Honoka'a Hospital & Skilled Nursing
45-547 Plumeria Street, Honokaa, HI 96727 · Government - State · 66 certified beds · (808) 932-4100 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (24% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Nov 2024
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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 9.9% | 16.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.2% | 4.9% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.4% | 1.0% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.4% | 2.4% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.6% | 1.2% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.3% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.9% | 1.9% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 12.5% | 20.4% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 11.3% | 9.1% | 18.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 95.4% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.1% | 3.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 11.7% | 17.6% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 15.8% | 11.9% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.4% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 84.7% | 79.4% | 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.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 66 beds and averages 56.9 residents a day — about 86% occupied, or roughly 9 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 5.51 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.60 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.28 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 4.73 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.82 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.80 to 1.11 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 24% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · F2024-11-22 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to record hot water temperatures for manual washing of dishes/pots/pans and failed to completely record hot water temperatures for the dishwashing machine. Findings include: During observation of the kitchen on 11/19/24 at 10:25 AM, there were two different dishwashing sections; manual washing and dishwashing with machine. Review of hot water temperature logs showed no recording log for the manual washing, and missing temperature logs for the dishwashing machine. During staff interview on 11/21/24 at 08:20 AM, Kitchen Staff 1 revealed that the facility did not have temperature logs for manual washing and acknowledged that there were missing temperature logs for the dishwashing machine. The facility did not provide a related policy but said that they follow Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP) which states temperature test logs should be maintained for each hot water sanitation dishwasher in the facility in order to follow HACCP-based record keeping standards.
- Potential for harm · D2024-11-22 · 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, record reviews, and interview, the facility failed to protect a resident (Resident 310) from physical abuse. The facility did not de-escalate the situation between two roommates, resulting in Resident (R)50 going over and punching R310. This deficient practice has the potential to affect the residents' optimal physical and psychosocial well-being. Findings include: On 06/17/24, the facility submitted an Event Report regarding an allegation of abuse, resident to resident. On 05/18/24 at approximately 02:50 AM, Resident (R)310 alleged he was punched by his roommate, R50. The report documents at approximately 02:00 AM, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA)1 heard the residents yelling. R310 reportedly turned on the television and had the volume turned up, waking his roommate. R50 was heard telling R310 to go to sleep and turn off the television. Registered Nurse (RN)1 provided R310 with headphones to connect to his TV. After this, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)1 heard the television playing loudly again…
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 · D2024-11-22 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to monitor vital signs; blood pressure for one Resident (R) 57 of fourteen residents sampled. As a result of this deficiency, the facility put R57 at risk for further health complications. Findings include: Review of Electronic Health Record (EHR), on 11/21/24 at 08:25 AM, showed R57 admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis including recent Hip Fracture, Chronic Kidney Disease, Lymphedema, Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation, Hypertension, High Cholesterol, Venous Stasis. There was an active doctor order to take vital signs; blood pressure routine (monthly for this resident). Blood pressures were documented on the following dates: 11/12/24, 09/26/24, 09/13/24. During staff interview on 11/21/24 at 09:20 AM, Director of Nursing acknowledged that vital signs; blood pressures were not taken monthly as ordered. On 11/21/24 at 10:45 AM, review of policy for Extended Care Facility Vital Signs read Purpose, to assist in assessing resident'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 before2024-11-22 · 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, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 14 residents sampled (Resident 11) was free from accident hazards. Resident 11 was transferred using a mechanical lift transfer in a manner that placed her at risk for an avoidable fall and/or injury. This deficient practice has the potential to affect all the residents at the facility who are dependent on mechanical lift transfers. Findings include: Resident (R)11 is an [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. On 11/19/24 at 12:02 PM, observations were made at the bedside of R11. Certified Nurse Aide (CNA)2 and CNA3 were transferring R11 from her bed to a standard wheelchair via a mechanical lift. Observed CNA3 positioned behind the wheelchair, tilting it up onto its back two wheels, leaving the front two wheels approximately a foot off the ground, while CNA2 operated the mechanical lift, lowering R11 into the tilted wheelchair. Interviewed both CNAs at the bedside as soon as the wheelchair with R11 in it had…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-11-22 · tag F0887 — isolatedEducate residents and staff on COVID-19 vaccination, offer the COVID-19 vaccine to eligible residents and staff after education, and properly document each resident and staff member's vaccination status.