Bethany Lutheran Home
Seven Elliott Street, Council Bluffs, IA 51503 · Non profit - Other · 112 certified beds · (712) 328-9500 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)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (30% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0602), cited May 2026
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- inspectors recorded 2 serious findings as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (43) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $46,914 in federal fines (most recent 2025-10-02)
- 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) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 3 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 | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 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 1 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 | 22.5% | 17.1% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.3% | 4.6% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.3% | 1.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.6% | 2.4% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 4.2% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.1% | 3.8% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 12.2% | 16.6% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 9.9% | 20.8% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.3% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.7% | 4.2% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 25.5% | 25.6% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 16.2% | 19.5% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 3.9% | 2.1% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 46.2% | 73.3% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 22.9% | 20.9% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 10.6% | 13.2% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.20 | 1.49 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.01 | 2.08 | 1.80 | worse |
* 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.
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.
56.0% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 136 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 48.4% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 62 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.30 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 49% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 8% 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 | 56.0%CMS range 48.9–62.4 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.0%CMS range 8.3–14.8 | 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 | 48.4% | 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 | 48.4% | 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 | 41.9% | 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 | 93.5% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 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 | 7.4%CMS range 4.8–11.6 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.90 | 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 112 beds and averages 94.6 residents a day — about 84% occupied, or roughly 17 beds typically open. It usually has some room. 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 3.99 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.30 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.67 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 3.70 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.11 on weekdays — 10% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.29 to 0.33 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 30% 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 unchanged from the previous inspection. 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.
43 citations, most serious first. The 15 most serious are shown; the remaining 28 are one tap away and print in full.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2025-10-02 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, clinical record review, staff interviews, and policy review the facility failed to protect a resident from possible accidents and injuries for 1of 2 residents (Resident #38). The facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent elopement. On 7/20/25 between 4:30-4:40 PM the staff last saw Resident #38 standing by the front door where visitors were exiting. The door alarm sounded with Staff A responding to the alarm but he failed to locate Resident #38 and went back to his previous duties being unaware Resident #38 was outside. On 7/20/25 at approximately 5:00 PM Staff B looked out the dining room window and observed Resident #38 walking down the sidewalk past the facility, near the bridge over a creek, towards a high traffic 3 lane street with a speed limit of 35 miles per hour. The upcoming 3 lane street did not have a side walk on the side Resident #38 was walking towards. The State Agency informed the facility on 10/1/25 at 12:10 PM of the Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) that began on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2023-11-02 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, staff interviews, transportation driver interview, clinic staff interview, family interviews, facility document review and facility policy the facility failed to ensure a resident received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice. A nurse failed to complete an assessment and intervene with a significant change. The resident was unresponsive prior to leaving for an appointment, after Oxycodone a schedule 2 opiate (narcotic) was given. At the clinic appointment the resident was found to be unresponsive with a blood pressure of 62/38 and a faint pulse. Narcan, an opiate antagonist was given. Primary diagnosis at appointment was unresponsiveness. Resident #1 was transferred to the emergency room from the clinic via ambulance. Vitals signs from that morning at the facility indicated a blood pressure of 96/63, pulse of 58 and an oxygen saturation of 90% on room air for 1 of 5 residents reviewed (Resident #1). The State Agency informed the facility 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.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2025-05-30 · 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 clinical record review, facility policy review, staff interviews, and the provider interview, the facility failed to ensure the orders of 1 of 3 residents (Resident #2) were implemented after a 30-day review was completed by the ordering Nurse Practitioner. Resident #2 was ordered morphine sulfate (opioid used to treat severe pain) 15 milligrams (mg) twice a day (BID) for pain. The order was a durational order to be reviewed every 30 days by the Nurse Practitioner for continued use. During the Nurse Practitioner's visit with the resident on 3/20/2025 she noted to continue with the scheduled and as needed (PRN) orders for morphine. The Nurse Practitioner documented on 3/31/2025 that staff notified the provider the resident had not received her scheduled morphine since the March 18, 2025. Facility phoning pharmacy to see what occurred. Morphine was an active order on the Medication Administration Record (MAR). She ordered to give a dose now and order for one additional dose to be given to bridge until scheduled dose arrives. During the time Resident #2 was without her…
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 before2024-08-12 · 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
Based on clinical record review, facility investigative file review, staff interviews and facility policy review the facility failed to prevent 1 of 3 residents (Resident #1) from sustaining an injury while assisting them with positioning in their bed. Resident #1's care plan documented she required the assistance of two staff with repositioning in bed. On 7/20/24 Resident #1 wanted to be repositioned in bed. Staff A Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA assisted Resident #1 by herself with repositioning in bed when she rolled out of bed and landed on the floor. Resident #1 complained of pain to her hip, left arm and indicated she did hit her head. Resident #1 was taken to the emergency room (ER) and found to have a closed displaced fracture of her left femoral neck that required surgical repair on 7/22/24. The resident returned to the facility on 7/24/24. The facility reported a census of 84 residents. Findings Include: According to the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment tool with a reference date of 6/11/24 documented Resident #1 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS)…
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 · G2023-08-21 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, facility policy review, physician interviews and staff interviews the facility failed to provide respiratory care and services by sending a resident to an appointment without oxygen when oxygen was required to 1 of 1 residents reviewed (Resident #192). The facility reported a census of 87 residents. Finding include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] for Resident #192 documented a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) of 9 out of 15 indicating moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS documented the resident required extensive assist of one person for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toileting and hygiene, and was not ambulatory in the last 7 day look back period. The MDS documented diagnosis of acute and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia aneurysm of the heart, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and pulmonary hypertension. The MDS documented the resident had shortness of breath with exertion and received oxygen therapy. The Care Plan for Resident #192 dated 3/9/23…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-05-21 · tag F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — isolatedProtect each resident from the wrongful use of the resident's belongings or money.
