Jeanne Jugan Residence
4200 Harewood Road NE, Washington, DC 20017 · Non profit - Corporation · 40 certified beds · (202) 269-1831 Medicaid only — no Medicare
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (17% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
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 | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 27.0% | 20.2% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.0% | 5.3% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 1.1% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.0% | 1.4% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 6.8% | 6.4% | 6.5% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.5% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.0% | 1.1% | 3.3% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 15.5% | 16.8% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 16.2% | 12.4% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 97.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.3% | 7.6% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 31.2% | 21.4% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 1.2% | 8.0% | 17.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.36 | 1.25 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.00 | 0.55 | 1.80 | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
‡ 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.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.18 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 17% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 4% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. 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 | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| 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 — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
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 40 beds and averages 24.4 residents a day — about 61% occupied, or roughly 16 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. 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 6.49 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.61 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 4.09 is at or above 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 6.17 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 6.62 on weekdays — 7% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.77 to 1.23 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 17% is below the national median of 45%. 2 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-30 · 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 record review and staff interviews, for two (2) of 15 sampled residents, facility staff failed to identify and report an alleged incident of resident-to-resident abuse. Residents #15 and #25. The findings included: Review of the facility's Abuse, Neglect, Mistreatment and Misappropriation of Resident Property policy dated January 2025 documented: - Abuse can include verbal, mental, sexual or physical abuse. - The facility will strive to educate staff and other applicable individuals in techniques to protect all parties. - It is the policy of this facility that all staff shall monitor residents and will know how to identify potential signs and symptoms of abuse. Resident #15 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses that included Anxiety Disorder, Dementia and Osteoarthritis. Review of the resident's medical record revealed the following: A Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] showed that facility staff coded: a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) summary…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-30 · tag F0740 — failed to provide behavioral / mental-health care — isolatedEnsure each resident must receive and the facility must provide necessary behavioral health care and services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interviews, for one (1) of 15 sampled residents, facility staff failed to ensure that, for six (6) months, Resident #20 received the necessary behavioral health care and services as ordered by the physician. The findings included: Resident #20 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses that included: Major Depressive Disorder, Hemiplegia and Hemiparesis Following Cerebral Infarction, Affecting Left Non-Dominant Side, and Hypothyroidism. Review of the resident's medical record showed the following: A physician's order dated 10/12/23 that directed, Lexapro oral tablet 10 MG (milligrams), give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for Major Depressive Disorder. A Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] showed that facility staff coded: a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) summary score of 15, indicating intact cognitive status; Resident Mood Interview (PHQ-2 to 9 © - Patient Health Questionnaire - mental health screening tool for mood) score of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-30 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interview for two (2) of 15 sampled residents, it was determined that facility staff failed to act upon the Pharmacist's report and recommendation and document in the resident's record any action that had been taken to address the recommendation(s) and failed to ensure one resident's medication order was complete with an indication for use for the twice daily administration of an Opioid medication. Residents #16 and #18. The findings included: Facility's document titled 'Medication Regimen Review' with a reviewed date of 08/2018 documented: It is the policy of this Home that each resident will have a medication regimen review by a licensed pharmacist in accordance to Federal, State and Local regulations as well as current standards of practice. Procedure: 3. Irregularities identified will be documented on a separate, written report and sent to the attending physician, medical director, and director of nursing, listing the resident name, relevant drug and irregularity the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-05-30 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and interview during a tour of the dietary services on May 27, 2025, at approximately 9:20 AM, facility staff failed to store food under sanitary conditions as evidenced by one (1) of one (1) plastic container filled with various types of deli meats, and one (1) of (1) plastic container with shredded lettuce and tomato slices, that were not labeled or dated in the walk-in refrigerator, and dietary staff failing to sanitize one (1) of one (1) digital thermometer before and after each use while checking hot food temperatures in the tray line. The findings include: 1. A container with deli meats in the walk-in refrigerator was not labeled or dated to indicate storage time and use-by date. 2. A container with shredded lettuce and tomato slices in the walk-in refrigerator was not labeled or dated to indicate storage time and use-by date. 3. Dietary staff failed to sanitize one (1) of one (1) food temperature thermometer after each use when testing multiple dishes on the tray line. Employee #5 acknowledged the findings during a face-to-face interview on May 29, 2025,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-30 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observations and interview, facility staff failed to maintain a safe, and sanitary environment as evidenced by dietary staff failing to sanitize one (1) of one (1) digital thermometer before and after each use, when testing hot food temperatures on the tray line. The findings included: During observations of the tray line on May 27, 2025, at approximately 12:00 PM, a dietary staff member did not clean and sanitize one (1) of one (1) digital metal stem thermometer between uses on the tray line. This deficient practice could potentially cause cross-contamination to occur in food items on the tray line. Employee #5 acknowledged the findings during a face-to-face interview on May 29, 2025, at approximately 9:30 AM.