Westchester House, The
550 White Road, Chesterfield, MO 63017 · For profit - Corporation · 159 certified beds · (314) 469-1200 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- 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, F0602) — most recent Mar 2024
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0607) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0567)
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (43) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $83,824 in federal fines (most recent 2024-08-28)
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (69%) runs well above the national median (45%)
- its last standard health inspection was over 2 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 1 to 2 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 7.6% | 18.1% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.7% | 5.3% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 1.1% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.7% | 2.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 14.5% | 18.5% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 4.0% | 4.1% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 4.3% | 17.4% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 17.7% | 25.6% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.1% | 90.9% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 7.1% | 4.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 21.7% | 17.8% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 12.6% | 23.5% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 4.4% | 2.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 94.1% | 63.5% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 24.7% | 26.0% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 8.4% | 13.7% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.34 | 2.11 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.47 | 2.33 | 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.
43.4% 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 61 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 92.3% 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 26 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 0.36 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 61% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 5% 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 | 43.4%CMS range 31.3–55.1 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.4%CMS range 6.8–12.4 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 92.3% | 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 | 80.8% | 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 | 84.6% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 80.8% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 3.6% | 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 | 8.2%CMS range 5.3–14.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.94 | 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 159 beds and averages 90.1 residents a day — about 57% occupied, or roughly 69 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.29 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.59 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.01 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 2.98 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.41 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.67 to 0.39 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 69% is well above the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
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.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.
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.
43 citations, most serious first. The 12 most serious are shown; the remaining 31 are one tap away and print in full.
- Actual harm · G2024-08-28 · 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 observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident with a significant weight loss was provided appropriate mealtime assistance resulting in a 9.43% weight loss within a 30 day time frame (Resident #36). In addition, the facility failed to notify the physician and Registered Dietician (RD) when a resident experienced a weight loss for one resident (Resident #31) and failed to ensure nutritional supplements and double portions were provided for one resident at risk for weight loss (Residents #22). The sample size was 18. The census was 78. Review of the facility's Hydration and Nutrition policy, revised 8/24/23, showed: -Each resident receives a sufficient amount of food and fluids to maintain acceptable parameters of nutritional and hydration status; -Federal Regulations; -Based on a resident's comprehensive assessment, the facility must ensure that a resident; -Maintains acceptable parameters of nutritional status; -Is offered sufficient fluid intake to maintain proper…
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 before2023-08-03 · 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 record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who admitted to the facility with a left ankle surgical wound on 6/26/23 received wound care orders timely. The facility obtained orders on 6/28/23 and failed to ensure dressing changes occurred after orders were received (Resident #1). The sample was 3. The census was 60. The administrator was notified on 8/3/23, of the past non-compliance. The facility has changed their admission order process to include if a resident is admitted with a wound that wound care orders will be verified. The deficiency was corrected on 7/15/23. Review of the Skin Integrity Prevention and Management policy, reviewed 3/31/23, showed: -Policy: Provide associates and licensed nurses with procedures to manage skin integrity, prevent skin injury, complete wound assessment/documentation, and provide treatment and care of skin and wounds utilizing professional standards of the National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel (NPIAP); -Procedure: -A comprehensive skin…
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 · D2025-05-13 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents' personal possessions were kept safe from loss or theft and failed to maintain inventory sheets for four sampled residents (Residents #1, #8, #9 and #10). The census was 90. Review of the facility's Inventory of Personal Belongings policy, dated [DATE], showed: -The facility will reduce the potential for lost clothing and ensure that residents receive all of their personal clothing once it has been laundered; -The Laundry Department will be notified of each new resident admission, take the resident's clothing, mark it and account for each item on an inventory sheet, with description for each article of clothing; -The same procedure will be done each time new clothing is brought into the facility; -If any clothing is missing, the Laundry Department will make every possible attempt to find the clothing before the resident's discharge. Review of the facility's Closet Search-Lost and Unmarked Clothing policy, dated [DATE], showed: -Every…
