Dallas Retirement Village Health Center
377 NW Jasper Street, Dallas, OR 97338 · For profit - Individual · 121 certified beds · (503) 623-5581 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Nov 2024
- 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
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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
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 | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 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 2 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 | 16.7% | 14.9% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.8% | 4.7% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.3% | 1.4% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.0% | 2.0% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 9.9% | 4.9% | 6.5% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.7% | 2.4% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 32.4% | 20.6% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 7.6% | 12.4% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.6% | 95.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 9.2% | 5.8% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 21.3% | 21.8% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 9.6% | 13.9% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.6% | 1.4% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.1% | 81.2% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 22.3% | 21.4% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 16.6% | 16.1% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.47 | 1.48 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.15 | 2.35 | 1.80 | worse |
§ 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.
63.5% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 136 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 58.0% 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 69 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 0.38 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 65% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 20% 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 | 63.5%CMS range 56.7–70.2 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.2%CMS range 7.2–14.3 | 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 | 58.0% | 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 | 31.9% | 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 | 43.5% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | 0.0% | 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 | 2.3% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.0%CMS range 4.5–10.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.88 | 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 121 beds and averages 97.4 residents a day — about 80% occupied, or roughly 24 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 5.40 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.90 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.42 is at or above 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 4.69 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.69 on weekdays — 18% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.05 to 0.53 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 44% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. 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 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 25 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-04-10 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to disinfect reusable resident equipment between residents for 2 of 6 halls reviewed for infection control and failed to ensure staff implemented proper hand hygiene while assisting residents with meals 1 of 2 dining rooms reviewed for dining observation. This placed residents at risk for exposure to infections and illness from cross contamination. Findings include: 1. The facility's Disinfection of Resident Care Items and Equipment policy revised 11/2025 stated: Reusable items are cleaned and disinfected or sterilized between residents (e.g., stethoscopes, durable medical equipment). On 4/6/26 at 9:39 AM Staff 7 (CNA) exited room [ROOM NUMBER] with a mechanical lift then took the mechanical lift to room [ROOM NUMBER] without cleaning and disinfecting it. At 9:47 AM Staff 7 left room [ROOM NUMBER] and parked the mechanical lift in the hallway without cleaning and disinfecting it. Staff 7 stated the mechanical lift was not…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-10 · tag F0628 — isolatedProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident or resident representative was provided a bed hold policy for 1 of 2 sampled residents (#8) reviewed for hospitalization. This placed residents at risk for lack of information regarding their right to return to the facility. Findings include: Resident 8 was admitted to the facility in 4/2025 with a diagnosis of a stroke. Resident 8's 10/24/25 Quarterly MDS revealed she/he was moderately cognitively impaired. Resident 8's Progress Notes revealed on 11/28/25 she/he was admitted to the hospital. Resident 8's clinical record did not reveal she/he or her/his representative was provided bed hold information. On 4/6/26 at 11:21 AM Witness 3 (Family) stated in 11/2025 when Resident 8 was admitted to the hospital, she was not provided information related to a bed hold. On 4/8/26 at 10:10 AM Staff 14 (LPN) stated when residents were transferred to the hospital, bed hold information was placed in a packet, and provided to the transportation team to deliver to the hospital staff. Staff 14 stated she…
