Candlewood Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center
30 Park Lane East, New Milford, CT 06776 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 148 certified beds · (860) 355-0971 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)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Jun 2024
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604, F0607, F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- a high number of inspection citations overall (40) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $25,490 in federal fines (most recent 2026-03-30)
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 | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 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 held steady at 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 14.9% | 18.0% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.2% | 6.5% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.9% | 0.7% | 0.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.9% | 1.5% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 9.9% | 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 | 7.3% | 3.5% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 12.6% | 16.4% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 17.0% | 17.6% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 93.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.0% | 4.0% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 21.6% | 24.7% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 20.5% | 17.8% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.4% | 1.5% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.6% | 69.7% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 19.8% | 24.3% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 14.3% | 10.7% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.40 | 2.06 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.45 | 1.46 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
54.8% 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 361 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 68.0% 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 125 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 0.29 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 45% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 25% 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 | 54.8%CMS range 49.0–59.9 | 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 | 11.4%CMS range 8.8–14.7 | 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 | 68.0% | 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 | 57.6% | 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 | 70.4% | 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 | 96.9% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 97.4% | 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 | 96.2% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 1.2% | 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 | 1.9% | 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 3.4–9.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.12 | 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 148 beds and averages 135.2 residents a day — about 91% occupied, or roughly 13 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 3.14 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.62 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.75 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 2.77 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.30 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.69 to 0.47 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 40% is about the same as 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 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.
40 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 29 are one tap away and print in full.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited beforedisputed · IIDR2026-03-31 · 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 interviews, observations, clinical record review, and review of facility policy for the only sampled resident reviewed for respiratory care (Resident #76), the facility failed to ensure a safe environment related to a resident self-administering a petroleum-based jelly while receiving continuous oxygen, creating a fire risk relating to oxygen speeding up combustion in the presence of oil based materials. Additionally, the use of petroleum-based products while receiving oxygen creates a risk of medical danger for aspiration pneumonia due to the potential for small particles being inhaled into the lungs from the petroleum product which over time can accumulate in the lungs causing inflammation of the lung tissue, chronic coughing and irreversible lung scarring. These failures resulted in the finding of immediate jeopardy, and for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #9) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision during toileting for a cognitively impaired resident who was dependent…
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 · Ddisputed · IDR2026-04-27 · 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 record review, facility documentation review, and staff interviews for one of three residents (Resident #1) reviewed for care and services, the facility failed to ensure care was provided in accordance with the plan of care and failed to ensure staff reapproached the resident when combative/resistive to care. The findings include: Resident #1 had a diagnosis of Alzheimer's, vascular dementia, restlessness and agitation. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] identified Resident #1 had a Brief Interview Mental Status (BIMS) score of one (1) indicating severely impaired cognition, had not behaviors in the prior seven (7) days, and was dependent on for ADLs. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 2/2/26 identified Resident #1 had combative behaviors. Interventions directed if the resident becomes aggressive or resistive to care to leave the resident if safe to do so and to reapproach. Nursing note dated 4/4/26 at 10:37 PM identified Resident #1 was combative with incontinent care at the start 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 · E2026-03-31 · tag F0572 — patternGive residents a notice of rights, rules, services and charges.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility documentation, resident council meeting minutes, facility policy, and interviews reviewed for Resident Council, the facility failed to ensure residents were informed of their rights, of all the rules and regulations governing resident conduct and responsibilities during his or her stay in the facility. The findings include: On 03/24/2026 at 1:32 PM, a Resident Council meeting was held with Residents #65, #75, #102, #103, #127, and #147 in attendance. The residents identified that facility staff had not reviewed or discussed Resident Rights with them. The residents further indicated they had not received education regarding facility rules or policies governing resident conduct and responsibilities. Residents #65 and #147 stated that although Resident Rights are posted, they are not accessible because the posting is positioned too high for individuals using wheelchairs, and too small to read. Residents #75, #102, #103, and #127 agreed with these concerns.Review of Resident Council meeting minutes from 1/29/2025 through 2/24/2026 failed to provide…
