The Gardens Of St. Francis
930 South Wynn Road, Oregon, OH 43616 · Non profit - Corporation · 60 certified beds · (419) 698-4331 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0605) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (40) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $45,250 in federal fines (most recent 2024-02-01)
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (66%) runs well above the national median (45%)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 1 to 3 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 | 16.9% | 5.3% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.5% | 6.2% | 5.4% | typical |
| 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 | 0.0% | 0.4% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 29.8% | 30.1% | 6.5% | typical for the 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 | 9.6% | 3.2% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 20.8% | 6.1% | 16.1% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 16.2% | 25.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 89.8% | 94.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.6% | 3.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 26.7% | 21.4% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 5.2% | 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 | 49.3% | 75.6% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 33.7% | 24.9% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 3.3% | 12.9% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.66 | 1.73 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.64 | 1.80 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
54.4% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 76 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 69.8% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 43 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.12 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 9% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 7% 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 | 54.4%CMS range 44.3–63.6 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.9%CMS range 8.6–15.6 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 69.8% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 81.4% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 65.1% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 96.4% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 96.8% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 3.6% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 1.8% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 8.6%CMS range 5.2–13.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.09 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 60 beds and averages 56.5 residents a day — about 94% occupied, or roughly 4 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 1.48 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.27 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 0.87 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 1.27 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 1.57 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.33 to 0.12 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 66% is well above the national median of 45%. 3 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
40 citations, most serious first. The 12 most serious are shown; the remaining 28 are one tap away and print in full.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2024-02-01 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, medical record review, hospital document review, staff interview, policy review, and sit-to-stand lift instructions, the facility failed to ensure sufficient fall interventions were put into place to promote resident safety and prevent falls. This resulted in actual harm when Resident #1 fell on [DATE] and sustained a fracture to her right ankle and had a subsequent fall on 01/02/24 and sustained a head laceration which required two staples with no immediate interventions implemented. In addition, the facility failed to ensure transfer equipment was utilized in a safe manner for one (#8) resident. This affected two (#1 and #8) of four residents reviewed for accidents. The facility census was 52. Findings Include: 1. Review of Resident #1's medical record revealed an admission date of 05/03/18. Diagnoses included dementia, emphysema, cerebral infarction, hemiplegia and hemiparesis, seizures, anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, insomnia, and spinal stenosis. Review of Resident #1'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.
- Actual harm · G2023-10-11 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY THE FOLLOWING DEFICIENCY REPRESENTS AN INCIDENT OF PAST NON-COMPLIANCE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED PRIOR TO THIS SURVEY. Based on medical record review, resident, family, and staff interview, pharmacy interview, review of pharmacy delivery manifest, review of facility policy, and review of hospital neurology notes, the facility failed to ensure Resident #01 was free of significant medication errors when Resident #01 had not received physician ordered anti-anxiety medication (Klonopin) for three days. Actual Harm occurred to Resident #01 when the facility failed to ensure medications were available for administration resulting in the resident experiencing a seizure attributed to medication withdrawal requiring hospitalization with additional testing, monitoring, and restarting of the ordered medication as a result of the medication error. This affected one (Resident #01) of three residents reviewed for medications. The facility census was 54. Findings include: Review of Resident #01's medical record 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 · E2026-03-26 · tag F0605 — failed to not use drugs as a restraint — patternPrevent the use of unnecessary psychotropic medications or use medications that may restrain a resident's ability to function.