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 Electronic Health Record (EHR) review, document review, staff interviews and policy review the facility failed to protect a resident from misappropriation of property when a resident's medication became missing from the facility for 1 of 3 residents reviewed (Resident #6). The facility reported a census of 86 residents.Findings include:The facility corrected the deficiency per past noncompliance through the following actions:All nurses and certified medication assistants were re-educated on the administration and disposal of controlled medications on [DATE]. Audits initiated on [DATE] of all narcotics delivered from [DATE] - [DATE] on all current, discharged and deceased residents. No further discrepancies found. Resident #6's prescription was replaced by the facility at the cost of the faciity. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #6 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 12 indicating moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS documented Resident #6 received a scheduled 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 · Fcited before2025-10-02 · 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, clinical record review, policy review, and staff interview the facility failed to provide appropriate infection prevention practices by not donning appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) or completing appropriate hand hygiene when personal care was completed and failed to provide appropriate infection prevention practices for waterborne pathogens for 5 of 24 residents reviewed (Resident #5, #8, #35, #89 and #77). The facility reported a census of 90 residents. Finding include:1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] for Resident #8 documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 14 indicating no cognitive impairment. The MDS indicated Resident #8 had a stage 4 pressure ulcer. Review of Resident #8's Medication Administration Record (MAR) documented a physician's order to cleanse coccyx wound with wound cleanser, apply collagen rope or collagen strip to wound tunnel, lightly pack, once every 3 days and as needed for wound care. Review of Resident #8's EHR titled, Orders…
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 before2025-10-02 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — patternProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
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, resident and staff interviews, document reviews and policy review the facility failed to provide nursing staff to assure residents safety by not responding to call lights in a timely manner for 6 of 27 residents reviewed (Resident #35, #42, #10, #30, #50 and #76). The facility reported a census of 90.Findings include: 1. Resident #35's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15/15 indicating normal cognition. The document listed Resident #35 as frequently incontinent of bladder and bowel. The MDS listed the resident as requiring substantial/maximal assistance for toileting hygiene, bed mobility and transfers. Resident #35's Care Plan dated 9/24/25 revealed an Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) focus area, revised 9/9/25, with interventions of assisting with cares (9/3/25), bilateral bed rails (9/3/25), and reporting further deterioration to provider (9/3/25). The document included a urinary incontinence focus area dated 9/9/25 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 · D2025-10-02 · tag F0637 — isolatedAssess the resident when there is a significant change in condition
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, resident and staff interviews, record review, and policy review the facility failed to complete a significant change comprehensive assessment when a resident had a decline in condition for 1 (Resident #76) of 3 residents reviewed. The facility reported a census of 90 residents. Findings include:The Minimum Data Set (MDS) for Resident #76, dated 7/31/25, included diagnoses of heart and osteoarthritis. The MDS identified the resident was independent with eating, supervision or touching assistance with upper body dressing, substantial/maximal assistance with transfers, toileting and lower body dressing, and was occasionally incontinent of bladder. The MDS indicated the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 15, indicating no cognitive impairment for decision-making. Resident's Care Plan, target date 11/7/25, identified the following: a. Focus: Is at risk for decline in activities of daily living (ADLs) with interventions of assist with dressing in the morning, at hour of sleep (HS), and as needed (PRN), assist with positioning PRN with left…
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 before2025-10-02 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, staff interview, and policy review the facility failed to complete a Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) for 1 of 1 residents (Resident #6), who was diagnosed with new mental disorder diagnoses since admission to the facility. The facility reported a census of 90 residents. Findings include: Review of Resident #6's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 7/15 indicating severe cognitive impairment. The document indicated the resident had hallucinations, delusions, verbal behavioral symptoms directed toward others, 1 -3 days during the reporting period, other behavioral symptoms not directed toward others daily, and the resident's behavior was worse than prior assessment. The MDS further revealed diagnoses of Non-Alzheimer's Dementia and psychotic disorder. The document provided the resident took antipsychotic medication. Resident #6's Care Plan dated 6/11/25 contained a impaired decision making focus area…
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 before2025-10-02 · 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 clinical record review, staff interview, and policy review the facility failed to provide a comprehensive care plan related to high risk medications for residents with an order for diuretics for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #6) reviewed. The facility reported a census of 90 residents. Findings include: Review of Resident #6's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed diagnoses of heart failure, hypertension, Non-Alzheimer's dementia, and psychotic disorder. The MDS further revealed that during the look back period Resident #12 received diuretic medication daily. Review of the Electronic Healthcare Record (EHR) page titled, Clinical Physician Orders revealed an order for Furosemide 20mg 1 tablet twice daily with a start date of 8/26/25. Review of Resident #6's Care Plan with a revision date of 3/12/25 revealed no documentation of diuretic medications usage.Interview 10/01/2025 at 2:40 PM with Staff C Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) revealed that diuretics should be in the care plan. Staff C then…