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 · E2026-03-31 · tag F0577 — patternAllow residents to easily view the nursing home's survey results and communicate with advocate agencies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews reviewed for Resident Council, the facility failed to ensure the most recent surveys of the facility conducted by Federal or State surveyors were posted in a place readily accessible to residents, family members, and legal representatives of residents and failed to post notice of the availability of such reports in areas of the facility that are prominent and accessible. The findings include: A Resident Council meeting was held on 3/24/26 at 1:32 PM with Residents #65, #75, #102, #103, #127, and #147 in attendance. The residents identified that they were not aware they could examine the results of the most recent surveys of the facility conducted by Federal or State surveyors or where the surveys were located.Review of Resident Council meeting minutes from 1/29/2025 through 2/24/2026 failed to provide documentation that residents were informed of their right to examine the most recent survey of the facility or where the reports were located.Observation in the main lobby on 3/24/2026 at 2:30…
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 · E2026-03-31 · 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 a tour of the Dietary Department, observation, review of facility policy, and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff wore a beard guard (hair restraint) when assembling and serving food. The findings include:Observation of the meal service on 3/23/26 at 7:15 AM with the Dietary Director, identified:Dietary Aide #1 was observed at the steam table plating scrambled eggs, oatmeal, and toast onto residents' plates for meal delivery. Dietary Aide #1 had visible facial hair extending below the chin and was not wearing a beard restraint.Interview with the Dietary Director on 3/23/26 at 7:20 AM identified dietary staff are required to wear appropriate hair coverings, including beard restraints, when working in the kitchen and handling food. The Dietary Director stated beard covers are always available to staff and Dietary Aide #1 should have been wearing a beard guard.Subsequent to the surveyor's inquiry, the Dietary Director directed Dietary Aide #1 to apply a beard guard.Review of the facility Hair Restraint policy, dated 1/20/17, directed that kitchen staff, anyone…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-31 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor 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 interviews, review of the clinical records, facility documentation, and facility policy for 3 of 6 residents (Resident #1, Resident #5, and Resident #94) reviewed for Advanced Directives, the facility failed to ensure Advanced Directives forms were signed by the resident representatives and failed to ensure the Advanced Directive form identified the resident's expressed wishes. The findings include:1.Resident #1 had diagnoses that included dementia with behaviors, stroke, anxiety, and depression. A physician's order dated 12/31/25 directed Do not Resuscitate (DNR). The Advanced Directive /Medical Treatment Decision Form dated 12/31/25 indicated verbal telephone consent was obtained from Resident #1's responsible party. The form identified Resident #1 was a DNR. The Advanced Directive/Medical Treatment Decision Form was not signed by Resident #1's representative since admission (85 days later). The nurse's note dated 12/31/25 at 8:04 PM identified Resident #1 arrived at the facility from the hospital by…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-31 · 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 observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #14) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to report an injury of unknown origin to the State Agency in a timely manner. The findings include:Resident #14 had diagnoses that included dementia with behavioral disturbances.The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] identified Resident #14 had severely impaired cognition, was always incontinent of bowel and bladder, was totally dependent on staff for personal hygiene, dressing, and transfers. The MDS further identified Resident #14 had behaviors 1 to 3 days a week directed towards others such as hitting screaming or disruptive sounds.The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 2/4/26 identified Resident #14 had dementia with behavioral symptoms of sundowning and agitation. Interventions included redirect resident as needed, remove from public area when residents' behavior is unacceptable, psychiatric evaluation as needed, 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 · D2026-03-31 · 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 observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #14) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to conduct a complete and thorough investigation for a resident with an injury of unknown origin. The findings include:Resident #14 had diagnoses that included dementia with behavioral disturbances.The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] identified Resident #14 had severely impaired cognition, was always incontinent of bowel and bladder, was totally dependent on staff for personal hygiene, dressing, and transfers. The MDS further identified Resident #14 had behaviors 1 to 3 days a week directed towards others such as hitting screaming or disruptive sounds.The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 2/4/26 identified Resident #14 had dementia with behavioral symptoms of sundowning and agitation. Interventions included to redirect resident as needed, remove from public area when residents' behavior is unacceptable, psychiatric…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-31 · 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 documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 2 (Resident #142) residents reviewed for hospitalization, the facility failed to ensure the resident and/or resident representative were provided with written information regarding the bed hold policy at the time the resident was sent to the