Harmony Davenport
815 East Locust Street, Davenport, IA 52803 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 88 certified beds · (563) 324-3276 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high number of inspection citations overall (29) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
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 | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 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 — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| 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 2 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 10.7% | 17.1% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.2% | 4.6% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 1.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 5.3% | 2.4% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.0% | 4.2% | 6.5% | better |
| 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 | 2.2% | 3.8% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 10.6% | 16.6% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 34.8% | 20.8% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 84.7% | 95.3% | 95.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 8.2% | 4.2% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 33.3% | 25.6% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 10.9% | 19.5% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.4% | 2.1% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 46.1% | 73.3% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 22.3% | 20.9% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 14.4% | 13.2% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.75 | 1.49 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.54 | 2.08 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
50.4% 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 27 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 68.0% 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 25 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 0.20 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 22% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 5% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 50.4%CMS range 32.5–67.9 | 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 | 10.3%CMS range 7.0–15.7 | 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 | 68.0% | 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 | 44.0% | 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 | 56.0% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 | 5.7% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.92 | 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 88 beds and averages 69.5 residents a day — about 79% occupied, or roughly 18 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 3.77 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.60 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.59 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 3.39 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.92 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.69 to 0.38 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 38% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
29 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 19 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · E2026-06-30 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — patternHonor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
What the surveyor found here — 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 and resident interviews, the facility failed to ensure that residents were able to choose sleeping and waking schedules per their preference for 4 residents (Resident #11, Resident #16, Resident #24 and Resident #25) when an intoxicated resident (Resident #8) frequently woke the residents during the night due his being loud and argumentative with staff. The facility reported a census of 71 residents.Findings include:Review of Resident 8's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment tool dated 5/28/26, revealed Resident #8 scored 7 out of 15 points possible on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS)score of 7 out of 15, indicating a severe cognitive impairment. The diagnoses list included alcohol dependence, tobacco dependence, alcohol abuse, and COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) with dependence on supplemental oxygen. The assessment indicated Resident #8 demonstrated verbal behaviors, other behaviors not directed towards others and rejected…
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 before2026-06-30 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, clinical record review, resident and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure resident safety by not storing smoking materials in a safe location for a resident using oxygen and ensuring a resident's feet are on the foot pedals during a wheelchair transport for 2 of 5 residents (Resident #6 and Resident #22) reviewed for safety. The facility reported a census of 71 residents.Findings include:1. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] identified Resident #6 as cognitively intact with a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 14 out of 15. The list of diagnoses included chronic diastolic congestive heart failure, multiple sclerosis and COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). The MDS identified Resident #6 required supervision/touch staff assistance with most activities of daily living and required oxygen therapy. Review of Resident #6's Care Plan revealed the following Focus areas: a. Resident is at risk for ineffective breathing.date Initiated: 5/9/25. Intervention…
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 before2026-04-06 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, clinical record review, facility policy review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to implement the infection control practices of hand hygiene and use of Enhanced Barrier Precautions during wound care treatment and the cleaning of a g-tube insertion site for 4 of 6 residents (Resident #1, Resident #2, Resident #5, Resident #64, and Resident #) reviewed for infection control. The facility reported census of 68 residents. Findings include:1. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident#2, dated 12/30/25 revealed a list of diagnoses which included diabetes mellitus, high blood pressure and schizophrenia. The MDS indicated the resident dependent for personal hygiene, bath/shower and transfers. The MDS cognitive assessment for Resident#2 showed short- and long-term memory problems and severely impaired decision daily decision making. Review of Resident #2 Care Plan, dated 3/17/26, revealed a Focus area to address at risk for alteration in skin integrity related…
