Crawford Manor Healthcare Center
1802 Crawford Rd, Cleveland, OH 44106 · For profit - Corporation · 50 certified beds · (216) 795-5710 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
- CMS has flagged it for abuse
- it has abuse, neglect, or exploitation citations (F0600, F0606) — most recent Apr 2026
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604, F0607, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0569)
- inspectors recorded 3 serious findings as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (47) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $46,291 in federal fines (most recent 2026-04-23)
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- 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 | 1 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 4 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 2 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 2.1% | 5.3% | 15.4% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.9% | 6.2% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.8% | 0.4% | 2.0% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 41.1% | 30.1% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.0% | 3.2% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 2.0% | 6.1% | 16.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 1.0% | 25.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.1% | 94.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.5% | 3.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 12.2% | 21.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 6.9% | 8.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 80.6% | 75.6% | 79.4% | typical |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.18 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 18% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 9% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — Newly certified nursing home with less than 12-15 months of data available or the nursing home opened less than 6 months ago, and there were no data to submit or claims for this measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 50 beds and averages 35.5 residents a day — about 71% occupied, or roughly 14 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.79 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.74 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.92 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.26 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.01 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.91 to 0.33 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 43% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 2 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are 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.
47 citations, most serious first. The 13 most serious are shown; the remaining 34 are one tap away and print in full.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2024-12-20 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY THE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NONCOMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on observation, closed medical record review, resident, family, and staff interviews, review of the National Weather Service forecast, and review of the facility Elopement Policy and Procedure, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision and intervention to prevent Resident #33, who had a history of wandering, from leaving the facility without staff knowledge. This resulted in Immediate Jeopardy and the potential for serious harm, injury, or death when Resident #33 was seen (by camera footage) on 12/04/24 at 6:47 P.M. leaving the facility on foot with his rollator walker. The resident was missing from the facility for approximately one hour and 45 minutes without staff knowledge. The resident's whereabouts remained unknown until 12/05/24 at 12:07 A.M. when Resident #33's nephew found the resident approximately five miles from the facility in the garage of the home 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.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2023-09-25 · tag F0678 — failed to provide CPR when needed — isolatedProvide basic life support, including CPR, prior to the arrival of emergency medical personnel , subject to physician orders and the resident’s advance directives.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY THE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on closed medical record review, review of a facility self-reported incident (SRI), review of the facility Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) policy and interviews, the facility failed to initiate Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) or call 911 for Emergency Medical Services (EMS) for Resident #37, who was found unresponsive, without a pulse/heartbeat and identified as a full code status. This resulted in Immediate Jeopardy that was actual harm on [DATE] when Resident #37 did not receive CPR, EMS were not contacted for medical services and the resident subsequently expired. This affected one resident (#37) of two residents reviewed for death in the facility. The facility census was 34 residents. On [DATE] at 10:07 P.M. the Administrator, Mobile Director of Nursing (DON)/Registered Nurse (RN) #152 and Regional Director of Clinical Services (RDCS) were notified that Immediate Jeopardy…
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 before2026-04-23 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY THE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY.Based on medical record review, self-reported incident (SRI) review, review of a witness statement, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident was provided adequate assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs) to prevent an avoidable fall with injury. Actual harm occurred to Resident #28 on 03/19/26 when a nurse aide assisted the resident with bed mobility without another staff member present and Resident #28 fell to the floor. Resident #28 had care plan interventions and therapy recommendations in place at the time of the fall indicating two staff members were to assist the resident with ADLs and bed mobility. Resident #28 subsequently sustained an abrasion on the right shin and a laceration on the left foot requiring hospitalization and six sutures to close. This affected one (Resident #28) of three residents reviewed for accidents. The census was 35. Findings…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-04-23 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY THE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY.Based on medical record review, review of a self-reported incident (SRI), review of a witness statement, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from resident-to-resident sexual abuse. This affected one (Resident #21) of three residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 35.Findings Include:Review of the medical record for Resident #16 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including type II diabetes mellitus, hypertension, history of cerebral infarction, altered mental status, muscle weakness, history of falls, and adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood.Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #16 was cognitively intact and able to make needs known. Additional documentation revealed the resident had a history of inappropriate…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-10-29 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interview, medical record review, review of facility investigations, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from verbal abuse. This affected one (Resident #35) of three residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 33. Findings include: Record review for Resident #35 revealed an admission date of 07/26/24 and a discharge date of 10/01/24. Diagnoses included unspecified fracture of the left femur, unspecified fracture of lower end of left ulna, person injured in unspecified motor vehicle accident, bipolar disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, pain in the leg and muscle weakness. Record review of the Comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #35 was cognitively intact. Resident #35 received scheduled and as needed pain medications. Record review of the care plan dated 07/26/24 revealed Resident #35 had potential for pain. Resident was able to verbalize pain. Potential for pain was related to the fracture of the left…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-10-29 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interview, medical record review, review of facility investigations, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate an allegation of verbal abuse. This affected one (Resident #35) of four residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 33. Findings include: Record review for Resident #35 revealed an admission date of 07/26/24 and a discharge date of 10/01/24. Diagnoses included unspecified fracture of the left femur, unspecified fracture of lower end of left ulna, person injured in unspecified motor vehicle accident, bipolar disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, pain in the leg and muscle weakness. Record review of the Comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #35 was cognitively intact. Record review of Resident #35's progress note revealed there was no progress note for 09/28/24. Review of the progress note for Resident #35 dated 10/01/24 at 10:50 A.M. completed by Mobile DON #246 revealed Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) met 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 · D2024-10-29 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, observation, staff interview, and review of manufacturer's guidelines, the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate did not exceed five percent (%). The facility had two medication errors of 31 opportunities for an error rate of 6.45%. This affected one (Residents #32) of four residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 33 residents. Findings include: Record review for Resident #32 revealed an admission date of 08/19/24. Diagnoses included chronic idiopathic constipation and centrilobular emphysema. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #32 was cognitively intact. Resident #32 required set up or clean up assist with eating, substantial/maximum assist with personal hygiene and dressing. Resident #32 used a wheelchair for mobility. Resident #32 had chronic lung disease. Record review of the care plan for Resident #32 edited 10/11/24 revealed Resident #32 had emphysema. Interventions included 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 · D2024-10-29 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to store medication per the manufacturers recommendations. This affected one (Resident #32) of four residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 33. Findings include: Record review for Resident #32 revealed an admission date of [DATE]. Diagnosis included centrilobular emphysema. Record review of the care plan for Resident #32 edited [DATE] revealed Resident #32 had emphysema. Interventions included to provide nebulizers. Record review of the physician orders for Resident #32 included arformoterol solution for nebulization: 15 micrograms (mcg)/two milliliters (ml), give two ml inhalation every 12 hours for centrilobular emphysema. Observation on [DATE] at 9:30 A.M. of medication administration for Resident #32 revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #241 confirmed the arformoterol solution for nebulization was for Resident #32, and it was stored in the bottom drawer of the medication…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-04-02 · 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, staff and resident interviews, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure food was served at an appetizing temperature. This had the potential to affect 40 residents who received meals in the facility. The facility identified Residents #30 and #32 as receiving no food from the kitchen. The facility census was 42. Findings include: Observation on 03/28/24 at 11:39 A.M. of Dietary [NAME] #308 taking the temperatures of the lunch meal items prior to food service revealed the chicken tenders were 173 degrees Fahrenheit (F), the [NAME] fries were 165 degrees F, the carrots were 162.1 degrees F, the white slice of bread was room temperature, and the chocolate cake was room temperature. Tray service for hall trays began on 03/28/24 at 11:50 A.M. As the kitchen staff started to load the last tray cart for the third floor at 12:03 P.M., the surveyor asked for a test tray at 12:08 P.M. as the last tray cart for the third floor was three fourths of the way full. A test try was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-04-02 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen was clean and sanitary, food items were appropriately dated, and coffee was covered as required when walking down the third-floor hallways. This had the potential to affect 40 residents who received food from the kitchen. The facility identified two residents (#30 and #32) as receiving no food from the kitchen. The facility census was 42. Findings include: 1. Observation and interview during initial kitchen tour on 03/28/24 from 11:15 A.M. to 11:39 A.M. with Dietary Manager (DM) # 307 revealed the following concerns: • On the bread rack was a one gallon unlabeled and undated storage bag full of Danishes. DM #307 stated the Danishes were most likely from yesterday but confirmed the bag was not labeled or dated. • In the two-door reach in cooler on the right-hand side was an undated metal pan of a raw pork loin sitting on the second shelf above three crates of individual milk cartons. DM #307 at the time 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 · D2024-01-25 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review and review of the facility policy the facility failed to ensure Resident #10's had a sanitary room free of bed bugs. This affected one resident (Resident #10) out of three residents reviewed for bed bugs. Findings include: Review of Resident #10's medical record revealed an admission date of 11/22/18 and diagnoses included alcohol dependence with alcohol induced persisting dementia and muscle weakness. Review of Resident #10's care plan revised 01/27/22 included Resident #10 had a self-care deficit and his needs would be met. Interventions included to assist Resident #10 with ADL's (Activity of Daily Living). Review of Resident #10's Head to Toe Evaluation dated 11/19/23 included Resident #10 had bed bug bites on his neck and the majority of his back area. The areas had small red splotches all over both areas. Review of the facility Pest Control Company invoices dated 11/20/23 revealed on 11/20/23 bed bugs were found in Resident #10's bed frame in room [ROOM…