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview with staff members, the facility failed to provide education regarding the benefits, risks, and potential side effects associated with COVID-19 immunization before offering the vaccine to staff member(s). Findings include: On 11/21/24 at 11:30 AM an interview was conducted with the Infection Preventionist (IPC). IPC reported the facility offered staff members the COVID-19 vaccination in October. A staff member, Kitchen Staff (KS)1 was randomly selected to verify the requirements for education and offering of COVID-19 immunization. IPC reviewed the spread sheet and reported the immunization was refused. Further queried if KS1 was provided with education on risks and benefits of the immunization. IPC reported the facility will provide a Vaccine Information Sheet (VIS) which includes education when vaccines are offered and administered, however, as the COVID-19 immunization is no longer required for staff members, the facility had not been providing the VIS. On 11/21/24 at 12:15 PM, KS1 was interviewed in the kitchen. KS1 was not sure whether 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 · D2024-05-31 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of Facility Reported Incident (ACTS 10975), record review, staff interview and review of policy, the facility failed to implement the comprehensive care plan for Resident (R)2. As a result of this deficiency, R2 was found in another resident's room showing inappropriate sexual behaviors. Findings include: Review of ACTS 10975 mentioned that R2 was found in another resident's room on 05/16/24 at approximately 03:20 AM displaying inappropriate sexual behaviors. R2 was directed back to room and placed on 1:1 supervision. Prior to this incident, R2 had a report of entering another resident's room on 11/22/22, and then on 12/02/22 there was another report of R2 exposing self in the room doorway. There were no other incidents thereafter until this current incident. Review of the Electronic Health Record showed that R2 was admitted on [DATE] with a diagnosis including Subarachnoid Hemorrhage, High Blood Pressure, Emphysema, High Cholesterol, Alcohol Abuse with Seizure. On 05/17/24 after the incident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-12-08 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to implement the facility's infection prevention and control measures. Facility did not ensure that staff were wearing applicable personal protective equipment (PPE) when providing care to two residents (Resident (R) 41 and 12) on Transmission Based Precautions (TBP). This deficient practice placed the residents at risk for the potential spread of infections and communicable diseases. Findings include: 1) On 12/06/23 at 08:56 AM, observed signage next to R41's door indicating she was on Droplet Plus Precautions. R41 was sitting in a wheelchair with her breakfast tray on a table in front of her. R41 was not wearing a mask and was telling the staff that she wanted to come out of her room. Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) 3 entered the room to check on R41 without any PPE other than a surgical mask. CNA3 explained to R41 that she needed to stay in her room for now and asked her if she was done with her meal. R41 said she was done eating and CNA3…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-12-08 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview with a resident and record review, the facility failed to provide treatment and care in a manner that promoted his or her quality of life for one of 17 residents (Resident (R) 25) in the active case sample. This deficient practice has the potential to affect the resident's psychosocial well-being. Findings include: Record review noted R25 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of her quarterly Minimum Data Set with an assessment reference date of 10/13/23 documents R25 is cognitively intact. R25 also requires substantial assistance to roll from left and right and is dependent on helper to transfer to and from a bed to a chair (or wheelchair). On 12/06/23 at approximately 11:30 AM an interview was conducted with R25. R25 reported sometimes staff members are rough during care, specifically while providing incontinence care and during transfer via mechanical lift. R25 explained staff members push or pull her side to side while cleaning her. She also explained during transfer, staff will…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-12-08 · tag F0572 — isolatedGive residents a notice of rights, rules, services and charges.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on interview with the resident council, the facility failed to ensure residents were provided ongoing communication regarding where to find the State Agency (SA) report with survey results and the facility's plans of correction, and information on how to file a complaint with the SA and Long-Term Care Ombudsman (LTCO) should they want to exercise these rights. Findings include: On 12/06/23 at 11:00 AM an interview was conducted with four resident council representatives. Asked the residents if the State inspection was available to read. The representatives were not aware of the location of the survey results, and that the report was available for them to review. Upon query, the representatives were not aware of where the LTCO's contact information was posted. Also, the representatives could not recall being provided with information on how to formally file a complaint with the SA. A review of the facility's hospitality book does not include information for reviewing the survey results, LTCO information, and how to file a complaint with the SA.
- Potential for harm · D2023-12-08 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview with staff, the facility did not assure a resident was provided with personal privacy during incontinence care. Findings include: On 12/06/23 at 08:56 AM observed the curtain was drawn to block view into the residents' room. Knocked at the door, peered around the curtain, and observed R48 lying on his right side with his left lower extremity exposed from the waist down. Further observed the curtain between the roommates was not fully drawn, R36 was sitting up in bed and could view his exposed roommate. Interview with Certified Nurse Aide (CNA)5 was done. CNA5 reported that she closed the curtain between the residents, however, R36 opened it. CNA5 reportedly told the resident not to open the curtain. Inquired whether R36 does this all the time, initially CNA5 responded yes. CNA5 then clarified, this was the first time she observed this behavior. Upon further query, CNA5 stated she would speak to the nurse. Subsequent observations on 12/06/23 at 10:08 AM and 01:02 PM found the curtain between the residents was fully closed.