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of the medical record, staff interview, and policy review the facility failed to ensure adequate monitoring for psychotropic medication effectiveness, side effects and adverse effects. This affected four (#16, #6, #38, and #68) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility identified 39 residents receiving psychotropic medications. The facility census was 57.Findings include: 1. Resident #16 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses including major depression and anxiety disorder. According to the most current Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] assessed Resident #16 with moderately impaired cognition, no resistive behaviors, required supervision or touching assistance with eating, and dependent for completion of activities of daily living. On 11/18/25 a nursing plan of care was revised to address Resident #16's mood disorder related to her diagnoses of cyclothymic disorder, insomnia, anxiety, and depression. Currently being seen by psychiatric…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-03-26 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — patternDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record reviews, staff interviews, and review of facility policies, the facility failed to ensure pneumococcal and influenza vaccinations were up to date. This affected five (Residents #13, #17, #33, #36, and #56) of five residents reviewed for immunizations. The facility census was 57.Findings include:1.Review of the medical record for Resident #13 revealed he was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including cardiomegaly, hypertension, type two diabetes mellitus, stage 3B chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and obstructive sleep apnea.Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #13 revealed he was cognitively impaired and did not display any behaviors nor refusals of care at the time of this assessment. He required moderate assistance with ambulation and activities of daily living. Resident #13 had chronic lung disease and experienced shortness of breath when lying down. This assessment indicated his pneumococcal vaccine was up to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-03-26 · 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 resident and staff interviews and record review, the facility failed to respect a resident's preference to sleep in. This affected one (#16) of one resident reviewed for sleep preferences. The facility census was 57. Resident #16 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnosis including, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, myasthenia gravis, epilepsy, dysphagia, major depression, pseudosarcomatous fibromatosis, hypertension, anxiety disorder, coronary artery disease, insomnia, congestive heart failure, and neurofibromatosis.According to the most current Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] assessed Resident #16 with moderately impaired cognition, no resistive behaviors, required supervision or touching assistance with eating, dependent for completion of activities of daily living, and utilized a wheelchair for mobility propelled by staff. On 11/17/25 a nursing plan of care was revised to address Resident #16 activity of daily living (ADL) self care performance deficit d/t weakness,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-26 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to have a required Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) in place prior to admission. This affected one resident, #6, out of four residents reviewed for PASARR. The facility census was 57. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbance, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance and anxiety, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder and anxiety disorder.Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #6, dated 02/04/26, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of three, indicating severe cognitive deficits. Further review of the MDS revealed Resident #6 exhibited wandering behaviors one to three days a week. Review of the admission care plan for Resident #6, dated 07/31/25, revealed interventions included, staff are to distract resident from wandering by offering…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-03-26 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, medical record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to apply anti-emboli stockings (TED hose) as ordered by the physician. This affected one resident (#6) out of one reviewed for application of TED hose. The facility census was 57.Review of the medical record revealed Resident #6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbance, muscle wasting and atrophy, generalized osteoarthritis, rheumatic tricuspid insufficiency and cardiomegaly. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #6, dated 02/04/26, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of three, indicating severe cognitive deficits. Further review of the MDS revealed functional abilities for Resident #6 included substantial/max assist for toileting hygiene, shower/bathing, upper/lower body dressing and personal hygiene.Review of the admission care plan for Resident #6, dated 07/31/25, revealed the resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-03-26 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record reviews, observations, resident interview, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure pressure ulcer prevention measures were utilized. This affected three Residents #3, #33, and #56) of five residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility census was 57.Findings include:1. Resident #3 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnosis including, congestive heart failure, hypertension, chronic kidney disease stage 3, major depression, atrial fibrillation, left hip bursitis, polyneuropathy, osteoporosis, and anemia. According to the most current minimum data set assessment dated [DATE] Resident #3 was assessed with intact cognition, lower extremity impairment on one side, required substantial to maximal assistance with activities of daily living, independently mobile using an electric wheelchair, frequently incontinent of urine, continent of bowel, received a therapeutic mechanically altered diet, at risk for pressure ulcer development with open…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-03-07 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