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 · D2026-04-10 · tag F0655 — isolatedCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to develop a baseline care plan within 48 hours of admission for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#59) reviewed for falls. This placed residents at risk for injury from falls. Findings include: The facility's Baseline Care Plan policy dated 1/2026 stated, a baseline plan of care to meet the resident's immediate needs shall be developed for each resident within 48 hours of admission.Resident 59 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of nondisplaced fracture of right femur. Review of Resident 59's Baseline Care Plan revealed it was completed and reviewed with the resident on 3/30/26.On 4/10/26 at 10:02 AM Staff 20 (RNCM) stated baseline care plans for newly admitted residents were finalized within 72 hours of admission. On 4/10/26 at 11:38 AM Staff 2 (DNS) acknowledged Resident 59's Baseline Care Plan was not completed timely and needed to be finalized within 48 hours of her/his 3/27/26 admission.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-04-10 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to obtain physician orders for treatment of a change in skin impairment for 1 of 5 sampled residents (#80) reviewed for ADLs. This placed residents at risk for a delay in treatment. Findings include:Resident 80 was admitted to the facility in 4/2025 with diagnoses including depression and anxiety.The 10/2/25 Quarterly MDS indicated Resident 80 had a BIMS score of 13 which indicated the resident was cognitively intact.A 10/22/25 Physician Order revealed Resident 80 had erythema (abnormal redness under the skin) under her/his neck fold. Staff were to monitor the skin impairment every shift and notify the provider if the area deteriorated.A 12/3/25 Progress Note by Staff 8 (LPN) revealed Resident 80's erythema under the neck fold showed signs of deterioration including increased size and was tender to the touch. Staff 8 notified the provider and waited for a response.A review of Resident 80's Provider Progress Notes on 12/3/25, 12/5/25, and 12/7/25 revealed no response from Staff 8's notification related to the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-10 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to implement appropriate transfer interventions to prevent falls for 1 of 3 sampled residents (#59) reviewed for falls. This placed residents at risk for injury. Findings include: Resident 59 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of nondisplaced fracture of right femur. Review of Resident 59's Care Plan initiated 3/30/26 revealed nursing staff were to use a ceiling lift for transfers. Resident 59's Care Plan initiated 4/1/26 also revealed the resident was only to ambulate with therapy staff. A 3/31/26 Functional Abilities Evaluation revealed Resident 59 was dependent on facility staff for transfers. A 3/31/26 Incident Report indicated Resident 59 had a witnessed fall without injury in her/his room when Staff 19 (CNA) attempted to ambulate the resident with a front wheel walker and gait belt. A statement from Staff 19 revealed Resident 59 lost her/his balance during a transfer and was guided to the ground with low impact. 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 · D2026-04-10 · 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, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure staff assisted a resident with toileting for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#67) reviewed for incontinence. This placed residents at risk for increased incontinence and lack of dignity. Findings include:Resident 67 was readmitted to the facility in 4/2023 with a diagnosis of chronic kidney disease. Resident 67's Care Plan revised on 4/2/26 revealed she/he had an ADL self-care deficit. Resident 67 was identified to be mostly incontinent of bowel and bladder, occasionally used a bedside commode for toileting, and required the use of a mechanical lift for transfers. On 4/7/26 at 12:45 PM Staff 15 (CNA) was observed to enter Resident 67's room. Resident 67 stated she/he had to go to the bathroom. Staff 15 informed Resident 67 that she/he had an incontinent brief on and he would assist with incontinent care after lunch. Staff 15 was then observed to exit Resident 67's room and was observed to distribute other residents' meal trays. Resident 67 was observed to attempt to stand and this surveyor…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-12-06 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure community use CBG glucometers were properly cleaned and sanitized between resident use, failed to follow transmission based precautions, and failed to process laundry to produce hygienically clean laundry to prevent the spread of infection for 4 of 6 sampled residents (#s 33, 80, 83, and 84) and 1 of 1 laundry room reviewed for infection control. This placed residents at risk for bloodborne illness, exposure to infections, and contaminated laundry. Findings include: 1. The facility's 3/2024 Blood Glucose Monitoring policy indicated to follow the manufacturer instructions for cleaning and disinfection of the meter. The Even Care G3 blood glucose monitoring system manufacturer instructions indicated to disinfect the meter with EPA-registered wipes. Resident 80 admitted to the facility in 2023 with diagnoses including diabetes. On 12/2/24 at 11:34 AM, Staff 14 (LPN) was observed to obtain a CBG from Resident 80. Staff 14 exited the room and cleaned the glucometer