New Castle Health And Rehabilitation Center
32 Buena Vista Drive, New Castle, DE 19720 · For profit - Corporation · 120 certified beds · (302) 328-2580 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- CMS lists it as a Special Focus candidate — not on the watch list itself, but among the homes CMS is watching because of its recent inspection history
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Nov 2024
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604, F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors cited 2 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
- a high number of inspection citations overall (47) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $47,300 in federal fines (most recent 2025-12-13)
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
- about 22% 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 | 1 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 4 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, and staffing on its payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 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 | 4.5% | 12.7% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 1.8% | 5.4% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.3% | 0.4% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.7% | 2.1% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 2.9% | 10.3% | 6.5% | better |
| 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 | 3.6% | 3.2% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 6.7% | 13.6% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 12.2% | 21.8% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 97.4% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.2% | 3.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 10.5% | 20.2% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 16.4% | 10.7% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.8% | 1.0% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 46.4% | 83.1% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 22.2% | 23.3% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 6.0% | 11.6% | 12.0% | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
59.6% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 191 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 59.6% 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 99 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 40% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 14% 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 | 59.6%CMS range 51.1–68.2 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 13.0%CMS range 9.8–16.6 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 59.6% | 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 | 45.5% | 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 | 48.5% | 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 | 99.3% | 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 | 94.2% | 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 | 98.7% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 1.3% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 1.3% | 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 | 6.4%CMS range 3.7–9.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.84 | 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 120 beds and averages 113.5 residents a day — about 95% occupied, or roughly 6 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 3.82 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.98 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.14 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 3.44 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.97 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.10 to 0.67 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 46% is about the same as 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 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.
47 citations, most serious first. The 13 most serious are shown; the remaining 34 are one tap away and print in full.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2025-12-13 · 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 document review, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure that one of four residents (Residents (R) 133) reviewed for tube feeding was assessed and monitored for nutritional and fluid needs and to intervene when resident (R133) aspirated tube feeding through the nose and mouth multiple times and gained a significant amount of weight. This failure resulted in harm to R133 when he went into cardiac arrest once while aspirating and was hospitalized three times after aspiration of tube feeding. The facility's Administrator and Regional [NAME] President of Operations were informed on 12/12/25 at 6:00 PM that Immediate Jeopardy existed at F693 Tube Feeding Management related to the failure to ensure that tube feedings were assessed, monitored, and interventions implemented when one of four residents reviewed for tube feeding aspirated tube feeding formula through his nose and mouth. The Immediate Jeopardy began on 05/13/25 when R133 e. experienced a change in condition and 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.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2025-05-06 · 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 2. Cross refer to F610, F658 example 2 Review of R5's clinical record revealed: 1/20/23 - R5 was admitted to the facility for long term care. 1/18/25 - R5's care plan for Behavioral Symptoms. Resident is a threat to self and/or others R/T (related to) episodes of aggression and elopement attempts was updated with an intervention for 1:1 observation for safety. 2/11/25 - The quarterly MDS assessment documented that R5 was cognitively impaired with a BIMS score of 5; independent for toileting/showering/dressing/ambulating; active diagnoses included, but were not limited to: dementia, seizure disorder and depression; history of falls; current medications include antipsychotic, antidepressant and anticonvulsant; and the use of a wander/elopement alarm. 3/20/25 3:53 PM - A nurse's note by E4 (LPN) documented, this writer was made aware by staff that resident fell and got himself back to sit in his chair. Pt (Patient) assess (sic) no apparent injury noted. Resident stated he was trying to sit on his chair. Pt denies…
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 before2025-12-13 · 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 observations, record review, interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure consistent implementation of interventions to prevent falls for one (Resident (R ) 67) out of 11 residents reviewed for accidents out of total sample of 35 residents. The facility's failure to ensure consistent interventions were implemented to prevent falls for R67 resulted in harm when R67 experienced a fall with major injury (a hip fracture). This failure increased the risk of other residents falling with major injury. and resulted in the potential for this and other residents to experience additional falls with injury. Findings include:Review of the resident's admission Record, dated 12/12/25 and found in the electronic medical record (EMR) under the Profile tab revealed R67 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The resident's diagnoses included history of Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and Dementia with Agitation. Review of R67's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-12-13 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure 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, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure food was discarded and/or stored according to professional standards for food service safety in one of one kitchen. This failure had the potential to cause the spread of foodborne illness to all 109 residents that receive food from the kitchen.Findings include:During initial observations of the kitchen on 12/09/25 beginning at 9:47 AM, the following was observed:In the dry storage, there were two 19.5-ounce plastic squeeze bottles of chocolate syrup with an expiration date of 5/16/25.In the walk-in refrigerator, there were three 19.5-ounce bottles of chocolate syrup, three 19.5-ounce bottles of vanilla syrup that were opened. The opened bottles of chocolate and vanilla syrup displayed an expiration date of 5/16/25. The Dietary Manager (DM) confirmed that the bottles of chocolate and vanilla syrup were past the expiration date displayed on the bottles. During an interview on 12/09/25 at 11:10AM the DM confirmed that the flavored syrups were past the manufactures use by date and should not be available…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-12-13 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to 1. have an adequate water management program. The facility's water management program was incomplete and was not consistent with current ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers) Guideline, which specifically called for design and maintenance procedures for the potential exposure of Legionnaires' disease (a serious pneumonia infection) within a healthcare facility. This failure created the potential for the 105 facility residents, who were either over the age of 65 and/or were autoimmune compromised, to be infected by Legionella and 2. ensure one Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)4 performed hand hygiene between wound treatments for one (Resident (R) 10) . This has the potential for cross-contamination of pathogens from one wound which can then be transferred to another.Findings include:1.A review was conducted of a facility document titled Premise Plumbing System undated revealed a diagram of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-12-13 · tag F0552 — patternEnsure that residents are fully informed and understand their health status, care and treatments.
