Orchard View Post Acute
1014 Burrell Avenue, Lewiston, ID 83501 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 127 certified beds · (208) 743-4558 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Aug 2025
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604, F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (33) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $16,790 in federal fines (most recent 2023-12-08)
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 2 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 25.4% | 15.6% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.5% | 5.2% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.1% | 1.2% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 2.0% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 10.0% | 15.1% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 4.4% | 3.0% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 27.9% | 16.1% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 13.0% | 16.3% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 96.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 6.9% | 3.2% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 14.4% | 22.1% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 16.1% | 20.1% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.8% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 90.6% | 86.5% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 17.4% | 17.7% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 11.2% | 12.3% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.86 | 1.17 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.76 | 1.66 | 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.
40.2% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 37 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 52.4% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 21 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.21 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 0% 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 | 40.2%CMS range 27.1–63.1 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.2%CMS range 7.3–16.0 | 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 | 52.4% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 42.9% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 47.6% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 3.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.7%CMS range 3.6–13.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.93 | 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 127 beds and averages 69.8 residents a day — about 55% occupied, or roughly 57 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.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.39 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.94 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.97 is below 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 3.01 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.54 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.02 to 0.76 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 46% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are unchanged from the previous inspection. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
33 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 22 are one tap away and print in full.
- Actual harm · G2023-10-20 · 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 policy review, I&A review, record review, and review of the facility's investigation report, it was determined the facility failed to ensure adequate supervision for residents to prevent falls. This was true for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #60) whose record was reviewed for falls. This resulted in harm to Resident #60 when the proper supervision was not provided. Findings include: Resident #60 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including osteoporosis (bone disease that develops when bone mineral density and bone mass decreases, which can lead to a decrease in bone strength and increase risk of fractures), and dementia. A smoking safety evaluation, dated 4/17/23, documented Resident #60 required supervision to ensure all smoking materials were returned to a locked box. The smoking evaluation did not document Resident #60 required assistance with mobility while in the smoking area. The care plan, dated 4/17/23, documented Resident #60 was a smoker and the charge nurse was to be…
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 before2025-08-15 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to maintain sanitation in one of one dining room area by allowing a dog to wander the dining area and into two of eight residents' rooms during a meal. This failure had the potential to expose the residents to harmful pathogens and infections.Findings include:Review of the 2022 Food Code by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, located at https://www.fda.gov/food/fda-food-code/food-code-2022, Chapter 6-501.115, indicated that pets in nursing homes were allowed in the common areas except during mealtimes.Review of the facility's undated policy titled, Pets in the Building indicated that staff must keep pets out of the dining area during mealtimes.During a meal observation on 08/12/25 at 12:43 PM, a dog was observed wandering in and out of the dining area during the lunch meal service. The dog was observed to go up to several different residents and sit by them begging for food. Residents were observed to tell the dog no, and the dog would…
