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 distributed in accordance with professional standards when:1. Four kitchen staff (KS) employees (KS 4,5,6 and 7) and the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) were observed working in the kitchen without wearing beard nets, despite having facial hair.2. Reach in refrigerator was not maintained at 40 degrees Fahrenheit (a way to measure temperature) or below.3. Clean souffle bowls were stored with visible food crumbs and debris on them.4. The stove had visible grease and grime on its surface and behind the unit. The adjacent wire rack, which held bottles of cooking oils and vinegars, had visible grease and food spillage on both the bottles and shelving.5. The chute of the East Wing ice machine, where ice is dispensed, was observed to be soiled with an orange and black substance.The facility's failure to maintain professional standards for food service safety had the potential to expose highly susceptible residents who received food from the kitchen to foodborne illness (an illness…
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 · E2025-07-29 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — patternHonor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
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 provide residents with accessibility to file anonymous grievances or complaints and did not update the grievance policy to ensure the prompt resolution of grievances for three out of 12 sampled residents (Resident 41, Resident 100, and Resident 112) when:1. Resident 41, Resident 100, and Resident 112 did not know how to file a grievance anonymously.2. The facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Palm Village Health Care Center Grievances Policy was not updated to ensure the residents were informed of their right to submit grievances anonymously.This failure placed residents at risk of deterrence from reporting concerns, limited access to grievance resolution, and infringement upon their rights to concerns without fear of identification or reprisal.Findings:1. During a concurrent observation and interview on 7/24/25 at 3:00 p.m. with Resident 41, Resident 100 and Resident 112 in Resident Council meeting, Resident 41 stated he did not know how to file…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-07-29 · 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 observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS- MDS-assessment of physical and psychological functions and needs) accurately reflected resident's health and functional status for three of eight sampled residents (Resident 1, Resident 10, and Resident 73) when: 1.Resident 1's fall and surgery was inaccurately coded in MDS assessment. This failure had the potential to result in Resident care needs not met and the potential for additional fall and injury. 2.Resident 10's restraints were inaccurately coded in the quarterly MDS assessment. This failure had the potential to result in incorrect treatments provided to Resident 10 due to inaccurate assessments.3.Resident 73's restraints were inaccurately coded in the quarterly MDS assessment. This failure had the potential to result in incorrect treatments provided to Resident 73 due to inaccurate assessments.Findings: 1. During a concurrent observation and interview on 7/22/25 at 9:30 a.m. 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 · Ecited before2025-07-29 · 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 develop a comprehensive resident-centered care plan for two of five sample residents (Resident 60 and Resident 1) when:1. Resident 60's care plans did not include the physician prescribed oxygen (O2- a colorless, odorless and tasteless gas essential for life) therapy.This failure had the potential for Resident 60 to experience shortness of breath, respiratory distress, decrease oxygen saturation, confusion, loss of consciousness and respiratory failure (a condition where there is not enough oxygen or too much carbon dioxide in your body).2. Resident 1 did not have a care plan developed for anticoagulant (medication used to prevent blood clots) use, Physical Therapy (PT) and Occupational therapy (OT) treatments.These failures had the potential for side effects of anticoagulant therapy, such as excessive bleeding and blood loss, to go unrecognized by staff, which could result in an emergency medical condition. These failures also had 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 · Ecited before2025-07-29 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — patternEnsure 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to meet professional standards of quality for five of fourteen sampled residents (Resident 60, Resident 87, Resident 32, Resident 2 and Resident 79) when:1.The Licensed nurse (LN) did not accurately assess and document Resident 60's change in skin condition on the weekly assessment.This failure had the potential for Resident 60 to experience worsening skin conditions, declining health status, hospitalization and or death.2.Resident 87 did not receive oxygen (O2- a colorless, odorless and tasteless gas essential for life) therapy as ordered by the physician on 7/1/25.This failure placed Resident 87 at risk for experiencing shortness of breath (SOB) and respiratory distress (difficulty breathing).3. Resident 32's Oxygen therapy (a colorless, odorless, tasteless gas essential to living organisms) was not administered per the physician order. This failure resulted in Resident 32 not receiving her oxygen therapy as ordered which had the potential…
