Alexandria Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center
900 Virginia Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22302 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 111 certified beds · (703) 684-9100 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (26% 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 an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Jun 2022
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0607, F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (40) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- about 26% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
- its last standard health inspection was over 2 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 3 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 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 | 9.5% | 14.9% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.2% | 5.4% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.2% | 0.4% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.7% | 1.6% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 75.3% | 18.7% | 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 | 2.6% | 3.6% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 5.1% | 15.6% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 8.2% | 20.6% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.6% | 94.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.6% | 4.7% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 19.6% | 21.8% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 4.1% | 14.2% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.4% | 1.3% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 73.7% | 73.6% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 16.9% | 22.3% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 8.5% | 11.5% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.74 | 1.52 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.87 | 1.48 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
56.3% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 166 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 77.2% 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 114 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 0.08 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 4% 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 | 56.3%CMS range 48.1–63.0 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.7%CMS range 8.7–15.2 | 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 | 77.2% | 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 | 77.2% | 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 | 71.0% | 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 | 96.9% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 98.8% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 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 | 0.5% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 8.3%CMS range 5.5–11.7 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.13 | 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 111 beds and averages 106.3 residents a day — about 96% occupied, or roughly 5 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. 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 3.47 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.60 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.87 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.88 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.71 on weekdays — 22% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.70 to 0.35 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 26% is below the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
40 citations, most serious first. The 12 most serious are shown; the remaining 28 are one tap away and print in full.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2022-06-29 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on resident interview, staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review it was determined that the facility failed to protect one of 39 residents in the survey sample from resident-to-resident abuse, Resident #44. On 6/24/22, Resident #37 hit Resident #44, which required an emergency room visit where they were diagnosed with a closed fracture of the distal end of the left ulna (1), closed head injury, abrasion of the nose and a closed fracture of the nasal bone, resulting in harm. The findings include: Resident #44's (R44) most recent MDS (minimum data set), an annual assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 5/1/2022, the resident scored 15 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status) assessment, indicating the resident is cognitively intact for making daily decisions. Section E documented no behaviors. Section G documented R44 requiring supervision with transfers, walking in the room and corridors and locomotion on and off the unit. Section G documented R44…
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 · G2020-01-30 · 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 resident interview, staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide care and services according to professional standards to maintain a resident's highest level of well-being, resulting in harm for one of 51 residents in the survey sample, Resident #16. The facility staff failed to implement the proper positioning technique while repositioning Resident #16 in bed on 2/14/19. CNA (Certified nursing assistant) #7 repositioned Resident #16 by grabbing both sides of the resident's torso and pulling on the resident. This improper technique resulted in a right shoulder dislocation and a transfer to the emergency room for a dislocation reduction (returning the shoulder to the normal position) under sedation. The findings include: Resident #16 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #16's diagnoses included but were not limited to muscle weakness, heart failure and high blood pressure. Resident #16's most recent MDS…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-04-03 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, and facility document review it was determined facility staff failed to air dry steam table pans completely prior to storing them and store a measuring scoop in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in one of one kitchen. The findings include: On 4/1/2024 at 11:57 a.m., an observation was conducted of the facility kitchen with OSM (other staff member) #6, regional dietary manager. Observation of the kitchen area revealed a plastic bin that OSM #6 identified as thickener. A plastic measuring scoop was observed inside of the plastic bin resting on the thickener. OSM #6 stated that the scoop was