Parkview Care Center
2237 Highway 34, Fairfield, IA 52556 · For profit - Individual · 70 certified beds · (641) 472-5022 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (29% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Feb 2024
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- a high number of inspection citations overall (32) — 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)
- its payroll-based staffing 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 | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 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 |
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 | 16.1% | 17.1% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.1% | 4.6% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.0% | 1.5% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.7% | 2.4% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 5.1% | 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 | 4.3% | 3.8% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 8.3% | 16.6% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 13.8% | 20.8% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.0% | 4.2% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 29.8% | 25.6% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 19.7% | 19.5% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 2.1% | 1.4% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.61 | 1.49 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.36 | 2.08 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ 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.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.04 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 1% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 3% 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 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 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 70 beds and averages 45.7 residents a day — about 65% occupied, or roughly 24 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.43 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.92 on weekdays — 12% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.82 to 0.49 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 29% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
32 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 21 are one tap away and print in full.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2024-04-22 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on facility record review, staff interviews, and hospital record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were appropriately assessed and provided interventions to maintain their optimal health and well being for 1 of 3 residents reviewed (Resident #1). The facility reported census was 44 residents. Findings include: According to a Minimum Data Set (MDS) with a reference date of 2/16/24, Resident #1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 out of 15 indicating an intact cognitive status. Resident #1 had been independent with ADL's, but following a fall with fracture, was dependent on staff with transfers (Hoyer), mobility (W/C), dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene needs. Resident #1's diagnoses included fracture right femur, myopia. A Progress Note dated 3/29/24 found Resident #1 returned from the hospital following a fall and fractured right femur. Resident #1 was placed on an opioid for pain control, and according to the VS.weight.BM document, had no recorded bowel movements since her return through 4/2/24. A Progress Note written by Staff 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 before2025-10-09 · tag F0925 — failed to control pests — patternMake sure there is a pest control program to prevent/deal with mice, insects, or other pests.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain an environment that was free from pests (houseflies) in resident rooms and the dining area. The facility reported a census of 48 residents. Findings include: 1. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated Aug. 15, 2025, revealed Resident #15 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13 out of 15, which indicated intact cognition.During an interview on Oct. 8, 2025 at 10:36 AM, Resident #15's door was observed to be shut with a bed pad placed under the crack of the door, when queried why bed pad was placed under door, Resident #15 stated it was to keep the flies out of his room. Resident #15 reported having trouble with flies in his room through the summer months. 2. Review of the MDS Assessment, dated July 18, 2025, revealed Resident #16 had a BIMS score of 13 out of 15, which indicated intact cognition.During an interview on Oct. 8, 2025 at 10:55 AM, Resident #16 reported that she would see a fly every once and a while in her room, when asked about fly swatter observed 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 · E2025-07-03 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — patternEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, staff interviews, and the facility policy, the facility failed to follow the menu for 1 of 1 meals observed and 2 of 2 residents sampled for a therapeutic diet (Resident #21 and Resident #36). The facility reported a census of 49 residents.Findings include: 1. Review of the facility Spring/Summer 2025 Menu Week 1 revealed the following menu for Tuesday, July 1, 2025: a. Lemon chicken b. Garlic parmesan pastac. Roasted caesar vegetable [a substitute of California mix (generally a mixture of broccoli, cauliflower and carrots) made]d. Garlic toast e. Sugar cookie barsDuring an observation of the puree process on 7/1/25 at 10:47 a.m., Staff E, Dietary Cook/Aide did not prepare the puree garlic toast menu item. During an observation 7/1/25 at 11:50 a.m., the lunch meal service started. Staff E prepared plates for the residents. No garlic toast served with the prepared plates throughout the lunch meal service. During an interview on 7/1/25 12:41 a.m., Dietary Manager confirmed no bread served and stated garlic bread was supposed to have been served.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-07-03 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — patternEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