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 before2025-05-13 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to complete weekly skin assessments and to identify an open wound caused by cellulitis (a serious bacterial infection) for one resident (Resident #1) and failed to notify the resident's physician of the wound and obtain orders for the wound care. The facility also failed to discontinue wound care orders for the resident's right medial distal thigh and documented falsely in the resident's Treatment Administration Record (TAR). The sample size was four. The census was 90. Review of the facility's Skin Integrity and Pressure Ulcer/Prevention and Management Policy, dated 7/9/24, showed: -Policy: Provide associates and licensed nurses with procedures to manage skin integrity, prevent pressure ulcer/injury, complete wound assessment/documentation, and provide treatment and care of skin and wounds utilizing professional standards of the NPIAP (National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel) and WOCN (Wound, Ostomy (surgically created opening in the body to allow waste to exit the body) Continent Nurses Society); -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 before2025-05-13 · 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 record review, the facility failed to complete weekly skin assessments and to identify a Stage II (partial thickness loss of dermis (the inner layer that makes up skin) presenting as a shallow open ulcer with a red-pink wound bed, without slough (non-viable yellow, tan, gray, green or brown tissue) or eschar (non-viable, dark brown or black tissue). May also present as an intact or open/ruptured blister) pressure ulcer (localized injury to the skin and/or underlying tissue usually over a bony prominence, as a result of pressure, or pressure in combination with shear and/or friction) for one resident (Resident #1) and failed to notify the resident's physician of the pressure ulcer and obtain orders for the wound care. In addition the facility failed to assess, document and obtain treatment orders for a pressure ulcer identified on admission (Resident #7). The sample size was four. The census was 90. Review of the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP), prevention 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 · Fcited before2024-08-28 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — widespreadEnsure 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 record review, the facility failed to provide residents with food that was palatable and at a safe and appetizing temperature for 7 of 18 sampled residents (Residents #80, #38, #292, #81, #54, #36 and #79). The census was 87. Review of the facility Safe Food Handling Policy, dated 10/7/19, and revised on 4/16/23 and reviewed on 5/1/2024, showed: -All food purchased, stored and distributed is handled with accepted food-handling practices, and per federal, state and local requirements; -Danger Zone-means temperatures above 41 degrees Fahrenheit (F) and below 135 degrees F that allow the rapid growth of pathogenic microorganisms that can cause food borne illness. Potentially Hazardous Foods (PHF) or Time/Temperature Control for Safety (TCS). Foods held in the danger zone for more than 4 hours (if being prepared from ingredients at ambient temperature) or 6 hours (if cooked and cooled) may cause a food borne illness outbreak if consumed; -Food Distribution-means the processes…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-08-28 · tag F0553 — failed to let residents help plan their care — patternAllow resident to participate in the development and implementation of his or her person-centered plan of care.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents or the resident's responsible party (RP) were invited to participate in all aspects of person-centered care planning for six of 18 sampled residents (Residents #66, #80, #292, #50, #62 and #54). The census was 78. Review of the facility's Comprehensive Care Plans and Revisions policy, reviewed 8/22/23, showed: -Policy: The facility will ensure the timeliness of each resident's person-centered, comprehensive care plan, and to ensure that the comprehensive care plan is reviewed and revised by an interdisciplinary team composed of individuals who have knowledge of the resident and his/her needs, and that each resident and resident representative, if applicable, is involved in developing the care plan and making decisions about his or her care; -Procedure; -The facility should monitor the resident over time to help identify changes in the resident condition that may warrant an update to the person-centered plan of care; -When these changes…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-08-28 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — patternImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, facility staff failed to notify, in a timely manner, the family/resident representative of three residents' change of room assignment after they tested positive of COVID-19 (an infectious disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus) (Residents #62, #31, and #14). The facility census was 78. Review of the facility's COVID-19 Policy, reviewed on 7/12/24, showed: -Place a resident with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in a single-person room. The door should be kept closed (if safe to do so). The resident should have a dedicated bathroom; -The facility could consider designating entire units within the facility, with dedicated healthcare provided, to care for residents with SARS-CoV-2 infection when the number of residents with SARS-CoV-2 infection is high; -Limit transport and movement of the resident outside of the room to medically essential purposes; -Communicate information about residents with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection to appropriate personnel…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-08-28 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop 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 observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents had complete, accurate and individualized care plans to address the specific needs of three of 18 sampled residents. (Residents #36, #79, and #292) . The census was 78. Review of the facility's Comprehensive Care Plans and Revisions policy, reviewed 8/22/23, showed: -Policy: The facility will ensure the timeliness of each resident's person-centered, comprehensive care plan, and to ensure that the comprehensive care plan is reviewed and revised by an interdisciplinary team composed of individuals who have knowledge of the resident and his/her needs, and that each resident and resident representative, if