Waldorf Center
4140 Old Washington Highway, Waldorf, MD 20602 · For profit - Corporation · 115 certified beds · (301) 645-2813 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (30% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0565)
- a high number of inspection citations overall (42) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- about 35% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 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 4 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 | 25.5% | 20.4% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.9% | 5.4% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.2% | 0.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 1.5% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 48.1% | 22.8% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.3% | 2.4% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 24.0% | 22.2% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 13.3% | 16.7% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.9% | 96.6% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 6.5% | 5.9% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 28.1% | 25.0% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 17.3% | 13.8% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.2% | 1.1% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 84.4% | 80.6% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 14.5% | 21.0% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 9.7% | 9.8% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.95 | 1.33 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.13 | 1.20 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
58.7% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 345 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 34.8% 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 92 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 0.37 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 63% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 21% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 58.7%CMS range 53.2–64.3 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 13.2%CMS range 10.4–15.7 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 34.8% | 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 | 27.2% | 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 | 27.2% | 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 | 98.5% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 90.4% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 99.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 1.9% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.5%CMS range 4.9–10.6 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.06 | 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 115 beds and averages 96.0 residents a day — about 83% occupied, or roughly 19 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.60 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.67 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.87 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 3.17 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.78 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.76 to 0.45 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 30% is below the national median of 45%. 3 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
42 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 32 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · E2026-01-23 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — patternKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to ensure privacy and confidentiality of medical records. This was evident during 1 out of 1 dual surveyor observation of the facility's warehouse building which was conducted during the facility's recertification survey and during the review of Complaint #2714840. The findings include: During review of complaint #2714840 the surveyor requested and conducted a dual surveyor observation of the facility's warehouse building on 1/20/26 at 11:09AM with the facility's Director of Maintenance #14 and Assistant Director of Maintenance #24 who unlocked the facility's warehouse for the observation at which time surveyors observed several open boxes of medical records with freely visible protected health information in different areas of the warehouse which included names and medical record assessments, and another area of the warehouse with approximately 11 closed boxes of medical records with papers affixed to the exterior of the boxes with freely visible names and medical record numbers written on them and medical…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-01-23 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and interview it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment. This was evident for 6 (Rooms #102, #103, #107, #118, #119, and #124) out of 17 Resident rooms and one hallway on the A Wing Unit during the facility's recertification survey. The findings include: 1.) On 1/15/2026 during a tour of A Wing Unit conducted between 8:33AM and 10:30AM, the Surveyor observed the following environmental concerns: 1a.) In room [ROOM NUMBER], there was one window covered with cream colored roller blinds, pulled down at the time, which contained a large area with specks of black discoloration embedded in the roller blind material, 1b.) In room [ROOM NUMBER], there were two windows. The window between A bed and B bed was covered with a cream-colored roller blind, pulled down at the time, with dried, food-like particles of dark brown, tan, and orange stains scattered throughout the blind material. At the top of the roller blind, there was a large…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-01-23 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to ensure sanitary practices were followed and maintained and ensure food was stored in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This was evident during the surveyor's review of the kitchen during the facility's recertification survey. The findings include: During the surveyor's initial tour of the facility's kitchen on 1/15/26 beginning at 8:36AM the surveyor observed a handwashing sink located within the kitchen next to the entrance to the kitchen. The handwashing sink was observed to be unclean in appearance with a visible layer of debris present on the sink surfaces with signage posted which had areas of brown discoloration and debris present. [NAME] debris was observed on the wall below the hand soap dispenser. The walls behind and adjacent to the handwashing sink were observed with an open uncovered area of disrepair with approximately 8 wall tiles and cove molding missing with broken areas of exposed dry wall