Touchpoints At Bloomfield
140 Park Ave, Bloomfield, CT 06002 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 146 certified beds · (860) 243-9591 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (34% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Nov 2024
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0607, 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 (35) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 13.7% | 18.0% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 1.3% | 6.5% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.7% | 0.7% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.4% | 1.5% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 4.1% | 22.3% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 4.1% | 3.5% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 14.6% | 16.4% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 18.3% | 17.6% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.9% | 93.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.0% | 4.0% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 27.0% | 24.7% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 10.8% | 17.8% | 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 | 91.1% | 69.7% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 24.1% | 24.3% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 7.9% | 10.7% | 12.0% | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
51.5% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 66 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 77.3% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 22 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 0.17 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 15% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 32% 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 | 51.5%CMS range 40.1–63.9 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.5%CMS range 6.8–15.5 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 77.3% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 68.2% | 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 | 59.1% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 84.8% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 5.8%CMS range 2.9–10.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.80 | 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 146 beds and averages 136.4 residents a day — about 93% occupied, or roughly 10 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 2.99 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.36 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.81 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.70 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.11 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.43 to 0.20 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 34% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
35 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 25 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · D2026-02-03 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
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 clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure the privacy and confidentiality was maintained of the resident's personal and medical records and did not text resident information on the employee's personal cell phone. The findings include:Resident #1's diagnoses included cerebral infarction. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified that Resident #1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of fifteen out of fifteen, indicative of no cognitive impairment, and was dependent with ADLs and transfers. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 12/23/2025 identified a risk for falls and alteration in mobility. Interventions directed to assist with ADLs, call bell in reach, determine causative factors of falls, and to monitor and administer pain medication as ordered, and Resident #1 used an electric wheelchair independently. The nurse's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-11-21 · tag F0925 — failed to control pests — widespreadMake sure there is a pest control program to prevent/deal with mice, insects, or other pests.
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 review of clinical records, observations, interviews, review of facility documentation and policy for the kitchen and dumpster areas, and for 11 of 17 residents, (#10, #37, #38, #49, #77, #88, #90, #101, #107, #125, #133) that resided on three (3) of five (5) nursing units reviewed for physical environment, the facility failed to ensure an effective pest control program was maintained. The findings included:1. An observation during a tour of the Kitchen on 11/17/25 at 9:45 AM identified the following: a. An observation of food preparation tables starting from the left side of the kitchen to the right then to the dish room identified several areas on the floors under the sinks, appliances, furniture, around the grease traps, table legs, appliance legs, and where the floors met the baseboards/walls were noted to have a thick, dark colored, built up of grime. Additionally, these floor areas were noted to have trash and Styrofoam cups built up at the back near the walls. b. The far wall to the left of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-11-21 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, facility documentation, interviews and facility policies, the facility failed to ensure the use of beard restraints, failed to maintain a clean and sanitary kitchen environment free of pests, and failed to ensure refrigerator and freezer temperatures were maintained within acceptable ranges. The findings include:An observation during a tour of the Kitchen on 11/17/25 at 9:45 AM identified the following:1. Both the Dietary Manager and cook were noted with facial hair but without the benefit of using a beard restraint. The cook was at the food prep area where lunch was being prepared. Observation at the entrance to the kitchen indicated a lack of beard restraints available. The Dietary Manager stated that since the beard coverings were being enforced, he obtained beard restraints from the back room, provided 1 to the cook, and placed a beard restraint on himself.The Hair Restraint policy directed, in part, the purpose of the restraint was to prevent hair from contacting food and food equipment surfaces and deter food service employees from touching their hair.…