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 · E2025-07-29 · 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 the medication error rate was less than five percent when the facility's medication error rate was 12 percent. There were 25 opportunities for errors and three medication errors occurred for three of thirteen sampled residents (Resident 26, Resident 65 and Resident 79) when:1. Resident 26 was administered a chewable aspirin tablet with oral medications and swallowed whole.2. Resident 65 was administered a chewable aspirin tablet with oral medications and swallowed whole.3. Resident 79 was administered pain medication prescribed for severe pain, despite reporting moderate pain.These failures resulted in the incorrect administration of medication which could lead to a reduction of medication effectiveness, under medication or overmedication and negative outcomes.Findings:1. During a medication pass observation on 7/23/25 at 8:54 a.m., Resident 26 was observed in the hallway seated in her wheelchair. Resident 26 was observed to be wheeled into her room by Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 3. LVN 3 was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-07-29 · 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 Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to observe infection control measures for two of seven sampled residents (Resident 60 and Resident 79) when:1. The Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) did not perform hand hygiene after disposing of soiled wound dressing during Resident 60's wound dressing change observation.This failure had the potential to result in cross contamination (bacteria or other microorganisms are unintentionally transferred from one substance or object to another, with harmful effect) and transmission of infection between residents, staff and visitors.2. There was no storage bag for Resident 60's nasal cannula (NC- a tube that directs oxygen into the nose).This failure had the potential to result in Resident 60 becoming infected with a virus or bacteria from contaminated (having been made impure by exposure to a substance) oxygen tubing.3. Resident 79's oxygen (O2) NC was found unbagged on top of the resident's bedside table lying next to used tissues, and trash can.…
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 before2025-07-29 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide care in a manner that maintained dignity and respect for one of three sampled residents (Resident 8) when Resident 8's urinary catheter (flexible tube inserted into bladder to drain urine) bag was uncovered and visible to other residents and visitors.This failure had the potential to compromise Resident 8's dignity and privacy by exposing their foley catheter bag, leading to embarrassment or psychosocial harm. During a review of Resident 8's admission Record (AR) dated 7/25/25, the AR indicated, Resident 8 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Parkinson's disease ( a progressive disease of the nervous system marked by tremor, muscular rigidity, and slow movements), diabetes mellitus (condition that happens when your blood sugar is too high), obstructive and reflux uropathy (obstructive and reflux uropathy), and malignant neoplasm of the prostate (a cancerous tumor in the prostate gland).During a review…
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 22 citations
- Potential for harm · D2025-07-29 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete a new Preadmission screening and Resident Review (PASARR- a federal requirement to ensure residents with mental disorder or intellectual disorder or intellectual disabilities are not inappropriately placed in a nursing home) level 1 screening for one of five sampled residents (Resident 2) when Resident 2's PASARR level 1 dated 5/14/25 completed prior to admission to the facility did not include diagnosis of anxiety (mental health disorder characterized by feelings of worry or fear that are strong enough to interfere with daily activities) and use of psychotropic medications (drugs that affect the mind, emotions, and behavior). This failure had the potential for Resident 2 to not receive the appropriate services related to her diagnosis and medication used. Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview on 7/23/25 at 8:35 a.m. in Resident 2's room, Resident 2 was observed sitting up in wheelchair at bedside eating breakfast with staff…
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 · D2025-07-29 · tag F0646 — isolatedNotify the appropriate authorities when residents with MD or ID services has a significant change in condition.