and wall material with white and brown dust and debris present. No…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-01-23 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — patternSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain medical records in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices. This was evident for 7 (Resident #2, #1, #66, #65, #5, #3, and #43) out of 45 residents reviewed during the annual survey.The findings include: 1. On 1/16/2026 at 12:40 PM, during a review of Resident #2's Fall Risk Evaluation completed on 1/11/2026, the Surveyor discovered that the assessment was incomplete and the facility failed to accurately assess the resident's gait/balance and medications to determine if the resident was a high risk for falls.On 1/16/2026 at 1:10PM, during a review of Resident #1's Fall Risk Evaluation completed on 12/24/2025, the Surveyor discovered that the assessment was incomplete and the facility failed to accurately assess the resident's history, current status, predisposing conditions, and medications to determine if the resident was a high risk for falls.On 1/20/2026 at 9:00AM, during a review of Resident #66's Fall Risk Evaluation completed on 1/15/2026, the Surveyor…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-01-23 · 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 it was determined the facility failed to ensure staff performance of basic infection control measures, follow appropriate infection control management of biohazard waste and storage of clean supplies and handling linens in a safe and sanitary manner. This was evident for 1 out of 1 dual surveyor observation of the facility's warehouse storage, and during an observation of the clean and soiled laundry processing rooms. The findings include: 1.) On [DATE] at 10:22 AM the surveyor observed Activities Assistant (AA) #22 throw their personal cell phone onto Resident #18's bed and proceed to unlock the resident's furniture with a key. At this time, the surveyor conducted an interview of AA #22 who confirmed that the cell phone placed on Resident #18's bed was their personal cell phone. At this time, the surveyor shared the concern with AA #22. On [DATE] at 9:01 AM the surveyor conducted an interview with the facility's Director of Nursing who acknowledged and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-23 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to maintain dignity for a Resident, evident for 1 (Resident #98) out of 2 Residents reviewed for bowel and bladder; and failed to ensure residents were treated with dignity and respect, evident for 1 (Resident #4) out of 43 residents reviewed during the facility's recertification survey. The findings include: 1.) During the surveyor's initial tour of the facility on 1/15/26 at 10:29AM the surveyor observed Resident #98 to be laying in a copious amount of feces and yellow and brown colored soiling with areas that appeared both dry and moist on their incontinence brief and extending onto their bed pad with feces visibly present laying on the bed pad next to their right hip that was no longer able to be contained by the incontinence brief. On 1/15/26 at 10:30AM the surveyor conducted an interview with Resident #98 who expressed to the surveyor that they felt uncomfortable regarding their hygiene and had been left in their bowel movement for a few hours. Resident #98 expressed that they had informed nursing staff…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-01-23 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — isolatedHonor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews with residents and staff members, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that each resident had the opportunity to exercise his or her autonomy regarding those things that are important in their life. This was evident for 1 (Resident # 11) out of 43 residents reviewed during the survey.The findings include: On 1/16/2026 at 11:15 AM, the surveyor interviewed Resident #11 about his/her stay at the facility. Resident #11 was non-verbal and used a paper typewriter to type words to communicate with the staff members. During the interview with Resident #11, they expressed to the surveyor that the staff takes away their wheelchair at night and did not allow them to call their spouse. On 1/22/2026 at 3:45 PM, Resident #11 expressed that they would like to keep their wheelchair at the bedside. The resident stated that all of the staff members remove his/her wheelchair at night as a punishment, so that they are unable to go to the bathroom. The ADON #3 and the surveyor went to speak with Resident #11 in their room. The GNA who took care of Resident #11 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 · D2026-01-23 · tag F0628 — isolatedProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to provide the Resident and/or Resident Representative with written notification of a transfer to the hospital and written notification of the facility's bed hold policy upon transfer to the hospital with the opportunity to request to reserve the bed privately. The was evident for 2 (Resident #23 and #100) out of 3 Residents reviewed for hospitalization during the facility's recertification survey.The findings include: Resident representatives are authorized to act on behalf of the resident.Bed Hold is holding or reserving a resident's bed while the resident is absent from the facility for therapeutic leave or hospitalization. 1. On 1/16/2026 at 1:14PM, during a review of Resident #23's electronic medical record, the Surveyor discovered that the resident was transferred to the hospital on [DATE]. The resident was not their own resident representative.On 1/20/2026 at 2:34PM, a review of Resident #23's electronic and paper…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-23 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was accurately coded to reflect a Resident's status. This was evident for 2 (Resident #3 and #5) out of 9 Residents reviewed for smoking during the facility's recertification survey.The findings include:The MDS (Minimum Data Set) is a standardized, comprehensive assessment of a resident's functional, medical, psychosocial, and cognitive status to develop a plan of care based on the resident's individualized needs. A comprehensive MDS assessment is completed at admission, annually, quarterly, and with significant change.On 1/15/2026 at 12:27PM, during an interview with Resident #3, the Surveyor was informed that the resident was a smoker.On 1/15/2026 at 1:00PM, during an interview with Resident #5, the Surveyor was informed that the resident was a smoker.On 1/16/2026 at 8:20AM, a review of the facility's smoking list revealed that Resident #3 and Resident #5 were independent