Main West Postacute Care
812 West Main Street, Turlock, CA 95380 · For profit - Corporation · 99 certified beds · (209) 667-2828 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- 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
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (28% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — 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 (41) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 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 | 4 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 | 11.2% | 10.2% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.4% | 4.0% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 2.6% | 0.8% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.3% | 1.2% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 7.3% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.4% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.8% | 1.6% | 3.3% | typical for the state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 6.0% | 9.8% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 28.3% | 13.7% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 98.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.0% | 4.3% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 6.1% | 10.2% | 21.2% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 10.9% | 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 | 95.0% | 93.2% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 19.7% | 23.0% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 15.8% | 11.2% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.40 | 2.25 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.65 | 1.57 | 1.80 | typical |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
35.9% 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 81 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 54.5% 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 33 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 0.12 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 7% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 36% 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 | 35.9%CMS range 25.8–45.3 | 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 | 11.2%CMS range 8.0–16.9 | 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 | 54.5% | 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 | 66.7% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 33.3% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 93.2% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 97.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 73.9% | 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 | 1.4% | 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 | 7.7%CMS range 5.1–12.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.48 | 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 99 beds and averages 90.1 residents a day — about 91% 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.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.62 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.93 on weekdays — 8% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.44 to 0.39 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 28% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
41 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 31 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · E2026-02-04 · tag F0825 — patternProvide or get specialized rehabilitative services as required for a resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide Physical Therapy (PT-a health professional trained to evaluate and treat people who have conditions or injuries that limit their ability to move and do physical activities) and Occupational Therapy (OT- a health professional that provides services to increase and/or maintain a person's capability to participate in everyday life activities) for five of five residents (Residents 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) when Residents 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 did not receive PT and OT treatments ranging from 1/5/26 to 2/4/26 that had been prescribed by their physician. These failures had the potential to result in a decline in the range of motion, decreased functional status, loss of gains and overall weakness for Residents 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a resident assessment tool used to identify resident cognitive (the mental processes of perception, thinking, learning, memory, reasoning, and judgment) Assessment, dated 12/30/25, the MDS indicated Resident 1's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS -an…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2025-03-07 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — widespreadDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure discarded items were secured inside of a dumpster. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all 96 residents who resided in the facility. Findings included: During an observation of the rear of the facility on 03/05/2025 at 10:19 AM, there was a cluttered area that contained 13 bags of clothing items, seven mattresses that were stained brown and stacked on top of a bed, a dusty plate warmer, and pallets. During an interview on 03/05/2025 at 10:25 AM, the Housekeeping Supervisor stated the items located at the rear of the facility had been there for three to six months and the maintenance staff were responsible for cleaning the area. During an interview on 03/05/2025 at 10:29 AM, Laundry Staff #5 stated the clutter of items had been located in the same area since she started working at the facility in 08/2024. During an interview on 03/05/2025 at 10:30 AM, the Maintenance Assistant (MA) stated some of the items were trash and other items were spart parts. Per the MA, every six to eight months, the facility…
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 · D2025-03-07 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — isolatedHonor 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
Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff reported a resident's grievance to the designated Grievance Officer so that an investigation could be initiated for 1 (Resident #66) of 21 sampled residents. Findings included: A facility policy titled, Grievances/Complaints, Recording & Investigating, dated 01/2018, revealed, All grievances and complaints filed with the facility will be investigated and corrective actions will be taken to resolve the grievance(s). Policy Interpretation and Implementation 1. The Administrator has assigned the responsibility of investigating grievances and complaints to the Social Services Department if applicable, otherwise, 2. 2. Upon receiving a grievance and complaint report, designated Grievance Officer will begin an investigation into the allegation. 3. The Department Director(s) of any named employee(s) will be notified of the nature of the complaint that an investigation is underway. 4. The investigation and report will include, as applicable: a. the date and time of the alleged incident; b. 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 · D2025-03-07 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review, document review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to report allegations of abuse to facility management and to the state survey agency for 2 (Resident #57 and Resident #69) of 3 sampled residents reviewed for abuse. Specifically, facility staff failed to report allegations of abuse after becoming aware of the allegation when a police officer reported to staff that Resident #57 called and said a staff member restrained the resident; and when a police officer reported to staff that Resident #69 called and reported that a certified nursing assistant (CNA) pushed them. Findings included: A facility policy titled, Abuse and Neglect Prohibition Policy, dated 06/2022, revealed, It is the facility's policy to prohibit abuse, mistreatment, neglect, involuntary seclusion, and misappropriation of property for all residents through the following: Screening of potential hires; Training of employees (both new employees and ongoing training for all employees); Prevention of occurrences; Identification of possible incidents or allegations which need…
