Whitney Center
200 Leeder Hill Dr, Hamden, CT 06517 · Non profit - Corporation · 59 certified beds · (203) 281-6745 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 (23% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Sep 2019
- 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
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0565)
- a high number of inspection citations overall (30) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 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 | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 5 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 28.6% | 18.0% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.7% | 6.5% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.7% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 1.5% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 22.3% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star 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 | 0.0% | 3.5% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 16.2% | 17.6% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 7.5% | 4.0% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 35.9% | 24.7% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 47.6% | 17.8% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 87.0% | 69.7% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 43.3% | 24.3% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 12.7% | 10.7% | 12.0% | 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.
73.0% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 109 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 56.0% 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 50 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 0.27 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 41% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 13% 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 | 73.0%CMS range 65.2–80.7 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.2%CMS range 6.0–13.6 | 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 | 56.0% | 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 | 38.0% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 40.0% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 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 | 1.6% | 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 | 1.6% | 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 | 5.4%CMS range 2.9–9.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.57 | 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 59 beds and averages 49.2 residents a day — about 83% occupied, or roughly 10 beds typically open. It usually has some room. 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 2.63 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.68 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.53 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 2.38 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 2.73 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.72 to 0.59 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 23% is below the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
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.
30 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 20 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · E2024-12-04 · tag F0565 — failed to support the resident council — patternHonor the resident's right to organize and participate in resident/family groups in the facility.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility documentation and interviews, the facility failed to provide staff support to ensure the residents right to organize and participate in resident groups (resident council) was honored. The findings include: Review of the Resident Council Meeting binder identified that the last resident council meeting was held on 11/29/23, over a year ago. The binder failed to identify resident council meeting minutes from December 2023 through November 2024. During the Resident Council interview on 12/3/24 at 9:05 AM with Residents #3, 4, 11, 12 and 16, Resident #12 identified that he/she would previously attend a monthly resident council meeting regularly, but the group had not met for a long time. Resident #12 could not recall when he/she had last attended a resident council meeting but indicated that it was a good idea for the residents to all sit together and share ideas. Resident #12 identified that he/she would like to continue to participate in resident council meetings. Interview with the DNS on 12/3/24 at 2:33 PM identified that the resident council had not met…
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 · E2024-12-04 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — patternHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
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, facility policy, and interviews for 4 of 5 residents (Resident #14, 174, 175, and 176) reviewed for code status (code status refers to the level of medical interventions a person wishes to have started if their heart or breathing stops), the facility failed to ensure that code status was reviewed with the resident or resident representative, upon admission and as needed, to ensure the residents choices were was honored. The findings include: 1. Resident #14 was admitted to the facility in [DATE] with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's dementia, chronic kidney disease, and hypertension, A physician's order dated [DATE] directed in the event of cardiopulmonary arrest, do not resuscitate (DNR) and RN to pronounce death. The quarterly MDS dated [DATE] identified Resident #14 had severely impaired cognition, was always incontinent of bowel and bladder and was dependent on staff assistance with dressing, bathing, and toileting. The care plan dated [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 · Ecited before2024-12-04 · 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 documentation, facility policy and interview, the facility failed to ensure that hot and cold food temperatures for meals were obtained and documented appropriately. The findings include: During a tour of the facility kitchen with Dietary Director #1 on 12/2/24 at 9:30 AM identified the following. Review of the food service temperature logs for 11/2024 identified that multiple dates were missing temperatures or were completely blank. Initial review of the food temperature logs for 11/19/24 - 11/30/24 identified breakfast food temperature logs with hot food temperatures documented with no dates (month/day/year) annotated on the logs, no cold food items with any recorded temperatures from 11/19/24 - 11/29/24, and completely blank areas for the following meals: 11/19/24 - no breakfast logs available for review; no food temperatures for lunch items. 11/24/24 - no logs available for review for any meals. 11/26/24 - no breakfast logs available for review; no food temperatures for dinner items. 11/27/24 - no breakfast logs available for review; no…