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 · D2025-11-21 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, review of the clinical record, and interviews for the only sampled resident (Resident #42) reviewed for dignity, the facility failed to ensure the resident was dressed in a dignified manner. The findings include: Resident #42's diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, abnormal posture, and chronic pain syndrome. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] failed to identify cognitive status was assessed using a Brief Interview of Mental Status exam (due to inability), that long- or short-term memory was assessed or that Resident #42 was exhibiting any behaviors. Further, Resident #42 was totally dependent on staff for eating, bathing, hygiene and dressing. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) in effect from 8/23/25 through 11/18/25 identified Resident #42 required assistance for all Activities of Daily Living (ADL's). Interventions included to position the resident in a custom wheelchair daily with pelvic positioning belt to maintain alignment. The RCP failed to indicate the use 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 · D2025-11-21 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, review of the clinical record, and facility policy for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #10), reviewed for pressure ulcers, the facility failed to notify the physician of a significant weight gain according to the physician's order. The findings include:Resident #10's diagnoses included a stage 3 pressure ulcer, congestive heart failure (chronic condition of a weakened heart muscle causing fluid retention), and hypertension.The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #10 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 7 indicating severely impaired cognition, required moderate assistance with rolling left and right and chair/bed-to-chair transfers, and required set up assistance with eating. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) in effect from 9/23/25 through11/21/25 identified Resident #10 had a nutritional problem related to diabetes, congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, and hypertension. Interventions included obtaining…
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 · D2025-11-21 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, interviews, and facility policy for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #31) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to follow their abuse policy for removal of a staff member from the schedule. The findings include:Resident #31' s diagnosis included Cerebral infarction, anxiety, and depression.The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] identified Resident #31 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status score of 15 indicating no cognitive impairment and required substantial/maximal assistance going from lying to sitting on the side of the bed and chair to bed to chair transfers and was independent with mobility in his/her wheelchair.The Resident Care Plan in effect on 9/17/25 indicated Resident #31 may make statements that are not real and say things that are not true but believed to be true. Interventions included listening to determine if there is any truth in what was said, offer 1:1 visits with the social worker, provide 2 staff members at all times 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 · D2025-11-21 · 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 review of the clinical record, facility documentation, interviews, and facility policy for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #31) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to follow their abuse policy conducting an investigation. The findings include:Resident #31' s diagnosis included Cerebral infarction, anxiety, and depression.The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] identified Resident #31 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status score of 15 indicating no cognitive impairment and required substantial/maximal assistance going from lying to sitting on the side of the bed and chair to bed to chair transfers and was independent with mobility in his/her wheelchair.The Resident Care Plan dated 9/10/25 indicated Resident #31 may make statements that are not real and say things that are not true but believed to be true. Interventions included listening to determine if there is any truth in what was said, offer 1:1 visits with the social worker, provide 2 staff members at all times with care. A Reportable Event…
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 · D2025-11-21 · tag F0628 — isolatedProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
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 review of the clinical record, facility policy, and interviews, for the only sampled resident (Resident #138) reviewed for discharge, the facility failed to notify the State Ombudsman's office of the discharge per the requirement. The findings include: Resident #138's diagnosis included right knee replacement, difficulty in walking, and osteoarthritis.The discharge Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #138 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status score of 15, indicating intact cognition, and was independent with personal hygiene, upper and lower body dressing, and putting on/taking off footwear.The Resident Care Plan dated 8/25/25 identified a discharge to home was anticipated. Interventions included nursing and social work would coordinate, facilitate, and communicate all plans for follow-up and future care needs.Review of the clinical record identified a nurses note that Resident #138 was discharged home on 9/5/25.Interview with Social Worker (SW) #1 on 11/21/25 at 11:49 AM…