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 · D2025-08-15 · 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 record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to protect the residents right to be free from physical abuse by other residents for two out of nine residents (Resident (R) 32, and R61) reviewed for abuse of 25 sample residents. These failures had the potential to cause physical harm or psychosocial distress.Findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled, Abuse screening, training, identification, investigation, reporting and protection - Idaho, dated February 2019, revealed It is the policy of this center to.Protect our residents from abuse.Abuse is defined as.the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain or mental anguish.Instances of abuse of all residents, irrespective of any mental, physical condition, cause physical harm, pain or mental anguish. 1. a. Review of R23's EMR under the Profile tab revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses of anxiety, personality and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-15 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review the facility did not ensure an alleged violation involving abuse was reported immediately to the Director of Nursing (DON) and to other officials in accordance with state law through established procedures for two of nine residents (Resident (R) 6 and R69) reviewed for abuse of 25 sample residents. This failure decreased the facility's potential to protect the residents from a possible allegation of abuse and ensure a safe environment during the investigation.Findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled, Abuse screening, training, identification, investigation, reporting and protection-Idaho, dated 02/19, indicated that all employees were mandatory reporters and any suspicion of a crime including assault must be reported if there was an injury or within 24 hours if there was no bodily injury.Review of the facility's policy titled, Grievance, dated 03/19, indicated that alleged violations involving abuse should be reported immediately as required by state law and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-15 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, staff interview, and policy review, facility staff failed to protect one of nine residents (Resident (R) 69) reviewed for abuse from further abuse by not immediately removing a staff from the facility who was accused of sexual abuse of 25 sample residents. This failure decreased the facility's potential to protect the residents and ensure a safe environment during the investigation.Findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled, Abuse screening, training, identification, investigation, reporting, and protection-Idaho, dated 02/19, indicated that any staff member involved will be removed from their duties and sent home while a thorough investigation was conducted. Review of R69's Profile tab of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that include type II diabetes, overactive bladder, schizophrenia disorder, anxiety, bipolar disorder, and cognitive communication deficit. R69 expired in the facility on [DATE].Review of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-15 · 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 interview, record review, and review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) accurately reflected the medication usage of three (Resident (R) 4, R61, and R34) of 25 residents reviewed in the sample. These failures created potential for an incomplete or ineffective plan of care related to medication use and side effect monitoring.Findings include:1. Review of R4's admission Record located under the Profile tab of the electronic medical record (EMR), revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including type two diabetes with hyperglycemia.Review of R4's quarterly MDS with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 06/20/25 and located under the MDS tab of the EMR, revealed she used hypoglycemic medication and used insulin one day of the previous seven days.Review of R4's Medication Administration Record (MAR), dated June 2025 and located under the Reports tab of the EMR, revealed an order, which originated on 05/27/25,…
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 · D2025-08-15 · tag F0655 — isolatedCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a newly admitted resident had a baseline care plan documented within 48 hours of admission for one of four residents (Resident (R) 70) reviewed for baseline care plan of 10 newly admitted residents. As a result of this deficient practice the residents had the potential for care needed not being provided during the initial days of admission to the facility.Findings included:Review of the facility's policy titled, Care Plans-Baseline, revised 05/24, revealed A baseline plan of care should be developed for each resident within forty-eight (48) hours of admission. The baseline care plan should include instructions needed to provide effective, person-centered care of the resident, which may include the following: a. Initial goals based on admission orders and discussion with the resident/representative. b. Physician orders. c. Dietary orders. d. Therapy services. e. Social services.Review of R70's admission Record located in the electronic medical record (EMR) under the Profile tab, revealed an admission…
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 · D2025-08-15 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive Care Plan for one of 25 sample residents (Resident (R) 4) that addressed psychiatric diagnoses and needs. This placed R4 at risk for unmet psychosocial and behavioral care needs and the inability to meet their maximum practicable level of functioning.Findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled, Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered, dated March 2022, revealed The comprehensive, person-centered care plan.describes the services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being, including.any specialized services to be provided as a result of PASARR [preadmission screen and resident review] recommendations.Review of R4's admission Record located under the Profile tab of the electronic medical record (EMR), revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including bipolar disorder, major depression,…
