Neilson Place
1000 Anne Street Northwest, Bemidji, MN 56601 · Non profit - Corporation · 78 certified beds · (218) 751-0220 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has abuse, neglect, or exploitation citations (F0600, F0603) — most recent Jul 2025
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0605, F0607, F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has 3 actual-harm citations
- inspectors recorded 3 serious findings as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (47) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $45,915 in federal fines (most recent 2025-12-09)
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 1 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 3 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 1 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 fell from 2 to 1 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 28.6% | 18.2% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.6% | 4.1% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 2.7% | 1.9% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 4.5% | 2.6% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 3.4% | 4.1% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 5.7% | 4.0% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 38.0% | 20.5% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 5.4% | 12.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 92.8% | 96.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 12.5% | 5.2% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 27.1% | 24.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 22.0% | 17.1% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.5% | 1.9% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 66.2% | 82.7% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 15.8% | 23.5% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 14.0% | 14.8% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.48 | 1.61 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.19 | 1.90 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
51.6% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 109 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 68.2% 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 63 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 0.23 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 30% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 1% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 51.6%CMS range 41.7–60.3 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.3%CMS range 7.4–13.9 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 68.2% | 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 | 54.0% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 57.1% | 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 | 97.4% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 96.9% | 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 | 1.3% | 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 | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.0%CMS range 4.2–12.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.84 | 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 78 beds and averages 71.0 residents a day — about 91% occupied, or roughly 7 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. 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 3.80 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.89 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.27 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 3.27 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.02 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.01 to 0.59 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 55% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
47 citations, most serious first. The 16 most serious are shown; the remaining 31 are one tap away and print in full.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2024-09-27 · tag F0678 — failed to provide CPR when needed — isolatedProvide basic life support, including CPR, prior to the arrival of emergency medical personnel , subject to physician orders and the resident’s advance directives.
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 document review the facility failed to immediately identify code status and act on resident wishes for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for resuscitation status. This resulted in an immediate jeopardy for R1 when staff initiated cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) against R1's wishes. The IJ began on [DATE], at approximately 5:40 p.m. when R1 was found by a nursing assistant (NA)-A in the common area of the unit. R1 was pale, lips blue and unable to speak. R1 was administered the Heimlich Maneuver, CPR was initiated and was sent to the hospital where she subsequently required mechanically assisted ventilation. The IJ was identified on [DATE], and the administrator was notified of the IJ on [DATE], at 11:13 a.m. The immediate jeopardy was removed on [DATE], as the deficient practice was corrected prior to the start of the survey and was therefore issued at past noncompliance. Findings include: R1's Advance Health Care Directive dated [DATE], indicated R1 wanted CPR attempted if R1's heart or…
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.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2025-12-09 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure care planned fall interventions were implemented for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for falls. This resulted in actual harm for R1 who fell and sustained a fracture requiring surgical repair. The facility implemented corrective action prior to the start of survey, and this is issued in past noncompliance. R1's Resident Face Sheet indicated she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted , following hospitalization, on 11/13/25. R1's diagnosis included displaced fracture of right femur. Alzheimer's disease, dementia, history of sacral fracture and failure to thrive. R1's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated she was independent with bed mobility, sit to stand and required supervision for ambulation. R1's significant change MDS dated [DATE], indicated she was dependent for bed mobility, transfers, and indicated ambulation not attempted due to medical condition. R1's care plan dated 11/3/25, identified…
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.
- Actual harm · G2025-07-02 · tag F0603 — failed to not confine residents against their will — isolatedProtect each resident from separation (from other residents, his/her room, or confinement to his/her room).
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 document review the facility failed to ensure 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for use of electric wheelchairs in the community was free from involuntary seclusion. This resulted in actual psychosocial harm for R1 when the facility took away her personal mobile equipment (power wheelchair), which restricted R1's access to her community (including family), causing increased depressive symptoms, isolation and withdrawal from usual activities. Findings include: R1's admission Record indicated she admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnosis included diabetes, arthritis, right above the knee amputation, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and anxiety. R1's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified intact cognition and indicated she displayed no behaviors during the assessment period. The MDS indicated R1 was independent with transfers. 4/8/25, PHQ-9 (patient health questionnaire) assessment (a self-report tool used to assess the severity of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2024-12-20 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and document review the facility failed to follow care planned intervention for the use of a gait belt for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed. This resulted in actual harm when R1 fell while ambulating with staff assistance and sustained bilateral sacral fractures (a break in the bone at the back of the pelvis). The deficient practice was corrected prior to the start of the survey therefore, was issued at past non-compliance. Findings include: R1's Resident Face Sheet identified an admission date of 10/18/22 and a latest return date of 12/16/24. R1's diagnosis included osteoarthritis, age related osteoporosis and impaired mobility. R1's care plan dated 10/25/22, identified a self care deficit due to morbid obesity and pain in right knee. The care plan indicated R1 was not ambulating and chose not to get out of bed and indicated a history of sitting in chair at home and not walking much. R1's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified intact cognition. The MDS indicated R1 had upper 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.