with alcohol wipes. Staff…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-12-06 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure 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, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure medication storage temperatures were logged and failed to ensure proper labeling of biologicals for 3 of 3 medication storage refrigerators reviewed for safe medication storage. This placed residents at risk for receiving medications with reduced efficacy. Findings include: 1. On 12/4/24 at 9:15 AM, one open, undated vial of tuberculin (used for the testing in the diagnosis of Tuberculosis) was observed in the nurses' station three medication room refrigerator. The manufacturer's instructions indicated to discard the medication 30 days after opening. On 12/4/24 at 9:15 AM, Staff 11 (LPN) acknowledged the vial of tuberculin was open and not labeled with an open date. On 12/4/24 at 12:12 PM, Staff 2 (DNS) stated the expectation was for staff to label tuberculin with an open date. 2. On 12/4/24 at 8:56 AM, the nurses' station one hall medication room refrigerator temperature logs was observed to be blank from 11/1/24 through 11/25/24. On 12/4/24 at 8:56 AM, Staff 12 (LPN) acknowledged 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 · D2024-12-06 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to serve, store, and label food in a sanitary manner for 1 of 2 dining rooms and 1 of 2 facility refrigerators observed for dining. This placed residents at risk for contamination and at risk for food borne illness. Findings include: 1. On 12/4/24 at 1:00 PM, Staff 15 (Dietary Aid) was observed serving lunch in the second floor kitchen. While Staff 15 served a meal ticket fell off the serving station into the dining room. Staff 15 walked out of the kitchen, picked up the meal ticket with her gloved hand, returned to the kitchen with the meal ticket, placed it back on the service station, and touched multiple service items while wearing the same gloves. Staff 15 confirmed the meal ticket should not have been placed back on the service station once it fell on the floor and her gloves should have been changed after she touched the floor. On 12/4/24 at 1:43 PM, Staff 16 (Dietary Manager) confirmed once the meal ticket fell it should not be placed back on the service station. 2. On 12/2/24 at 10:25 AM, a communal…
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 · D2024-11-13 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to protect a resident's right to be free from physical abuse by staff for 1 of 4 sampled resident (#1) reviewed for abuse. This placed residents at risk for physical abuse. Findings include. On 11/4/24, the State Survey Agency received a public complaint which alleged Resident 1 was treated roughly and slapped by a CNA. Resident 1 was admitted to the facility in 9/2024, with diagnoses including post-traumatic hydrocephalus (traumatic brain injury, TBI). A 9/18/24 admission care plan indicated Resident 1 had left sided weakness, required substantial-total assist with bed mobility and spoke Spanish. A 9/19/24 admission MDS indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment. On 11/7/24 at 9:41 AM, Resident 1 was observed to be resting comfortably in bed with bolsters on each side of the bed, the bed was lowered, fall mats were in place, the bed was up against the wall, and the call light was within reach. The residents…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 25 citations
- Potential for harm · F2023-07-31 · tag F0838 — failed to assess facility resources and resident needs — widespreadConduct and document a facility-wide assessment to determine what resources are necessary to care for residents competently during both day-to-day operations (including nights and weekends) and emergencies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to conduct and complete a comprehensive facility wide assessment for 1 of 1 sampled facility. This placed residents at risk for lack of quality of care and quality of life. Findings include: On 7/31/23 at 12:20 PM the 6/8/23 Facility Assessment was reviewed. The assessment was not comprehensive and did not include information on the following: -Facility staffing levels; -Staff competencies that were necessary to provide the level and types of care needed for the resident population; -Ethnic or cultural factors that may potentially affect the care provided by the facility, including, but not limited to, activities and food and nutrition services; -The facility's resources, including but not limited to all personnel, including managers, staff (both employees and those who provide services under contract), and volunteers, as well as their education and/or training and any competencies related to resident care; and contracts, memorandums of understanding. On 7/31/23 at 12:30 PM Staff 1 (Administrator) reviewed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2023-07-31 · tag F0846 — widespreadHave policies and procedures ensuring the administrator's responsibilities for facility closure are completed successfully.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to have policies and procedures in place in the event of a facility closure for 1 of 1 sampled facility. This placed residents at risk for displacement. Findings include: On 7/31/23 the facility was asked to provide a policy and procedure in the event of a pending or potential facility closure. On 7/31/23 at 11:31 AM Staff 1 (Administrator) stated the facility did not have a policy and procedure for pending or potential facility closure.