hospital. The findings include: Resident #142 had diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease, chronic systolic (congestive) heart failure, chronic atrial fibrillation, chronic kidney disease, and restlessness and agitationThe quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] identified Resident #142 had intact cognition. A nurse's note dated 3/4/2026 at 12:41 PM written by Registered Nurse (RN) #2 identified Resident #142 was being treated for diverticulitis and presented with altered mental status, hypoxia, hypotension, and bradycardia. RN #2 identified the Physician Assistant (PA) #1 was notified, new orders obtained to transfer Resident #142 to the hospital, and 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 · D2026-03-31 · 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 records, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 2 of 5 residents (Resident #1 and Resident #5) reviewed for Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR), the facility failed to submit a request for a Level II screen subsequent to Resident #1 and Resident #5's new psychiatric diagnoses. The findings include:1.Resident #1 was admitted to the facility in March 2025 with diagnoses that included dementia with behaviors, stroke, anxiety, and depression. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] identified Resident # 1 had intact cognition and had no verbal or physical behaviors. The Resident Care Plan dated 4/9/25 identified Resident #1 was at risk for behaviors due to dementia with interventions that included to redirect the resident as needed.A PASSR screening dated 4/30/25 identified the screening was being submitted because the Level 1 PASSR was expiring. The screening identified Resident #1 had diagnoses of dementia, stroke, and anxiety. 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 · D2026-03-31 · 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 review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy review, and interviews, the facility failed to follow professional standards of care for intravenous medication administration for the only sampled resident (Resident #101) reviewed for intravenous therapy. The findings include:Resident #101 had diagnoses that included cerebral infarction, hypertension, and gastroesophageal reflux disease.The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #101 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of fourteen (14) indicative of intact cognition and was dependent on staff for dressing, toileting, and transfers.The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 3/24/26 identified Resident #101 required intravenous therapy (IV) related to an elevated white blood count. Interventions included administration of IV therapy per physician's order and IV-line management per facility protocol.A physician's order dated 3/24/26 directed to administer Ceftriaxone (an antibiotic used 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.
Show the remaining 29 citations
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-03-31 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care 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 observations, review of the clinical record, facility policy, and interviews for one sampled resident (Resident #76) reviewed for respiratory care, the facility failed to ensure cautionary and safety signage was posted outside the room of a resident receiving oxygen therapy. The findings include: Resident #76's diagnoses included Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), dementia, and hypertension.The physician's order dated 7/3/2025 directed Resident #76 to receive oxygen at a rate of zero to four liters(L) per minute (min) to maintain SpO2 (peripheral capillary oxygen saturation) above 90%.The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #76 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 5 indicative of severely impaired cognition, required moderate assistance for rolling left and right, and required maximum assistance for personal hygiene. Additionally, the MDS identified Resident #76 was receiving oxygen therapy.The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 3/11/2026…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-31 · tag F0740 — failed to provide behavioral / mental-health care — isolatedEnsure each resident must receive and the facility must provide necessary behavioral health care and 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, observations, and interviews for the only sampled resident (Resident #14) reviewed for behaviors, the facility failed to ensure recommendations from a community psychiatrist were obtained to address a resident's behavioral health care needs in a timely manner. The findings include: Resident #14 had diagnoses that included dementia with behaviors, anxiety, and agitation. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] identified Resident #14 had severely impaired cognition, was always incontinent of bowel and bladder, was dependent on staff for personal hygiene, dressing, and transfers. The MDS further identified Resident #14 exhibited behaviors 1 to 3 days a week directed towards others such as hitting, screaming, or making disruptive sounds.The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 2/4/26 identified Resident #14 had dementia with behavioral symptoms of sundowning and agitation. Interventions directed to redirect resident as needed,…
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 before2026-03-31 · 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, review of the clinical record, facility policy, and interviews for the only sampled resident (Resident #50) reviewed for tube feeding, the facility failed to wear appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) during care, and for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #88) reviewed for pressure ulcer, the facility failed to maintain proper infection control and practice hand washing between glove changes during wound care. The findings include:1. Resident #50's had diagnoses that included cancer of the upper throat, difficulty swallowing, and malnutrition. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 3/11/26 identified that Resident #50 received tube feedings related to difficulty swallowing and malnutrition, with interventions that included administering tube feedings as ordered. The physician's order dated 3/11/26 directed to administer continuous tube feeding, change tube feeding supplies such as the nutrient bag, tubing, and irrigation set daily, and to maintain Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) related…
