Stamford Care Center
53 Courtland Avenue, Stamford, CT 06902 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 156 certified beds · (203) 351-8300 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (35% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has 2 actual-harm citations
- a high number of inspection citations overall (41) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $132,109 in federal fines (most recent 2026-02-10)
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- about 21% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 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 2 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 | 5.0% | 18.0% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 7.2% | 6.5% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.7% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.4% | 1.5% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 63.0% | 22.3% | 6.5% | worse 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 | 1.9% | 3.5% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 4.0% | 16.4% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 12.8% | 17.6% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 99.2% | 93.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 7.5% | 4.0% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 28.8% | 24.7% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 16.2% | 17.8% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.7% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 88.0% | 69.7% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 24.5% | 24.3% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 17.2% | 10.7% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 3.00 | 2.06 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.43 | 1.46 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ 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.
54.5% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 184 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 83.9% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 62 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.27 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 41% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 11% 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 | 54.5%CMS range 45.6–62.3 | 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 | 12.3%CMS range 9.5–15.1 | 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 | 83.9% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 72.6% | 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 | 72.6% | 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 | 99.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 98.5% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 1.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 3.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 8.9%CMS range 5.8–13.8 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.01 | 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 156 beds and averages 147.4 residents a day — about 94% occupied, or roughly 9 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.70 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.67 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.43 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 3.41 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.82 on weekdays — 11% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.75 to 0.46 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 35% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
41 citations, most serious first. The 12 most serious are shown; the remaining 29 are one tap away and print in full.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2026-02-10 · 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 observations, interviews, clinical record, and policy reviews for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #23) reviewed for pressure ulcers, the facility failed to provide services to prevent worsening of 2 pressure wounds for a dependent resident. The findings include:Resident #23's diagnoses included open wound of the lower back and pelvis, quadriplegia (paralysis affecting all 4 limbs and the torso), and malnutrition.The comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #23 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status of 00 indicating severe cognitive impairment and was totally dependent on staff for toileting, transfers, and changing positions in bed (rolling, lying and sitting). Additionally, Resident #23 was at risk for developing pressure ulcers and did not have any current unhealed pressure ulcers/injuries. The MDS identified skin ulcer/injury treatments included a pressure reducing device for the bed, a turning and repositioning program and application of non-surgical…
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.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2025-06-02 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, and staff interviews for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #1) who required staff assistance with personal hygiene, the facility failed to ensure the resident was positioned safely in the bed and the correct number of staff assistance were present in accordance with the care plan prior to adjusting the height of the bed to prevent the resident from sliding out of the bed. The findings include: Resident #1's diagnoses included hemiplegia, hemiparesis, vascular dementia, aphasia, cerebrovascular disease, disorder of bone density and structure. The significant change Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS of 0 out of 15 indicating Resident #1 never or rarely made decisions regarding tasks of daily life, did not exhibit behavioral symptoms, and was dependent on staff with bed mobility, personal hygiene, toileting, dressing, and transfers. The Resident Care Plan dated 4/21/25…
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 before2026-02-10 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, facility documentation, and facility policy, the facility failed to provide safe and comfortable air temperature levels in resident rooms and common areas. The findings include: During an initial tour of the facility, observation and interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #5 on 2/8/26 at 7:02 AM, identified the 1st Floor East hallway air temperature was noted to be cold. LPN #5 was dressed in a winter hat, 2 sweaters, and a scarf. LPN #5 stated that it's freezing on the 1st floor and is always like this at night. Observation and interview on 2/8/26 at 7:11 AM with Resident #52 identified him/her in bed, covered with 3 blankets, and the facility heating system in the room was running at the highest possible setting. Using a probe thermometer, the room temperature read 69.8 degrees Fahrenheit ( F). Resident #52 stated, I'm freezing. Interview with the Administrator on 2/8/26 at 7:42 AM identified that the facility was aware of the heating issue and that their intervention…