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 · D2026-04-06 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, policy review and staff interview the facility failed to maintain accurate Advance Directive decisions for 1 of 16 residents reviewed (Resident #43). The facility reported a census of 68.Findings include:The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #43, dated [DATE], documented a Brief Interview for Metal Status (BIMS) score of 8 out of 15, which indicated a moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS listed diagnoses of coronary artery disease, Alzheimer's disease, and non-Alzheimer's dementia. Review of Physician Orders in the electronic health record (EHR) revealed a Full Code order dated [DATE].The Care Plan Report initiated on [DATE] included a Focus are to address Advance Directives. Facility staff are directed to:1. Document the advance directive on the Physician Orders sheet in the EMR system.2. Educate resident and or representative about their options addressing life sustain care.3. EMR chart to identify code status. Review of the paper chart for Resident #43, 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 · D2026-04-06 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
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, facility policy review, and resident and staff interview and facility policy review the facility failed to maintain a homelike environment due broken wall tiles in the shower room, stained and crumbling ceiling tiles in a resident's room, window curtains unable to be completely closed to provide privacy, and maintaining mouse traps in timely manner. The facility reported a census of 68 residents.Findings include: 1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #8 dated 4/24/26, listed diagnoses of anemia, high blood pressure, and arthritis. The MDS showed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11 out of 15, which indicated a moderate cognitive impairment. During an observation on 03/30/2026 at 2:07 PM, Resident #8 sat in his room, and reported having seen mice in his room every day. A black mouse trap, next to the resident's recliner, observed to contain a dead mouse. The trap remained in this condition when observed on 3/31/26 at 12:19 PM, on 4/1/26 at 12:16 PM, and 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.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-06 · tag F0628 — isolatedProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on clinical record review, facility record review and staff interview, the facility failed to notify the the Long-Term Care Ombudsman of a discharge for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #77) reviewed. The facility reported a census of 68 residents.Findings include:Review of the electronic health record (EHR) Clinical Census information for Resident #77 revealed an entry of STOP BILLING effective 1/24/26.A Progress Note dated 1/24/26 at 7:19 PM, documented Resident #77 discharged against medical advice (AMA). Review of the Action Summary report dated 3/30/26 did not list Resident #77 as discharged . Review of the Notice of Transfer From to Long Term Care Ombudsman did not list Resident #77's 1/24/26 discharge. During an interview on 4/2/26 at 12:17 PM, Staff B, Social Services reported Resident #77 had not been included on the Notice of Transfer From to Long Term Care Ombudsman as he did not appear on the Action Summary report. Staff B acknowledged Resident #77 left AMA on a weekend. During an interview on 4/2/26 at 12:29 PM, the Administrator stated it is her expectation the LTC…
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 · D2026-04-06 · tag F0640 — isolatedEncode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on clinical record review, staff interview and the 2025 Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) manual, the facility failed to transmit Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessments within the Federal Guidelines timeframe for 1 of 24 residents (Resident #31) reviewed. The facility reported a census of 68. Findings include:The discharge MDS of Resident #31 was dated for his discharge date of 11/25/25. The MDS was signed as completed on 12/9/25. The clinical record revealed that the MDS assessment was never transmitted to the Centers for Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) as required.On 4/1/26 at 9:07 am, the MDS Coordinator stated she would unlock the MDS and transmit it. She was not aware of why the assessment had not been transmitted. She stated she does run reports on missing assessments but Res #31 had not been included on any of the reports and she had not been aware the assessment had not been transmitted. She stated she would transmit the assessment immediately.On 4/1/26 at 10:54 am, the administrator stated, via email, that the facility does not have an MDS policy 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 · D2026-04-06 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
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 accurately list known mental health diagnoses on a Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review for 1 of 2 residents reviewed (Resident #15) for Pre-admission Screening and Resident Reviews. The facility reported a census of 68 residents. Findings include: Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #15, dated 1/10/26 revealed a list of diagnoses which included depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD-a mental health condition triggered by experiencing or witnessing terrifying events), and adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. The MDS identified 1/5/16 as the admission date to the facility.Review of the electronic health record (EHR) revealed Resident #15 had an initial admission to the facility on 9/27/25 for skilled care after a hospitalization. Resident #15 discharged to home on [DATE] with no expectation with return. Resident #15 had a new admission to the facility…