applicable, is involved in developing the care plan and making decisions about his or her care; -Procedure; -The facility should monitor the resident over time to help identify changes in the resident condition that may warrant an update to the person-centered plan of care; -When these changes occur, the facility should…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-08-28 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — patternProvide 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 record review, the facility failed to ensure residents who received activities of daily living (ADL) received personal care in accordance with their personal needs for three of 18 sampled residents (Residents #36, #79 and #50). The census was 78. Review of the facility's Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), revised 2/12/24, showed: -Policy: The resident will receive assistance as needed to complete ADLs. Any change in the ability to perform ADLs will be reported to the nurse; -Federal Regulations: F677 A resident who is unable to carry out activities of daily living receives the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene. 1. Review of Resident #36's medical record, showed diagnoses included Parkinsonism (a clinical syndrome characterized by tremor, rigidity and postural instability) unspecified tremors and high blood pressure. Review of the resident's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment instrument…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-08-28 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — patternProvide 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 record review, the facility failed to provide an on-going activity program based on resident preferences to support residents in their choice of activities and meet the needs of residents. The resident council meeting participants reported activities to be insufficient. In addition, residents observed and interviewed reported concerns with the activity program for eight of 18 sampled residents (Residents #54, #26, #50, #62, #44, #55, #22 and #36). The census was 78. Review of the facility's Therapeutic Activities Program, dated reviewed 9/21/23, showed: -Activities -refers to any endeavor, other than routine activities of daily living (ADLs), in which a resident participates that is intended to enhance her/his sense of well-being and to promote or enhance physical, cognitive, and emotional health. These include, but are not limited to, activities that promote self-esteem, pleasure, comfort, education, creativity, success, and independence; -Program scheduling: -It is important…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-08-28 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — patternProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure physicians' orders for respiratory evaluation and treatments were followed for five residents out of 18 sampled residents (Residents #50, #62, #31, #14, and #44). The facility census was 78. Review of the facility policy binder, showed no policies regarding respiratory illness/infections. 1. Review of Resident #50's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment instrument completed by facility staff, dated 7/26/24 showed; -Cognitively moderately impaired; -Diagnoses included kidney failure, dementia, arthritis, malnutrition and depression. Review of the resident's nurse's progress notes, showed on 8/12/24 at 3:55 P.M., the resident was diagnosed positive for COVID-19, respiratory precautions in place. Review of the resident's physician's orders, showed: An order, dated 8/15/24, for Respiratory Evaluation and Treatment as indicated. Complete Respiratory assessment under assessment Tab. Contact Family, Primary Care…
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 · Ecited before2024-08-28 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — patternEnsure 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 record review, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than 5%. Out of 33 opportunities, for errors, four errors occurred, resulting in a 12.12% medication error rate (Residents #242, #30, #23 and #29). The census was 78. Review of the facility's Administration of Medication Policy, dated 8/24/23, showed: -Policy: The facility will ensure medications are administered safely and appropriately per physician order to address residents' diagnoses and signs and symptoms; -Medication administration is the responsibility of those individuals who through certification and licensure are authorized in their state to administer medications in a skilled nursing facility; -Staff who are responsible for medication administration will adhere to the 10 rights of medication administration: -Right Drug: every drug administered must have an order from the provider. Compare the order with the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for accuracy. Compare the label on the drug…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-08-28 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program when staff failed to wear appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE), in accordance with the facility's policy, during high-contact activities (dressing, bathing/showering, transferring, providing hygiene, changing linens, changing briefs, or assisting with toileting, medical device care or use, and wound care) with residents on enhanced barrier precautions (EBP, an infection control intervention designed to reduce transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms (an umbrella term for bacteria and other microorganisms that are resistant to antibiotics and other drugs designed to kill them) that employs targeted gown and glove use during high contact resident care activities) for five residents (Residents #79, #74, #19, #242 and #36). Furthermore, the facility failed to follow their incontinent care policy when staff provided perineal area care (cleansing between the legs and buttocks…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-28 · tag F0661 — isolatedEnsure necessary information is communicated to the resident, and receiving health care provider at the time of a planned discharge.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a discharge summary was completed, including a recapitulation of the resident's stay and final summary of the resident's status at the time of discharge, for two of three residents investigated for discharge (Residents #54 and #89). The census was 78. 