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 before2025-10-02 · 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 observations, clinical record review, staff interviews, and policy review the facility failed to provide needed services in accordance with professional standards by leaving medications in a residents room for 2 of 8 residents (Resident #75 and #78). The facility reported a census of 90 residents. Findings include: 1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) for Resident #75, dated 7/31/25 did not document a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS). Review of EHR titled, Progress Notes dated 8/11/25 revealed a BIMS evaluation with a BIMS of 15. The MDS also documented a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with acute exacerbation. Observation on 9/29/25 at 10:54 AM revealed a nebulizer machine with clear liquid present and a vial of albuterol sulfate 0.5mg/3mg per 3 mL lying full on Resident #75's bedside table. On 9/29/25 at 10:56 AM Resident #75 stated the nurses occasionally leave the nebulizer medication on the bedside table for the next dose. Resident #75 stated the nurses never clean the nebulizer or mask. Review of Resident #75's Medication Administration Record…
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 before2025-10-02 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, family interview, staff interviews, and policy review the facility failed to ensure the residents were free of significant medication errors to 1 of 4 residents reviewed (Resident #38). The facility reported a census of 90 residents. Findings include: Review of Resident #38's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 6 indicating severe cognitive impairment. The MDS further revealed diagnoses of hypertension, renal insufficiency, and Alzheimer's disease. Interview 9/29/25 at 3:25 PM with Resident #38's family member revealed that Resident #38 received another resident's medication in addition to Resident #6's own medications. The family member revealed that Resident #38 received another resident's blood pressure medication, magnesium, Tylenol, and a fourth medication. The family member stated that Resident #38 received more than twice their normal amount of blood pressure medication. The family member spoke with the Director…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-05-30 · tag 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
Based on clinical record view, observation, staff and resident interviews, and facility policy review the facility failed to transfer 1 of 4 residents (Resident #3) in a way that would prevent an accident. The facility reported a census of 88 residents. Findings include: According to the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment tool with a reference date of 4/11/2025 documented Resident #3 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15. A BIMS score of 15 suggested no cognitive impairment. The MDS documented she utilized a walker for mobility and had an impairment on one side of her upper extremity. Resident #3 required supervision or touching assistance to go from a sitting to lying position, lying to sitting position and partial/moderate assistance to go from a sitting to standing position, chair/bed to chair transfer and toileting transfer. The MDS documented the following diagnoses for Resident #3: urinary tract infection (UTI), atrial fibrillation, depression, and toxic encephalopathy. The Care Plan Focus Area with an initiation date of 4/14/2025 documented…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-03-13 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, facility investigation file review, staff and resident interviews, and facility policy review the facility failed to treat 1 of 3 resident (Resident #3) with dignity during medication administration. The facility reported a census of 86 residents. Findings include: According to the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment tool with a reference date of 1/16/2025 documented Resident #3 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (MDS) score of 15. A BIMS score of 15 suggested no cognitive impairment. The MDS documented she refused care for 1-3 days of the 7-day review period. The following diagnoses were listed for the resident: chronic respiratory failure, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and urine retention. The Care Plan Focus area with an initiation date of 1/15/2025 documented Resident #3 refused care such as medications at times. Staff were instructed to encourage the resident to take her medications as prescribed by her physician. Staff are to notify the physician/hospice…
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 28 citations
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-13 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, facility investigation file review, staff and resident interviews, and facility policy review the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse involving Resident #3 within 2 hours of the allegation. The facility reported a census of 86 residents. Findings include: According to the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment tool with a reference date of 1/16/2025 documented Resident #3 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (MDS) score of 15. A BIMS score of 15 suggested no cognitive impairment. The MDS documented she refused care for 1-3 days of the 7-day review period. The following diagnoses were listed for the resident: chronic respiratory failure, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and urine retention. The Care Plan Focus area with an initiation date of 1/15/2025 documented Resident #3 refused care such as medications at times. Staff were instructed to encourage the resident to take her medications as prescribed by her physician. Staff are to notify 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 · D2025-03-13 · 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 observations, staff interviews, clinical record review, and policy review the facility failed to review and revise the Care Plans for 2 of 7 residents reviewed (Resident #5 and Resident #6). The facility failed to revise the interventions for a resident who sustained falls and a resident who had a significant change. The facility reported a census of 86 residents. Findings include: 1. According to the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] Resident #5 scored 5/15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score indicating severe cognitive impairment. The document revealed diagnoses of heart failure, benign prostatic hyperplasia, and urinary tract infection (UTI) in the last 30 days. The document revealed the resident had an indwelling catheter and was always incontinent of bowel. The MDS indicated the resident received hospice care services. Observed on 3/7/2025 at 11:30 AM Resident #5 asleep in bed, catheter bag at foot of bed on the right side with a dignity bag over it, and the call…
