River Run Healthcare Of Portsmouth
1319 Spring Street, Portsmouth, OH 45662 · For profit - Corporation · 25 certified beds · (740) 354-6619 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (18% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has citations for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0567, F0568)
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- a high number of inspection citations overall (35) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 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 |
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 3 to 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 2.8% | 5.3% | 15.4% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 9.6% | 6.2% | 5.4% | worse |
| 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 | 47.6% | 30.1% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 5.7% | 3.2% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 11.2% | 6.1% | 16.1% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 61.8% | 25.5% | 18.9% | check this† — see note marked dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 92.0% | 94.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.9% | 3.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 10.6% | 21.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 6.1% | 8.8% | 17.1% | better |
† This value is several times the typical-state benchmark. It can be real, or it can be a coding artifact in what the facility submitted. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.05 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 2% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 10% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 25 beds and averages 22.2 residents a day — about 89% occupied, or roughly 3 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.63 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.63 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.03 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.24 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.79 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.68 to 0.52 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 18% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
35 citations, most serious first. The 12 most serious are shown; the remaining 23 are one tap away and print in full.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2026-05-11 · tag F0627 — isolatedEnsure the transfer/discharge meets the resident's needs/preferences and that the resident is prepared for a safe transfer/discharge.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, review of hospital records, policy review, review of local police reports, staff interview, resident interview and interview with the Long-Term Care Ombudsman, the facility failed to provide a safe and proper discharge to an appropriate location for Resident #25. This resulted in Immediate Jeopardy and the potential for serious life-threatening harm, injuries, and/or death on [DATE] when Resident #25, who had diagnoses including type two diabetes mellitus with two chronic ulcers, adult failure to thrive, functional quadriplegia, nicotine dependence, deep vein thrombosis, personality disorder, psychoactive substance abuse, anxiety, depression, and viral Hepatitis C, was discharged to an unknown location without housing, medications, or arrangements for ongoing care. Resident #25 was discharged without evidence of continuity of care related to medical care and services in place to address the resident's medical and mental health diagnoses. Resident #25 required 24-hour care for medication…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · G2020-02-13 · 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, policy review and interview, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to ensure safety during smoking, prevent falls, and prevent injuries from resident care equipment. Actual Harm occurred on 01/01/2020 when the facility failed to have effective interventions in place and provide Resident #7, who was at high risk for falls and had a history of falls, adequate supervision resulting in the resident sustaining an unwitnessed fall from her wheelchair and sustaining a fractured left hip and pelvis. This affected one resident (#7) of three residents reviewed for accidents. Additionally, one resident (#11) of one sampled resident reviewed for smoking was not provided adequate supervision during smoking, and one resident (#13) of three residents reviewed for accidents did not have their wheelchair modified to prevent injuries. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #7's medical record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2023-08-27 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — widespreadMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff interviews, and resident interviews, the facility failed to provide an effective pest control program. This had the potential to affect all 21 residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 21. Findings include: Observation on 08/24/23 at 10:12 A.M. revealed five flies were observed on the window of the exit door located at the end of the hallway by room [ROOM NUMBER]. An unknown number of flies were observed flying in the hallway. More than 30 dead flies were observed on the ledge located between the walls and hand rails along the 100 and 200 halls. Observation and interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #200 on 08/24/23 at 10:55 A.M. verified two flies were observed to be crawling on Resident #5's face and pillowcase while the resident was sleeping in bed and multiple flies were observed flying around in the room of Resident #10. LPN #200 stated flies were definitely a problem at the facility. Observation on 08/24/23 at 11:50 A.M. revealed Resident #5 was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2022-05-16 · tag F0727 — failed to provide required RN coverage — widespreadHave a registered nurse on duty 8 hours a day; and select a registered nurse to be the director of nurses on a full time basis.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of daily staffing sheets, review of employee time clock punches and staff interview the facility failed to ensure a Registered Nurse was on-duty and present in the facility for at least eight hours daily as required. This had the potential to affect all 22 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: Review of the facility sheets titled Report of Nursing Staff Directly Responsible for Resident Care, dated 05/02/22 and 05/03/22, revealed documentation a Registered Nurse (RN) was only present for six hours each day at the facility. Review of the employee time clock punches for 05/02/22 and 05/03/22 revealed there was not an RN clocked in for work on 05/02/22 or 05/03/22. Review of the facility list provided by Business Office Manager #350 titled Agency Staffing/Hours and Other Buildings, not dated, revealed on 05/02/22 and 05/03/22 RN #805 was documented to have worked at the facility from 4:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. for a total of six hours each day. On 05/12/22 at 3:00 P.M. interview with the Administrator verified the facility only had an RN present in the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2022-05-16 · tag F0868 — widespreadHave the Quality Assessment and Assurance group have the required members and meet at least quarterly
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure all required members of the Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) committee attended meetings at least quarterly. This had the potential to affect all 22 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: Review of the QAA committee meeting minutes, dated 04/20/22 revealed the absence of the signature of the Director of Nursing (DON) to indicated the DON's presence at the meeting. On 05/12/22 at 3:00 P.M. interview with the Administrator verified the DON had not been in attendance at the QAA meeting held on 04/20/22 due to another work commitment.