1. Review of Resident #54's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment instrument completed by facility staff, dated 5/24/24 showed; -Cognitively intact; -Diagnoses included heart failure, kidney failure, diabetes and high blood pressure. Review of the resident's progress notes, showed; -On 3/17/2024 at 9:29 A.M., Note Text: Resident requested that Social Services send referral for possible transfer, will follow up on referral; -On 3/29/2024 at 4:16 P.M., Note Text: Resident does not want to transfer to another facility anymore. Attempted to contact resident's family regarding Medicaid benefits. No answer, left a voicemail; waiting on a call back; -On 4/12/2024 at 5:21 P.M.,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-08-28 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice by failing to follow the wound treatment order, resulting in an untreated non-pressure wound, for one sampled resident (Resident #292). The sample was 18. The census was 78. Review of the facility's Wound Care Policy, revised on 7/12/24, showed: -Quality of care is a fundamental principle that applies to all treatment and care provided to facility residents. Based on the comprehensive assessment of a resident, the facility must ensure that residents receive treatment and care in accordance with professional standard of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' choices; -The skin care program developed by the facility is interdisciplinary and implemented using a team approach; -The skin care program's interdisciplinary team functions as an action team; -Each discipline has a vital role in wound care. All disciplines focus on assessment, planning. implementing, and documenting care;…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-08-28 · 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
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one resident with wounds received necessary treatments. and services to promote healing (Resident #31). The sample size was 18. The census was 78. Review of the facility's Skin Integrity & Pressure Ulcer/Injury Prevention and Management Policy, dated revised: 7/9/2024, showed: -Skin observations also occur throughout points of care provided by Certified Nurse Aide's (CNA) during Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care (bathing, dressing, incontinent care, etc.). Any changes or open areas are reported to the Nurse. CNAs will also report to nurse if topical dressing is identified as soiled, saturated, or dislodged. Nurse will complete further inspection/assessment and provide treatment if needed; -When skin breakdown occurs, it requires attention and a change in the plan of care may be indicated to treat the resident. Review of Resident #31's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment instrument completed by the facility staff, dated 6/11/24, showed: -Cognitively intact; -Diagnoses…
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 before2024-07-03 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from significant medication errors when the facility failed to administer medications as ordered for two of six sampled residents (Resident #1 and Resident #3). The census was 83. The administrator was notified on [DATE] of the past non-compliance. The facility had already began an investigation, counted the medication carts, added a corrected count to all controlled substance logs, interviewed staff and residents, notified the police, the resident's physician and family, in-serviced staff on abuse and misappropriation of resident property (including drug diversion) and terminated Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) A. The deficiency was corrected on [DATE]. Review of the facility's Administration of Medications policy, reviewed [DATE], included: -Policy: The facility will ensure medications are administered safely and appropriately per physician order to address residents' diagnoses and signs and symptoms; -Medication…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-03-01 · tag F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — isolatedProtect each resident from the wrongful use of the resident's belongings or money.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from misappropriation (unauthorized, improper, or unlawful use of funds or other property) when a staff member misappropriated $13,300 of resident's money from their personal account, without the resident's consent. This affected one of eight sampled residents (Resident #8). The census was 75. Review of the facility's Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation policy dated 7/18/23, showed the following: -It is the policy of this facility to identify abuse, neglect, and exploitation of residents and misappropriation of resident property. The resident has the right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, and exploitation as defined in this subpart; -Exploitation, is defined as taking advantage of a resident for personal gain, through the use of manipulation, intimidation, threats, or coercion; -Misappropriation of resident property, is defined as the deliberate misplacement, exploitation, or wrongful,…
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 before2024-03-01 · 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 record review, the facility failed to ensure residents who required assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs) received personal hygiene assistance in accordance with their personal needs by not providing baths/showers for three residents (Residents #1, #2 and #3). The sample size was four. The census was 75. Review of the facility's Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) policy, revised on 2/12/24, showed: -Policy: The resident will receive assistance as needed to complete ADLs. Any change in the ability to perform ADLs will be reported to the nurse; -A resident who is unable to carry out ADLs receives the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene. 1. Review of Resident #1's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment instrument completed by facility staff, dated 8/28/23, showed: -Rarely/never understood by others; -Rarely/never understood others; -Short and long term memory problems; -Severely impaired…
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 before2023-08-03 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who admitted to the facility on [DATE], received ordered medication timely (Resident #1). The facility did not administer medications until 24 hours after admission, when the pharmacy delivered the medication. Staff did not access the emergency kit. The sample was 3. The census was 60. The administrator was notified on 8/3/23, of the past non-compliance. The facility has changed their process on how medications are ordered and delivered from pharmacy providers. The deficiency was corrected on 7/15/23. Review of the Pharmacy Services Delivery and Receipt of Routine Delivery policy, revised 1/1/22, showed: -Procedure: Pharmacy and the facility should coordinate to determine delivery day(s) and times(s); -Receipt of pharmacy deliveries: -If any item ordered by the facility is not received in the delivery, facility staff should check for a pharmacy communication slip indicating back ordered medications, medications too soon for refill,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2023-06-15 · tag F0567 — failed to protect residents' money held by the home — widespreadHonor the resident's right to manage his or her financial affairs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to allow resident access to personal funds on an ongoing basis. This practice affected 39 residents with personal funds accounts out of a census of 58 residents. Finding included: Review of the facility policy, titled, Resident Trust Policies, dated 06/15/2022, indicated, Each skilled nursing facility ('SNF' or 'facility') that is owned and/or managed by [Corporate Name] SHALL [emphasis not added]: 4. Provide residents with access to his or her funds within a reasonable amount of time. a. Requests for $50.00 or less ($100.00 or less for Medicare residents) should be honored within the same day). 