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 before2024-01-25 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, review of the facility policy, review of the facility fall investigation, and review of the Emergency Medical Services report the facility failed to ensure care and services and individualized care planned interventions for Resident #38 were implemented resulting in a fall. This affected one resident (Resident #38) out of three residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 37. Findings include: Review of Resident #38's medical record revealed an admission date of 11/27/23 and diagnoses included burn of third degree of left lower limb, burn of third degree of multiple sites of left shoulder and upper limb, morbid obesity and atrial fibrillation. Review of Resident #38's Admission, readmission Evaluation dated 11/28/23 revealed Resident #38 was high risk for falls. Review of Resident #38's care plan dated 11/28/23 included Resident #38 was at risk for falls characterized by history of falls, injury and or multiple risk factors. Resident #38 would have minimized risk 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 · F2023-12-28 · tag F0925 — failed to control pests — widespreadMake sure there is a pest control program to prevent/deal with mice, insects, or other pests.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, interview with contracted pest control staff, and review of the facility policy the facility failed to ensure food storage areas were free from pests. This had the potential to affect all residents except for Resident #5 identified by the facility as receiving no food from the kitchen. The facility census was 39. Findings include: On 12/26/23 from 8:39 A.M. to 8:51 A.M., the initial tour of the kitchen and food storage areas with Dietary Director #834 revealed there were multiple small black insects flying around and on the walls of the dry food storage room located in the kitchen. This was verified at the time of observation by Dietary Director #834, who identified the insects as either gnats or drain flies. On 12/27/23 at 12:21 P.M., interview with Pest Control Services Representative #902 confirmed he treated the facility's kitchen for drain flies on 12/26/23 and he stated, the facility staff needed better sanitation practices in the kitchen to prevent future issues with pests. Review of the pest control logs for December 2023 revealed…
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 34 citations
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-12-28 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY THE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY Based on record review, review of a facility self-reported incident, facility policy review and interview, the facility failed to prevent unauthorized videos from being taken and shared on social media by a staff member of Resident #20 and Resident #23. This affected two residents of three residents reviewed for abuse. Findings include: Record review for Resident #23 revealed an admission date of 11/09/23 with diagnoses including syncope and collapse. Record review of the Medicare Five Day Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #23 was cognitively intact. The assessment revealed Resident #23 had no behaviors of inattention or disorganized thinking. Review of the closed medical record for Resident #20 revealed an admission date of 11/22/23 with diagnoses including chronic pulmonary embolism, asthma, schizoaffective disorder, gastroesophageal reflux disease, depression,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-12-28 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, resident interview, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure care planning conferences were conducted at least quarterly. This affected two (Residents #6 and #27) of three reviewed for care planning. The facility census was 39. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #6 revealed an admission date of 11/22/18 with diagnoses including alcohol dependence with alcohol induced persisting dementia, muscle weakness, foot drop, and personal history of COVID-19. Review of care plan conference summary dated 10/26/23 revealed Resident #6 had signed as an attendee. Further review of the medical record revealed there was no documentation of care conferences conducted for Resident #6 between October 2022 and October 2023. Interview on 12/26/23 at 10:24 A.M. of Resident #6 confirmed he had not been invited to care planning conferences. Interview on 12/27/23 at 11:03 A.M. with Admissions Coordinator/Social Worker Designee (AC/SWD) #842 confirmed…
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 before2023-12-28 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, observation, staff and resident interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to complete assessments and care plans regarding resident smoking. This affected one (Resident #42) of three residents reviewed for smoking. The facility census was 39. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #42 revealed an admission date of 11/10/23 with diagnoses including hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral vascular disease affecting left dominant side, pathological fracture of the hip, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD.) Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #42 dated 11/16/23 revealed the resident was cognitively intact and required substantial assistance with upper body dressing and personal hygiene and was dependent for lower body dressing. Review of the care plan for Resident #42 undated revealed there was no care plan for smoking. Review of safe smoking assessment for Resident #42 dated 11/10/23 completed by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #901 revealed the resident did not…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-12-28 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, staff interview, and resident interview, the facility failed to provide suprapubic catheter site care for one (Resident #5) of one resident reviewed for catheter care. The facility census was 39. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #5 revealed an admission date of 10/27/23 with diagnoses including hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting right dominant side and neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder. Record review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #5 dated 11/15/23 revealed the resident had moderate cognitive impairment and functional impairment to the upper and lower extremity on one side and required substantial assistance with personal hygiene. Review of the care plan for Resident #5 dated 10/31/23 revealed the resident had a neurogenic bladder. Interventions included staff should provide catheter care per routine. Review of the physician orders for Resident #5 dated 11/08/23 revealed an order to cleanse…