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 · D2025-08-15 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the indwelling urinary catheter tubing and collection bag were not in contact with the floor for one of three residents (Resident (R) 54) reviewed for catheters and urinary tract infection of 25 sample residents. This failure placed the residents at risk for transmission of infection to the urinary tract.Findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled, Catheter Care, Urinary, dated 08/22, indicated that to prevent urinary catheter-associated complications, staff should be sure to keep the catheter tubing and collection bag off the ground. Review of the Profile tab in R54's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including depression, heart failure, neurogenic bladder, adult failure to thrive, overactive bladder, and history of urinary tract infections.Review of R54's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2024-10-11 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — widespreadEnsure 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 observation, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure medications and medical supplies available for residents were not expired. This was true for 1 of 2 medication storage rooms observed. This failure created the potential for residents to receive expired medications or medical supplies with decreased efficacy. Findings include: The facility's Medication Storage: Storage of Medication policy, initiated January 2023, documented, outdated medications are immediately removed from stock and disposed of according to procedures for medication disposal. On 10/10/24 at 8:35 AM, one of the facility's medication storage rooms was inspected with LPN #1 present. The following medications were observed to be expired: -One bottle of Deep-Sea Nasal Spray, expired 1/24. -Two bottles of Allergy Relief (fexofenadine hydrochloride) 180 mg tablets, expired 8/24. -Two bottles of Bisacodyl 5 mg tablets, expired 9/24. -One open box of Nicotine patches 21 mg, expired 7/24. -Five bottles of Niacin 100 mg, expired 8/24. -58 single use packets of A & D…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-10-11 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to label, date, and/or cover food stored in kitchen refrigeration units and dry storage areas. The facility also failed to discard food with expired use by dates and ensure a scoop was not stored in a container of brown sugar. This failure had the potential to create an environment for food-borne illnesses which could affect residents who consumed food prepared from the facility's kitchen. Findings include: The facility's policy titled, Food Receiving and Storage, dated 7/2014, documented food would be received and stored in a manner that complies with safe food handling practices, dry foods that are stored in a bin will be removed from the original packaging, labeled and dated with the use by date, and all foods stored in the refrigerator or freezer will be covered, labeled, and dated with the use by date. The facility's undated policy titled, Use by Dates, documented all open food items in the refrigerator needed use by dates. The facility will label, date, and monitor refrigerated…
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 22 citations
- Potential for harm · E2024-10-11 · 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, interview, record review, facility menu review, and policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure menus were followed as planned for 3 of 3 residents (Resident #16, #25, and #36) reviewed for this concern. This failure had the potential to cause nutritional needs to go unmet for residents who consumed food prepared from the facility's kitchen. Findings include: The facility's policy titled Menus, revised 10/2008, documented, menus will be prepared in advance, meet the nutritional needs of residents, and be followed. 1. The facility's menu for Sunday 10/6/24 documented sweet and sour chicken with Asian stir-fry was planned to be served for the evening meal. Resident #25's MDS assessment on 8/20/24 documented he was cognitively intact. During an interview on 10/8/24 at 2:55 PM, Resident #25 stated on Sunday, 10/6/24, the menu was not served as planned. He stated this tends to happen on the weekends or Monday's because the kitchen did not have the ingredients required to prepare what was on the menu. On 10/9/24 at 12:52 PM, the DM stated he was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-10-11 · 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, interview, test tray review, record review, review of Resident Council Meeting Minutes, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to serve food that was palatable for 7 of 7 residents (Residents' #10, #16, #17, #20, #24, #25, and #26) reviewed for food palatability. This failure created the potential to cause unmet nutritional needs for residents who consumed food prepared from the facility's kitchen. Findings include: The facility's policy titled, Food Preparation, dated 9/27/16, documented, food is stored and prepared by methods that conserve nutritive value, flavor, and appearance to the extent possible and food is prepared according to standardized, yield adjusted recipes by trained staff in order to produce a palatable and attractive meal. 1. On 8/20/24 Resident #25 was assessed to be cognitively intact. On 10/7/24 at 3:40 PM, Resident #25 stated the food served at the facility could be improved and specified the food served at meals did not always taste good and was not always seasoned. 