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 · D2024-12-04 · 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 review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #8) reviewed for unnecessary medications, the facility failed to immediately notify the hospice provider and the resident representative when the resident had complaints of new severe wrist pain. The findings include: Resident #8 was admitted to the facility in December 2018 with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's dementia, hypertension, and failure to thrive. Review of the clinical record identified Resident #8 had been under hospice care since 6/9/21 due to late-stage severe Alzheimer's dementia. The annual MDS dated [DATE] identified Resident # 8 had severely impaired cognition, was always incontinent of bowel and bladder and was dependent on staff to assist with toileting, bathing, and dressing. The care plan dated 6/26/24 identified Resident #8 had impaired cognitive function and impaired thought processes related to dementia. Interventions included communicating using consistent,…
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 before2024-12-04 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 5 residents (Resident # 8) reviewed for unnecessary medications, the facility failed to notify the state agency, according to established timeframes, when the resident complained of new severe wrist pain of unknown origin. The findings include: Resident #8 was admitted to the facility in December 2018 with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's dementia, hypertension, and failure to thrive. Review of the clinical record identified Resident #8 had been under hospice care since 6/9/21 due to late-stage severe Alzheimer's dementia. The annual MDS dated [DATE] identified Resident #8 had severely impaired cognition, was always incontinent of bowel and bladder and was dependent on staff to assist with toileting, bathing, and dressing. The care plan dated 6/26/24 identified Resident #8 had impaired cognitive function and impaired thought processes related to dementia. Interventions included communicating using…
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 before2024-12-04 · 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, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 5 residents (Resident # 8) reviewed for unnecessary medications, the facility failed to investigate an injury of unknown origin. The findings include: Resident #8 was admitted to the facility in December 2018 with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's dementia, hypertension, and failure to thrive. Review of the clinical record identified Resident #8 had been under hospice care since 6/9/21 due to late-stage severe Alzheimer's dementia. The annual MDS dated [DATE] identified Resident #8 had severely impaired cognition, was always incontinent of bowel and bladder and was dependent on staff to assist with toileting, bathing, and dressing. The care plan dated 6/26/24 identified Resident #8 had impaired cognitive function and impaired thought processes related to dementia. Interventions included communicating using consistent, simple and directive sentences. The nurse's note dated 8/12/24 at 3:09 PM by LPN #2…
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 · D2024-12-04 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interview for 1 resident (Resident #10) reviewed for Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR), the facility failed to notify the appropriate state-designated authority that the resident had a new diagnosis of psychotic disorder with delusions. The findings include: Resident #10 was admitted to the facility in August 2020 with diagnoses that included Parkinsons Disease, depression, anxiety, and dementia. Notice of PASARR Level 1 Screen dated 8/21/20 identified Resident #10 had a diagnosis of anxiety disorder, depression (mild or situational), and dementia but did not have a diagnosis of psychotic disorder or delusional disorder. PASARR outcome dated 8/21/20 identified Level 1 was negative because there was no Level 2 condition. The quarterly MDS dated [DATE] identified Resident #10 had moderately impaired cognition and had a diagnosis of anxiety, depression, and dementia but did not have a diagnosis of psychotic…
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 before2024-12-04 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interview for 5 residents (Resident #20, 12, 3, 8 and 124) the facility failed to ensure the residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards and physicians orders. For Resident #20, reviewed for edema, the facility failed to ensure that weights, ordered to be obtained every other day were consistently obtained. For Resident #12, the facility failed to follow the physician's order to apply compression stockings daily. For 1 of 4 residents (Resident #3), reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure that neurological checks and post fall assessments were completed after the resident had multiple unwitnessed falls with reported head strikes. For 1 of 5 residents (Resident #8), reviewed for unnecessary medications, the facility failed to complete an RN assessment after the resident was found to have an injury of unknown origin and pain. For 1 of 4 residents (Resident #124) reviewed for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-12-04 · 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 review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1), reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure the resident was transferred according to the physician's order (Sara lift with 2 staff) which resulted in the