United Presbyterian Home
1203 E Washington Street, Washington, IA 52353 · Non profit - Corporation · 55 certified beds · (319) 653-5473 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (35% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Jul 2022
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- a high number of inspection citations overall (22) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 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 improved from 4 to 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 7.9% | 17.1% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.7% | 4.6% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.6% | 1.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.9% | 2.4% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 5.3% | 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 | 4.0% | 3.8% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 10.7% | 16.6% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 20.5% | 20.8% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.3% | 4.2% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 15.6% | 25.6% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 8.7% | 19.5% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 2.1% | 1.4% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.43 | 1.49 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 3.41 | 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 0.21 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 25% 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 | 9.8%CMS range 5.4–16.4 | 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 | 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 — Newly certified nursing home with less than 12-15 months of data available or the nursing home opened less than 6 months ago, and there were no data to submit or claims for this measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 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 | 0.89 | 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 55 beds and averages 45.0 residents a day — about 82% occupied, or roughly 10 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 4.35 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.64 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.97 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 3.75 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.59 on weekdays — 18% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.73 to 0.43 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 35% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
22 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 11 are one tap away and print in full.
- Actual harm · G2022-07-14 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, staff interview, resident interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to protect residents from resident to resident altercations which included sexual gestures, physical touching, grabbing, and attempted hitting by Resident #51 for four of five residents reviewed for abuse (Resident #1, Resident #4, Resident #17, Resident #37), and also unidentified residents. The facility reported a census of 49 residents. Findings include: The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #51 dated 11/12/21 revealed the resident scored 3 out of 15 on a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) exam, which indicated the resident had severely impaired cognition. Per this assessment, Resident #51 displayed delusions, other behavioral symptoms not directed towards others, and wandered which significantly intruded on the privacy or activities of others. The MDS for Resident #51 dated 5/4/22 documented the resident again scored 3 out of 15 on a BIMS exam. Per this assessment,…
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 before2025-07-17 · 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
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 notify the provider when a resident with a pressure ulcer did not wear his ordered orthotic (referring to externally applied devices, primarily custom-made shoe inserts, designed to support the feet and correct structural and functional issues) shoes for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers (Resident #10) and failed to notify the provider in a timely manner of a significant weight loss for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for nutrition (Resident #33). The facility reported a census of 49.Findings include: 1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment tool, dated 3/24/25, listed diagnoses for Resident #10 which included cellulitis (inflammation of the tissues) of the right lower limb, pain in the right foot, and non-Alzheimer's dementia. The MDS stated the resident had an infection of the foot and one unhealed pressure ulcer. The MDS did not state the stage of the ulcer. The MDS listed the resident's Brief…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-07-17 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, review of unwitnessed fall reports, facility policy review, family and staff interviews, the facility failed to assess the appropriateness and effectiveness of a cushioned bolster used for fall prevention for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #31) using bolsters. The facility reported a census of 49 residents.Findings include: Review of the the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment for Resident #31, dated 4/18/25, revealed the list of diagnoses included Parkinson's disease and end stage renal disease. The Brief Interview Mental Status (BIMS) score of 5 out of 15, which indicated a severe cognitive impairment. The MDS assessed Resident #31 dependent on staff for activities of daily living which included personal hygiene, mobility, transfers, dressing, toileting and rolling in bed from side to side.A review of the Care Plan, revised on 6/25/25 revealed a Focus area to address I am at risk for falls per Fall Risk Assessment. Fall on 01/29/25; no injury. Fall on 5/22/25; No injury. Fall 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 · E2023-11-28 · 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