- Potential for harm · D2022-05-16 · tag F0637 — isolatedAssess the resident when there is a significant change in condition
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to timely initiate a significant change Minimum Dat Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment after a change in Resident #10's condition and discharge from Hospice services. This affected one resident (#10) of one resident reviewed for Hospice services. Findings include: Record review for Resident #10 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including altered mental status, sepsis, edema, chronic kidney disease, type two diabetes mellitus with other specified complication and acute kidney failure. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 03/18/22 revealed the resident had mildly impaired cognition with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11 out of 15. The resident was assessed to require limited assistance from one staff member for bed mobility, extensive assistance from one staff member for transfers and limited assistance from one staff member for eating. This resident was assessed 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 · D2022-05-16 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to accurately code medications on the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment for Resident #5. This affected one resident (#5) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medication use. Findings include: Record review for Resident #5 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, dementia with behavioral disturbances, anxiety and depression. Review of the admission MDS 3.0 assessment, dated 03/04/22 revealed the resident was assessed to have received an anti-psychotic medication seven of seven days in the assessment reference period. Review of the active and discontinued physician's medication orders, dated 02/25/22 through 05/10/22 revealed the resident was not prescribed any anti-psychotic medication(s). On 05/11/22 at 9:10 A.M. interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) verified Resident #5 had not received any medications classified as an anti-psychotic while residing at 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 before2022-05-16 · 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, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure ongoing communication with a Hospice provider regarding the care needs and services provided to Resident #10 and failed to ensure a treatment order for Resident #16 was specific to detail the actual treatment required or being provided to the resident. This affected one resident (#10) of one resident reviewed for Hospice services and one resident (#16) of three residents reviewed for change in condition. Findings include: 1. Record review for Resident #10 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including altered mental status, sepsis, edema, chronic kidney disease, type two diabetes mellitus with other specified complication, and acute kidney failure. Record review revealed the resident was receiving Hospice services at the time of admission to the facility. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 03/18/22 revealed the resident had mildly impaired cognition evidenced…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-05-16 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, facility policy and procedure review and interview the facility failed to ensure ongoing assessments/monitoring of pressure ulcers, pressure ulcer interventions and treatments were provided for Resident #10 who was admitted to the facility with pressure ulcers. This affected one resident (#10) of two residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. Findings include: Record review for Resident #10 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including altered mental status, sepsis, edema, chronic kidney disease, type two diabetes mellitus with other specified complication and acute kidney failure. Review of a facility admission Nursing Observation Form, dated 03/11/22 revealed documentation the resident had pressure ulcers located on the coccyx, left heel and right heel. Review of the active physician's order, dated 03/12/22 revealed an order to cleanse the pressure ulcer to the resident's coccyx with normal saline or wound cleanser, apply Med Honey…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-05-16 · 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
Based on observation, record review, facility policy and procedure review and interview the facility failed to ensure appropriate indwelling urinary catheter care was provided for Resident #18 to prevent urinary tract infections when staff failed to appropriately clean the resident's catheter. This affected one resident (#18) of two residents reviewed for catheters. Findings include: Record review for Resident #18 revealed an admission date of 04/09/21 with most recent admission of 01/31/22 with diagnoses including pneumonia, depression, dysphagia, urinary tract infection, neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder, polyneuropathy, quadriplegia, cerebral infarction due to occlusion of cerebral artery, psychoactive substance abuse, bipolar disorder, nontraumatic intracranial hemorrhage, insomnia and chronic viral hepatitis C. Review of a physician's order, dated 02/09/22 revealed an order for catheter care each shift related to other neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder. Review of the 04/09/22 annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment revealed Resident #18 was cognitively intact and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-05-16 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews the facility failed to ensure dietary recommendations were implemented and/or failed to ensure resident weights were obtained as ordered. This affected