Autumn Care Of Portsmouth
3610 Winchester Dr, Portsmouth, VA 23707 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 108 certified beds · (757) 397-0725 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (34% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Feb 2026
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604, F0607, F0609, F0610) — 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 (43) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 2 to 4 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 | 6.2% | 14.9% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.6% | 5.4% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.7% | 0.4% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.3% | 1.6% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 21.9% | 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 | 2.0% | 3.6% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 4.0% | 15.6% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 22.4% | 20.6% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.7% | 94.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.5% | 4.7% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 12.8% | 21.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 9.5% | 14.2% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.3% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 46.3% | 73.6% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 16.8% | 22.3% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 5.8% | 11.5% | 12.0% | 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.
56.7% 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 85 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 46.4% 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 28 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 0.20 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 23% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 13% 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 | 56.7%CMS range 46.6–69.8 | 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 | 10.5%CMS range 7.1–14.6 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 46.4% | 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 | 46.4% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 35.7% | 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 | 72.7% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 83.3% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 3.0% | 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 | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.7%CMS range 4.1–13.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.91 | 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 108 beds and averages 98.0 residents a day — about 91% occupied, or roughly 10 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.09 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.33 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.81 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 2.53 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.32 on weekdays — 24% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.36 to 0.26 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 34% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
43 citations, most serious first. The 12 most serious are shown; the remaining 31 are one tap away and print in full.
- Actual harm · G2022-04-15 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interviews, clinical record review, and review of facility documents, the facility staff failed to ensure one resident (Resident #38) entering the facility did not develop pressure ulcers unless they were unavoidable. For Resident #38, the facility failed to identify two pressure ulcers prior to being found at an advanced stage (unstageable), which constituted in harm. For Resident #58, the facility staff failed to provide care and services to prevent pressure ulcer development and to identify a left heel pressure ulcer prior to progression to an advanced stage (stage 3) which constituted harm. For Resident #88B, a new stroke victim who required total care for all activities of daily living (ADL), the facility staff failed to provide care and services to prevent development of an unstageable deep tissue injury (DTI) of the right buttock. The survey sample consisted of 38 residents. The findings included: 1. The staff failed to identify Resident #38's pressure ulcer to his left and right heel prior…
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 · G2019-10-04 · 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 staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, it was determined that facility staff failed to practice safe bed mobility for one of 39 residents in the survey sample, Resident #26, resulting in an avoidable fall with a head laceration, that lead to an acute transfer to the hospital which constitutes harm. The findings include: Resident #26 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included but were not limited to dementia without behavioral disturbance, high cholesterol, type two diabetes and adult failure to thrive. Resident #26's most recent MDS (minimum data set) assessment was a quarterly assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 7/16/19. Resident #26 was coded as being severely impaired in cognitive function scoring 04 out of possible 15 on the BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) exam. Section G (functional status) coded Resident #26 as requiring extensive assistance from one staff member for bed mobility. Review of Resident #26's clinical…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2026-02-27 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — patternHonor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews, observations, facility document review, and policy review, the facility failed to honor the food choices for 11 of 98 facility residents (Resident (R) R5, R15, R94, R93, R103, R120, R84, R63, R49, R8, and R22). This failure had the potential to lead to dissatisfaction with meals, malnutrition or weight loss, or feelings of helplessness among resident whose preferences were not honored.Findings include:1. Review of R5's Face Sheet located under the Face Sheet tab of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including diabetes, anemia, and malnutrition. Review of R5's the Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 02/08/26 and located under the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) tab of the EMR revealed a score of 15 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), indicating