Based on observation, clinical record review, policy review, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide foods at an appetizing temperature for 1 of 1 meals observed. The facility reported a census of 51 residents. Findings Include: 1. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment tool, dated 8/23/23, listed Resident #8's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score as 13 out of 15, which indicated intact cognition. On 11/13/23 at 12:27 p.m., Resident #8 stated that in the evenings the soup was not hot. 2. The Quarterly MDS assessment tool, dated 8/30/23, listed Resident #33's BIMS score as 15 out of 15, which indicated intact cognition. On 11/13/23 at 1:13 p.m., Resident #33 stated lunch was cold half the time. 3. The Quarterly MDS assessment tool, dated 8/23/23, listed Resident #19's BIMS score as 15 out of 15, which indicated intact cognition. On 11/13/23 at 12:55 p.m., Resident #19 stated the soup was not hot enough in the evenings. 4. The Quarterly MDS assessment tool, dated 8/23/23, listed Resident #12's BIMS score as 15 out of 15, indicating…
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 before2023-11-28 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview and facility policy the facility failed to maintain sanitary surfaces on the counter used for cutting meat to prevent possible cross-contamination of food for 14 of 36 residents served the meat option. The facility reported a census of 51. Findings include: On 11/14/23 at 11:45 AM start of lunch service observation, Cook, Staff F, placed individual resident paper menus on the counter in front of the steam table for review of resident individual choices circled on their menu's. Staff F moved the paper menus and proceeded to retrieve and cut the eight-ounce meat patty option in half on the same counter location the paper menus were placed. Staff repeated this process, looked at the menus and then cut the meat patty for those choosing the meat option. On 11/15/23 at 01:38 PM interview with the Dietary Manager Staff G, relayed had witnessed the cook, Staff F during the meal service on 11/14/23 who used the same counter space for viewing menus and was also used for cutting meat. Staff G relayed had spoke to the cook for an improved sanitary process.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-11-28 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, clinical record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent hazards when a safety intervention was disarmed by staff. A confused, independently mobile resident came near an elevator, the wanderguard signaled the Elpas screen and a staff member disarmed the screen when the resident was not visualized. The resident then entered the elevator, exited into the basement and approximately 15 minutes later was inadvertently discovered by a staff member. The facility reported a census of 51 residents. Findings include: The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] for Resident #27 revealed a diagnosis of dementia with behavioral disturbance and daily, displayed continuous inattentive and had disorganized thinking, pacing and rummaging behavior. The MDS did not identify wandering behavior. Resident #27 was identified as needing supervision but was independent with transfers and ambulation, utilizing a walker for a mobility device. Resident #27…
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 · E2022-07-14 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — patternProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of clinical record, the facility assessment, call light logs, resident council meeting minutes and facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to assure sufficient staff available at all times to provide nursing and related services to meet the residents' needs for 2 of 24 residents reviewed (Residents #38 and #45). The facility reported a census of 49 residents. Findings. 1. The MDS (Minimum Data Set) Assessment tool, dated 5/11/22 listed diagnoses for Resident #38 which included high blood pressure, Non-Alzheimer's dementia, and urinary incontinence. The MDS documented the resident required limited assistance of 1 staff for personal hygiene, and extensive assistance of 1 staff for bathing. The MDS listed the resident's BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score as 2 out of 15, indicating severely impaired cognition. The untitled call light log for Resident #38 for the period of 7/4/22-7/11/22, revealed a call light response time on 7/4/22 at 3:29 p.m. of 27 minutes. A Care Plan entry, revised 3/26/21, stated the resident had a bath on Wednesdays…
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 · E2022-07-14 · tag F0809 — failed to serve meals on a reasonable schedule — patternEnsure meals and snacks are served at times in accordance with resident’s needs, preferences, and requests. Suitable and nourishing alternative meals and snacks must be provided for residents who want to eat at non-traditional times or outside of scheduled meal times.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, clinical record review, facility policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure no more than 14 hours elapsed between a substantial evening meal and breakfast the next morning. The facility reported a census of 49 residents. Findings include: During an observation on 7/6/22, staff served Resident #37 her evening meal at 4:23 p.m. and served Resident #45 his evening meal at 4:26 p.m. During an observation on 7/7/22 at 8:04 a.m., staff served Resident #37 her breakfast. As of 8:04 a.m., Resident #45 did not have his breakfast. At 8:25 a.m. observation revealed Resident #45 eating his breakfast. Upon request, the facility lacked documentation staff offered residents a substantial evening snack. The undated facility document for Dining Services listed the following meal times: a. Breakfast 7:00 a.m.