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 · D2025-03-07 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
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, document review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to identify and thoroughly investigate an allegation of abuse for 1 (Resident #69) of 3 sampled residents reviewed for abuse. Specifically, facility staff failed to investigate an allegation of abuse for Resident #69 once they became aware of the allegation when a police officer came to the facility on [DATE] and reported to staff that Resident #69 called and reported that a certified nursing assistant (CNA) pushed them. Findings included: A facility policy titled, Abuse and Neglect Prohibition Policy, dated 06/2022, revealed, It is the facility's policy to prohibit abuse, mistreatment, neglect, involuntary seclusion, and misappropriation of property for all residents through the following: Screening of potential hires; Training of employees (both new employees and ongoing training for all employees); Prevention of occurrences; Identification of possible incidents or allegations which need investigation;…
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 · D2025-03-07 · tag F0636 — isolatedAssess the resident completely in a timely manner when first admitted, and then periodically, at least every 12 months.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, document review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to complete a comprehensive assessment at least every 366 days for 4 (Residents #9, #23, #66, and #89) of 22 sampled residents reviewed for resident assessment. Findings included: A facility policy titled, MDS [Minimum Data Set] Completion and Submission Timeframes, dated 01/2018, revealed, Our facility will conduct and submit resident assessments in accordance with current federal and state submission timeframes. The policy specified, 2. Timeframes for completion and submission of assessments is based on the current requirements published in the Resident Assessment Instrument Manual. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 User's Manual, dated 10/2024, revealed Comprehensive Assessments OBRA [Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act]-required comprehensive assessments include the completion of both the MDS and the CAA [care area assessment] process, as well…
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 · D2025-03-07 · tag F0638 — isolatedAssure that each resident’s assessment is updated at least once every 3 months.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, document review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to complete a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) at least every 92 days for 3 (Residents #24, #66, and #93) of 22 sampled residents reviewed for resident assessment. Findings included: A facility policy titled, MDS [Minimum Data Set] Completion and Submission Timeframes, dated 01/2018, revealed, Our facility will conduct and submit resident assessments in accordance with current federal and state submission timeframes. The policy specified, 2. Timeframes for completion and submission of assessments is based on the current requirements published in the Resident Assessment Instrument Manual. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 User's Manual, dated 10/2024, revealed The Quarterly assessment is an OBRA [Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act] non-comprehensive assessment for a resident that must be completed at least every 92 days following the previous OBRA…
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 before2025-03-07 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the accuracy of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) for 1 (Resident #42) of 3 sampled residents reviewed for preadmission screening and resident review (PASARR). Findings included: A facility policy titled, Certifying Accuracy of the Resident Assessment, dated 01/2018, revealed, Any person completing a portion of the Minimum Data Set/MDS (Resident Assessment Instrument) must sign and verify the accuracy of that portion of the assessment. An admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #42 on 05/03/2019. According to the admission Record, the resident had a medical history that included diagnoses of schizophrenia and major depressive disorder. An annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 06/10/2024, revealed Resident #42 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10, which indicated the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS indicated the resident was not currently considered by the state level II PASARR process to have a serious…
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 · D2025-03-07 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the accuracy of a preadmission screening and resident review (PASARR) for 1 (Resident #84) of 3 sampled residents reviewed for PASARR. Findings included: A facility policy titled, Preadmission Screening and Resident Review, with a release date of 01/2018, indicated, The completed Level I screening form must be reviewed by the Admissions Coordinator or designated staff to verify completeness and accuracy. An admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident #84 on 03/29/2023. According to the admission Record, the resident had a medical history to include a diagnosis of unspecified psychosis, schizophrenia, major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, and anxiety disorder. Resident #84's Preadmission Screening and Resident Review Level I Screening, dated 08/07/2023, revealed the resident did not have a serious diagnosed mental disorder such as depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, panic disorder, schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder, or symptoms of psychosis, delusions, and/or mood…