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 · D2023-12-28 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure pharmacy recommendations were followed up on in a timely manner. This affected three residents (#22, #25, and #26) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 39. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #22 revealed admission date of 11/09/23 with diagnoses including anxiety disorder, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and viral hepatitis. Review of the pharmacy consultation report dated 11/13/23 revealed the pharmacy recommended discontinuing Famotidine (acid reducer) medication as Resident #22 was already receiving Omeprazole (acid reducer), and evidence supporting combination gastroprotective therapy was limited. There was no physician signature; however, it was noted the physician was contacted via phone on 12/26/23 and agreed to discontinue Famotidine. Review of the physician orders revealed Famotidine 20 milligrams (mg) remained an effective order as of 12/28/23 at 8:01 A.M. Interview on 12/28/23 at 8:45 A.M. with Regional Registered Nurse (RN)…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-12-28 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure weights were documented accurately for Resident #41. This affected one resident (#41) of three residents reviewed for nutrition. The facility census was 39. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #41 revealed an admission date of 11/27/23 with diagnoses including third degree burns to multiple sites of the left shoulder and upper limb, third degree burns to the left lower limb, gastrostomy status, hypertension, morbid obesity, protein-calorie malnutrition, and history of pulmonary embolism. Review of the hospital summary dated 11/28/23 revealed Resident #41's weight was measured at 238 pounds on 11/25/23. Review of the facility weight records for Resident #41 indicated she weighed 238 pounds on 11/28/23, 239 pounds on 12/05/23, 215 pounds on 12/12/23, and 215 pounds on 12/19/23. On 12/28/23 at 10:08 A.M., interview with Registered Dietitian (RD) #847 and the Administrator stated Resident #41's initial weight on 11/28/23 was obtained from the hospital…
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 before2023-12-28 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review, review of the facility policy and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines the facility field to ensure pneumococcal vaccinations were offered and provided as recommended by the CDC. This affected three residents (#11, #21, and #26) of five residents reviewed for pneumococcal vaccinations. The facility census was 39. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #11 revealed an admission date of 06/09/23 with diagnoses including diabetes mellitus, cerebral infarction, chronic kidney disease, moderate protein calorie malnutrition, congestive heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Review of the progress note dated 12/18/23 revealed Resident #11 was noted to be lethargic, had a productive cough, and had rattling sounds audible upon breathing with continuous oxygen. The Nurse Practitioner assessed Resident #11 and provided prophylactic treatment for pneumonia due to worsening respiratory symptoms. Review of the physician's order dated 12/18/23 revealed Resident #11 was receiving Levaquin…
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 before2022-01-27 · 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, test tray, interview and policy review, the facility failed to serve food that was appealing, palatable and served at an appetizing temperature. This had the potential to affect all 36 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: 1. The dining observation on the second floor on 01/18/22 beginning at 12:12 P.M. when the food cart arrived on the second floor. State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) #633 poured coffee into mugs and added cream and sugar to each mug. She reported most of the residents wanted cream and sugar, so she added it ahead of time. General interviews with residents on the second floor on 01/18/22 at 12:55 P.M. when all the meal trays were served revealed some complained of the taste and some complained of the temperature of the food but there was little plate waste. Interviews with Resident's #5, #9, #25 and #30 between 01/18/22 at 11:29 A.M. and 01/19/22 at 8:37 A.M. complained the food tasted bad and was always cold. Interview with Resident #88's family on 01/19/22 at…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2022-01-27 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and review of cleaning schedules, the facility failed to ensure food surfaces in the main kitchen were clean and sanitary. This had the potential to affect all 36 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: The initial tour of the kitchen conducted with Dietary Manager #620 on 01/18/22 beginning at 8:50 A.M. revealed food storage areas, food preparation areas, and storage under the steam table were moderately soiled with dried food and other debris. Interview with Dietary Manager #620 on 01/18/22 at 8:55 A.M. reported it was kitchen staff's responsibility to clean the kitchen but sometimes there was only one kitchen staff, and they were unable to clean the kitchen properly. Review of the morning and afternoon cook daily cleaning list for 01/16-17/22 indicated the following items were cleaned: stove back splash and shelf, right oven/outside, steam table well left side, under steam table shelf, table by the stop top and bottom shelf. Review of the afternoon aide cleaning list for 01/16-17/22 indicated the floor mats, sweep, and mop the dietary…
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 · F2022-01-27 · tag F0835 — failed to run the facility competently — widespreadAdminister the facility in a manner that enables it to use its resources effectively and efficiently.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, facility policy review, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance and interview, the facility failed to timely report and coordinate with the Local Health Department (LHD) regarding employee and resident COVID-19 positive cases to prevent further spread of COVID-19 within the facility. This had the potential to affect all 36 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: Interview on 01/20/22 at 1:40 P.M. with Regional Director of Clinical Services #636 and Director of Nursing (DON) revealed they thought Former Administrator #951 was making notification to the LHD of positive COVID-19 cases for employees and residents, but Former Administrator #951 was no longer employed at the facility, and they had no documented evidence of notifications to the LHD but would check with the LHD to obtain documentation. Interview on 01/20/22 at 3:21 P.M. with Regional Director of Clinical Services #636 revealed she had contacted the LHD to obtain verification that the LHD was notified of employee and resident COVID-19 positive cases and Epidemiologist…