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 interviews, and the facility policy, the facility failed to provide a palatable vegetable for 1 of 1 meal observed. The facility reported a census of 49 residents. Findings include:1. The Facility Spring/Summer 2025 Menu Week 1 revealed the following menu for Tuesday, July 1, 2025::a. Lemon chicken b. Garlic parmesan pastac. Roasted caesar vegetable [a substitute of California mix (generally a mixture of broccoli, cauliflower and carrots) made]d. Garlic toaste. Sugar cookie [NAME] 7/1/25 at 12:52 p.m., the State Agency received and tasted a lunch tray with the above menu items. The California mix sampled contained mostly broccoli pieces. The broccoli pieces were soft and mushy, and tasted and smelled like black pepper. During an interview on 7/2/25 at 8:28 a.m., Staff E, Dietary Aide/Cook queried if she followed a recipe for the menus stated she followed the recipes. Staff E stated the vegetable was a California mix. Staff E queried if the California mix…
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 before2025-07-03 · 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, facility policy review and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain a sanitary kitchen which included safe refrigerator temperatures, consist daily refrigerator temperature check documentation, target sanitization levels in the dishwasher, staff hand hygiene practices, and clean deep freeze equipment. The facility reported the census of 49 residents. Findings include:Review of the June 2025 Refrigerator Logs revealed temperatures logged during the evening shift on 6/25/25; 6/27/25; 6/28/25; 6/29/25; and 6/30/25. Review of the June 2025 Refrigerator Log for Refrigerator #2 revealed the following temperature documented during the evening shift: a. 6/25/25: 48 degrees Fahrenheit (F).b. 6/27/25: 48 degrees F.c. 6/28/25: 48 degrees F.d. 6/29/25: 48 degrees F.e. 6/30/25: 47 degrees F.During the initial kitchen observation on 6/30/25 at 10:18 a.m., the white deep freeze had a large amount of ice buildup along the inside of the freezer walls. During the initial kitchen observation on 6/30/25 at 10:38 a.m., the temperature logs on the refrigerator had a total…
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 · D2025-07-03 · 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
Based on clinical record review, facility policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure resident code status were clear and consistent in the electronic health record as compared to the documentation kept in binder at the nurses desk for 1 of 24 residents (Resident #33) reviewed for advance directives. The facility reported a census of 49 residents. Findings include:The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment tool, dated 5/2/25, listed diagnoses for Resident #33 which included non-Alzheimer's dementia, anxiety disorder, and depression and listed her Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score as 0 out of 15, indicating severely impaired cognition. The facility Resuscitation Policy, effective 8/17/17, stated the facility would maintain each resident's resuscitation status in the clinical record. On 7/1/25 at 12:50 p.m., a review of Resident #33's Iowa Physician Order for Scope of Treatment, dated 1/20/23 and scanned in the electronic health record (EHR), revealed the resident was a Full Code. The resident's IPOST, dated 9/24/24, located in a book at the nursing…
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 before2025-07-03 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on clinical record review, facility policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to notify the physician of a weight gain for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for nutrition (Resident #24). The facility reported a census of 49 residents.Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment tool, dated 5/30/25, listed diagnoses for Resident #24 which included edema (swelling), non-Alzheimer's dementia, and major depressive disorder. The MDS listed the resident's cognition as severely impaired. A 9/4/24 Care Plan entry stated the resident would maintain a healthy weight. Review of Resident #24's Weight Report listed the following weights:a. 5/1/25 a weight of 158 lbs. (pounds)b. 6/26/25 180 lbs., a gain of 22 lbs. or 13.92 percent.A 5/26/25 Quarterly Nutritional Assessment stated the resident had a weight gain and recommended a reduction of the resident's supplement to 60 milliliters (ml) once daily. The facility lacked documentation of provider notification of the resident's additional weight gain from 5/26/25 until 6/26/25. On 7/3/25 at 9:27 a.m. Staff D Registered Nurse…