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 · E2026-02-10 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — patternEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews, a sample test tray, facility documentation, and policy, the facility failed to provide appetizing and palatable food. The findings include:Review of the Resident Council Minutes dated 9/26/25 identified Resident concerns that meat was not tender and hard to chew (there was no response noted from the Dietary Department).Review of the Resident Council Minutes dated 11/21/25 identified Resident concerns that food was delivered cold, and the meat was not tender (there was no response noted from the Dietary Department).Review of the Resident Council Minutes dated 12/24/25 identified Resident concerns about the pork being overcooked, the facility response from the Dietary Food Director was to speak to the cooks regarding overcooking protein.Review of Resident Council minutes dated 1/27/26 identified Resident concerns with the repetitive chicken meals given frequently with the same seasoning, the facility response from Dietary Food Director was to speak with cooks regarding improved seasoning options.Interview with Resident #7 on 2/8/26 at 9:38 AM described the food as…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2026-02-10 · tag F0809 — failed to serve meals on a reasonable schedule — patternEnsure meals and snacks are served at times in accordance with resident’s needs, preferences, and requests. Suitable and nourishing alternative meals and snacks must be provided for residents who want to eat at non-traditional times or outside of scheduled meal times.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews, observations, and facility documentation, the facility failed to provide meals at regularly scheduled intervals. The findings include:Review of the Resident Council Minutes dated 10/27/25 identified Resident concerns that food trucks were late to some of the units. (there was no response noted from the Dietary Department).Review of the Resident Council Minutes dated 11/21/25 identified Resident concerns that food took too long to be delivered and was cold (there was no response noted from the Dietary Department).Review of the Resident Council Minutes dated 12/24/25 identified Resident concerns with the food trucks, and food not being passed out when it reached the unit destination (there was no response from the facility).Review of Resident Council minutes dated 1/27/26 identified Resident concerns with the meals arriving cold and late, response from the Dietary Food Director was to adjust tray delivery timing.Observation and review of facility documentation identified the breakfast meal truck was delivered to the 4th floor on 2/8/26 at 9:03 AM but according to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2026-02-10 · 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, interviews, and facility documentation, the facility failed to ensure open food items were dated, failed to identify expiration dates, and failed to ensure food was stored and served under sanitary conditions. The findings included:Tour of the Dietary Department on 2/8/26 at 6:42 AM with [NAME] #1 identified the following:1. a. The outside thermometer display of the milk cooler identified a temperature reading of 55 degrees Fahrenheit, and despite taking out all the milk crates, [NAME] #1 failed locate a thermometer inside the cooler to take a temperature reading to ensure milk was being maintained at optimal temperature.b. Refrigerator #1 (juice cooler) was noted to contain a tray of sandwiches and desserts wrapped in plastic, on individual plates without the benefit of being labeled with a preparation date or expiration date.c. The walk-in cooler was noted to have the door propped open with a cart for an unidentified amount of time and was not being used by staff.d. The walk-in cooler was noted to have 4 large roast beef chucks cooling…
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 before2026-02-10 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, review of clinical records, facility documentation, facility policies and interviews for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #22) reviewed for a Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter (PICC line) the facility failed to adhere to the Enhanced Barrier Precaution (EBP) policy, for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #23) reviewed for pressure ulcers, the facility failed to ensure a peripherally inserted Intravenous (IV) site was rotated according to physician orders or infection control standards, for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #108) reviewed for pressure ulcers, the facility failed to perform appropriate hand hygiene during a dressing change, and during a review of the facility infection control tracking practices, the facility failed to maintain an accurate up-to-date list of residents who required Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) or Transmission Based Precautions (TBP) and failed to implement the facility policy for residents with a Multi-Drug-Resistant Organism. The findings…
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 before2026-02-10 · 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 interviews, observations, review of clinical records, and review of facility policy for 2 of 5 sampled residents, (Resident #23 and #128) reviewed for dignity, the facility failed to assist residents to eat in a dignified manner and for the entire facility failed to ensure appropriate food plating to maintain a dignified dining experience. The findings include: 1. Resident #23's diagnoses included unspecified dementia, functional quadriplegia (paralysis of all 4 extremities and torso), and adult failure to thrive. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #23 had short-and long-term memory problems, was dependent on staff for eating, and required partial/moderate assistance for chair/bed-to-chair transfers. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 1/15/26 identified Resident #23 had a self-care deficit related to dementia and functional quadriplegia. Interventions included that he/she was dependent on staff for eating. Interview and observation with Nurse Aid (NA) #1 on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-02-10 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews, review of clinical records, review of documentation and facility policy for 2 of 5 residents, (Residents #30 and #36) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to investigate an allegation of resident-to-resident abuse. The findings include:1. Resident #30's diagnoses included vascular dementia with agitation, anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder.The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #30 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 0 indicating severe cognitive impairment, required substantial/maximal assistance with upper/lower body dressing and partial/moderate assistance with transfers.The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 1/27/26 identified Resident #30 had a mood state problem related to diagnosis of anxiety and depression. Interventions included to orient to facility/staff and validate feelings by offering emotional support and reassurance. Additionally, the RCP identified Resident #30 had the potential to demonstrate verbally…