not normally stored in the thickener and the staff had just finished using it for the lunch service which was in process of being plated at that time. Additional observations of the kitchen revealed a metal cart which contained cooking utensil that OSM #6 stated were dried and available for use. Four small steam tray pans were observed stacked onto each other. The two inside steam tray pans were observed to have visible water…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-04-03 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, resident interview, clinical record review, staff interview and facility document review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide reasonable accommodation of needs for one of 37 residents in the survey sample, Resident #56. The findings include: For Resident #56 (R56), the facility staff failed to accommodate needs for access to personal belongings in their wardrobe from their wheelchair. On the most recent MDS (minimum data set), an annual assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 2/13/2024, the resident scored 15 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status) assessment, indicating that they were cognitively intact for making daily decisions. Section GG coded R56 as using a manual wheelchair and being impaired on one side on the upper and lower extremity. On 4/1/2024 at 2:20 p.m., an interview was conducted with R56 in their room. R56 stated that the care at the facility was great but it was hard for him to move around on his side of the room in the wheelchair because it was so small. R56 was observed to reside in 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 · D2024-04-03 · tag F0622 — isolatedNot transfer or discharge a resident without an adequate reason; and must provide documentation and convey specific information when a resident is transferred or discharged.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview, clinical record review and facility document review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to evidence what, if any, documentation was provided to the receiving facility upon hospital transfers for two of 37 residents in the survey sample; Residents #39 and #74. The findings include: 1. For Resident #39, the facility staff failed to evidence what, if any documentation was provided to the receiving facility upon a hospital transfer on 12/29/23. A review of the clinical record revealed a nurse's note dated 12/29/23 that documented, At 7:20am rounds done @ (at) this time. Vitals done with reading of 119/80 (blood pressure), 91 (pulse), 26 (respirations), 98.2 (temperature), 90% (oxygen saturation) @ 28% trachea collar. IV abt (antibiotic) (cefepime) (1) administered @ 9am, with no adverse reaction. Trachea suctioned as resident having large amounts of secretion @ trachea site. TARP (turn and reposition) as tolerated. Routine meds administered. At 11am, vitals obtained with reading of bp (blood pressure) 88/53, p (pulse) 117, r (respirations) 48, t…
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 · D2024-04-03 · tag F0623 — isolatedProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interview, facility document review, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to provide written notice of hospital transfer for one of 37 residents in the survey sample, Resident #100. The findings include: For Resident #100 (R100), the facility staff failed to provide written notice of transfer to the resident representative and ombudsman when the resident transferred to the hospital on [DATE]. A review of R100's clinical record revealed the resident was transferred to the hospital on [DATE] for aggressive behaviors. Further review of R100's clinical record failed to reveal evidence that the resident's representative and ombudsman was provided written notice of the transfer. On 4/3/24 at 10:02 a.m., an interview was conducted with OSM (other staff member) #5 (the director of social services). OSM #5 stated he faxes notices of resident discharges to the ombudsman every week. On 4/3/24 at 10:07 a.m., an interview was conducted with ASM (administrative staff member) #2 (the director 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 before2024-04-03 · 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 observation, staff interview, clinical record review and facility document review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to complete an accurate MDS assessment for three of 37 residents in the survey sample; Residents #22, #67, and #98. The findings include: 1. For Resident #22, the facility staff failed to ensure an accurate MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment for the 3/20/24 quarterly MDS when the resident was not coded as having a nephrostomy tube. The resident was documented as having a nephrostomy tube since at least 9/14/23 upon readmission. Previous MDS assessments had this coded but failed to code it on the 3/20/24 quarterly MDS. A review of the clinical record revealed a nurse's note dated 9/14/23 that documented, readmitted from (hospital) readmission diagnosis- Hydronephrosis On skin assessment noted Nephrostomy drainage bag on right lower abdomen . There were no notes indicating the nephrostomy was in place prior to 9/14/23. A review of the most recent MDS, a quarterly assessment…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-04-03 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, clinical record review and facility document review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to develop and/or implement the comprehensive care plan for three of 37 residents in the survey sample; Residents #22, #102, and #91. The findings include: 1. The facility staff failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for the care and services of a nephrostomy tube when Resident #22 returned from the hospital on 9/14/23 with one. A review of the clinical record revealed a nurse's note dated 9/14/23 that documented, readmitted from (hospital) readmission diagnosis- Hydronephrosis On skin assessment noted Nephrostomy drainage bag on right lower abdomen . There were no notes indicating the nephrostomy was in place prior to 9/14/23. A review of the nurse's notes revealed multiple notes between 9/14/23 and the date of survey documenting the presence of a nephrostomy tube. The most recent was dated 3/10/24 and documented, Nephrostomy site is intact A review of the physician's orders revealed one dated 9/14/23 for Nephrostomy Tube care Every 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 · Dcited before2024-04-03 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, facility document review, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to review and revise the comprehensive care plan for two of 37 residents in the survey sample, Residents #44 and #72. The findings include: 1. For Resident #44 (R44), the facility staff failed to review and revise the resident's comprehensive care plan for bed rails. A review of R44's clinical record revealed a physician's order dated 2/8/22 to apply 1/2 upper bed side rails for positioning and bed mobility. R44's comprehensive care plan reviewed on 7/31/23 failed to reveal documentation regarding bed rails. On 4/1/24 at 1:31 p.m., R44 was observed lying in bed with bilateral 1/2 upper bed rails in the upright position. On 4/2/24 at 2:36 p.m., an interview was conducted with LPN (licensed practical nurse) #2. LPN #2 stated the purpose of the care plan is to take care of the resident, including exactly what the interdisciplinary team wants staff to do for the resident. LPN #2 stated the care plan should be reviewed and revised to include the use of bed rails because…