-9:00 a.m. b. Lunch 11:00 a.m. Monday-Saturday and 11:30 a.m. Sunday. c. Supper 4:30 p.m.-6:30 p.m. The facility's undated Snack Cart Policy directed that Resident Assistants would distribute snacks between 5:30 p.m.-6:45 p.m. and the facility did not…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2022-07-14 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interviews, and facility record review, facility staff failed to handle food and beverages in a sanitary manner showing an extended use of gloves in two of three dining rooms at the facility. The facility reported a census of 49 residents. Findings include: 1. Observation on 7/06/22 at 4:05 PM revealed Staff B, Resident Assistant, assisted with preparation of drinks in the front dining room. Staff B touched touched her hair and mask with her blue gloves, then touched her glasses. Staff B adjusted the glasses and then touched a large silver drink dispenser. Staff B then adjusted her clothing and hair while wearing the same gloves, touched a cart, her safety glasses, and a mug. Staff B then prepared drinks with the same gloves applied, then touched her hair again. Staff B then prepared drinks without hand hygiene or a change of gloves. During interview on 7/13/22 at 11:15 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) acknowledged with each person staff were supposed to be changing gloves, and perform hand washing or sanitizer. The DON acknowledged staff were supposed…
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 · E2022-07-14 · 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate hand hygiene and glove use when staff moved between resident rooms, collected trays, passed water, and during an observation of a catheter dressing change for one of one resident observed for a dressing change (Resident #34).The facility reported a census of 49 residents. Findings include: 1. On 7/07/22 at 8:27 AM, observation revealed Staff C, Housekeeper, while wearing blue gloves, moved down the hallway. At 8:28 AM, Staff C moved the housekeeping cart down the hallway with their gloves applied. At 8:29 AM, Staff C entered a resident room, exited the resident's room with blue gloves applied, and put the tray on a rack in the hallway. At 8:29 AM, the staff member opened a door in the hallway, and at 8:31 AM Staff C closed the housekeeping door in the hallway while they wore the same blue gloves, then she entered a resident room, and went back down the hallway with gloves applied. Next Staff C entered another 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 · D2022-07-14 · 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, observation, staff interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to treat the resident with dignity and respect by not keeping his urinary catheter bag covered for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #16). The facility reported a census of 49. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #16 documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 8, or moderately impaired cognition. The MDS revealed the resident needed extensive assistance of 2 staff members for toilet use and 1 staff member for personal hygiene. He required an indwelling urinary catheter. The MDS revealed Resident #16 had diagnoses of stroke, high blood pressure and benign prostatic hyperplasia (enlarged prostate) with lower urinary tract symptoms. The care plan, revised on 7/13/22, for Resident #15 identified the resident had an indwelling urinary catheter. The care plan did not contain direction to use a cover bag/dignity bag. In an observation on 07/06/22 at 2:30…
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 11 citations
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-07-14 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, observation, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to notify the physician in a timely manner following a resident who experienced a seizure and after a resident fell and sustained a hematoma to the forehead and multiple skin tears for two of four residents reviewed for notification of changes (Residents #3 and #11). The facility reported a census of 49 residents. Findings include: 1. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #3 recorded the resident scored three out of 15 on a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) exam, which indicated severe cognitive impairment. Diagnoses for Resident #3 included other generalized epilepsy and epileptic syndromes, not intractable, without status epilepticus and adult failure to thrive. The Care Plan dated 10/5/2020 documented, she had a seizure disorder. The Nurses Note, authored by Staff F, Registered Nurse (RN), dated 6/25/22 at 5:53 PM documented the resident starting seizing while…
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 · D2022-07-14 · 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