resident having to be lowered to the floor. The findings include: Resident #1 was admitted to the facility in June 2023 with diagnoses that included presence of left artificial knee joint, cardiac pacemaker, and atrial fibrillation. A physician's order dated 6/21/23 directed to use a Sara lift (mechanical lift used to lift and transfer) with the assistance of 2 staff for transfers to/from the wheelchair. The care plan dated 6/21/23 identified Resident #1 had limited mobility related to history of multiple surgeries to the bilateral lower extremities, was non-ambulatory and wheelchair bound at baseline. Interventions included transfers with the Sara lift and assist of 2 staff. The admission MDS dated [DATE] 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 · D2024-12-04 · 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 review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 5 residents (Resident # 8) reviewed for unnecessary medications, the facility failed to assess and manage complaints of new severe wrist pain. The findings include: Resident #8 was admitted to the facility in December 2018 with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's dementia, hypertension, and failure to thrive. Review of the clinical record identified Resident #8 had been under hospice care since 6/9/21 due to late-stage severe Alzheimer's dementia. The annual MDS dated [DATE] identified Resident # 8 had severely impaired cognition, was always incontinent of bowel and bladder and was dependent on staff to assist with toileting, bathing, and dressing. The care plan dated 6/26/24 identified Resident #8 had impaired cognitive function and impaired thought processes related to dementia. Interventions included communicating using consistent, simple and directive sentences. The care plan also identified Resident #8…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 20 citations
- Potential for harm · E2022-09-07 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — patternEnsure 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
Based on review of facility documentation, and interviews the facility failed to ensure that nursing staff (license nurses and nurse aides) possessed the competencies and skill sets necessary to provide nurse care for residents' needs. The findings include: Review of facility documentation failed to reflect the facility license nurses and nurse ' s aides had IV competencies for the year 2021 and 2022. Interview and review of facility documentation on 9/2/22 at 2:00 PM with RN #3 (Staff Development Nurse) failed to reflect that competencies for nurses and nurse aides had been completed related to IV. RN #3 indicated she has been employed by the facility for approximately 2 1/2 years and since Covid-19 the facility had not conducted any competencies for the nurses and nurse aides. Interview and review of facility documentation on 9/6/22 at 1:14 PM with the DNS failed to reflect that competencies for nurses and nurse aides had been completed. The DNS indicated she was made aware of the issue that the license nurses and nurse aides did not have the annual competencies when it was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-09-07 · 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, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #15) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to implement the comprehensive care plan for a resident who was at risk for falls and subsequently sustained a fall while attempting to reach for his/her shoes which were identified in the care plan to be in the closet and out of sight. The findings include: Resident #15 was admitted with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease, atrial fibrillation, and congestive heart failure. The annual MDS dated [DATE] identified Resident #15 had moderately impaired cognition, was independent in bed mobility, transfers and locomotion with the use of a cane, and had no falls since admission to the facility. Physician ' s orders dated 8/1/22 directed independent ambulation with straight cane. A fall risk assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #15 was at high risk for falls. A care plan dated 8/27/22 identified Resident #15 had a potential for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-09-07 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 resident (Resident #20) reviewed for pressure ulcers, the facility to communicate and coordinate care of a newly identified skin condition with the end of life care service provider. The findings include: Resident #20 was admitted with diagnoses that included epilepsy, dementia, and spastic hemiplegia. The clinical record indicated Resident #20 was receiving hospice services. A significant change MDS dated [DATE] identified Resident #20 had moderately impaired cognition, required total assistance with bed mobility, transfers, toileting and personal care, was at risk for the development of pressure ulcers and had at least one unhealed pressure ulcer. The care plan dated 2/4/22 identified Resident #20 was at risk for an alteration in skin integrity related to incontinence, decreased mobility, and had a stage 3 pressure ulcer of right middle finger. Interventions included to provide treatments 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 · D2022-09-07 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 resident (Resident #20) reviewed for pressure ulcers, the facility to ensure an RN assessment was completed when a new pressure ulcer was identified. The findings include: Resident #20 was admitted with diagnoses that included epilepsy, dementia, and spastic hemiplegia. The clinical record indicated Resident #20 was receiving hospice services. A significant change MDS dated [DATE] identified Resident #20 had moderately impaired cognition, required total assistance with bed mobility, transfers, toileting and personal care, was at risk for the development of pressure ulcers and had at least one unhealed pressure ulcer. The care plan dated 2/4/22 identified Resident #20 was at risk for an alteration in skin integrity related to incontinence, decreased mobility, and had a stage 3 pressure ulcer of right middle finger. Interventions included to provide treatments as ordered and weekly wound assessments…