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 · F2022-01-27 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, observation, record review and policy review the facility failed to ensure staff properly wore appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) including eye protection when in the facility as the county positivity rate was at 36.4 percent indicating high transmission rate, visitors were properly screened for sign and symptoms of COVID-19 prior to entrance into the facility, residents were provided with clean masks to wear, staff performed proper hand hygiene during meal service, staff were properly screened for tuberculosis or administered tuberculin skin test per facility protocol, and the facility had a Legionella prevention - water management policy and procedure, a legionella risk assessment, and a water management program to reduce risk, growth, and spread of legionella. This had the potential to affect all 36 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: 1. Observation on 01/18/22 at 8:15 A.M. of [NAME] #626 assisted with screening process of surveyors into the facility and was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2022-01-27 · tag F0886 — failed to test for COVID-19 as required — widespreadPerform COVID19 testing on residents and staff.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, observation, record review and policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff were tested per COVID-19 outbreak testing guidelines, staff had COVID-19 competency testing signed off per trainer/ evaluator, and staff wore a gown when they completed COVID-19 testing on residents. This had the potential to affect all 36 residents residing at the facility. Findings include: Review of the undated and untitled COVID-19 testing log revealed the facility employee testing included the name of the employee, position, date of testing, and results of testing. Outbreak testing was initiated on 11/23/21 after Housekeeper/ Personal Care Assistant #611 tested positive for COVID-19. Review of the COVID-19 testing log from 11/23/21 to 01/18/22 revealed Minimum Data Set (MDS)/ Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #622 was tested on [DATE] and was negative but then no further testing per the testing log was completed until 12/13/21 when she then tested positive for COVID-19. Review of the COVID-19 testing log from…
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 · F2022-01-27 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — widespreadMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interviews, the facility failed to maintain a clean and sanitary living environment and kitchen environment. This had the potential to affect all 36 residents in the facility. Findings include: On 01/18/22 beginning at 8:50 A.M. the kitchen tour was conducted with Dietary Manager #620 who verified the following observations: The perimeter of the kitchen had an excessive amount of greasy, dried food and liquid debris, the walls behind the appliances and the dish washing area were heavily soiled with grease, food, and other debris. The floor mats were heavily soiled. Interview with Dietary Manager #620 reported the kitchen was short staffed, and it was the kitchen staff's responsibility to clean the kitchen. Observations of the second floor on 01/18/22 beginning at 10:00 A.M. Resident #6 and #12's floor of their room was littered with debris and pieces of paper. Resident #6's over bed table was soiled and in need of repair. Resident #5 and #11's floor of their room had a moderate amount of nonfood debris on the floor. Resident #5 reported his bed was hard 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 · E2022-01-27 · tag F0623 — patternProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, staff interview and facility bed hold policy review, the facility failed to ensure adequate notification in writing of the discharges to the hospital. This deficient practice affected eleven (Resident's #8, #26, #29, #35, #38, #137, #138, #139, #140, #142 and #143) of eleven residents reviewed for bed hold notification. The facility identified 11 residents who were transferred from the facility in the last five months. The facility census was 36. Findings include: 1. Record review for Resident #8 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnosis included malignant neoplasm of the colon. Review of the comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 10/15/21, revealed the resident's cognition was intact. Further record review revealed Resident #8 was sent to the hospital on [DATE]. The record was silent for any written notification of the resident's discharge to the hospital and the reason for the discharge to Resident #8 and 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 · E2022-01-27 · tag F0625 — patternNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, staff interview and facility bed hold policy review, the facility failed to ensure adequate notification of available bed hold days was provided to residents at the time of discharge to the hospital. This deficient practice affected eleven (Resident's #8, #26, #29, #35, #38, #137, #138, #139, #140, #142 and #143) of eleven residents reviewed for bed hold notification. The facility identified 11 residents who were transferred from the facility in the last five months. The facility census was 36. Findings include: 1. Record review for Resident #8 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnosis included malignant neoplasm of the colon. Review of the comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 10/15/21, revealed the resident's cognition was intact. Further record review revealed Resident #8 was sent to the hospital on [DATE]. The record was silent for any written notification of the facility's bed hold policy to the resident and 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 · E2022-01-27 · tag F0641 — patternEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately complete comprehensive assessments Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 for five residents: Resident #1 (sections C, D, E and O), Resident #4 (sections C and E), Resident #16 (section C and E), Resident #19 (section C) and Resident #32 (sections F and K) of 29 MDS 3.0's reviewed (Resident's #1, #3, #4, #9, #11, #12, #13, #15, #16, #17, #18, #19, #25, #28, #27, #29, #30, #31, #32, #33, #35, #36, #38, #39, #88, #187, #189, #190 and #191) reflecting the resident's status at the time of the assessment. The facility census was 36. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #1's MDS 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] indicated he was not receiving dialysis services; however, he was receiving this service. The MDS 3.0 dated 12/30/21 revealed sections C, D, and E were not assessed. Interview with Admission/Social Service/Activity Director/ State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) #616 and MDS/Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #622 on 01/20/22 at 2:56 P.M. verified the sections…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2022-01-27 · 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 interviews, observations, record and activity calendar review, the facility failed to implement individualized activity program providing stimulation or solace to create opportunities for a meaningful life based on the individual assessment. This affected three (Resident's #17, #18 and #32) of three residents reviewed for activities and four (Resident's #5, #19, #22 and #25) who attended the group meeting. The facility census was 36. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #32 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including diabetes, respiratory failure with hypoxia, vascular dementia, sleep apnea, major depressive disorder, heart failure, blindness, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The medical record lacked an activity assessment and lacked the development of an activity plan of care. Resident #32 was observed on 01/18/22 at 10:45 A.M., 01/19/22 at 2:00 P.M. and 01/20/22 at 11:19 A.M., 12:43 P.M. and 3:06 P.M. lying in bed with the head of the bed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2022-01-27 · tag F0885 — failed to notify residents/families about COVID-19 — patternReport COVID19 data to residents and families.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents or resident families were notified of positive COVID-19 cases of employees and residents in the facility. This affected six (Resident's #25, #15, #5, #22, #35 and #19) of six residents reviewed for facility notification of positive COVID-19 cases and had the potential to affect all 36 residents residing at the facility. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #25 revealed an admission date of 12/2/21 with diagnoses including acute embolism, hypertension, cerebral infarction, and bipolar disorder. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #25 was his own responsible party. Review of the nursing notes dated 12/02/21 to 01/18/22 revealed there was no documented evidence Resident #25 was notified of employee and/or resident positive COVID-19 cases. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #25 had intact cognition. Interview on 01/18/22 at 11:28…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2022-01-27 · tag F0919 — failed to provide a working call system — patternMake 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review and policy review, the facility failed the ensure call lights were functioning properly. This affected six (Resident's #4, #13, #15, #19, #31 and #88) of 36 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: During the initial tour of the second floor beginning on 01/18/22 at 10:00 A.M. Resident's #31 and #88 confirmed Resident #88's call light did not work. Resident #31 reported she had to activate her call light to get help for Resident #88 when she fell. They reported the call light had not functioned since she was admitted on [DATE] and made an aide aware. Resident #31 reported she would normally notify maintenance staff, but the facility did not currently have any maintenance staff. Review of Resident #88's medical record lacked documented evidence her call light was not functioning. In fact, there were multiple notes encouraging and reminding her to use her call light that was not functioning. She sustained two falls (01/15/22 and 01/19/22) prior to being…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2022-01-27 · tag F0926 — failed to keep the home smoke-free / fire-safe — patternHave policies on smoking.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review and policy review, the facility failed to consistently implement smoking policies and ensure congruence between the policy, assessment, care plan, and smoking contracts. This affected all nine residents identified as smokers (Resident's #1, #3, #11, #12, #13, #15, #28, #35 and #90) and had the potential to affect all 36 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: 1. Observation on 01/19/22 at 2:33 P.M. Resident #13 was smoking outside the back door of the facility. There was no ashtray nearby and no staff present. Resident #13 was observed throwing his two cigarettes on the ground. Outside the door there were multiple cigarette butts on the ground. There were smoking receptacles about ten feet away. After Resident #13 was done smoking, he was observed entering the code to allow himself back into the facility. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #13 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including tobacco use, history of COVID-19…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-01-27 · tag F0557 — isolatedHonor the resident's right to be treated with respect and dignity and to retain and use personal possessions.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed ensure Resident #32 ate in a dignified manner and failed to provide a privacy cover for Resident #187's indwelling urinary catheter bag. This affected two (Resident's #32 AND #187) reviewed for dignity and of 36 residents observed or interviewed related to dignity. The facility census was 36. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #32 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including diabetes, respiratory failure with hypoxia, vascular dementia, major depressive disorder, visual loss, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Review of the comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #32 was moderately cognitively impaired, required the extensive assistance of two plus staff for toilet use and was always incontinent of bladder. Review of the incontinence care plan indicated Resident #32 was incontinent and to provide incontinence care as needed.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-01-27 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — isolatedHonor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #88's choice of shower schedule was obtained and preferences honored. This affected one (Resident #88) of three (Resident's #33, #36 and #88) reviewed for activities of daily living. The facility census was 36. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #88 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis including hypertension, old myocardial infarction, atherosclerotic heart disease, chronic kidney disease, hyperosmolality and hypernatremia, rhabdomyolysis, major depressive disorder, schizophrenia, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, migraine, history of COVID-19, and cerebrovascular disease. Review of the admission evaluation dated 01/15/22 at 12:10 A.M. indicated Resident #88 required two-staff assistance with transfers, toileting, and bathing. There was no documented evidence Resident #88's preference for how often she preferred to be showered was obtained. Review of the self-care deficit plan of 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 · D2022-01-27 · tag F0569 — isolatedNotify each resident of certain balances and convey resident funds upon discharge, eviction, or death.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and review of resident accounts, the facility failed to notify the resident/responsible party when the amount reached less than $200.00 than the supplemental security income resource limit. This affected two (Resident's #14 and #33) of five (Resident's #5, #12, #14, #33 and #91) accounts reviewed of 19 accounts managed by the facility. The facility census was 36. Findings include: Review of four active accounts for Resident's #5, #12, #14 and #33 revealed two had balances beyond the resource limit. Resident #14 had $3,282.66 and Resident #33 had $6,668.33 in their accounts. Interview with Business Office Manager (BOM) #640 on 01/24/22 at 1:35 P.M. reported she was to notify the resident/representative when the account was $200.00 less than the resource limit of $2,000.00. She also reported residents received $1400.00 from the stimulus and should not be counted toward the total. BOM #604 verified Resident #14's total minus the stimulus was at $1,882.66 and Resident #33's total minus the stimulus was at $5,268.33 both exceeding the amount of when a spend down letter…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-01-27 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review and policy review, the facility failed to notify Resident #88's first emergency contact following falls and a room change. This affected one (Resident #88) of three family interviews conducted. The facility census was 36. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #88 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis including hypertension, old myocardial infarction, atherosclerotic heart disease, chronic kidney disease, hyperosmolality and hypernatremia, rhabdomyolysis, major depressive disorder, schizophrenia, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, migraine, history of COVID-19, and cerebrovascular disease, Review of the profile section of the electronic health record revealed Resident #88's sister was listed as the first emergency contact. Review of the plan of care revealed Resident #88 had mental illness/intellectual disabilities. Review of the progress notes dated 01/15/22 at 4:45 A.M. indicated Resident #88 was trying to ambulate of her own to the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-01-27 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolatedEnsure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, review of Self-Reported Incident (SRI) tracking number (#)196872, record review and policy review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #19 was free from being physically restrained. This affected one (Resident #19) of three (Resident's #5, #19 and #193) reviewed for abuse/SRI's. The facility census was 36. Findings include: Review of medical record for Resident #19 revealed an admission date of 04/27/17 with diagnoses including congestive heart failure, cocaine abuse, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic respiratory failure, hypertension, and difficulty walking. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #19 had impaired cognition with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was a seven. Resident #19 had no behaviors and required extensive assist of one staff for bed mobility. Resident #19 was totally dependent of two staff for transfers and was unable to ambulate. Review of the physician's orders for September 2020 revealed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-01-27 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, review of the facility Self-Reported Incident (SRI) Form with tracking number (#)196872, review of personnel files, record review and policy review, the facility failed to implement the abuse policy as State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) #646 failed to report she physically restrained Resident #19. This affected one (Resident #19) of three (Resident's #5, #19 and #193) reviewed for abuse/ SRI's. The facility census was 36. Findings include: Review of medical record for Resident #19 revealed an admission date of 04/27/17 with diagnoses including congestive heart failure, cocaine abuse, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic respiratory failure, hypertension, and difficulty walking. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #19 had impaired cognition with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was a seven. Resident #19 had no behaviors and required extensive assistance of one staff with bed mobility. Resident #19 was totally dependent…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-01-27 · tag F0636 — isolatedAssess the resident completely in a timely manner when first admitted, and then periodically, at least every 12 months.
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 comprehensively assess Resident #32's activity pursuit using the resident assessment instrument. This affected one (Resident #32) of three (Resident's #17, #18 and #32) reviewed for activities. The facility assessment was 36. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #32 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including diabetes, respiratory failure with hypoxia, vascular dementia, major depressive disorder, and blindness. The medical record lacked any activity assessment and lacked the development of an activity plan of care. Review of the initial comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #32 was alert, oriented and able to make daily decisions. However, Section F preferences for routine and activities, was not completed. Interview with Admission/Social Service/Activity Director/State Tested Nurse Aide #616 and assessment nurse/Licensed Practical Nurse #622 on 01/20/22 at…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-01-27 · 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, record review, the facility failed to provide showers to Resident's #33 and #88 who were dependent on staff for care. This affected two (Resident's #33 and #88) of three (Resident's #33, #36 and #88) reviewed for activities of daily living. The facility census was 36. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #33 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including epilepsy, systolic congestive heart failure, polyneuropathy, acute kidney failure, and history of COVID-19. Review of the comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #33 was alert, oriented and independent in daily decision-making ability. It was very important to Resident #33 for the choice in clothing, choosing between tub, shower, bed bath or sponge bath. Resident #33 required limited assistance of one-staff for hygiene and physical help in part of the bathing activity with one-staff physical assistance. Review of the annual MDS 3.0…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-01-27 · tag F0687 — failed to care for feet properly — isolatedProvide appropriate foot 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 observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide foot care for Resident #33. This affected one (Resident #33) of three (Resident's #33, #36 and #88) reviewed for activities of daily living. The facility census was 36. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #33 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including epilepsy, systolic congestive heart failure, polyneuropathy acute kidney failure, and history of COVID-19. Review of the annual comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #33 was moderately cognitively impaired and required the extensive assistance of two staff for personal hygiene. Review of the plan of care revised on 06/30/21 related to self-care deficit indicated to assist with activities of daily living as needed. The care plan did not address nail care. Review of the shower sheets revealed Resident #33 received one shower in the last 30 days on 12/27/21 and it did not include nail 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 before2022-01-27 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review and policy review the facility failed to ensure unsecured medications were not left unattended on Resident #187's bedside table. This affected one (Resident #187) of eight (Resident's #27, #25, #10, #29, #6, #14, #18 and #187) observed for unsecured medications. This had the potential to affect all 36 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #187 revealed an admission date of 01/14/22 with diagnoses including diabetes, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, sleep apnea, and surgical aftercare following surgery on the digestive system, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Observation