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 · D2026-02-10 · 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 interviews and review of the clinical record for 1 of 5 sampled residents (Resident #60) reviewed for Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR), the facility failed to coordinate with the state designated authority following the initial 30-day Level 1 PASRR approval. The findings include:Resident #60 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included anxiety disorder and bipolar disorder.The comprehensive Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified a diagnosis of bipolar disorder.The comprehensive Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] (39 days after admission) identified a diagnosis of bipolar disorder but failed to identify a Level II PASRR had been completed.The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #60 was moderately cognitively impaired and required total dependence for oral hygiene, toileting hygiene, eating, and bathing. Resident #60 received antipsychotic, antianxiety, and antidepressant medication, and identified a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-02-10 · 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 observations, review of the clinical record, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #108) reviewed for pressure ulcers, the facility failed to follow the physician's order for an air mattress inflation setting and for 1 of 3 sampled residents, (Resident #132) reviewed for respiratory care, the facility failed to set a residents oxygen liter flow per the physician's order. The findings include: 1.Resident #108's diagnosis included a stage 4 (full thickness wound with extensive tissue loss exposing underlying muscle, tendon, ligament, cartilage or bone) pressure ulcer of the sacral region, legal blindness, and low back pain. The quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #108 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10 indicating moderate cognitive impairment and required partial/moderate assistance with bed mobility, substantial maximal assistance with dressing, and total dependence with transfers and toileting. The Resident Care…
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 before2026-02-10 · 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, review of the clinical record, and facility policy for 1 of 2 sampled residents, (Resident #11) reviewed for elopement (wandering away), the facility failed to ensure placement of an anti-wandering (Wander guard) transmission device per the physician order for a resident at high risk for elopement. The findings include:Resident #11's diagnoses included Parkinson's disease, unspecified dementia, and anxiety disorder.The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #11 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status score of 11 indicating moderate cognitive impairment, was independent for oral and personal hygiene, and required supervision or touching assistance for walking.The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 1/27/26 identified Resident #11 was an elopement risk/wanderer related to confusion and dementia. Interventions included placement of an Wander guard transmission device to the right ankle and to check placement of the device every shift.A physician's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 29 citations
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-02-10 · 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 policy, and interviews for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #48) reviewed for nutrition, the facility failed to follow physician orders to monitor intake and output accurately for a resident receiving hemolytic treatments. The findings include:Resident #48's diagnoses included hypertensive chronic kidney disease stage 5, dependence on hemolytic treatments and diabetes with chronic kidney disease.The quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #48 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status Score of 14 indicating intact cognition, required supervision with bed mobility, partial moderate assistance with dressing and transfers, and was dependent on staff for toileting.The Resident Care Plan dated 12/14/25 identified a potential for fluid volume overload related to end stage renal disease on hemolytic treatments. Interventions included administering medications and diet as ordered, monitor, document, and report to the physician signs 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 before2026-02-10 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, review of the clinical record, facility policy, and interviews for the only sampled resident (Resident #48) reviewed for hemolytic treatments, the facility failed to monitor the Arteriovenous (AV) fistula site for function. The findings include:Resident #48 's diagnoses included hypertensive chronic kidney disease stage 5, dependence on dialysis and diabetes with chronic kidney disease.The quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #48 had Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) Score of 14 indicating intact cognition and was independent with eating, required supervision with bed mobility, and partial moderate assistance with dressing.The Resident Care Plan dated 12/16/25 identified Resident #48 needed hemolytic treatments related to end stage renal disease. Interventions included checking for AV shunt/fistula bruit and thrill and providing hemolytic treatments via left AV fistula every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday and as needed per the hemolytic treatment…