smokers.On 1/20/2026 at 9:15AM, the Surveyor discovered a Smoking…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-23 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview it was determined the facility failed to: 1.) ensure a care plan was comprehensive and complete, evident for 1 (Resident #57) out of 1 Resident reviewed for change in condition; and 2.) ensure comprehensive person-centered care plans were developed and implemented for residents which reflect resident's goals, measurable objectives, and interventions to meet the specific goal, evident for 2 (Resident #3 and #5) out of 7 residents reviewed for accidents during the facility's recertification survey. The findings include:A care plan is used to summarize a person's health conditions, specific care needs, and current treatments and outlines what needs to be done to plan, assess, and manage care. 1.) On 01/16/2026 at 11:47 AM the surveyor conducted a review of Resident #57's care plan and observed the following care plan focus dated 12/31/25 by Assistant Director of Nursing, Registered Nurse (ADON, RN) #3: Resident is at risk for falls: CVA, Impaired mobility. Further review of Resident #57's care plan revealed the following goal was documented as…
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 32 citations
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-23 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, medical record review and interviews with facility staff, it was determined the facility failed to follow professional standards of practice during medication administration observation by not signing off a medication for a resident (#40) after administration, and not administering physician ordered medications to residents (#106 and #107) at their scheduled times. This was found to be evident during medication administration observation during the survey.The Findings Include:1. During the initial screening process of residents on the A Unit Wing, a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #5 was observed on 1/15/26 at approximately 9:55 AM in resident #40's room. At this time resident #40 complained of an upset stomach and headache. The surveyor accompanied the nurse to the medication cart, and she retrieved Oxycodone 5 milligrams (mg) (1) tablet labeled for resident #40 from the narcotic drawer and signed the narcotic medication book. She went to resident #40's room and administered the oxycodone 5 mg tablet to the resident.During a medical record review for 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 · D2026-01-23 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolatedEnsure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the tube feed formula container and bag of flush was labeled. This was evident for 1 (Resident #65) out of 2 Residents reviewed for tube feeding during the facility's recertification survey. The findings include:On 1/15/2026 at 9:24AM, an observation of Resident #65 revealed that he/she was in the process of receiving enteral nutrition by means of tube feeding. During further observation of the tube feeding system, the Surveyor discovered that the facility failed to label the tube feeding formula container with the attached tubing with the resident's name, formula name/type, date/time hung, and administration rate/method. The facility failed to label the clear bag of flush with the resident's name, the volume and type of flush, and the date/time hung.A review of Resident #65's electronic medical record on 1/15/2026 at 12:00PM revealed the resident had a feeding tube for nutritional support due to medical condition. There were physician orders which included NPO…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-23 · tag F0700 — isolatedTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
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 interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that Residents were properly assessed for the safe use of bedrails, obtain consent from the Resident or Resident Representative prior to use of bedrails, and obtain a physician's order for the use of bedrails. This was evident for 2 (Resident #15 and # 23) out of 8 Residents reviewed for accidents during the facility's recertification survey.The findings include:Bedrails, also known as side rails, are adjustable bars that attach to the bed. They vary in size, including full, half, and quarter lengths depending on their intended purpose. They can be used to prevent falls, help assist residents with movement, and provide a feeling of security. Bed rails also have potential risks associated with them, such as suffocation, entrapment, and psychological risks. A Resident or Resident's Representative should be provided with the risks and benefits along with a signed consent obtained before the use of bedrails.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 · Dcited before2026-01-23 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and interviews with facility staff it was determined the facility failed to store biologicals in accordance with guidance and ensure that medications opened and refrigerated had a date opened label on it. This was found to be evident for medications found in 1 of 2 medication rooms (B wing) observed during the facility's survey. The Findings Include: An observation was made of a B wing medication room on 1/21/26 at approximately 9:00AM with staff # 3, a Registered Nurse (RN) present. While observing the medications that were stored in the refrigerator, the following concerns were identified: 1. An opened multidose bottle of Tuberculin Purified Protein Derivative with a written date label of 1/9/25 on the bottle. 2. An opened multidose bottle of Tuberculin Purified Protein Derivative that did not have a date label on the bottle indicating when the bottle was opened.Staff # 3 stated at that time that all medications are to be labeled upon opening. She went on to say that the medications are to be discarded after 30 days. On the same date the facility provided 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 · Fcited before2024-08-20 · 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, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure kitchen staff properly cleaned food preparation equipment for use and that clean pans were air dried prior to storage. These failures had the potential to increase the risk of foodborne illness and had the potential to affect 103 of 110 residents (seven residents received nutrition via tube feedings with some pleasure foods allowed) in the facility who received dietary services. Findings include: 1. During an observation and interview on 08/13/24 at 9:10 AM, the Account Manager Dietary (AMD) confirmed the meat slicer blade had food remnants on it and needed to be cleaned before it was used. During an interview on 08/13/24 at 9:10 AM, the AMD stated, it's my expectation that . the meat slicer be properly cleaned after each use, it should not have food left on it Review of the facility's policy titled, Equipment, dated 09/2017, revealed, Policy Statement: All food service equipment will be clean, sanitary, and in proper working order. Procedures: 1. All equipment will be routinely cleaned…