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 before2025-03-13 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, facility investigation file review, staff interviews and facility policy review the facility failed to use professional standards while administering Resident #3's medications. The facility reported a census of 86 residents. Findings include: According to the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment tool with a reference date of 1/16/2025 documented Resident #3 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15. A BIMS score of 15 suggested no cognitive impairment. The MDS documented she refused care for 1-3 days of the 7-day review period. The following diagnoses were listed for the resident: chronic respiratory failure, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and urine retention. The Care Plan Focus area with an initiation date of 1/15/2025 documented Resident #3 refused care such as medications at times. Staff were instructed to encourage the resident to take her medications as prescribed by her physician. Staff are to notify the physician/hospice provider. The following…
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 before2024-10-31 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — patternProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
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. Resident #22's MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified a BIMS score of 15, indicating no cognitive impairment. The MDS listed Resident #22 as dependent or required partial assistance for toileting hygiene, bathing, and lower body dressing. In addition, Resident #22 required supervision or touching assistance for personal hygiene. The MDS included diagnoses of polio (a viral infection that can lead to partial or full paralysis), lack of coordination, muscle weakness, abnormalities of gait and mobility. In an interview on 10/28/24 at 12:34 PM, Resident #22 reported it took staff 45 minutes to answer his call light that morning. Resident #22 stated, they didn't have enough help. Resident #22 explained it took staff 20 to 30 minutes to answer the call light. Resident #22 added, he urinated in his chair because it took so long. It pissed him off when he had to urinate in his own chair. The Care Plan Focus revised 2/13/22 indicated Resident #22 had a risk for injury from falls related to diagnoses of post-polio…
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 · E2024-10-31 · tag F0727 — failed to provide required RN coverage — patternHave a registered nurse on duty 8 hours a day; and select a registered nurse to be the director of nurses on a full time basis.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on the facility staff report and interviews the facility failed to provide Registered Nurse (RN) coverage for at least 8 consecutive hours a day for 7 days a week. The facility census was 85. Findings include: The September 2024 and October 2024 Nurse Schedule reflected the scheduled RN called to quit on 9/21/22, then walked out on 9/22/24. The document didn't include any other scheduled RNs on those dates. In an interview on 10/30/24 at 2:15 PM the Staff Coordinator stated on 9/21/24 and 9/22/24 she didn't have the on call phone, but knew about the situation. The Staff Coordinator stated the scheduled RN called in sick on 9/21/24 after being at work less than 30 minutes. On 9/22/24 the RN walked into the facility, looked at the schedule, and walked out. The Staff Coordinator stated they didn't fill the position with a RN for the empty shifts. The Staff Coordinator reported during the weekends they had limited RNs on the schedule/available, during the work week the acting DON may cover the RN position if necessary. In an interview on 10/30/24 at 2:25 PM the Administrator 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 · E2024-10-31 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to prepare, serve and distribute food in accordance with professional standards. The facility reported a census of 85 residents. Findings include: During an observation on 10/28/24 at 9:55 AM Staff H, Cook, completed modification of the entree to mechanical soft consistency. Staff H obtained cooked turkey measured prior to the modification. Without performing hand hygiene, Staff H donned (applied) a glove to the right hand. They said they would use the gloved hand for placement of the turkey in the processor while the left hand would run the food processor. Staff H picked up the turkey with the gloved hand and placed it in the food processor. Staff H then placed their gloved hand over top of the processor, while the left hand managed the controls of the processor. Staff H used the non gloved hand to pour the contents into the measuring cup while the gloved hand used a scraper and moved the contents into the measuring cup. Once completed with the scraper Staff H used their gloved hand to compact 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 · D2024-10-31 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on clinical record review and staff interviews the facility to notify the Long-Term Care (LTC) Ombudsman of a transfer to the hospital for 1 of 6 residents reviewed (Resident #26). The facility reported a census of 85 residents. Findings include: Resident #26's Clinical Census reflected she had an unpaid hospital leave from 6/2/24 - 6/10/24. Review of the facility document, Notice of Transfer Form to LTC Ombudsman, for the month of Jun 2024 lacked notice of Resident #26's hospitalization. During an interview on 10/29/24 at 2:25 PM the Director of Nursing (DON) stated Social Services typically handled the bed holds and notification to the LTC Ombudsman. She added the document would be in the chart. During an interview on 10/30/24 at 10:55 AM the Social Services Director stated Resident #26 didn't have a signed bed hold or notification to the LTC Ombudsman when she admitted to the hospital. During an interview on 10/30/24 at 11:00 AM the Administrator acknowledged the facility didn't do a bed hold or notify the LTC Ombudsman for Resident #26's hospitalization starting on 6/2/24.