- Potential for harm · D2023-12-08 · tag F0623 — isolatedProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview with staff member, the facility did not ensure the notice of transfer/discharge contained the required contents; a copy of the notice is sent to the Long-Term Care Ombudsman (LTCO); and a resident transferred from the facility's long-term care/nursing to the critical access hospital was not provided written notice of transfer for 2 (Residents 54 and 55) of 2 residents in the sample. Findings include: 1) Resident (R)54 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged to an acute hospital on [DATE]. R54 was readmitted on [DATE] and discharged on 09/07/23 to an acute hospital. On 12/07/23 at 01:29 PM the facility provided fax confirmation of notification to the LTCO of R54's discharges. The facility sent notice of the discharge log to the LTCO. Review of the discharge log documented the resident's admission date, discharge date , name of resident, and discharge disposition (discharge location) At approximately 02:15 PM, the facility provided copies of the transfer/discharge…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-12-08 · 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, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to provide appropriate services to prevent urinary tract infections for one of the two residents (Resident (R) 34) in the sample. The deficient practice exposed the resident to contaminants that may cause preventable urinary tract infections. This has the potential to affect all residents with a urinary catheter. Findings include: On 12/05/23 at 02:38 PM, observed R34 sitting up in a wheelchair in his room. R34 had a urinary catheter tubing connected to a collection bag placed in a dignity cover that was hung under the wheelchair seat. Both the urinary catheter tubing and collection bag were touching the floor. On 12/06/23 at 11:19 AM, review of Electronic Health Record (EHR) for R34 conducted. R34 is a [AGE] year-old resident admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses include hemiplegia and hemiparesis (paralysis and weakness on one side of the body), benign prostatic hyperplasia (noncancerous enlargement of the prostate gland), 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 · D2023-12-08 · 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
Based on observation, interview with staff, and review of the policy and procedures, the facility did not assure drug records for controlled drugs were maintained. This deficient practice has the potential for possible drug diversion. Findings include: On 12/07/23 at 02:02 PM concurrent observation was done with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)8 and LPN9. A review of the Narcotic Count Medication Room/Lock Cabinet form found missing nurse signatures. Concurrent review of the log with LPN8 noted there were no nurse signatures for the off duty and on duty nurse for 12/06/23 at 11PM and no off duty signature for 12/07/23 at 7AM (the on duty nurse for this shift signed the log). Further review found missing signatures for 11/20/23 (off duty at 7AM); 11/10/23 (off duty at 3PM); 11/06/23 (on duty at 7AM and off duty 3PM); 10/28/23 (off duty at 7AM); 10/23/23 (off duty at 7AM); 10/22/23 (on duty at 11 PM); and 10/08/23 (off duty at 7AM). Inquired why is it important for the licensed nurses to sign the log for narcotic counts/reconciliation. LPN8 responded to show that the medications were…
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 before2022-10-13 · 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 record review, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure planned fall prevention interventions were promptly and consistently implemented to minimize the risk of falls/fall-related injury for 1 (Resident #22) of 2 sampled residents reviewed for falls. Findings included: Review of a facility policy titled, Fall Prevention and Management, revised 03/2022, revealed the steps for post-fall management included, g. Complete post-fall huddle. h. First responder to complete First Responder Form. i. Clinical follow-up for care plan additions/changes as indicated through outcomes of daily stand-up and falls meetings discussions. Review of a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed Resident #22 was severely impaired in cognitive skills for daily decision-making, per a staff assessment for mental status. According to the MDS, the resident had active diagnoses including hypertension, Alzheimer's disease, and a history of falling. The MDS indicated the resident required…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to HAWAII HEALTH SYSTEMS CORPORATION — 7 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 | 5 of 5 | 4.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Staffing | 5 of 5 | 4.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
The other 6 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.2★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| WALTJEN, JONI | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 04/23/2001 |
| BELCHER, DANIEL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 06/01/2020 |
| FARIAS, CHAD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 03/01/2021 |
| GOMEZ, LARA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 11/01/2022 |
| GRAY, JERRY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 02/01/2017 |
| HO, BRENDA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2016 |
| IGNACIO, JAY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 04/01/2019 |
| KUROHARA, RANDALL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 02/01/2021 |
| NUNOKAWA, CLARYSSE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 06/01/2019 |
| SAKO, DEANNA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 09/01/2018 |
| SKRUCH, JOSEPH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 03/15/2022 |
| SMITH, STEPHEN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 02/24/2018 |
| WONG, YVONNE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 10/01/2022 |
| YAMANAKA, RAE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 05/17/2016 |
| ZELKO-SCHLUETER, JENNIFER | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2022 |
| BRINKMAN, DANIEL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 06/22/2015 |
| MACKEY, DENISE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 05/01/2017 |
| HAWAII HEALTH SYSTEMS CORPORATION | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 07/01/1996 |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — 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 HI
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 Hawaii 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 125032. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-11-22, 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.