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 · F2024-08-20 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — widespreadDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure garbage was properly disposed of and contained in one of one dumpster areas which would affect 110 census residents and staff in the facility. This failure had the potential to attract pests. Findings include: Observation on 08/13/24 at 9:35 AM, with the Account Manager Dietary (AMD) of the area in the parking lot, behind the building where the trash dumpsters were located, revealed one of two dumpsters used to contain the facility trash and recycling material were open. The top lid was left open. There was a large trash bag lying on the ground between the two dumpsters that had been ripped open. During an interview on 08/13/24 at 9:35 AM, the AMD stated, The dumpsters should be closed, and bags of trash should be placed inside the dumpsters and not left on the ground. Review of the facility's policy titled, Environment, dated 09/2017, revealed Policy Statement: All food preparation areas, food service areas, and dining areas will be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition . 6. All trash…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-08-20 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — patternHonor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to make preplanned menus and a list of alternative foods readily available to four of four residents (Resident (R) 31, R41, R50, and R101) reviewed for choices in a total sample of 42 residents resulting in the residents not having the opportunity to choose their meal or their choice of an alternative food prior to being served. This increased the risk of residents receiving foods not to their liking and being unaware of alternative food choices available to them. Findings include: 1. During an interview on 08/13/24 at 12:19 PM, R101 stated that no one asked him/her what his/her preferences were for menu selection each day. Review of R101's electronic medical record (EMR) admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 07/02/24 indicated a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15, indicating R101 had no cognitive impairment. R101's dietary preferences were requested, and nothing was received. During an observation on 08/15/24 at 8:15 AM, R101…
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 · E2024-08-20 · tag F0565 — failed to support the resident council — patternHonor the resident's right to organize and participate in resident/family groups in the facility.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to act promptly to the concerns and requests of the resident council to receive meal menus and to consider their preferences for food choices. Five residents (Resident (R)11, R12, R56, R63, and R72 ) who regularly attended resident council expressed that their concerns had repeatedly been unresolved and unanswered. Findings include: During a group interview on 08/17/24 at 3:00 PM with five residents (R11, R12, R56, R63, and R72) in attendance, they reported they have requested a meal menu each week for selecting their food choices and for their food preferences to be considered. The residents expressed they did not receive a rational for their requests not being received. Each resident attending the group meeting was listed on previous month's resident council meeting notes list of attendees. The group of residents indicated they reported the same concerns at every monthly meeting but did not receive an explanation or resolution to their concerns and continued complaints. During the interview, R11 stated they did not receive…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-08-20 · 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
Based on observations, interviews, and review of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance, the facility failed to follow infection control measures while caring for two of three residents (Resident (R) 31 and R1) reviewed for infection control out of a total sample of 31 residents. These failures increased the risk of COVID transmission and cross contamination during care for a resident on Enhanced Barrier Precautions. Findings include: 1. Review of R31's electronic medical record (EMR) Orders tab revealed a physician order, dated 08/06/24, for Strict isolation, droplet precaution due to Covid positive diagnosis. During an interview and observation on 08/13/24 at 3:06 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 3 was observed performing wound treatment on R31's right lower leg. R31 stated s/he was not able to leave his/her room due to being positive for COVID. LPN3 was observed to finish the wound treatment, doff (take off) her Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) including gloves and place the PPE in a trash container inside R31's room. LPN3 then left the room without…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-20 · 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
Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to invite one of four residents (Resident (R) 41) reviewed for care planning out of a total sample of 31 residents to care plan meetings. This failure increased the risk that the resident would not have any direct input into his/her plan of care. Findings include: Review of the electronic medical record (EMR) quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 07/25/24 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 indicating R41 was cognitively intact. Review of the EMR Clinical Resident Profile revealed R41's mother was listed as the care conference person. During an interview on 08/15/24 at 12:38 PM, R41 stated that his/her mother attended the care plan meetings but s/he did not but s/he would like to attend. Review of the EMR Progress Notes, dated 08/01/24, revealed R41's mother attended the care plan meeting, but the resident did not. The Progress Note documented a referral to the rehab department along with the resident's full code status were discussed with R41's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-08-20 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, observation of resident rooms, equipment, and interviews, it was determined the facility staff failed to 1.) provide housekeeping and maintenance services necessary to maintain a sanitary, orderly, and comfortable interior, this was evident on 2 of 3 nursing units observed along with the dining room; and 2.) failed to exercise reasonable care for protecting one supplemental resident's (Resident (R)169) personal property from loss or theft. The findings include: 1.) On [DATE] at 10:58 AM observation was made of room [ROOM NUMBER]. The left wall by the door entrance had a large, spackled area that was not painted over that was at least 2 1/2 ft. by 3 ft. The laminate was peeling off the 4 dresser drawers. The handrail in the bathroom had brown material and brown drip marks near the front of the handrail by the door approximately 5 inches long. On [DATE] at 11:06 AM observation was made of room [ROOM NUMBER]. The privacy curtain was stained with brown and black material. The floor was dirty…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-20 · 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