2. Resident #20 was assessed on 10/1/24 to be…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-10-11 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, review of Resident Council Minutes, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to offer and provide between-meal snacks to 4 of 4 residents (Residents' #5, #16, #20, and #25) reviewed for snacks and 3 additional residents (Residents' #29, #35, and #42) who participated in the Resident Council Interview. This failure had the potential to cause unmet nutritional needs for residents who resided in the facility. Findings include: The facility's policy titled, Food and Nutrition Services, revised 10/2017, documented nourishing snacks are available to the residents 24 hours a day and the resident may request snacks or snacks may be scheduled between meals to accommodate the resident's typical eating patterns. 1. Resident #5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). On 9/17/24 Resident #5 was assessed to be cognitively intact. On 10/8/24 at 4:35 PM, Resident #5…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-10-11 · 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 record review, staff interview, and resident interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a therapeutic diet was served to 1 of 3 residents (Resident #29) who were prescribed renal diets. This failure placed Resident #29 at risk for complications related to her kidney disease. Findings include: The facility's undated policy titled Therapeutic Diets documented the Dietary Manager will establish and use a tray identification system to ensure each resident receives their diet as ordered. Resident #29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including diabetes, and end stage renal disease dependent on renal hemodialysis (a treatment using a machine to replicate kidney function, removing waste from the bloodstream). Resident #29's record documented a physician order, written on 6/12/24, for her to receive a CCHO/Renal (consistent carbohydrate/kidney healthy) diet. Resident #29's dietary meal slip directed the kitchen staff to serve her a Renal/CCHO diet and specified 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 before2024-10-11 · 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 record review, policy review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were protected from significant medication errors. This was true for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #42) reviewed for medication errors. This deficient practice created the potential for harm when the facility failed to administer Resident #42's blood pressure medication for four consecutive days Findings include: The facility's Medication Errors policy and procedure, release date January 2023, documented a medication error as any preventable event that may cause or lead to inappropriate medication use or resident harm while the medication is in the control of the health care professional, resident, or consumer. Resident #42 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including diabetes, high blood pressure, and schizophrenia. A nurse progress note, dated 5/18/24, documented Resident #42 continued to have elevated blood pressures and his physician prescribed Losartan 50 mg (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 · D2024-10-11 · tag F0806 — failed to honor food preferences — isolatedEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food that accommodates resident allergies, intolerances, and preferences, as well as appealing options.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to honor known food preferences for 2 of 2 residents (Resident's #10 and #25) reviewed for food choices. This failure created the potential to cause nutritional needs to go unmet for residents who consumed food prepared from the facility's kitchen. Findings include: The facility's policy titled, Food and Nutrition Services, revised 10/2017, documented each resident is provided with a nourishing, palatable, well-balanced diet to meet their daily nutritional and special dietary needs, taking into consideration the preferences of each resident and reasonable efforts will be made to accommodate resident choices and preferences. 1. On 8/20/24 Resident #25 was assessed to be cognitively intact. On 10/7/24 at 3:40 PM, Resident #25 stated his food preferences were noted on his meal tray slip but the kitchen staff did not follow the slip when preparing his meals, so his preferences were not honored. On 10/9/24 at 8:20 AM, Resident #25 was observed in the main dining room waiting…
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 · F2023-10-20 · tag F0868 — widespreadHave the Quality Assessment and Assurance group have the required members and meet at least quarterly
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on facility document review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to meet regulation requirements for the participation of Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) committee members in the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) meetings. This failure had the potential to negatively affect all residents in the facility if quality deficiencies throughout the facility were not identified and responded to timely and appropriately. Findings include: On 10/19/23 at 5:39 PM, the Administrator stated the QAA team was comprised of the Medical Director, Pharmacy Consultant, the Interdisciplinary Team, and department managers. He added meetings were mandatory and to be held at least quarterly, and the facility chose to hold the meetings monthly. The Monthly QAPI Participation sign-in sheets from February 2023 to September 2023, did not include documentation the Medical Director and Pharmacy Consultant participated in the QAPI meeting in February, March, April, May, and June. The Administrator stated he was not able to provide documentation these…