- Actual harm · G2024-02-29 · 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 observation, interview and document review the facility failed monitor and develop and implement interventions to reduce the risk of pressure ulcers for 2 of 3 residents (R1,R4) reviewed. This resulted in actual harm to R1 who developed new and worsening pressure ulcers. Findings include: R1 admission Observation dated 1/2/24, identified bruises and pressure sores. The observation did not identify location, size or stage of pressure sores. R1's Skin Risk assessment dated [DATE] indicated a Braden Scale for predicting pressure ulcer risk identifed a score of 13, inidcating he was at moderate risk for skin breakdown. R1's Physician Order Report dated 1/2/24 through 2/29/24, identified an order dated 1/2/24, that indicated: weekly skin check. Special instructions: Use wound management module to document wounds/ulcers. R1's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified intact cognition and indicated he did not display rejection of care behaviors. The MDS indicated R1 had upper and lower…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2024-02-29 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and document review the facility failed to assess, develop and implement interventions to reduce the risk for falls for 1 of 3 residents (R2) who had repeated falls with fractures. This resulted in actual harm for R2 who sustained a fractured nasal bone, fractured vertebrae and fractured rib. In addition, the facility failed to ensure safe use of mechanical lift devices for 3 of 3 residents (R2, R4, R5) reviewed. This resulted in further harm to R2 who fell from a EZ Lift Stand and sustained a broken clavicle (collarbone). Findings include: R2's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified intact cognition and indicated he was independent with transfers, toileting, and dressing. The MDS indicated he required moderate assistance for showers. R2's MDS further identified a fall with fracture prior to admission and indicated he had not had a fall since the prior assessment. R2's care plan dated 1/26/24, identified a potential for falls due to history of falls,…
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 before2026-03-05 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure food service equipment used in 3 of 4 facility kitchenettes ([NAME], Strawberry and Elderberry) were kept in a clean and sanitary condition to prevent potential food-borne illness. This had the potential to affect 86 of 87 residents, visitors and staff who consumed food prepared in the kitchenettes. In addition, the facility failed to ensure frozen food items were stored in a manner to reduce the risk of cross contamination in 1 of 4 freezers (Strawberry Unit) used in the facility's kitchenettes. This had the potential to affect all 19 residents who resided on the Strawberry unit and could potentially consume the items. Findings include: On 3/3/26, at 11:28 a.m. lunch food service was observed on [NAME] wing. Dietary aide (DA)-A was serving residents their lunch meal. DA-A stated the unit currently had 13 residents as one resident was in the hospital. The stove and attached griddle in the unit appeared dirty. There was greasy…
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 before2026-03-05 · 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 interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure staff utilized the appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) during high contact cares for 3 of 4 residents (R66, R67, R49) reviewed for enhanced barrier precautions. In addition, the facility failed to implement timely airborne precautions for 1 of 2 residents (R16) reviewed for transmission-based precautions.ENHANCED BARRIER PRECAUTIONS: R66 R66's comprehensive MDS dated [DATE], identified R66 had severe cognitive impairment and diagnoses included traumatic brain dysfunction, quadriplegia and seizure disorder. R66 used a feeding tube. R66's care plan revised 1/7/26, identified R66 needed enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) (an infection control strategy in nursing homes requiring staff to wear gowns and gloves during high-contact resident care, such as bathing, dressing, or device care) due to gastrotomy (G-tube) (a medical device inserted through the abdomen directly into the stomach to deliver nutrition, fluids, and medication when…
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 · D2026-03-05 · tag F0605 — failed to not use drugs as a restraint — isolatedPrevent the use of unnecessary psychotropic medications or use medications that may restrain a resident's ability to function.
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 document review, the facility failed to ensure clinical justification and ensure non-pharmacological interventions were utilized prior to initiation of an antipsychotic for 1 of 6 (R6) residents reviewed for psychotropic medications. Findings include: R6's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R6 had severe cognitive impairment and was dependent on staff for all activities of daily living (ADLs). R6 had not exhibited any behavioral symptoms. Diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, failure to thrive, pneumonia, diabetes and congestive heart failure. R6's Psychotropic Medication Use Care Area Summary (CAA) dated 1/27/26, identified R6 was taking antipsychotic medication. Staff monitored for adverse effect sides and effectiveness and target behaviors. R6's care plan with last review date 3/3/26, identified a potential problem related to psychotropic drug use with a goal for reduction of targe behaviors of wandering, exit seeking and inappropriate…
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 · D2026-03-05 · tag F0637 — isolatedAssess the resident when there is a significant change in condition
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 document review, the facility failed to ensure a significant change in status assessment (SCSA) was completed within required timeframe to help facilitate timely person-centered care planning for 1 of 3 residents (R21) reviewed for Minimum Data Set (MDS) accuracy.Findings include:R21's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R21 required setup or supervision with dressing and grooming and ambulation was not attempted due to safety. R21's Interdisciplinary Assessment form dated 9/12/25, identified walking was not attempted due to safety concerns. R21's progress note dated 9/21/25, quarterly MDS review, identified R21 was coded as not applicable on her quarterly MDS as R21 was non ambulatory at the time. R21's annual MDS dated [DATE], identified R21 was independent with upper and lower extremity dressing and grooming and ambulation was listed as not applicable. Diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, and heart disease. R21's Interdisciplinary Assessment form…