Based on documentation review and interview it was determined the facility failed to report allegations of abuse, neglect, or an injury of unknown origin within 2 hours of the allegation to the regulatory agency, the Office of Health Care Quality (OHCQ) (Resident #15, #55). This was evident for 2 of 17 residents reviewed for allegations of abuse, neglect or an injury of unknown origin during an annual survey. The findings include: 1. On 8/14/24 review of facility reported incident MD00179419 revealed Staff #8 reported she witnessed Staff #7 hit Resident #15's hand on 5/19/22. Review of the Comprehensive and Extended Care Facilities Self-Report Form revealed the facility submitted the initial report to OHCQ on 5/26/22 with a date and time of the incident of 5/19/22 at 4:00 PM, 7 days after the alleged incident. Interview with the Director of Nursing and Administrator on 8/14/24 at 4:00 PM confirmed the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse to OHCQ timely.2) On 8/20/24 at 9:00 AM facility reported incident MD00208736 was reviewed and revealed Resident #55 alleged that…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-20 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on documentation review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to thoroughly investigate an allegation of abuse for a resident (Resident #15). This was evident for 1 of 17 residents reviewed during an annual survey. The findings include: On 8/14/24 review of facility reported incident MD00179419 revealed Staff #8 reported she witnessed on 5/19/22 Staff #7 hit Resident #15's hand. Review of the facility investigation provided by the facility on 8/14/24 revealed it was incomplete. It did not contain the name of Staff #8 or a statement from Staff #8. It did not contain any other statements from staff that worked the day of the alleged incident other than Staff #7. Further review of the facility investigation also revealed the facility failed to obtain any statements from residents that also were receiving care from Staff #7 to see if there were any other concerns of abuse. Interview with the Administrator and Director of Nursing on 8/14/24 at 4:00 PM confirmed the facility staff failed to complete a thorough investigation of alleged abuse of Resident #15 on 5/19/22.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-20 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a written notice of transfer to the resident or family/representative for one of three residents (Resident (R) 471) reviewed for hospitalizations of 31 sampled residents. This failure had the potential for the residents or their representatives to lack the knowledge of where and why they were transferred and how to appeal the transfer if desired. Findings include: Review of the electronic medical record (EMR) significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 09/22/23 revealed R471 was severely impaired cognitively and dependent on all Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) except eating. Review of the EMR Progress Notes tab revealed a nurse's note, dated 10/07/23, stating R471was found with his/her head against the side rail and bleeding from the forehead. The progress note stated after the nursing staff provided first aid it was determined that R471 had a laceration on his/her forehead from either the side rail or the resident's long jagged fingernails. According to the progress note,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-20 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure an accurate pre-admission screening and resident review (PASARR) Level II of a resident for a mental disorder (MD) or intellectual disability (ID) was utilized for one of five residents (Resident (R) 81) reviewed for PASARR. The failure to ensure R81 received a Level two PASARR evaluation for MD/ID or a related condition, could prevent the resident from attaining or maintaining his/her highest practicable level or result in a decline in the resident's physical, mental or psychosocial well-being. Findings include: Review of R81's undated admission Record, located in R81's electronic medical record (EMR) under the Profile tab, revealed an admission date of 04/06/23 and diagnoses included but not limited to: moderate intellectual disabilities, bipolar disorder, schizoaffective disorder, unspecified psychosis, and anxiety disorder. Review of R81's annual ''Minimum Data Set (MDS),'' located in the EMR under the ''MDS'' tab, with an 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 · D2024-08-20 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to have quarterly care plan meetings for residents, and to invite the resident and/or the resident representative to participate in the development of the resident's care plan and This was evident for 3 of 44 residents (Resident (R) 51, #901 & # 923) reviewed for care planning. This failure placed the residents at risk of unmet care needs and a decrease in quality of life. Findings include: Once the facility staff completes an in-depth assessment (MDS) of the resident, the interdisciplinary team meet and develop care plans. Care plans provide direction for individualized care of the resident. A care plan flows from each resident's unique list of diagnoses and should be organized by the resident's specific needs. The care plan is a means of communicating and organizing the actions and assure the resident's needs are attended to. The care plan is to be reviewed and revised at each assessment time of the resident to ensure the interventions on the care plan…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-20 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to provide nail care to two of four residents (Resident (R) 1 and R41) reviewed for activities of