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 · E2023-10-20 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — patternHonor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on policy review, review of grievance logs, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure resident grievances were promptly addressed and the responses to the grievances documented. These deficient practices placed residents at risk of ongoing frustration and decreased sense of self-worth, as well as unmet care needs when their concerns were not promptly addressed by the facility. Findings include: The facility's Grievance policy and procedure, revised 3/2019, documented it was the facility's policy to support each resident's right to voice concerns/grievances. The facility should actively seek resolution to concerns and attempt to keep the individual who filed grievance updated on progress toward resolution. This policy further documented the Social Services Director should log all concerns/grievances received onto the facility grievance log, ensure completed with appropriate actions and follow-up, keep a running log of concerns voiced and their resolutions as well as a copy of the completed grievance forms. This policy was not followed. Facility…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-10-20 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — patternProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, policy review, resident interview, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure pre and post dialysis assessments were completed and accurate, an emergency kit was available at the bedside, and orders were followed for 3 of 6 residents (#25, #29, and #31) who received hemodialysis. This created the potential for adverse outcomes such as acute blood loss from the access site, infection of the access site, electrolyte imbalance, low blood pressure, and anemia. Findings include: 1. Resident #31 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE], with diagnoses including hemodialysis (purifying the blood of a person whose kidneys are not working normally) for end stage kidney disease and Type 2 Diabetes. Resident #31 had an AV fistula to her left upper arm for dialysis. An AV fistula is a surgical connection between an artery and a vein for individuals who require permanent access to receive long-term hemodialysis. Resident #31's record…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-10-20 · tag F0825 — patternProvide or get specialized rehabilitative services as required for a 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 review of staff time sheets, record review, resident interview, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents received physical therapy services as ordered by their physician. This was true for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #55) reviewed for rehabilitative services. This failure created the potential for all residents in the facility who required physical therapy services to experience a decline in their physical functioning and ability to do ADLs when these services were not provided consistently. Findings include: 1. During a Resident Council meeting on 10/18/23, residents stated the facility had Occupational and Speech Therapy but not Physical Therapy. During the meeting, Resident #55 stated he was told by the DOR he had a list of goals he needed to meet in order to go home. He stated he and his family had not seen the list, even after the goals list was requested by him. Resident #34 stated he moved to the facility because they told him there was a Physical Therapist 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 · D2023-10-20 · tag F0553 — failed to let residents help plan their care — isolatedAllow resident to participate in the development and implementation of his or her person-centered plan of care.
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 policy review, record review, and resident, resident representative, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident or their representative participated in establishing the expected goals and outcomes of care. This was true for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #55) reviewed for care plans. This failure created the potential for harm if a resident experienced a decline in physical, mental, or psychosocial functioning due to lack of their input toward their goals. Findings include: The facility's Care Conference policy, last reviewed 2/2019, documented Review of the care plan with resident and/or resident representative shall be documented in EHR [Electronic Health Record]. The policy documented this included the existing care plan was reviewed with the resident or resident's representative at the care conference, and requests for change in regard to their existing care plan was documented. This policy was not followed. Resident #55 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-10-20 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolatedEnsure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, policy review, record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure chest straps were assessed as potential restraints. This was true for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #38) reviewed for restraints. This deficient practice had the potential for adverse outcomes if the chest strap was improperly used and if the resident experienced physical deterioration due to lack of movement. Findings include: The facility's Physical Restraints and Enablers/Devices policy, revised on 7/2023, stated the resident would be assessed for the least restrictive device and if appropriate a consent would be obtained prior to the application of the assistive device. The policy also documented the care plan would be evaluated quarterly and as needed and the resident would be evaluated on admission, re-admission, annually, and with significant change in condition. This policy was not followed. Resident #38 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including scoliosis (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 · D2023-10-20 · tag F0622 — isolatedNot transfer or discharge a resident without an adequate reason; and must provide documentation and convey specific information when a resident is transferred or discharged.