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 before2025-03-07 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure licensed nurses stayed with a resident to ensure all medication was administered as ordered by the physician for 1 (Resident #8) of 21 sampled residents. Findings included: An admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #8 on 09/23/2024. According to the admission Record, the resident had a medical history that included diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, acute bronchitis, chronic respiratory failure, and acute respiratory failure. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 02/08/2025, revealed Resident #8 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicated the resident had intact cognition. Resident #8's Care Plan Report, included a focus area initiated 08/26/2024, that indicated the resident had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with multiple comorbidities. Interventions directed staff to administer ipratropium-albuterol inhalation solution and albuterol-ipratropium as ordered. Resident #8's Order Summary…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 31 citations
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-07 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review, document review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to implement the pharmacist's recommendation for 1 (Resident #93) of 5 sampled residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Findings included: An undated facility policy titled, Consultant Pharmacist Reports, revealed, The consultant pharmacist performs a comprehensive medication regimen review (MRR) at least monthly. The MRR includes evaluating the resident's response to medication therapy to determine that the resident maintains the highest practicable level of functioning and prevents or minimizes adverse consequences related to medication therapy. Findings and recommendations are reported to the director of nursing and the attending physician, and if appropriate, the medical director and/or the administrator. The policy further revealed, G. Recommendations are acted upon and documented by the facility staff and or the prescriber. 1) Physician accepts and acts upon suggestion or rejects and provides an explanation for disagreeing. An admission Record revealed the facility…
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 · D2025-03-07 · tag F0791 — failed to provide routine dental services — isolatedProvide or obtain dental services for each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, document review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to address dental needs for 1 (Resident #39) of 1 sampled resident reviewed for dental. Findings included: A facility policy titled, Availability of Services, Dental, dated 01/2018 indicated the following, Oral healthcare and dental services will be provided to each resident. PROCESS 1. Dental services are available to all residents requiring routine and emergency dental care. The policy continued, 3. Social services will be responsible for making necessary dental appointments. 4. All requests for routine and emergency dental services should be directed to social services to assure that appointments can be made in a timely manner. An admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident #39 on 02/15/2024. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 11/19/2024, revealed Resident #39 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13, which indicated the resident had intact cognition. Resident #39's Care Plan Report, included a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-03-07 · 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, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to implement enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) for 2 (Resident #93 and Resident #252) of 21 sampled residents. Findings included: A facility policy titled Enhanced Barrier Precaution, dated 06/2022, revealed, Enhanced Barrier Precautions expand the use of PPE [personal protective equipment] and refer to the use of gown and gloves during high-contact resident care activities that provide opportunities for transfer of MDROs [multidrug-resistant organism] to staff hands and clothing. MDROs may be indirectly transferred from resident-to-resident during these high-contact activities. The policy specified, 1. Enhanced Barrier Precautions can be applied to residents with any of the following: a. Wounds or indwelling medical devices, regardless of MDRO colonization status such as but not limited to central line, urinary catheter, feeding tubes, tracheostomy/ventilator care). B. Infection or colonization with an MDRO. 2. Use EBP for high-contact resident care activities by using gown and glove…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-01-27 · tag 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the interventions indicated in the plan of care were being provided by the nursing staff for Resident 1 in accordance with professional standards of practice for one of four sampled residents (Resident 1), when Resident 1 ' s splint and finger sleeve was not available for Resident 1. This failure failed to meet the medical needs of Resident 1 and had the potential to contribute to contractures (perment tightenting of joints that casues stifness) Resident 1 ' s right hand. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's admission Record (AR) (document containing resident demographic information and medical diagnosis), dated 1/27/25, the AR indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 1's diagnosis included but are not limited to .TYPE 1 DIABETES MELLITUS WITH UNSPECIFIED DIABETIC RETINOPATHY WITHOUT MACULAR EDEMA (DM-a disorder characterized by difficulty in blood sugar control and poor wound healing) .ESSENTIAL…
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 · D2024-08-23 · tag F0624 — isolatedPrepare residents for a safe transfer or discharge from the nursing home.
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 observation, the facility failed to ensure sufficient preparation and orientation for a safe and orderly discharge from the facility for one of one sampled resident (Resident 1) when the facility planned to discharge Resident 1, a [AGE] year-old female with medical and physical needs, to a homeless shelter. This failure resulted in emotional stress, increased anxiety, an increase in antipsychotic medication (used to treat mental health disorders), and near daily episodes of mood swings as evidenced by angry outbursts from Resident 1 and potential for an unsafe discharge. Findings: During a review of Resident 1 ' s admission Record (AR), dated 8/6/24, the AR indicated Resident 1 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility six years ago. Resident 1 ' s diagnoses included Multiple Sclerosis (MS, a chronic neurological disorder), Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (chronic condition regarding the inability to control blood sugar), Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD, a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-08-23 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of one sampled resident (Resident 1) had an accurate Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS, a set of comprehensive, standardized assessments), when her MDS assessment dated [DATE] was not accurate. This failure had to potential to affect the care and facility placement of Resident 1. Findings: During a review of Resident 1 ' s admission Record (AR), dated 8/6/24, the AR indicated Resident 1 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility six years ago. During a review of an email from Resident 1 ' s insurance provider, dated 7/3/24, at 2:44 PM, and addressed to the facility ' s Social Services Director, the email indicated Resident 1 . does not have needs that require this level of care [care required by a Skilled Nursing Facility] . the member is appropriate to discharge to a lower level of care. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Progress Notes (PN), dated 8/5/24, at 4:33 PM, the PN indicated, SSD, joined by DON [Director of Nursing],…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-05-07 · tag F0849 — isolatedArrange for the provision of hospice services or assist the resident in transferring to a facility that will arrange for the provision of hospice services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to follow the policy and procedure titled, Hospice (care that focuses on the quality of life for people who are experiencing an advanced, life-limiting illness) Program for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) when the facility failed to collaborate with the facility and hospice provider regarding Resident 1 ' s request to receive HIV (human immunodeficiency virus - virus that attacks cells that help the body fight infection) treatment. This failure resulted in Resident 1 not receiving HIV treatment and increasing his chances of weakened immunity (protecting the body against an infectious). Findings: During an interview on 5/7/24 at 2:00 p.m. with Family (FM 1), FM 1stated that the facility informed him that hospice was responsible to provide HIV medication. FM 1 stated when he spoke to hospice they informed him that the facility was responsible to provide the HIV medication and that there was no reason that he couldn ' t receive it.…
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 · D2024-04-24 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) maintained acceptable parameters of nutritional status when the Registered Dietitian (RD) was not notified of Resident 1's weight loss of 6.8 pounds (9.6%) in 3 weeks and by mouth (PO) intake was 60% to obtain recommendations to prevent unplanned and further weight loss. As a result of this failure, Resident 1's compromised nutritional status was not addressed which had the potential to lead to further medical complications. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's admission Record (document containing resident demographic information and medical diagnosis) undated, the admission record indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 1's diagnosis included hypertension (high blood pressure), long term use of insulin (controls amount of sugar in the body) and muscle weakness. During a review of the facility document titled, Weights and Vitals Summary (WVS), dated 4/29/24,…
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 · E2023-08-25 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents environment remained free of accidents and hazards when: 1. Four of 41 residents' rooms (Residents 6, 54, 64 and 73) had unsecured, exposed electrical cable wires and were hanging from the ceiling within arm's reach. 2. Six of 41 residents' rooms (Resident 3, 4, 63, 67, 68 and 71) had water leaking in the bathroom from a clogged swamp cooler line. These failures had the potential to place residents and staff at risk for accident hazards such as electrocution, skin burns, slip and fall, ceiling collapse and avoidable resident and staff injury. Findings: 1. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/22/23 at 10:22 a.m. with Resident 73 in her room, unsecured exposed cable wires hung from ceiling tiles within arm's reach were observed. Resident 73 sat in her wheelchair next to her bed and stated the cable wires have been hanging for as long as she can remember. Resident 73 stated it was unsafe. During a concurrent…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-08-25 · tag F0849 — patternArrange for the provision of hospice services or assist the resident in transferring to a facility that will arrange for the provision of hospice services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow the policy and procedure titled, Hospice Program for eight of eight sampled residents (Residents 25, 26, 47, 54, 55, 81, 85, and 291) when the facility failed to ensure hospice (care that focuses on the quality of life for people who are experiencing an advanced, life-limiting illness) personnel caring for residents under hospice services were provided orientation to the facility's policies and procedures. This failure had the potential to place Residents 25, 26, 47, 54, 55, 81, 85, and 291 at risk of not receiving appropriate medical, physical, psychosocial, and spiritual support to manage symptoms associated with terminal illness. Findings: During an interview on 8/23/23, at 8:09 a.m., with Hospice Registered Nurse (RNCM), in Station 1 hallway, RNCM stated, she was the assigned RNCM for Resident 25 and Resident 54 for over a month. RNCM stated, she performs skilled nursing assessment for Resident 25 and Resident 54 and collaborates with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-08-25 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS- a resident assessment tool used to identify resident care needs) assessment accurately reflected resident's current status for one of three sampled residents (Resident 64) when MDS assessments failed to accurately code the functional limitations according to the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI- guidelines on gathering definitive information on a resident's strengths and needs) guidelines. This failure had the potential for Residents 64 not being provided with the necessary care and services to meet his healthcare needs. Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/22/23 at 11:09 a.m. with Resident 64, Resident 64 was observed in his wheelchair with a contracted (a condition of shortening and hardening of muscles, tendons, or other tissue, often leading to deformity and rigidity of joints) left hand. Resident 64 stated, he had left sided weakness related to previous stroke (damage to the brain from interruption of its blood supply). During a review 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 · D2023-08-25 · tag F0790 — failed to provide dental care — isolatedProvide routine and 24-hour emergency dental care for each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide routine dental care for one of three sampled residents (Resident 79) according to the facility's policy and procedure titled, Dental Services, when Resident 79 had not been seen for routine dental services since being admitted to the facility on [DATE]. This failure resulted in Resident 79 not having a dental appointment since admission and wanting dentures. Findings: During a record review of Resident 79's admission Record (AR), dated 8/25/23, the AR indicated, Resident 79 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had .Unspecified Protein-Calorie Malnutrition . (a disorder caused by lack of proper nutrition or an inability to absorb nutrients from food). During a record review of Resident 79's Minimum Data Set (MDS), assessment (an evaluation of a resident's cognitive and functional status) dated 7/11/23, the MDS indicated the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score (an assessment of a resident's cognitive status for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-08-25 · tag F0800 — isolatedProvide each resident with a nourishing, palatable, well-balanced diet that meets his or her daily nutritional and special dietary needs.