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 before2024-06-06 · 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 clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of two residents (Resident #1) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure care was provided in a dignified manner. The findings include: Resident #1 was admitted with diagnoses that included borderline personality disorder and depression. A quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #1 was alert and oriented, was dependent for transfer with a Hoyer lift to a customized motorized wheelchair, maximal assistance for bed mobility, and had an indwelling urinary catheter. The RCP dated 3/21/2024 identified a risk for distress related to limitations leading to initiating conflicts with staff. Interventions directed to monitor anxiety, anticipate and meet needs, explain care, and allow time to answer questions and verbalize feelings. Review of an audio recording dated 5/14/2024 identified a staff member was providing care to Resident #1 and Resident #1 called NA #3 by his/her first name.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-11-07 · 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 one (1) of three (3) residents, (Resident #1), reviewed for weight loss, the facility failed to ensure significant weight loss was reported to the responsible party in a timely manner. The findings include: Resident #1's diagnoses included essential hypertension, congestive heart failure and history of metabolic encephalopathy. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #1 had severe cognitive impairment, required supervision with set up assist with eating. A Resident Care Plan dated 5/9/23 identified Resident #1 had a potential for nutritional deficit related to advanced age, variable intake and non-compliance with therapy with interventions that directed to monitor weights as ordered, report significant changes to the Dietitian and physician and monitor labs reporting abnormal (levels) to the physician. The weight record dated 7/1/23 identified Resident #1 had a significant weight…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-11-07 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of three (3) residents, (Resident #1), reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure an allegation of abuse was thoroughly investigated. The findings include: Resident #1's diagnoses included essential hypertension, congestive heart failure and history of metabolic encephalopathy. The baseline Resident Care Plan dated 12/28/22 identified Resident #1 had impaired cognitive function and was at risk to be a victim of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment in a congregate setting interventions directed to anticipate needs and monitor mood and behavior and provide early interventions. A social worker Plan of Care note dated 8/3/23 (initiation date 1/24/23) identified Resident #1 was accusing staff of physical abuse. A review of the nursing, Advanced Practice Progress notes dated 1/22/23 through 1/25/23 did not include a documented account of the incident. An interview with the Director of Nursing and review of the facility documentation on 11/9/23 at 2:30 PM did not identify a documented…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-11-07 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for one (1) of three (3) residents, (Resident #1), reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure the care plan was updated resident known to have frequently exhibited behaviors. The findings include: Resident #1's diagnoses included essential hypertension, congestive heart failure and history of metabolic encephalopathy. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #1 had moderate cognitive impairment and required assistance with bed mobility and transfers. The Resident Care Plan dated 2/8/23 identified Resident #1 had impaired cognitive function, required assistance with activities of daily living (ADL) and was at risk for falls with interventions that directed to anticipate needs, provide one person assist with bed mobility and provide two quarter side rails while in bed. An Advanced Practice Registered Nurse Note dated 2/23/23 at 8:15 PM identified at 2:00 PM, Resident #1…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-11-07 · 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, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for one (1) of three (3) residents, (Resident #1), reviewed for a accidents and weight loss, the facility failed to ensure suture removal was completed timely, and to ensure that physicians orders were followed for bloodwork. The findings include: Resident #1's diagnoses included essential hypertension, congestive heart failure and history of metabolic encephalopathy. 1) The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #1 had moderate cognitive impairment and required assistance with bed mobility and transfers. a) The Resident Care Plan dated 2/8/23 identified Resident #1 had impaired cognitive function, required assistance with activities of daily living (ADL) and was at risk for falls with interventions that directed to anticipate needs, provide one person assist with bed mobility and provide two quarter side rails while in bed. An Advanced Practice Registered Nurse Note dated 2/23/23 at…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-09-15 · tag F0835 — failed to run the facility competently — patternAdminister the facility in a manner that enables it to use its resources effectively and efficiently.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of facility policy and interviews the facility failed to have an Administrator, licensed in the state of Connecticut, since [DATE] (over 5 months). The findings include. Observation on [DATE] at 10:00 AM identified the previous Administrator, (Administrator #2), license was posted in the first-floor lobby. Administrator #2's license expired [DATE]. Interview with the CEO (Interim Administrator) on [DATE] at 7:45 AM indicated he was the Interim Administrator and that the previous Administrator, (Administrator #2) was no longer at the facility. The CEO (Interim Administrator) indicated he had been the Interim Administrator for approximately 2 - 3 weeks. Interview with the CEO (Interim Administrator) on [DATE] at 1:50 PM indicated he was the Interim Administrator but had an administrator license in another state but did not have an administrator license in the state of Connecticut. Interview with HR #1 on [DATE] at 2:15 PM indicated she was responsible to verify all licenses for the administrators…