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 interviews and record review, the facility failed twice to complete a level 1 Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR), (a Federal requirement to ensure residents with mental disorder or intellectual disorder or intellectual disabilities are not inappropriately placed in a nursing home) screening notifying the state mental health authority or state intellectual disability authority promptly after a significant change for one of three sampled residents (Resident 4). This failure had the potential for Resident 4 to not receive the appropriate services related to her mental disorder.Findings: During a record review of Resident 4's admission Record (AR) (a summary of important information regarding a resident which includes resident identification, past medical history insurance status, care providers, family contact information and other pertinent information), dated 7/25/25, the AR indicated, Resident 4, a [AGE] year-old female was admitted to the facility on [DATE] from another nursing home,…
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 · D2025-07-29 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure two of eleven sampled residents' (Resident 12 and Resident 79) drug regimen was free from unnecessary drugs when: Resident 79 received acetaminophen-codeine (opioid and nonopioid combination prescription medication used to treat pain) tablet prescribed for severe pain, despite reporting moderate pain on 7/19/25, 7/20/25, 7/21/25, 7/22/25, 7/23/25, and 7/24/25. This failure resulted in over-medication and inadequate pain management practices of Resident 79 which had the potential to result in adverse consequences and complications which could lead to serious medical condition. 2. Licensed Nurses did not follow physician ordered acetaminophen medication when Resident 12 was administered acetaminophen for complaints of pain, the acetaminophen was ordered for temperatures above 101 degrees Fahrenheit. This failure had the potential for Resident 12 to not receive adequate pain relief . Findings: 1.During a review of Resident 79’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 · Dcited before2025-05-22 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of three residents (Resident 1) had a non-slip mat on her wheelchair as a care plan intervention to reduce the risk of a fall. This failure had the potential for Resident 1 to have an increased risk of falls, potentially leading to injury including bone fracture, pain, and loss of function. Findings: During a review of Resident 1 ' s admission Record (AR), dated 5/23/25, the AR indicated she was a [AGE] year-old female with diagnoses that included dementia (a progressive disease of the brain that affects memory, judgment, and mood), psychosis (a person ' s thoughts and perceptions are disrupted and they may have difficulty recognizing what is real and what is not), and osteoporosis (a condition where the bones become thin and weak, and more likely to break). During a review of Resident 1 ' s Minimum Data Sheet (MDS, a comprehensive, standardized assessment tool), dated 3/14/25, the MDS indicated at Question GG0170, E, a score…
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 · F2024-08-02 · tag F0623 — widespreadProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide one of one resident (Resident (R)118) reviewed for hospital transfers out of a total sample of 33 residents a written transfer notice when R118 was transferred to the hospital. This failure placed all residents and their representatives at risk of having incomplete information, misunderstand the reason of transfer/discharge, and the discharge appeal process. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Transfer and Discharge Notice dated 06/2017 read in part 1. The resident and, if known, a family member or resident representative shall be notified in writing and in a language and manner they understand, of the transfer or discharge and the reason for the move before a transfer or discharge takes place. Review of R118's undated Facesheet located in the resident's electronic medical record (EMR) under the Profile tab revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of R118's Notice 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 · F2024-08-02 · tag F0625 — widespreadNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
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, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide one of one residents (Resident (R) 118) reviewed for hospital transfers out of a total sample of 33 residents a written bed hold when R118 was transferred to the hospital. This failure This failure placed all residents of the facility at risk for the resident and/or responsible parties to not have the information needed to safeguard their return to the facility. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Bed-Hold Notification dated 01/2017 read in part .Inform the resident or resident's representative, in writing, of their right to exercise the bed hold provision and the state bed-hold policy of seven (7) days, which will permit the resident to return and resume .provide written information at the time of admission and transfer to general acute care hospital or for a therapeutic leave. Review of R118's undated Facesheet located in the resident's electronic medical record (EMR) under the Profile tab…