Based on clinical record review, facility policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide a bed hold notice at the time of transfer for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for hospitalizations (Resident #4). The facility reported a census of 49 residents. Findings: 1. The MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, dated 9/8/21, listed diagnoses for Resident #4 which included non-Alzheimer's dementia, Parkinson's disease, and restless leg syndrome. An 11/5/21 Nurses Note recorded the resident transferred to the emergency room for evaluation and treatment. An 11/7/21 Nurses Note documented the resident returned from the hospital Saturday (11/6/21). The facility lacked documentation they notified the Ombudsman of the resident's transfer. The facility policy on Transfer Notice, dated September 2019, instructed the facility would notify the Long Term Care Ombudsman of all discharges on a monthly basis. During a phone interview on 7/11/22 at 2:21 p.m., the Social Worker stated residents who went to the hospital for observation did not show up on the list of resident discharges 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 · D2022-07-14 · tag F0625 — isolatedNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on clinical record review, facility policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide a bed hold notice at the time of transfer for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for hospitalizations(Resident #4). The facility reported a census of 49 residents. Findings: 1. The MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, dated 9/8/21, listed diagnoses for Resident #4 which included Non-Alzheimer's dementia, Parkinson's disease, and restless leg syndrome. An 11/5/21 Nurses Note documented Resident #4 transferred to the emergency room for evaluation and treatment. An 11/7/21 Nurses Note recorded the resident returned from the hospital Saturday (11/6/21). The facility lacked documentation of a bed hold notice provided to the resident or resident's representative at the time of transfer. In an email sent by the DON (Director of Nursing) on 7/13/22 at 12:54 p.m., she stated the facility did not have a bed hold notice for the resident. The facility's policy for Bed-Hold Notice, dated September 2019, instructed the facility would hold the resident's bed upon hospitalization for a maximum of 10…
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 · D2022-07-14 · 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 interviews, the facility failed to incorporate the recommendations from a PASRR determination into the resident's plan of care for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for PASRR(Resident #2). The facility reported a census of 49 residents. Findings: 1. The MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment tool, dated [DATE], listed diagnoses for Resident #2 which included anxiety disorder, depression, and PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder). The MDS listed the resident's BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score as 9 out of 15, indicating moderately impaired memory and cognition. The PASRR Short-Term Nursing Facility Approval, dated [DATE], recorded the approval expired [DATE] and the resident required specialized services including psychiatric services, individual therapy, and a Crisis Intervention/Safety Plan. The approval stated as a result of the resident's recent self-directed violent thoughts, she would benefit from the creation of a Crisis Intervention Plan…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-07-14 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident received medications per physician order following two episodes of seizures for one of 17 residents reviewed for professional standards of practice (Resident #3). The facility reported a census of 49 residents. Findings include: The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #3 documented the resident scored three out of 15 on a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) exam, which indicated severe cognitive impairment. The resident's diagnoses included other generalized epilepsy and epileptic syndromes, not intractable, without status epilepticus and adult failure to thrive. The resident's Care Plan dated 10/5/20 documented she had a seizure disorder. The intervention dated 10/5/20 documented to give medications as ordered and monitor/document for effectiveness and side effects. The Physician Order dated 12/20/21 instructed staff to administer a Lorazepam (or Ativan,…
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 · D2022-07-14 · 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 clinical record review, facility policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to assess and intervene after a change of condition for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for a hospital stay (Resident #45). The facility reported a census of 49 residents. Findings: The MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment tool, dated 11/3/21, listed diagnoses for Resident #45 which included cancer, Non-Alzheimer's dementia, and muscle weakness. The MDS listed the resident's BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score as 14 out of 15, indicating intact cognition and documented the resident did not report pain in the last 5 days. A 1/16/22 5:53 p.m. Progress Note recorded Resident #45 received acetaminophen (a non-narcotic pain medication) 325 mg(milligrams) 2 tablets every 6 hours as needed and the resident started rubbing the right side of his stomach after staff asked him if he was in pain. A 1/18/21 11:30 a.m. Progress Note documented the resident's daughter texted the Social Worker and stated that nursing reported to her the resident vomited and had abdominal pain on 1/16/22. When 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 before2022-07-14 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, and facility policy review, facility staff failed to lock an unattended medication cart when not in use for one of three medication carts observed. The facility identified 14 residents as cognitively impaired and ambulatory and/or able to self propel. The facility reported a census of 49 residents. Findings include: On 7/7/22 at 4:25 PM, observation in the South hallway of the facility revealed a medication cart present which had not been secured. A drawer of the cart could be opened and no facility staff were present at the cart; medications were observed inside. Upon notice of the unlocked medication cart, the Director of Nursing (DON) then went and stood at the cart. On 7/13/22 at 11:04 AM, when asked as to when medication carts should have been locked, the DON