two residents (#10 and #16) of the three residents reviewed for nutrition. Findings include: 1. Record review for Resident #10 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including altered mental status, sepsis, edema, chronic kidney disease, type two diabetes mellitus with other specified complication and acute kidney failure. Review of the physician's orders revealed an order, dated 03/11/22 to obtain weight every day for three days after admission. Review of the care plan, dated 03/15/22 revealed the resident had protein malnutrition. Interventions included 30 milliliters (ml) of ProStat (a protein supplement) twice a day and an 1,800 ml fluid restriction. Review of the dietary progress note, dated 03/15/22 revealed a recommendation to add 30 ml of ProStat twice a day and implement 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 before2022-05-16 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, facility policy and procedure review and interview the facility failed to timely address pharmacy recommendations for Resident #20. This affected one resident (#20) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medication use. Findings include: Record review for Resident #20 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including unspecified psychosis, anxiety, major depressive disorder and insomnia. Review of the Consultant Pharmacist Recommendation for Provider, dated 07/08/21 revealed a recommendation to evaluate and consider tapering off Pantoprazole at the time. The recommendation contained no documentation of the review of the recommendation. There were no documented signature(s) by the physician or facility staff present on the recommendation. Review of the Consultant Pharmacist Recommendation for Provider, dated 09/13/21 revealed the recommendation to evaluate and consider tapering off Pantoprazole at the time. The recommendation contained no…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 23 citations
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-05-16 · 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
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure the anti-histamine medication, Vistaril (for anxiety/agitation) was administered to Resident #11 with a current physician's order to ensure the medication was necessary. This affected one resident (#11) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medication use. Findings include: Record review for Resident #11 revealed an admission date of 02/23/22 with diagnoses including type two diabetes mellitus, altered mental status, sepsis, malignant neoplasm of prostate, dementia without behaviors, displaced intertrochanteric fracture of right femur, protein calorie malnutrition, dehydration and pneumonia. Record review revealed a physician's order, dated 04/21/22 for Vistaril (hydroxyzine pamoate), an anti-histamine medication sedative hypnotic medication 25 milligrams (mg) every eight hours as needed (PRN) for anxiety/agitation. The order for the medication was for 14 days. Review of the medication administration record Resident #11 received the Vistaril on 05/10/22 at 9:48 P.M. On 05/12/22 at 11:00 A.M. interview with the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-05-16 · 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, record review, medication insert review and interview the facility failed to maintain a medication error rate of less than five percent (%). The medication error rate was calculated to be 7.14% and included two medication errors of 28 medication administration opportunities. This affected two residents (#6 and #9) of three residents observed for medication administration. Findings include: 1. Record review for Resident #9 revealed an admission date of 10/29/19 with pertinent diagnoses of: fracture of superior rim of left pubis, overactive bladder, history of COVID-19, hypothyroidism, type two diabetes mellitus, hypertension, Alzheimer's disease, epilepsy, dementia, hyperlipidemia, Parkinson's disease, major depressive disorder, insomnia and tremor. Review of a physician's order, dated 03/31/22 revealed an order for Primidone Tablet 250 milligrams (mg) give one tablet by mouth in the morning for tremors. On 05/11/22 at 8:46 A.M. Registered Nurse (RN) #121 was observed administering medications to Resident #9. RN #121 obtained a blister pack containing the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2020-02-13 · tag F0730 — widespreadObserve each nurse aide's job performance and give regular training.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure annual performance evaluations and in-service education was completed as required. This affected two employees, STNA #116 and #120 who had worked in the facility for more than one year and had the potential to affect all 19 residents residing in the facility. Findings include 1. STNA #116 started to work at the facility on 02/03/16. Review of STNA #116's personal file revealed an employee evaluation dated 02/01/19, however it was not signed by STNA #116 indicating agreement with or review of the evaluation. The Assistant Director of Nurses (ADON) confirmed on 02/13/20 at 10:35 A.M. that STNA #116's evaluation had not been signed by the employee as required. Review of the facility policy, titled Performance Evaluation, dated 06/2010 revealed performance evaluations would be completed after 90 days of employment, yearly, and would be dated and signed by the employee acknowledging receiving the evaluation. In addition, review of STNA #116's annual in-service training documentation revealed no evidence the employee…
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 · F2020-02-13 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — widespreadEnsure 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