intact cognition.2. Review of R15's Face Sheet, located under the Face Sheet tab of the EMR revealed he was admitted 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 · E2026-02-27 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — patternProtect 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 interviews, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to implement their abuse policy, and protect three out of 38 sampled residents, (Resident (R123) R112 and R111) from a resident-to-resident encounter. Encounters involved R123 & R122; R112 and R26, and R111 and R121. R123 expressed fear to staff and did not feel safe after R122 threatened R123 with physical violence. This resulted in the potential for mental harm for R123 and had the potential to affect other residents. Findings include: 1. Review of R122's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 05/21/25 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 which indicated no cognitive impairment. R122 was discharged on 07/25/25 and did not return. Review of R122's Care Plan, dated 05/01/25 and located in the residents' EMR under the Care Plan tab, revealed R122 was care planned for a history of physical and verbal behaviors. Interventions in place dated 0528/25 were for 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 · E2026-02-27 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — patternTimely 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 record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure allegations of resident-to-resident abuse involving four of six residents (Resident (R) 111, R121, R122, and R123) reviewed for abuse were reported to the State Agency (SA) within required time frames. The failure had the potential to allow potential abuse without recognition or regulatory follow-up to prevent recurrence.Findings include: 1. Review of R111's Face Sheet, located under the Face Sheet tab of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and muscle weakness. Review of R111's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 07/03/25 and located under the RAI (Resident Assessment Instrument) tab of the EMR, revealed a score of 15 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), indicating intact cognition. He did not exhibit any mood or behavioral symptoms. Review of R111'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 · E2026-02-27 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — patternEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, facility document review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff followed the menus for mechanical soft and puree diets for 14 residents who received these diet textures (five residents on puree diets and nine residents on mechanical soft diets) out of a census of 98. This failure placed those residents at risk of malnutrition, weight loss, or dissatisfaction with meals.Findings include:Review of an untitled, undated handwritten document, provided on paper by the Director of Nursing (DON), revealed the facility had nine residents who received a mechanical soft diet and five residents who received a puree diet.Review of the facility's Diet Guide Sheet for lunch on 02/27/26, provided on paper by the Dietary Regional Manager (DRM), revealed the regular texture meal was herb roasted chicken, yellow rice, Capri mixed vegetables, and a dinner roll. For a mechanical soft texture, the menu was ground herb roasted chicken, Capri mixed vegetables, buttered noodles, and a dinner roll. For a puree texture, the menu was pureed herb roasted chicken, pureed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2026-02-27 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to follow infection control guidelines during the medication administration observation by touching pills prior to being administered to two of four residents (Resident (R)84 and R119) and failed to don appropriate personal protective equipment for two of four residents in transmission-based precautions (R50 and R63) out of 38 total sampled residents. These failures had the potential to expose R84, R119, R50, and R63 to infections in an already vulnerable population.Findings include: 1. During the medication administration observation on 02/26/26 at 7:54 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 3 was observed preparing Aspirin 81 milligrams (mg) to administer to R119. LPN3 poured the pills into the lid of the Aspirin bottle. While doing so, LPN3 was observed placing her bare index finger on the extra tablet of Aspirin so as not to pour this tablet into the medication cup. LPN3 then proceeded to put this tablet of Aspirin…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-02-27 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to provide written information on how to formulate an Advance Directive for one of five residents (Resident (R)30) reviewed for Advance Directives out of a total of 38 sampled residents. This failure has the potential for R30 not to be able to make her desires known if she was unable to speak for herself.Findings include:Review of R30's Face Sheet, located under the Resident tab in the electronic medical record (EMR) indicated R30 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and congested heart failure (CHF). R30 was also documented as being a Full Code.Review of R30's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), located under the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) tab in the EMR with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 01/29/26 indicated R30 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11 out of 15, which indicated R30 had moderately impaired cognition. During an…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-02-27 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to implement their abuse policy and thoroughly investigate an allegation of resident-to-resident abuse for two of five residents (Resident (R) 122, R123) reviewed for abuse out of 38 sample residents. This had the potential to affect residents in the facility who were at risk for abuse. Findings include:1. Review of R122's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 05/21/25 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 which indicated no cognitive impairment. R122 discharged on 07/25/25. Review of R122's Care Plan, dated 05/01/25 and located in the residents' EMR under the Care Plan tab, revealed R122 was care planned for a history of physical and verbal behaviors. Interventions in place dated 05/28/25 were for a psychiatric evaluation and treat as needed; monitor for changes in behaviors, and care provided by two staff members. 