Delaware Hospital F/T Chronically Ill (dhci)
100 Sunnyside Road, Smyrna, DE 19977 · Government - State · 175 certified beds · (302) 223-1500 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (18% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- 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
- inspectors cited 3 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
- the CMS record shows $59,947 in federal fines (most recent 2025-10-03)
- 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)
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) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 5 to 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 | 8.7% | 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 | 0.2% | 0.4% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.5% | 2.1% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 10.3% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.3% | 0.0% | 0.1% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.7% | 3.2% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 7.2% | 13.6% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 14.2% | 21.8% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.6% | 97.4% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.8% | 3.5% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 14.0% | 20.2% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 13.2% | 10.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.58 | 1.81 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.17 | 1.40 | 1.80 | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 175 beds and averages 73.0 residents a day — about 42% occupied, or roughly 102 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 10.25 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 2.85 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 5.72 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 18% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · Kcited before2026-01-09 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure 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 document review, interviews, observations, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure that four of 10 residents (Residents (R) 5, R4, R71, and R6) reviewed for unsupervised smoking, smoked safely. In addition, all residents refused to don (put on) a smoking apron for protection and would hold onto their cigarettes and/or lighters instead of nursing staff securing the smoking paraphernalia safely. In addition, R34 was identified as a resident who smoked and had a lighter in her room. R34 used an oxygen concentrator, while in her room and while her lighter was kept in her room. This placed all residents who smoke of an increased opportunity for burns.The facility's Administrator and Director of Nursing (DON) were notified on 01/07/26 at 6:40 PM that Immediate Jeopardy existed related to the failure to assess and monitor three residents R5, R71, and R6 who smoked. The Immediate Jeopardy began on 01/07/26 at 6:40 PM when the three residents were identified with upper extremity impairments In…
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 before2025-10-03 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review and other facility documentation, it was determined that for two (R1and R2) out of three residents sampled for accidents, the facility failed to ensure that R1 and R2 received adequate supervision to prevent accidents. R1, a severely cognitively impaired resident, was able to elope from the building on 9/26/25 during the 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM shift. R1 was found on 9/26/25 at 8:38 AM, approximately 17-20 miles from the facility. This failure put R1 at immediate risk for severe injury or death due to exposure to traffic and environmental hazards while walking on the road unsupervised. An immediate jeopardy (IJ) was called at 12:30 PM on10/1/25. The facility abated the IJ on 10/2/25 at 3:00 PM. R2, a completely dependent resident, sustained a right femur fracture from a fall from the bed to the floor while a staff member was providing care and the resident rolled off the bed. Findings include: 12/4/23 - A facility document entitled, Elopement of Resident, documented,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2025-02-24 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that for one (R1) out of three residents reviewed for accident hazards and falls, the facility failed to ensure that R1 received adequate hands-on assistance and supervision to prevent a fall to the extent possible. R1, a cognitively impaired and dependent resident sustained a fall on [DATE] when two staff members improberly used a mechanical lift to perform a transfer. The facility's failure caused R1 to suffer a subdural hematoma and two (2) lacerations to her scalp. R1 was sent emergently to the hospital. Due to this failure, an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was called at 10:30 AM on [DATE]. Findings include: The facility's fall policy dated 2023 and titled, Fall Prevention, included, .The facility will ensure that the resident environment is safe and free of hazards. That each resident receives adequate supervision to prevent falls or minimize the risk for fall related injuries . Review of R1's clinical record revealed: [DATE] - R1 was admitted…
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 · F2026-01-09 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — widespreadEnsure 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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to utilize menus with portion sizes for regular, mechanical soft, and puree diets for two of two meals. This failure could potentially cause residents to become malnourished or experience weight loss or weight gain.Findings include:Review of the week-two menus for Spring 2025 did not include portion sizes for the regular, mechanical soft and pureed diets.Review of the individual resident's pre-selected menu sheets for lunch on 01/06/26 and 01/07/26 did not include portion sizes.Review of the facility diet type report, dated 01/09/26, provided by the facility, revealed 35 regular diets, 18 mechanical soft diets, and nine pureed diets.On 01/06/26 at 12:10 PM, the tray line on the 200 unit was observed in progress. Food Service Worker (FSW)1 read each resident's pre-selected menu and plated the food accordingly with no portion sizes to follow. FSW1 confirmed he followed the resident's pre-selected menu items. No portion sizes were listed on the food items, and no other menus were being used to determine portion…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2026-01-09 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, review of facility policy, and staff interviews, the facility failed to develop a person-centered comprehensive plan of care with measurable goals and plans for four of five residents (Resident (R) 2, R5, R1, and R24) reviewed for care plans, out of a survey sample of 28. The failure to develop a care plan increased the risk for care to be incomplete and/or inconsistent related to the residents taking psychotropic medications.Findings include: 1. Review of R2's electronic medical record (EMR) titled admission Record located under the Profile tab indicated the facility admitted the resident on 09/23/25. Review of R2's EMR titled physician Orders located under the Orders tab dated 09/29/25, indicated the resident was ordered an intramuscular injection one time per month for his diagnosis of schizophrenia. Review of R2's EMR titled admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) located under the MDS tab