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 · E2023-09-15 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — patternImplement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews, the facility failed to maintain an effective antibiotic stewardship program. The findings include: Review of the infection line list dated 1/2022 through 12/2022 failed to reflect documentation regarding clinical signs and symptoms and laboratory reports to determine if the antibiotic is indicated or if adjustments to therapy should be made and identify what infection assessment tools or management algorithms are used for one or more infections (e.g., SBAR tool for urinary tract infection (UTI) assessment, Loeb minimum criteria for initiation of antibiotics). Review of the infection prevention program with RN #2 (previous IP without the required training and qualification) on 9/14/23 at 12:06 PM identified from 1/23 through 5/23 antibiotic use is tracked on monthly basis, by printing the month from the antibiotic e-chart, however, there is no consistency in documentation on the antibiotic tracking log, or documented communication to the prescriber that the signs and symptoms initially identified have been…
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 · E2023-09-15 · tag F0882 — patternDesignate a qualified infection preventionist to be responsible for the infection prevent and control program in the nursing home.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility documentation and interviews the facility failed to designate a specific individual (with the required training and qualification) to oversee the infection control program between 3/2022 through 9/1/23. The findings include: Review of RN #5's personnel file identified she was employed by the facility 10/3/22 through 12/30/22 as the Infection Preventionist (IP) and the wound nurse. The personnel file indicated RN #5 received her Infection Preventionist Certificate on 12/3/22 (2 months after being employed as the Infection Preventionist). The facility documentation failed to reflect RN #5 (IP) had completed the specialized training in infection prevention and control prior to assuming the role of the IP and evidence of completion was available (e.g., certificate). A review of the facility Infection Control Program on 9/14/23 failed to identify that the facility had an Infection Preventionist (IP) staff with the appropriate education and training as outlined by The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. A review of the facility Infection Control Program…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-09-15 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 7 residents (Resident #103) reviewed for nutrition, the facility failed to ensure that a resident who required feeding assistance was treated in a dignified manner during a meal. The findings include: Resident #103 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included metabolic encephalopathy, dementia with agitation, muscle weakness. A physician's order dated 2/13/23 directed Resident #103 required a mechanically soft, thin diet. The care plan dated 2/14/23 identified Resident #103 had a potential risk of choking/aspiration. Interventions included encouraging the resident to eat slowly, and chew food thoroughly. The care plan also identified Resident #103 was at risk for nutritional deficit due to impaired cognition and a mechanically altered diet. The interventions included monitoring for chewing difficulty, swallowing, and choking. The care plan also identified Resident #103 had…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-15 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — isolatedHonor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
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 resident (Resident #277) reviewed for choices, the facility failed to ensure resident was receiving showers. The findings Resident #277 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included left hip fracture, repeated falls, anemia, and hypertension. A physician's order dated 3/16/23 directed the resident out of bed to a high back wheelchair with pressure relieving cushion, and bilateral elevating leg rests via mechanical. The significant change of condition MDS dated [DATE] identified Resident #277 had intact cognition and required extensive assistance with care. Additionally, it was very important to Resident #277 to choose clothes to wear each day, choose between a tub bath or shower, participate in group activities, and go outside to get fresh air when the weather is good. The care plan dated 7/6/23 identified the resident required total 2 person assistance via mechanical lift for transfers.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-09-15 · 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 observation, review of the clinical record, facility policy, and interviews for 2 of 4 residents (Resident #45) reviewed for vital signs, the facility failed to notify the physician when the residents blood pressure was elevated on 3 occasions, and for the only sampled resident (Resident #54) reviewed for dialysis, the facility failed to notify the physician when the resident's blood pressures were elevated, and for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #87) reviewed for antipsychotic medications, the facility failed to ensure resident representative was notified when a new medication was started, and for 1 resident (Resident #103) reviewed for nutrition, the facility failed to ensure that the physician and resident representative were notified of a significant unplanned weight loss in a timely manner. The findings include: 1. Resident #45 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that included chronic kidney disease stage 4, type 2 diabetes and major depressive disorder. The annual MDS date 6/9/23…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-15 · 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 review of the clinical record, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #2) reviewed for tube feeding, the facility failed to follow a physician's order. The findings include: Resident # 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included cerebral infarction, GERD, and multiple myeloma. Resident #2 was admitted to the hospital on [DATE], due to abnormal laboratory results and C-Diff. Review of hospital progress noted dated 7/29/22 identified that Resident #2 received a PEG-tube, at the request of the family. Physician's orders dated 6/9/23 directed to administer 5 mg of Amlodipine Besylate (anti-hypertensive) via PEG-tube once daily, 2.5 mg of Apixaban (blood thinner) via PEG-tube every 12 hours, 40 mg Atorvastatin Calcium (hyperlipidemia) via PEG-tube at bedtime, 20 mg Escitalopram Oxalate (anti-anxiety) via PEG-tube daily, 7.5 ml Ferrous Sulfate Elixir (supplement) via PEG-tube daily, 300 mg Gabapentin (anti-convulsant) via PEG-tube twice daily, 250 mg