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 · F2024-08-02 · tag F0727 — failed to provide required RN coverage — widespreadHave a registered nurse on duty 8 hours a day; and select a registered nurse to be the director of nurses on a full time basis.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to ensure a Registered Nurse (RN) was on duty eight consecutive hours in a 24 hour period, seven days a week. This placed all residents of the facility at risk for unmet clinical needs either directly by the lack of RN coverage or indirectly by the Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs) or the Certified Nurse Aides (CNAs) for whom the RN was responsible for overseeing resident care. Findings include: Review of a facility's policy titled Departmental Supervision, Nursing, revised 08/2022 revealed .2. A registered nurse provides services at least eight (8) consecutive hours every 24 hours, seven (7) days a week. RNs may be scheduled more than eight hours depending on the acuity needs of the resident . Review of the facility's Nursing Schedules, dated 12/24/23 through 08/02/24, provided by the Administrator indicated no documented evidence a RN worked eight consecutive hours in a 24 hour period on 01/01/24, 01/06/24, 01/07/24, 01/01/24, 01/19/24, 01/20/24, 01/28/24, 02/03/24, 02/04/24, 02/10/24,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2019-07-22 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — patternHonor 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 residents were treated with respect and dignity for meals served in the East Wing dining room for 7 of 16 sampled residents (Resident's 17, 31, 46, 53, 65, 99 and 108) when: 1. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 4 stopped assisting Resident 17 and Resident 53 during lunch and Resident 17 and Resident 53 were kept waiting to be fed while CNA 4 assisted other residents (Residents 5 and 63) on different occasions. 2. CNA 5 stopped assisting Resident 65 and Resident 108 during lunch and Resident 65 and Resident 108 were kept waiting to be fed while CNA 5 assisted other residents (Residents 46 and 63) on different occasions. 3. Resident 31's, Resident 86's, Resident 53's and Resident 66's right to be served meals in an area designated for dining was not done. Instead the meals were served in the hallway by CNA 6. 4. CNA 11 was in the standing position and stood over Resident 17 and Resident 53 to assist during breakfast. These failures violated the rights of Residents 17, 31, 46, 53, 65, 99 to be treated 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 · E2019-07-22 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — patternKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
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 the residents right to privacy during care for two of two sampled residents (Resident 23 and 89) when Licensed Vocational Nurses (LVN 3 and LVN 4) provided care to Resident 23 and 89 without closing privacy curtains during medication administration observation. This deficient practice resulted in Resident 23's and 89's right to privacy during the delivery of care. Findings: During a medication administration observation, on 7/16/19, at 7:45 a.m., LVN 4 entered Resident 89's room and took the resident's apical pulse (heart rate) in view of other staff providing care to other residents, and a visiting family member. LVN 4 did not close the privacy curtain to offer Resident 89 privacy. During an interview with LVN 4, on 7/16/19, at 7:50 a.m., she stated she should have closed the privacy curtain around Resident 89's bed to ensure her privacy was protected from others not involved in her care. During a medication administration observation, on 7/16/19, at 8:35 a.m., LVN 3 entered Resident 23's room 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 · Ecited before2019-07-22 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS- assessment of healthcare and functional needs) assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for three of three sampled residents (Resident 2, Resident 15, and Resident 61) when: 1. Rejection of care was incorrectly coded in Section E (behavior) in four of five of Resident 2's MDS assessments. 2. Pressure ulcer was incorrectly coded in Section M (skin condition) of Resident 15's annual assessment. 3. Pain was incorrectly coded in Section J (health condition) of Resident 61's 5-day assessment. These failures resulted in an inaccurate assessments of Resident 2, 15 and 61's MDS assessment, resulted in care plans for refusal of weights to not be addressed and updated in IDT meetings for Resident 2, and had the potential to result in Resident 15 and 61's care needs going unmet. Findings: 1. During a concurrent interview and record review with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 2, on 7/17/19, at 3:29 a.m., he reviewed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2019-07-22 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — patternEnsure 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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide care and services in accordance with professional standards of quality for three of five sampled residents (Residents 23, 47, and 89) when: 1. Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 3 and LVN 4 signed the medication administration record (MAR) prior to the administration of medications to Resident 23, 47, and 89. These failures had the potential to place Resident 23, 47, and 89 at risk for medication errors. 2. LVN 3 did not follow the directions of use for Resident 23's medication order for stool softener. This failure had the potential to place Resident 23 at risk for developing bowel complications. Findings: 1. During a medication administration observation with LVN 4, on 7/16/19, at 7:45 a.m., in [NAME] Wing, LVN 4 prepared the scheduled morning medications for Resident 89. LVN 4 was observed clicking the box next to the medication on the Electronic Medication Administration Record (EMAR) (a software designed for medication administration) as she dispensed the medication into the medication cup prior 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 · E2019-07-22 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — patternProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