2. Review of R123's Face Sheet located in the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-02-27 · tag F0628 — isolatedProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a written transfer notice that contained all required information and the bed hold notice was provided for one of seven residents (Resident (R) 74) and/or their responsible party (RP) reviewed for hospital transfer out of 38 sampled residents. This failure had the potential to result in the resident and their RP not having the knowledge of where and why a resident was transferred, the bed holds policy, and/or how to appeal the transfer, if desired.Findings include:Review of R74's Face Sheet, located under the Resident tab in the electronic medical record (EMR) indicated R74 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnosis of transient cerebral ischemic attack (TIA).Review of R74's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), located under the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) tab in the EMR, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 09/24/25 indicated R74 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12 out of 15…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-02-27 · 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 interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) accurately reflected the status for two of 38 sampled residents (Resident (R) 34 and R76). Specifically, the MDS did not accurately assess presence of pressure ulcers for R34 and the use of oxygen for R76. These failures placed the residents at risk for unmet care needs related to pressure ulcers for R34 and oxygen for R76.Findings include: 1. Review of R34's Face Sheet, located under the Face Sheet tab of the electronic medical record (EMR), revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including stroke, malnutrition, gout, muscle weakness, seizures, and diabetes. Review of R34's admission MDS with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 01/29/26 and located under the RAI (Resident Assessment Instrument) tab of the EMR revealed a score of 10 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) indicating moderately impaired cognition. The MDS documented R34 had one unstageable pressure ulcer.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-02-27 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure that an accurate Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) Level I assessment was completed for two residents (Resident (R) 102 and R9) out of 38 sampled residents. This had the potential to affect all residents who were admitted to the facility.Findings include: 1. Review of R102's ''admission Record, located under the ''Profile'' tab of the electronic medical record (EMR), revealed R8 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including unspecified intellectual disabilities. Review of R102's DMAS-95 [Department of Medical Assistance Screening] Level I Screening, dated 12/20/24 and located in the resident's EMR under the Miscellaneous tab, revealed no indication of intellectual developmental disability (IDD) identified. 2. Review of R9's ''admission Record,'' located under the ''Profile'' tab of the EMR, revealed R9admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including anxiety disorder, schizoaffective disorder…
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 31 citations
- Potential for harm · D2026-02-27 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to develop a care plan for three of four residents (Resident (R) 64, R30, and R5) that included targeted behaviors for the use of anxiety medication out of a total sample of 38 residents. This failure had the potential for residents to experience adverse effects of an anxiety medication which was not specifically monitored. Findings include:1. Review of R64's Face Sheet, located under the Resident tab in the electronic medical record (EMR) indicated R64 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis and congested heart failure (CHF).Review of R64's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), located under the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) tab in the EMR, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 01/18/26 indicated R64 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12 out of 15 which indicated R64 had moderately impaired cognition.Review of R64's Care Plan, located under the RAI tab in the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-02-27 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure timely review and revision of care plans for one resident (Resident (R) 42) of four reviewed for care plan revisions out of a total sample of 38 residents. The facility failed to ensure R42's care plan was updated to reflect the resident's current smoking status. Failure to ensure care plan accuracy had the potential for the residents who smoke to be at risks for accidents/hazards during smoke breaks by not reflecting accurate smoking assessments for all residents who smoke.Findings include:1. Review of R42's Face Sheet, under the Resident tab of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed the resident was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included B-cell lymphoma with intrapelvic lymph nodes, unspecified psychosis, glaucoma, dementia, and schizoaffective disorder. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date of 02/10/26 and located under the Resident 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 · D2026-02-27 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure staff maintained professional standards of practice by ensuring one resident (Resident (R) 122) was not administered crushed medications when there was not a clinical indication to do so. Findings include:Review of R122's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 05/21/25 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 which indicated no cognitive impairment. R122 discharged on 07/25/25. Review of R122's Care Plan, dated 05/01/25 and located in the residents' EMR under the Care Plan tab, revealed R122 was care planned for behavioral symptoms. 