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, interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure risk vs benefits was explained to the resident or representative prior to the use of psychotropic medications for four (Residents (R )67, R20, R39, and R4) out of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medication out of a total sample of 35 residents. This facility's failure created the potential for residents to receive medications that were not necessary or desired related to their psychiatric/mental health care. Findings include:1.R67 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], according to the resident's admission Record, dated 12/12/25 and found in the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) under the Profile Tab. The resident's diagnoses included history of Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and Dementia with Agitation. Review of R67's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 10/28/25 and found in the EMR under the MDS Tab, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment 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 before2025-12-13 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — patternTimely 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, interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure timely reporting of allegations of potential abuse/neglect for four (Residents (R ) R67, R126, R134, and R39) out of seven residents reviewed for abuse out of a total sample of 35 residents. The facility's failure to ensure timely reporting of the allegation of abuse created the potential for these and other residents to experience ongoing effects related to abuse.Findings include:1.Review of the resident's admission Record, dated 12/12/25 and found in the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) under the Profile tab revealed R67 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included history of Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and Dementia with Agitation. Review of R67's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 10/28/25 and found in the EMR under the MDS tab, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment was not able to be completed due to the resident's poor…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-12-13 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — patternRespond 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, record review, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to complete a thorough investigation of an allegation of abuse for three (Residents (R) 134, R126, and R67) of seven residents reviewed for abuse out of 35 sampled residents. The facility's failure to complete a thorough investigation placed residents at risk of being unprotected from Abuse. Findings include:1. A review of R134's electronic medical record (EMR) titled Resident Face Sheet, located on the resident's dashboard, indicated the facility admitted the resident on 09/05/25. 2. A review of R126's EMR titled Resident Face Sheet, located on the resident's dashboard, indicated the facility admitted the resident on 08/29/25. A review of a document provided by the facility titled Incident Online Submission Form was completed. The facility reported the incident involving R134 and R126 to the State Survey Agency (SSA) on 09/29/25, as documented in the 'Incident Online Submission Form'. The facility reported incident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-13 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
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, observations, interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure a splint was applied routinely for one (Resident (R ) R2) out of five residents reviewed for position and mobility out of a total sample of 35 residents. The facility's failure to ensure R2's splint was routinely applied created the potential for this and other residents to experience an unnecessary decline in Range of Motion (ROM). Findings include:Review of the resident's admission Record, dated 12/12/25 and found in the electronic medical record (EMR) under the Profile tab revealed R2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]., according to the. The resident's diagnoses included Anoxic Brain Damage and Persistent Vegetative State. Review of R2's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 10/06/25 and found in the EMR under the MDS tab, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment was not able to be completed due to the resident's poor cognition and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-12-13 · 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 record review, interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure consistent and comprehensive management of nutritional services for one Resident (R ) R67) out of three residents reviewed for nutrition out of a total sample of 35 resident. The facility's failure to ensure consistent nutritional interventions were provided for R67 created the potential for this and other residents to experience significant/unanticipated weight loss or nutritional deficits.Findings include:Review of the resident's admission Record, dated 12/12/25 and found in the electronic medical record (EMR) under the Profile tab revealed R67 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] The resident's diagnoses included history of Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and Dementia with Agitation. Review of R67's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 10/28/25 and found in the EMR under the MDS tab, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment was not able to be completed…
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 before2025-12-13 · tag F0700 — isolatedTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
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, interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure bed rails in use were necessary for one (Resident (R) 2) of 11 residents reviewed for accidents out of a total sample of 35 residents. The facility's failure to ensure the necessity of R2's bed rails created the potential for this and other residents to experience accidents related to the use of unnecessary bedrails. Findings include:Review of the resident's admission Record, dated 12/12/25 and found in the electronic medical record (EMR) under the Profile tab revealed R2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The resident's diagnoses included Anoxic Brain Damage and Persistent Vegetative State. Review of R2's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 10/06/25 and found in the EMR under the MDS tab, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment was not able to be completed due to the resident's poor cognition and inability to communicate. The assessment indicated…
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 · D2025-12-13 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
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, record review, observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a medication rate of less than five percent when two errors were made out of a total of 25 opportunities, during the administration of (one Resident's (R) 114). The facility's observed medication error rate was eight percent. The facility's failure created the potential for R114 and other residents to experience negative physical and/or psychosocial effects related to the incorrect administration of their medication. A total of 35 residents were reviewed in the sample.Findings include:R114 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], according to the resident's admission Record, found in the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) under the Profile Tab. The resident's diagnoses included Type 2 Diabetes. R114 was observed receiving his medication administered by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN4) on 12/11/25 at 8:48 AM. LPN4 administered the resident's Basaglar Insulin and Insulin Lispro separately per insulin pen. LPN4…