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 before2026-03-30 · 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 one (1) of three (3) residents (Resident #3) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure neurological assessments were completed following an unwitnessed fall per physician's order. The findings include:Resident #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included pneumonia, clostridium difficile, atrial fibrillation, depression, and lung cancer with brain metastasis. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 8/14/24 identified Resident #3 was at risk for falls and bleeding related to anticoagulant therapy. Interventions directed to keep the call bell and commonly used items within reach, encourage call light use, administer medications per physician orders, monitor for signs and symptoms of bleeding and bruising, and maintain a safe environment. The physician's order dated 8/14/24 directed to administer Eliquis (blood thinner) 2.5 milligram twice a day, monitoring every 30 minutes for 24…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-06-07 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, facility documentation and facility policy and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the environment was maintained in a safe secured manner on a locked unit for residents with special needs. The findings include: An observation of the facility memory care unit with the Director of Nursing Services and Assistant Director of Nursing Services on 6/06/24 at 12:35 PM identified the following: 1. One door labeled identified as the 'Soiled Utility' was unable to be fully closed, latched, and locked. 2. One door labeled 'Supply Room' was unable to be fully closed, latched, and locked. 3. One door labeled 'Clean Utility' was unable to be fully closed, latched, and locked. 4. The door identified as 'Shower' was not locked. There were no accessible sharps or hazardous material in all the rooms and no residents in the immediate area. An interview with the Director of Nursing Services on 6/06/24 at 12:35 PM identified the doors should be remain securely locked on the memory care unit. An interview with the Director of Maintenance on 6/07/24 at 8:59 AM 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 · E2024-06-07 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations of the facility Medication Storage, facility policy reviewed and staff interviews for (4 of 7) medication carts, the facility failed to store and label medications to meet professional standards and within accordance to facility policy. The findings included: 1. Review of the medication cart on Elm Tree unit on [DATE] at 11:00 AM identified Resident #23 was prescribed Latanoprost .005% OPT SOLN (1 drop eye to be given at Bed). The directions directed that the medications be stored in the refrigerator upon opening and to discarded 6 weeks after opening (LPN) # 1 was unsure when the medication was opened). S/he also indicated the medication is stored in the top draw in the right back corner of the medication cart. The clinical record indicated the resident was last given the Latanoprost .005% optical solution on [DATE] at 7:59 PM. Interview with LPN#1 on [DATE] at 11:01AM indicated medications are expected to be stored according to directions and stated the last nurse who used the medication…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-06-07 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation of the environment, review of facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure laundry room vents and a smoke detector were free of debris. The findings include: 1. During a tour of the laundry area on 6/5/24 at 11:30 AM, 2 vents and a smoke detector were covered in gray debris. One vent was in the dirty laundry area and the second vent was in the clean laundry area near a folding table. The smoke detector was also located in the clean laundry area. Interview and observation with Laundry Supervisor #1 on 6/5/24 at 11:30 AM identified the vents should be cleaned monthly. He was also unsure when the last time the vents and smoke detector were cleaned. The Laundry Supervisor # 1 stated he would check the logs; he would have to get the logs because they were not in the laundry area. In an interview and observation with the Infection Preventionist (IP)/LPN #2 on 6/5/24 at 11:45 AM identified the vents should be cleaned weekly by the laundry aide and there are cleaning logs. She also stated she was unsure why the policy was not…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-06-07 · 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 review of the clinical records, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 2 of 2 residents (Residents #23 and #30) reviewed for Resident Rights, the facility failed to ensure residents were treated with dignity by a nurse aide. The findings include: 1. Resident #23's diagnoses included Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), emphysema, and chronic respiratory failure. The Resident Care Plan dated 5/16/24 identified the resident required supervision and assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADL). Interventions included assisting the resident with ADL daily for optimal independence. The social services note dated 5/31/24 at 1:55 PM written by (Social Worker) SW #3, identified the resident as alert and oriented and able to make his/her needs known. Additionally, the note indicated Resident #23 did not have any roommate or behavioral issues. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #23 as cognitively intact and required partial assistance…
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 before2024-06-07 · 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 clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #427) reviewed for change of condition, the facility failed to notify the physician of a change in status for a resident exhibiting reoccurring symptoms in a timely manner. The findings include: Resident #427's diagnoses included acute kidney failure and duodenitis (inflammation of the first section of the small intestine) without bleeding. The hospital discharge documentation dated 5/30/24 identified Resident #427 was admitted and treated for acute kidney injury and duodenitis. Resident #427's abdomen was soft, non-distended, non-tender with normal bowel sounds, no documented diarrhea and noted the resident was stable for discharge to short term rehabilitation. The Nursing admission assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #427 as alert and oriented to person, place, and time, had a distended abdomen, with no problems with digestion and no documented diarrhea. The (baseline)…