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-04-09 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and staff interview, facility staff failed to distribute foods under sanitary condi-tion, as evidenced by dishwashing machine final rinse temperatures that were below 180 degrees Fahrenheit (F), and dietary logs that were not consistently maintained to indicate the concentration of the sanitizing solution from one (1) of one (1) 3-compartment sink. The findings include: 1. Final rinse dishwashing machine temperatures failed to reach 180 degrees Fduring observations on April 4, and April 5, 2024. Facility staff used paper plates for dinner meals on April 4, 2024, and for all meals on April 5, 2024. Final repairs of the dishwashing machine were completed on April 5, 2024, at approximately 3:00 PM, when the final rinse temperature reached 192 degrees F . Observations on April 8, 2024, at 9:35 AM, confirmed that dishwashing machine temperatures were consistent as final rinse temperatures were between 186 degrees F and 192 degrees F, on four (4) consecutive wash cycles. 2. Chemical sanitizer solution logs for one (1) of one (1) 3-compartment sink were incomplete 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 · E2024-04-09 · tag F0908 — failed to keep essential equipment working — patternKeep all essential equipment working safely.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observations and staff interview, facility staff failed to maintain essential equipment in safe operating condition, as evidenced by final rinse temperatures that were below 180 degrees on April 4, 2024, at 9:15 AM and 10:40 AM. The findings include: During observations in dietary services on April 4, 2024, at 9:15 AM, and 10:40 AM, final rinse temperatures from the dishwashing machine did not reach a minimum of 180 degrees as required. The machine was repaired on April 5, 2024, at approximately 3:00 PM. During a face-to-face interview on April 8, 2024, at approximately 2:00 PM, Employee #5 acknowledged the findings.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-04-09 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident's MDS contained accurate information related to skin integrity for one (1) of 16 sampled resident. (Resident #4) The findings included: Resident #4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The resident had a history of Peripheral Vascular Disease and Cerebral Palsy. A radiology report dated 12/09/23 (Right Duplex Scan - an assessment of how blood flows through arteries and veins), documented the following findings: Rle r/o PVD (Right Lower Extremity rule out Peripheral Vascular Disease), Findings- There is moderate stenosis (narrowing) in the femoral artery. A review of Employee #7's (Wound Care Physician) weekly progress notes dated from 12/13/23 to 02/21/24 documented the following but not limited to: Wound; Location - right heel, Etiology - PVD (Peripheral Vascular Disease). A quarterly Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented the following but not limited to: the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status summary score…
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 before2023-03-31 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interview, for one (1) of 16 sampled residents, facility staff failed to accurately code one resident's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with the accurate number of falls. Resident #24. The findings included: Resident #24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses that included: Parkinson's Disease, Hypertension and Hypothyroidism. Review of Resident #24's medical record revealed a quarterly MDS dated [DATE] in which facility staff coded: a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) summary score of 15, indicating intact cognitive response; and in section J (Health Conditions), no of falls since admission/entry or reentry or prior assessment, whichever is more recent. Further review of the medical record revealed the following documentation: 11/15/22 at 2:16 AM [Fall Risk Assessment] .Recent Fall . Score: 12.0; Category: High Risk . Instructions/scoring . 10 or above [equals] High Risk . Notes: Sustained a fall in her room . 11/15/22 at 3:23 AM…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-03-31 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interview, for one (1) of 16 sampled residents, facility staff failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan with goals and interventions to address one resident's diagnosis of Convulsions and use of anti-seizure medications. Resident #29. The findings included: Resident #29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses that included: Unspecified Convulsions, Schizoaffective Disorder and Anxiety Disorder. Review of Resident #29's medical record revealed a physician's order dated 09/14/22: Divalproex (anti-seizure medication) Sodium ER (extended release) Tablet . 500 MG (milligrams) Give 2 tablet by mouth two times a day related to Unspecified Convulsions; Seizure precaution every shift related to Unspecified Convulsions; and Primidone (anti-seizure medication) Tablet 50 MG Give 2 tablet by mouth two times a day related to Unspecified Convulsions. Review of Resident #24's comprehensive care plan with a review date of 02/21/23, showed no…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-03-31 · 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 record review and staff interview, for one (1) of 16 sampled residents, facility staff failed to revise one resident's medium risk for falls care plan to high risk for falls after sustaining two falls. Resident #24. The findings included: Resident #24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses that included: Parkinson's Disease, Hypertension and Hypothyroidism. Review of Resident #24's medical record revealed the following documentation: 11/15/22 at 2:16 AM [Fall Risk Assessment], .Recent Fall . Score: 12.0; Category: High Risk . Instructions/scoring . 10 or above [equals] High Risk . Notes: Sustained a fall in her room . 11/15/22 at 3:23 AM [Nursing Progress Note], Resident reports that approximately 1245 a.m., she fell after using the bathroom . 01/04/23 at 1:00 PM [Fall Risk Assessment], .Recent Fall . Score: 16.0; Category: High Risk . 01/04/23 at 2:20 PM [Nursing Progress Note] At about 1:00 pm Writer was called by House keeping to the hallway who observe resident fell on the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership Data Not Available |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
What families pay in DC
CMS lists this home as Medicaid-certified only — it can accept Medicaid for long-term care, but it is not Medicare-certified, so Medicare will not pay for a short rehabilitation (“skilled nursing”) stay here. 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 District of Columbia 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. The starred figure is the national median (no state figure published).
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 09E020. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-05-30, 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.