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 · D2026-03-05 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure foot pedals were removed from the wheelchair as directed by the care plan for 2 of 3 residents (R21, R6) reviewed for falls. Findings include:R63's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R63 had a severe cognitive impairment and diagnoses that included dementia. R63 was at risk for falls.R63's care plan revised 3/2/26, identified R63 was at risk for falls due to weakness, cognition and history of falls. Interventions included footrest on wheelchair when transporting only. The untitled nurse aide care sheet undated, identified R67's footrests on wheelchair when transporting.During an observation on 3/3/26 at 9:03 a.m., nursing assistant (NA)-G assisted R63 with R63's morning cares.At 9:18 a.m., NA-G wheeled R63 to the dining room table. NA-G did not remove R63's footrests and walked away.At 11:14 a.m., R63 was seated in her wheelchair at the dining room table. R63 continued to have the footrests on and her feet…
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 before2026-03-05 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure routine personal hygiene cares (i.e.,toileting assistance and/or nail care) were offered and/or completed for 2 of 3 residents (R63, R46) reviewed for activities of daily living (ADLs) and whom were dependent on staff for such cares. Findings include: R63's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R63 had a severe cognitive impairment and diagnoses that included dementia. R63 required supervision with eating, substantial assistance with oral hygiene, upper body dressing, and personal hygiene, and was dependent on staff for all other cares areas. R63's care plan revised 3/2/26, identified R63 had an alteration in urinary elimination due to incontinence. R63's toileting plan included: Toilet before/after meals and at bedtime. R63 was to bed checked for incontinence at night during repositioning. R63's goal was to have 1 or less episodes of urinary incontinence per day and 3 or less episodes of bowel incontinence…
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 · D2026-03-05 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ambulate residents as directed for 1 of 1 resident (R21) reviewed for mobility decline.Findings include:R21's progress note dated 9/21/25, quarterly MDS review, identified R21 was coded as not applicable on her quarterly MDS as R21 was non ambulatory at the time. R21's Interdisciplinary Assessment form(s) identified:9/12/25, identified walking was not attempted due to safety concerns.12/2/25, identified walking was not attempted. R21's medical record lacked a comprehensive assessment to determine potential safety concerns or new interventions were needed.R21's care plan with revision date 12/17/25, identified a problem of self-care deficit related to Alzheimer's disease. A goal was listed to maintain ambulation ability. R21 was to ambulate with nursing staff to and from meals and bathroom with a full wheeled walker and assist of one. R21's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R21 had severe cognitive impairment 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 · D2026-03-05 · 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, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure residents with side rails were comprehensively assessed prior to use/and or reassessed for appropriate continued use for 2 of 3 residents (R6, R63) reviewed who had side rails. Findings include: R6: R6's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R6 had severe cognitive impairment and was dependent on staff for all activities of daily living (ADLs). R6 had not exhibited any behavioral symptoms. Diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, failure to thrive, pneumonia, diabetes and congestive heart failure. The MDS identified side rails or restraints were not in use. R6's care plan dated 3/3/26, identified R6 had a self-care deficit due to weakness. Staff were directed to assist R6 to turn and reposition and use of bilateral upper bed rails to assist. R6 required use of side rails to assist with mobility and repositioning with a goal R6 would remain free from injury associated with side rail use. Staff were…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-07-02 · tag F0557 — isolatedHonor the resident's right to be treated with respect and dignity and to retain and use personal possessions.
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 document review the facility failed to ensure respect and dignity for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed when her personal power chair was removed from her room and use without her consent. Findings include: R1's admission Record indicated she admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnosis included diabetes, arthritis, right above the knee amputation, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and anxiety. R1's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified intact cognition and indicated she displayed no behaviors during the assessment period. The MDS indicated R1 was independent with dressing, personal hygiene and transfers and did not ambulate. R1's care plan dated 5/9/25, indicated she had a history of utilizing her motorized wheelchair off campus. The care plan identified the following approaches: 1. R1 will notify staff when leaving facility and expected return time. 2. R1 will utilize safety features when using wheelchair: Flag, seat belt, horn ,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-04-04 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and document review the facility failed to ensure cleaning of shared glucometers between patient use for 3 of 3 residents (R3, R4, R5) reviewed for infection control. Findings include: R4's Resident Face Sheet included a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus (DM) and long-term use of insulin. R4's Physician Order Report dated 4/4/25, identified an order for blood glucose monitoring before meals and at bedtime. R4's Vitals Report identified a blood glucose check was done 4/4/25 at 12:20 p.m. R3's Resident Face Sheet included a diagnosis of DMII. R3's Physician Order Report dated 4/4/25, identified an order for blood glucose monitoring four times a day and as needed. R4's Vitals Report identified a blood glucose check was done 4/4/25 at 11:54 a.m. R5's Resident Face Sheet included a diagnosis of DMII and long-term use of insulin. R5's Physician Order Report dated 4/4/25, identified an order for blood glucose monitoring before meals and at bedtime. R4's Vitals Report identified a blood glucose check was done 4/4/25 at 12:04 p.m. During observation on 4/4/25 at…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 31 citations