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 · D2025-11-21 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, review of the clinical record, and facility policy for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers (Resident #10), for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #90) reviewed for infection control, and for the only sampled resident (Resident #133) reviewed for physical restraints, the facility failed to update the Resident Care Plan. The findings include: 1.Resident #10's diagnoses included a stage 3 pressure ulcer, fracture of the left femur, and dementia. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 6/26/2025 and in effect at the time of survey identified Resident #10 had a Stage 2 pressure ulcer on his/her left heel. Interventions included administering treatments as ordered and monitoring for effectiveness. The RCP failed to indicate that he/she was on EBP for a pressure ulcer. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #10 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 7 indicating severely impaired cognition, required moderate 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 before2025-11-21 · 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 observations, review of the clinical record, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #54) reviewed for tube feeding, the facility failed to clarify a duplicate physician's order for the administration of a tube feeding. The findings include:Resident #54 's diagnoses included dysphagia, aphasia, hemiplegia and hemiparesis and stroke.The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #54 was cognitively impaired and was dependent on oral care, personal hygiene and chair to bed transfers. The Resident Care Plan dated 11/5/25 identified Resident #54 required tube feeding related to dysphagia, stroke, and traumatic brain injury. Interventions included tube feedings and flushes as orderedA physician's order dated 9/22/25 directed to administer Jevity 1.5 at 85 cubic centimeters (cc) per hour. Turn off the tube feeding at 4:00 AM to rest the gut for 6 hours, once daily.An additional physician order dated 10/10/25 directed to administer Jevity 1.5 at…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 25 citations
- Potential for harm · D2025-11-21 · tag F0694 — isolatedProvide for the safe, appropriate administration of IV fluids for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews, review of the clinical record, and facility policy for 2 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #140 and Resident #141) reviewed for Infection Control practices and who were receiving intravenous antibiotics, the facility failed to obtain physician's orders for a central line (catheter residing in a large vein with the tip ending near the heart) intravenous flushing, for external catheter length measurement, and for Resident #140 measurement of arm circumference. The findings include:1. Resident #140's diagnoses included streptococcal (bacteria) infection, osteomyelitis (bone infection) of both feet and ankles, and Type 2 Diabetes.The admission Minimum Data Set assessment (MDS) dated [DATE] identified Resident #140 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 indicating intact cognition independence with eating, toileting and personal hygiene and was receiving intravenous medications.The Resident Care Plan dated 11/12/25 identified Resident #140 was currently on IV antibiotics via 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 before2025-11-21 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and facility policy for the only sampled Resident (#1) reviewed for specialized treatment, the facility failed to ensure physician's orders were obtained for the functioning and care of an Arteriovenous Fistula (AVF) (used for specialized treatment access). The findings include:Resident #1's diagnosis included cerebral infarction, diabetes, and end stage renal disease.The quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #1 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status score of 15 indicating no cognitive impairment, was independent with bed mobility, transfers, and wheelchair mobility, and was receiving specialized treatments. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) meeting notes and RCP dated 8/29/25 indicated Resident #1 had a left upper chest catheter and was receiving specialized treatments through the catheter twice weekly. Additionally, Resident #1 had an AVF placed to the right arm on 2/14/25 which was still healing, not yet used for specialized treatments, and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-11-21 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, review of the clinical record, and facility policy for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers (Resident #10) and 2 of 6 residents (Resident #90 and Resident #140) reviewed for infection control, the facility failed to ensure appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) use during high contact care for residents who required Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP), additionally, for Resident #10, the facility failed to perform appropriate hand hygiene and glove changes during wound care. The findings include: Review of the Enhanced Barrier Precaution Policy identified that an orange dot would be placed next to the name outside of the door for residents requiring EBP. 1. Resident #10's diagnoses included a stage 3 pressure ulcer, fracture of the left femur, and dementia. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #10 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 7 indicating severely impaired cognition, required moderate…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-05-12 · tag F0925 — failed to control pests — isolatedMake sure there is a pest control program to prevent/deal with mice, insects, or other pests.
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 review of clinical records, interviews, and review of facility documentation and policy for three of four residents, that resided on one of five nursing units reviewed for physical environment, the facility failed to ensure an effective pest control program was maintained to prevent rodents. The findings included:1. Resident #1 was admitted to the facility November 2024 and had diagnoses of Parkinson's Disease, Type 2 diabetes mellitus, and limitation of activities due to disability.Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #1 had a Brief Mental Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of seven (7) indicative of severe cognitive impairment. The MDS further identified Resident #1 was dependent with eating, oral, toileting, and personal hygiene.Review of Resident #1's RCP dated 4/16/25 identified impaired coping and wound management. Interventions directed to encourage the resident to verbalize feelings regarding fear and/or anxiety and monitor ulcer for signs 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 · D2025-02-03 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of the clinical record, facility documentation and interviews for one (1) of five (5) residents (Resident #3), reviewed for wnaderguards, the facility failed to ensure that Resident #3 had a physician's order directing to check placement and functionality of the Wanderguard. The findings include: 1. Resident #3's diagnoses included cerebral infarction (blood flow to the brain is interrupted causing brain tissue to die), dementia without behavioral disturbances and mild cognitive impairment. The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #3 had a Brief Mental Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of zero (0) indicative of severely impaired cognition and was independent with bed mobility, transfers and ambulation. Additionally, it identified that Resident #3 utilized a wander/elopement alarm. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 1/10/25 identified that Resident #3 is at risk for elopement due to limited insight into his/her illness or abilities with interventions that…