Keppra…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-09-15 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, review of the clinical record, facility policy, facility documentation and interviews for 2 of 4 residents (Resident #45) reviewed for change in condition, the facility failed to monitor blood pressures for a resident with chronic kidney disease stage 4, and for 1 resident (Resident #50) reviewed for skin, the facility failed to ensure a specialized mattress was on the correct setting for the resident's weight and was functioning and for 1 resident (Resident # 54) reviewed for dialysis, the facility failed to complete an RN assessment for a change in condition, and for 1 of 7 residents (Resident #103) reviewed for nutrition, the facility failed to ensure that a resident's weight was monitored per facility policy and failed to complete a change of condition assessment following a significant unintentional weight loss in a timely manner and for 1 residents (Resident #277) reviewed for activities of daily living, the facility failed to assist the resident out of bed. The findings include. 1.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-09-15 · 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 review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #80) reviewed for pressure ulcer, the facility failed to ensure weekly body assessments by licensed nurses were completed 8 weeks prior to the discovery of a DTI on the sacrum and failed to ensure a pressure relieving mattress was functioning. The findings Resident #80 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included peripheral vascular disease, osteomyelitis to the left ankle and foot, and pressure ulcer to the right heel. The admission MDS dated [DATE] identified Resident #80 had moderately impaired cognition, was frequently incontinent of bowel, had an indwelling catheter, required extensive assistance with bed mobility and transfers, was at risk for developing pressure ulcers, and had one stage 4 pressure ulcer and one unstageable deep tissue injury on admission. Review of the Weekly Skin Inspections on Bath/Shower Day form (to be completed by the licensed nurses) identified…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-09-15 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interview for 2 of 3 residents (Resident #81 and 103) reviewed for accidents, for Resident #81, who has severely impaired cognition, the facility failed to ensure a hazard free environment when hand wipes were observed on the residents bedside table, and for Resident #103, who has a history of falls, the facility failed to ensure a hazard free environment when the residents breakfast tray was left at the foot of the bed out of reach of the resident. The findings include. 1. Resident #81 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis that included, atrial fibrillation, basal cell carcinoma of skin, and unspecified toxic encephalopathy. The MDS dated [DATE] identified the resident had severely impaired cognition, required extensive assistance for bed mobility, total dependence for locomotion, toilet use and dressing. The care plan dated 6/13/23 identified a focus on skin breakdown related to edema, poor mobility after a fall…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-09-15 · 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 observations, clinical record review, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 7 residents (Resident #103) reviewed for nutrition, the facility failed to immediately ensure the Dietitian performed a nutritional assessment and implemented interventions when the resident had a significant weight loss. The findings include. Resident #103 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included metabolic encephalopathy, dementia with agitation, and muscle weakness. A physician's order dated 2/13/23 directed Resident #103 required a mechanically soft, thin diet. The care plan dated 2/14/23 identified Resident #103 was at risk for nutritional deficit due to impaired cognition and a mechanically altered diet. The interventions included to monitor weights as ordered and report significant changes to the dietitian and physician. The admission MDS dated [DATE] identified Resident #103 had severely impaired cognition, was frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder and required…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-15 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolatedEnsure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #119) reviewed for tube feeding, the facility failed to properly label and date the tube feed container and syringe irrigation set according to facility policy. The findings include: Resident #119 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting right dominant side, gastrostomy status, and dysphagia oropharyngeal phase. The admission MDS dated [DATE] identified Resident #119 had moderately impaired cognition, required total assistance for bed mobility, transferring, eating, and was on tube feed. The care plan dated 9/6/23 identified a focus on tube feeding related to dysphagia, with interventions to check tube placement and gastric contents/residual volume per facility protocol and record. Physician's order dated 8/15/23 directed to administer Jevity 1.2 at a rate of 75ml/hr for 16 hours…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-09-15 · 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 observation, review of the clinical record, facility policy, and interviews for the only sampled resident (Resident #54) reviewed for dialysis, the facility failed to document daily intake and output on a resident who had orders for a fluid restriction. The findings include: Resident #54 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included congestive heart failure, hypertensive chronic kidney disease, and dependence on dialysis. A physician's order dated 2/3/23 directed Resident #54 to have a daily 1000ml fluid restriction and to document the amount consumed in the resident's intake and output record. On 8/14/23 this order was discontinued due to Resident #54's hospitalization and was not reinstated when the resident returned to the facility. The quarterly MDS dated [DATE] identified Resident #54 had intact cognition, was independent with eating and personal hygiene, and required dialysis. The care plan dated 9/4/23 identified Resident #54 had the potential for nutritional deficit 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 · D2023-09-15 · tag F0742 — isolatedProvide the appropriate treatment and services to a resident who displays or is diagnosed with mental disorder or psychosocial adjustment difficulty, or who has a history of trauma and/or post-traumatic stress disorder.