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 · D2024-06-07 · 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 reviews, facility documentation, review of policy and staff interviews, for 1 of 2 resident reviewed for abuse (Resident #48), the facility failed to keep Resident #48 free from abuse during a witnessed resident-to-resident altercation. The findings include: 1. Resident #48's diagnoses including Alzheimer' disease and insomnia. A quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #48 as severely cognitively impaired and independent with eating and ambulation. Additionally, the MDS indicated that the resident did not experience any wandering or behaviors exhibited towards self or others. 2. Resident #75's diagnosis that included Alzheimer's disease and cognitive communication deficit. The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #75 had severe cognitive impairment and had not exhibited behaviors directed towards self or others. A facility Incident Report dated 4/30/2022 identified Resident #48 was struck in the chest by another resident (Resident # 75). The Incident…
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 · D2024-06-07 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, observation and staff interviews for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for accidents (Resident #48), the facility failed to ensure the resident was administered medications as prescribed by the physician and within accordance to professional practice . The findings include: Resident #48's diagnoses including Alzheimer' disease and insomnia. The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #48 had severe cognitive impairment and was independent with eating and ambulation. The resident required partial or moderate assistance with personal hygiene and dressing. Additionally, the quarterly MDS indicated Resident #48 did not have any swallowing disorders. A care plan dated 5/8/2024 indicated the resident was at risk for aspiration related to dysphagia, advanced dementia, and requiring a ground diet consistency. Interventions included reporting signs of aspiration, keeping the head of the bed elevated during meals, and speech therapy as needed. The care plan also indicated Resident…
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 · D2024-06-07 · 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 clinical record reviews, observations, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #427) reviewed for change of condition, the facility failed to ensure a nursing assessment was completed for resident with experiencing new onset of symptoms. The findings include: Resident #427's diagnoses included acute kidney failure and duodenitis (inflammation of the first section of the small intestine) without bleeding. a. The hospital discharge documentation dated 5/30/24 identified Resident #427 was admitted and treated for acute kidney injury and duodenitis. Resident #427's abdomen was soft, non-distended, non-tender with normal bowel sounds, no documented diarrhea and noted the resident was stable for discharge to short term rehabilitation. The Nursing admission assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #427 as alert and oriented to person, place, and time, had a distended abdomen, with no problems with digestion and no documented diarrhea. The (baseline)…
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 · D2024-06-07 · 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 clinical record review, facility documentation, facility policy review and interviews for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #103) reviewed for pressure ulcers, the facility failed to reassess the nutritional status and needs of a resident with newly identified wound(s). The findings include: Resident #103's diagnoses that included type II diabetes mellitus, obstructive sleep apnea and malignant neoplasm of the urethra/ bladder. The readmission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #103 was cognitively intact, required partial assist with bed mobility, total (2 person) assist with transfers, was at risk for the development of pressure ulcers and had one or more unhealed pressure ulcers. The Resident Care Plan dated 4/17/24 identified Resident #103 was at risk for impaired skin integrity related to impaired mobility and at nutritional risk due to malnutrition/terminal cancer. Interventions directed to implement the facility skin care protocol to include turning/positioning,…
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 before2024-06-07 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care 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 clinical record reviews, observations, facility policy and interviews for 2 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #71 and Resident #103) reviewed for respiratory care, the facility failed to ensure respiratory equipment was stored and maintained in accordance with standards of practice. The findings include: 1. Resident #71's diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and essential hypertension. The quarterly Minimum Data (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #71 as moderately cognitively impaired and partial to moderate assist with activities of daily living. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 3/21/24 identified Resident #71 had a respiratory therapy care plan with interventions that directed to administer nebulizer treatments as directed and observe for side effects. A physician's order dated 6/3/24 directed budesonide suspension for nebulizer 0.5mg/2ml via inhalation twice daily at 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM and Ipratropium-albuterol solution for nebulization 0.5mg/2.5mg base four times…
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 · D2024-06-07 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement 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 review of the clinical record, review of facility policy and staff interviews for 1 of 5 resident (Resident #430) reviewed for Unnecessary Medication, the facility failed to ensure a psychotropic medication was re-evaluated for use. The findings include: Resident #430 's diagnoses included anxiety disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, and vascular dementia. The quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #430 was (cognitive impaired) and required maximal assistance with eating and dressing and dependent with mobility. A physician's order dated [DATE] directed to give Lorazepam Intensol - Schedule IV concentrate; 2 mg/mL; amt: 0.5 mg (0.25 ml); oral Special Instructions: give every 4 hours and when needed (PRN) for restlessness/agitation Every 4 Hours - PRN PRN 1, PRN 2, PRN 3, PRN 4, PRN 5, PRN 6 End date indicates open ended Additionally notes indicates behavioral monitoring. A nurses note dated [DATE] at 11:04 AM indicated Resident #430 PRN Lorazepam and Haldol…
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 · D2024-06-07 · tag F0806 — failed to honor food preferences — isolatedEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food that accommodates resident allergies, intolerances, and preferences, as well as appealing options.