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, review of late medication reports, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications administered in a timely manner as ordered. This affected three (Residents #1, #4, and #43) of four residents reviewed for late medications. The facility census was 49. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #1 revealed an admission date of 02/21/21 with diagnoses including but not limited to frontal lobe and executive function deficit following nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage, normal pressure hydrocephalus, cognitive communication deficit, cardiac arrhythmia, epilepsy, heart failure, anxiety, and major depressive disorder. Review of The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #1 was rarely understood. Resident #1 required maximum assistance to total dependence on staff for activities of daily living. Review of the late medication report for 03/05/24 revealed the following medications were due between 7:00 A.M. and 10:00 A.M.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-02-01 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, resident and staff interview, medical record review, and review of a facility policy, the facility failed to ensure residents were treated with dignity and respect. This affected one (#2) of three residents reviewed for dignity. The facility census was 52. Findings Include: Review of the medical record for Resident #2 revealed an admission date of 07/01/11. Diagnoses included type II diabetes, morbid obesity, Alzheimer's disease, heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, paranoid personality disorder, major depressive disorder, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease. Review of Resident #2's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13 indicating Resident #2 was cognitively intact. Resident #2 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfer, and toilet use. Resident #2 was independent with eating. Resident #2 received a therapeutic diet at the time of the review and had no significant weight changes. 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 · D2024-02-01 · tag F0582 — isolatedGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
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 guidelines, the facility failed to issue notifications of the ending of skilled Medicare Part A services for residents who remained in the facility. This affected one (#24) of three residents reviewed for liability notices. The facility census was 52. Findings Include: Review of Resident #24's Beneficiary Notice Form revealed Resident #24 began Medicare Part A skilled services on 07/26/23 and Medicare Part A skilled services ended on 09/21/23. The facility initiated the discharge from services and it was noted Resident #24 remained in the facility. There was no indication Resident #24 or her representative were provided a Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) or an Advanced Beneficiary Notice of Non-Coverage (ABN). Interview on 01/30/24 at 2:08 P.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed she confirmed with Licensed Social Worker (LSW) #410 the forms had not been provided. Review of the facility guidelines titled, Beneficiary Notice Guidelines, dated 2021, revealed if the Part A stay ended because the facility…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-02-01 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, medical record review, staff interview, wound treatment management policy, and manufacturer indications for use, the facility failed to ensure skin breakdown treatments were applied as ordered by the physician. This affected one (#19) of one resident reviewed for non-pressure skin impairments. The census was 52. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #19 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses including, type II diabetes mellitus with diabetic chronic kidney disease, obstructive and reflux uropathy, anxiety disorder, heart failure, gastroenteritis and colitis, major depression, coronary artery disease, Alzheimer's disease, vascular dementia, and osteoarthritis. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #19 was assessed with moderately impaired cognition, was dependent on staff for activities of daily living (ADLs), required substantial to maximum assistance with side to side positioning, was dependent with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 28 citations
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-01 · 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 observation, medical record review, staff interview, and a facility catheter care policy, the facility failed to ensure an indwelling urinary catheter was maintained in a manner to prevent infection and care plan interventions were maintained to prevent dislodgement. This affected one (#7) of two residents reviewed for indwelling urinary catheters. The census was 52. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #7 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses including, urinary tract infection, sepsis secondary to urinary tract infection, obstructive and reflux uropathy, ureter stent placement, coronary artery disease, coronary artery bypass graph, cerebral vascular accident, hypertension, moderate protein calorie malnutrition, and metabolic encephalopathy. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #7 was assessed with moderate cognitive impairment, utilized a wheelchair or walker for mobility, required partial to moderate assistance with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-01 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, medical record review, staff interview, and review of a facility policy, the facility failed to ensure resident pain was effectively managed. This affected one (#23) of two residents reviewed for pain management. The facility census was 52. Findings Include: Review of Resident #23's medical record revealed an admission date of 01/18/22. Diagnoses included major depressive disorder, visual hallucinations, dysphagia, dementia, anxiety disorder, osteoarthritis, adjustment disorder, and pseudobulbar affect. Review of Resident #23's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of zero indicating Resident #23 was rarely or never understood. A Staff Assessment for Mental Status was completed and Resident #23 was assessed with memory problems. Resident #23 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfers, eating, and toilet use. Resident #23 received scheduled and as needed pain medications. Resident #23 displayed facial…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-02-01 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, resident interview, staff interview, medical record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered within ordered time frames. This affected one (#203) of two residents reviewed for medications. The facility census was 52. Findings Include: Review of Resident #203's medical record revealed an admission date of 01/19/24. Diagnoses included multiple fractures of right side ribs, respiratory disorder, protein calorie malnutrition, muscle weakness, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and pleurodynia (pain in upper abdomen or chest when breathing). Review of Resident #203's care plan revised 01/23/24 revealed supports and interventions for risk for pain, risk for decline for activities of daily living, behavior of being verbally aggressive, COPD, and desire to return back home. Review of Resident #203's physician orders revealed Resident #203 had medications ordered for one time a day, two times a day, three times a day, four times a day, at bed time, and as needed (PRN). Further review of the physician…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-01 · 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