daily living (ADLs) out of a total sample of 31 residents. This failure increased the risk for scratches to the skin which increased the risk of skin breakdown and infection. Findings include: 1. Review of R1's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed an admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 06/24/24. Further review of this MDS revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 out of 15 indicating R1was cognitively intact but totally dependent on staff for all ADLs. Review of the EMR Care Plan tab revealed a care plan, revised on 02/25/24, Resident/Patient requires dependent for ADL care in; bathing, grooming, personal hygiene . related to MS [Multiple Sclerosis], functional quadriplegia [paralysis of arms and leg] . Residents/ Patients ADL care needs will be anticipated and met throughout the next review period . During an observation on 08/13/24 at 4:27 PM,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-20 · 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
Based on medical record review and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to schedule a follow-up colonoscopy per physician's orders. This was evident for 1 (#906) of 40 residents reviewed for the complaint portion of the annual survey. The findings include: On 8/15/24 at 8:12 AM Resident #906's medical record was reviewed and revealed the resident was admitted to the facility in August 2022 with diagnoses that included gastrostomy status, GERD (gastrointestinal reflux disease), and peptic ulcer. A G-tube (gastrostomy) is a small, soft tube that is surgically inserted through the abdomen and into the stomach to provide direct access for feeding, hydration, or medicine. Review of Resident #906's paper medical record revealed a Report of consultation that was dated 4/19/23 which documented, poor colon prep. Solid stool throughout colon. No visualization. Repeat colonoscopy in 1 month. On the lower right-hand corner of the consultation paper was, schedule in 1 month with initials. On 8/15/24 at 9:04 AM Staff #6 was interviewed and stated she was responsible to coordinate…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-20 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review and interview, the facility staff failed to provide treatment/services to prevent/heal pressures ulcers (Resident #901). This is evident for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers during an annual survey. The findings included: A pressure ulcer also known as pressure sore or decubitus ulcer is any lesion caused by unrelieved pressure that results in damage to the underlying tissue. Pressure ulcers are staged according the their severity from Stage I (area of persistent redness), Stage II ( superficial loss of skin such as an abrasion, blister or shallow crater), Stage III ( full thickness skin loss involving damage to subcutaneous tissue presenting as a deep crater), Stage IV (full thickness skin loss with extensive damage to muscle, bone or tendon) or Unstageable Pressure Ulcer (full thickness tissue loss in which the base of the ulcer is covered by slough and / or eschar in the wound bed). Review of Resident #901's medical record on 8/14/24 revealed the Resident 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 · D2024-08-20 · tag F0687 — failed to care for feet properly — isolatedProvide appropriate foot care.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review and interview it was determined the facility staff failed to ensure a resident received proper foot care and treatment. This was evident for 1 of 45 residents (Resident #904) selected for review during the complaint survey process. The findings include: On 8/19/24 at 12PM, investigating complaint MD00196654 revealed that Resident #904 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of amputation of left #2 toe. On 8/16/23 the physician ordered: Cleanse left 2nd toe surgical site with wound cleanser, pat dry. Cover with dry dressing daily. Every day shift. Further medical review revealed on 8/16, 8/18, 8/20, 8/23, and 8/26 that the 2nd toe surgical site was not cleaned and Cover with dry dressing daily as ordered by the physician. On 8/20/24 at 3:30PM an interview of the Director of Nursing revealed that there is no nursing progress notes or wound notes in the medical record to indicate that the wound care was done per physician orders.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-20 · 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
Based on observations, record review, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to consistently apply a hand splint ordered to prevent further contractures (deformity of a joint or joints due to the shortening of muscles and/or tendons) in one of seven residents (Resident (R) 72) reviewed for positioning and mobility in a total sample of 31 residents. This failure increased the risk of further loss of mobility and increased contractures. Findings include: Review of the electronic medical record (EMR) quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 07/23/24 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13 out of 15 indicating R72 was cognitively intact. Further review of this MDS revealed R72 had impaired range of motion of the left upper extremity. Review of the Orders tab of the EMR revealed a physician's order dated 12/10/23 for a left hand roll splint to be worn for four consecutive hours during day shift. Further review of the Orders tab revealed an order dated 03/29/23 for Occupational Therapy splinting and contracture…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-20 · 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
Based on review of a complaint, medical record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to administer respiratory inhalers as ordered for a resident who required respiratory treatment. This was evident for 1 (Resident #909) of 31 residents reviewed for complaints. The findings include: On 8/19/24 at 9:51 AM a review of complaint MD00190541 alleged that the facility was not doing breathing treatments correctly for Resident #909 and that no one was assisting the resident who had a diagnosis of dementia. On 8/19/24 at 9:51 AM Resident #909's medical record was reviewed and revealed a Physicians History and Physical dated 3/20/23 which documented that Resident #909 was admitted from the hospital to the facility for treatment following respiratory failure secondary to COPD/Asthma exacerbation. Resident #909 was in intensive care, started on steroids, antibiotics, and nebulizer treatments. Review of March and April 2023 physician's orders revealed Resident #909 was to receive 2 inhalers: Budesonide Inhalation Suspension 0.5 MG/2ML (Budesonide (Inhalation)) 4 ml.