Based on observation, menu review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure the written menu was followed. This had the potential to affect all 19 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: Observation of the preparation of the ground chicken on 02/11/2020 at 11:00 A.M. revealed [NAME] #106 placed 12.8 ounces of chicken in the food processor to chop. According to the menu 21.2 ounces were needed for four servings of chicken for the lunch meal. Observation of tray line at 11:33 A.M. revealed [NAME] #106 served residents a four-ounce serving of chicken. Review of the menu revealed residents on a mechanical soft diet should receive 5.3 ounces. The menu did not identify the serving size for the chicken for the other diets served in the facility. [NAME] #106 served other diets a four-once portion. Interview with Dietary Supervisor (DS) #118 on 02/11/2020 at 12:00 P.M. confirmed the menus did not specify the serving size for chicken for the regular diet, the no added salt diet, and the carbohydrate-controlled diet. The menu for mechanical soft diet called for 5.3 ounces…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2020-02-13 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — widespreadMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview the facility failed to maintain the floor in the 100 hall and dining area in a clean and sanitary manner and to ensure the surface was safe for those who walk through this area. This had the potential to affect all 19 of 19 resident residing at the facility. Findings include: On 02/13/20 at 4:26 P.M. during tour of the facility with Registered Nurse (RN) #115 the flooring in the 100 Hall and part of the dining area was observed to be loose and in poor repair. Gaps between the laminate flooring up to two inches were noted, preventing cleaning due to exposure of the sub floor. The finish was coming off of some pieces of the laminate flooring exposing the particle board. Interview with RN #115 confirmed the above findings at the time of the observation.
- Potential for harm · E2020-02-13 · tag F0567 — failed to protect residents' money held by the home — patternHonor the resident's right to manage his or her financial affairs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure residents had access to their personal funds account. This affected one resident (#20) and had the potential to affect 12 additional residents (#3, #4, #6, #8, #11, #13, #14, #15, #16, #18, #19, and #21) who had personal funds managed by the facility. Findings include: On 02/09/20 at 3:53 P.M. during an interview, Resident #20 reported she could not get money from her personal fund account at any time requested. Resident #20 reported she had to wait until someone from the business office was in the facility to receive money from her personal funds account. On 02/13/20 at 1:54 P.M. interview with Business Office Manager (BOM) #125 and the Assistant Director of Nurses (ADON) revealed the facility did not provide residents' access to money after office hours or on the weekend. The ADON reported in the past they had left money in the medication cart, however this was not the current practice. The facility identified 13 residents, Resident #3, #4, #6, #8, #11, #13, #14, #15, #16, #18, #19, #20 and #21 who had personal…
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 · E2020-02-13 · tag F0568 — patternProperly hold, secure, and manage each resident's personal money which is deposited with the nursing home.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview the facility failed maintain receipts for items purchased from resident funds. This had the potential to affect 13 residents (#3, #4, #6, #8, #11, #13, #14, #15, #16, #18, #19, #20 and #21) who had personal funds managed by the facility. Findings include: During review of resident personal accounts on 02/13/20 at 2:02 P.M., Business Office Manager (BOM) #125 reported residents would sign out an amount of money (for withdrawal) and the Assistant Director of Nurses (ADON) would go to the store and get what they wanted. BOM #125 reported she did not have any receipts reflecting what the ADON had purchased for the residents. BOM #125 revealed the ADON would give the residents what items they had wanted from the store, the receipt, and any change left from the amount withdrawn. BOM #125 revealed she did not receive any receipts from items purchased nor was any change returned to the resident account. The facility identified 13 residents, Resident #3, #4, #6, #8, #11, #13, #14, #15, #16, #18, #19, #20 and #21 who had personal funds managed by the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2020-02-13 · 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 observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure all residents received adequate and timely treatment and care as needed. The facility failed to ensure coordinated communication and care with Hospice for Resident #7, failed to ensure adequate preventative measures were in place for a non pressure related skin ulceration for Resident #18, failed to ensure adequate bowel monitoring was completed for Resident #20, failed to monitor bruising for Resident #13 and failed to ensure Resident #1 was adequately monitored for diarrhea, nausea and vomiting prior to the resident being hospitalized for a small bowel observation. This affected five residents (#1, #7, #13, #18 and #20) of 13 sampled residents. Findings include: 1. Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Alzheimer's disease, bipolar disorder, hypertension, dementia, anxiety, depression and suicidal ideation. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2020-02-13 · 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, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure residents were treated with dignity and respect. This affected one resident (#19) who did not receive her meal when other residents were served and one resident (#18) who was served last in the dining room after the hall trays were passed. The facility census was 19. Findings include: 1. Resident #19 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including cerebrovascular disease, anxiety, depression, malignant neoplasm of colon, malignant neoplasm of hepatic flexure and altered mental status. A review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment completed on 01/01/20 revealed Resident #19 had moderate cognitive impairment and was totally dependent for two person assistance for activities of daily living. No delusions or hallucinations were identified. Resident #19 was identified as having no problems swallowing, however held food in mouth or cheeks. Review of physician's orders for 02/2020 revealed Resident #19 was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2020-02-13 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review and staff interview the facility failed to refer residents for a level II pre-admission screening and resident review (PASARR) when a newly evident or possible mental disorder was apparent. This affected two residents (#11 and #18) of two residents reviewed for PASSAR. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident # 11's medical record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included hernia without obstruction or gangrene, osteoarthritis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, opioid abuse, hypothyroidism, inhalant abuse, essential hypertension, atrial fibrillation, muscle weakness, constipation, major depressive disorder and type two diabetes. Review of Resident #11's PASSAR dated 05/10/18 revealed the PASSAR was not applicable. Review of Resident #11's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 04/28/19 revealed Resident # 11 had no level 2 PASSAR. Review of Resident #11's updated diagnoses list revealed on 05/10/19 she was newly diagnosed 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 · D2020-02-13 · tag F0676 — failed to keep up residents' daily-living abilities — isolatedEnsure residents do not lose the ability to perform activities of daily living unless there is a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #6 was provided the necessary equipment to maintain/improve mobility. This affected one resident (#6) of two residents reviewed for positioning. Findings include: Resident #6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, dysphagia, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, depression and epilepsy. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, completed on 11/04/19 revealed Resident #6 had impaired cognition, required extensive assistance from staff for bed mobility, locomotion, dressing and total dependence from staff for personal hygiene, toilet use and transfers. On 02/09/20 at 11:29 A.M. Resident #6 was observed in the dining area with feet not positioned on the foot plate while in tile in space wheelchair. Resident #6's feet were observed resting against the foot place. On 02/09/20 at 1:30 P.M. Resident #6 was observed with feet not positioned on foot plate, but feet 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 · D2020-02-13 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to provide timely and adequate nail care to Resident #14, who was assessed to be dependent on staff for activities of daily living care. This affected one resident (#14) of two residents reviewed for activities of daily living. Findings include: Record review revealed Resident #14 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including congestive heart failure, history of cerebrovascular accident with hemiplegia left side, obesity, delusional disorder, depression, convulsions, diabetes mellitus and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Review of the care plan dated 03/15/16 revealed Resident #14 was dependent on staff and all activity of daily living care and the resident's needs would be met. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, completed 01/01/20 revealed Resident #14 had moderate cognitive impairment and was totally dependent on staff for activities of daily living. On 02/09/20 at 10:28 A.M. an 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 · D2020-02-13 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — isolatedProvide activities to meet all resident's needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, policy review and interview the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive and individualized activity program to meet the total care needs of Resident #18. This affected one resident (#18) of three residents reviewed for activities. Findings include: Review of Resident #18's medical record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included schizophrenia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, left artificial shoulder joint, overactive bladder, reactive psychosis, insomnia, type one diabetes, essential hypertension, intellectual disability, migraine, dependent personality, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, partial traumatic amputation of right mid foot and anxiety disorder. Review of Resident #18's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #18's speech was clear, she understands, was understood and her cognition was intact. Resident #18 had moderate depression, delusions and was verbally…