Based on observation, medical record review, staff interview, and facility medication administration policy, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered in accordance with physician orders and within prescribed time frames producing a medication error rate greater than five (5) percent (%). This resulted in three medication errors out of 27 opportunities for a medication error rate of 11.11%. This affected one (#154) of three residents observed for medication administration. The facility census was 52. Findings include: Observation on 01/30/24 at 10:38 A.M. revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #445 obtained Resident #154's medications from the medication cart and preparing for administration. LPN #445 placed medications including the medication for bone health alendronate sodium oral tablet 70 milligrams (mg) and the diuretic Bumex oral one (1) mg, and proceeded into Resident #154's room administering the medications at 10:48 A.M. Interview with Resident #154 at this time confirmed she had previously consumed breakfast between 8:00 A.M. and 9:00 A.M. Observation…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-01 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, medical record review, resident and staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility to failed to ensure medications were stored in a safe and secure manner. This affected one (#5) of one residents observed for medication storage. The census was 52. Findings included: Review of the medical record for Resident #5 revealed an admission date of 01/23/21 with diagnoses which included diabetes mellitus, anxiety disorder, and insomnia. Review of the physician orders for Resident #5 revealed an order for the antianxiety medication Klonopin 0.5 milligrams (mg) to take one tablet by mouth twice daily, the pain medication gabapentin capsule 100 mg to give one capsule by mouth twice daily, and the sleep aid melatonin three (3) mg by mouth at bedtime for insomnia. Review of the medication administration record (MAR) for January 2024 revealed Resident #5 received Klonopin, gabapentin, and melatonin at bedtime on 01/29/24 which were signed as given by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #479. Interview with Resident #5 on 01/30/24 at 8:15 A.M. verified there were…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2021-09-08 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to cover food during hall tray delivery to residents rooms and ensure food was dated properly to prevent food borne illnesses. This had the potential to affect all 53 residents who received food from the kitchen. The facility census was 53. Findings include: 1. Observation on 08/30/21 at 11:44 A.M. of hall tray service on the C Hall revealed the meal cart was placed in the common area of the hall. State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #319 was observed removing lunch trays from the meal cart, walking down the hall and delivering to the resident rooms. Observation of the lunch trays revealed cupcakes on the meal trays had a plastic cover over the top, but the bottom portion, approximately half of the cupcake, was exposed. Interview on 08/30/21 at 11:50 A.M. of STNA #319 verified the bottom portion of the cupcakes were not properly covered during delivery to resident rooms. STNA #319 stated the cupcakes should have been placed in a cup and the plastic cover then placed over them to ensure they…
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 · F2021-09-08 · 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 observations, staff interview, review of the facility policy and review of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidance, the facility failed to properly wear facemasks while providing resident care, failed to monitor residents for signs and symptoms of COVID-19 and failed to wear an N95 respirator while performing staff testing for COVID-19 to potentially limit the transmission of COVID-19. This had the potential to affect 53 of 53 residents who reside in the facility. In addition, the facility failed to store oxygen tubing in a sanitary manner, affecting one (#25) resident reviewed for oxygen tube storage. The facility census was 53. Findings include: 1. Observation on 08/30/21 at 8:05 A.M. of the reception area revealed all staff were screened for symptoms of COVID-19 upon entrance into the facility. Outside the door of the reception desk was a cart with facemasks. A sign hanging on the cart stated to wear a facemask over both the nose and mouth. Observation on 08/30/21 at 12:28 P.M. of the second…
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 · F2021-09-08 · 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 medical record review, review of the facility census record for resident COVID-19 testing, staff interview, review of the facility policy, review of staff COVID-19 testing logs, staff laboratory results, and review of guidance from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the facility failed to document resident COVID-19 test results in the electronic medical record (EMR), failed to timely follow up with the laboratory staff COVID-19 test results and failed to monitor a resident who refused COVID-19 testing during a facility outbreak. This had the potential to affect 53 of 53 residents who reside in the facility. Findings include: 1. Review of the facility census for resident testing for COVID-19, dated 08/24/21 and 08/25/21, revealed Residents #16, #49, #37, #22, #1, #50, #305, #27, #14, #40, #28, #44, #10, #205, #13, #43, #12, #52, #47, #45, #4, #35, #24, #206, #36, #7 and #15 were tested for COVID-19 following a positive staff COVID-19 test result, resulting in facility outbreak testing.…