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, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide the correct diet for one of ten sampled residents (Resident 54) during lunch tray assembly when Resident 54 was on a fortified diet (an enrichment of food to increase calorie and protein to sustain or gain weight) and dietary staff did not follow the facility's policy and procedure titled, Fortification of Food: Increasing calories and/or protein in the diet to provide Resident 54 with 1 tablespoon (Tbsp - unit of measurement) of extra tartar sauce (a condiment made of mayonnaise mixed with other ingredients) and 2 teaspoons (tsp - unit of measurement) of extra salad dressing. This failure had the potential to result in Resident 54 to not receive the adequate nutritional requirement to sustain or gain weight. Findings: During a record review of Resident 54's admission Record (AR), dated 8/24/23, the AR indicated, Resident 54 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was on hospice (palliative care for terminally ill 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 · Dcited before2023-08-25 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure 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 according to the facility's policy and procedure titled, Storage of Food and Supplies, when two of four sampled plastic bin containers with ready to eat dry cereal were labeled with incorrect use by dates (date in which the item must be used). This failure did not meet the professional standards for food safety, had the potential to cause foodborne illness (sickness due to eating contaminated food), and loss of nutritional efficacy (value). Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/22/23 at 10:00 a.m., with the Dietary Supervisor (DS), in the facility's kitchen pantry (area where dry goods are stored), one 20 liter (L-unit of measurement) plastic bin container with [brand name] ready to eat dry cereal was labeled, Received date: 8/21/23. Use by date: 8/13/24. The second 20 L plastic bin container with [brand name] ready to eat dry cereal was labeled, Received date: 8/21/23. Use by date: 6/8/24. The DS stated, the use by dates were incorrect. The DS stated, ready to eat dry cereal…
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 · D2023-08-24 · tag F0623 — isolatedProvide 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
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure an appropriate discharge for one of two sampled residents (Resident 1), when the facility issued a 30-day advance notice of discharge to Resident 1 and did not specify a location to which the resident would be discharged . This failure had the potential to result in an unsafe discharge and resulted in Resident 1 experiencing anxiety. Findings: During an interview on 7/27/21 at 4:20 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated the facility issued a 30-day discharge notice to Resident 1 because Resident one was not compliant with the facility's smoking policy. During an interview on 7/28/21 at 10:55 a.m. with the social worker (SW), the SW stated a 30-day discharge notice was issued by the IDT (interdisciplinary team) on 6/29/21 after a staff member stated she observed Resident 1 outside smoking without supervision. During an interview on 7/28/21 at 11:45 a.m. with Resident 1, Resident 1 stated she had been a resident at the facility since 2018. Resident 1 stated she is a smoker and for three years she did…
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 · F2019-12-12 · tag F0801 — widespreadEmploy 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 observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the dietary supervisory supervisor (DSS) possessed the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service department in accordance with her job description when: 1. Evaluations of dietary staff competency were not conducted and Dietary Aide (DA)1 and [NAME] 1 were unable to accurately identify the correct level of sanitizer used to sanitize food preparation surfaces, food utensils and dishware; (cross-reference F802) 2. Evaluations of dietary staff competencies were not conducted for [NAME] 1, [NAME] 4 and DA 2 in relation to food service, therapeutic diets and menu compliance and dietary staff were unable to cool down cooked foods and monitor food temperatures according the Food Code standards and the facility policy and procedure; (cross-reference F803, F805 and F812 a. ) 3. The DSS did not provide the necessary oversight of food safety, sanitation, and storage in the kitchen when: a. Dietary staff were not implementing or accurately documenting safe…
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 · F2019-12-12 · 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
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure two dietary staff, Dietary Aide (DA) 1 and [NAME] 3 possessed appropriate competencies and skills sets to perform the duties in the kitchen when DA 1 and [NAME] 3 did not follow manufacturer's guidelines for testing the sanitizer chemical strength used to clean food preparation surfaces and in the 3-compartment dishwashing sink. This failure had the potential to cause food borne illnesses for residents who received meals from the kitchen. Findings: During a concurrent observation in the kitchen and interview with DA 1, on 12/9/19, at 3:38 p.m., DA 1 demonstrated how to test the quaternary ammonium (quat) sanitizer concentration that was used to sanitize food preparation areas. DA 1 stated he was responsible for preparing the sanitizer buckets. DA 1 took a quat test strip and immersed the strip into the red bucket of sanitizer for 4 seconds and stated that it read a concentration of 400 parts per million (ppm). The test strip was compared to a color chart on the test strip container which indicated 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 · Fcited before2019-12-12 · 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 store, prepare, sanitize and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety affecting residents who received meals from the kitchen when: 1. Dietary staff were not implementing or accurately documenting safe food cool down methods. 