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 · D2024-04-03 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview, facility document review, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to follow professional standards of care for one of 37 residents in the survey sample, Resident #102. The findings include: For Resident #102 (R102), the facility staff failed to transcribe a wound physician's recommendation into an order on 11/29/23. A review of R102's wound specialist's note dated 11/29/23 revealed, in part: Patchy erythema and excoriations of bilateral groin, bilateral buttocks, and sacrum. Scant serous draining; + odor consistent with fungal infection. Improved since last week .There are no other wound or signs of infection .Continue antifungal cream q (each) shift and prn (as needed). A review of R102's November and December 2023 MARs (medication administration records) and TARs (treatment administration records) revealed no evidence that R102 received antifungal treatment each shift between 11/29/23 and 12/6/23, when she was discharged from the wound specialist's care. A review of R102's care plan dated 11/15/23 revealed, in part: I have impaired skin…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-04-03 · 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
Based on observation, staff interview, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to provide the ADL (activities of daily living) care for one of 37 residents in the survey sample, Resident #87. The findings include: For Resident #87 (R87), the facility staff failed to properly groom the resident's chin hairs. On the following date and times, R87 was seen with multiple strands of hair about 1-2 inches on her chin: 4/01/24 at 1:42 p.m. and 3:05 p.m.; 4/02/24 at 9:15 a.m. and 2:15 p.m. R87 was unavailable for interview during the survey. A review of R87's clinical record revealed no evidence that she refused grooming assistance at any time. On 4/2/24 at 2:30 p.m., CNA (certified nursing assistant) #1 was interviewed. She stated that she recently started taking care of the resident and that she did not ask about the resident's preferences. She also stated that she should have groomed the chin hairs and that she will do them now. She also stated that if the resident refuses that she has to write a note to document the refusal and then the nurse also documents. On 4/2/24 at…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-04-03 · tag F0710 — isolatedObtain a doctor's order to admit a resident and ensure the resident is under a doctor's care.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interview, facility document review, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to provide physician oversight for one of 37 residents in the survey sample, Resident #102. The findings include: For Resident #102 (R102), the NP (nurse practitioner/physician extender) failed to accurately document R102's physical condition on multiple dates during the resident's stay in the facility. R102 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged on 1/26/24. The resident's admitting diagnoses included a history of vaginal bleeding, heart attack, and sepsis (systemic infection). A review of R102's clinical record revealed these portions of ASM (administrative staff member) #3, the nurse practitioner's notes: 11/17/23 .Review of Systems .Constitutional: No fevers, +chills .Respiratory: +shortness of breath, no cough .Cardiovascular: +chest pain,+palpitations. 11/21/23 .Review of Systems .Constitutional: No fevers, +chills .Respiratory: +shortness of breath, no cough .Cardiovascular: +chest…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 28 citations
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-04-03 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, clinical record review, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to follow infection control procedures during meal delivery for three of 37 residents in the survey sample, Residents #78, #33, and #310. The findings include: 1. For Residents #78 (R78) and #33 (R33), the facility staff failed to sanitize hands prior to delivering their meal trays on 4/1/24. On 4/1/24 at 12:14 p.m., CNA (certified nursing assistant) #1 was observed delivering meal trays. CNA #1 failed to sanitize her hands prior to picking up R78's tray from the meal cart. She delivered R78's meal tray, setting it on the resident's overbed table. CNA #1 touched some of the resident's personal items, bed linens, and the top of the overbed table. CNA #1 exited R78's room without sanitizing her hands. She picked up R33's meal tray, setting it on the resident's overbed table. She touched various items on the meal tray as she removed the cover from the plate, opened the iced tea, poured sweetener into the tea, and handled the resident's cutlery to prepare it for 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 · F2022-06-29 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — widespreadDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview and facility document review, the facility staff failed to maintain the dumpsters in a sanitary manner for two of two dumpsters containing trash. On 6/28/22, the sliding side doors of two dumpsters were observed open and multiple flies were inside the dumpsters. The findings include: On 6/28/22 at 2:48 p.m., an observation of the facility dumpsters was conducted. Two of two dumpsters containing trash were observed with both sliding side doors completely open. Multiple flies were inside the dumpsters. No staff was utilizing the dumpsters at this time. On 6/28/22 at 2:50 p.m., an interview was conducted with OSM (other staff member) #4 (the dietary manager). OSM #4 stated the side doors on the dumpsters are supposed to be closed so rodents, flies and birds aren't attracted to the area. On 6/28/22 at 2:58 p.m., an interview was conducted with OSM #7 (the housekeeping manager). OSM #7 stated the side doors on the dumpsters should be closed if staff is not dumping trash. OSM #7 stated rodents, flies and anything can crawl into the dumpsters. 