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 · D2025-07-03 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — isolatedProvide activities to meet all resident's needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, clinical record review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide an ongoing program of activities for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for activities (Resident #24). The facility reported a census of 49 residents.Findings include:The annual Minimum Data Set(MDS) assessment tool, dated 11/29/25, listed diagnoses for Resident #24 which included edema (swelling), non-Alzheimer's dementia, and major depressive disorder. The MDS listed the resident's cognition as severely impaired and stated the resident preferred the following activities: listening to music and spending time outdoors. Review of the Care Plan, dated 3/3/22, revealed the resident was at ease in joining other residents in activities. The Care Plan identified the resident enjoyed Jewish singing and visiting with friends from the meditating community. The facility Activity Services Policy, revised 7/13/23, stated the facility would plan activities based on resident interests, abilities, and needs. The facility designed activities to promote physical, mental, and social well-being. 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 before2025-07-03 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, clinical record review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure medications and chemicals were secured and not accessible to 10 of 10 (which included Resident #11) cognitively impaired and independently mobile residents on the memory care unit. The facility reported a census of 49 residents. Findings include:1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], listed diagnoses for Resident #11 which included obesity, prediabetes, and a moderate intellectual disability The MDS stated the resident was independent with walking and listed her cognition as severely impaired. Review of the Care Plan, dated 10/24/24, revealed Resident #11 had cognitive loss and dementia and impaired decision making. The Care Plan directed staff to determine if her decisions would endanger her or others. The Care Plan documented the resident felt the need to touch different things and directed staff to allow this when safe to do so. During an observation on 6/30/25 at 1:47 p.m., while in the day…
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 before2025-07-03 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to offer an annual influenza vaccine for 2 of 5 residents (Residents #11 and #24) reviewed for immunization. The facility reported a census of 49 residents.Findings include:1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], listed diagnoses for Resident #11 which included obesity, prediabetes, and moderate intellectual disabilities and listed her cognition as severely impaired. An untitled document, dated 3/13/24, documented that the Resident #24's resident representative consented to an influenza vaccine. The facility lacked documentation the resident received an influenza vaccine during the 2024-2025 flu season. 2. The MDS assessment tool, dated 5/30/25, listed diagnoses for Resident #24 which included edema (swelling), non-Alzheimer's dementia, and major depressive disorder. The MDS listed the resident's cognition as severely impaired. An untitled document, dated 3/13/24, documented that the Resident #24's 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 · D2024-08-15 · 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 and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure a residents clothing fit properly and in good repair as to provide personal privacy while in common areas of the facility for 1 of 12 (Resident #6) residents reviewed. The facility reported a census of 47 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Sample (MDS), dated [DATE], for Resident # 6 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 5 out of 15, indicating severely impaired cognition. The MDS listed diagnoses included: non-Alzheimer's dementia, anxiety disorder, and depression. During an observation on 8/13/24 at 12:21 PM, Resident # 6 used his wheelchair to propel the hallway near his room. Resident #6 had a tear in his pants from his groin to his knee, with an adult incontinence brief visible through the tear. During an interview on 08/15/24 at 09:39 AM, Resident # 6 stated his clothes do not fit properly, most of them are torn, and need to be thrown out. During an interview 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.
Show the remaining 21 citations
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-15 · tag F0801 — isolatedEmploy sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service, including a qualified dietician.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on document review, and staff interviews the facility failed to employ a Certified Dietary Manager to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service. The facility reported a census of 47 residents. Findings include: During an interview on 08/13/24 at 11:00 AM, the Dietary Supervisor stated she did not have education and training completed to be a Certified Dietary Manager. She stated she enrolled and began the class to be certified over a year ago but had not completeted the course work. A review of the Dietary schedule for July 21, 2024 to August 3, 2024 revealed the Dietary Supervisor scheduled to work: 7/21/24, 7/23/24, 7/24/24, 7/28/24, 7/29/24, 7/30/24, and 8/3/24. During an interview on 08/13/24 at 3:30 PM, the Administrator confirmed the facility did not employ a Certified Dietary Manager but had her enrolled in the program to become a Certified Dietary Manager.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-04-22 · tag F0925 — failed to control pests — widespreadMake sure there is a pest control program to prevent/deal with mice, insects, or other pests.