- Potential for harm · F2023-07-31 · tag F0850 — failed to provide social-work services — widespreadHire a qualified full-time social worker in a facility with more than 120 beds.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide a qualified social service worker. This placed all residents at risk for unmet medically related emotional and social service needs of the residents. Findings include: The Facility assessment dated [DATE] revealed the following information regarding qualifications for the Social Service Director: -(A) Have bachelor's or master's degree in behavioral sciences with at least on years' experience in a health care setting; or -(B) An associate degree in behavioral sciences with two years' experience in a health care setting; or -(C) Receive regular on-site consultation, no less often than quarterly, from an individual who has a bachelor's or master's degree in social work or related behavioral science, and one year's experience in a long-term care setting working directly with individual resident, and have written procedures for referring resident in need of social services to appropriate resources; -The Social Service Director of 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 · E2023-07-31 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — patternHonor 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
Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to honor resident dining room choices and preferences for 3 of 3 sampled residents (#s 22, 37 and 50) reviewed for honoring choices. This placed residents at risk for increased isolation, lack of socialization and lack of self-determination. Findings include: Review of Resident Council Minutes revealed the following: 4/19/22: -Residents aired their concerns about D Hall Pantry/Dining Room closing and having to eat in the main dining room. -Too far for CNAs to travel, if something was forgotten on the meal tray. -Meals were delivered late. -Too much was expected from the CNAs so they were unable to do their job well. -Main dining room was loud, socializing was difficult, not a nice place to enjoy a meal and with so much going on and so many people crammed into a small space. -Resident 22 wrote concerns regarding the D Hall Pantry/Dining Room which revealed the following: -There is a sign in the front that states Residents Do Not Live in Our Facility. We Work in Their Home. -Lately residents felt…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-07-31 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to maintain and provide a clean homelike environment for 4 of 6 halls reviewed for environment. This placed residents at risk for living in an unclean and an unhomelike environment. Findings include: On 7/24/23 and 7/28/23 the following observations were made: -room [ROOM NUMBER]: Had a dark black stain which measured approximately one foot by one and a half feet across and adjacent to the stain was another black stain which measured approximately six inches by one foot across. -room [ROOM NUMBER]: Had a dark black stain which measured approximately seven inches by 19.5 inches across, adjacent to that was two smaller black spots the size of approximately two silver dollars. -room [ROOM NUMBER]: Had a dark black stain which measured approximately one foot four inches by six inches wide. -room [ROOM NUMBER]: Had huge gouges in the wall behind the recliner with sheet rock exposed. The wall heater was partially disconnected from the wall 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 · E2023-07-31 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — patternEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure food textures and food temperatures were maintained for food trays served from 1 of 1 facility kitchen and for 4 of 4 sampled residents (#s 17, 22, 47 and 50) reviewed for food service. This placed residents at risk for food that was not palatable or appetizing. Findings include: Interview with residents indicated the following: -On 7/24/23 at 11:50 AM Resident 50 stated the food was not always hot. Resident 50 stated the food was not great tasting and lacked quality. -On 7/24/23 at 12:09 PM Resident 17 stated the food was terrible and she/he often refused to eat it. Resident 17 stated the food was served cold most of the time. -On 7/24/23 at 2:49 PM Resident 47 stated the food was terrible and cold when it was delivered. -On 7/25/23 at 10:16 AM Resident 22 stated she/he ate in her/his room and experienced cold food by the time it arrived to her/his room. Resident 22 stated when they had the smaller dining room staff were able to warm up food in the microwave but now staff had to walk…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-07-31 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — patternSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure records were complete and accurate for 5 of 8 sampled residents (#s 30, 32, 47, 58 and 89) reviewed for medications, dialysis and planned discharge. This placed residents at risk for inaccurate medical records. Findings include: 1. Resident 58 admitted to the facility in 3/2023 with diagnoses including Chronic Kidney Disease. Resident 58's Care Plan dated 4/6/23 revealed the resident received dialysis (a procedure to remove waste products from the blood when the kidneys stop working) three times a week outside the facility. On 7/26/23 at 1:32 PM Staff 11 (Agency/CNA) stated he did not know where Resident 58's dialysis fistula (a surgical connection between an artery and a vein) was located and used the resident's legs for blood pressures. On 7/27/23 at 8:13 AM Staff 37 (Agency/RN) stated he thought Resident 58's dialysis fistula was in her/his left upper extremity. On 7/27/23 at 8:28 AM Resident 58 stated staff did not monitor her/his dialysis catheter in her/his neck. Observation 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 · D2023-07-31 · 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