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 · E2022-06-29 · tag F0730 — patternObserve 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 staff interview and employee record review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure that 5 of 10 CNAs (certified nursing assistants) received annual performance reviews. The findings include: On 06/28/2022 a record review was conducted of the annual performance reviews of five CNAs. This review failed to evidence the annual performance reviews for the following CNAs: 1. CNA # 3 - hire date 12/17/2019, no evidence of performance review between 12/17/2019 and 12/17/2020. 2. CNA # 4 - hire date 10/18/2019, no evidence of performance review between 10/18/2019 and 10/19/2020. 3. CNA # 5 - hire date 05/20/2019, no evidence of performance review between 05/20/2019 and 05/20/2020. 4. CNA # 6 - hire date 4/27/2018, no evidence of performance review between 04/27/2021 and 04/27/2022. 5. CNA # 7 - hire date 01/05/2017, no evidence of performance review between 01/05/2021 and 01/05/2022. On 06/29/2022 at approximately 1:05 p.m. an interview was conducted with ASM (administrative staff member) # 2, director of nursing and OSM (other staff member) # 8 director of human…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2022-06-29 · tag F0909 — failed to maintain a comfortable temperature — patternRegularly inspect all bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails (if any) for safety; and all bed rails and mattresses must attach safely to the bed frame.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interview, resident interview, facility document review and clinical record review, it was determined the facility staff failed to evidence bed inspection for risk of entrapment for 4 of 39 residents in the survey sample, Resident #16, Resident #66, Resident #96 and Resident #45. 1. The facility staff failed to inspect Resident #16's bed for risk of entrapment. Resident #16 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included but were not limited to: psychotic disorder and anxiety disorder. Resident #16's most recent MDS (minimum data set) assessment, a quarterly assessment, with an assessment reference date of 3/20/22, coded the resident as scoring 15 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status) score, indicating the resident was cognitively intact. MDS Section G- Functional Status, coded the resident as requiring extensive assistance in bed mobility and transfers. Observation of Resident #16 resting in bed on 6/27/22 at 1:45 PM, 6/28/22 at 10:00 AM and 6/29/22 at 8:30…
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 before2022-06-29 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, family interview, staff interview, facility document review, and clinical record review, it was determined the facility staff failed to accommodate a resident's need for a reclining chair for one of 39 residents in the survey sample, Resident #1 (R1). The facility staff failed to provide a reclining chair for R1 to enable the resident to get out of bed. The findings include: R1's diagnoses included, but not limited to, Parkinson's disease and diabetes. On the most recent MDS (minimum data set), an annual assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 3/14/22, R1 was coded as having no cognitive impairment for making daily decisions. R1 was coded as requiring the extensive assistance of staff members for transferring from bed to chair. R1 was observed on the following dates and times: 6/27/22 at 1:47 p.m. and 5:14 p.m.; 6/28/22 at 9:29 a.m. At all observations, R1 was sitting up in bed, with eyes closed. R1 had tube feeding running, and oxygen was administered at 2 liters per minute…
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 · D2022-06-29 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on resident interview, staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review it was determined that the facility staff failed to implement their abuse policy and procedures to ensure one of 39 residents in the survey sample was free from abuse, Resident #44. On 6/24/22, Resident #37 hit Resident #44, which required an emergency room visit where they were diagnosed with a closed fracture of the distal end of the left ulna (1), closed head injury, abrasion of the nose and a closed fracture of the nasal bone. The findings include: Resident #44's (R44) most recent MDS (minimum data set), an annual assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 5/1/2022, the resident scored 15 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status) assessment, indicating the resident is cognitively intact for making daily decisions. Section E documented no behaviors. Section G documented R44 requiring supervision with transfers, walking in the room and corridors and locomotion on and off the unit.…
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 · D2022-06-29 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on resident interview, staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review it was determined that the facility staff failed to report to the State Survey Agency timely, an allegation of abuse, for one of 39 residents in the survey sample, Resident #44; which required an emergency room visit where they were diagnosed with a closed fracture of the distal end of the left ulna (1), closed head injury, abrasion of the nose and a closed fracture of the nasal bone. The findings include: Resident #44's (R44) most recent MDS (minimum data set), an annual assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 5/1/2022, the resident scored 15 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status) assessment, indicating the resident is cognitively intact for making daily decisions. Section E documented no behaviors. On 6/27/2022 at 5:14 p.m., an interview was conducted with R44 in their room. R44 was observed lying in bed and was observed to have a splint wrapped with an elastic bandage on the left…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-06-29 · 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 staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to complete a significant change MDS for one of 39 residents in the survey sample, Resident #82. Resident #82 was admitted to hospice on 12/22/21. There was no significant change MDS completed for the provision of hospice services. The findings include: On the most recent MDS (Minimum Data Set) a quarterly assessment