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 · E2021-09-08 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, resident and staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to maintain a comfortable temperature in the main dining room. This affected seven (#3, #6, #14, #16, #21, #36, and #43) of seven residents observed eating in the main dining room. The facility census was 53. Findings include: Observation on 08/30/21 at 12:00 P.M. of the main dining room for the lunch meal revealed the room to be very cold. Observation on 08/31/21 at 12:09 P.M. revealed Resident #3, Resident #6, Resident #14, Resident #16, Resident #21, Resident #36 and Resident #43 were sitting in the main dining room while waiting on their lunch meal. All the residents' were observed to be wearing a jacket or sweater and Resident #43 had a blanket lying across her lap. The room temperature seemed very cold. Resident interviews on 08/31/21 at 12:20 P.M. with Resident #3, Resident #6, Resident #14, Resident #16, Resident #21, Resident #36 and Resident #43 revealed it is always very cold in the dining room. Resident #43 stated that is why she has to have a blanket across her legs and we all…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2021-09-08 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, observation, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to develop and/or implement care plan interventions. This affected four (#1, #5, #28 and #49) of 22 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility census was 53. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #1 was admitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses included multiple fractures of ribs, right side, subsequent encounter for fracture with routine healing, anxiety disorder, muscle weakness, gastro-esophageal reflux, overactive bladder, atrial fibrillation, major depressive disorder, essential hypertension and weakness. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #1 had moderate cognitive impairment with a BIMS of nine out of 15. Resident #1 required extensive assist with one person assist for bed mobility, transfers, walking in room and corridor, toilet use, personal hygiene was total dependence for bathing with one person physical assist. No pressure ulcers;…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2021-09-08 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — patternProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, observation and staff interview, the facility failed to implement interventions for positioning, skin conditions, and post fall monitoring. This affected four (#30, #1, #49, and #44) of 22 residents reviewed for care and treatment. The facility census was 53. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #30's medical record revealed an admission date of 01/12/17. Diagnoses included unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbance; hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction; atherosclerotic heart disease of native coronary artery without angina pectoris; and open-angle glaucoma. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed Resident #30 was moderately cognitively impaired and required extensive one person physical assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADL's). Review of a physician order, dated 12/04/18, revealed half lap tray to wheelchair for positioning. Review of the plan of care, revised 02/06/19, revealed Resident #30 had an…
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 before2021-09-08 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, observation, staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to treat residents with dignity. This affected one (#30) resident reviewed for dignity. The facility census was 53. Findings include: Review of Resident #30's medical record revealed an admission date of 01/12/17. Diagnoses included unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbance; hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction; atherosclerotic heart disease of native coronary artery without angina pectoris; and open-angle glaucoma. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed Resident #30 was moderately cognitively impaired and had highly impaired vision. Review of the plan of care, revised on 02/06/19, revealed Resident #30 had an activities of daily living (ADL's) self care performance deficit due to her limited mobility, left sided weakness and impaired vision due to her diagnosis of cardiovascular accident (CVA) and glaucoma. Interventions included introduce…
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 before2021-09-08 · 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 medical record review, observation, resident and staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure residents choices were honored. This affected one (#13) of three reviewed for choices. The facility census was 53. Findings include: Review of Resident #13's medical record revealed an admission date of 02/19/21. Diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, cognitive communication deficit, dysphagia, major depressive disorder, insomnia, anxiety disorder, and dementia. Review of Resident #13's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of eight out of 15 indicating Resident #13 was moderately cognitively impaired. Resident #13 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfer, dressing, eating, toilet use and personal hygiene. Review of Resident #13's care plan revised 07/10/21 revealed supports and interventions for risk for wandering/elopement, risk for decrease in socialization, confusion, communication problem, 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 · D2021-09-08 · 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 medical record review, observation, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to notify the physician or resident representative regarding of resident change in condition involving skin tears, falls and/or resident noncompliance with medical devices. This affected two (#1 and #25) of three residents reviewed for notification. The facility census was 53. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #1 was admitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses included multiple fractures of ribs, right side, subsequent encounter for fracture with routine healing, anxiety disorder, muscle weakness, gastro-esophageal reflux, overactive bladder, atrial fibrillation, major depressive disorder, essential hypertension and weakness. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], revealed Resident #1 had a Brief Interview Mental Status score of nine out of 15 indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Resident #1 required extensive assist with one person assist for bed mobility,…