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 · D2025-12-13 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, facility policy review, and review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines, the facility failed to offer one of five residents (Residents (R) R102) reviewed for flu/pneumonia vaccinations and/or their representatives, the opportunity for the residents to be vaccinated in accordance with nationally recognized standards of 35 sampled residents. The facility failed to offer R102 and/or their representative the opportunity to be vaccinated with one dose of Prevnar 15 (PCV15), PCV20, or PCV21 after the final pneumococcal vaccination. This practice had the potential to increase the risk for this resident to contract pneumonia. Findings include:A review of R102's electronic medical records (EMR) titled Resident Face Sheet, located on the resident's dashboard, indicated the facility admitted the resident on 08/09/23. The resident was over the age of 65 at the time of his admission. A review of R102's EMR titled Preventive Health located under the Resident tab…
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 34 citations
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-13 · tag F0909 — failed to maintain a comfortable temperature — isolatedRegularly inspect all bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails (if any) for safety; and all bed rails and mattresses must attach safely to the bed frame.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY R2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], according to the resident's admission Record, found in the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) under the Profile Tab. The resident's diagnoses included Anoxic Brain Damage and Persistent Vegetative State. Observations of R2 on 12/09/25 at 2:38 PM, on 12/10/25 at 9:04 AM, 10:03 AM, 11:59 AM and 1:18 PM, and 12/11/25 at 10:31 AM, revealed grab bars raised on both sides of the resident's bed. The resident was laying in her bed in a vegetative state and unable to move her body. Observations of R2 laying in her bed in a vegetative state and unable to move her body were conducted on 12/09/25 at 2:38 PM, on 12/10/25 at 9:04 AM, 10:03 AM, 11:59 AM and 1:18 PM, and 12/11/25 at 10:31 AM. Grab bars were raised on both sides of the resident's bed during all of the observations. During an observation of R2 conducted along with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN5) on 12/10/25 at 1:30 PM, LPN5 confirmed 1/4 grab bars were in the raised position on both sides of R2's bed. Review of R2's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-05-06 · 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 interview and review of a clinical record and other documentation as indicated, it was determined that for one (R5) out of five residents reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to have evidence of a thorough investigation for a cognitively impaired resident who was identified at the hospital with multiple injuries of unknown origin. Findings include: Cross refer to F658 example 1 and F689 example 2 Review of R5's clinical record revealed: 3/20/25 - E4 (LPN) documented in a nurse's note that R5 fell while trying to sit on his chair in his room and had no injury. It should be noted that R5's 3/20/25 fall was witnessed and reported to the nurse by the assigned 1:1 CNA. R5's clinical record revealed that there were no other falls reported and documented after the 3/20/25 fall. 3/25/25 at 1:34 PM - The facility reported the following to the State Agency: On 3/24/25 [R5] was noted with a blood and tissue in his ear and he stated that he had scratched his ear. He was also noted with a change of condition, slurred speech with increased weakness. He was assessed by the NP [E5,…
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 · D2025-05-06 · tag F0627 — isolatedEnsure the transfer/discharge meets the resident's needs/preferences and that the resident is prepared for a safe transfer/discharge.
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 interview, it was determined that for one (R5) out of three residents reviewed for discharge, the facility failed to allow R5 to return to the facility and also failed provide a 30 day discharge to his family representative. Findings include: The facility's Bed Hold Letter Policy - It is the policy of the facility to track Medicaid bed hold days and notify appropriate parties via Medicaid Bed Hold letter. Updated [DATE] The facility's admission Agreement- N. Bed Hold and Leave of Absence- . If Resident's primary pay source is Medicaid, and if the State within which the facility is located provides for paid hold/ leave days, the facility will hold the bed for the Resident up to ____________. If the resident's absence from the facility exceeds the days provided during a calendar year or the State does not provide for paid hold/leave days, the facility shall not hold the bed and the Resident will be discharged from the facility effective the first day following the last paid Medicaid…
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 · D2025-05-06 · 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
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that for two (R1 and R5) out of five residents sampled for accidents, the facility failed to meet professional standards of the Delaware Board of Nursing Scope of Practice by failing to have a registered nurse (RN) complete and document an RN admission assessment and post-fall assessment. Findings include: Delaware State Board of Nursing - RN, LPN and NA/UAP Duties 2024 . RN . admission Assessments . Post Fall Assessment & Documentation . updated 10/11/24. 1. Review of R1's clinical record revealed: 11/6/24 - R1 was admitted to the facility with diagnosis including dementia. 11/6/24 11:35 AM - E10 (LPN) initiated R1's admission observations in the EMR. 11/6/24 12:30 PM - E10 (LPN) completed R1's admission observations in the EMR. 11/6/24 12:31 PM - E10 (LPN) completed R1's functional abilities assessment in the EMR. 11/6/24 12:39 PM - E10 (LPN) completed R1's TB (tuberculosis) screen in the EMR. 11/6/24 1:05 PM - E6 (LPN) completed R1's baseline care plan checklist in the EMR. 5/2/25 11:40 AM- A review of the EMR admission…