- Potential for harm · D2025-02-25 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and document review the facility failed to develop and implement care planned interventions to address refusal of cares for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for deteriorating skin condition. Findings include: R1's Resident Face Sheet indicated he admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnosis that included congestive heart failure, hypertension, cellulitis of right lower limb, Esysipelis and mild cognitive impairment. R1's Skin Risk Assessment with Braden Scale dated 11/2/24, indicated he required assistance of a mechanical lift and was frequently incontinent. The assessment identified open lesions on the foot, edema and reduced urinary output. R1's Braden evaluation for risk of skin breakdown indicate he was at risk. R1's care plan dated 11/18/24, identified a self-care deficit due to weakness. The care plan directed staff to encourage participation in grooming and indicated he required substantial assistance for grooming and toileting. The care plan identified incontinence and directed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-02-25 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and document review the facility failed to ensure toileting and hygiene tasks were performed for 1 of 3 (R1) residents reviewed resulting in worsening skin condition that required physician ordered treatment. Findings include: R1's Resident Face Sheet indicated he admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnosis that included congestive heart failure, hypertension, cellulitis of right lower limb, Esysipelis and mild cognitive impairment. R1's Skin Risk Assessment with Braden Scale dated 11/2/24, indicated he required assistance of a mechanical lift and was frequently incontinent. The assessment identified open lesions on the foot, edema and reduced urinary output. R1's Braden evaluation for risk of skin breakdown indicate he was at risk. R1's care plan dated 11/18/24, identified a self-care deficit due to weakness. the care plan directed staff to encourage participation in grooming and indicated he required substantial assistance for grooming and toileting. The care plan identified…
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 before2024-12-05 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to maintain clean and sanitary conditions of kitchen equipment and ensure hairnets were worn when preparing resident meals, to prevent the spread of food born illness. This had the potential to affect 69 out of 69 residents that received food out of the kitchen or kitchenette. Findings include: Mixer: During an initial tour of the main kitchen on 12/3/24 at 7:02 a.m., a large industrial mixer was on the counter. The underside of the mixer head, which sat over the mixing bowl, was coated in a tan colored food debris on the underside. There was a white dust covering the mixing bowl arms. During an observation of the large industrial mixer on 12/5/24 at 11:20 a.m., the underside of the mixer head continued to be coated with a tan colored food debris. DA-B stated, that's bad, really bad and equipment should be thoroughly cleaned after every use to prevent contamination of food. During an interview on 12/5/24 at 4:59 p.m., the administrator…
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 before2024-12-05 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY EBP: R10's significant change MDS dated [DATE], identfiied R10 was cognitively intact and had diagnoses that included quadriplegia, type 2 diabetes, and neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder. R10 had a stage 4 pressure ulcer, a colostomy and an indwelling catheter and was receiving intravenous medications. R10's care plan revised 11/19/24, identified R10 had an infection to a sacral wound (a region located at the base of the spine in the pelvic area) wound and had a need for enhanced barrier precautions due to indwelling urinary catheter and chronic wound. The following interventions were identified: - Post signage on door or wall outside of resident room - PPE available immediately outside of resident room. Staff to wash their hands upon entering and leaving room. PPE to be doffed prior to leaving resident room. - Provide education to resident or representative on the need for and duration of EBP. Encourage resident or representative to discuss feelings reoardino EBP. - Physical and occupational therapy to use…
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 before2024-12-05 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to provide routine oral care and shaving assistance to 1 of 5 residents (R23) reviewed for activities of daily living (ADLs) and who were dependent on staff for their care. Findings include: R23's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R23 was cognitively intact, had a diagnosis that included hemiplegia (one side paralysis or weakness) due to a history of a stroke. R23 had an indwelling catheter and a feeding tube. R23 was dependent on staff for all care activities. R23's care plan revised 12/3/24, identified R23 had a self-care deficit due to left sided hemiparesis related to a history of stroke. Staff were directed to provide assist of one for grooming. The care plan did not direct shaving on certain days or how often and when oral cares would be completed. During an observation on 12/3/24 at 4:31 p.m., R23 was lying in bed with his head of bed elevated 45 degrees. R23 had a sheet covering R23 to his waist and R23 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 · D2024-12-05 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and document review the facility failed to comprehensively assess and develop interventions to reduce or prevent continued weight loss for 1 of 1 resident (R30) reviewed for nutrition. We should also righ notification to he Dr at F580 . jsut need peices of it the record showing weight losss and interviews they should notify dr. Findings include: R30's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R30 had severe cognitive impairment and required moderate to maximum assist with all activities of daily living (ADLs). R30's weight was 114 pounds, Diagnoses included Alzheimer's and congestive heart failure. R30's MDS IDT assessment dated [DATE], identified R30 had no difficulty with chewing or swallowing and required one person assist to eat at times. R30's height, weight, weight loss or gain and appetite was not completed on the assessment form. R30's care plan dated 12/2/24, identified R30 had a potential for weight loss. R30 was to receive a regular diet and offer point of service…
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 · D2024-12-05 · tag F0732 — isolatedPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure required nurse staffing information was consistently posted on a daily basis. This had potential to affect all 72 residents, staff, and visitors who could wish to review this information. Findings include: On 12/3/24, at 6:45 a.m. adjacent to the front doors was a wall-mounted, particle board which had a paper document hung with a thumbtack titled Daily Staffing for Tuesday November 26, 2024 and identified a census of 70. The document listed staff scheduled hours per shift for each nursing job class. However, the posting was dated 11/26/24, seven days prior. When interviewed on 12/5/24, at 2:40 p.m. medical records (MR)-I stated she was responsible for the daily staffing posting. MR-I thought she had posted for the holiday weekend but must not have done so. MR-I was working on system to ensure she did not forget to post staffing daily. It was important to have the posting updated every day so staff, family and state knew how many residents were in the building and that the facility was sufficiently…
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 · D2024-12-05 · 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 interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure the consulting pharmacist (CP) identified the need for a gradual dose reduction (GDR) or medical justification of use for 1 of 5 residents (R3) reviewed for unnecessary medication. Findings include: R3's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R3 had severe cognitive impairment and R3 received antipsychotic medication daily. The MDS identified GDR was not attempted and there was no documentation that a GDR was contraindicated from R3's physician. Diagnoses included Alzheimer's, bipolar disorder, drug induced subacute dyskinesia (define), heart disease, and kidney failure. R3's most recent Physician Order Report dated 12/5/24, identified R3's current physician ordered medications. These included olanzapine five milligrams (mg) at bedtime for bipolar disorder with start date 3/31/22. R3's most recent Physician Progress note dated 10/25/24, identified R3 received olanzapine 5 mg daily for a diagnosis of bipolar. All…