with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 09/29/25 indicated the resident had a Brief…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2026-01-09 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — patternDevelop 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 five of eight residents (Residents (R) 20, R21, R22, R11, and R57) reviewed for flu/pneumonia vaccinations and/or their representatives, the opportunity for the residents to be vaccinated in accordance with nationally recognized standards of 28 sample residents. This practice had the potential to increase the risk for this resident to contract pneumonia. In addition, the facility policy did not reflect current CDC recommendations. Findings include:1. Review of R20's electronic medical record (EMR) titled admission Record located under the profile tab indicated the facility admitted the resident on 01/24/25. The resident was over the age of 55 at the time of his admission. Review of R20's EMR titled Immunization located under the Immun (Immunization) tab failed to indicate that the resident received a pneumococcal vaccine. There was no evidence in…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-09 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, interview, review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines, and review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual, the facility failed to ensure three of eight residents (Resident (R) 22, R57, and R11) out of 28 sampled residents had an accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment. Failure to code the MDS correctly could potentially lead to inaccurate federal reimbursements and inaccurate assessment and care planning of the residents. (Cross Reference F883)Findings include:1. Review of R22's electronic medical record (EMR) titled admission Record located under the Profile tab, revealed the facility admitted the resident on 09/21/16.Review of R22's EMR titled quarterly MDS located under the MDS tab with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 12/12/25 indicated the staff could not determine the resident's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score. The assessment revealed that the resident was up to date on her pneumococcal vaccine. Review of R22's EMR…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-09 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure that one resident (R) 8 out of a survey sample of two, had a complete tracheostomy (trach) change. This has the potential for residents to have their airway compromised and potentially develop severe infection that could be life-threatening.Findings include:Review of R8's electronic medical record (EMR) titled admission Record located under the Profile tab indicated the facility admitted the resident on 04/28/21, with a diagnosis of anoxic brain injury. The resident required the use of a tracheostomy (a device that was placed in the opening of the windpipe [trachea] to provide an airway for breathing). Review of R8's EMR titled physician Orders located under the Orders tab dated 07/17/23 indicated the physician or the respiratory therapist (RT) was to change the tracheostomy every three months, each April, July, October, and January. The tracheostomy change included a size six trach, with an extra-long Shiley, with a cuffed trach tube with a disposable inner cannula.Review of R8's EMR titled…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-09 · 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 assess the need for side rails and obtain informed consent for two (Resident (R)9 and R27) of two residents reviewed for side rails. This had the potential to place residents at risk of injury or death.Findings include:1. Review of R9's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) date of 12/10/25 and located in the MDS tab of the electronic medical record (EMR), revealed R9 was admitted on [DATE]. R9's cognition was severely impaired, and had diagnoses of epilepsy, traumatic brain injury, and tracheostomy status.Review of R9's orders located in the EMR under the Order tab revealed no order for side rails.Review of R9's care plan, revised 09/08/25, located in the EMR under the Care Plan tab revealed Basic Care Needs: I can't complete my cares on my own; I am totally dependent for all care. Because I have had a subdural hematoma, post-traumatic brain injury, seizures, and encephalopathy. I am nonverbal,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-09 · 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure medication was administered to one (Resident (R)35) of one resident observed for pharmacy services. This failure had the potential to compromise patient safety, efficacy of the prescribed treatment, and fulfill the legal and ethical responsibilities.Findings include:Review of R35's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) date of 11/26/25 and located in the MDS tab of the electronic medical record (EMR), revealed R35 was admitted on [DATE], and had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 indicating R35's cognition was intact. The resident had diagnoses of vitamin deficiency, unspecified, anemia, unspecified, and vitamin D deficiency, unspecified.Review of R35's orders, located in the EMR under the Order tab revealed orders for Ferrous Sulfate Tablet 325 (65 Fe [iron]) MG [milligram] Give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for Anemia, Give before breakfast with orange juice,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-09 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff wore appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), specifically disposable gowns, and gloves, during the administration of medication through a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube for one (Resident (R)27) of 10 residents who had PEG tubes. This deficient practice resulted in a risk of contamination and the potential spread of infection to the patient and other residents. Findings include:Review of R27's admission Record located under the Profile tab of the Electronic Medical Record (EMR), revealed R27 was admitted on [DATE] with a diagnosis of gastrostomy status.Review of R27's Minimum Data Set (MDS) located under the MDS tab of the EMR, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 12/19/25 revealed R27 received nutrition through feeding tube.During an observation on 01/08/26 at 9:20 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)1 administered medication to R27 through her PEG tube, and LPN1 did not…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“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
$59,947 in federal fines across 2 penalties.
- $42,602 — penalty dated 2025-10-03
- $17,345 — penalty dated 2025-02-24
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| STATE OF DELAWARE | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/01/1983 |
| STEWART, GERALDINE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/01/2025 |
| CAHALL, LAUREEN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/25/2026 |
| TEETER, TAMMY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/02/2019 |
| HARRIS, CURTIS | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/23/2026 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 10 rows in the source record cover these 5 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.
1 organizational owner 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.
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 085035. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-01-09, 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.