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-10-31 · tag F0625 — isolatedNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, staff interviews, and policy review the facility failed to offer the resident, the Resident's Representative, and/or the Power of Attorney (POA) of a bed hold for 1 of 6 residents reviewed (Resident #26). The facility reported a census of 85 residents. Findings include: Resident #26's Clinical Census reflected she had an unpaid hospital leave from 6/2/24 - 6/10/24. Resident #26's electronic and paper clinical record lacked a bed hold for the hospitalization from 6/2/24 - 6/10/24. During an interview on 10/29/24 at 2:25 PM the Director of Nursing (DON) stated Social Services typically handled the bed holds and notification to the LTC Ombudsman. She added the document would be in the chart. During an interview on 10/30/24 at 10:55 AM the Social Services Director stated Resident #26 didn't have a signed bed hold or notification to the LTC Ombudsman when she admitted to the hospital. During an interview on 10/30/24 at 11:00 AM the Administrator acknowledged the facility didn't do a bed hold or notify the LTC Ombudsman for Resident #26's hospitalization starting…
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 before2024-10-31 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY 2. Resident #36's MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified a Staff Assessment for Mental Status indicating they had moderately impaired cognitive skills for daily decision making. The MDS included diagnoses of anxiety disorder, psychotic disorder, and Parkinsonism. The Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) Level I Screen Outcome, dated 11/6/20 listed a summary of findings as Resident #36 didn't show evidence of a serious mental illness or an intellectual or developmental disability(IDD) that required PASRR intervention. The document provided Resident #36 had a current diagnosis of anxiety disorder and received fluoxetine (antidepressant) 20 milligrams (mg) per (/) day. The document instructed to submit a new screen if changes occur or new information refutes the findings. Resident #36's Medical Diagnoses included the following diagnoses: a. 10/1/23: Parkinson's Disease. b. 10/1/22: unspecified dementia, unspecified severity, with other behavioral disturbance. c. 7/4/21: Unspecified psychosis not due…
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 · D2024-10-31 · tag F0744 — failed to care for residents with dementia — isolatedProvide the appropriate treatment and services to a resident who displays or is diagnosed with dementia.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review and staff interview the facility failed to address dementia care for 1 out of 3 residents reviewed (Resident #1). The facility reported a census of 85 residents. Findings include: Resident #1's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 5, indicating severely impaired cognition. The MDS included diagnoses of non Alzheimer's dementia, stroke, seizure disorder (epilepsy), dementia mild, without behavioral, psychotic or mood disturbance, and anxiety. Resident #1's Care Plan revised 10/21/24 lacked information regarding dementia care. The Comprehensive Care Plan policy revised 7/18/22 instructed care, treatment and services shall be planned to ensure they are individualized to the resident's needs. The facility shall provide an individualized, interdisciplinary plan of care for all residents that shall be appropriate to the resident's needs, strengths, results of diagnostic testing, limitations and goals. Results of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-10-31 · 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, facility policy review, and staff interview the facility failed to provide appropriate infection prevention practices when administering medications, providing personal care, catheter care, and wound care for 3 of 4 residents reviewed (Residents #1, #22 and #58). The facility reported a census of 85 residents. Findings include: 1. Resident #22's MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating no cognitive impairment. Resident #22's October 2024 Medication Administration Records (MAR) included physicians' orders for acetaminophen (pain medication), calcium (nutritional supplement), aspirin (used either for pain or blood clot prevention), multi vitamin (nutritional supplement), docusate sodium (stool softener), and vitamin D3 (nutritional supplement). On 10/30/24 at 8:03 AM witnessed Staff I, Registered Nurse (RN), removing the following medications for Resident #22: acetaminophen, calcium, aspirin, multi vitamin, docusate sodium, 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 before2024-08-12 · 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 clinical record review, staff interviews and facility policy review the facility failed to follow 1 of 3 resident's (Resident #1) care plan while repositioning her in bed. The facility reported a census of 84 residents. Findings include: According to the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment tool with a reference date of 6/11/24 documented Resident #1 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14. A BIMS score of 14 suggested no cognitive impairment. The MDS documented she was frequently incontinent of bowel and had no falls since her admission/entry, reentry or prior assessment. The MDS listed the following diagnosis: spina bifida, seizure disorder, anxiety, opioid use, insomnia, and chronic pain syndrome. The Care Plan focus area with an initiation date of 6/13/2023 documented Resident #1 was at risk for decline in her activities of daily living (ADLs) related to her diagnoses of spina bifida and seizures. The care plan documented the following intervention with a revision date of 7/15/2024, the resident required total assistance of two staff 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 · Ecited before2024-05-14 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — patternHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, clinical