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 sufficient staffing to provide care and services to ensure residents received the needed care to attain and maintain their highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being for the eight of 16 sampled residents (Resident's 17, 31, 46, 53, 65, 86, 99, and 108) when three Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA) were unable to provide residents with full attention, continuous and uninterrupted feeding assistance during meal service. These failures had the potential to result in Resident's 17, 31, 46, 53, 65, 86, 99, and 108 not meeting their daily nutritional needs and could lead to unplanned weight loss. Findings: During a lunch meal dining observation, on 7/15/19, at 11:42 p.m., in the East wing dining room, 14 residents were seated to eat their meal inside the dining area and two residents out in the hallway. Three CNAs working in the morning shift (7am to 3:30 pm) attempted to provide meal assistance to eight residents…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2019-07-22 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure 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 two of four medication carts were locked and medications were securely stored when: 1. Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 3 left the medication cart unlocked and unattended. 2. LVN 11 left the medication unlocked and left Resident 91's medications on top of the medication cart, unattended and accessible to residents, staff and visitors passing by in the East Wing hallway. These failures placed residents at risk of actual or potential for harm. Findings: 1. During a medication pass observation and interview with LVN 3, on 7/16/19, at 8:35 a.m., LVN 3 left the medication cart unlocked and out of sight in front of room [ROOM NUMBER] while she was inside the restroom of room [ROOM NUMBER] washing her hand with door closed. LN 3 stated she was unable to see the unlocked medication cart behind the closed restroom door. LVN 3 stated the medication cart should have been locked. During interview with LVN 8, on 7/17/19, at 3:41 p.m., LVN 8…
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 · E2019-07-22 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — patternEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the 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 Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure 13 of 13 sampled residents (Resident 29, 33, 37, 43, 47, 63, 66, 69, 71, 89, 94, 112, and 118) received the menu as planned during a dining observation when: 1. One of one Dietary Aides (DA 1) did not adjust the pureed recipe menu for pasta to account for the number of servings she was pureeing (a paste or thick liquid suspension usually made from cooked food ground finely). 2. The therapeutic diet menu portion sizes for small portion, mechanical (ground) diets was not followed for 13 of 13 sampled residents (Resident 29, 33, 37, 43, 47, 63, 66, 69, 71, 89, 94, 112, and 118) These failures had the potential to result in residents on pureed diets to choke on their food and for residents on small portion diets to be overwhelmed by the amount of food they were served and placed resident at risk of unplanned weight loss. Findings: 1. During a concurrent observation in the kitchen and interview with DA 1, on 7/15/19, at 10:19 a.m., DA 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 · Ecited before2019-07-22 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in the kitchen when: 1. One dented can of puree pumpkin was stored with the undented canned food and was available for use in residents food. 2. One can of tomato base bullion with an expiration date of 2/20/19 (five months prior) was stored on a kitchen shelf and available for use in residents food. 3. Six open bags of bread were stored in the kitchen and available for use in residents food were not labeled with opened dates. 4. One unlabeled and undated, plastic container of a white powdered substance (food and liquid thickener) was stored in the kitchen and available for use in residents' pureed food. These findings had the potential to result in contaminated, expired, and non-palatable foods being served to the residents of the facility which could further result in food borne illnesses, decreased food consumption, and potential weight loss. Findings: 1. During a concurrent observation in the kitchen pantry and interview 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 · E2019-07-22 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — patternSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain medical records on each resident that are complete, accurately documented and readily accessible for two of six sampled residents (Resident 61 and Resident 83) when a copy of Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) form (a legal document that specifies the type of care a resident's treatment and services would like in an emergency life threatening medical situation) was not readily available as part of Resident 61 and Resident 83's current medical records. This failure had the potential risk for Resident 61 and Resident 83's decisions regarding their healthcare and treatment options not being honored. Findings: 1. During a concurrent interview with medical records (MR) 1 and record review, on 7/15/19, at 11:23 a.m., MR 1 reviewed Resident 61's clinical record and was unable to find the POLST form. MR 1 stated Resident 61's clinical record should had had a POLST form. MR 1 stated the POLST form should have been completed 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 · Ecited before2019-07-22 · 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
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program when: 1. Five Certified Nursing assistant (CNA's 4, 5, 6, 10, and 11) and one Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 6 did not perform hand hygiene before, between and after physical contact with 11 of 22 sampled residents (Resident 5, 17, 31, 46, 53, 63, 65, 72, 86, 99, and 108) during lunch meal service in the dining room. 2. License Vocational nurse (LVN) 4 did not disinfect her stethoscope (medical instrument for listening to heart or breathing sounds) after each resident use. These deficient practices had the potential to result in cross contamination and placed residents at risk for infection. Findings: 1. During a Lunch meal dining observation on 7/15/19, at 12:30 p.m., in the East wing, CNA 4 was providing feeding assistance to Resident 17 and Resident 53. CNA 4 stopped feeding Resident 17, and 53 when she saw Resident 5 who was sitting at a corner of the dining room, stand up from her chair and tried to pick up the utensil that fell on the floor. CNA 4 took…
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 · E2019-07-22 · tag F0920 — patternProvide at least one room set aside to use as a resident dining room and for activities, that is a good size, with good lighting, air flow and furniture.