with an ARD (Assessment Reference Date) of 6/8/22, Resident #82 scored a 15 out of a possible 15 on the BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) indicating the resident was cognitively intact in ability to make daily life decisions. The resident was coded as requiring supervision for eating and extensive to total care for all other areas of activities of daily living. A review of the clinical record revealed a physician's order dated 12/22/21 and rewritten again on 4/1/22 for hospice services. Further review of the clinical record revealed a nurse's note dated 12/22/21 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 · Dcited before2022-06-29 · 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 staff interview, resident interview, facility document review and clinical record review, it was determined the facility staff failed to complete an accurate MDS (minimum data set) assessment for one of 39 residents in the survey sample, Resident #90. The facility staff failed to complete an accurate annual assessment MDS for Resident #90. The findings include: Resident #90 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included but not limited to: paranoid schizophrenia, nicotine/cigarette dependence, arthritis and abnormal gait. Resident #90's most recent MDS, an annual assessment, with an assessment reference date of 3/29/22, coded the resident as scoring 15 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status) score, indicating the resident was cognitively intact. MDS Section J1300- coded the resident as current tobacco use no. A review of Resident #90's care plan dated 9/17/19 revealed the following, FOCUS: Resident is a smoker. INTERVENTIONS: Instruct resident about smoking risks…
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 · D2022-06-29 · tag F0655 — isolatedCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on resident interview, staff interview and clinical record review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide a written summary of the baseline care plan for 3 of 39 residents in the survey sample, Residents #301, #303 and #299. The findings include: 1. The facility staff failed to provide a written summary of Resident #301's (R301) baseline care plan to the resident and/or the RR (resident's representative). R301 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. On the most recent MDS (minimum data set), an admission assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 4/27/22, the resident scored 15 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status), indicating the resident is not cognitively impaired for making daily decisions. A review of R301's clinical record revealed a baseline care plan dated 4/20/22. Further review of R301's clinical record (including the baseline care plan and progress notes since admission) failed to reveal documentation that R301 or the RR was provided a written…
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 before2022-06-29 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to review and revise the comprehensive care plan for one of 39 residents in the survey sample; Resident #82. Resident #82 was admitted to hospice on 12/22/21. There was no revision to the comprehensive care plan to address the provision of and coordination with hospice services. The findings include: On the most recent MDS (Minimum Data Set) a quarterly assessment with an ARD (Assessment Reference Date) of 6/8/22, Resident #82 scored a 15 out of a possible 15 on the BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) indicating the resident was cognitively intact in ability to make daily life decisions. The resident was coded as requiring supervision for eating and extensive to total care for all other areas of activities of daily living. A review of the clinical record revealed a physician's order dated 12/22/21 and rewritten again on 4/1/22 for hospice services. Further review of the clinical record revealed a nurse's note dated 12/22/21 that documented, Resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-06-29 · 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 staff interview, facility document review, and clinical record review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to respond to a pharmacist's monthly medication review recommendation for one of 39 residents in the survey sample, Resident #62 (R62). The facility staff failed to follow up on the pharmacist recommendation to obtain blood tests to determine R62's kidney function. The findings include: On the most recent MDS (minimum data set), a quarterly assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 5/18/22, R62 was coded as being severely impaired for making daily decisions, having scored 6 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status). A review of the monthly medication regimen reviews for R62 revealed a review dated 5/27/22. The review documented: [R62] has not had an assessment of renal (kidney) function within the past six months .Please monitor [blood tests to reveal kidney function] on the next convenient lab day and at least every six months thereafter. Further review of R62's clinical record failed to reveal any laboratory tests ordered…
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 · D2022-06-29 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — isolatedEnsure 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, resident interview, staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to serve food at a palatable temperature for 3 of 39 residents in the survey sample, Residents #50, #34 and #37. The findings include: On Resident #50's (R50) most recent MDS (minimum data set), a quarterly assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 5/5/22, the resident scored 15 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status), indicating the resident is not cognitively impaired for making daily decisions. On 6/27/22 at 1:42 p.m., an interview was conducted with R50 and the resident stated the facility food was cold. On Resident #34's (R34) most recent MDS (minimum data set), a quarterly assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 4/21/22, the resident scored 15 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status), indicating the resident is not cognitively impaired for making daily decisions. On 6/27/22 at 2:59 p.m., an interview was conducted with R34 and the resident stated the food was usually cold when…