2. The ice machine was not maintained according to manufacturer's cleaning recommendations and contained a pinkish/red residue inside the evaporator next to the ice tray on the inner right side. 3. The vegetable washing sink and ice machine did not have air gaps (is an amount of space that separates a water line from a drain to a sewer). 4. Cooking equipment and plastic ware that cannot be sanitized or are hazardous because of chips, cracks or loss of glaze were not discarded. 5. The food service utensils, food preparation areas, equipment and kitchen floors had residue and were soiled. 6. [NAME] 2 and Dietary aide (DA) 3 prepared food and did not cover their facial hair. 7. Food storage containers were soiled, stacked wet and not air dried. These…
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 · F2019-12-12 · tag F0813 — widespreadHave 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 observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure safe and sanitary practices were instituted for food brought in to residents by family or visitors from outside the facility when food saved for resident consumption was stored in employee refrigerators without temperature controls. The food stored was unlabeled and undated. This failure could result in consumption of food that is unsafe and cause foodborne illness in residents who received food from outside sources. Findings: During an interview on 12/10/19, at 2:55 p.m., with Certified Nursing Assistant 1 (CNA 1), CNA 1 stated food brought in from home or a restaurant would have to be thrown away by the end of the day. During an interview on 12/10/19, at 2:59 p.m., with CNA 2, she stated stored resident's food would be kept in the staff refrigerator located in the staff breakroom. CNA 2 stated the food kept in the refrigerator in the resident dining room were snacks prepared by the kitchen for Licensed Nurse to use if a resident experienced low blood sugar levels. During an observation on 12/10/19,…
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 before2019-12-12 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide 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 effectively implement their infection control and prevention program when the Director of Staff Development/Infection Preventionist (DSD/IP) had incomplete infection surveillance logs for the monitoring, tracking and trending of facility infections for September 2019, October 2019, and November 2019, for 22 of 22 sampled residents (Resident 4, Resident 22, Resident 39, Resident 45, Resident 49, Resident 52, Resident 63, Resident 76, Resident 78, Resident 83, Resident 85, Resident 334, Resident 384, Resident 486, Resident 487, Resident 488, Resident 489, Resident 490, Resident 491, Resident 492, Resident 493 and Resident 494. These failures placed the 22 residents at risk for adverse reactions from the prescribed antibiotics and/or develop an antibiotic-resistant (not effective to treat an infection) organisms from the potentially unnecessary or inappropriate antibiotic use and had the potential to place other residents, staff and visitors to experience infection from the inadequate surveillance of infections…
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 · E2019-12-12 · 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 staff consistently developed and implemented the comprehensive person focused care plan for three of five sampled residents (Resident 23, Resident 27 and Resident 334) when: 1. Resident 23 was transferred from bed to wheelchair by one Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 4 using the mechanical lift instead of two staff members as indicated on the care plan. 2. Resident 27 had known self-feeding difficulties and would spill food on herself. A Comprehensive Care Plan was not developed to optimize Resident 27's self-feeding independence and prevent food spillage. 3. Resident 334's fall prevention care plan interventions were not implemented. These failures placed Resident 23, Resident 334 at risk for falls and injuries and Resident 27 at risk for weight loss and decreased eating independence. Findings: 1. During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/9/19, at 10:49 a.m., in Resident 23's room, there was a Mechanical Lift sitting…
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 · E2019-12-12 · 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
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure menus were followed for residents on fortified diets and No Concentrated Sweets (NCS) diet served on 12/9/19 during the lunch meal service when fortified diets and NCS diets were not served in accordance with residents physician prescribed diet. This failure had the potential to result in residents not receiving the amount of calories and nutrients prescribed by their physician which could lead to unplanned weight loss and further compromise their medical status. Findings: During a concurrent meal service observation and interview on 12/09/19, at 11:30 a.m., in the kitchen, [NAME] 4 prepared pureed chili. [NAME] 4 poured 3 bean chili into blender to puree (nothing else was added). During tray line on 12/9/19 at 11:50 a.m., [NAME] 2 called out diets on the tray tags and [NAME] 1 plated (serve or arrange (food) on a plate or plates before a meal) the food according to what was called out. [NAME] 2 called out