record review, staff interviews, resident interviews, facility investigative files and facility policy review the facility failed to treat 5 of 5 residents (Resident #2, #5, #6, #7, and #8) with dignity and respect. The facility reported a census 85 residents. Findings include: 1. According to the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment tool with a reference date of [DATE], Resident #2 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14. A BIMS score of 14 suggested no cognitive impairment. The MDS documented the following diagnoses: cancer, anemia, dementia, and depression. The Care Plan focus area with an initiation date of [DATE] documented he is at risk for decline with his activities of daily living (ADLs) related to dementia, cancer and osteoporosis. The care plan documented he required assistance with washing his back, feet and legs during baths. Review of a statement dated [DATE], completed by the Director of Nursing (DON), revealed she documented she interviewed…
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 before2024-05-14 · 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, clinical record review, resident interviews, staff interviews, facility investigative file review and facility policy review, the facility failed to transfer 2 of 3 residents (Resident #5 and #6) in a manner to prevent any accidents and hazards. Staff transferred Resident #5 using a mechanical lift and one staff member. Staff also attempted to transfer Resident #6 with one staff instead of two. The facility reported a census of 85 residents. Findings include: 1. According to the annual MDS assessment tool with a reference date of [DATE], Resident #5 had a BIMS score of 13. A BIMS score of 14 suggested no cognitive impairment. The MDS documented he used a wheelchair. The MDS listed the following diagnoses: chronic lymphocytic leukemia of b-cell, cancer, hyperlipidemia, thyroid disorder, sepsis, and sleep apnea. The Care Plan focus area with an initiation date of [DATE] documented the resident at risk for ADL decline due to his diagnoses of leukemia and heart disease. The care plan…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-11-02 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on electronic health records review, facility policy review, and staff interview the facility failed to provide a professional standard of quality by not following physician orders for 1 of 5 residents reviewed (Resident #1). The facility reported a census of 90 residents. Finding include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #1 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status documented as the resident is rarely/never understood. The MDS also revealed a diagnosis of nondisplaced fracture of base of neck of right femur, and subsequent encounter for closed fracture with routine healing. Review of Resident #1's Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed an order for Oxycodone tablet 5 mg take 1 tablet by mouth every 4 hours as needed with a max daily amount of 30 mg. The MAR revealed an Oxycodone 5 mg tablet was given on October 19 at 12:30 PM and again at 2:25 PM. Review of facility policy revised 4/1/23 titled Medication Administration revealed the following: -Staff to remove medication…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-08-21 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — patternProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, facility record review, facility policy review, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to answer call lights in a timely manner for 4 of 18 residents reviewed (Residents #50, #72, #10, and #195). The facility reported a census of 87 residents. Findings include: 1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] for Resident #50 revealed a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) of 15 out of 15 which indicated intact cognition. The MDS revealed the resident had chronic kidney disease stage 3 and need for assistance with personal care. The MDS revealed the resident required extensive assistance of 2 staff with transfers and toileting; and required a pressure reducing device for chair and bed. In an interview on 8/14/23 at 4:28 PM, Resident #50 reported that 2 weeks ago, she was left sitting on the toilet for 50 minutes, she sat so long her bottom hurt since she had a pressure ulcer on her bottom at the time. The Care Plan intervention initiated 4/5/22 revealed:…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-08-21 · 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 observation, clinical record review, resident interviews and staff interviews the facility failed to provide privacy during personal cares to 1 of 3 residents reviewed (Resident #10). The facility reported a census of 87 residents. Finding include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] for Resident #10 documented a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) of 14 out of 15 indicating no cognitive impairment. The MDS documented the resident required extensive assist of two persons for transfers and toileting and extensive assist of one person for dressing. The MDS documented diagnoses to include mixed incontinence. On 8/16/23 at 9:18 AM during an observation of Resident #10's transfer from bed to wheelchair, Staff O Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) and Staff P CNA completed the Hoyer lift transfer and changed the resident's shirt without pulling the curtain for privacy. The resident was facing the window during cares. On 8/16/23 at 9:44 AM Resident #10 stated CNA's frequently did not close the curtain when they…
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 · D2023-08-21 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — isolatedHonor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