1. Observation on 06/06/2023 at 10:02 AM, showed a green sign was observed hanging on a bulletin board outside the business office. The green sign indicated the facility banking hours were Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM until 3:00 PM. There was also a list of six holidays in 2023 when the bank would not be open. 2. Review of a five-day Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2023-06-15 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, facility policy, and document review, the facility failed to store and prepare food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in the kitchen which had the potential to affect 56 of 58 residents who received food from the kitchen. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure food in the dry storage area was sealed and dated when opened; ensure temperature logs on the refrigerators and freezers were complete; ensure meal temperature logs were completed and logged before each meal; and monitor and clean the nourishment room refrigerator. Findings included: 1. The facility's policy, titled, Food Safety, revised on 04/26/2023, indicated, Food is stored and maintained in a clean, safe, and sanitary manner following federal, state, and local guidelines to minimize contamination and bacterial growth. The policy also indicated, Opened packages of food are resealed tightly to prevent contamination of the food item and 'use by date' will be used when applicable. During initial kitchen observations on 06/05/2023 at 10:05 AM, a 10-pound…
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 · E2023-06-15 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — patternDevelop 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
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure newly hired employees were screened to rule out the presence of a Federal Indicator, with the Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) Registry, for nine of 23 sampled employees hired since the last survey. The facility hired at least 200 new employees since the last survey. The census was 63. Review of the facility's Protection of Residents: Reducing the Threat of Abuse and Neglect Policy, revised on 8/10/21, showed the following: -Introduction: To minimize the threat of abuse and/or neglect, nursing homes must incorporate clear-cut policies and practices that demonstrate a hardline, zero-tolerance approach to resident abuse; -Policy: It is the policy and practice of this facility that all residents will be protected from all types of abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, and exploitation. The facility has procedures in place to provide protection from the health, welfare and rights of each resident residing in the facility. In order to provide these protections, the facility has implemented procedures 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 · D2023-06-15 · tag F0554 — isolatedAllow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the practice of self-administration of medication was clinically appropriate for 1 (Resident #166) of 1 resident reviewed for self-administration of medication. The census was 58. Findings included: A review of Resident #166's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 05/27/2023 with diagnoses that included type II diabetes mellitus (chronic condition that affects the way the body processes blood sugar), malnutrition, osteomyelitis (inflammation or swelling that occurs in the bone), end stage renal disease (advanced loss of kidney function), peripheral vascular disease (a blood circulation disorder), and muscle weakness. A review of the five-day Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 05/31/2023, revealed Resident #166 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating the resident was cognitively intact. The MDS revealed the resident was totally dependent on one-person physical assistance with bathing and incontinence care, required…
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 · D2023-06-15 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews, record review, facility document review, and a review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to protect a resident (Resident #1) from physical abuse by another resident (Resident #13). This affected 1 (Resident #1) of 3 residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 58. Findings included: Review of a facility policy titled, Protection of Residents: Reducing the Threat of Abuse & Neglect, with a revision date of 08/10/2021, revealed, Residents must not be subjected to abuse by anyone. This includes but is not limited to: staff, other residents, consultants, volunteers, staff from other agencies serving our residents, family members, the resident representative, friends, and any other individuals. The policy indicated, It is the policy and practice of this facility that all residents will be protected from all types of abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, and exploitation. This facility has procedures in place to provide protection for the health, welfare and rights of each resident residing in the facility. In order to provide…
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 · D2023-06-15 · tag F0655 — isolatedCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to address the presence and care of a port-a-cath (an implanted device that allows easy access to a patient's veins) and the use of intravenous antibiotics on the baseline care plan for 1 (Resident #216) of 3 residents reviewed for intravenous access. The facility census was 58. Findings included: A review of Resident #216's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 04/25/2023 with a diagnosis that included bacteremia (the presence of bacteria in the bloodstream). The admission record indicated the resident was discharged to the hospital on [DATE]. A review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 05/04/2023, revealed the resident's cognitive status was not assessed as the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) and Staff Assessment for Mental Status assessments were not completed. The MDS indicated the resident required extensive assistance from staff with their…