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 before2022-06-29 · 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, staff interview and facility document review, the facility staff failed to store food in a safe manner in 1 of 3 unit nourishment room refrigerators, the second floor nourishment room. The second floor nourishment room refrigerator contained multiple food items that were past the manufacturers' use by and best by dates. The findings include: On 6/28/22 at 2:10 p.m., observation of the second floor nourishment room refrigerator was conducted with LPN (licensed practical nurse) #4. The following was observed: one 2 pound block of sharp cheddar cheese with a best by date of 8/14/21, one 13 ounce can of whipped topping with a best by date of 12/25/21, one 6.5 ounce can of whipped topping with a use by date of 3/31/22, one 15 ounce bottle of creamy French dressing with a best if used by date of 10/5/21 and one ham and cheddar cracker stacks lunchable with a use by date of 9/4/21. At that time, an interview was conducted with LPN #4. LPN #4 stated the temperature of the refrigerator is supposed to be checked by a nurse every day and at that time, the nurse should…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-06-29 · tag F0840 — isolatedEmploy or obtain outside professional resources to provide services in the nursing home when the facility does not employ a qualified professional to furnish a required service.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to evidence a current dialysis contract between the facility and the outpatient dialysis center providing services for one of 39 residents in the survey sample, Resident #85. The findings include: On Resident #85's (R85) most recent MDS (minimum data set), an admission assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 6/9/22, the resident scored 13 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status), indicating the resident is not cognitively impaired for making daily decisions. An admission notification form dated 5/20/22 documented R85 required dialysis. A review of R85's clinical record revealed a physician's order dated 6/21/22 for dialysis every Monday, Wednesday and Friday. A review of the facility dialysis contracts failed to reveal a contract for R85's dialysis provider. On 6/28/22 at 12:12 p.m., ASM (administrative staff member) #2 (the director of nursing) provided a letter addressed to ASM #1 (the executive director) and dated 6/28/22. The letter documented,…
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 before2022-06-29 · 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 resident interview, staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review it was determined that the facility staff failed to maintain a complete and accurate medical record for one of 39 residents in the survey sample, Resident #37. The findings include: Resident #37's (R37) most recent MDS (minimum data set), a quarterly assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 4/2/2022, the resident scored 15 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status) assessment, indicating the resident is cognitively intact for making daily decisions. On 6/27/2022 at 1:56 p.m., an interview was conducted with R37 in their room. R37 was observed to have a staff member sitting outside of the room in a chair monitoring the room. R37 stated that the previous Friday they had a fight with another resident who lived across the hall and now a staff member sat outside their door and went with them whenever they went outside to smoke. R37 stated that they had been in the hospital recently for chest…
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 · D2022-06-29 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview and clinical record review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to offer, obtain consent and/or provide education regarding the pneumococcal vaccines for one of five residents in the immunization record review, Residents # 56 (R56). The findings include: The facility staff failed to offer, obtain consent and provide education regarding the pneumococcal vaccines for (R56). On the most recent MDS (minimum data set) assessment, a quarterly assessment, with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 05/11/2022, the resident was coded as having both short and long term memory difficulties and was coded as being severely cognitively impaired for making daily decisions. Under Section O Special Treatments, Procedures and Programs (R56) was coded as not being offered the pneumococcal vaccine. A review of the (R56's) clinical record and EHR [electronic health record] failed to evidence that the pneumococcal vaccine was offered and consent and education was provided. On 06/29/2022 at approximately 8:22 a.m., an interview was conducted ASM (administrative 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 · Fcited before2020-01-30 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, and facility document review it was determined that the facility staff failed to serve and store food in a sanitary manner. The findings include: 1. The facility failed to fully dry and store cookware in a sanitary manner in the kitchen and dispose of refrigerated food items past their expiration date in the facility kitchen stand up refrigerator. On 1/28/20 at approximately 6:10 p.m., an observation of the facility's kitchen was conducted with OSM (other staff member) #4, the dietary manager. Observation of the kitchen revealed a double door stand up refrigerator, which contained two five-pound containers of cottage cheese. One five-pound container of cottage cheese was observed opened with the date 12-24 written on the top lid. OSM #4 stated that the 12-24 meant that the container had been opened on 12/24/19. Observation of the container revealed it was approximately one-half full and labeled by the manufacturer with Best if used by 1/25/20. The other container was observed unopened and labeled by the manufacturer with Best if used by…
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 · E2020-01-30 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — patternHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, resident interview, staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide a dignified dining experience for four of 51 residents in the survey sample, Residents #33, #58, #42, #80. The facility staff failed to serve lunch to Resident #33, #58 and #42 in a dignified manner. Other residents seated at the same tables as Resident #33, 58 and #44 were served a meal, a meal for Resident #33 and #58 was not served and the residents assisted until 11 minutes later. Resident #42' was not served a meal until 22 minutes later. The facility staff failed to feed Resident #80 lunch in a dignified manner. CNA (certified nursing assistant) #5 stood up and left Resident #80 multiple times while feeding the resident. The findings include: 1. Resident #33 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #33's diagnoses included but were not