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, observations, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 2 of 25 sampled residents (Resident #121 and Resident #52) reviewed for food preferences, the facility failed to ensure a resident preference for food choice was honored. The findings include: 1. Resident #121's diagnoses included diverticulitis, atherosclerosis, and alcohol abuse. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #121 as moderately cognitively impaired and independent with activities of daily living. The Resident Care Plan dated 4/10/24 identified Resident #121 utilized an antidepressant to manage anxiety. Interventions directed to take complaints seriously and, understand likes and dislikes. The physician's orders dated 6/2/24 directed regular low fiber diet. Resident #121's meal ticket identified Resident #121 Liked selective menus and Disliked cereal. An interview with Resident #121 on 6/3/24 at 12:04 PM identified the residents were served real eggs and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-09-25 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — patternProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
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, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #2) who required bladder scans after the discontinuation of an indwelling urinary catheter, the facility failed to ensure the non-functioning bladder scanner (a non-invasive, portable ultrasound device that provides a virtual 3D image of the bladder and the volume of urine retained within the bladder) was repaired or replaced to conduct every shift bladder scans in accordance with the physician's order. The findings include: Resident #2's diagnoses included hydroureter, hydronephrosis with renal and ureteral calculous obstruction, urinary tract infections (UTI), tubule-interstitial nephritis, obstructive and reflux uropathy, megaloureter, calculus or ureter and congenital megaureter. The quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #2 rarely or never made decisions regarding tasks of daily life, was totally dependent on two (2) staff for turning 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 before2021-10-20 · 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 and interviews for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #41) reviewed for nutrition, the facility failed to ensure the physician was notified of a significant weight loss. The findings include: Resident #41's diagnoses included end stage renal disease and cognitive communication deficit. The admission MDS dated [DATE] identified Resident #41 had moderately impaired cognition, required extensive assistance of two staff for transfers, required only set up for eating, weighed 251 pounds, and was receiving a specialized treatment for his/her diagnoses. The care plan dated 8/25/21 identified Resident #41 had a problem/concern of nutrition risk related to therapeutic diet, anemia, end stage renal disease and variable oral intake. Interventions included dietary consult as needed and notify physician of changes. Physician's order dated 8/17/21 directed diet: No concentrated sweets, low potassium, low phosphorus, regular consistency, thin liquids, and fluid restriction…
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 before2021-10-20 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation and interviews for 3 residents (Resident #3, 39 and 98) on one unit, the facility failed to ensure rooms were maintained in a clean, homelike manner and in good repair. The findings included: Observation on 10/7/21 between 10:00 AM to 10:27 AM during a tour of the Apple Blossom unit the following observations were identified: a. In Resident #3's room, the edges of the squared-shaped louvers, of the ceiling vent, over the resident's bed were soiled with rust. The borders of the suspension grid for the ceiling tiles, to the right of the resident's bed and in the areas over the window, were soiled with a rust-colored like substance. A ceiling tile over the roommate's bed was identified as having a circular-shaped rust stain. The base board heater in the bathroom was identified as being soiled with specks of rust on its surface. The lower area of the door frame of the bathroom was identified as being marred and scarred with black smudges and linear markings. b. In Resident #39's room, the baseboard heater 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.