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 · D2025-02-03 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of three (3) residents (Resident #1) reviewed for unauthorized leave, the facility failed to ensure that when a resident was identified as missing from the facility by staff, the missing person protocol was initiated which allowed the resident to walk 3.6 miles in 27 degree weather passing multiple major intersections and having to cross main roads to get to his/her destination. The findings include: Resident #1 had diagnoses including schizophrenia and alcohol abuse. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #1 had a Brief Mental Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of twelve (12) indicative of moderately impaired cognition and was independent with bed mobility, transfers, toileting and ambulation. Review of the Capacity to Meet Minimal Basic Needs Interview dated 10/10/24 identified that the resident does not have the capacity to meet minimal basic needs in the community and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-11-04 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #2) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure the resident was free from abuse. The findings include: a. Resident #2's diagnoses included depression and chronic pain. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #2 was alert and oriented, had no behaviors, and ambulated with a walker independently. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 9/3/2024 identified Resident #2 used antidepressant medication. Interventions directed to administer medications as ordered, and monitor for side effect. b. Resident #3's diagnoses included Parkinson's, bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, paranoid schizophrenia, and depression. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #3 was moderately cognitively impaired, ambulated independently, and had no behaviors. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 10/9/2024…
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 before2024-02-27 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, review of facility policy and interviews, the facility failed to ensure dietary staff wore proper hair restraints, food served within acceptable temperature parameters and that the kitchen was maintained in a clean and sanitary condition. The findings include: Observation during the initial tour of the kitchen on 2/20/24 at 9:45 AM with the Food Service Director identified the floor was sticky and had multiple areas that contained visible debris. Interview on 2/20/24 at 9:50 AM with the Food Service Director identified that the Dietary Aide was just about to mop the floor, and that it is done twice daily. When a sign off on the task list was requested the food Service directed noted there was no sign off for the task just a list of tasks to be completed. Observation on 2/20/24 at 10:02 AM identified Dietary Aide #1 portioning cake onto plates with long hair several inches past her shoulders with no hair restraint. Interview with the Food Service Director on 2/20/24 at 10:08 AM identified that Dietary Aide #1 should be wearing a hair restraint while portioning…
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 before2024-02-27 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility documentation, review of facility policy, and interview, the facility failed to review the infection prevention control program policies and procedures at least annually, and failed to provide documentation that environmental rounds were conducted on a quarterly basis. The findings include: a. Review of the facility's Infection Control Program Policies and Procedure manual for the past two years on 2/22/24 at 10:52 AM identified that the policies and procedures manual was reviewed on 1/19/23 but was not reviewed in 2022. Interview with the Infection Preventionist Nurse (RN #3) on 2/22/24 at 10:52 AM identified that the policy and procedures manual should be reviewed annually but was not working at the facility during the time it was due to be completed. A policy for review and renewal of the infection control program policies and procedures was requested but was not provided by the facility. Interview with the Administrator on 2/27/24 at 3:30 PM identified she was unable to locate a policy but identified that it was the practice of the facility to review…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-02-27 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — patternImplement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility documentation, review of facility policy and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that a review of the antibiotic stewardship program including antibiotic usage was presented at the quarterly medical staff meetings. The findings include: A review of the infection control program for the past two years with the Infection Preventionist Nurse (RN #3), Corporate Director of Education (RN #4) and Corporate Director of Education and Infection Preventionist (RN #5) on 2/22/24 at 10:52 AM failed to identify documentation related to monthly review of the antibiotic stewardship program for the period of January 2022 to September 2022, December 2022, and February 2023 to June 2023. The facility also failed to provide quarterly review Medical Staff Meeting Reports documentation related to quarterly review of antibiotic usage for 2022 and 2023. RN # 3 identified that he started working at the facility in November of 2023 and would contact the physician or the facility APRN's directly if he had any issues that needed to be addressed such as laboratory reports,…
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 · E2024-02-27 · tag F0947 — failed to train nurse aides adequately — patternEnsure nurse aides have the skills they need to care for residents, and give nurse aides education in dementia care and abuse prevention.