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to treat a resident with dignity for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#47) reviewed for dignity. This placed residents at risk for lack of dignity and quality of life. Findings include: Resident 47 was admitted to the facility in 2023 with diagnoses including PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder), anxiety disorder and depression. Resident 47's 6/11/23 Quarterly MDS indicated a moderately severe score for depression. Resident 47's 6/12/23 Care Plan for psychosocial well-being indicated staff were to involve the resident in all aspects of care to encourage resident empowerment. A Progress Note dated 7/18/23 indicated the resident complained of itching in her/his private genital area. A physician's order was received for the resident to be administered Diflucan (anti-fungal medication) orally one time a day for three days for the yeast infection. Resident 47's provider progress note dated 7/27/23 indicated Resident 47 continued to experience genital discomfort and itchiness. A physical exam was performed and 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 · D2023-07-31 · tag F0557 — isolatedHonor the resident's right to be treated with respect and dignity and to retain and use personal possessions.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure residents were treated with respect for their personal possissions for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#56) reviewed for choices. This placed residents at risk for lack of respecting private belongings. Findings include: Resident 56 admitted to the facility in 10/2021 with diagnoses including a stroke. On 7/24/23 at 12:16 PM Resident 56 stated on multiple occasions she/he requested for staff to ask permission before they retrieved something from her/his nightstand. Resident 56 stated staff continued to retrieve items from her/his nightstand without asking and this was very upsetting because it's my private stuff! Resident 56 was observed to be anxious and tearful when she/he expressed the concern. The night stand had the top drawer opened approximately four inches and the resident's personal items were visible inside the drawer. On 7/27/23 at 10:31 AM Staff 21 (LPN) stated Resident 56 had concerns regarding staff opening and grabbing things out of her/his nightstand without asking. Staff 21 stated the resident was upset…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-07-31 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to obtain copies of Advance Directive for 1 of 4 sampled residents (#5) reviewed for Advance Directives. This placed residents at risk for lack of end of life choices being honored. Findings include: Resident 5 was admitted to the facility in 2023 with diagnoses including UTI and muscle weakness. Resident 5's 5/23/23 admission MDS indicated she/he was cognitively intact. Resident 5's 5/23/23 Health Center admission Agreement indicated the resident had an Advance Directive. Resident 5's 6/6/23 Care Conference Note indicated the resident's Advance Directive was not reviewed. Resident 5's clinical record revealed there was no copy of her/his Advance Directive. On 7/26/23 at 11:00 AM Staff 16 (Social Service Director) stated upon admission residents were asked if they had an Advance Directive and if so to provide a copy. Staff 16 stated if a copy of the resident Advance Directive was not provided on admission, her process was to follow-up within a few days to obtain a copy. Staff 16 stated she did not follow-up…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-07-31 · 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 interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were informed in writing of Advance Beneficiary Notification (ABN) for 1 of 4 sampled residents (#98) reviewed for discharge. This placed residents at risk for financial hardship. Findings include: Resident 98 admitted to the facility with Medicare Part A services on 5/30/23. The resident's last covered day of Medicare Part A services was 7/7/23. A 7/5/23 progress note indicated Staff 22 (Social Services Assistant) provided a NOMNC (Notification of Medicare Non-Coverage) to Resident 98 and the resident was informed if she/he did not discharge by midnight on 7/8/23 she/he would be charged $455 a day. There was no evidence in the clinical record to indicate a written Advanced Beneficiary Notification (ABN) was provided to explain the financial responsibilities for Resident 98. On 7/28/23 at 9:51 AM and 12:30 PM Staff 22 stated she provided Resident 98 with the NOMNC and verbally explained the daily cost rate if the resident were to remain in the facility. Staff 22 stated if an ABN 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 · D2023-07-31 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — isolatedHonor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident grievance was addressed for 1 of 2 sampled residents (#76) reviewed for personal property. This placed residents at risk for unresolved concerns and loss of personal property. Findings include: Resident 76 was admitted in 6/2023 with diagnoses including cancer. On 7/24/23 at 10:23 AM Resident 76 stated she/he was missing a crocheted bed spread and a green night gown for over a month. Resident 76 stated she/he reported the missing items and staff did not follow up. The 7/17/23 grievance form filled out by Resident 76's family member indicated the resident was missing a crocheted blanket (missing for two months) and a green night gown (missing for one month). The bottom of the grievance was not completed and there was no indication there was a resolution to the grievance as of 7/27/23. On 7/27/23 at 1:33 PM Staff 