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 before2025-05-06 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, it was determined that for one (R1) out of four residents reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to have his advanced directive and copy of his DPOA (Durable Power of Attorney) readily accessible on his EMR during his 11/6/24 admission. Findings include: Review of R1's clinical record revealed: 6/21/23 - During a previous Facility admission, E5 (NP) completed the DMOST (Delaware Medical Orders for Scope of Treatment) form with R1, which stated Do not attempt resuscitation/DNAR. 11/6/24 - R1 was admitted to the facility with diagnosis including dementia. 11/6/24 11:48 AM - E6 (LPN) entered into R1's EMR a DNR (do not resuscitate) order. 11/7/24 9:44 AM - E11 (MD) signed the DNR order in R1's EMR. 11/7/24 1:56 PM - R1's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented a Basic Inventory of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 9, which was reflective of moderate cognitive impairment. 4/30/25 9:10 AM - A review of R1's EMR revealed no evidence of the DMOST form or the financial power of attorney document in R1's EMR. 4/30/25 10:35 AM - During an…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-11-26 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure foods were labeled, dated, sealed, and stored according to professional standards for food service safety in one of one kitchen. This failure had the potential to cause the spread of foodborne illness to all 115 census residents. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Equipment Cleaning and Sanitation Policy, dated 08/25/20, revealed The food and nutrition services staff will maintain a clean and sanitary environment in food service areas. The policy did not address food storage policies and procedures. During initial observations of the kitchen on 11/24/24 beginning at 8:47 AM, the following was observed: -In the dry storage, there was a box with a plastic bag inside containing powdered thickener. The bag was sealed at the top; however, there was a large hole ripped in the bag. Pieces of debris and food wrappers were observed inside the box. There was no date to indicate when the package had been opened. -In the dry storage, there was a package of prepared tart crusts that…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-11-26 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — patternEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, document review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure all pureed foods on the menu were served to the seven residents who received pureed diets out of a total census of 115 residents. This failure placed the residents on pureed diets at risk for hunger, dissatisfaction with meals, unplanned weight loss, and malnutrition. Findings include: Review of the undated Diet Counts (Census), provided by the facility, revealed there were seven residents who received a pureed diet. Review of the undated Fall Winter 24125 Diet Guide Sheet, provided by the facility, revealed lunch meal for a pureed diet on 11/26/24 consisted of pureed roast beef, pureed creamed spinach, pureed egg noodles, pureed bread, and pureed spice cake. During observations of meal service in the kitchen on 11/26/24 beginning at 11:44 AM, there were no pureed noodles or pureed bread observed on the tray line. All seven residents who received a pureed diet were served a meal of only pureed roast beef, pureed creamed spinach, and pureed cake. During an interview on 11/26/24 at 11:59 AM, 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 · D2024-11-26 · tag F0554 — isolatedAllow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to assess a resident for self-administration of medication for one of one resident (Resident (R) 7) reviewed for self-administration of medication of 37 sample residents. This had the potential to affect resident medication safety at the facility. Findings include: Review of R7's admission Record in the Profile tab of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed an admission date of 05/26/23. The admission Record also revealed a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cognitive communication deficit, and dementia. Review of R7's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 08/26/24 and located in the MDS tab, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of three out of 15 which indicated the resident was severely cognitively impaired. Review of a completed Self-Administration of Meds Assessment located under the Observations tab of the EMR and with observation date of 11/12/24, revealed that the resident made the determination of not wanting 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 · D2024-11-26 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents had access to call lights when needing assistance from staff for one of three residents (Resident (R) 73) reviewed for call lights out of 37 sample residents. This failure had the potential to affect resident safety. Findings include: Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) located under the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) tab of the electronic medical record (EMR) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 11/04/24 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of nine out of 15 which indicated the resident was moderately cognitively impaired. The resident was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included atrioventricular block, muscle weakness, and osteoarthritis. During an observation and interview on 11/24/24 at 2:05 PM, the call light was observed on the opposite side of the bed. The call light was not within R73's reach. When R73 was asked if she needed to call for assistance, how would she…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-11-26 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to protect two of four residents right to be free from physical abuse, Resident (R) 218 from physical abuse by R26, and R316 from physical abuse by R42 of 37 sample residents. This failure could lead to the potential of physical abuse towards other residents throughout the facility. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Delaware Resident Abuse policy: Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation, revised [DATE], indicated, under the section Policy: This Facility will not tolerate abuse, neglect, mistreatment, exploitation of residents, and misappropriation of resident property by anyone. The section Definitions: Abuse - includes actions such as the willful infliction of injury unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain or mental anguish. Abuse also includes the deprivation by an individual, including a caretaker, of goods or services that are necessary to attain…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-11-26 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to report allegations of abuse to the appropriate reporting authority for two of four residents (Residents (R) 316 and R216) reviewed for abuse of 37 sample residents. This failure had the potential to affect resident safety at the facility. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Delaware Resident Abuse, revised on 09/28/22, revealed facility staff must immediately report all such allegations to the Administrator/Abuse Coordinator. The Administrator/Abuse Coordinator would immediately begin an investigation and notify the applicable local and state agencies in accordance with the procedures in this policy. 1. Review of R316's Face sheet located under the Resident tab of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include dementia, anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, and unspecified lump in the right breast. Review of R316's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-11-26 · 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 record review, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a thorough investigation was completed related to an allegation of physical abuse for one of four residents (Resident (R) 216) reviewed for abuse of 37 sample residents. This failure created the potential for R216 to experience further abuse. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Abuse, Neglect, Mistreatment, Exploitation of Resident Property, dated 09/28/22, read in part, The Facility will not tolerate abuse, neglect, mistreatment, exploitation, of residents, and misappropriation of resident property by anyone. It is the facility's responsibility to investigate all allegations, suspicions and incidents of abuse, neglect, involuntary seclusion, exploitation of residents, misappropriation of resident property and injuries of unknown source. The facility staff must immediately report all such allegations to the Administrator/Abuse Coordinator. The Administrator/Abuse Coordinator will immediately being…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-11-26 · 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 observation, record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the care plan was updated to reflect the use of a palm guard to address contractures for one of two residents (Resident (R) 89) reviewed for contractures of 37 sample residents. This failure placed R89 at risk for inconsistent use of the palm guards which could lead to pain and skin breakdown related to hand contractures. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Splint Issuance Policy, dated 03/11/22, revealed Patient splint schedule will be communicated to the multidisciplinary team and documented in the care plan. Review of the facility's policy titled, Comprehensive Care Planning Policy, dated 03/02/21, revealed The MDS [Minimum Data Set] Coordinator develops the current care plan .by addressing all unresolved problems from the previous care plan and/or noting on the care plan all new problems, approaches and target dates as they are identified in the: (1) current Resident Assessment…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-11-26 · tag F0691 — failed to provide colostomy / ostomy care — isolatedProvide appropriate colostomy, urostomy, or ileostomy care/services for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure proper nephrostomy tube care for one of three residents (Resident (R) 367) reviewed for ostomy care of 37 sample residents. This failure has potential to cause residents to have urine back flow and cause blockage and infection. Findings include: Review of the Face Sheet located under the Face Sheet tab of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed the resident was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included dysphagia, gastric ulcer disease, immobility, incontinence, colostomy, and sepsis. Review of R367's EMR Orders tab revealed an order, dated 11/21/24, Monitor output from nephrostomy. During an observation and interview on 11/24/24 at 12:24 PM, R367 was unable to speak. R367's unidentified Family Member (FM) 1 was visiting her and sat at the bedside. FM1 stated R367 was admitted for kidney stone that was not passing at the hospital. She stated they put in a stint for R367, but it (kidney stone) had not passed yet. 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 · Dcited before2024-11-26 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to ensure personal protective equipment (PPE) was utilized properly with proper hand hygiene during wound care for one of one resident (Resident (R) 92) reviewed for transmission-based or enhanced barrier precautions of 37 sample residents. This failure had the potential to contribute to the spread of infection among staff and residents. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Infection Prevention and Control Program, revised 05/11/23, revealed employees participated in performance improvement activities related to infection prevention (i.e., improved hand hygiene, respiratory hygiene/cough etiquette protocols, use of PPE) and participated in performance improvement activities by promoting enhanced hand hygiene. Review of the facility's policy titled, Transmission-Based Precautions and Isolation, revised 04/15/24, revealed Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) - EBP were intended to prevent the transmission of multi-drug-resistant organisms (MDROs) via…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-02-01 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — patternHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that for six (R25, R29, R31, R43, R56 and R119) out of six residents reviewed for advance directive, the facility failed to offer the opportunity to formulate an advance directive for each resident. Findings include: 1. R25's clinical record revealed: 5/4/23 - R25 was admitted to the facility. 5/11/23 - R25's admission MDS assessment documented the resident's BIMS as 11. While R25's initial mental status upon admission to the facility was moderately impaired, R25's BIMS was re-evaluated as a 14 on 8/1/23, 14 on 10/24/23 and 13 on 1/3/24, which reflected the resident was cognitively intact. Review of R25's clinical record lacked documented evidence that the resident was offered to formulate an advance directive. 1/25/24 at 10:58 AM - During an interview with E6 (Regional) and E7 (SW), E6 stated that they (the facility) are not doing it (offering residents to formulate an advance directive). 2. R29's clinical record revealed: 5/19/23 - R29 was admitted to the facility. 5/24/23 - R29's admission MDS assessment documented 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 · E2024-02-01 · tag F0712 — patternEnsure that the resident and his/her doctor meet face-to-face at all required visits.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, it was determined that for three (R29, R43 and R99) out of six residents reviewed for physician services, the facility failed to ensure each resident was seen for the required physician visits. Findings include: 1. R29's clinical record revealed: 5/19/23 - R29 was admitted to the facility. 5/25/23 - R29 was seen by E4 (Physician) for the initial comprehensive visit. Review of R29's physician visits revealed that the resident was seen on 7/26/23 by E5 (NP) and the next documented visit was on 11/8/23 by E5 (NP), approximately 104 days later. The nineth day visit was missed. 1/29/24 at 12:01 PM - During an interview with E4 (Physician), E5 (NP) and E1 (NHA), E4 stated that they are catching up on their visits and that going forward they are going to keep a log to ensure that the required visits are completed. 2. R43's clinical record revealed: 1/5/18 - R43 was admitted to the facility. 12/14/22 at 4:28 PM - A progress note documented that R43 was seen by E17 (Physician) for a routine visit. This was the last documented Physician visit until…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-02-01 · tag F0730 — patternObserve each nurse aide's job performance and give regular training.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview it was determined that for five (E19, E22, E23, E24 and E25) out of five CNAs (certified nurse's aides) reviewed, the facility failed to provide proof of annual performance reviews. Findings included: 1. E19 was hired on 6/27/22. The facility lacked evidence of a yearly performance evaluation. 2. E22 was hired on 8/1/22. The facility lacked evidence of a yearly performance evaluation. 3. E23 was hired on 7/12/22. The facility lacked evidence of a yearly performance evaluation. 4. E24 was hired on 8/1/18. The facility lacked evidence of a yearly performance evaluation. 5. E25 was hired on 8/3/22. The facility lacked evidence of a yearly performance evaluation. 1/26/24 3:45 PM - During an interview, E1 (NHA) and E2 (DON) confirmed the findings. 1/29/24 2:37 PM - Findings were reviewed E1 (NHA) and E2 (DON).