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 review of facility documentation, review of facility policy and interviews for five of five sampled nurse aides (NA #4, NA #5, NA #6, NA #7, and NA #8), the facility failed to ensure that the required 12 hours of in-service training including abuse were provided to staff in 2022 and 2023. The findings include: Review of the facility's mandatory yearly in-service training for NA #4, NA #7, and NA #8's identified the facility was unable to provide documentation that a total 12 hours of training that included abuse and dementia was completed for the year 2022. Review of the facility's mandatory yearly in-service training for NA #4, NA #5, NA #6, NA #7, and NA #8's identified the facility was unable to provide documentation that a total 12 hours of training that included abuse and dementia was completed for the year 2023. Interview with Staff Development Nurse (RN #3), Corporate Director of Education (RN #4) and Corporate Director of Education and Infection Preventionist (RN #5) on 2/27/24 at 3:10 PM…
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 before2024-02-27 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of the clinical record, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy and interviews for one sampled resident (Resident #112) reviewed for resident-to-resident mistreatment, the facility failed to provide the necessary supervision to prevent a resident-to-resident altercation. The findings include: Resident #112's diagnoses included unspecified dementia, schizophrenia, and post-traumatic stress disorder. The annual Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #112 was cognitively intact, required the assist of one for toileting, showering, lower extremity dressing, required maximum assistance for personal hygiene and received psychological therapy. A reportable event report dated 11/12/23 at 9:30 PM identified Resident #112 was hit in the nose by another resident over a disagreement regarding the community television resulting in a skin tear to the bridge of the nose. The report notes that the residents were immediately separated, 911 was called and the resident who…
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 before2024-02-27 · 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 clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one sample resident (Resident #241) who was newly admitted to the facility from an acute care hospital, the facility failed to ensure that a registered nurse assessed the resident upon admission in accordance with the facility's policy and professional standards of care. The findings include: Resident # 241 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included osteoarthritis to the left shoulder, bicipital tendinitis to the left shoulder, and status post arthroplasty to the left shoulder. The late entry nurse's note written by RN #6 (former DNS) dated 8/27/22 at 8:00 PM identified Resident #241 arrived at the facility via stretcher with diagnoses of arthritis to the left shoulder, bicipital tendinitis to left shoulder, and status post arthroplasty to the left shoulder. It noted Resident #241 was alert, oriented and able to verbalize needs. The note further noted that the physician was notified…
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 · D2024-02-27 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, observation, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of four sampled residents (Resident #46) who had a facility acquired pressure ulcer, the facility failed to ensure the initial assessment of the wound was completed by a registered nurse and failed to provide treatment in a timely manner. The findings include: Resident #46 's diagnoses included end stage renal disease, dependence on renal dialysis, type 2 diabetes mellitus, anemia, and left foot drop. The Braden scale risk assessment used to predict the risk for pressure ulcer development dated 10/30/23 identified Resident #46 was at mild risk with a score of 16 (a score of 19-23 is indicative of low risk, a score of 15-18 is indicative of mild risk, a score of 13-14 is indicative of moderate risk, a score of 10-12 is indicative of high risk and a score of 9 or below is indicative of severe risk). The admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #46 had intact cognition,…
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 · D2024-02-27 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolatedEnsure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, and interviews for one sampled resident (Resident #77) reviewed for enteral nutrition, the facility failed to ensure physician's orders were clearly and completely written as well as transcribed onto the medication administration record (MAR) and failed to notify the physician when medications and enteral nutrition were not administered due to the clogging of the gastrojejunostomy tube (g-tube/j-tube). The findings include: Resident #77's diagnoses included gastrojejunostomy placement, Huntington's disease, and unspecified dementia. The admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] and the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #77 had intact cognition, and required extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfers, did not ambulate, required a wheelchair, and utilized a feeding tube. The Resident Care Plan dated 2/4/2024 identified Resident #77 had a feeding tube because it is unsafe for them to eat or drink with interventions that included: if there is poor skin…
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 · D2024-02-27 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for two sampled residents (Resident #107 & #241) reviewed for pain, the facility failed to ensure pain assessments were completed on admission and failed to document the administration of as needed pain medication and the assessment of the effectiveness of the pain medication. The findings include: 1. Resident #107's diagnoses included left leg fracture, anxiety, and suicide attempt. The admission Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #107 had intact cognition, required supervision or touch assistance for showering, lower body dressing, transferring from bed to chair, and had pain. The care plan dated 1/5/24 identified Resident #107 had pain with interventions that included: provide pain medication as ordered, observe its effectiveness, and provide non-pharmacological interventions. A physician's order dated 1/8/24 directed to administer Oxycodone (Opioid) 5mg one tablet by mouth every 6…