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 and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide an effective rodent control program within the facility. The facility reported census was 44 residents. Findings include: In an interview on 4/18/24 at 10:40 a.m. Staff N, Housekeeper, stated she has worked at the facility for three months and during that time mouse infestation has been an on-going issue. Staff N stated she had observed multiple mice in resident rooms and frequently sees droppings when sweeping. Staff N stated just today she swept up mouse droppings in room [ROOM NUMBER] on B-hall. Staff N stated they are to check the glue traps daily, but noted it had been so bad the mice are chewing on the traps and don't seem to be sticking to the glue. Staff N stated the residents in room [ROOM NUMBER] and 113 on B-hall have both complained about seeing mice in their room. Staff N stated she heard an aide, Staff M, witnessed seeing a mouse on the lap of a resident in room [ROOM NUMBER] on B-hall. In an interview on 4/18/24 at 1:30 p.m.…
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 · F2024-02-19 · 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
Based on the clinical record review, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to implement a Legion Water Management Program. The facility reported a census of 47 residents. Findings include: During an interview on 2/13/24 at 10:24 AM, Staff Q, Maintenance queried on documentation for water temperatures and he stated the water heaters only went up to 110 degrees. Staff Q stated he only visualized the temperatures and never documented them. When asked Staff Q what he did for Legion, he stated no one spoke to him about Legion. Staff Q stated he received a policy from another facility a couple of days ago. When asked Staff Q what he did when rooms vacant, he stated he checked them out before someone moved into them. The Legion Map Surveillance (no date identified) revealed the following information: a. where the water located b. the direction of the water flow c. where the water heaters located The Legion Map Surveillance lacked documentation of where showerheads, hoses, fountains, and filters located. The facility lacked documentation for locations of possible…
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 before2024-02-19 · 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, policy review, and staff interviews the facility failed to prepare foods under sanitary conditions for 1 of 2 days of kitchen observation. The facility reported a census of 47 residents. Findings include: On 2/13/24 at 11:15 AM observed Staff F, Dietary, put her hand in her left pocket and take out a pen and a marker while wearing a serving glove. She wrote on the foil covering a pan of hot food. Still wearing the glove, Staff F placed the marker back in her left pocket. She then picked up a pan of rice with her gloved hand and her bare right hand. She opened the oven with her bare right hand and placed the pan in the oven. She picked up another pan her gloved hand and opened a drawer with her her right hand. Staff F then picked up cooked chicken pieces with the same glove and put them in another pan. She covered the pan with foil and carried it to the stove. Staff F then threw the glove away and used hand sanitizer. She then put her hand back in her pocket and took out a marker which she used to label more tinfoil. She put her left hand back in her pocket…
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 before2024-02-19 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — patternDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on clinical record review, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to offer the influenza vaccine annually to 2 out of 5 residents reviewed; and failed to offer the pneumococcal vaccine at recommended times to 4 out of 5 residents reviewed for influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations (Resident #1, #2, #4, #24). The facility reported a census of 47 residents. Findings include: 1. The Preventative Health Care Report revealed the following information for Resident #4: a. pneumococcal vaccine administered 9/4/20 from an outside source. The Iowa Registry Immunization Record revealed resident received the Pneumococcal 23 on 9/4/20. The IRIS revealed 1 of 2 dose series. The facility lacked documentation of consent or declination forms for Resident #4 for the pneumococcal vaccine. 2. The Preventative Health Care Report revealed the following information for Resident #2: a. Influenza administered on 11/8/22 The facility consent form for influenza and pneumococcal signed on 11/8/22 by Resident #2 revealed resident consented for influenza and pneumococcal…
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 F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — isolatedHonor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, clinical record review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to honor a resident's food and beverage preferences for 1 of 16 residents reviewed during dining services (Resident #1). The facility reported a census of 47 residents. Findings include: The facility policy Resident Food Preferences, revised July 2017, stated individual food preferences would be assessed upon admission and communicated to the interdisciplinary team and the Food Services Department would offer a variety of foods at each scheduled meal. The Care Plan approach dated 1/27/22 directed staff to encourage fluids throughout the day. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment tool, dated 11/24/23, listed diagnoses for Resident #1 which included cerebrovascular accident(stroke), schizophrenia, and hypertension(high blood pressure). The MDS stated the resident was independent with eating and listed her Brief Interview for Mental Status(BIMS) score as 5 out of 15, indicating severely impaired cognition. On 2/13/24 at 8:30 a.m., observed the resident sitting at the breakfast table…