- Potential for harm · E2024-02-01 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the start dates were documented when over the counter medications (bottles) were opened in four out of four medication carts reviewed during medication administration. 1/22/24 8:25 AM - During the medication administration observations, this surveyor observed multiple opened bottles of over-the-counter medications in the medication drawers. The bottles lacked the dates when they were opened. During an interview, E56 (LPN) stated, I did not know we had to put start dates on the medications. 1/23/24 11:30 AM - During a phone interview E53 (pharmacist) stated, I reviewed the medications carts this month, and gave the report to the administration to take care of. A review of E53's report revealed documentation of medications without start dates on all four medication carts. 1/29/24 2:37 PM - Findings were reviewed E1 (NHA) and E2 (DON).
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-02-01 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — patternSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, it was determined that for eight (R25, R29, R31, R50, R56, R99, R123 and R276) out of thirty (30) residents clinical records reviewed, the facility failed to ensure that each residents' record was complete, accurately documented and readily accessible. Findings include: 1. R25's clinical record revealed: 8/21/23 at 11:20 AM - E4 (Physician) documented in a note, Patient seen and examined. Progress note to follow. As of 1/29/24, R25's clinical record lacked documented evidence of E4's 8/21/23 Physician completed progress note. 1/29/21 at 12:01 PM - During an interview with E4 (Physician), E5 (NP) and E1 (NHA), findings were reviewed regarding the incomplete and inaccurate clinical record. 2. R29's clinical record revealed: 12/8/23 at 11:14 AM - E4 (Physician) documented in a note, Patient seen and examined. Progress note to follow. As of 1/29/24, R29's clinical record lacked documented evidence of E4's 12/8/23 Physician progress note. 1/29/21 at 12:01 PM - During an interview with E4 (Physician), E5 (NP) and E1 (NHA), findings were reviewed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-01 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to promote R2's dignity by keeping R2's urinary collection bag in a privacy bag. Findings include: 7/1/15 - R2 was admitted to the facility. 10/12/23 - R2 's care plan documented, Requires urinary catheter for the diagnosis of retention with incomplete bladder emptying and obstructive uropathy. 12/28/23 - R2's physicians orders documented, Ensure the Foley bag (urinary collection bag) is covered every shift. 1/17/24 - R2 was observed lying in her bed at 8:30 AM, 10:30 AM, 12:30 PM. The urinary collection bag was not in the privacy bag and was visible from the hallway. 1/17/23 12:45 PM - Findings were confirmed with E52 (UM). 1/29/24 2:37 PM - Findings were reviewed E1 (NHA) and E2 (DON).
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-01 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review it was determined that for one (R474) out of one resident reviewed for choices, the facility failed to ensure the right to self-determine when R474's preference for showers were not completed. Findings include: 1. Review of R474's clinical record revealed: 8/2/22 - A significant change MDS assessed R474 as cognitively intact and the preference to choose type of bathing as very important. Review of facility shower schedule revealed that R474 was scheduled to receive two showers a week initially on Tuesdays/Fridays then a change to Monday/Thursday on evening shift. Review of CNA Point of Care [POC] record revealed R474 had the following: June 2022 - Three showers received. July 2022 - One shower received. August 2022 - Two showers received. During an interview on 1/25/24 at 3:18 PM, E2 (DON) explained that residents are supposed to receive two showers a week based on their room location. E2 then confirmed that R474 had not received at least two showers a week. 1/29/24 2:37 PM - Findings were reviewed E1 (NHA) and E2 (DON).
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-01 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolatedEnsure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that R106 was free from side rails that were not required to treat the resident's medical condition. A facility policy titled, Bed rail policy, dated 3/10, and revised 4/24/23 documented, The use of bed rails will be limited to circumstances where they are used to treat a medical condition and enhance the residents' functional abilities. 11/7/22 - R106 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including muscles weakness, and seizure disorder. 11/7/22 - R106's admission side rail assessment documented, No medical needs, and resident does not benefit from the use of side rails. 4/27/23 - R106's quarterly nursing side rail assessment documented, No medical needs for bed rails, and resident does not benefit from side rails. 12/27/23 - R106's quarterly MDS assessment documented that R106 was completely dependent on staff for bed mobility and transfers. 1/1/24 R106's quarterly MDS documented, No bed rails.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-01 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined for one (R106) out of three residents review for resident assessment the facility failed to accurately document R106's side rails on the MDS assessments. 11/7/22 - R106 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including muscles weakness, and seizure disorder. 1/24/23 11:29 AM - R106's medical records documented, .[R106's] sister requested that side rails be placed on the bed .care plan updated, nurse practitioner made aware. 1/24/24 9:00 AM - A review of R106's MDS assessments for the dates of 2/7/23, 2/24/23, 5/23/23, 7/25/23, 10/19/23, and 1/1/24 documented, No bed rails. During an interview E52 (UM) stated, I have been working here for about one and a half year, and he [R106] has had those side rails. During an interview with the E53 (LPN RNAC) stated, I did not know that he [R106] had side rails. 1/29/24 2:37 PM - Findings were reviewed E1 (NHA) and E2 (DON).