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 resident interview, staff interviews and document review the facility failed to ensure grievances were reported and followed through for 1 of 1 residents reviewed (Resident #195). Resident #195 reported to Staff T that a wallet was missing and no investigation was completed. The facility reported a census of 87 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] for Resident #195 documented a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) of 15 out of 15 indicating no cognitive impairment. On 8/14/23 at 2:47 PM Resident #195 stated she had a wallet that was missing 8 or 9 months ago. Resident #195 stated she left the wallet on the arm of the chair. Resident #195 stated this occurred when she was in another room when she was contagious. Resident #195 stated she told the social worker about the missing wallet, waited about 3 weeks and the facility had not ever replaced it. On 8/17/23 at 8:23 AM Staff T stated Resident #195 was missing a denim wallet for a little over a week. Staff T stated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-08-21 · tag F0625 — isolatedNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, facility policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to obtain a bed hold within 24 hours of a hospitalization for 3 of 5 residents reviewed (Resident #1,#52, and #65). The facility reported a census of 87 residents. Findings include: 1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] for Resident #65 revealed a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 which indicated intact cognition. The MDS revealed the resident had diagnoses of pneumonia, urinary tract infection (UTI), asthma (COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) or chronic lung disease, and calculus of gallbladder with acute cholecystitis without obstruction (gallbladder inflammation cause of gallbladder stones). Review of the MDS's revealed the resident was hospitalized on : a. 6/3/23 b. 6/19/23 c. 6/30/23 In an interview on 8/16/23 at 12:16 PM, the Administrator reported that she feels that the bed hold form signed by the resident at admission covers whether or not they want their bed held…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-08-21 · 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 2. The annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #52 had diagnoses of septicemia, diabetes, and right lower limb cellulitis. The MDS revealed the resident readmitted to the facility from the hospital on 6/2/23. The MDS documented the resident received antibiotics 6 of 7 days during the look-back period and received IV medication. Resident #52's Care Plan revised 6/26/23 revealed the resident at risk for COVID-19 related to multiple comorbidities. The goal included the resident will remain free of COVID-19 infection through the review target date 10/24/23. The Care Plan lacked information about the resident's current infection of septicemia and cellulitis, PICC line monitoring, care and use, and intravenous (IV) antibiotic use and monitoring. The hospital Discharge Documents dated 7/19/23 revealed an order for ceftriaxone (an antibiotic) 2 grams IV every 24 hours for discitis (inflammation and infection between the vertebra disc space). The Physician's Orders dated 7/5/23 revealed an order for the PICC…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-08-21 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to adhere to professional standards of quality for assessing and diagnosing a resident with a new order for an antipsychotic medication for 1 of 1 resident reviewed (#39). The facility identified a census of 87 residents. Findings include: On 8/15/23 1:05 PM, Resident #39's Electronic Health Record (EHR) included diagnoses of depression and anxiety but no other mental health diagnoses nor behavioral conditions that affected the resident's interpersonal interactions. On 5/1/23, a new diagnosis of Schizophrenia was added to the resident's EHR. The resident's transfer order details dated 5/19/22 revealed the resident did not have a Schizophrenia diagnosis nor a prescribed antipsychotic medication. A faxed response document dated 3/18/23 included a schizophrenia diagnosis and an antipsychotic medication order from the physician. The Progress Notes revealed the resident had two episodes of agitation; one in late March 2023 and another in early…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-08-21 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, and clinical record review the facility failed to provide proper positioning in a wheelchair of appropriate size for 1 of 1 resident reviewed (#53). The facility reported a census of 87. Findings include: Resident #53's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] included diagnoses of dementia without behavioral disturbances, hip fractures, other fractures and repeated falls. It also revealed the resident's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was not obtained due to the resident's severely limited cognitive function. The MDS documented the resident required extensive, two-person assistance with mobility, and transfers and was not ambulatory. The MDS documented the resident's balance with transfers as not steady and only able to stabilize with staff assistance. The MDS documented the resident had impaired range of motion on one side of her lower extremity and used a wheelchair. On 8/14/23 at 3:10 PM, observed Resident #53 at the nurses' station in a wheelchair, tilted back, 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 · D2023-08-21 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide necessary treatment to prevent developing avoidable pressure ulcers for 1 of 2 resident reviewed (Resident #25). The facility reported a census of 87. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 03 out of 15, indicating severely impaired cognition. The MDS documented the resident dependent on two persons for transfers and required extensive assist of two persons for bed mobility, dressing, toileting and hygiene. The MDS documented the resident had frequent urine incontinence and always incontinent of bowel. The MDS included diagnoses of atrial fibrillation, hypertension, diabetes, hip fracture, other fracture, dementia and seizure disorder. The MDS documented the resident had a weight loss of 5 percent or more in the last month or loss of 10 percent or more in the last six months. The MDS also revealed the resident had no pressure ulcers…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-08-21 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, observations, resident interview, family interview, staff interviews, and facility policy review the facility failed to prevent unsupervised falls and failed to provide transfers with appropriate number of staff for 3 of 3 (Resident #1, #9, and #72) residents reviewed. The facility reported a census of 87 residents. Findings include: 1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 11 out of 15 indicating moderately impaired cognition. The MDS further reveals diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, mild cognitive impairment, acquired absence of unspecified leg below the knee. The Incident Report dated 6/17/22 revealed Resident #9 was observed laying in the grass in the courtyard. Resident #9 stated that nobody was at the desk so she let herself out of the facility into the courtyard. The report further revealed that Resident #9 had got her wheelchair caught in the mud and tipped out of her wheelchair. The Progress Notes for the resident…