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 before2022-09-07 · 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 review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #15) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to implement the care plan to prevent a fall. The findings include: Resident #15 was admitted with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease, atrial fibrillation, and congestive heart failure. The annual MDS dated [DATE] identified Resident #15 had moderately impaired cognition, was independent in bed mobility, transfers and locomotion with the use of a cane, and had no falls since admission to the facility. Physician ' s orders dated 8/1/22 directed independent ambulation with straight cane. A fall risk assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #15 was at high risk for falls. A care plan dated 8/27/22 identified Resident #15 had a potential for falls related to history of falls and cognitive decline (sustained a fall on 8/27/22). Interventions included encouragement of the use of assistive devices, ensure call light was within reach…
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 before2022-09-07 · 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 and interview the kitchen staff failed to perform hand hygiene after touching the trash bin and failed to ensure that ice was stored under sanitary conditions. The findings include: 1. Observation on 9/1/22 at 9:40 AM identified Dietary Aide #1 who was working in the ice cream freezer with gloved hands, lifted the trash receptacle lid, discarded an item and without the benefit of glove change or hand hygiene, returned to the ice cream freezer. Interview with Dietary Aide #1 at that time indicated that he/she did touch the lid of the trash bin and returned to the ice cream freezer to continue working. Dietary Aide #1 indicated that that was his/her normal practice. The Food Service Director on 9/1/22 at 9:45AM was immediately notified of the matter and that Dietary Aid #1 indicated this was his/her normal hand hygiene etiquette. The Food Service Director immediately provided education to staff that any time the trash receptacle or the lid are touched, hand hygiene must be performed prior to handling food. Approximately 6 employees gathered to hear the comments,…
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 · D2022-09-07 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 resident (Resident #176) reviewed for infections, the facility failed to utilize personal protective equipment (PPE) appropriately for a resident on Transmission Based Precautions, and the facility failed to ensure that 2 staff were appropriately screened for COVID-19 symptoms prior to starting to care for residents. The findings include: 1. Resident #176 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included osteomyelitis of the left foot and ankle, cellulitis of the let toe and type II diabetes. The care plan dated 8/25/22 identified Resident #176 had a left foot infection that was positive for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) with interventions that included isolation precautions for MRSA. The admission MDS dated [DATE] identified Resident #176 had intact cognition and required assistance with personal care. Observation on 9/2/22 at 9:50 AM identified RN #4 in Resident #176's room…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2019-09-19 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — patternImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
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, review of facility documentation, and interviews, for two of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications (Residents #3 and #198), the facility failed to ensure orthostatic blood pressure monitoring was completed with the use of an antipsychotic medication and/or per physician's orders. The findings include: a. Resident #3 was admitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses included dementia, muscle weakness, and unsteadiness on feet. Physician's orders originally dated 3/11/18 and reviewed on 8/1/19 directed orthostatic blood pressures every month on the first Wednesday on 7-3 shift and orders originally dated 3/13/19 and reviewed 8/1/19 directed Risperdal 0.5 mg by mouth once daily. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #3 had severe cognitive impairment, had no behavioral symptoms, required extensive assistance of two staff for transfers, and received antipsychotic medications. The care plan dated 8/28/19 identified a focus of psychotropic…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2019-09-19 · 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 observations, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure that outdated food items were discarded from the walk in refrigerator. The findings include: Observation during tour of the kitchen with the Food Service Director (FSD) on 9/16/19 at 10:10 AM identified meat wrapped with plastic wrap stored on the shelf in the walk in refrigerator. The plastic wrap had a label marked Canadian Bacon and date 6/9. The meat was visibly slimy, had sticky feeling to touch and had fuzzy white/yellow/gray/blue/green growth. Further observation identified a second piece of meat wrapped with plastic wrap. The plastic wrap had a label marked Salami and date 7/13. The meat was pale gray in color and had two fuzzy gray/black growths on the surface. In addition, a third piece of meat was wrapped with plastic wrap. The plastic wrap had a label marked Capicola and dated 7/21. The meat had a sour smell, and had slimy and gooey texture that coated the surface. Subsequent to surveyor inquiry the meats were discarded by FSD. Interview with the FSD at the time,…