limited to intellectual disabilities, high blood pressure and thyroid disorders. Resident #33's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2020-01-30 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — patternEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interview and clinical record review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure the medication regimen was free from unnecessary medication for two of 51 sampled residents, Resident #37 and # 87. The facility staff failed attempt non-pharmacological interventions prior to the administration of the prn (as needed) pain medication, Ibuprofen to Resident # 37 and prior to the administration of the as needed pain medication, Oxycodone for to Resident # 87. The findings include: 1. The facility staff failed attempt non-pharmacological interventions prior to the administration of prn pain medication of Ibuprofen to Resident # 37. Resident # 37 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included but were not limited to: muscle spasms and arthritis. Resident # 37's most recent MDS (minimum data set), a quarterly assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 12/03/19, coded Resident # 37 as scoring an 12 on the brief interview for mental status (BIMS) of a score of 0 - 15, 12…
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 · E2020-01-30 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to failed to store medications with a visible manufacturer expiration date in one of three medication carts observed, second floor medication cart The findings include: On [DATE] at 11:15 a.m., an observation was made of the medication cart located on the second floor medication cart with LPN #10. Observation of the medication cart revealed a bottle of 100 tablets of Senna (medication used as stool softener) 8.6mg (milligram) approximately one-quarter full. Further observation revealed the bottle did not contain a manufacturer's expiration date. When asked about the bottle LPN #10 confirmed that she did not see an expiration date on the bottle. LPN #10 stated that she had not used that medication during her medication pass. LPN #10 stated that she had opened another new bottle of Senna that morning and used that one during her medication pass and proceeded to produce an opened bottle of Senna from the medication cart with a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2020-01-30 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, resident interview and clinical record review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide accommodation of resident needs by ensuring the call bell [a device with a button that can be pushed to alert staff when assistance is needed ] was within reach for one of 51 residents in the survey sample, Resident # 68. The findings include: Resident # 68 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included but were not limited to: lack of coordination, and Parkinson's disease [1]. Resident # 68's most recent MDS (minimum data set), a quarterly assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 12/03/19, coded Resident # 68 as scoring an 13 on the brief interview for mental status (BIMS) of a score of 0 - 15, 13 - being cognitively intact for making daily decisions. Resident # 68 was coded as requiring extensive assistance of one staff member for activities of daily living. Section G0400 Functional Limitation in Range of Motion coded Resident # 68 as No impairment of their upper extremities [shoulder, elbow, wrist, hand] 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 before2020-01-30 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interview, facility document review, and clinical record review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure one of 51 residents, (Resident #47), right to be free from abuse from abuse by another resident (Resident #98). The findings include: A review of the facility policy, Abuse, Neglect Exploitation & Misappropriation documented, It is inherent in the nature and dignity of each resident at the center that he/she be afforded basic human rights, including the right to be free from abuse, neglect, mistreatment, exploitation and/or misappropriation of property. The management of the facility recognizes these rights and hereby establishes the following statements, policies, and procedures to protect these rights and to establish a disciplinary policy, which results in the fair and timely treatment of occurrences of resident abuse. Resident #47 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]; diagnoses included but are not limited to stroke, dysphagia, gastrostomy, aphasia and high blood…
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 before2020-01-30 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on resident interview, staff interview and clinical record review it was determined that the facility staff failed to implement the comprehensive care plan for two of 51 residents in the survey sample, Resident #37 and #53. The facility staff failed implement the comprehensive care plan for non-pharmacological interventions prior to the administration of prn (as needed) pain medication to Resident # 37. The facility staff failed develop a care plan to address Resident # 53 tube feeding. The findings include: 1. Resident # 37 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included but were not limited to: muscle spasms and arthritis. Resident # 37's most recent MDS (minimum data set), a quarterly assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 12/03/19, coded Resident # 37 as scoring an 12 on the brief interview for mental status (BIMS) of a score of 0 - 15, 12 - being moderately impaired of cognition for making daily decisions. Resident # 37 was coded as requiring extensive assistance of one staff member for activities of daily living. Section J Health Conditions coded…
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 · D2020-01-30 · 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, resident interview, staff interview, facility document review, and in the course of a complaint investigation, it was determined that the facility staff failed to safely transfer on one 51 residents in the survey sample, Resident #10. During observation of a transfer of Resident #10 by Hoyer lift on 1/29/2020, the facility staff failed to prevent Resident #10's toes from bumping the wall multiple times, and failed to lock the wheelchair. The findings include: Resident #10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]; and most recently readmitted on [DATE], with diagnoses including, but not limited to: history of a stroke, dysfunctional bladder, diabetes (1), spinal stenosis (2), and peripheral neuropathy (3). On the most recent MDS (minimum data set), a quarterly assessment with an assessment reference date of 11/7/19, Resident #10 was coded as having no cognitive impairment for making daily decisions, having scored 15 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status). He was coded as…