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 · D2023-08-21 · 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 observations, clinical record review, resident interviews and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure a resident was not catheterized unless clinically necessary, failed to receive appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections (UTI) when has a catheter and failed to provide incontinence care for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for catheters and incontinence (Resident #76 and #10). The facility reported a census of 87 residents. Findings include: 1. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #76 had no catheter and had bowel and bladder incontinence. The MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had diagnoses of overactive bladder and had an indwelling catheter. The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had diagnoses of urinary tract infection (UTI) in the past 30 days and an overactive bladder. The MDS documented the resident had an indwelling catheter. The Care Plan initiated 3/21/23 revealed the resident had an indwelling…
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 · D2023-08-21 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, facility policy review and staff interviews the facility failed to provide dialysis services consistent with professional standards by not completing a post dialysis assessment to 1 of 1 residents reviewed (Resident #84). The facility reported a census of 87 residents. Finding include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] for Resident #84 documented a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) of 8 out of 15 indicating no cognitive impairment. The MDS documented diagnosis of hypertensive heart and chronic kidney disease without heart failure with stage 5 chronic kidney disease or end stage renal disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus with other diabetic kidney complications, and end stage renal disease. The Care Plan for Resident #84 dated 8/1/23 documented the resident is at risk for complications of renal failure and required dialysis treatments. The care plan directed staff to monitor the access site for signs and symptoms of infection and bleeding, and to observe for edema,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-08-21 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY 3. The MDS dated [DATE] for Resident #191 revealed a BIMS of 13out of 15 indicating intact cognition. The MDS further revealed diagnosis of diabetes mellitus, hemiplegia affecting left nondominant side, and pulmonary fibrosis. Review of the MAR dated July 2023 revealed an order for PEG-3350/KCL SOL/Sodium drink 2L of solution by mouth beginning at 4 PM. The MAR further revealed an order for PEG-3350/KCL SOL/Sodium finish drinking the remaining 2L by mouth at 8PM. The MAR revealed both orders had been signed off as completed by Staff G. Interview 8/16/2023 at 6:10 PM with Resident #191's family member stated solution was still sitting on the nightstand when she entered the facility and Resident #191 was still drinking the solution on the way to the appointment on 7/28/2023. Observation 8/16/2023 at 6:22 PM of image sent by Resident #191's family revealed left over PEG-3350/KCL SOL/Sodium from a picture taken 7/28/2023. This image revealed approximately 1 quarter of the solution remaining in a gallon container.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-08-21 · 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, clinical record review, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), facility policy review, and staff interview the facility failed to perform hand hygiene during toileting and/or incontinence care for 2 of 8 residents reviewed (Resident #72 and #10). The facility reported a census of 87 residents. Findings include: 1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] for Resident #72 revealed a Brief Interview of Mental Status Score (BIMS) of 15 out of 15 which indicated intact cognition. The MDS revealed the resident had diagnoses of hereditary and idiopathic neuropathy (nerve damage that can cause weakness, numbness and pain, usually in the hands and feet), hip pain, and low back pain. The MDS revealed the resident required extensive assistance of 2 persons with transfers and toileting. Observation on 8/14/23 at 1:20 PM of Staff C, Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA), did not perform hand hygiene prior to putting on gloves, Staff C then pulled down the resident's slacks and disposable brief 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.
“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
$46,914 in federal fines across 3 penalties.
- $16,588 — penalty dated 2025-10-02
- $11,183 — penalty dated 2023-11-02
- $19,143 — penalty dated 2023-08-21
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| CARLON, DIANE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2024 |
| EILTS, SUSANNE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/13/2026 |
| GOODELL, ALICE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2024 |
| KRAUL-HENKEL, BECKY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/13/2026 |
| STEENSLAND, GREG | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/12/2025 |
| SWALWELL, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2024 |
| WORTHINGTON, SHARON | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/13/2026 |
| BISHOP, ANDREW | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2024 |
| GUSTAFSON, CHANDRA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/29/2023 |
| PFITZER, GENEVIEVE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/21/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 17 rows in the source record cover these 10 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.
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.
A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
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 IA
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 Iowa 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 165524. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-10-02, 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.