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 before2023-06-15 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to develop and/or implement a comprehensive resident-centered care plan for 2 (Resident #165 and Resident #13) of 38 sampled residents. Specifically, the facility failed to develop a care plan for the care and treatment of a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) line (a type of intravenous (IV) access) and the use of IV antibiotics for Resident #165. In addition, the facility failed to implement Resident #13's care plan intervention to supervise the resident to prevent physical aggression. The facility census was 58. Findings included: 1. Review of a facility policy titled, Comprehensive Care Plans and Revisions, dated 08/17/2022, indicated, The facility will ensure the timeliness of each resident's person-centered, comprehensive care plan, and to ensure that the comprehensive care plan is reviewed and revised by an interdisciplinary team composed of individuals who have knowledge of the resident and his/her needs, and that each resident and resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-06-15 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive care plan was revised when the resident sustained a fall during the quarterly review period for 1 (Resident #61) of 3 residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 58. Findings included: The facility's policy, titled, Comprehensive Care Plans and Revisions, with a revision date of 08/17/2022, indicated, The facility will ensure the timeliness of each resident's person-centered, comprehensive care plan, and to ensure that the comprehensive care plan is reviewed and revised by an interdisciplinary team composed of individuals who have knowledge of the resident and his/her needs, and that each resident representative, if applicable, is involved in developing the care plan and making decisions about care. A review of Resident #61's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 01/25/2023 and re-admitted the resident on 05/05/2023 with diagnoses that included cognitive communication deficit, respiratory failure, need for assistance with personal care,…
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 before2023-06-15 · 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 interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to collaborate with the hospice provider to coordinate a plan of care for 1 (Resident #365) of 1 resident reviewed who was receiving hospice care and failed to provide care in accordance with physician's orders/facility procedures for 1 (Resident #216) of 2 residents who had vascular access devices (a tube placed in a large vein to allow for repeated and long-term access to the bloodstream for medication administration). The facility census was 58. Findings included: 1. A review of the facility policy, titled, Hospice Coordination of Care, with a review date of 05/05/2020, indicated under Procedure, that 8. A communication process is established between the facility and hospice to ensure the needs of the resident are addressed and met 24 hours/day and that the communication is documented to reflect concerns and responses. Review of the Hospice Services Agreement for Individual/Limited Duration between the facility and the hospice…
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 · D2023-06-15 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure accident hazards were identified through investigation of falls for 1 (Resident #61) of 3 residents reviewed for falls. Resident #61 sustained a fall from their wheelchair on 04/28/2023 and the facility failed to conduct an investigation to determine the root cause of the fall and ensure accident hazards were identified for the resident. The facility census was 58. Findings included: The facility's policy titled, Fall Management, revised on 09/29/2022, indicated, The facility will assess the resident upon admission/readmission, quarterly, with change in condition, and with any fall event for any fall risks and will identify appropriate interventions to minimize the risk of injury related to falls. The policy also indicated, Residents will be assessed for fall indicators upon admission, readmission, quarterly, change in condition, and with any fall, utilizing the Fall Risk Assessment. The policy also revealed, All patients have fall indicators. Fall indicators are patient specific information…
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 · D2023-06-15 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to have ongoing communication and collaboration with the dialysis center for 1 (Resident #56) of 2 residents reviewed for dialysis services. The facility census was 58. Findings included: A review of the facility policy, titled, Hemodialysis Offsite Policy, revised on 04/17/2023, indicated, The facility assures that each resident receives care and services for the provision of offsite hemodialysis consistent with professional standards of practice. The policy indicated this included, 2. Ongoing communication and collaboration with the dialysis facility regarding dialysis care and services. The policy indicated that on the day of dialysis, staff were to observe vascular access site prior to dialysis and initiate the Pre/Post Dialysis Communication Form to be sent to the dialysis clinic with the resident. (Med Pass Form #LCCA-528). The policy indicated that post-dialysis, the facility was to follow routine dialysis instructions on dialysis transfer form, and 7. Maintain dialysis transfer form in the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-06-15 · 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
Based on observations, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to accurately assess residents for risk of entrapment from bed rails and attempt alternatives prior to use for 1 (Resident #40) of 1 resident reviewed for bed rails. The facility census was 58. Findings included: Review of a facility policy titled, Bed Rails - Safe and Effective Use of Bed Rails, revised on 12/30/2022, revealed, To prevent entrapment and other safety hazards associated with bed rail use. The policy indicated, Residents will be assessed upon admission, readmission, or upon initiation utilizing the Evaluation for Use of Bed Rails Assessment (Admission/Readmission/Initial). If bedrails are determined to be appropriate for use with a resident, a reassessment of bed rail(s) use will be assessed at a minimum quarterly and potentially with a change of condition utilizing the Evaluation for Use of Bed Rails Form (Quarterly). The policy further indicated, The facility will document alternatives to the use of bed rail(s) and how these alternatives did not meet the resident's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-06-15 · 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