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 · D2026-04-06 · 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, family representative interview, resident and staff interviews the facility failed to develop comprehensive Care Plans for 3 of 8 residents (Resident #1, Resident #19, and Resident #30) reviewed for Care Plans. The facility reported a census of 68 residents.Findings include: 1. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) for Resident #1, dated 2/26/26 revealed diagnoses of diabetes mellitus, gastric reflex disease, and respiratory failure. The Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 indicated intact cognition. The MDS did not identify Resident #1 utilized a Gastric tube (G-tube) for medications or tube feedings. During an interview on 3/31/26 at 12:22 pm, Resident #1 stated the staff no longer use his feeding tube for medications or feedings.Review of Physician Orders revealed the following orders:a. Regular diet, Regular texture. Thin liquids consistency. Start date: 2/3/26.Review of the Care Plan for Resident #1, dated 11/26/25, revealed a Focus area to address Tube feeding related to dysphagia. Interventions included, in part:…
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 · D2026-04-06 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, clinical record review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to assist dependent residents with shaving, nail care and toothbrushing for 2 of 4 residents (Resident #6 and Resident #40) reviewed for activities of daily living. The facility reported a census of 68 residents.Findings include:1. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #6, dated 12/30/25, revealed a list of diagnoses which included diabetes mellitus (DM), and non-Alzheimer's dementia. The Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12 out of 15, indicated a moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS identified Resident #6 dependent for toileting, bathing and showering; and required substantial to maximal assistance for personal hygiene. During an observation on 03/31/2026 at 2:44 PM, Resident #6 sleeping in bed. His hair appeared greasy, fingernails long with a brown substance underneath the nail. Review of the Care Plan, dated 2/19/24, for Resident #6 revealed a Focus area which addressed ADL (activities of daily living) Resident requires assistance with ADL's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 19 citations
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-10-02 · 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 policy review, family representative and staff interviews, the facility failed to treat each resident with dignity and respect when a staff member made a resident condition statement in the presence of a family member for 1 of 9 resident records reviewed (Resident #7). The facility reported a census of 64 residents.Findings include:Review of the electronic health record (HER) revealed Resident #7's admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included pulmonary fibrosis, chronic respiratory failure with oxygen dependence, adult failure to thrive, peripheral vascular disease, diabetes and dementia, and hospice services in place. A Nursing Care Plan problem initiated 6/25/25, included a Focus area to address Resident has complaints of pain described as chronic > (greater than) 3 months, related to osteoarthritis, peripheral vascular disease and wounds. Interventions directed staff to, in part: a. Administer pain medication per physician orders, initiated…
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 before2025-06-25 · 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, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident with a history of poly substance overuse smoked safety when under the influence for 1 of 1 (Resident #1) residents reviewed for smoking safety. The facility reported a census of 70 residents. Findings include: Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment tool dated 4/10/25 revealed Resident #1 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A score of 14 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) indicated intact cognition. The MDS list of diagnoses included anxiety, asthma and respiratory failure. Review of the document Smoking Program assessed the following areas to determine if a resident is an unsafe smoker of cigarettes. Per the instructions the assessor to evaluate or observe the resident in the following areas. Any check will make the resident unsafe smoker using a cigarette: a. Unable to comprehend facility-smoking policy? b. Smokes in unauthorized areas? c. Careless with smoking materials?…
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 · F2025-03-20 · tag F0851 — widespreadElectronically submit to CMS complete and accurate direct care staffing information, based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on the Center of Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) Staffing Data Report (for October 1st to December 31, 2024) review, facility staffing assignments review and staff interview, the facility failed to submit accurate agency staffing data for the PBJ Staffing Data Report. The facility reported a census of 66 residents. Findings include: The PBJ reported for the first fiscal year (FY) 2025, triggered for Excessively Low Weekend Staffing. The Daily Nursing Staffing Schedule for 9/2024, showed a consistent number of staff from the week and the weekends. The Daily Nursing Staffing Schedule for 10/2024, showed a consistent number of staff from the week and the weekends. The Daily Nursing Staffing Schedule for 12/2024, showed a consistent number of staff from the week and the weekends. Review of the Audit for PBJ 10/2024 through 12/31/2024, revealed 20 agency staff not submitted to the BPJ. On 3/19/25 at 3:43 PM, the Administrator reported the data submission for the PBJ and staffing reports were completed by the corporate office. On 03/20/2025 at 8:45…
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 before2025-03-20 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to label and date opened food items in the refrigerator, freezer and dry storage areas in an effort to prevent foodborne illness. The facility reported a census of 66 residents. Findings Include: During the initial kitchen tour with Staff G, [NAME] on 3/16/25 at 10:10 AM, observations included: a. In the cooler, apple sauce, cheese, cabbage, and ranch dressing observed open. No label present or open date indicated. b. In the ice freezer, breadsticks, biscuits and slider rolls observed open. No label present or open date indicated. c. In the 3-door freezer, waffle fries and breaded fish fillets observed open. No label present or open date indicated. d. In the 2-door freezer, two packages of vegetables observed open. No label present or open date indicated. e. In the dry storage room, a box of fruit flavored cereal and bag of toasted flake cereal observed open. No label or open date indicated. When queried about storage of opened food items, Staff G stated food items that had been opened should have been…