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 resident (Resident #5) who was admitted on an antipsychotic medication, the facility failed to complete a baseline Abnormal Involuntary Motion Scale (AIMS) assessment on admission, after 6 months and with the initiation of a new antipsychotic medication, failed to complete a thorough baseline mental health assessment, and failed to complete on-going mental health assessments including assessment after the initiation of a new antipsychotic medication, and for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #103) reviewed for behavior and emotional status, the facility failed to ensure the resident was provided ongoing evaluation and reassessment by psychiatric services following an increase in psychotropic medications. The findings include: 1. Resident #5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, and major depressive disorder. Review of the mental health…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-15 · 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, facility policy, and interviews for 1 resident (Resident #5) who was admitted on an antipsychotic medication and had recommendations from the pharmacy for an AIMS test to be completed, the facility failed to ensure the recommendations were reviewed and acted upon by the attending physician, the DNS or the Medical Director. The findings include. Resident #5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, and major depressive disorder. Review of the mental health progress note dated 1/30/23 at 7:44 PM identified the Psychiatric PA's recommendations were to continue with the following medication orders: Seroquel (antipsychotic) 25 mg at bedtime, Lamictal (anticonvulsant used for the treatment of bipolar) 150mg twice daily, and Nortriptyline (antidepressant) 10mg at bedtime. The mental health progress note failed to identify a baseline Abnormal Involuntary Motion Scale (AIMS) had…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-09-15 · 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, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #103) reviewed for mood and behavior, the facility failed to ensure that a resident's medication regimen was monitored and re-assessed following an increase in psychotropic medications. The findings include: Resident #103 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included metabolic encephalopathy, dementia, restlessness and agitation. The hospital discharge record dated 2/13/23 identified Resident #103 had been seen at the hospital following increased weakness, increased confusion, decline in condition, inability to walk, and multiple falls at home. The hospital records further identified Resident #103 was on medications including Depakote (medication to treat seizure disorders, certain psychiatric conditions (manic phase of bipolar disorder), and to prevent migraine headaches) 125 mg twice daily. The admission MDS dated [DATE] identified Resident #103 had severely…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-09-15 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, review of facility documentation, job descriptions, and interview for 3 of 4 floors, the facility failed to ensure the environment was clean, maintained in good repair and homelike, and failed to ensure the clean linen cart covers were intact, and failed to ensure the door to a resident's room was good repair. The findings include: 1. Observation during the initial tour on 9/13/23 at 11:00 AM, and again on 9/15/23 at 10:15 AM with the Maintenance/Housekeeping Supervisor, Regional [NAME] Services, and the CEO (Interim Administrator) identified the following: One clean linen cart on each of the Two East, Two West, Three [NAME] A, and Four [NAME] B units, located in the hallway was identified damaged, torn and/or worn. Interview with the CEO (Interim Administrator) on 9/15/23 at 10:37 AM identified he was not aware of the damaged, torn and/or worn linen cart covers and identified the facility will purchase new linen covers for carts. Interview with the Regional [NAME] Services Person on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2021-08-25 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — patternImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of the clinical record, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy, and interviews for one of five sampled residents (Resident #45) reviewed for unnecessary medication, the facility failed to monitor orthostatic blood pressures for a resident receiving psychotropic medication. The findings include: Resident #45 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia with Lewy bodies, anxiety and insomnia. The admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #45 had severe cognitive impairment, required extensive assistance with personal care and received psychotropic medications. The care plan dated 6/29/21 identified cognitive deficit and potential for psychotropic drug use complications related to use of prescribed medication with interventions that included, administer medication(s) per order, monitor medication response and monitor for medication side effects. A review of the physician's orders dated 6/5/21 through 8/23/21 noted Resident #45 was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2021-08-25 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on facility documentation and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that they were meeting annually in regard to their water management system and to mitigate and prevent the potential for Legionella infection. On 08/19/21 at 10:20 AM, the surveyor was not provided with documentation from the Director of Maintenance, to identify that the facility was meeting annually as required to discuss the facility's water management system and to review policies and procedures that addressed the mitigation and prevention of Legionella.