Based on observations, record review, and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure there were no significant medication errors for 1 (Resident #56) of 7 residents reviewed for medication administration. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #56, a dialysis resident, received their medications with meals as ordered by the physician to lower their high phosphorus levels. The facility census was 58. Findings included: A review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #56 on 03/20/2023 with diagnoses that included end stage renal disease (advanced loss of kidney function) with dependence on renal dialysis (a treatment to clean your blood when your kidneys are not able to- to remove waste and extra fluids in your blood). A review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 03/11/2023, revealed Resident #56 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. The resident was independent or required supervision with 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 · D2023-06-15 · tag F0914 — isolatedProvide bedrooms that don't allow residents to see each other when privacy is needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure privacy curtains provided full visual privacy for residents who resided in 3 (rooms [ROOM NUMBER]) of 22 rooms. Findings included: On 06/05/2023 between 1:25 PM and 1:38 PM, Resident rooms [ROOM NUMBER] were observed. All three rooms were semi-private rooms. room [ROOM NUMBER] had a privacy curtain that extended down the middle of the room between the beds that was approximately 30 inches too short resulting in the curtain not extending from wall to wall. This made it possible to look around the end of the curtain and see the resident in the bed next to the window. There was no curtain track in place enabling the curtain to be pulled around the foot of the bed for the bed near the window. There was a curtain track in place between the first bed and the door that curved around the foot of that bed and connected to a track that was in the center of the room. No privacy curtain was installed on that track. At the time of this observation,…
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 · D2023-06-15 · tag F0919 — failed to provide a working call system — isolatedMake sure that a working call system is available in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a functioning call light was provided for 1 (Resident #44) of 24 residents observed. The facility census was 58. Findings included: Review of Resident #44's admission Record indicated the facility admitted the resident on 11/17/2021 with diagnoses that included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (refers to a group of diseases that cause airflow blockage and breathing-related problems) and metabolic encephalopathy (a problem in the brain caused by a chemical imbalance in the blood). Review of a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 02/25/2023, indicated Resident #44 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating no cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #44's Care Pla revealed a concern, dated 10/15/2022, related to a history of cerebral vascular disease. An intervention directed staff to Encourage [the resident] to call for assistance if chest pain starts. The Care Plan also included a focus area, with a revision date of 11/18/2021,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2019-10-11 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — patternEnsure 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 record review, the facility failed to ensure staff followed physician's orders expectations regarding elevated blood sugars. The facility identified 13 residents that received routine blood sugar checks (accu-checks). Of those 13, three had elevated blood sugars that exceeded the physician's parameters, and problems were found with all three. (Residents #4, #20 and #44). In addition, the facility failed to ensure physician approved pharmacist recommendations were added to a resident's orders, compression stockings were applied as ordered and proper hygiene and grooming was provided. (Residents #24, #6 and #15). The census was 92. 1. Review of Resident #4's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment instrument completed by facility staff, dated 10/5/19, showed: -Limited assistance of one person required for bed mobility; -Supervision of one person required for transfers and eating; -Diagnoses of diabetes, dementia and depression; -Received insulin six of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2019-10-11 · tag F0700 — patternTry 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 record review, the facility failed to properly assess residents for the use of bed/side rails, obtain physician's orders for the use of bed rails, attempt to use alternative measures prior to installing a bed/side rail and to update resident care plans regarding the use of bed/side rails for seven of 24 residents sampled. (Resident #83, #91, #54, #79, #32, #24 and #15). The census was 92. 1. Review of Resident #83's admission record, showed: -admitted on [DATE]; -Diagnoses included central cord syndrome of cervical spinal cord (the most common form of cervicl spinal cord injury, characterized by loss of motion and sensation in arms and hands), diabetes, muscle weakness, fractures and quadriplegia (paralysis that results in the total or partial loss of use of all four limbs). Review of the resident's Evaluation for Use of Bed Rails, dated 9/20/19, showed: -Appropriate alternatives for the use of bed rails was not checked; -The use of bed rails being considered was blank; -The…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2019-10-11 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — patternEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure medication error rates of less than 5 %. Out of 26 opportunities observed, there were two errors resulting in a 7.69% medication error rate. (Residents #71 and #8). The census was 92. 1. Review of Resident #71's physician's order sheet (POS), dated 10/1/19 through 10/31/19, showed an order for gabapentin (medication used to treat seizures and pain) 300 milligram (mg) by mouth twice a day at 8:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. Observation on 10/7/19 at 9:45 A.M., showed Nurse E administered the resident's morning medication which included gabapentin 300 mg. During an interview on 10/7/19 at 10:30 A.M., Nurse E said he/she should have administered the medication as ordered. 2. Review of Resident #8's POS, dated 10/1/19 through 10/31/19, showed an order for carvedilol (medication used to treat high blood pressure and heart failure) 25 mg by mouth at 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. Observation on 10/07/19 at 3:47 P.M., showed Certified Medication Technician (CMT) J administered the resident's evening medication which included…