responded that medication carts should be locked all the time when staff are not using them. The facility's policy titled Medication Labeling and Storage, reviewed 3/21, documented: 1. Residents' medications are properly labeled and stored in a locked cart or cabinet. The medication…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-07-14 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, clinical record review, facility policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the provision of routine medications for 1 of 6 resident observed during medication passes(Resident #11). The facility reported a census of 49 residents. Findings: 1. The MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment tool, dated 3/30/22 listed diagnoses for Resident #11 which included hypertension (high blood pressure), Non-Alzheimer's dementia, and atrial fibrillation (a heart rhythm abnormality). During an observation on 7/6/22 at 8:22 a.m., Staff I CMA (Certified Medication Aide) administered Resident #11's morning medications. Staff I stated she did not have the resident's amlodipine (used to treat high blood pressure) to administer so she would leave it for later. The resident's July 2022 MAR (Medication Administration Record) listed a 6/29/22 order for amlodipine 5 mg(milligrams) daily. The MAR lacked a checkmark on the following days to indicate staff administered the medication and instead had a '9' documented to refer to the Nurses Notes on 7/1/22, 7/3/22, 7/4/22,…
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 · D2022-07-14 · 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, facility policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a residents did not receive a significant medication error for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for a significant medication error (Resident #4). The facility reported a census of 49 residents. Findings: 1. The MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, dated 9/8/21, listed diagnoses for Resident #4 which included Non-Alzheimer's dementia, Parkinson's disease, and restless leg syndrome. The MDS listed the resident's BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score as 6 out of 15, indicating severely impaired cognition. A 11/5/21 9:04 a.m. Nurses Note recorded that staff trained a new nurse when the nurse in training gave medication to the wrong resident. The resident became diaphoretic (she had extreme perspiration) and had a blood pressure of 90/47. The nurse notified the provider of the incident and Resident #4 transferred to the Emergency Room. The resident's Medication Incident Report of 11/5/21 documented a 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 · D2022-07-14 · tag F0885 — failed to notify residents/families about COVID-19 — isolatedReport COVID19 data to residents and families.
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 residents and/or resident representatives of new positive cases of COVID-19 amongst staff and residents for 2 of 4 residents/resident representatives reviewed for COVID-19 notifications (Residents #12 and #45). The facility reported a census of 49 residents. Findings: 1. During an interview on 7/5/22 at 10:28 a.m., Resident #12 stated the facility did not notify her when there was a COVID positive case in the building. The undated facility document 'Positive Resident and Staff January to Current 2022' recorded a staff member tested positive for COVID-19 on 1/3/22. Review of Resident #12's Nurse Notes revealed the facility notified the resident's family of a positive case on 1/7/22. The notes lacked documentation the facility notified the family prior to 1/7/22 and lacked documentation they notified the resident of the positive case. The undated facility document 'Positive Resident and Staff January to Current 2022' documented a staff member tested positive on 6/28/22. Review…
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 · D2022-07-14 · tag F0886 — failed to test for COVID-19 as required — isolatedPerform COVID19 testing on residents and staff.
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 staff interview, COVID-19 testing information, QSO 20-38-NH review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff members who were not up-to-date on COVID-19 vaccinations were tested per community transmission level of COVID-19 for two of two staff reviewed for testing (Staff E and Staff I). The facility reported a census of 49 residents. Findings include: 1. When asked about COVID-19 vaccinations, on 7/5/22 at 1:40 PM, Staff E, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) contracted by the facility stated she had received the first and second vaccinations but not the booster. When asked about COVID-19 testing, Staff E stated that she did not test. Employees were tested, and she since she started two weeks ago she had not been tested. Review of the vaccination card for Staff E revealed she received their first COVID-19 vaccination on 11/30/21, and the second dose of COVID-19 vaccination on 1/18/22. On 7/11/22 at 9:17 AM, the team requested COVID-19 testing via email from the facility for Staff E…
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.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| UNITED PRESBYTERIAN HOME | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/1976 |
| DRAHOTA, ERIN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2024 |
| KLEESE, AMY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2024 |
| WILLIAMS, KARA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/08/2018 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 9 rows in the source record cover these 4 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in IA
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Iowa Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 165482. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-07-17, 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.