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-20 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on a review of medical records, Controlled Medication Utilization Record sheets, Medication Administration Record (MAR), and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to consistently document the administration of an as-needed (PRN) pain medication on the electronic MAR and further monitor the resident's pain level and efficacy of the medication. This was evident during the complaint survey for Resident #903. The findings include: On 8/15/24 at 12 PM a review of Resident #903's clinical record revealed that the resident's primary physician on 11/13/23, ordered Dilaudid (Hydromorphone) Oral Tablet 2 MG, give 1 tablet by mouth every 6 hours as needed for Pain. This medication is used to help relieve moderate to severe pain. Dilaudid (Hydromorphone) belongs to a class of drugs known as opioid analgesics. A review of the December 2023, Control Medication Utilization Record revealed Dilaudid (Hydromorphone) on the following days and times was removed from the controlled lock box on 12/13 with no time noted, 12/15 @ 8:30PM, 12/16/at 8:30PM, 12/17 at 11:30 PM,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-20 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
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, interviews, and policy review, the pharmacist failed to identify that adverse consequences and target behaviors were not identified or monitored for one of five residents (Resident (R) 107) reviewed for unnecessary medications out of a total sample of 31 residents. This failure increased the risk of residents receiving an antipsychotic medications without proper monitoring. Findings include: Review of the electronic medical record (EMR) admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 07/28/24 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of three out of 15 indicating R107 was severely cognitively impaired. Further review of this MDS revealed R107 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Alzheimer's disease and Parkinsonism with no hallucinations, delusions, or verbal or physical behaviors towards self or others. Review of the EMR Orders tab revealed a physician's order, dated 07/22/24, for Seroquel (antipsychotic) 12.5…
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 · D2024-08-20 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
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, observation, and policy review, the facility failed to identify and monitor potential adverse consequences and target behaviors for one of five residents (Resident (R) 107) reviewed for unnecessary medications out of a total sample of 31 residents. This failure increased the risk of residents receiving antipsychotic medication without proper monitoring. Findings include: Review of the electronic medical record (EMR) admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 07/28/24 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of three out of 15 indicating R107 was severely cognitively impaired. Further review of this MDS revealed R107 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Alzheimer's disease and Parkinsonism with no hallucinations, delusions, or verbal or physical behaviors towards self or others. Review of the EMR Orders tab revealed a physician's order, dated 07/22/24, for Seroquel (antipsychotic) 12.5 milligrams…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-08-20 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff interview, and documentation review it was determined that facility staff failed to keep medication and treatment carts locked when unattended. This was evident on 2 of 3 nursing units observed during random observations made during a complaint survey. The findings include: On 8/14/24 at 6:50 AM observation was made on the B wing nursing unit of an unlocked and unattended medication cart sitting in the hallway outside of the clean utility room. A second observation was made of the same medication cart on 8/14/24 at 7:03 AM. The medication cart remained unlocked and unattended. The surveyor was able to open all drawers of the medication cart. A second medication cart in the same hallway, outside of room [ROOM NUMBER] was also unlocked and unattended. The surveyor was able to open all drawers which contained resident medications. On 8/14/24 at 7:04 AM Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 was informed. LPN #1 stated, Oh, I didn't know that. On 8/14/24 at 7:06 AM observation was made on the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-20 · tag F0840 — isolatedEmploy or obtain outside professional resources to provide services in the nursing home when the facility does not employ a qualified professional to furnish a required service.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on medical record review and interview, the facility staff failed to follow up with outside resources for the care of resident (Resident #903). This was evident for 1 of 45 residents reviewed during a complaint survey. The findings include: The facility staff failed to follow up with outside facility for oral surgery post-operative instructions for Resident #904. Review of Resident #904's medical record on 8/9/2024 revealed the Resident was transported to the oral surgeon on 1/9/24, by a friend. Resident #904 had 3 teeth extracted and was given written post-operative instructions. Further, medical record review revealed no oral surgery post-operative instructions was noted in the medical record. Interview with the Administrator on 8/15/24 at 1 PM confirmed the facility staff failed to follow up with the Resident's Oral Surgeon at an outside facility for post-operative instructions.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-20 · tag F0925 — failed to control pests — isolatedMake sure there is a pest control program to prevent/deal with mice, insects, or other pests.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews and observation, it was determined the facility failed to have an effective pest control program as evidenced by numerous gnats seen throughout the facility. This was evident on 1of 3 nursing units and public areas observed during a complaint survey. The findings include: On 8/15/24 at 11:06 AM an interview was conducted with Resident #74. Resident #74 sat on the side of the bed and complained about the gnats in his/her wheelchair. Observation was made of a folded blanket on the seat of the wheelchair with a minimum of 10 gnats flying around the seat. At that time Certified Medicine Aide (CMA) #3 walked in the room and was shown the gnats. When asked if this was normal, CMA #3 stated that the gnat problem was throughout the building and that the facility just got a new pest control company last week. On 8/15/24 at 12:42 PM observation was made in the dining room of Resident #41 sitting at a table with a lunch tray. There were gnats flying on the resident's fruit cocktail and BBQ sandwich. During the survey there were also several gnats observed in the Nursing…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2019-06-11 · tag F0711 — patternEnsure the resident's doctor reviews the resident's care, writes, signs and dates progress notes and orders, at each required visit.