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 before2024-02-19 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, clinical record review, staff interviews, and policy review the facility failed to notify a resident's responsible party and hospice provider in a timely manner when an injury occurred for 1 of 3 residents reviewed (Resident #46) for notification. The facility reported a census of 47 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) for Resident #46 dated 1/5/24 indicated a significant change related to a decline in health and the start of hospice care. It included diagnoses of heart failure, post traumatic stress disorder, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The Brief Interview for Mental Status documented a score of 7 which indicated severe cognitive impairment. The Care Plan with a care conference date of 12/7/23 documented impaired decision making and a history of falling related to dementia with a hospice consult on 12/28/23. On 2/12/24 at 1:07 PM observed the resident finished meeting with a hospice provider and laying in bed. Resident #46 stated his knee hurt. He pulled up the bottom of his covers and pant leg to show an open wound about 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 F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on clinical record review, policy review, facility document review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from physical abuse for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for abuse (Resident #38). The facility reported a census of 47 residents. Findings include: The facility policy Abuse, revised 8/31/16, stated the facility would not permit residents to be subjected to abuse by any person and defined abuse to include willful infliction of injury. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment tool, dated 12/1/23, listed diagnoses for Resident #38 which included hypertension, depression, and hyperlipidemia (a high level of fat in the blood). The MDS stated the resident required partial to moderate assistance for bathing, dressing, and personal hygiene. The MDS stated the resident had physical behavioral symptoms directed toward others such as hitting and kicking 4-6 days during the 7 day review period and displayed rejection of care daily. The MDS listed the resident's cognition as severely impaired. Care Plan entries, dated 12/7/23, documented the resident often…
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 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to complete Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments on time for 3 of 14 residents reviewed for MDS assessments (Resident #2, #29, and #41). The facility reported a census of 47 residents. Findings include: 1. The MDS Quarterly assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #2 revealed an assigned Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 8/18/23 and the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation (OBRA) ARD date of 8/12/23, with a completion due date of 9/1/23. The record review revealed the MDS assessment had not been submitted as of 2/15/24. During an interview on 2/15/24 at 9:08 AM, the MDS Coordinator queried on Resident #2 MDS assessment dated [DATE] and she stated she didn't do that assessment and someone started the assessment but didn't finish it. The MDS Coordinator stated her expectation for MDS assessments is to be completed within 14 days from the 8/18/23 date. During an interview on 2/15/24 at 12:40 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON)…
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 F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment for a resident's (Preadmission Screening and Record Review) Level II PASRR for 1 of 3 residents reviewed (Resident #4). The facility reported a census of 47 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #4 scored a 8 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) exam, which indicated cognition moderately impaired. The Annual MDS dated [DATE] revealed the resident wasn't currently considered by the state level II PASRR process to have serious mental illness and/or intellectual disability or a related condition. The record review revealed Resident #4 Level II PASRR completed on 9/22/22. During an interview on 2/15/24 at 9:08 AM, the MDS Coordinator queried on Resident #4 MDS dated [DATE] and she confirmed the MDS needed coded to reflect the resident currently considered a PASRR Level II. 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 · D2024-02-19 · 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 and staff interviews the facility failed to submit a Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) related to a new diagnosis for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for PASRR level II screening (Resident #41). The facility reported a census of 47 residents. Findings include: A Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #41, dated 9/22/23, documented a diagnosis of non-Alzheimer's dementia and did not include any psychiatric/mood disorders. The MDS assessment dated [DATE] for the resident documented diagnoses of Parkinson's disease and unspecified dementia of unspecified severity without behavioral disturbance. It did not include any psychiatric/mood disorders. The MDS assessment dated [DATE] documented diagnoses of non-Alzheimer's dementia, Parkinson's disease, and psychotic disorder other than schizophrenia. The PASRR dated 10/11/23 indicated the outcome was Level 1 negative, no status change. It documented no mental health diagnosis was known or suspected, and no known mental…
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 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 clinical record review, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to revise the care plan for a resident with a significant weight loss and an opioid pain medication and didn't address an antipsychotic with a new diagnosis for 2 of 14 residents reviewed for care plans (Residents #34 and #41). The facility reported a census of 47 residents. Findings include: 1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #34 scored a 8 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) exam, which indicated cognition moderately impaired. The MDS revealed diagnosis of fracture of unspecified part of neck of left femur, subsequent encounter. The MDS revealed the resident received an opioid. The Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed the following diagnosis: a. pain, unspecified b. fracture of unspecified part of left femur, subsequent encounter for closed fracture with routine healing. The Physician Orders revealed the following orders: a. Fentanyl patch 72 hour 12…