- Potential for harm · D2021-08-25 · 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 clinical record review, review of facility documentation and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #109) reviewed for an allegation of mistreatment, the facility failed to ensure an allegation of misappropriation of property was reported to the State Survey Agency. The findings include: Resident #109 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included type 1 diabetes mellitus (DM) and osteomyelitis of right ankle and foot. A resident belongings inventory form dated 7/15/21 identified Resident #109 had six pairs of pants, five shirts and one pair of underwear. An admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #109 was cognitively intact, had no behavior or mood problems and had daily preferences that identified that taking care of his/her personal belongings or things was very important. The assessment also identified that Resident #109 required extensive assistance with toilet use, bed mobility and locomotion on and off unit. Nurse's note dated 7/28/21 and timed 9:29 PM…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2021-08-25 · 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 clinical record review, review of facility documentation and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #109) reviewed for an allegation of mistreatment, the facility failed to ensure that a documented investigation was completed in relation to an allegation of misappropriation of resident property. The findings include: Resident #109 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included type 1 diabetes mellitus (DM) and osteomyelitis of right ankle and foot. A resident belongings inventory form dated 7/15/21 identified Resident #109 had six pairs of pants, five shirts and one pair of underwear. An admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #109 was cognitively intact, had no behavior or mood problems and had daily preferences that identified that taking care of his/her personal belongings or things was very important. The assessment also identified that Resident #109 required extensive assistance with toilet use, bed mobility and locomotion on and off unit. A grievance form…
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 before2021-08-25 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of the clinical record, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy, and interviews for one of seven sampled residents (Resident #96) reviewed for hospitalization, the facility failed to ensure recommendations for a specialized service were responded to following a hospitalization. The findings include: Resident #96 had diagnoses inclusive of encephalopathy, hypertension and seizures. The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #96 had moderate cognitive impairment and required set up only with personal care. The resident care plan (RCP) dated 5/20/21 identified Resident #96 was at risk for a seizure disorder with interventions that included offer assist with ADL's as indicated and provide OT/PT as needed. A hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] identified Resident #96 was admitted to the hospital from [DATE] to 5/26/21 with a diagnosis of seizures. Resident #96 was started on Keppra (anticonvulsant) 125 mg twice daily with recommendations to follow up with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
$132,109 in federal fines across 2 penalties.
- $123,690 — penalty dated 2026-02-10
- $8,419 — penalty dated 2025-06-02
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.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to HIGHBRIDGE HEALTHCARE — 6 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 2 of 5 | 2.3 | -0.3 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.3 | -0.3 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
The other 5 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.3★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| STAMFORD CARE CENTER HOLDCO LLC | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 05/30/2025 |
| EGERT, USHER | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/30/2025 |
| GOLDBERGER, LARRY | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 05/30/2025 |
| HAGER, ISRAEL | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 05/30/2025 |
| MENDLOVIC, BARRY | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/30/2025 |
| PASKES, JOEL | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/30/2025 |
| SCHWARTZ, HERMAN | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 05/30/2025 |
| AUERBACH, SHIMON | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/30/2025 |
| LAVOIE, NOREEN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/30/2025 |
| NEUBERGER, SANTI | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/30/2025 |
| OSBORN, TINA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/30/2025 |
| REDD, NICOTRA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/30/2025 |
| ROSENBLUTH, RIVA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/30/2025 |
| ZEIGER, ISRAEL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/30/2025 |
| EK EQUITY LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/30/2025 |
| GS EQUITIES USA LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/30/2025 |
| JPW CT HOLDINGS 2 LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/30/2025 |
| STAMFORD CARE CENTER REALTY HOLDCO LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/30/2025 |
| LEFKOWITZ, JOSEPH | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/30/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 32 rows in the source record cover these 19 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
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.
About 75% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $3.8M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 21% 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 075061. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-10, 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.