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of the medical record and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that physician progress notes from federally required physician visits reflected a review of a resident's total program of care, including medications and treatments, and were legible. This was evident for 1 (#154) of 2 residents reviewed for hospitalization. The findings include: Resident #154's medical record was reviewed on 6/7/19 at 11:10 AM. During the review, it was noted that the resident was admitted to the facility in 2016 and left the facility in mid May of 2019. Physician notes were reviewed and three were found that were dated in 2019. All were handwritten and were difficult to read. Those notes were reviewed by three surveyors to attempt to determine their content. The first note, dated 1/20/19, appeared to state, Will get audiology consult with loss of hearing. The second note, dated 2/16/19, appeared to state, Hearing better by [right] ear. [Left] ear wax being addressed. In good spirits _______ one assist can get up. The third note, dated…
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 · D2019-06-11 · tag F0800 — isolatedProvide each resident with a nourishing, palatable, well-balanced diet that meets his or her daily nutritional and special dietary needs.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation and review of kitchen staff documentation, the facility failed to record food temperatures for the beginning of June 2019 Findings include: On 6/4/19 at approximately 8:30 AM, a tour of the kitchen was conducted. Review of the kitchen food temperature log revealed there were no recorded food temperatures for June, 1, 2, 3, and 4, 2019. Staff member #6 (manager of the kitchen) was shown the log blank temperature log for June and acknowledged the lack of documentation.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-06-11 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation of the kitchen on 6/4/19, the facility failed to label the dry storage bin or kitchenware that was not to be used, as appropriate. Findings include: On 6/4/19 at approximately 8:30 AM a tour of the kitchen was conducted. In the dry storage room there were chafing pans no longer used by the facility stored there. The chafing dishes were dirty, dusty and not covered or labeled to indicate that they were no longer to be used. The chafing dishes were shown to the manager (staff #6). During inspection of dry storage room, there was also a container filled with bread crumbs that was not labeled with an expiration or opened date. Staff #6 was made aware.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-06-11 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of resident medical records and interview with facility staff, it was determined that facility staff failed to document the administration of as-needed oxygen in a resident's medication administration record. This was evident for 1 (Resident #154) of 2 residents reviewed for Hospitalization. The findings include: Resident #154's medical record was reviewed on 6/7/2019 at 9:43 AM. It was found that the resident had been admitted in 2016 and was discharged mid May of 2019. During the review, it was found that the resident had the following oxygen order dated 7/26/18: Oxygen at 2 Liters / minute via nasal cannula as needed for pulse oximeter less than 92%. Review of the resident's Treatment Administration Record (TAR) revealed that there was no documentation of this as-needed oxygen order in May, 2019. A nasal cannula is a device designed to deliver oxygen directly to a patient's nose via a plastic tube that is tucked behind the ears and has two small soft flanges that aim oxygen into the nostrils. Concurrent review of nursing notes demonstrated that the resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to GENESIS HEALTHCARE — 184 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 | 4 of 5 | 2.4 | +1.6 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 2.5 | +1.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 3.5 | +1.5 vs chain |
The other 183 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.4★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 183; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GENESIS MD HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 04/01/2011 |
| FC-GEN OPERATIONS INVESTMENT LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/01/2011 |
| GEN OPERATIONS I LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/01/2011 |
| GEN OPERATIONS II LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/01/2011 |
| GENESIS HEALTHCARE INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 02/02/2015 |
| GENESIS HEALTHCARE LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/01/2011 |
| GENESIS HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 03/02/2015 |
| GENESIS OPERATIONS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/01/2011 |
| GHC HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/01/2011 |
| SUN HEALTHCARE GROUP INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 02/02/2015 |
| WHITMAN, ARNOLD | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 12/31/2011 |
| BERG, MICHAEL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 12/01/2012 |
| BRIDGEFORD, LAURA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 06/01/2024 |
| MENDELSON, AVI | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 06/01/2024 |
| CURTIS, EDWARD | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/09/2025 |
| VAZHAPPILLY, JOSJIN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/09/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 18 rows in the source record cover these 16 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
10 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $5.6M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 35% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
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 MD
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 Maryland 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 215273. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-01-23, 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.