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 · D2021-09-08 · tag F0623 — isolatedProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, staff interview, and review of facility's policy, the facility failed to provided written notification of hospital transfer and discharge to the resident, the resident representative, and the ombudsman. This affected two (#204 and #28) of four residents reviewed for transfer and discharge. The facility census was 53. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #204's medical record revealed an admission date of 01/29/19 and a discharge date of 04/09/20. Diagnoses included cellulitis, heart failure, anxiety disorder, lymphedema, and major depressive disorder. Review of Resident #204's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score 12 out of 15 indicating Resident #204 was moderately cognitively impaired. Resident #204 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfer, dressing, toilet use and personal hygiene. Review of Resident #204's progress notes revealed on 03/31/20 Resident #204 was transferred and admitted to 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 · D2021-09-08 · tag F0625 — isolatedNotify 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 policy review, the facility failed to provide written notice of the bed hold policy prior to transfer to the hospital. This affected one (#28) of two sampled residents reviewed for hospitalization. The facility census was 53. Findings include: Review of Resident #28's medical record revealed an admission date of 02/19/16 and a discharge date of 04/03/21 with a readmission date of 04/05/21 and a discharge date of 06/24/21. Diagnoses included unspecified fracture of sacrum, subsequent encounter for fracture with routine healing, unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbance, hypothyroidism, urgency of urination, Alzheimer's Disease, anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, recurrent, rheumatoid arthritis with rheumatoid factor of multiple sites without organ or systems involvement and gastro-esophageal reflux without esophagitis. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #28 had a BIMS score of 03, indicating severe…
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 · D2021-09-08 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to accurately reflect resident hospice status in the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment. This affected one (#18) of two residents reviewed for accuracy of assessments. The facility census was 53. Findings include: Review of Resident #18's medical record revealed an admission date of 11/09/20. Diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, malignant neoplasm of unspecified site of left female breast, atrial fibrillation, acute kidney failure and pulmonary hypertension. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated , 06/30/21, revealed Resident #18 was moderately cognitively impaired. The MDS did not reflect Resident #18 received hospice services. Review of the plan of care, revised on 06/30/21, revealed Resident #18's family planned for the resident to remain at the facility for long term care services and the resident was utilizing Hospice Agency #1. Interview on 09/01/21 at 10:29 A.M. of the Director of Nursing (DON) verified the MDS did not correctly reflect Resident #18's status for receiving hospice services.…
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 · D2021-09-08 · 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 medical record review, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a residents care plan was reviewed and revised when a resident experienced multiple fall. This affected one (#1) out of 22 sampled residents care plans reviewed. The facility census was 53. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #1 was admitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses included multiple fractures of ribs, right side, subsequent encounter for fracture with routine healing, anxiety disorder, muscle weakness, gastro-esophageal reflux, overactive bladder, atrial fibrillation, major depressive disorder, essential hypertension and weakness. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #1 had moderate cognitive impairment with a BIMS of nine out of 15. Resident required extensive assist with one person assist for bed mobility, transfers, walking in room and corridor, toilet use, personal hygiene was total dependence for bathing with one person physical assist. Resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2021-09-08 · 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 medical record review observation, staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to provide assistance to a resident who was dependent on staff for eating. This affected one (#18) of two residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL's). The facility census was 53. Findings include: Review of Resident #18's medical record revealed an admission date of 11/09/20. Diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, unspecified; malignant neoplasm of unspecified site of left female breast; unspecified atrial fibrillation; acute kidney failure; and pulmonary hypertension. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], revealed Resident #18 was moderately cognitively impaired and required extensive two person physical assistance with bed mobility and transfers and extensive one person assistance with eating, toilet use and personal hygiene. Review of the plan of care, revised on 02/14/21, revealed Resident #18 had an activities of daily living (ADL's) self care performance…
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 · D2021-09-08 · tag F0685 — isolatedAssist a resident in gaining access to vision and hearing services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, observation, resident and staff interview, and review of a facility practice document, the facility failed to ensure residents received annual vision and hearing screenings. This affected two (#24 and #53) of three reviewed for vision and hearing services. The facility census was 53. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #24's medical record revealed an admission date of 02/19/21. Diagnoses included chronic respiratory failure, major depressive disorder, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, morbid obesity, and sleep apnea. Review of Resident #24's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 indicating Resident #24 was cognitively intact. Resident #24 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfer, dressing, toilet use and personal hygiene. Resident #24 displayed no behaviors during the review period. Review of Resident #24's care plan revised 08/16/21 revealed Resident #24's hearing was within functional limits…