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 · D2024-12-05 · 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 observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure a gradual dose reduction (GDR) was attempted and/or medical justification was provided to support ongoing use of an antipsychotic medication for1 of 5 residents (R3) reviewed for unnecessary medication use. Findings include: R3's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R3 had severe cognitive impairment and R3 received antipsychotic medication daily. A gradual dose reduction was not attempted and there was no documentation that a GDR was contraindicated from R3's physician. R3 was dependent with most activities of daily living (ADLs) and maximum assist with mobility. Diagnoses included Alzheimer's, bipolar disorder, drug induced subacute dyskinesia (a movement disorder associated with long term exposure to certain medications) , heart disease and kidney failure. R3's care plan dated 12/2/24, identified a potential problem related to psychotropic medication use with a goal for medication effectiveness…
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 · D2024-12-05 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
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 document review, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered in accordance with physician orders and/or manufacturer guidelines for 2 of 6 residents (R23, R54) observed to receive medication during the survey. This resulted in a facility medication administration error rate of 6.9 percent (%). Findings include: R23's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R23 was cognitively intact and included a had diagnosis of hemiplegia (one side paralysis or weakness) due to a history of a stroke. R23 exhibited pain and received scheduled and as needed pain medications. R23's Physician Order Report dated 12/8/23 identified R23 received Voltaren Arthritis Pain (diclofenac sodium) (an anti-inflammatory topical pain medication) gel 1%. Apply 4 gram (g) to affected area 4 times a day for back pain. During an observation on 12/4/24 at 6:52 p.m., registered nurse (RN)-B took R23's tube of Voltaren gel and apply approximately 1 inch to RN-B's gloved hand 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 · Dcited before2024-12-05 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — isolatedEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure the correct diet texture was served to 1 of 5 residents (R38) reviewed for pressure ulcers; and failed to accommodate dietary preferences of 1 of 1 resident (R58) reviewed for food choices. Findings include: R38 R38's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], identified R38 had severe cognitive impairment and a diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. R38 was dependent on staff for all care activities. R38's care plan revised 12/26/23, identified R23 required a mechanically altered diet related to chewing and swallowing abilities. Staff were directed to encourage oral intake of food and fluids. R38's dietary order dated 8/23/24, identified R38 required a minced and moist texture (a minced and moist diet consists of soft and moist foods that are easy to chew and swallow. The food was minced or mashed before serving, with no big lumps, and requires little or no biting. Lumps should be no more than 4 millimeter (mm) in size for adults. Foods in this…
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 · D2024-12-05 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to provide offer and provide risk vs benefits of receiving or declining immunizations per Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance for 1 of 5 residents (R38) reviewed for immunizations. Findings include: R38's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R38 was [AGE] years old and had severe cognitive impairment with a diagnosis of malignant neoplasm of the prostate (cancer). R38's immunization record dated 12/8/23, identified the following immunizations were received at an outside care setting, COVID-19 vaccination on 2/23/21 and on 2/2/21; pneumococcal vaccinations on 7/13/16 and 1/1/99, however, did not indentify the type of pneumococcal vaccination received. R38's medical record lacked evidence the following vaccinations were offered/ in conjunction with the medical provider and educated on the risk versus benefits of the vaccination: most recent booser for COVID-19, annual influenza, and pneumococcal vaccinations…
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 · D2024-07-02 · tag F0740 — failed to provide behavioral / mental-health care — isolatedEnsure each resident must receive and the facility must provide necessary behavioral health care and services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan with person centered interventions for food seeking behaviors for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for behavioral health needs. Findings include: R1's annual Minimal Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R1 had diagnoses which included dementia, and type 2 diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia. Further, MDS revealed R1 had moderately impaired cognition and did not exhibit any behaviors. R1's Progress Notes revealed the following: -On 6/25/24, R1 was seen by staff taking half gallon of milk from the kitchen. Staff spoke with R1 and R1 returned the gallon while saying this is bullshit. -On 6/21/24, R1 had been restless all night and had been out to nursing station numerous times looking for and requesting food. R1 had also made attempts to enter kitchen to sneak food. R1 was offered snacks and redirected when attempts were made to enter kitchen. -On 6/19/24, R1's care plan was reviewed and updated with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-07-02 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to obtain blood sugar checks and administer insulin timely, as ordered by physician, for 3 of 3 residents (R1, R2,R3) who had a diagnosis of diabetes. Findings include: R1's annual Minimal Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R1 had diagnoses which included dementia, and type 2 diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia. R1's Medication Administration History dated 6/1/24 through 6/27/24, indicated physician ordered blood glucose monitoring four times a day which was administered late 5 days. Further, physician order revealed insulin aspart once a morning which was administered late 8 days and Novolog FlexPen per sliding scale before meals and at bedtime which was administered late 9 days. R2's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], indicated R2 had diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. R2's Medication Administration History dated 6/1/24 through 6/27/24, indicated physician ordered blood glucose monitoring before meals and at bedtime which was administered…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-29 