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 before2020-02-13 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure residents received nutritional interventions to prevent weight loss and fluids were not needlessly restricted. This affected two residents (#7 and #18) of seven residents reviewed for nutrition and hydration. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #7's medical record revealed she was admitted to the faciliy on 11/13/2019 with diagnoses that included malignant neoplasm of upper lobe right bronchus or lung, malignant neoplasm, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and atherosclerotic heart disease. Review of Resident #7's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 11/29/2019 revealed her speech was clear, sometimes she was understood, sometimes she understands, her short- and long-term memory was impaired, she had no recall and her decision making was severely impaired. Resident #7 had no indicators of psychosis, no behaviors, and did not reject care. Resident #7 required extensive assistance of one staff 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 · D2020-02-13 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #14 was administered oxygen per physician order. This affected one resident (#14) of one resident reviewed for oxygen therapy. Findings include: Resident #14 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including congestive heart failure, history of cerebrovascular accident with hemiplegia left side, obesity, delusional disorder, depression, convulsions, diabetes mellitus and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #14 had moderate cognitive impairment and was totally dependent on staff for activities of daily living. Review of the current physician's orders included an order for oxygen at three liters per nasal cannula with humidified air for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The current care plan for Resident #14 revealed the facility would provide oxygen therapy per physician orders. On 02/09/2020 at 10:16 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 before2020-02-13 · 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 observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure monthly pharmacy reviews were completed for Resident #1 and failed to ensure a pharmacy recommendation for Resident #14 was acted upon timely. This affected two residents (#1 and #14) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medication use. Findings include: 1. Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Alzheimer's disease, bipolar disorder, hypertension, dementia, anxiety, depression and suicidal ideations. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment completed on 01/17/2020 revealed Resident #1 had impaired cognition and required limited assistance with activities of daily living. Resident #1's physician's orders for February 2020 included an order for Lamotrigine (a medication used to treat bipolar disorder) 100 milligrams (mg) one tablet daily for bipolar disorder and Zoloft (an anti-depressant) 25 mg one tablet daily for depression. 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 · Dcited before2020-02-13 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #14's psychoactive medication, Celexa was being administered at the most effective dose and as prescribed by the physician. This affected one resident (#14) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Findings include: Resident #14 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including congestive heart failure, history of cerebrovascular accident with hemiplegia left side, obesity, delusional disorder, depression, convulsions, diabetes mellitus and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Review of quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment completed on 01/01/2020 revealed Resident #14 had moderate cognitive delay, hallucinations and delusions, and was totally dependent on staff for activities of daily living. Review of the physician's orders dated 01/20/2020 revealed to discontinue Celexa (a medication used to treat depression) 20 milligrams (mg) daily and start Celexa 10 mg daily. Review of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2020-02-13 · tag F0807 — failed to offer suitable drinks — isolatedEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides drinks consistent with resident needs and preferences and sufficient to maintain resident hydration.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #20 received fresh water daily as desired. This affected one resident (#20) of two sampled residents reviewed for hydration. Findings include: Review of Resident #20's medical record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included multiple sclerosis, hypothyroidism, major depressive disorder, gastro-esophageal reflux, generalized anxiety and vertigo. Review of Resident #20's plan of care, dated 05/14/2019 revealed she had the potential for alteration in hydration. Review of Resident #20's Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #20's speech was clear, she understood, she understands and her cognition was intact. Resident #20 had no behaviors and did not reject care. Resident # 20 required extensive assistance of one staff for bed mobility, was dependent on two staff to transfer and required limited assistance of one staff to eat. Review of Resident #20's nutrition…
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 · D2020-02-13 · tag F0808 — failed to follow doctor-ordered diets — isolatedEnsure therapeutic diets are prescribed by the attending physician and may be delegated to a registered or licensed dietitian, to the extent allowed by State law.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on medical record review, menu review and staff interview the facility failed to provide therapeutic diets to residents as ordered. This affected two residents (#11 and #17) of 19 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: Review of Resident #11 and Resident #17's medical records revealed both residents had a current physician order for an 1800 calorie American Diabetic Association (ADA) diet. Review of the facility menu revealed the facility did not have a planned 1800 calorie ADA diet available to provide. Interview with Dietary Supervisor (DS) #118 on 02/11/2020 at 12:00 P.M. confirmed the facility did not have a menu for an 1800 calorie ADA diet.