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 before2024-02-27 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one sample resident (Resident #34) reviewed for dialysis, the facility failed to ensure fluid intake was monitored for a resident with a fluid restriction. The findings include: Resident #34 's diagnoses included end-stage renal disease, anemia, type 2 diabetes mellitus and dependence on renal dialysis. A physician's order dated 1/8/24 directed a 1500 milliliters (ml) fluid restriction per day. The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #34 had intact cognition, required extensive assistance with mobility, transfers, toileting, hygiene, and received dialysis services. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 1/22/24 identified Resident #34 had end stage renal disease that required hemodialysis. Care plan interventions directed to arrange follow-up with nephrologist as needed, cover the wound, and apply firm pressure if bleeding noted to the access site, monitor weight and vital signs as…
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 · D2024-02-27 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, clinical record review, facility policy review, and interviews for four residents (Resident #36, 61, 62, 242), the facility failed to ensure expired medications were not in use and removed from the medication cart, failed to date insulin when opened, and failed to ensure medications were stored according to the manufacture's recommendation. The findings include: a. Resident #36's diagnoses included type 2 diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, and anxiety disorder. Resident #36's physician's orders for the month of February 2024 directed to administer Lantus 100units/milliliter (U/ml) inject 30 units subcutaneously (SC) at bedtime for diabetes. The medication administration record (MAR) for the month of February 2024 identified Resident #36 was administered Lantus 30 units subcutaneously at 9pm nightly from February 1, 2024, to February 25, 2024. Observation of the Windsor right medication cart on 2/26/24 at 11:34 AM with Charge Nurse (LPN #5) identified an opened vial of Lantus 100u/ml for Resident #36 that was ¼ full with a label that consisted of an opened date…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-02-27 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — patternHonor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one sampled resident (Resident #102) reviewed for grievances, the facility failed to follow through promptly on a grievance. The findings include: Resident #102's diagnoses included chronic kidney disease (hemodialysis), diabetes mellitus type 2, and depression. The quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #102 had intact cognition, utilized limited assistance for bed mobility, and transfers, and was non- ambulatory. The Resident Care Plan dated 11/3/2022 identified Resident #102 may have impaired communication related to the primary language being Spanish with interventions that included: introduce yourself, when possible, ask yes or no questions, speak distinctly, rephrase, or use gestures to communicate, allow adequate time to find words, do not rush, and stand where face is visualized. A missing personal property report dated 11/11/22 completed by the Social Work Director identified…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2021-10-20 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — isolatedEnsure that nurses and nurse aides have the appropriate competencies to care for every resident in a way that maximizes each resident's well being.
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 clinical record reviews, review of facility documentation and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #207) who required continuous intravenous infusion, the facility failed to ensure agency licensed nursing staff received training on how to operate a Continuous Ambulatory Delivery Device (CADD) pump. The findings include: Resident #207's diagnoses included chronic systolic congestive heart failure. A physician's order dated 1/7/21 directed Milrinone in D5W 20-5 milligrams/100 milliliters % solution infusion, infuse 0.0318 mg per minute into a venous catheter continuously. The admission Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #207 made consistent and reasonable decisions regarding tasks of daily life and received an intravenous (IV) medications while a resident. The Resident Care Plan dated 1/19/21 identified Resident #207 had congestive heart failure and was currently on a Milrinone IV drip via pump to his/her right chest [NAME] catheter. Interventions directed to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2021-10-20 · tag F0908 — failed to keep essential equipment working — isolatedKeep all essential equipment working safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, and interviews for 1 resident reviewed for dysphagia, (Resident #85), the facility failed to ensure that the patient's bed was properly functioning prior to a room transfer. The findings include: Resident #85 had a diagnosis of Alzheimer's dementia and dysphagia. A quarterly MDS dated [DATE] identified that the resident had significant cognitive impairment and required total care with activities of daily living. Review of a speech therapy note dated 7/6/21 identified that the resident had dysphagia and should be fed in an upright position. A nurse's note dated 7/19/21 identified that the residents family member had requested a room change due to the air conditioner in the resident's current room, the daughter was showed another room and approved of the room change and the resident was transferred. Review of a grievance form dated 7/19/21 identified that the family member had a concern for the positioning of Resident #85 while being fed. 