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — isolatedHonor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and document review the facility failed to operationalize their policy for prompt resolution of grievances for 1 of 1 residents (R3) reviewed who filed a grievance related to care concerns in the facility. Findings include: R3's Physician Orders dated January 2024, were reviewed. The orders did not include an order for Nitroglycerine tablets. A facility document titled Healthcare Safety Zone dated 2/1/24, indicated R3's family member (FM)-A spoke about a medication (Nitroglycerine) they received a bill for. FM-A stated R3 did not have an order for the medication and said R3 told her the medication was in her medication cupboard and a nurse had tried to give her the medication but R3 had refused. FM-A further identified concerns related to supplies and a skin issue and the nurse on duty, when the skin issue was identified, stated she did not have time to look at. During interview on 2/29/24 at 11:08 a.m., FM-A stated the facility had not followed up with her about concerns as she had requested. During interview on 2/29/24 at 11:42 a.m., licensed social worker…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-02-29 · tag 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 interview and document review the facility failed to report a fall from a mechanical stand that resulted in a broken clavicle (collarbone) to the state agency (SA) for 1 of 3 residents (R2) reviewed for falls. Findings include: R2's care plan dated 1/26/24, identified a risk for falls and directed staff to offer assistance with activities of daily living and transfers. R2's Progress Note dated 2/5/24, indicated staff was assisting R2 to the bathroom using a mechanical stand. R2 let go of the handles and began to slide out of the stand. Staff was able to help guide R2 to the floor. R2 complained of right shoulder pain. R2 agreed to go to the emergency department after dialysis. During interview on 2/27/24 at 3:08 p.m., the director of nursing (DON) stated R2 sustained a skin tear and a broken clavicle. The DON stated the incident was not reported to the SA because staff had identified a decline in condition that contributed to his falls. During interview on 2/27/24 at approximately 3:30 p.m., the administrator stated R2's fall from the lift was not reported to the SA because…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-02-29 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and document review the facility failed to investigate a fall from a mechanical stand that resulted in a broken clavicle (collarbone) for 1 of 3 residents (R2) reviewed for falls. Findings include: R2's care plan dated 1/26/24, identified a risk for falls and directed staff to offer assistance with activities of daily living and transfers. R2's Progress Note dated 2/5/24, indicated staff was assisting R2 to the bathroom using a mechanical stand. R2 let go of the handles and began to slide out of the stand. Staff was able to help guide R2 to the floor. R2 complained of right shoulder pain. R2 agreed to go to the emergency department after dialysis. During interview on 2/27/24 at 3:08 p.m., the director of nursing (DON) stated R2 sustained a skin tear and a broken clavicle when he fell from the mechanical stand. The DON stated the fall had not been investigated. During interview on 2/27/24 at approximately 3:30 p.m., the administrator stated a formal investigation into the fall had not been completed. During interview on 2/27/24 at approximately 3:45 p.m., licensed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-11-09 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and document review the facility failed to develop and implement interventions to prevent sexual abuse for 1 of 2 residents (R1) who was being sexually abused by another resident (R4). Findings include: A report to the state agency dated 11/1/23, indicated on 10/29/23, Staff reported that they saw R4 touching R1's face, legs, thighs and head then tried putting his hands down her pants. The report indicated staff stepped in and stopped R4 and told him he needed to go to his room. An undated, untitled document provided by the facility in response to request for the investigation of the allegation indicated the incident was isolated. The document indicated three residents were interviewed by the facility with no identified concerns. Summary of interviews with witnesses indicated: It was reported on 11/1/23, that on 10/29/23, staff member had seen R4 touching R1 on her legs and face and also tried to put his hands down her brief. The document however, lacked evidence of interviews with 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 before2023-11-09 · 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 interview and document review the facility failed to timely report an allegation of sexual abuse to the state agency for 1 of 1 residents (R1) reviewed who was allegedly being abused by another resident (R4) in the facility. Findings include: A report to the state agency dated 11/1/23, indicated on 10/29/23, Staff reported that they saw R4 touching R1's face, legs, thighs and head then tried putting his hands down her pants. The report indicated staff stepped in and stopped R4 and told him he needed to go to his room R4 Progress Notes identified the following: 10/24/23, R4 was making sexual comments to another resident (R1). R4 asked R1, Do you want me to come into your room tonight? 10/25/23, R4 was witnessed attempting to expose himself to another resident (R1) in the dining room. Report from the dietary aid was that R4 approached R1 in the dining room and looked around then stood up and began to unzip his pants. He attempted this two times and was redirected each time. R4's response to redirection was I am just trying to make her happy. 10/26/23, Writer was contacted…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-11-09 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and document review the facility failed to thoroughly investigate an allegation of resident to resident sexual abuse for 1 of 1 residents (R1) who was being abused by another resident (R4). Findings include: A report to the state agency dated 11/1/23, indicated on 10/29/23, Staff reported that they saw R4 touching R1's face, legs, thighs and head then tried putting his hands down her pants. The report indicated staff stepped in and stopped R4 and told him he needed to go to his room. R4 Progress Notes identified the following: 10/24/23, R4 was making sexual comments to another resident (R1). R4 asked R1, Do you want me to come into your room tonight? 10/25/23, R4 was witnessed attempting to expose himself to another resident (R1) in the dining room. Report from the dietary aid was that R4 approached R1 in the dining room and looked around then stood up and began to unzip his pants. He attempted this two times and was redirected each time. R4's response to redirection was I am just trying to make her happy. 10/26/23, Writer was contacted from unit staff reporting…