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-01 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review it was determined that for one (R84) out of three residents reviewed for PASARR, the facility failed to ensure a referral for a new PASARR screening after changes to R84's mental health diagnoses. Findings include: Review of R84's clinical record revealed: 10/8/20 - A Level II PASARR was completed for R84. 10/2/22 - A progress noted documented that R84 was being seen by psych for new mental health diagnoses including adjustment disorder with depressed mood, major depressive disorder severe with recurrent symptoms and delusional disorders. 1/24/24 1:00 PM - In an interview, E7 (SW) stated that R84 did not have an updated PASARR evaluation. 1/24/24 1:30 PM - During an interview, E1 (NHA) stated that E7 just started doing her PASARR audits. 1/24/23 4:03 PM - In an email correspondence, P1 (PASARR State Authority) confirmed that the facility should have submitted a resident review for R84. 1/29/24 2:37 PM - Findings were reviewed E1 (NHA) and E2 (DON).
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-01 · 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
Based on observation, interview and record review for one (R106) out of three residents reviewed for careplans, it was determined that the facility failed to accurately develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for R106's use of bed rails. Findings include: 11/7/22 - R106 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including muscles weakness, and seizure disorder. 1/24/23 11:29 AM - R106's medical records documented, .R106's sister requested that side rails be placed on the bed .care plan updated, nurse practitioner made aware. 1/16/24 9:30 AM - R106 was observed laying on a concave mattress in bed with two long bed rails in the raised position. 1/16/24 11:30 AM - R106 was observed laying on a concave mattress in bed with two long bed rails in the raised position. 1/17/24 10:15 AM - R106 was observed laying in a concave mattress in bed with two long bed rails in the raised position. 1/24/24 9:15 AM - A review of R106's care plans lacked evidence for the use of the bed rails. During an interview E52 (UM) stated, I have been working here for about one and a half…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-01 · tag F0660 — isolatedPlan the resident's discharge to meet the resident's goals and needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, interview and review of facility documentation, it was determined that for one (R524) out of two residents reviewed for discharge, the facility failed ensure that R524's discharge needs regarding his wound care were identified. Findings include: Review of R524's clinical record revealed: 8/20/23 - R524 was admitted to the facility for a five (5) day respite stay. 8/23/23 - The following orders and notes were written: - A progress note was written by E50 (RN) that the resident had a skin tear under his right 3rd toe while he was self-ambulating with non-skid socks on. - 9:25 AM - A physician order was written by E51 (Wound MD) for wound care that was to cleanse the right 3rd toe, pat dry, apply bacitracin (an antibiotic ointment) and leave open to air, every day shift. 8/25/23 7:53 AM - A discharge summary note was written by E7 (SW) that documented under the nursing section that no nursing education was provided, that a skin tear wound was currently present, and with the current wound care as described above. 1/18/24 3:00 PM - During an interview, E10 (RN)…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-02-01 · 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 record review and interview it was determined that for one (R476) out of three residents reviewed for accidents the facility failed to ensure R476 received adequate supervision during a transfer. Findings include: Review of R476's clinical record revealed: R476' care plan for falls last reviewed 3/17/22 included the intervention to transfer the resident with assistance of two staff members. 4/4/22 - A physical therapy discharge summary documented, Staff reports consistent one person transfers, on average moderate assist fluctuates depending on patients level of motivation for the task. There was no documented change in R476's clinical record to change to one person assistance transfers. 8/29/22 - A quarterly MDS assessment documented R476 as being cognitively impaired and requiring total assistance of two staff members for transfers with impairment to one side. 11/21/22 - A quarterly MDS assessment documented R476 as being cognitively impaired and requiring extensive assistance of two staff members for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-01 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, it was determined that for one (R31) out of three residents reviewed for bowel and bladder, the facility failed to ensure that R31 was appropriately assessed on admission to ensure that treatment and services were provided to promote continence of bladder and bowel to the extent possible. 10/31/23 - R31 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including muscle weakness gait abnormality and diabetes. 10/31/23 - R31's admission bowel and bladder assessment lacked documentation of whether she was continent or incontinent of bowel. R31's bladder assessment documented, no altered bladder elimination. 10/31/23 - R31's [NAME] (electronic record for care givers for resident's care) documented, Assist of one (1) with mobility, provide incontinence care as needed. 11/3/23 - R31's admission MDS documented a BIMS score of 13 indicating cognitively intact. 11/7/23 - R31's urinary care plan documented, [R31] is incontinent of bowel and bladder, with interventions…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-02-01 · 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
Based on record review and interview it was determined that for one ( R475) out of four residents reviewed for nutrition the facility failed to implement interventions related to risk for weight loss when the weekly weights were missed and percentage of supplement consumed was not documented. Findings include: The facility policy on Resident weights, last updated 12/12/23 indicated, Weights will be obtained routinely in order to monitor national health over time. Each residents weight will be determined upon admission/readmission to the facility, weekly for the first four weeks after admission/readmission and monthly or more often if risk is identified, or as ordered. Nursing is responsible for obtaining weights. Review of R475's clinical record revealed: 2/6/23 - 2/16/23 - Hospital records documented, Weight 122.75 pounds [55.8 KG] history and physical reports poor appetite and decreased intake .nutrition problem related to increased nutrient needs. readmission risk moderate. 2/16/23 - R475 was admitted to the facility with multiple diagnosis including dementia and dysphagia.