- Potential for harm · D2021-10-20 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolatedEnsure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record reviews, review of facility documentation, facility policies, and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident#130) who ambulated independently with limited supervision, the facility failed to ensure the resident was free from being restrained in a chair. The findings include: Resident #130's diagnoses include vascular dementia with behavioral disturbances, anxiety and depression. The quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #130 rarely or never made decisions regarding tasks of daily life, required limited assistance of one (1) person with repositioning while in the bed, getting in and out of the bed and chair, ambulating on the unit, utilized a walker when ambulating and a restraint was not utilized. The resident care plan dated 2/12/20 identified Resident #130 is unable to be independent with self-care secondary to inability to sequence or initiate tasks related to dementia. Interventions included to provide assistance with activities of daily…
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 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, facility policy, and interviews for one of three residents (Resident#130) who ambulated independently with limited supervision and was witnessed by staff to be restrained in a chair on two (2) separate occasions during one (1) shift, the facility failed to report the first incident to the licensed staff to prevent a second incident. The findings include: Resident #130's diagnoses include vascular dementia with behavioral disturbances, anxiety and depression. The quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #130 rarely or never made decisions regarding tasks of daily life, required limited assistance of one (1) person with repositioning while in the bed, getting in and out of the bed and chair, ambulating on the unit, utilized a walker when ambulating and a restraint was not utilized. The resident care plan dated 2/12/20 identified Resident #130 is unable to be independent with self-care secondary to inability to sequence or…
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 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 review of the clinical record, facility documentation and interviews for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #41) reviewed for nutrition, the facility failed to ensure weights were monitored and failed to ensure weight loss was reported to physician and dietician. The findings include: Resident #41's diagnoses included end stage renal disease and cognitive communication deficit. The admission MDS dated [DATE] identified Resident #41 had moderately impaired cognition, required extensive assistance of two staff for transfers, required only set up for eating, weighed 251 pounds, and was receiving a specialized treatment for his/her diagnoses. The care plan dated 8/25/21 identified Resident #41 had a problem/concern of nutrition risk related to therapeutic diet, anemia, end stage renal disease and variable oral intake. Interventions included dietary consult as needed and notify physician of changes. Physician's order dated 8/17/21 directed diet: No concentrated sweets, low potassium, low phosphorus, regular…
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 before2021-10-20 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care 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 clinical record review, review of facility documentation, facility policies, and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #127) who had a change of condition and required Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR), the facility failed to ensure staff were educated on the requirement of oxygen with an Ambu bag. The findings include: Resident #127's diagnoses included dementia, carotid artery stenosis and diverticulitis. The admission Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #127 rarely or never made decisions regarding tasks of daily life and required extensive assistance of one (1) or two (2) staff with activities of daily living. A physician's order dated [DATE] directed a Full Code for the Advanced Directives. A physician's order dated [DATE] directed to obtain a chest x-ray to rule out pneumonia and as needed oxygen via nasal cannula titrate to maintain oxygen saturation level of 92%. The nurse's note dated [DATE] at 11:26 PM Resident #127 continued on antibiotics for 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 · D2021-10-20 · 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 review of the clinical record, facility documentation and interviews for 1 resident (Resident #41) receiving a specialized treatment, the facility failed to ensure the resident did not receive a medication that was contraindicated for his/her diagnosis. The findings include: Resident #41's diagnoses included end stage renal disease. The admission MDS dated [DATE] identified the resident had moderately impaired cognition, required extensive assistance of two staff for toileting, and was receiving a specialized treatment for his/her diagnosis. The care plan dated 8/25/21 identified the resident had end stage renal disease with interventions that included to educate the resident if necessary. A physician's order dated 8/9/21 directed to administer Bisacodyl (OTC) suppository 10 mg, per rectal administration as needed once a day for constipation, use second, on 8/15/21, without effect. Additionally, the order directed to administer a disposable enema, (sodium phosphates) (OTC) 19-7 grams/118 ml, one enema…
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 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, facility documentation and interviews for 1 resident (Resident #41) receiving a specialized treatment, the pharmacist failed to identify and report an irregularity. The findings include: Based on review of the clinical record, interviews and review of facility policy, for one of one resident reviewed for Dialysis, Resident # 41, the facility pharmacist failed to identify and report an irregularity in medication orders for a resident receiving dialysis. The findings include: Resident #41's diagnoses included end stage renal disease. The admission MDS dated [DATE] identified the resident had moderately impaired cognition, required extensive assistance of two staff for toileting, and was receiving a specialized treatment for his/her diagnosis. The care plan dated 8/25/21 identified the resident had end stage renal disease with interventions that included to educate the resident if necessary. A physician's order dated 8/9/21 directed to administer Bisacodyl (OTC) suppository…