fortified diets when it was listed on the tray tickets. When questioned about what was different…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-12-12 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received a dignified dining experience when Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 3 stood while he fed Resident 7, who laid in bed. This failure violated Residents 7's rights to be treated with respect and dignity while receiving assistance with his meal. Findings: During an observation on 12/10/19, at 12:40 p.m., in Resident 7's room, Resident 7 laid in his bed while CNA 3 stood by Resident 7's bedside as he fed Resident 7 his lunch. During an interview with CNA 3, on 12/10/19, at 12:55 p.m., CNA 3 stated the facility allowed staff to stand while feeding residents and that it was his own preference to stand instead of sitting while feeding residents. During an interview with the Interim Director of Nursing (IDON), on 12/11/19, at 11:38 a.m., she stated staff should be at residents' eye level when feeding the resident. The IDON stated standing over a resident while feeding could make Resident 7 feel uncomfortable. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Assistance with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-12-12 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on 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 healthcare and functional status for one of three sampled residents (Resident 66) when a diabetic ulcer (a sore that usually forms on the foot of a person who has diabetes - is a disease that causes high blood sugars) was inaccurately coded on Resident's 66's quarterly MDS assessment. This failure had the potential to result in Resident 66's care needs going unmet. Findings: During a review of Resident 66's face sheet, dated 12/12/19, the face sheet indicated Resident 66 was re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis which included peripheral vascular disease (a blood circulation disorder that causes the blood vessels outside of your heart and brain to narrow, block), type 2 diabetes mellitus (high levels of the sugar in the blood) and heart failure. During a review of Resident 66's MDS assessment, dated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-12-12 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure residents were free of significant medication errors when Registered Nurse (RN) 1 administered Metoprolol Tartrate (medication use to treat high blood pressure) to Resident 65 without conducting an assessment of Resident 65's heart rate. This failure had the potential for Resident 65 to experience bradycardia (slow than normal heart rate) and an increased risk for falls. Findings: During a medication administration observation on 12/12/19, at 8:14 a.m., RN 1 administered Metoprolol Tartrate 25 milligrams (mg) (unit of measure) tablet by mouth to Resident 65 without conducting an assessment of Resident 65's heart rate. During a review of Resident 65's clinical record, the Face Sheet (a document containing resident profile information) dated 12/19, indicated Resident 65 was admitted to the facility with a diagnosis of Essential Hypertension (high blood pressure that does not have a secondary cause), muscle weakness (generalized) and unsteadiness on feet. During a review of the Order Summary Report 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 · D2019-12-12 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure drugs were labeled with open date in accordance with the facility Administering Medications policy and procedure for two of six sampled residents (Resident 31 and Resident 32) when Resident 31 and Resident 32's Proheal Oral Protein medication bottle was available for use without an opened date labeled on the medication container. This failure had the potential to place Resident 31 and Resident 32 at risk of receiving expired medications which could lead to medication ineffectiveness and experience adverse reactions from potentially expired medication. Findings: During a medication pass observation on 12/10/19, at 12:04 p.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 6, LVN 6 administered medications from Station One's Medication Cart. The medication cart contained one bottle of Proheal Oral Protein without an open date written on the bottle. LVN 6 stated the Proheal Oral Protein medication bottle had been opened and belonged to Resident 32 and Resident 31. LVN 6 verified the Proheal Oral Protein medication…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-12-12 · tag F0805 — failed to prepare food in a form residents can eat — isolatedEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs.
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 prepare and serve food appropriate to meet the needs of one of ninety residents (Resident 355) when dietary staff served hard corn bread for Resident 355 on a mechanical soft diet (a diet prescribed to residents by a physician that is soft or mechanically altered food and is easy to chew) on the lunch tray. This failure had the potential to place Resident 355 at risk for choking and possible death. Findings: During a concurrent observation of tray line food service and interview with Registered Dietitian (RD) 1, and [NAME] 2, on 12/9/19, at 11:42 a.m., [NAME] 2 called out diets on a tray ticket and [NAME] 1 placed the foods that pertained to the diets called out on a plate to serve to the resident. [NAME] 2 called out .mechanical soft . for Resident 355. [NAME] 1 placed a piece of corn bread on Resident 355's plate. The corn bread was a side piece and had dark brown colored, hard edges and was very hard to the touch. The plate with the cornbread and other foods was placed on a tray on the food cart ready 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.