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-01 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review and review of other facility documentation, it was determined that for two (R525 and 274) out of five residents reviewed for pain, the facility failed to ensure that that adequate pain management was provided for R525 and R274 pain assessments were not conducted with a consistent scale for pre and post pain assessments. Findings include: The pain management standards were approved by the American Geriatrics Society in April 2002 which included: appropriate assessment and management of pain; assessment in a way that facilitates regular reassessment and follow-up; same quantitative pain assessment scales should be used for initial and follow up assessment; set standards for monitoring and intervention; and collect data to monitor the effectiveness and appropriateness of pain management. According to The National Library of Medicine (2008) pain should be reassessed after each intervention to evaluate the effect and determine whether modification is needed. Review of R525's clinical record revealed: 8/4/22 - R525 was admitted to the facility with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-02-01 · tag F0700 — isolatedTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to accurately assess R106's medical condition for the necessary use of two (2) bed rails. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure the bed rail padding was provided on the bed rails as documented in R106's medical records. Findings include: A facility policy titled, Bed rail policy, dated 3/10, and revised 4/24/23 documented, The use of bed rails will be limited to circumstances where they are used to treat a medical condition and enhance the residents' functional abilities. 11/7/22 - R106 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including muscles weakness, and seizure disorder. 11/7/22 - R106's admission side rail assessment documented, No medical needs, and resident does not benefit from the use of bed rails. 4/27/23 - R106's quarterly nursing side rail assessment documented, No medical needs for bed rails, and resident does not benefit from bed rails. 6/29/23 - R106's [NAME], and care plan documented, Bed rail padding. 12/27/23 -…
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 · D2024-02-01 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, it was determined for one (R274) out of five sampled residents for pain the facility failed to provide routine pharmaceutical services for acquiring and receiving medication. Findings include: Review of R274's clinical record revealed: [DATE] - R274 was admitted to the facility with a diagnoses of cervical disc degeneration, wedge compression fracture of thoracic vertebra, and chronic low back pain. [DATE] - An updated physician order was written for hydromorphone (narcotic pain medication) 2 mg give one tablet every eight hours as needed for severe pain. [DATE] 6:33 PM - A shipment detail form confirmed delivery of hydromorphone (15 tablets) by pharmacy to the facility. [DATE] 10:20 PM - A controlled substance log revealed that R274 received a dose of hydromorphone and the count resulted of zero of quantity. [DATE] 9:45 AM - A progress note revealed that R274 was out of hydromorphone 2 mg. E9 (LPN) notified pharmacy that medication was not available and requested to remove…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-01 · 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
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that for two (R54, R98) out of five residents (R2, R43, R54, R98, R106) reviewed for unnecessary medications, the facility failed to ensure that R54's PRN for Lorazepam Gel 1 mg for anxiety was limited to 14 days, and R98's PRN order for Alprazolam 1 mg for anxiety was limited to 14 days. Findings include: 1. 11/20/23 - R54 was admitted to the facility with diagnosis including muscle weakness, dementia, and major mood disorder. 12/22/23 - R54's physician's orders included, lorazepam gel, apply to skin topically every twelve (12) hours as needed for agitation. 1/18/24 - A review of R54's physician's orders revealed that the PRN order for lorazepam gel was still active for a total of twenty-seven (27) days. 1/22/24 8:30 AM - During an interview E2 (DON), confirmed that R54's clinical record lacked the fourteen (14) days stop date for the use of the PRN antianxiety medication. 2. 12/22/23 - R98 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including anxiety disorder and depression. 12/26/23 - R98's physician's orders included,…
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
$47,300 in federal fines across 2 penalties.
- $28,776 — penalty dated 2025-12-13
- $18,524 — penalty dated 2025-05-06
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 SABER HEALTHCARE GROUP — 126 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 | 2.9 | -0.9 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 1 of 5 | 2.6 | -1.6 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 2.2 | +1.8 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
The other 125 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.9★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 125; lowest-rated first.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| VOLPE, BENJAMIN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/01/2019 |
| WEISBERG, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/07/2026 |
| NICOLUZAKIS, GREGORY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/01/2019 |
| SABER GOVERNANCE LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/01/2019 |
| SHG MANAGEMENT LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/01/2019 |
| CARROLL, MICHELLE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/21/2024 |
| RASTOGI, RITU | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/01/2018 |
| SLOCUM, DAESHA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/26/2024 |
| B&B REIMBURSEMENT CONSULTING INC. | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/19/2019 |
| BENJAMIN N. VOLPE FAMILY DYNASTY TRUST (DATED DECEMBER 29, 2020) | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2023 |
| BNV DYNASTY LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2023 |
| CITRIN COOPERMAN ADVISORS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/01/2018 |
| DECANTED WILLIAM I. WEISBERG FAMILY DYNASTY TRUST (DATED SEPT 30, 2020 | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2023 |
| NEW CASTLE RE GROUP LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/02/2022 |
| SABER HEALTHCARE GROUP LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/01/2018 |
| SHG REZ LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/07/2026 |
| WIW DYNASTY LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2023 |
| ZIEGLER FINANCING CORPORATION | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/02/2022 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 29 rows in the source record cover these 18 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.
12 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 79% 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 $3.2M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 22% 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 DE
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 Delaware 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 085039. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-12-13, 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.