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 sufficient space in the East Wing dining room (the smaller of two facility dining rooms) to safely and comfortably accommodate 16 of 16 (Residents 5, 17, 26, 30, 31, 46, 53, 63, 65, 66, 72, 78, 81, 86, 99, and 108) sampled residents who ambulate (walk), use walkers and wheelchairs (mobility devices). During meal times (breakfast, lunch and dinner); tables, chairs and mobility devices blocked the entrances and exits of the dining room and did not provide comfortable spacing between residents. Facility staff did not develop and implement a plan to maintain safe passage in and out of the dining room. These failures placed residents in the Alzheimer's (a decline in memory or other thinking skills severe enough to reduce a person's ability to perform everyday activities safely) unit who used the East Wing dining room at risk for potential harm and injury due to crowded or blocked entrances and/or exits. Findings: During a lunch meal observation, on 7/15/19, at 11:35 a.m., in the East Wing dining room,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-07-22 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolatedEnsure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
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 use the least restrictive alternative for the least amount of time and to assess and document ongoing re-evaluation of the need for restraints in accordance with the facility's policy and procedure for one of three sampled residents when Resident 520 was prescribed a tab alarm on admission without using a less restrictive alternative and was not assessed or re-evaluated for 14 days. This deficient practice unnecessarily restrained Resident 520 and kept her from freely moving and reaching for items for fear of setting off the alarm. Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview with Resident 520, on 7/15/19, at 11:31 a.m., in the resident's room, she was sitting up in her wheelchair watching television. Resident 520 had a tab alarm device attached to her wheelchair and the alarm cord clipped to the back of her shirt. Resident 520 stated the facility had alarms attached to her while she was in her wheelchair and when she was 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 · D2019-07-22 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a baseline resident centered care plans (a plan that provides direction for individualized care of the resident) were developed and implemented to meet the identified needs of two of four sampled residents (Resident 60 and 520) when: 1. Resident 60 did not have a fall risk care plan with interventions to address Resident 60's safety risks to prevent fall. 2. Resident 520's tab alarm care plan did not include interventions and goals. 2b. Resident 520 did not have a tab alarm restraint care plan. These failures affected Resident 60 and 520's quality of care and needs not being addressed and resulted in Resident 60's fall and contributed to Resident 520's unnecessary restraints. Findings: 1. During an interview with Resident 60, on 7/17/19, at 10:19 a.m., Resident 60 stated she had another fall on 7/8/19 when she got up from her wheelchair and tried to transfer herself to her bed and fell down on the floor. During an interview 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 · D2019-07-22 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
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 timely revise and implement a person-centered comprehensive care plans for one of three sampled residents (Resident 2) when Resident 2's refusals of physician ordered weights was not reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team (IDT - A coordinated group of experts from several different healthcare fields who work together toward an identified resident goal). These failures directly contributed to a severe weight gain of 92 pounds within 11 months and placed Resident 2 at an increased risk for health related complications. Findings: During a concurrent interview and record review with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 2, on 7/17/19, at 3:29 a.m., he reviewed Resident 2's weight log and stated Resident 2 had been refusing her physician ordered weekly weights and had gained a lot of weight in the last year. LVN 2 stated Resident 2's weekly weight log indicated Resident 2 began refusing weekly weights on 1/14/18 and refused all weekly weights from…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-07-22 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure activities of daily living (ADL) were provided to maintain good grooming for one of 57 sampled residents (Resident 42) when Resident 42's finger nails were long and contained a black substance under the nail beds. This failure resulted in Resident 42's nails not being well groomed and the potential for harboring microorganisms (bacteria, virus, or fungus) or infection. Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview with Resident 42, on 7/15/19, at 10:20 a.m., outside of his room, Resident 42 sat in his wheelchair alone putting a puzzle together. Resident 42 had long fingernails approximately 0.5 cm (centimeter - a unit of measurement) with a black substances underneath the nail beds. Resident 42 stated I want my nails to be cut and I was just waiting for the staff to cut and trim my nails. During a concurrent observation and interview with the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 13, on 7/15/19, at 10:25 a.m., she stated…
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.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MENNONITE BRETHREN HOMES, INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 03/01/2008 |
| HIGBEE, JAMES | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 08/01/2023 |
| BRANDT, JACK | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 02/26/2019 |
| KIRKLAND, GABRIELLE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 02/26/2022 |
| KRIEGBAUM, ARNOLD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 02/26/2019 |
| PETERS, GERALD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 02/26/2019 |
| RAY, KAREN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 02/26/2019 |
| RIVOIRE, CHARLES | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 02/26/2019 |
| SWINEY, VIVIAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 02/26/2013 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 11 rows in the source record cover these 9 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
1 organizational owner 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.
A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
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 555513. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-07-29, 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.