- No harm found · B2025-03-07 · tag F0640 — patternEncode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
7. Resident #31's electronic medical record revealed a quarterly MDS with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 01/23/2025 had a status of Export Ready. The screen did not indicate the assessment completion date. During an interview on 03/06/2025 at 9:38 AM, the MDS Nurse stated Resident #31's quarterly MDS with an ARD of 01/23/2025 was completed on 02/06/2025 and was not submitted until 03/04/2025 (26 days after the assessment completion date). She stated the status of export ready meant the assessment was locked and ready to be submitted but had not yet been sent over or transmitted to CMS. 8. Resident #79's electronic medical record revealed a quarterly MDS with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 01/10/2025 had a status of Export Ready. The screen did not indicate the assessment completion date. During an interview on 03/06/2025 at 9:38 AM, the MDS Nurse stated Resident #79's quarterly MDS with an ARD of 01/10/2025 was completed on 01/24/2025 but was not submitted until 03/04/2025 (39 days after the assessment completion date). She stated the status of export ready meant 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.
- No harm found · Bcited before2025-03-07 · tag F0912 — patternProvide rooms that are at least 80 square feet per resident in multiple rooms and 100 square feet for single resident rooms.
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 document review, the facility failed to ensure residents' rooms measured at least 80 square (sq) feet (ft) per resident in 17 (Rooms 6 through 11 and Rooms 17 through 27) of 43 resident rooms in the facility. Findings included: During an observation on 03/03/2025 at 9:52 AM, three residents resided in room [ROOM NUMBER], Rooms 8 through 11, and Rooms 17 through 27. The Client Accommodations Analysis dated 03/06/2025, revealed the following: - In room [ROOM NUMBER], there was 78.7 sq ft for each resident. - In room [ROOM NUMBER], there was 77.4 sq ft for each resident. - In room [ROOM NUMBER], there was 77.3 sq ft for each resident. - In room [ROOM NUMBER], there was 77.3 sq ft for each resident. - In room [ROOM NUMBER], there was 77.3 sq ft for each resident. - In room [ROOM NUMBER], there was 77.8 sq ft for each resident. - In room [ROOM NUMBER], there was 76.2 sq ft for each resident. - In room [ROOM NUMBER], there was 77.3 sq ft for each resident. - In room [ROOM NUMBER],…
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 before2023-08-25 · tag F0912 — patternProvide rooms that are at least 80 square feet per resident in multiple rooms and 100 square feet for single resident rooms.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation during the survey period of 8/22/23 to 8/25/23, the facility failed to provide and maintain a minimum of at least 80 square feet of space per resident in 17 resident rooms (Rooms 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27). This failure had the potential for residents to not have reasonable privacy or adequate space. Findings: During an environment tour with the Maintenance Supervisor on 8/24/23 at 10:31 a.m., the inspection indicated the following rooms did not meet the minimum square footage as required by regulation. These rooms were as follows: Rm # SQ. FT # of Residents 6 236 3 7 232.7 3 8 231.9 2 9 231.9 3 10 231.9 3 11 233.5 3 17 228.5 3 18 231.9 3 19 231.9 3 20 232.7 3 21 235.2 3 22 231.9 3 23 231.9 3 24 231.9 3 25 231.9 3 26 231.9 3 27 226.8 3 However, variations were in accordance with the needs of the residents. The residents had a reasonable amount of privacy. Closets and storage space were adequate. Bedside stands were available. There was sufficient room for nursing care and for residents to ambulate. Wheelchairs and toilet…
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 · Ccited before2019-12-12 · tag F0912 — widespreadProvide rooms that are at least 80 square feet per resident in multiple rooms and 100 square feet for single resident rooms.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation during the survey period of 12/9/19 to 12/12/19, the facility failed to provide and maintain a minimum of at least 80 square feet of space per resident in 17 resident rooms (Rooms 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27). This failure had the potential for residents to not have reasonable privacy or adequate space. Findings: During an environment tour with the Maintenance Supervisor on 12/12/19 at 10 a.m., the inspection indicated the following rooms did not meet the minimum square footage as required by regulation. These rooms were as follows: Rm # SQ. FT # of Residents 6 236 3 7 232.7 3 8 231.9 3 9 231.9 3 10 231.9 3 11 233.5 3 17 228.5 3 18 231.9 3 19 231.9 3 20 232.7 3 21 235.2 3 22 231.9 3 23 231.9 3 24 231.9 3 25 231.9 3 26 231.9 3 27 226.8 3 However, variations were in accordance with the needs of the residents. The residents had a reasonable amount of privacy. Closets and storage space were adequate. Bedside stands were available. There was sufficient room for nursing care and for residents to ambulate. Wheelchairs and toilet…
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 RMG CAPITAL PARTNERS — 9 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 | 3 of 5 | 2.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.6 | +1.4 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 2.3 | -1.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
The other 8 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.6★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RMG CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 01/01/2019 |
| BANSAL, JAGAN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | 50% | since 03/30/2015 |
| BANSAL, MANEESH | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | 50% | since 03/30/2015 |
| RELIANT MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 07/01/2015 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 7 rows in the source record cover these 4 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
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.
About 82% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $1.5M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 14% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in CA
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the California Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 055475. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-03-07, 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.