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 · D2025-03-20 · 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, facility policy review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure urinary catheter bags and tubing placed off the floor to minimize the risk of urinary tract infections for 2 of 4 residents reviewed (Resident #37 and Resident #121) with indwelling catheters. The facility reported a census of 66 residents. Findings include: 1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 out of 15 for Resident #37, which indicated intact cognition. The MDS listed diagnoses included: neurogenic bladder (lose of control of bladder function due to nerve damage) and urinary tract infection. The MDS assessed Resident #37 dependent on staff for all activities of daily living with the exception of eating. The MDS indicated the resident had an indwelling urinary catheter. Review of the Care Plan, Date Initiated: 5/8/24 revealed a Focus area to address Resident requires the use of a indwelling catheter related to neurogenic…
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 before2025-03-20 · 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, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to utilize proper infection control methods during the change of a resident's colostomy bag/wafer (Resident #2) for one of one residents reviewed with a colostomy and during wound care for one of three residents reviewed for wound care (Resident #37) and failed to initiate and follow precautions for one of four residents reviewed for Enhanced Barrier Precautions (Resident #121). The facility reported a census of 66 residents. 1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] for Resident #2 revealed a diagnosis of paraplegia identified a colostomy. The Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was 15 that suggested an intact cognition. The Care Plan for Resident #2 directed staff to utilize Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) by wearing a gown and gloves while performing high-contact care activities such as colostomy care due to colonized multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO). A Physician Order, dated 1/19/25 for Resident #2 revealed a…
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 before2024-11-26 · 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
Based on observations, maintenance record review, resident and staff interviews the facility failed to provide dignified care to residents when the water temperature unpredictably changed from a comfortable temperature to a cold temperature for 6 of 6 resident reviewed for dignity. The facility reported a census of 66 residents. Findings include: During interview on 11/19/24 at 2:40 p.m., the facility Administrator stated she became aware shower water temperatures were not hot enough on 11/12/24 when a resident informed her of the concern. She contacted a local plumbing company at that time for service. The Administrator stated the plumbing company was on site the same day, and identified the 2nd floor central shower required a new cartridge. She stated the plumbing company returned on 11/15/24 and replaced the cartridge. On 11/20/24, the State Agency took water temperatures from the identified location with the following results: a. At 9:57 a.m., the 2nd floor central shower measured at 107.8 Fahrenheit (F). b. At 10:59 a.m., the 1st floor central shower measured at 109.7 F. c. At…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-11-26 · tag F0908 — failed to keep essential equipment working — patternKeep all essential equipment working safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, maintenance record review, and resident and staff interviews the facility failed to maintain essential equipment in acceptable operating condition to maintain water temperatures in resident showers between 110 degrees Fahrenheit (F) and 120 degrees F as required. The facility reported a census of 66 residents. Findings include: During interview on 11/19/24 at 2:40 p.m., the Administrator stated on 11/12/24 a resident informed her the shower water temperatures were not hot enough on 11/12/24. She stated she contacted local plumbing company A at that time for service. She stated the repair company was on site the same day. The plumber identified the central shower on the 2nd floor required a new cartridge. The cartridge was replaced on 11/15/24. The Administrator stated maintenance staff monitored water temperatures. She stated the facility had 1 boiler and 2 water heaters in use. During an interview on 11/20/24 at 11:34 a.m., Staff F, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) stated the facility had warm water today so they were able to do a few showers. During an…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-11-26 · 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 observations, clinical record review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to follow physician orders for wound care and positioning for 1 of 3 resident records reviewed for wound care (Resident #2). The facility reported a census of 66 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment tool dated 9/20/24, revealed Resident #2 diagnoses listed included osteomyelitis (infection of the bone) of the vertebra, sacral and sacrococcygeal region, hypertension (high blood pressure), peripheral vascular disease (restricted blood flow), paraplegia (paralysis of the lower body), and hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body). Resident #2's Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 15 out of 15 indicated intact cognition. The MDS assessed the resident dependent on staff to roll left and right, and for a chair/bed-to-chair transfer. The MDS indicated the resident at risk for developing pressure ulcers. The MDS identified Resident #2 with two Stage 4 pressure ulcers. A review of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-09-03 · 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