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 before2021-09-08 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure pressure relieving devices were in working condition. This affected one (#53) of three residents reviewed for pressure ulcer care. The facility census was 53. Findings include: Review of Resident #53's medical record revealed an admission date of 02/23/20. Diagnoses included acute kidney failure, cellulitis, persistent atrial fibrillation, stage three pressure ulcer of sacral region, spinal stenosis of the lumbar region without neurogenic claudication, peripheral vascular disease and chronic diastolic (congestive) heart failure. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed Resident #53 was cognitively intact, required extensive two person assist with Activities of Daily Living (ADL's) and had one stage four pressure ulcer. Review of the plan of care plan of care, revised on 02/24/20, revealed Resident #53 had a pressure ulcer on the coccyx. Interventions included pressure redistribution…
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 before2021-09-08 · 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 medical record review, observation, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure fall interventions were in place in accordance with a residents care plan. This affected one (#49) of five residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 53. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #49 revealed an admission date of 12/27/15. Diagnoses included unspecified non-displaced fracture of second cervical vertebra, subsequent encounter for fracture with healing, displaced intertrochanteric fracture of right femur, subsequent encounter for closed fracture with routine healing, muscle weakness, Alzheimer's Disease, cerebral infarction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, urge incontinence, essential hypertension, heart failure, personal history of malignant neoplasm of bladder, atherosclerotic heart disease of native coronary artery without angina pectoris and cognitive communication deficit. Review of the significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] 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 · Dcited before2021-09-08 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
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 review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered per physician orders. This affected one (#38) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 53. Findings include: Review of Resident #38's medical record revealed an admission date of 09/29/20. Diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dementia with behavioral disturbance, hypertension, and congestive heart failure. Review of Resident #38's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had severe cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #38's care plan listed the resident as having impaired cognitive function related to dementia and Alzheimer's disease. Interventions included to administer medications as ordered. Review of Resident #38's physician order dated 09/29/20 revealed an order for Exelon patch 4.6 milligrams (mg's) per hour, apply one patch transdermally every 24 hours…
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 · D2021-09-08 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure resident pharmacy recommendations were addressed in a timely manner by the physician. This affected two (#18 and #13) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility census was 53. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #13's medical record revealed an admission date of 02/19/21. Diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, cognitive communication deficit, dysphagia, major depressive disorder, insomnia, anxiety disorder, and dementia. Review of Resident #13's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of eight out of 15 indicating Resident #13 was moderately cognitively impaired. Resident #13 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfer, dressing, eating, toilet use and personal hygiene. Review of Resident #13's care plan revised 07/10/21 revealed supports and interventions for risk for wandering/elopement, risk for decrease…
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 · D2021-09-08 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from unnecessary medications when the facility failed to ensure as needed (PRN) psychotropic medications were limited to 14 days and renewal evaluation forms were completed for the continuation of use. In addition, the facility failed to ensure supporting diagnosis were included for the use of psychotropic medications. This affected three (#18, #49 and #13) of five residents reviewed for psychotropic medications. The facility census was 53. Findings Include: 1. Review of Resident #13's medical record revealed an admission date of 02/19/21. Diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, cognitive communication deficit, dysphagia, major depressive disorder, insomnia, anxiety disorder, and dementia. Review of Resident #13's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of eight indicating Resident #13 was moderately cognitively impaired. Resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2021-09-08 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — isolatedEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, observation and resident and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure resident meal preferences were honored and alternates were offered. This affected two (#24 and #48) of eight residents reviewed for food concerns. The facility census was 53. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #24's medical record revealed an admission date of 02/19/21. Diagnoses included chronic respiratory failure, major depressive disorder, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, morbid obesity, and sleep apnea. Review of Resident #24's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 indicating Resident #24 was cognitively intact. Resident #24 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfer, dressing, toilet use and personal hygiene. Resident #24 displayed no behaviors during the review period. Review of Resident #24's care plan revised 08/16/21 revealed Resident #24 was at risk for malnutrition and dehydration. Interventions…