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 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, staff interviews, clinical record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to use professional standards by not cleaning the rubber seal of an insulin pen with an alcohol pad or priming the insulin pen prior to administration for 1 of 2 residents observed for insulin administration (Resident #7). The facility reported a census of 47 residents. Finding include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #7 scored a 7 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) exam, which indicated cognition severely impaired. The MDS revealed the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus and the resident received insulin injections 7 out of 7 days. The Care Plan revealed a focus area revised on 10/19/23 for diabetes mellitus. The Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed the following diagnosis: a. diabetes mellitus due to underlying condition with hyperosmolarity without nonketotic hyperglycemic-hyperosmolar coma The Physician Orders revealed 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 · D2024-02-19 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, clinical record review, policy review, resident interview and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide incontinence care for 1 resident (Resident #1) and nail care for 1 resident (Resident #28) for 6 residents reviewed for assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs). The facility reported a census of 47 residents. Findings include: 1. The facility policy Perineal Care, revised February 2018, stated the purpose of perineal care, to provide cleanliness and comfort to the resident, to prevent infections and skin irritation, and to observe the resident's skin condition. The Care Plan focus dated 1/27/22 stated Resident #1 had bladder incontinence related to decreased mobility and wore briefs. The Care Plan directed staff to provide incontinence care after each incontinent episode. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment tool, dated 11/24/23, listed diagnoses for Resident #1 which included cerebrovascular accident (stoke), schizophrenia, and hypertension (high blood pressure). 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 before2024-02-19 · 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, clinical record review, policy review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to regularly assess a wound and notify the provider of changes in the wound, and failed to intervene in a timely manner after a critical lab result for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for a change in condition (Resident #21). The facility reported a census of 47 residents. Findings: The facility policy Wound Care, revised October 2010, stated the policy provided guidelines for the care of wounds to promote healing and stated the resident's record should include characteristics such as the wound color, size, and drainage. The facility policy Change in a Resident's Condition or Status, revised May 2017, stated the facility would promptly notify the physician of changes in the resident's medial condition. A 6/30/22 Care Plan entry stated staff would assess the resident's skin on shower days with quarterly assessment, and as needed. The entries directed staff to report any reddened or compromised areas to nursing. 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 · Dcited before2024-02-19 · 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, interviews, and the facility policy review, the facility failed to supervise a resident in their room while they sat in a shower chair which resulted in a fall from the shower chair for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for falls (Resident #2). The facility reported a census of 47 residents. Finding include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #2 scored a 15 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status exam, which indicated cognition intact. The MDS revealed impairment of both sides of the lower extremities and resident used a wheelchair. The MDS revealed the resident dependent with toileting hygiene and while transferred from chair/bed to chair. The MDS revealed resident needed substantial/maximal assistance with shower and bathing. The MDS revealed a diagnosis of traumatic brain dysfunction. The Care Plan revealed a focus area dated 12/4/23 for a history of falling related to weakness and needed assistance with transfers. The interventions…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · 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 observations, clinical record review, staff interviews, and facility policy review the facility failed to address a resident weight loss in a timely manner and offer different options at meal times to encourage adequate nourishment for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for weight loss (Resident #34). The facility reported a census of 47 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #34 scored a 8 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) exam, which indicated cognition moderately impaired. The Care Plan revealed a focus area for a therapeutic regular mechanical soft diet dated 9/19/23. The interventions dated 9/19/23 revealed the resident provided with as much control as possible in routine and food preferences. The Record Review revealed the following information for weight loss: a. On 10/26/2023, the resident weighed 112 lbs. On 12/06/2023, the resident weighed 105 pounds which is a -6.25 % Loss. b. On 12/06/2023, the resident weighed 105…
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 F0712 — isolatedEnsure that the resident and his/her doctor meet face-to-face at all required visits.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on clinical record review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident was seen by a physician every 60 days for 1 of 14 residents reviewed for physician's visits (Resident #45). The facility reported a census of 47 residents. Findings include: The facility policy Attending Physician Responsibilities revised August 2014, stated the physician would see resident every 60 days. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment tool, dated 12/15/23, listed diagnoses for Resident #45 which included non-Alzheimer's dementia, tachycardia (fast heart beat), and pain and listed the resident's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score as 7 out of 15, indicating severely impaired cognition. Review of the resident's clinical record revealed a lack of documentation of a provider visit from May 2023 to 2/14/24. On 2/14/24 at 11:23 a.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) stated she called the clinic and the provider did not see the resident since May of 2023. The DON stated the frequency should be every 60 days and the provider would see the resident tonight. On 2/19/24…