16 (Social Service Director) acknowledged Resident 76's 7/17/23 grievance indicated the crocheted blanket and night gown were missing for one or two months. Staff 16 stated 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 · D2023-07-31 · tag F0660 — isolatedPlan the resident's discharge to meet the resident's goals and 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 interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to safe, resident-centered discharges for 2 of 4 sampled residents (#s 5 and 98) reviewed for discharge. This placed residents at risk for unmet care needs after discharge. Findings include: 1. Resident 98 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged on 7/8/23 with diagnoses including respiratory failure and fibromyalgia (widespread muscle pain). A concern was reported to the State Agency on 7/11/23 which indicated Resident 98 was approved to stay at the facility under Medicaid after her/his skilled days ended. Facility staff informed Resident 98 if she/he did not discharge by 7/8/23 she/he would be charged $500 a day. Resident 98 discharged home on 7/8/23. Resident 98 was referred to a home health agency which she/he requested to not use. Review of progress notes revealed the following: -6/12/23 Resident 98 informed Staff 16 (Social Services Director) that she/he was unsure if she/he was ready to discharge home and needed more time…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-07-31 · tag F0661 — isolatedEnsure necessary information is communicated to the resident, and receiving health care provider at the time of a planned discharge.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to complete a discharge summary for 1 of 4 sampled residents (#89) reviewed for discharge. This placed residents at risk for unmet discharge needs. Findings include: Resident 89 was admitted to the facility in 6/2023 with diagnoses including stroke. The resident discharged home on 7/17/23 on a resident initiated discharge. A review of Resident 89's medical record indicated there was no discharge summary documentation. On 7/31/23 at 11:13 AM Staff 2 (DNS) was not able to provide documentation of a discharge summary for Resident 89.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-07-31 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to follow physician orders and implement bowel care for 2 of 2 sampled residents (#s 24 and 249) reviewed for choices and constipation. This placed residents at risk for increased pain. Findings include: 1. Resident 24 admitted to the facility in 2015 with diagnoses including constipation. The 7/20/23 care plan indicated Resident 24 required extensive assistance for toileting. The 6/14/23 physician orders indicated Resident 24 was to receive the following: -Fiber-Stat liquid give 30 ml PO every 12 hours PRN constipation. -Milk of Magnesia (MOM) 400 mg/5 ml give 30 ml PO PRN constipation once daily. -bisacodyl suppository 10 mg insert one suppository rectally PRN for constipation once daily. Resident 24's 6/2023 and 7/2023 bowel records revealed the following days with no bowel movements: -7/3/23; 7/4/23; 7/5/23; 7/6/23 and 7/7/23 (five days). -7/9/23; 7/10/23; 7/11/23; 7/12/23; 7/13/23 and 7/14/23 (six days). There was no indication Resident 24 received or refused the ordered bowel medications on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-07-31 · 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
Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure treatment and services to maintain vision abilities were provided for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#56) reviewed for vision. This placed residents at risk for impaired vision. Findings include: Resident 56 admitted to the facility in 10/2021 with diagnoses including a stroke. On 7/24/23 at 12:32 PM Resident 56 was observed wearing glasses and the right side of the glasses was wrapped in blue string to hold them together. Resident 56 stated she/he wore glasses all the time in order to see and the glasses were broken for greater than a month and staff were aware. Resident 56 stated first staff tried to glue the right side of the glasses together and then used string to fix the glasses. No evidence was found in the clinical record regarding Resident 56's broken glasses or any indication vision services were initiated or new glasses were ordered. On 7/26/23 at 11:28 AM Staff 21 (CNA) stated Resident 56 wore glasses all the time in order to see and her/his glasses were broken three different…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-07-31 · 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
Based on observation, record review and interview it was determined the facility failed to ensure oxygen equipment was properly maintained for 1 of 2 sampled residents (#32) reviewed for respiratory care. This placed residents at risk for respiratory complications. Findings include: Resident 32 was admitted to the facility in 9/2019 with diagnoses including COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). Multiple observations from 7/25/23 through 7/28/23 revealed Resident 32 used a high-flow oxygen concentrator (oxygen supply system delivering 100% humidified and heated oxygen) through a nasal cannula (lightweight tubing with two prongs placed in nostrils). Resident 32's physician orders dated 6/9/23 indicated: -to use oxygen as needed via the nasal cannula to keep oxygen level at 90%. -change humidification bottle and tubing on concentrator every three days on night shift and date the bottle and tubing when done. -change the tubing and cannula every week on Sunday night shift. Date the tubing when changed. -clean the exterior of the concentrator once a week on Sunday night shift.