Based on observation, clinical record review, resident and staff interviews the facility failed to treat residents with dignity and respect, in full regard of the resident's stated needs and right to refuse a shower, for 1 of 8 resident's reviewed (Resident #5). The facility reported a census of 67 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment tool, dated 7/23/24, revealed Resident #5 scored 13 out of 15 points possible on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) Cognitive assessment, indicating intact cognition. Diagnoses listed on the MDS included: adult failure to thrive, anxiety, depression, and contractures in left hand, and feet. The resident required substantial/maximal staff assistance for personal hygiene, bathing and dressing the upper body, completely dependent on staff for dressing the lower body, toileting/hygiene, and unable to stand or ambulate. The MDS indicated the residents speech is clear, usually understood by others and usually understands others. A review of the Care Plan, dated 7/17/24, revealed a Focus Area to address 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 · E2024-05-23 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — patternProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, staff interviews and facility policy review the facility pharmacy failed to deliver medications ordered to the facility in a timely fashion for 4 out of 4 residents reviewed, (Resident #22, #30, #47, and #70). The facility reported a census of 70 residents. Findings included: 1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #7 included diagnoses of stroke, and hypercholesterolemia. The Medication Administration Record (MAR) for Resident #47 dated 4/25/24, lacked documentation of administration for the medication, ticagrelor (help prevent blood clot). The MAR directed to see Nurses Notes. The Medication Administration Nurses Note for Resident #47 dated 4/25/2024 at 11:03 PM reflected ticagrelor 90 mg unavailable. 2. The MDS for Resident #70 dated 4/27/24 reflected his admission date as 4/27/24. The MDS dated [DATE], listed diagnoses of coronary artery disease (CAD), high blood pressure, Alzheimer's disease, and psychotic disorder and post traumatic stress…
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 before2024-05-23 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, policy review and staff interview the facility failed to maintain a sanitary kitchen, ensure the disinfectant solution was within proper test range, label food appropriately for storage, wear hair restraints appropriately and dispose of expired food items. The facility identified a census of 70 residents. Findings include: 1. The initial tour of the kitchen on 5/20/24 at 10:10 AM revealed the following: a. The Vulcan stove backsplash and sides by griddle were 50% covered with black/brown residue, both handles to oven doors with sticky residue, doors on outside with scattered areas of brown and white residue. b. The floor to all areas of kitchen with debris. c. The Hoshizaki ice machine with dispenser. Housing units with white debris noted along seams. d. The [NAME] dishwasher with debris noted along seams of outer doors. e. At 10:18 AM, the Dietary Director filled a bucket with water and sanitizer and put test strip in it and it read zero. The Dietary Director had run chemical directly from…
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 before2024-05-23 · 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 observation, record review, resident and staff interview, the facility failed to obtain a physician order to obtain Lorazepam from the facility's Med Bank for one of six residents reviewed, (Resident #30). The facility reported a census of 70 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] identified Resident #30 with a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score of 15, intact cognitive status and had the following diagnoses: Atrial Fibrillation (an abnormal heart rhythm), Peripheral Vascular Disease, Anxiety Disorder and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. The MDS also identified Resident #30 required only set up or clean up assistance with most activities of daily living. In an interview on 5/20/24 at 11:08 AM, Resident #30 reported he had trouble getting his Lorazepam. When he had trouble breathing, he got anxious. When he no longer received hospice services, the nurses told him he could not get the Lorazepam until he saw the doctor tomorrow. He reported he was afraid 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 · Dcited before2024-05-23 · 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, record review, resident and staff interview, the facility failed to follow the care plan and transfer the resident with the use of the stand lift for one of one resident reviewed, (Resident #55). The facility reported a census of 70 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] identified Resident #55 as cognitively intact with a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score of 15 and had the following diagnoses: Diabetes Mellitus, Multiple Sclerosis and Depression. The MDS also identified Resident #55 was totally dependent on staff for all transfers. On 3/21/24, the Care Plan identified Resident #55 required assistance with ADL's (Activities of Daily Living) related to immobility, Multiple Sclerosis with impaired range of motion and directed staff to transfer with the stand lift. A review of the Progress Notes dated 3/29/24 at 3:32 PM had documentation of the following: Was informed by staff that resident had fallen and was on the floor. Upon entering 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 · D2024-05-23 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolatedEnsure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, policy review, and staff interview the facility failed to date feeding tube equipment, flush for patency with the correct water amount, and confirm correct settings on a feeding tube pump in order to follow physician orders for 1 of 1 resident reviewed, (Resident #4). The facility reported a census of 70 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] for Resident #4 identified the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15/15, indicating no cognitive impairment. The MDS reported diagnoses including: sarcoidosis of the lung (lung cancer), paraplegia (inability to voluntarily move