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 F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard 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 review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interview for 1 of 3 residents reviewed (Resident #131) the facility failed to ensure that the resident's record was complete. The finding included: Resident #131's diagnosis included left femoral neck fracture with surgical repair. An admission assessment dated [DATE] identified that the resident was admitted to the facility at 3:45 PM and was alert and nonverbal and appeared to understand simple questions and tasks and the resident was cooperative with care. The admission assessment further identified that the resident required extensive assistance for ADLs and ambulation, was partially incontinent of bowel and had a Foley (indwelling) catheter that was patent and draining clear yellow urine. The assessment failed to identify the amount of urine output. Review of a care plan dated 5/28/21 identified that the resident had a Foley catheter with interventions that included to provide catheter care per facility protocol, empty…
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
Based on observation, review of facility documentation and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the walk-in freezer and walk-in refrigerator was maintain in safe operating condition. The findings included: On 10/7/21 at 9:30 AM to 9:55 AM during tour of the Kitchen with the Food Service Director (FSD) observations of the following concerns were identified: a. The walk-in freezer had four large patches of ice on the floor in an opened space in front of a storage rack where frozen foods are stored and retrieved by staff. It was further noted that the ceiling area of the walk-in freezer was covered with several frozen droplets of ice. An interview with the FSD at the time, indicated that she hadn't seen the patches of ice or frozen droplets prior to the inspection and had no explanation as to how the ice had formed or why it was there, but would ensure that the patches and droplets of ice would be removed. b. The walk-in refrigerator was noted as having a large puddle of water on the floor to the right of the door. An interview with the FSD at the time indicated she wasn't aware…
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 · B2024-06-07 · tag F0573 — patternLet each resident or the resident's legal representative access or purchase copies of all the resident's records.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, review of facility policy and staff interviews for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #432) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to provide copies of the resident's medical record within 48 hours. The findings include: Resident #432 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The resident's diagnoses included metabolic encephalopathy, essential hypertension, muscle weakness, hypothyroidism, and dysphagia. A Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident 432 as cognitively impaired and required substantial/maximal assistance with toileting, bathing, lower body dressing, and bed to chair transfer. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 11/29/23 identified Resident #432 had cognitive loss/dementia, resident has decreased physical functioning and requires assistance with activities of daily living (ADL). Interventions include assisting with Activities of Daily Living (ADL) for optimal independence, and resident will ensure the resident makes daily choice or preference…
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 · B2024-06-07 · tag F0836 — patternEnsure the facility is licensed under applicable State and local law and operates and provides services in compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and codes, and with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, review of facility policy and staff interview for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #432) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to charge the appropriate amount for copies of Resident #432 medical records. The findings include: Resident #432 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The resident's diagnoses included metabolic encephalopathy, essential hypertension, muscle weakness, hypothyroidism, and dysphagia. A Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident 432 as cognitively impaired and required substantial/maximal assistance with toileting, bathing, lower body dressing, and bed to chair transfer. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 11/29/23 identified Resident #432 had cognitive loss/dementia, resident has decreased physical functioning and requires assistance with activities of daily living (ADL). Interventions include assisting with Activities of Daily Living (ADL) for optimal independence, and resident will ensure the resident makes daily choice or…
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.
“Disputed” is CMS’s own flag, not our reading: the CMS deficiency file records whether the home has formally contested a citation, and we reproduce that. IDR is Informal Dispute Resolution, run by the state survey agency that wrote the citation; IIDR is Independent Informal Dispute Resolution, a separate process before an outside entity, available when CMS has proposed a civil money penalty. They are different processes and we mark them differently. Two things to hold at once. A disputed citation is still a citation — it was written by a surveyor, it stands on the record unless and until it is changed, and we neither hide it nor discount it. And we cannot tell you how the dispute came out: CMS publishes that a citation is under dispute, not the outcome, so a tag marked here may since have been upheld, reduced, or deleted, and an unmarked tag may have been disputed and resolved before this file was cut. Ask the home what it disputed and why — it is entitled to tell you, and the answer is often the most informative thing on this page.
- 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
$25,490 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $25,490 — penalty dated 2026-03-30
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GREENWICH WOODS HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 54% | since 04/01/2016 |
| IK GREENWICH LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 7% | since 04/01/2016 |
| SJJJ LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 7% | since 04/01/2016 |
| WCTHC LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 25% | since 04/01/2016 |
| YWM CT LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 7% | since 08/01/2017 |
| BERNSTEIN, MOSHE | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | 28% | since 04/01/2016 |
| BLASS, MORDECHAI | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | 28% | since 04/01/2016 |
| WEISS, YITZCHOCK | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 7% | since 08/01/2017 |
| NOONAN, JAMES | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 02/28/2022 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 12 rows in the source record cover these 9 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
5 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $2.6M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 14% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in 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 075416. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-03-31, 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.