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 before2019-10-11 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — patternEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to prepare food by methods that conserve nutritive value, flavor and appearance by failing to follow three out of three recipes for four residents on a pureed diet. The census was 92. 1. Review of the pureed food guidelines for one serving of sausage, showed: -Two sausage patties; -Broth; -Begin with 1/2 cup (c) liquid; puree, then continue to alternate adding liquid and pureeing until product is correct consistency; -Consistency of pureed food should not be thinner than pudding or thicker than mashed potatoes. Observation and interview on 10/9/19 at 6:45 A.M., showed [NAME] L had the pureed food guidelines above the food prep counter. He/she said he/she was making seven servings of pureed sausage. [NAME] L used tongs to place seven sausage patties into the blender. He/she added approximately one cup of hot water. He/she pureed the mixture for approximately 20 seconds, checked the mixture and pureed again for another 10 seconds. He/she used a spatula to scrape the sides of the blender and pureed the mixture for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2019-10-11 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure food was stored and prepared in accordance with professional standards for food safety by exhibiting poor hand hygiene and using contaminated equipment during meal preparation, leaving trashcans uncovered while not in use and leaving scoops inside a dry bulk storage container. The census was 92. 1. Observation on 10/9/19 at 5:55 A.M., showed [NAME] L began breakfast meal preparation. He/she put on a pair of clean gloves and removed biscuits from the oven. A biscuit fell on the floor and [NAME] L picked it up with his/her right hand and threw it in the trashcan. He/she touched several pans when placing them in the warming server. With the same pair of gloves on, [NAME] L picked two dishwasher crates off the floor and moved them to a different area. He/she removed hanging pots and placed them on the gas range. He/she filled a measuring cup with hot water and poured it into the pot. He/she used a paper towel to wipe out the measuring cup and refill it with cream of wheat. With the same pair of gloves on, [NAME] L touched…
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 before2019-10-11 · 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 record review, the facility failed to provide treatment, consistent with professional standards of practice, to pressure ulcers acquired by two residents. The facility identified two residents with pressure ulcers and problems were found with one (Resident #91), as well as another resident with a new pressure ulcer identified by hospice (Resident #32). The census was 92. 1. Review of the facility's Weekly Pressure Ulcer Tracking Report, dated 8/24/19, showed, for Resident #91: -A Stage II pressure ulcer (Partial thickness loss of dermis presenting as a shallow open ulcer with a red or pink wound bed, without slough (dead tissue). May also present as an intact or open/ruptured blister) to the coccyx (tailbone), measuring 2 centimeters (cm) in length, 1 cm in width and 0 cm in depth (2.0 x 1.0 x 0); -Description: Pink; -Drainage: Small bloody; -Pain: No; -Treatment: Allevyn (a brand of wound dressing pads that protect open cuts, lesions or burns) every three days; -A Stage II…
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 before2019-10-11 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff followed their policy for infection control during two of three observations of residents receiving incontinence care. (Residents #86 and #71). The census was 92. 1. Review of Resident #86's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), a federally mandated assessment instrument completed by facility staff, dated 9/30/19, showed: -Understood/understands; -Short/long term memory problem; -Extensive assistance of two (+) persons required for bed mobility, transfers, dressing and toilet use; -Limited assistance of one person required for personal hygiene and bathing; -Diagnoses of heart failure, stroke and dementia. Observation on 10/9/19 at 7:12 A.M., showed the resident lay in bed. Certified Nurse Aides (CNAs) B and C donned gloves and prepared to clean and dress the resident. CNA B washed the resident's genitalia, then assisted the resident onto his/her side and cleaned the resident's buttocks. After cleaning the resident, the CNA failed…
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
$83,824 in federal fines across 1 penalty. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.
- $83,824 — penalty dated 2024-08-28
- Medicare payment denial — starting 2024-10-04 for 21 days
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 LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA — 194 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 2 of 5 | 3.4 | -1.4 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.8 | -0.8 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 3.3 | -1.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 4.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
The other 193 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.4★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 193; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FUND I INVESTMENTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; LIMITED PARTNERSHIP INTEREST | 96% | since 08/23/1995 |
| BACHIEL, ROBERT | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 04/20/2020 |
| CROSS, CINDY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 08/23/1995 |
| THURMOND, JOAN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 09/21/2000 |
| LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC. | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 02/05/1990 |
| CRHC LLC | Organization | GENERAL PARTNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 01/01/2017 |
| DEVELOPERS INVESTMENT COMPANY INC | Organization | LIMITED PARTNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 08/23/1995 |
| HCF INC | Organization | LIMITED PARTNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 08/23/1995 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 9 rows in the source record cover these 8 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
5 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $1.4M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 16% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in MO
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 Missouri 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 265338. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-08-28, 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.