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 before2023-10-25 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to maintain an on-going infection control program, which included comprehensive surveillance of resident infections to identify and analyze possible patterns of infection in the facility, including identification of any patterns in residents, locations or pathogens in real time to prevent the spread of communicable disease and infections. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all 69 residents who resided in the facility. Findings include: Review of the facility's infection control surveillance program was conducted on 10/25/23 at 11:18 a.m., with licensed practical nurse infection preventionist (IP)-A. The infection logs lacked the following columns: resident name, room number, admit date , type of infection, surveillance definition met, symptoms, onset date, antibiotic name, class, dose, route, frequency provider, antibiotic start date, antibiotic end date, transmission on based precautions required, and date symptoms resolved. The infection logs lacked necessary documentation for adequate surveillance of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-10-25 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — patternEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure food was served at a palatable and appetizing temperature for 1 of 1 resident (R7) who had food concerns. Findings include: R7's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R7 was cognitively intact and was independent with mobility and eating. R7's care area assessment (CAA) dated 11/14/22 triggered for nutritional status. During an observation on 10/24/23 a 4:48 p.m., R7 was seated at the table with three other residents. R7 indicated the meat sauce and noodles were on the chilly side. R15 agreed with R7 and stated, It is always like this. R7 pushed her plate in front of her and indicated she could not eat the dinner. R7 indicated her son had brought her some snacks that she would eat later in her room. During an observation on 10/25/23 at 8:16 a.m., R7 was seated at the dining room table for breakfast with four other residents and indicated the sausage links were not really warm and expressed they never were. R7…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-10-25 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure dignity was maintained for 1 of 1 residents (R18) who utilized an indwelling catheter. Findings include: R18's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R18 had intact cognition and had diagnosis which included: anxiety disorder, asthma, and Neurogenic bladder (condition in which a person lack's bladder control). Identified R18 required staff assistance with activities of daily living (ADL's) which included bed mobility, transfers, and toileting. R18's annual Care Area Assessment (CAA) dated 8/11/23, identified R18 required assistance with toileting. Indicated R18 had an indwelling catheter related to a neurogenic bladder. R18's care plan reviewed 8/21/23, identified R18 had an indwelling catheter due to neurogenic bladder. Care plan instructed staff to position catheter bag below level of the bladder. Care plan lacked direction on covering the catheter bag. Care plan indicated R18 required extensive staff assistance…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-10-25 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure resident current wishes for resuscitation status were accurately documented in the medical record for 2 of 27 residents (R8 and R25) reviewed for advanced directives. Findings include: R8 R 8's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R8 had mild cognitive impairment and had diagnosis which included end stage renal disease, hyperlipidemia (elevated cholesterol) and hypertension (elevated blood pressure). Identified R8 was independent with activities of daily living (ADL's) which included bed mobility, toileting, and transfers. During an interview on [DATE] at 10:00 a.m., R8 stated he had decided a few months ago that he did not wish to be resuscitated. R8's current care plan revised [DATE], identified R8's advance directives were for full resuscitation (full code) status. Review of R8's paper health record identified the following: -R8's Resuscitation status form dated [DATE], identified R8 requested to change his code status…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-10-25 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — isolatedProvide activities to meet all resident's needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to provide meaningful and engaging activities for 1 of 1 residents (R7) with visual and hearing impairments reviewed for activities. Findings include: R7's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified R7 was cognitively intact and was independent with transfers, mobility and activities of daily living (ADLs). R7's face sheet identified diagnoses of Nonexudative age-related macular degeneration, bilateral (dry eye disease in both eyes) and sensorineural hearing loss, bilateral (nerve related hearing loss in both ears). R7's Activity assessment dated [DATE], indicated R7 preferred day/activity room and independent activities in her room. R7's preferred program style was small groups and independent at times. Indicated R7's preferences were crafts/arts, music, spiritual/religious, watching TV, talking or conversing, and helping others. R7's focus of programing was creative/expressive, independent, relaxation, religious, social…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-10-25 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to comprehensively assess, monitor, and provide necessary care 1 of 1 residents (R62) with a port-a-cath (an implanted device in the chest with direct access to a vein. It is used to administer medication or fluids that are unable to be taken by mouth or would harm a smaller peripheral vein, obtain blood tests, and measure central venous pressure) in the facility. R62 was at risk for injury or an infection. Findings include: R62's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], identified R62 had independent decision making skills for activities of daily living and had no memory impairment. Indicated R62 had diagnoses of anemia, coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus, and depression. R62's care plan dated 9/22/23, indicated R62 had a self-care deficit due to deconditioned status. R62's care plan listed various interventions with included assist of one to two to ambulate with walker, assist of one for bathing and dressing, 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 · Dcited before2023-10-25 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — isolatedEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure menus and individual resident food plans met the nutritional needs and preferences for 2 of 2 residents (R4 and R7) reviewed for food. Findings include: R4 R4's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated R4 had intact cognition and had diagnosis which included diabetes mellitus (DM) , chronic kidney disease, and heart failure. Identified R4 required staff assistance with activities of daily living (ADL'S) which included bed mobility, toileting and transfers. A nutritional assessment dated [DATE],indicated R4 preferred lettuce salads and disliked salmon. R4's care plan revised 7/18/23, instructed staff to encourage protein at breakfast (eggs, yogurt, cottage cheese). During an interview on 10/23/23 at 2:59 p.m., R4 stated her preferences were fried eggs for breakfast and a lettuce salad at lunch. R4 stated that up until a few months ago, she had received a fried egg and