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 · D2020-01-30 · tag F0700 — isolatedTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY 2. Resident #82 was admitted to the facility 01/04/2018 with a readmission on [DATE] with diagnoses, that included but were not limited to pneumonia (1) and sepsis (2). Resident #82's most recent MDS (minimum data set), an admission assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 01/11/20, coded Resident #82 as scoring a 15 on the staff assessment for mental status (BIMS) of a score of 0 - 15, 15- being cognitively intact for making daily decisions. Resident #82 was coded as requiring extensive assistance of one staff member for bed mobility. An observation on 1/28/20 at 7:30 p.m. revealed Resident #82 in bed with bilateral upper quarter bed rails on the bed. When asked about the bed rails, Resident #82 stated that he used them to grab on to turn in bed and position himself. When asked if the facility staff reviewed the risks and benefits of using bed rails and had him sign anything regarding the bed rails Resident #82 stated he did not think so, but he liked having them on the bed and would sign something…
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 before2020-01-30 · 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 staff interview and clinical record review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to maintain a complete and accurate clinical record for one of 51 residents in the survey sample, Resident #39. The facility staff failed to document a complete pain assessment and attempted non-pharmacological interventions when prn (as needed) pain medication was administered to Resident #39 on multiple dates in January 2020. The findings include: Resident #39 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #39's diagnoses included but were not limited to paralysis, muscle weakness and major depressive disorder. Resident #39's most recent MDS (minimum data set), a quarterly assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 12/4/19, coded the resident as being cognitively intact. Section J coded Resident #39 as reporting almost constant pain rated, as a six, on a scale from zero to ten. Resident #39's comprehensive care plan dated 10/12/18 documented, (Name of Resident #39) has acute pain r/t (related to)…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2020-01-30 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff interview, facility document review, and in the course of a complaint investigation, it was determined that the facility staff failed to implement infection control practices for one of 51 residents in the survey sample, Residents #10. During observation of care for Resident #10 on 1/29/2020, the facility staff failed to cleanse hands between glove changes. The findings include: Resident #10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and was most recently readmitted on [DATE], with diagnoses including, but not limited to: history of a stroke, dysfunctional bladder, diabetes (1), spinal stenosis (2), and peripheral neuropathy (3). On the most recent MDS (minimum data set), a quarterly assessment with an assessment reference date of 11/7/19, Resident #10 was coded as having no cognitive impairment for making daily decisions, having scored 15 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status). He was coded as having no impairment for understanding others or for being understood by…
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 MARQUIS HEALTH SERVICES — 87 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 3.0 | ≈ chain avg |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.6 | -0.6 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 2.3 | -0.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
The other 86 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.0★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 86; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| M&T BANK | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST | since 12/01/2022 |
| HARMAN, DINA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2022 |
| LAW, JOSEPH | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2022 |
| PATRICK, JENNIFER | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/29/2024 |
| VIROJA, YOGESH | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/22/2020 |
| POSEN, MINDEE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2022 |
| MARQUIS LIMITED LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/11/2025 |
| RELIANT PRO REHAB LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/11/2025 |
| ELEBIARY, AHMED | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2022 |
| FLAGLER, OSHER | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/11/2025 |
| KAHANOW, AVIVA | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/12/2025 |
| LEVOVITZ, TZVI | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/06/2025 |
| ROKEACH, FRAIDE | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/11/2025 |
| ROKOWSKY, YITZCHOK | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/11/2025 |
| ALEXANDRIA REAL PROPERTY LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2022 |
| NFR 2020 IRRV TR | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2022 |
| QUINTO NEXGEN LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2022 |
| RSBRMK HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2022 |
| SK NEXGEN TR | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2022 |
| TRYKO NEXGEN HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2022 |
| UAK 2020 IRRV TR | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2022 |
| UKR NEXGEN LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2022 |
| YK NEXGEN TR | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2022 |
| YR NEXGEN TR | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2022 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 35 rows in the source record cover these 24 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.
13 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.
About 73% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $3.6M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 26% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in VA
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 Virginia 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 495203. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-04-03, 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.