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 · D2019-09-19 · 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, review of facility documentation, interviews, and policy review for one of two sampled residents (Resident #18) who was reviewed for an allegation of mistreatment, the facility failed to ensure resident's rights to privacy and confidentiality were not violated. The findings include: Resident #18's diagnoses included history of fall. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified R#18 had moderately impaired cognition, and required total assistance of two staff members with transfer and bathing. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 4/10/19 identified R#18 had impaired communication secondary to dysarthria and s/he experienced impaired hearing. Interventions directed to allow the resident extra response time, phrase questions so that the resident can answer simply, face the resident when speaking to him/her and decrease background noise. The reportable event form dated 6/18/19 at 7:30 AM identified that R#18 alleged that a picture had been taken by 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 · D2019-09-19 · 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, review of facility documentation, interviews and policy review for one of two sampled residents (Resident #18) reviewed for an allegation of mistreatment, the facility failed to ensure Resident (R) #18 was free from mental abuse. The findings include: Resident #18's diagnoses included history of fall. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified R#18 had moderately impaired cognition, and required total assistance of two staff members with transfer and bathing. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 4/10/19 identified R#18 had impaired communication secondary to dysarthria and s/he experienced impaired hearing. Interventions directed to allow the resident extra response time, phrase questions so that the resident can answer simply, face the resident when speaking to him/her and decrease background noise. The reportable event form dated 6/18/19 at 7:30 AM identified that R#18 alleged that a picture had been taken by Nursing Assistant (NA) with a personal…
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 before2019-09-19 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews, review of the clinical record, and review of facility documentation, for one of two residents reviewed for abuse, (Resident #4), the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse/mistreatment to the state agency. The findings include: Resident #4 was admitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses included schizophrenia, Parkinson's disease, and difficulty walking. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] identified Resident #4 had no cognitive impairment and required extensive assistance of two staff for bed mobility, transfers, toileting, and personal hygiene. The care plan dated 5/29/19 identified a potential for adjustment reaction related to lifestyle changes with interventions to identify self and role when approaching Resident #4 and to explain all procedures. Physician's orders dated 8/12/19 directed psychiatric consults and care. A nurse's note dated 8/22/19 at 10:34 PM identified Resident # 4 was accusatory to staff this evening, the Social Worker, Director of Nurses (DNS), 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 before2019-09-19 · 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 interviews, review of the clinical record, and review of facility documentation, for one of two residents reviewed for abuse, (Resident #4), the facility lacked documentation that a thorough investigation was completed following an allegation of mistreatment. The findings include: Resident #4 was admitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses included schizophrenia, Parkinson's disease, and difficulty walking. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] identified Resident #4 had no cognitive impairment and required extensive assistance of two staff for bed mobility, transfers, toileting, and personal hygiene. The care plan dated 5/29/19 identified a potential for adjustment reaction related to lifestyle changes with interventions to identify self and role when approaching Resident #4 and to explain all procedures. Physician's orders dated 8/12/19 directed psychiatric consults and care. A nurse's note dated 8/22/19 at 10:34 PM identified Resident # 4 was accusatory to staff this evening, the Social Worker,…
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 · D2019-09-19 · tag F0659 — isolatedProvide care by qualified persons according to each resident's written plan of care.
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 #18) who was dependent on two staff members for transfers in and/or out of the bed and/or chair, the facility failed to ensure the appropriate number of staff were present during a Hoyer lift transfer from bed to a shower chair. The findings include: Resident #18's diagnoses included history of fall. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified R#18 had moderately impaired cognition, and required total assistance of two staff members with transfer and bathing. Review of assessments for admission/entry, reentry, and the MDS completed prior to 4/4/19 indicated R#18 did not experience falls during that time frame. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 4/10/19 identified R#18 had a history of multiple falls related to an unsteady gait and bilateral lower extremity edema. Interventions directed R#18 be transferred via Hoyer mechanical lift. The RCP further 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 · Dcited before2019-09-19 · 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 reviews, review of facility documentation and interviews for one of two sampled residents (Resident #247) who were reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to review and/or revise the plan of care after the resident sustained a fall resulting in an injury. The findings include: Resident (R) #247's diagnoses included a history of falls and, pubic rami fractures was admitted as the result of a fall at home. The admission fall risk assessment dated [DATE] identified R#247 was classified as at high risk for falls. The initial Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 1/12/18 identified R#247 had a history of falls resulting in fracture of his/her left pelvis. Interventions directed to keep the call bell within reach, ensure that the resident wore proper foot wear, monitor for pain every shift and as needed and medicate accordingly, The RCP additionally indicated R#247 was to have physical therapy 5 times a week for gait training and safety. A physician order date 1/18/18 directed R#247 was not 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 · D2019-09-19 · 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 clinical record review, observation and interview for one of three sampled residents (Resident #45) reviewed for nutrition, the facility failed to