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 facility policy and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure information was provided to the receiving facility when a resident was transferred to another long-term care facility. This was true for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #40) reviewed for resident transfer. This deficient practice had the potential to result in adverse outcomes if Resident #40 was not treated in a timely manner due to lack of information provided upon transfer. Findings include: The facility's policy for Transfer or Discharge, dated 4/2020, stated, when the center transfers or discharges a resident .the center documents the transfer or discharge in the medical record and appropriate information is communicated to the receiving care institute or provider. As a minimum the following information is provided: a. Contact information of the practitioner responsible for the care if [sic] the resident. b. Resident representative information, including contact information. c. Advanced Directive information. d. Special…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-10-20 · 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 observation, record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure resident care plans were revised to reflect current needs and interventions. This was true for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #9) whose care plans were reviewed. This placed Resident #9 at risk for adverse outcomes when his care plan was not revised to reflect current services. Findings include: Resident #9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including abnormalities of gait and mobility. A care plan, revised on 4/13/21, documented Resident #9 received physical therapy services. A quarterly MDS assessment, dated 7/23/23, documented Resident #9 required extensive assistance with transfers, bed mobility, and toileting. A physical therapy evaluation, signed on 8/10/23 at 8:25 AM, documented Resident #9 was authorized to have physical therapy 2 times a week for 29 days starting on 8/1/23 to 8/30/23. On 10/19/23 at 2:47 PM, the MDS coordinator stated Resident #9 was no longer on physical…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-10-20 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure physician orders were followed prior to administering medication. This was true for 1 of 7 residents (Resident #254) whose medication records were reviewed. This failure created the potential to adversely affect residents whose care and services were not delivered according to their physician orders. Finding include: Resident #259 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including high blood pressure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD- a chronic inflammatory lung disease that causes obstructed airflow in the lungs). A physician order, dated 10/7/23, documented Resident #259 was to receive Atenolol (anti-hypertensive medication that can slow down the heart rate), 50 mg by mouth two times a day. The order stated to check the heart rate prior to administering the medication. The medication was to be held and the physician notified if the heart rate was less than 50 beats per minute.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-10-20 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
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 policy review, record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure restorative services were provided to increase range of motion and/or to prevent further decrease in range of motion. This was true for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #9) reviewed for restorative services. This failure placed Resident #9 at risk of decline in range of motion and function. Findings include: The facility's Restorative Nursing policy, revised on 2/2018, documented the following: Residents assessed with deficits in communication, mobility, range of motion, performance of ADLs, eating or toileting will receive necessary care and services to attain and maintain their highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being. This policy was not followed. Resident #9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including abnormalities of gait and mobility. Resident #9's care plan, revised on 5/22/23, documented Resident #9 was receiving restorative services to maintain range…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-10-20 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, policy review, record review, and resident and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure physician orders and indication for amount, method, and duration of oxygen usage were documented for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #29) reviewed for oxygen use. This deficient practice placed Resident #29 at risk of respiratory distress due to receiving too much or too little oxygen. Findings include: The facility's Respiratory Treatment policy, revised 6/22/22, documented residents received respiratory treatments and monitoring, per their physicians' orders, standards of practice and care plan. The amount, method and duration of oxygen usage and diagnosis were identified on the resident's treatment record per the physicians' orders and care plan. This policy was not followed. Resident #29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including chronic respiratory failure and chronic kidney disease. On 10/17/23 at 10:23 AM, Resident #29 was asleep on her bed…
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 before2023-10-20 · 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 record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were free of significant medication errors. This was true for 1 of 7 residents (Resident #259) whose medications were reviewed. This failure created the potential for harm to Resident #259 when her medication was not administered as ordered by the physician. Findings include: Resident #259 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including hypertension (high blood pressure) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD- a chronic inflammatory lung disease that causes obstructed airflow in the lungs). A physician order, dated 9/29/23, documented Resident #259 was to receive Benazepril (anti-hypertensive medication) HCL (hydrochloride), 20 mg by mouth every morning and at bedtime. Resident #259's MAR, dated 10/1/23 through 10/18/23, documented she did not receive Benazepril HCL in evening of 10/16/23 and in the morning of 10/17/23 and 10/18/23. On 10/18/23 at 12:01 PM, RN #1 stated she