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 · C2024-11-04 · tag F0641 — widespreadEnsure 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 clinical record review and interview for 6 of 6 (Resident #1, #2, #3, #5, #6, #7) residents reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure the MDS was accurate to include Section C (Cognitive Patterns) assessment was completed. The findings include: 1. Resident #1's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] Section C was coded as dash (-), not assessed. 2. Resident #2's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] Section C was coded as not assessed. 3. Resident #3's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] Section C was coded as not assessed. 4. Resident #4's Significant Change in Status Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] Section C was coded as not assessed. 5. Resident #6's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] Section C was coded as not assessed. 6. Resident #7's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] Section C was coded as not assessed. Interview, clinical record review and facility documentation review on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · B2024-02-27 · tag F0730 — patternObserve each nurse aide's job performance and give regular training.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility documentation, review of facility policy, and interviews for four of five sampled nurse aides (NA #4, NA #7, and NA #8) reviewed for yearly performance evaluations, the facility failed to complete performance evaluations for 2022. The findings include: Review of NA #4's personnel file identified a hire date of 5/30/2017 and failed to identify that a yearly performance evaluation was completed for 2022. Review of NA #7's personnel file identified a hire date of 9/24/2007 and failed to identify that a yearly performance evaluation was completed for 2022. Review of NA #8's personnel file identified a hire date of 4/3/2019 and failed to identify that a yearly performance evaluation was completed for 2022. Interview with the DNS and the Former DNS on 2/27/24 at 3:30 PM identified that it was the responsibility of the shift supervisor to complete the annual performance review of the nursing assistant staff. The Former DNS also added that the DNS would assist with the process, however none was completed for the year 2022. A policy for Annual Performance…
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 · B2024-02-27 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — patternProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility documentation, review of facility policy, and interviews for three of five controlled substance medication reconciliation and disposition records, the facility failed to maintain controlled substance accountability records on file. The findings include: A review of the facility's disposal of controlled substance medication records for medication disposed of on 1/14/24 by the former DNS with another nurse, the facility failed to provide the Control Substance Disposition Record white copy sheet for the unit and the yellow copy for the office for Prescription Number (Rx #) 1882731, Rx # 1394477, and Rx #2028718. The white copy is used by the nurse to record usage and the yellow copy was kept by the DNS or its designee. Interview with the DNS on 2/26/24 at 12:45 PM identified that he was unable to locate the white and yellow copy of the Control Substance Disposition Record for Rx # 1882731, Rx # 1394477, and Rx #2028718. Interview with the Former DNS (RN #6) on 2/26/24 at 1:05 PM identified that she utilized the white copy of the Control Substance Disposition…
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 · B2021-10-20 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — patternSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation and staff interviews for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #32) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure a wandering risk assessment was documented in the medical record and for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #105), the facility failed to ensure neurological assessments were documented in the clinical record. The findings included: 1. Resident #32 was admitted with diagnoses that included stroke, mild cognitive impairment. The care plan dated 7/22/21 identified a problem of at risk for elopement because Resident #32 had limited insight into his/her illness and abilities and may try to leave the facility. Interventions included a Wander Gard Alert Bracelet and check placement and function every shift. The quarterly MDS dated [DATE] identified moderately impaired cognition for decision making and supervision was required. Additionally, Resident #32 was independent for bed mobility, transfers, walking in room and corridor and on and off…
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 ICARE HEALTH NETWORK — 12 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 4 of 5 | 2.8 | +1.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 3.0 | ≈ chain avg |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 3.7 | +1.3 vs chain |
The other 11 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.8★, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GLOBAL WORLD INVESTORS | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 10% | since 04/01/1999 |
| PREMIER FIRST INVESTORS, LLLP | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 10% | since 04/01/1999 |
| KRAUSZ, HERSCH | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 21% | since 04/01/1999 |
| SALAZAR, V. ROBERT | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 31% | since 04/01/1999 |
| SEBBAG, DAVID | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 21% | since 04/01/1999 |
| WRIGHT, CHRISTOPHER | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | 5% | since 04/01/1999 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 7 rows in the source record cover these 6 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 90% 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 (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in CT
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 Connecticut 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 075264. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-11-21, 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.