ensure that baseline weights were obtained and/or failed to follow their weight policy/protocol for obtaining weights. The findings include: Resident #45's diagnoses include hemiplegia, depression, hypertension, anemia and cerebrovascular accident. An admission MInimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] identified that the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The assessment identified the resident had moderately impaired cognition, required limited assist of one for eating, had a weight of 115 with no noted weight changes and had a mechanically altered diet. A nutritional assessment dated [DATE] identified that the resident's meal intake averaged between 50% and 75% and noted the resident's appetite as fair. The assessment further noted no recorded weight for the resident and no weight trends for the past six months. The assessment did not note if there…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-09-19 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of the clinical record, review of facility documentation, and interviews for one of five residents (Resident #198) reviewed for unnecessary medications and/or antipsychotic medication use, the pharmacy failed to report an irregularity regarding orthostatic blood pressures. The findings include: Resident #198 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease with behavioral disturbances, anxiety, depression, hypertension, glaucoma, and coronary artery disease. Review of the resident's care plan dated 8/16/19 identified Resident #198 received psychotropic medications secondary to anxiety and depression. Interventions directed to monitor for adverse effects and report changes in resident's status to the physician and psychiatrist promptly. Review of physician's orders dated 8/16/19 directed to administer Quetiapine (Seroquel; an antipsychotic medication) 50 milligrams (mg) by mouth three times a day for anxiety and cognitive changes. Physician's orders further…
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 · D2019-09-19 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and review of facility documentation, for one of two units observed, East Rock unit, the facility failed to ensure the medication cart and treatment cart were locked when the staff was not in view of the carts. The findings include: Observation on 9/18/19 at 6:06 AM identified in the East Wing an unlocked treatment cart and an unlocked medication cart. The medication cart had one drawer that was visibly not pushed in fully. No staff were observed in the area. Registered Nurse (RN) #4 identified the carts were not locked, and should have been locked, but he/she must have forgotten to lock the carts as he/she was busy helping Residents. The facility policy for storage, expiration, and dating of medication, biologicals, syringes, and needles identified the facility should ensure that all medications and biologicals, including treatment items, are to be securely stored in a locked cabinet/cart or locked medication room that is inaccessible by residents and visitors.
- Potential for harm · D2019-09-19 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
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 records, interviews, and review of facility documentation, for one of five residents reviewed for infection control/immunizations, (Resident #3), the facility failed to offer the resident the pneumococcal vaccination in a timely manner. The findings include: Resident #3 was admitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses included dementia, muscle weakness, unsteadiness on feet. Physician's orders reviewed on 8/1/19 directed annual flu vaccine with permission of resident or responsible party. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] identified Resident #3 had severe cognitive impairment and required extensive assistance of two staff for transfers. The care plan dated 8/28/19 identified Resident #3 as having impaired judgement and decision making skills and required encouragement and support to participate in any activities. Interview and record/documentation review with Registered Nurse (RN) #1 on 9/16/19 at 1:55 PM identified Resident #3 had no pneumococcal vaccinations noted in 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 · B2019-09-19 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of the clinical record, review of facility documentation, and interview , for eighteen sampled Residents reviewed for Resident Assessment, (Residents #1, #11, #13, #15, #23, #30, #31, #32, #34, #39, #44, #147, #148, #149, #150, #151, #152, and #198) the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was submitted/transmitted timely. The findings include: 1. Resident #1 was admitted on [DATE]. The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified a completion date of 7/10/19. Interview and review of the clinical record with Registered Nurse (RN) #2 on 9/17/19 at 2:11 PM identified that Resident #1's 7/3/19 MDS was not transmitted (69 days after completion). RN #2 identified that the MDS nurses are responsible to ensure the MDSs are completed and transmitted timely. 2. Resident #11 was admitted on [DATE]. The admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified a completion date of 6/23/19. Facility MDS report identified the MDS was submitted on 7/15/19 (22 days after completion). 3.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| MATIST, ANNE | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 01/08/2017 |
| RAMBAROSE, MICAHEL | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2012 |
| JERVIS, JANE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 10/01/2014 |
| SANTORE, ANTHONY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 10/01/2010 |
| DEVANEY, JEFF | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 12/14/2018 |
| JOYCE, MARGARET | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 10/26/2005 |
| SANDBERG, KENNETH | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/01/2012 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 9 rows in the source record cover these 7 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
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.
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 075290. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-12-04, 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.