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 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, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to administer a Risperidone injection when ordered, which resulted in a behavioral change with the resident for 1 of 8 residents reviewed for medication administration (Resident #4). The facility reported a census of 47 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #4 scored a 9 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) exam, which indicated cognition moderately impaired. The MDS revealed diagnoses of anxiety disorder, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia. The MDS revealed the resident received antianxiety, antidepressant, and antipsychotic medications. The Care Plan revealed a focus area dated 3/28/22 and revised on 9/21/23 for resident took Buspar, Mirtazapine, Risperdal Consta, Zoloft, Wellbutrin related to the diagnoses of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. The interventions dated 3/28/22 revealed to monitor for any behaviors, and monitor for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-19 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to keep medication carts locked when not in use and staff not around the medication cart and not keeping medication storage rooms keys kept on their persons for 1 of 2 medication carts and 1 of 2 medication storage rooms reviewed. The facility reported a census of 47 residents. Findings include: During an observation on 2/14/24 at 1:48 PM, the medication cart in Hallway A left unlocked and no nurse or residents around the cart. The cart located behind the nurse's desk. A set of keys placed in the medication storage room doorknob. During an observation on 2/14/24 at 1:49 PM, a resident came up in front of the nurse's desk and picked up the cordless phone and made a phone call and walked away. During an observation on 2/14/24 at 1:50 PM, a CNA (Certified Nurse Aide) went behind the nurse's desk and went to the bathroom and walked by the medication cart and didn't lock it. During an observation on 2/14/24 at 1:53 PM, the DON (Director of Nursing) walked behind the nurse's desk and walked by 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 F0887 — isolatedEducate residents and staff on COVID-19 vaccination, offer the COVID-19 vaccine to eligible residents and staff after education, and properly document each resident and staff member's vaccination status.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on the clinical record review, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to offer the COVID (Coronavirus disease) booster vaccination to 2 out 5 residents reviewed for COVID-19 vaccinations (Resident #2 and #4). The facility reported a census of 47 residents. Findings include: 1. The Preventative Health Care Report revealed the following information for Resident #2: a. COVID vaccine administered on 11/18/22 The facility lacked documentation of the COVID booster vaccine been offered to Resident #2 in 2023. 2. The Preventative Health Care Report revealed the following information for Resident #4: a. COVID vaccine administered on 11/18/22 The facility lacked documentation of the COVID booster vaccine been offered to Resident #4 in 2023. During an interview on 2/14/24 at 2:10 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) queried on how they track vaccines and she stated they received a report from IRIS. When asked the DON how often they offered the COVID booster/vaccine, she stated the pharmacy came down and administered them, they sent a sheet out and 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.
“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 OSBYCORP — 2 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes:
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 1 of 5 | 2.0 | -1.0 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.0 | ≈ chain avg |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 2.5 | -1.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 4.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
The other 1 home this chain runs (chain average 2.0★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OSBY, EDMUND | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | 100% | since 11/25/1996 |
| OSBY, CHARLENE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/1997 |
| OSBY SERTTERH, JACQUELINE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 07/15/2014 |
| OSBY, JENNIFER | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2015 |
| FLATTERY, SARAH | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/20/1998 |
| GREINER, MICHAEL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2021 |
| LISK, BRETT | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 06/15/2023 |
| METCALF, LISA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 03/22/2022 |
| MIKUNDA, JOSEPH | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 10/25/2024 |
| SHEPHERD, OCTOBER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 02/17/2025 |
| STRODA, CHRISTINE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 03/31/2022 |
| BCG HOLDINGS INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2024 |
| BLUE STONE THERAPY INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/30/2023 |
| BRIGHTON CONSULTING GROUP LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2024 |
| CATTAIL INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2024 |
| ECSI INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2024 |
| IOWA HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATION | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2024 |
| WIPFLI LLP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/18/2021 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 22 rows in the source record cover these 18 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
7 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 $167K 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 165306. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-07-03, 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.