lower parts of the body), and pneumonia. The Care Plan updated 2/2/24 documented the resident's risk for altered nutritional status related to his inability to eat or drink by mouth, and a PEG tube (feeding tube directly into the stomach) due to dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). It instructed staff to provide nutrition through the PEG tube. The Physician…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-02-29 · 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, staff interviews and facility policy review, the facility failed to follow accepted practices for enteral (feeding tube formula bags) feeding supplies, and to follow a Physician's Order to continue clopidogrel (Plavix, the brand name of the medication. The medication purpose is to keep platelets from sticking together) for 1 of 3 residents in the sample (Resident #1). The facility reported a census of 66 residents. Findings Include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment Tool, dated 2/14/24, listed diagnosis for Resident #1 included hemiplegia (one sided paralysis) following a stroke affecting the right dominant side, dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), and aphasia (difficulty with communication). The MDS listed the resident's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score as 8 out of 15, indicating severely impaired cognition. A review of Hospital Discharge Records, dated 2/7/24, indicated during the hospitalization Resident #1 had a Foley catheter inserted, and developed hematuria (blood in urine). During the hospitalization, a consulting Urologist…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-19 · tag F0623 — isolatedProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, staff interviews and policy review the facility failed to notify the Resident Representative/Emergency Contact of a hospital transfer for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for transfers out of the facility (Resident #3). The facility reported a census of 72 residents. Findings Include: Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #3 revealed the resident discharged to the hospital on 1/17/24. A readmission MDS dated [DATE] documented the resident re-admitted back to the facility The Care Plan initiated 4/5/23 documented Resident #3 with altered cardiovascular status, heart disease, congested heart failure and history of cerebral vascular accident (stroke). The Notice of Transfer Report to the Ombudsman for January 2024 identified resident #3 transferred for hospitalization on 1/17/2024. The Progress Note dated 1/17/24 at 5:49 PM, documented Resident #3's family notified via phone call by Staff A, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), regarding the transfer to 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 · D2024-02-19 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, staff and resident interviews, and Dietician Job Description review, the facility failed to ensure Registered Dietician (RD) involvement for consultation, education, Care Plan updates for nutritional interventions to address protein needs and nutritional deficits for promotion of chronic wound healing of 1 of 3 residents reviewed (Resident #1). In addition, the Dietician lacked participation of expectations in Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) meetings. The facility reported a census of 72. Findings Include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for resident #1 included diagnoses of paraplegia and malnutrition. The MDS revealed 3 pressure ulcers and coded for protein and/or calorie malnutrition, risk for malnutrition. A Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) Assessment scored 15 out of 15 indicating no cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #1's Care Plan revealed the following Focus Areas: a. A Focus Area initiated on 1/14/24 encourage good…
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 before2023-08-24 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — patternEnsure 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 observation, clinical record review, staff interviews and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide services that met professional standards regarding medication administration, weight documentation, catheter care documentation and wound treatment completion for 4 of 12 residents observed (Residents #2, #6, #15, and #16). The facility reported a census of 53 residents Finding Include: 1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] identified Resident #2 as moderately cognitively impaired with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11 out of 15 points. The MDS also identified Resident #2 with the following diagnoses: Type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy, heart failure and hypertension (high blood pressure). The MDS documented Resident #2 required extensive staff assistance with most activities of daily living. On 7/3/23, the Care Plan identified Resident #2 with the problem of cardiovascular dysfunction related to hypertension and failed to include the Physician 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.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to LEGACY HEALTHCARE — 89 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 2 of 5 | 2.9 | -0.9 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.8 | -0.8 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
The other 88 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.9★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 88; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DOROS GENERATION TRUST U/A/D 1/3/12 | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 26% | since 04/01/2023 |
| GPN FAMILY TRUST U/A/D 4/28/08 | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 60% | since 04/01/2023 |
| OAKWAY OPERATIONS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 15% | since 04/01/2023 |
| ARNOLD, RACHEL | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 10/12/2023 |
| SHABAT, MENACHEM | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 04/01/2023 |
| LEGACY HEALTHCARE FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 04/01/2023 |
4 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $283K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
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 165033. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-06, 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.