lettuce salad however is no longer able to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-10-19 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — patternTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and document review the facility failed to report an allegation of neglect to the state agency (SA) which had the potential to affect all residents who resided on the Elderberry unit of the facility. Findings include: A report to the SA dated 7/17/23, indicated on 7/15/23, a nursing assistant (NA) was sent to the Elderberry unit of the facility at 1:30 a.m. to relieve licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A for a break. Upon arriving to the unit LPN-A was nowhere to be seen, the NA checked every room and bathrooms and was still unable to find LPN-A. At 3:00 a.m. LPN-A still had not returned to the unit. The on call nurse instructed staff to check the parking lot to see if LPN-A was asleep in her car. A second nurse went to the second floor to assist with the search and found LPN-A asleep in the sunroom. The report indicated there was only one staff on each unit on the overnight shift so staff were not to leave the unit unattended. During interview on 10/18/23, at 3:58 p.m. registered nurse (RN)-A…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-10-19 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — patternRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and document review the facility failed to thoroughly investigate and allegation of neglect of care which had the potential to affect all residents who resided on the Elderberry unit of the facility. Findings include: A report to the SA dated 7/17/23, indicated on 7/15/23, a nursing assistant (NA) was sent to the Elderberry unit of the facility at 1:30 a.m. to relieve licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A for a break. Upon arriving to the unit LPN-A was nowhere to be seen, the NA checked every room and bathrooms and was still unable to find LPN-A. At 3:00 a.m. LPN-A still had not returned to the unit. The on call nurse instructed staff to check the parking lot to see if LPN-A was asleep in her car. A second nurse went to the second floor to assist with the search and found LPN-A asleep in the sunroom. The report indicated there was only one staff on each unit of the overnight shift so staff were not to leave the unit unattended. During interview on 10/18/23, at 3:58 p.m. registered nurse (RN)-A…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-10-19 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and document review the facility failed to perform root cause analysis and failed to provide staff education to reduce the risk for burns after 1 of 1 residents (R9) reviewed sustained a burn from a hot plate. Findings include: R9's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], identified intact cognition. R9's care plan dated 10/3/23, identified a Self Care deficit due to quadriplegia and indicated he had some function in upper extremities. The care plan directed staff to set up R9's food and cut up food as needed. R9's Resident Progress Note dated 9/28/23, indicated R9 was eating breakfast in his room and had placed plate on bare abdomen. When plate was removed it was found that R9 had a 4 centimeter (cm) x 5 cm red area and 1 cm x 2 cm blistered burn from the plate. Provider was notified and orders received for treatment. Dietary was talked too about this and thought that the new plaid clothing protectors would be appropriate coverage for abdomen. A supply was placed in residents…
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.
- No harm found · C2023-10-25 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — widespreadDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
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, the facility failed to ensure the posting of conspicuous signage of employee rights related to retaliation against the employee for reporting a suspected crime. This deficiency had the potential to affect all 69 residents currently residing in the facility. Findings include: During an observation on 10/25/23, a tour of the facility revealed the facility lacked signage of employee rights related to retaliation prohibition for reporting suspicions of a suspected crime posted within the facility. During an interview on 10/25/23 at 8:31 a.m., nursing assistant (NA)-A, could not identify where employee rights related to retaliation were posted. During an interview on 10/25/23 at 8:31 a.m., NA-B could not verify where employee rights related to retaliation were posted. During an interview on 10/25/23 at 8:55 a.m., licensed practical nurse (LPN)-A, could not verify where employee rights related to retaliation were posted. During an interview on 10/25/23 at 12:22 p.m., trained 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.
“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
$45,915 in federal fines across 3 penalties.
- $17,345 — penalty dated 2025-12-09
- $14,433 — penalty dated 2024-09-27
- $14,137 — penalty dated 2024-02-29
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to SANFORD HEALTH — 4 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 | 1 of 5 | 2.8 | -1.8 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 1 of 5 | 2.5 | -1.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 4.3 | -0.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 2 of 5 | 3.0 | -1.0 vs chain |
The other 3 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.8★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SANFORD NORTH | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 05/01/2014 |
| SANFORD | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 05/01/2014 |
| DULSKI, KARIN | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 11/19/2012 |
| GASSEN, WILLIAM | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 11/24/2020 |
| MARLETTE, WILLIAM | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 06/16/2023 |
| MORRISON, TONY | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 02/01/1991 |
| MUNSON, JOLYN | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 02/25/2013 |
| SWENSON, STEPHANIE | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 11/01/2019 |
| CAIN, JAMES | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 11/19/2015 |
| ENGBRECHT, WESLEY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2021 |
| GULSVIG, NEIL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 03/28/2019 |
| JACOBS, DONALD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2014 |
| LUNDEEN, MARK | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2014 |
| MOLBERT, LAURIS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2021 |
| NORTH, ANDREW | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2017 |
| TEIKEN, BRENT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 05/01/2014 |
| VENTLING-HERRMANN, MARNIE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2022 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 21 rows in the source record cover these 17 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
2 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.
What families pay in MN
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 Minnesota 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 245039. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-03-05, 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.