did…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-10-20 · tag F0791 — failed to provide routine dental services — isolatedProvide or obtain dental services for each 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 record review, and resident and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 1 resident (Resident #34) reviewed for the provision of dental services was provided with routine dental services. This failure created the potential for Resident #34 to experience physical discomfort and mental anguish when dental services were not provided. Findings include: Resident #34 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and readmitted on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including motor and sensory neuropathy (damaged nerve cells throughout the body, causing nerve signals to slow or stop). A care plan, initiated on 12/27/21, documented Resident #34 had the potential for oral/dental health problems. Interventions included for staff to coordinate arrangements for dental care and transportation as needed. A physician order, dated 8/17/23, documented Resident #34 was to see a denturist for an upper denture. Resident #34's record did not include documentation of coordination of routine dental services for Resident #34.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-10-20 · tag F0808 — failed to follow doctor-ordered diets — isolatedEnsure therapeutic diets are prescribed by the attending physician and may be delegated to a registered or licensed dietitian, to the extent allowed by State law.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents received a therapeutic diet following physician orders for 1 of 14 residents (Resident #13) whose dietary orders were reviewed. This placed residents at risk for adverse outcomes such as choking, aspiration of food and/or liquid, and worsening of diagnosed diseases and conditions. Findings include: Resident #13 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including multiple sclerosis (a disease that impacts the brain, spinal cord and optic nerves, which make up the central nervous system and controls everything we do). On 10/17/23 beginning at 12:30 PM, lunch service was observed in the facility's main dining room. RN #2 was observed assisting with passing out lunch trays to the residents in the dining room. RN #2 set a lunch tray down on the table in front of Resident #13. She removed the lid from the plate and the lunch included a grilled cheese sandwich cut in half and potato chips. RN…
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 before2023-10-20 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure 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 and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure hand hygiene was performed as needed by staff during meal service for 1 of 2 meals observed at the facility in the main dining room. This failure to perform hand hygiene had the potential to impact all residents who ate in the dining room and placed the residents at risk for cross contamination and infection. Findings include: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website, accessed on 10/27/23, last reviewed 1/30/20, documented Healthcare personnel should use an alcohol-based hand rub or wash with soap and water for the following clinical indications: immediately before and after having touched a patient or the patient's immediate environment. This guidance was not followed. On 10/17/23 at 12:12 PM, CNA #1 was observed in the dining room offering and placing clothing protectors on residents, pouring and placing liquid drinks on the table in front of residents, and offering a drink through a straw for residents who required assistance. She was observed not performing hand hygiene…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-10-20 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on policy review, observation, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure infection control measures were consistently implemented and maintained to provide a safe and sanitary environment during medication administration. This was true for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #54) whose medication administration was observed. This failure created the potential for harm by exposing Resident #54 to the risk of infection. Findings include: The facility's Medication Administration Subcutaneous (below the skin) Insulin policy, dated 1/2023, directed staff to cleanse the injection site with an anti-microbial agent and allow it to dry then to inject the insulin slowly. This policy was not followed. Resident #54 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including diabetes. An admission MDS assessment, dated 7/18/23, documented Resident #54 received insulin injections. On 10/17/23 at 11:41 AM, LPN #2 was observed administering insulin by injection to Resident #54's lower…
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
$16,790 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $16,790 — penalty dated 2023-12-08
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to PACS GROUP — 274 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 2 of 5 | 2.9 | -0.9 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 2.5 | +1.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 2 of 5 | 4.4 | -2.4 vs chain |
The other 273 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.9★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 273; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| HANCOCK, MARK | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 05/09/2024 |
| MURRAY, JASON | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 05/09/2024 |
| JERGENSEN, JOSHUA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 08/01/2025 |
| MITCHELL, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 02/10/2021 |
| BODENE, GREGORY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/14/2025 |
| RICHMOND, HEIDI | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 09/01/2024 |
| STROBEL, THOMAS | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/01/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 9 rows in the source record cover these 7 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 83% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $649K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent 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 ID
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 Idaho 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 135103. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-15, 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.