- Potential for harm · D2020-02-13 · 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 observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure resident medical records were maintained in a complete and accurate manner. This affected two residents (#19 and #13) of 13 sampled residents. Findings include: 1. Resident #19 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including cerebrovascular disease, anxiety, depression, malignant neoplasm of colon, malignant neoplasm of hepatic flexure and altered mental status. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment completed on 01/01/2020 revealed Resident #19 had moderate cognitive impairment. The physician's orders for February 2020 indicated Resident #19 was to receive a regular diet. Resident #19's care plan identified she was non-compliant at times with refusal of personal care and refusal of diet orders. The care plan also identified Resident #19 was at risk for choking, however refused a special diet. During observation of noon meal on 02/09/2020 at 12:03 P.M., Resident #19 was observed sitting at a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2020-02-13 · tag F0849 — isolatedArrange for the provision of hospice services or assist the resident in transferring to a facility that will arrange for the provision of hospice 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 review review, review of the facility Hospice contract and staff interview the facility failed to ensure the Hospice contract contained all of the required elements. This affected one resident (#7) of one resident reviewed for Hospice services. Findings include: Review of Resident #7's medical record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and she received Hospice services. Review of the facility Hospice contract revealed it did not contain all required elements. The contract did not contain a provision stating Hospice assumed responsibility for determining the appropriate course of Hospice care. The contract did not include a statement the Long Term Care (LTC) facility must report all alleged violations involving mistreatment, neglect, or verbal, mental, sexual, and physical abuse, including injuries of unknown source, and misappropriation of patient property by Hospice personnel, to the Hospice administrator immediately when the LTC facility becomes aware of the alleged violation. The…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2020-02-13 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — isolatedImplement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure an effective antibiotic stewardship program was implemented to identify the appropriate use of antibiotics for Resident #20. This affected one resident (#20) of one resident reviewed for urinary tract infections. Findings include: Review of Resident #20's medical record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included multiple sclerosis, hypothyroidism, major depressive disorder, gastro-esophageal reflux, generalized anxiety and vertigo. Review of Resident #20's Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 01/20/2020 revealed Resident #20's speech was clear, she understood, she understands and her cognition was intact. Resident #20 had no behaviors and did not reject care. Resident #20 required extensive assistance from one staff for bed mobility and was dependent on two staff to transfer. Resident #20 was always incontinent of bladder. Review of Resident #20's progress notes revealed on 12/19/19 the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · C2020-02-13 · tag F0625 — widespreadNotify 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 and staff interview the facility failed to notify Resident #12 in writing of the facility bed hold policy and number of bed hold days the resident had available. This affected one resident (#12) and had the potential to affect all 19 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: Review of Resident #12's medical record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included obesity, dependence on dialysis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hyperlipidemia, end stage renal disease, frontal lobe and executive function deficits and osteomyelitis of right ankle and foot. Review of Resident #12's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 01/04/20 revealed her speech was clear, she understands, was understood and her cognition was intact. Review of Resident #12's progress notes dated 01/24/20 revealed the resident was admitted to the hospital due to possible food poisoning. There was no evidence Resident #12 was not notified in writing 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.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to HILLSTONE HEALTHCARE — 9 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 4 of 5 | 3.9 | +0.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 3.3 | -0.3 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 1.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 5.0 | ≈ chain avg |
The other 8 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.9★, 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 | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| BERRYMAN, WHITNEY | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 12/14/2020 |
| BERGSTEN, PAUL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 09/01/2017 |
| DAPORE, MATTHEW | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 09/01/2017 |
| WHEATON, ANTHONY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 09/01/2014 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 6 rows in the source record cover these 4 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
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 $173K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in OH
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Ohio Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 365867. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-02-20, 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.