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 · D2021-09-08 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to maintain accurate medical records documentation regarding residents falls and/or transfer to the hospital. This affected two (#1 and #49) of five sampled residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 53. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #1 revealed an admission date of 01/30/21. Diagnoses included multiple fractures of ribs, right side, subsequent encounter for fracture with routine healing, anxiety disorder, muscle weakness, gastro-esophageal reflux, overactive bladder, atrial fibrillation, major depressive disorder, essential hypertension and weakness. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #1 had moderate cognitive impairment with a BIMS of nine out of 15. Resident #1 required extensive assist with one person assist for bed mobility, transfers, walking in room and corridor, toilet use, personal hygiene was total dependence for bathing with one…
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 before2021-09-08 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, staff interview and review of facility policy, the facility failed to offer influenza vaccination to residents. This affected one (#53) of five residents reviewed for immunizations. The facility census was 53. Findings include: Review of Resident #18's medical record revealed an admission date of 11/09/20. Diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, unspecified; malignant neoplasm of unspecified site of left female breast; unspecified atrial fibrillation; acute kidney failure; and pulmonary hypertension. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed Resident #18 was moderately cognitively impaired. The MDS indicated Resident #18 was not offered the influenza vaccine. Review of Resident #18's immunizations in her electronic medical record (EMR) was silent for influenza vaccination. Interview on 09/01/21 at 10:29 A.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON), verified the facility did not have documentation Resident #18 was offered the influenza vaccination upon…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
$45,250 in federal fines across 1 penalty. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.
- $45,250 — penalty dated 2024-02-01
- Medicare payment denial — starting 2024-03-01 for 7 days
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to COMMONSPIRIT HEALTH — 18 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 | 3 of 5 | 2.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 3.1 | -2.1 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 3.7 | +1.3 vs chain |
The other 17 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.7★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SYLVANIA FRANCISCAN HEALTH | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 11/01/2014 |
| COMMONSPIRIT HEALTH | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 11/01/2014 |
| LIPSEY, PRENTICE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER; INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/21/2025 |
| MBANU, TERIKA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 01/05/2024 |
| MELFI, MITCH | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 02/01/2019 |
| CECIL, CAITLIN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/18/2012 |
| FINN, CHRISTINA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/01/2017 |
| GRUBBS, STACEY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/26/2012 |
| HAZARD, TED | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/08/2017 |
| MUNROE, KYLE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/08/2015 |
| MURRIEL, SHELLY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/09/2024 |
| NAGEL, JENNIFER | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/12/2015 |
| SNODGRASS, BARBARA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/15/2016 |
| WINE, MATTHEW | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2018 |
| IFFLAND, ALISA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2019 |
| REHMER, HEATHER | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/01/2019 |
| CONCEPT REHAB, INC. | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/05/2015 |
| FORVIS MAZARS LLP | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/18/2025 |
| ICP INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/01/2024 |
| OHIO NEWSPAPERS, INC. | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/18/2025 |
| PRELUDE SYSTEMS, INC. | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/2017 |
| ULRICHPINCIOTTI DESIGN GROUP, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 07/01/2011 |
| BOWLES, JAXON | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/10/2022 |
| COX, DARLENE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 05/09/2013 |
| DUNAWAY, DEANNA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 02/01/2019 |
| HOFFMAN, HEIDI | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 12/13/2021 |
| HOWARD, CASEY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/01/2022 |
| KALINOWSKI, ROSANNE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 02/01/2019 |
| KAUR-GREWAL, NAVNEET | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 11/23/2020 |
| LONGHIN-HOWARD, JOAN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/16/2007 |
| MCFARLAND, DIANNE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/18/2023 |
| MCKNIGHT, ERIN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 03/28/2019 |
| MEACH, DONALD | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 08/29/2023 |
| NARGES, DANIEL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 11/01/2021 |
| POLISETTY, SUDHEER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/01/2024 |
| STOINSKI, JENEL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/28/2025 |
| VOELKER, JENNIFER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/01/2019 |
| WORTKETTER, KRISTY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 02/03/2021 |
| RICHTER AND ASSOCIATES | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/01/2019 |
| LUCAS, GINA | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/28/2024 |
| NORMENT, RACHEL | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/01/2019 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 78 rows in the source record cover these 41 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
9 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 $654K 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 2024. 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, FY2024). 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 366312. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-03-26, 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.