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-07-31 · 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 interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents received pain medication as ordered for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#248) reviewed for pain. This placed residents at risk for unrelieved pain. Findings include: Resident 248 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including atrial fibrillation (abnormal heart beat). The 7/6/23 hospital physician orders indicated Resident 248 had chronic back pain and was to receive pregabalin (pain medication) 75 mg every eight hours. The 7/2023 MAR indicated Resident 248 did not receive pregabalin as ordered on the following occasions: -7/6/23 at 10:00 PM -7/7/23 at 6:00 AM -7/7/23 at 2:00 PM -7/7/23 at 10:00 PM Progress notes indicated the pregabalin was not available on 7/6/23 and 7/7/23. The 7/6/23 admission Summary and admission Evaluation indicated the following: -Resident 248 stated her/his lower legs were on fire; -Resident 248 had a lot of pain and to make sure pain regimen is on schedule; -Resident 248 had 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 · D2023-07-31 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide appropriate pre and post dialysis assessments and accurate documentation for 2 of 2 sampled resident (#s 30 and 58) reviewed for dialysis. This placed residents at risk for lack of dialysis assessments and complications. Findings include: 1. Resident 30 was re-admitted to the facility in 2023 with diagnoses including end-stage renal disease. Resident 30's 7/18/23 Quarterly MDS BIMS score indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Resident 30's 7/20/23 Care Plan revealed the resident received dialysis (a procedure to remove waste products from the blood when the kidneys stop working) three times a week at a clinic outside the facility. On 7/26/23 at 12:19 PM Resident 30 stated no one checked her/his new dialysis port after dialysis. Resident 30 stated she/he had a blood clot in the old dialysis site in her/his right arm and surgery was done on 7/19/23 to relocate the dialysis site to her/his neck. Resident 30 stated she/he took a piece of paper with vital signs and current weight to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-07-31 · tag F0745 — failed to provide medically-related social services — isolatedProvide medically-related social services to help each resident achieve the highest possible quality of life.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure transportation was provided to a medical appointment for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#249) reviewed for follow up appointments. This placed residents at risk for delayed care. Findings include: Resident 249 admitted to the facility in 7/2023 with diagnoses including a cervical fracture. A 7/17/23 hospital discharge order revealed Resident 249 had a follow up orthopedic appointment scheduled on 7/20/23 at 3:45 PM. No evidence was found in the clinical record regarding transportation being scheduled for the 7/20/23 appointment. On 7/24/23 at 2:44 PM Resident 249 stated the facility did not schedule transportation for her/his orthopedic appointment on 7/20/23 due to poor communication and the appointment had to be rescheduled. On 7/27/23 at 4:11 PM Staff 4 (Agency/RN) stated she was aware of the missed appointment for Resident 249 and was not sure how the appointment was missed but possibly was overlooked when staff reviewed her/his admission orders. On 7/28/23 at 9:41 AM Staff 30 (Medical Record…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-07-31 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure pharmacy recommendations were addressed by the physician in a timely manner for 1 of 5 sampled residents (#32) reviewed for unnecessary medications. This placed residents at risk for adverse medication reactions. Findings include: Resident 32 was admitted to the facility in 9/2019 with diagnoses including schizophrenia (serious mental disorder that affects how a person perceives and interprets reality), depression and anxiety. Pharmacy recommendations from 4/24/23, 5/22/23 and 6/26/23, revealed the following: evaluation of physician's orders to determine if Resident 32 was at the lowest effective dose for Abilify (an antipsychotic), Olanzapine (an antipsychotic), Lexapro (an antidepressant), Duloxetine (an antidepressant), Buspirone (an antianxiety medication), and Clonazepam (an antianxiety medication). Resident 32's record revealed no documentation of any physician follow-up or response to the 4/24/23, 5/22/23 and 6/26/23 pharmacy recommendations. On 7/28/23 at 11:10 AM Staff 2 (DNS) acknowledged…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-07-31 · 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 interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to complete quarterly psychotropic medication reviews for 2 of 5 sampled residents (#s 17 and 42) reviewed for medications. This placed residents at risk for unnecessary medications. Findings include: 1. Resident 17 admitted to the facility in 2023 with diagnoses including anxiety and depression. Review of the 6/8/23 physician orders indicated Resident 17 received clonazepam (antianxiety), duloxetine (antidepressant), quetiapine (antipsychotic) and melatonin. A Lifestyles form with review dates of 3/28/23, 3/29/23, 4/26/23 and 6/27/23 listed Resident 17's psychotropic medications with the diagnoses, and order date. The form indicated sleep and behaviors with no other information provided. A progress note dated 6/28/23 indicated the facility IDT team and pharmacy reviewed Resident 17's psychotropic medications and to see the Quarterly Psychotropic Medication Assessment. Review of Resident 17's medical record revealed no indication of a Quarterly Psychotropic Medication Assessment completed. On 7/27/23 at 8:56…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-07-31 · tag F0790 — failed to provide dental care — isolatedProvide routine and 24-hour emergency dental care for each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure routine dental services were provided to 1 of 1 sampled resident (#56) reviewed for dental services. This placed residents at risk for a lessened quality of life. Findings include: Resident 56 admitted to the facility in 10/2021 with diagnoses including a stroke. On 7/24/23 at 12:32 PM Resident 56 was observed missing one of her/his upper teeth on the right side of her/his mouth. Resident 56 stated her/his tooth fell out two plus weeks prior, staff were aware and supposed to get the missing tooth fixed but nothing occurred. No evidence was found in the clinical record regarding Resident 56's missing tooth or any indication dental services were initiated or a dental appointment was made. On 7/26/23 at 11:28 AM Staff 21 (CNA) stated Resident 56 was missing one of her/his upper teeth for greater than two weeks and was not sure if any staff reported the concern to Staff 16 (Social Service Director). On 7/27/23 at 10:31 AM Staff 20 (LPN) stated she was aware Resident 56 had a missing upper…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-07-31 · tag F0825 — isolatedProvide or get specialized rehabilitative services as required for a resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide rehabilitation services for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#17) reviewed for rehabilitation services. This placed residents at risk for declined mobility and lack of quality of life. Findings include: Resident 17 admitted to the facility in 2023 with diagnoses including pain and fibromyalgia (widespread muscle pain). On 5/12/23 a concern was reported to the State Agency which indicated Resident 17 did not receive therapy as ordered and only received one session the following week. On 7/24/23 at 10:55 AM and 7/26/23 at 9:52 AM Resident 17 stated she/he did not receive therapy when she/he was supposed to. Resident 17 stated she/he never refused therapy and was never out of the building to miss therapy. Resident 17 stated she was never approached to make-up for the missed sessions. Review of the 5/2023 therapy notes indicated Resident 17 was to receive OT three times a week and PT two times a week. Review of therapy the Service Log Matrix indicated Resident 17 received one session of PT (one session missed)…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-07-31 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — isolatedMake 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, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to provide a safe environment for the storage of oxygen tanks for 1 of 2 sampled residents (#32) reviewed for respiratory care. This placed residents at risk for accidents. Findings include: Resident 32 was admitted to the facility in 9/2019 with diagnoses including COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). Multiple observations from 7/25/23 through 7/28/23 revealed empty and unsecured oxygen tanks stored inside Resident 32's doorway and right outside of Resident 32's door. On 7/28/23 at 10:21 AM Staff 19 (CNA) stated oxygen tanks were to be secured or stored in a locked closet by the nurses station. On 7/28/23 at 10:23 AM Staff 2 (DNS) provided the facility's Oxygen Administration policy revised 7/2023, which stated Oxygen tanks must be stored securely in a stand. On 7/28/23 at 11:02 AM Staff 2 was shown the unsecured oxygen tanks and Staff 2 stated oxygen tanks needed to be either secured or stored in the locked oxygen closet by the nurses station.
“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 LIFE CARE SERVICES — 43 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 | 4.1 | ≈ chain avg |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 4.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 4.0 | -1.0 vs chain |
The other 42 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.1★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 42; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DALLAS MENNONITE RETIREMENT COMMUNITY, INC. | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 01/01/2010 |
| LUMENT REAL ESTATE CAPITAL LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST | — | since 04/19/2003 |
| ADAMS, NANCY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2022 |
| BUCKINGHAM, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2022 |
| FAST, MICHAEL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| HUMPHREY, SUSAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2022 |
| MCCLEERY, DEBRA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| NEWMAN, JOSEPH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| OTTAWAY, ROBERT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2020 |
| PAULS, DEBRA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 03/26/2020 |
| LIFE CARE SERVICES LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/16/2025 |
| PARRETT, DAVID | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| SANBORN, STEFANIE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| SUAREZ, YOLANDA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/01/2026 |
| VELLODY, NITA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/01/2020 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 22 rows in the source record cover these 15 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
3 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 $332K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
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 OR
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 Oregon 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 385207. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-10, 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.