on 01/18/22 at 10:31 A.M. revealed Resident #187 was in bed and a medication souffle cup containing four pills was sitting on his bedside table. There were also two inhalers on his bedside table, and the label on both inhalers was faded and unable to clearly read. Interview on 01/18/22 at 10:31 A.M. with Resident #187 revealed the nurse recently brought in his medications in the medication souffle cup…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-01-27 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review and policy review, the facility failed to ensure Resident's #4, #25 and #27 were offered and/ or the facility had documentation the resident or resident's responsible party was educated regarding the benefits and potential risks of the influenza and pneumococcal vaccines. This affected three (Resident's #3, #25 and #27) of five (Resident's #4, #15, #25, #27 and #29) reviewed for immunizations. The facility census was 36. Findings included: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #4 revealed an admission date of 01/12/11 with diagnoses including severe protein-calorie malnutrition, diabetes, dementia with behavioral disturbances, and chronic respiratory failure. Resident #4 had a guardian assigned due to cognitive impairment. Review of the nursing notes dated 09/01/21 through 01/18/22 revealed no documented evidence Resident #4's representative was provided with education regarding the benefits and potential risks of the influenza vaccine, or any documented evidence Resident #4's guardian refused the influenza vaccine for Resident #4. Review of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-02-22 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents had accurate advance directive orders and information in place through out the medical record for Resident #12. This affected one of one residents reviewed for advanced directives. Findings include: Review of Resident #12's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the the facility on 07/27/92 with diagnoses that included dementia, depressive disorder and high cholesterol . Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #12 was severely cognitively impaired and required extensive assistance for activities of daily living. Review of the physician's orders for Resident #12 revealed an order dated 03/14/18 for a Do Not Resuscitate Comfort Care (DNRCC) code status (meaning only comfort measures would be initiated in the event of a medical emergency). Review of the social service progress noted dated 11/25/18 revealed, Resident is a DNRCC and a LTC (long term care) resident. Review…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-02-22 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure comprehensive care plans were developed related to substance abuse for Resident #18 and for oxygen level monitoring for Resident #5. This affected two residents of 14 residents whose care plans were reviewed. Findings include: 1. Resident #5 was admitted to this facility on 01/06/17. His admitting diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), type II diabetes, cirrhosis of the liver, and supraventricular tachycardia. According to the minimum data set 3.0 (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], Resident #5 was alert, oriented and cognitively intact. The health condition section of this MDS showed that the resident did have shortness of breath and trouble breathing with exertion, while sitting at rest and when lying flat. His therapy and treatments showed that the resident was receiving oxygen. Functionally, this resident was totally dependent on staff for toilet use, personal hygiene, locomotion on and of the unit and walking 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.
- No harm found · C2022-01-27 · tag F0606 — failed to not employ staff found guilty of abuse — widespreadNot hire anyone with a finding of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or theft.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review and policy review, the facility failed to ensure employee reference checks were completed prior to hire as part of the facility abuse policy to screen new employees. This had the potential to affect all 36 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: Review of personnel file for Housekeeper #631 revealed a hire date of 05/19/21. There were no reference checks completed prior to hire in the personnel file. Review of personnel file for Laundry Staff #610 revealed a hire date of 08/24/21. There were no reference checks completed prior to hire in the personnel file. Review of personnel file for Admission/Social Service Designee/ Activity Director/ State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #616 revealed a hire date of 10/07/21. There were no reference checks completed prior to hire in the personnel file. Review of personnel file for Registered Nurse (RN) #617 revealed a hire date of 01/12/21. There were no reference checks completed prior to hire in the personnel file. Interview on 01/24/22 at 11:58 A.M. with Business Office Manager (BOM) #640…
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
$46,291 in federal fines across 3 penalties.
- $20,925 — penalty dated 2026-04-23
- $10,845 — penalty dated 2024-12-20
- $14,521 — penalty dated 2023-09-25
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 SABER HEALTHCARE GROUP — 126 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 2 of 5 | 2.9 | -0.9 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 1 of 5 | 2.6 | -1.6 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 2.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
The other 125 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.9★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 125; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| VOLPE, BENJAMIN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/01/2019 |
| WEISBERG, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/26/2026 |
| NICOLUZAKIS, GREGORY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/01/2019 |
| SABER GOVERNANCE LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/01/2019 |
| SHG MANAGEMENT LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/01/2019 |
| CEKANSKI, CYNTHIA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/25/2021 |
| MOZDZEN, MICHAEL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/15/2025 |
| CITRIN COOPERMAN ADVISORS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2004 |
| OHIO PENNSYLVANIA PROPERTY, L.L.C. | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/01/2016 |
| SHG BOA LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/27/2026 |
| SHG MT, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/27/2026 |
| TCF NATIONAL BANK | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/19/2019 |
| HALL, GREGORY | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/01/2019 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 22 rows in the source record cover these 13 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
7 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 $442K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in OH
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 Ohio 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 366110. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2023-12-28, 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.