07/16/25 Resident pocketing medications and refusing to give to the nurse. Review of R122's Orders located under the Resident tab of the EMR, revealed a physician order, dated 02/10/25, for may crush medications unless contraindicated.Review of R122's Nurse's Note dated 07/21/25 at 8:13 AM and located in the EMR under…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-02-27 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to administer oxygen in accordance with physician orders for two of four residents (Resident (R) 30 and R76) reviewed for oxygen therapy out of a total of 38 sampled residents. This failure had the potential for the residents not to receive the correct amount of oxygen causing hyperoxia (cells, tissues and organs are exposed to an excess supply of oxygen) or hypoxia (cells, tissues and organs are exposed to a decrease in oxygen). Findings include: 1. Review of R30's Face Sheet, located under the Resident tab in the electronic medical record (EMR) indicated R30 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and congested heart failure (CHF). Review of R30's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), located under the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) tab in the EMR, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 01/29/26 indicated R30 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS)…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-02-27 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure that staff followed physician orders and weighed (Resident #4) prior to and after dialysis for one of one resident reviewed for dialysis, out of a sample of 38 residents. This had the potential to affect all residents who went out for dialysis treatment. Findings include:Review of R4's Face Sheet in the electronic medical record (EMR) under the Profile tab revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included chronic kidney disease with end stage renal disease and dependence on renal dialysis. Review of R4's Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 02/03/26 EMR under the MDS tab revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of three out of 15, which indicated the resident was not cognitively impaired. R4 was documented as receiving hemodialysis. Review of R4's Care Plan dated 08/26/25 and located in the EMR under the Care Plan tab revealed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-04-15 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interviews, clinical record reviews and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to ensure 2 of 38 residents in the survey sample, (Resident #10 and #33) were given the opportunity to formulate an advance directive. The findings included: 1. The facility staff failed to ensure Resident #10 and or their Representative was given the opportunity to formulate an Advance Directive. Resident #10 was originally admitted to the nursing facility on 03/06/19. Diagnosis for Resident #10 included but not limited to Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). The current Minimum Data Set (MDS) a quarterly assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 04/14/22 coded the resident with a 02 of a total possible score of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), indicating severe cognitive impairment. Review of the clinical record revealed that there was no Advance Directive for Resident #10. Review of Resident #10's Physician Order Sheet (POS) for April 2022 revealed the following order: Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) starting on 03/01/21. An interview…
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 · D2022-04-15 · 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 employee record review, facility document review and staff interviews the facility staff failed to implement their Abuse/Neglect Prevention Policy for screening of new employees. Criminal Background Checks were not obtained for 5 current employees 2 of which were agency staff within 30 days of their hire date and Sworn Statements were not obtained for 2 current agency staff employees upon hire. The findings included: On 4/13/22 twenty-five current employee records were reviewed. The employee record review revealed that 5 current employees 2 of which were agency staff did not have a Criminal Background Checks. There were also 2 current agency staff employees that had no Sworn Statements upon hire. On 4/13/22 at 1:00 p.m. an interview was conducted with the Director of Human Resources regarding the missing employee Criminal Background Checks and Sworn Statements. The Director of Human Resources stated, I know I ran them but I can't find them. I called the agency and spoke with the owner. The owner said…
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 before2022-04-15 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on a closed record review, staff and family interviews, and a complaint investigation, the facility staff failed to thoroughly investigate an incident of an injury of unknown source for one resident (Resident #89) in the survey sample of 38 residents. The findings included: Resident #44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included coronary artery disease, dementia, benign prostatic hyperplasia and COPD. Resident #89 was sent out to the hospital with a change of condition and being unresponsive to verbal and tactile stimuli. This resident was identified as having a large subdural hematoma of unknown source. A [DATE] Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessed this resident in the area of Cognitive Pattern - Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) as having a score of 15. This resident was assessed as requiring extensive assistance of one person in the areas of bed mobility, transfer, dressing and personal hygiene. A care plan dated [DATE] assess Resident #89 as- Focus: - Self care…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-04-15 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interviews, clinical record review and facility documentation review the facility staff failed to send a copy of the Resident's Care Plan to include their goals after being transferred and admitted to the hospital for one resident (Resident #35) in survey sample of 38 residents. The findings included: Resident #35 was admitted to the facility 9/26/1991 and readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses for Resident #35 include: Contracture, unspecified and Quadriplegia, unspecified. The significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 02/21/2022 coded the resident as not having the ability to complete the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS). The staff interview was not conducted. Resident's cognitive skills for decision making were coded as severely impaired for daily decision making. A review of the clinical record show that Resident #35 was admitted to the hospital from [DATE] through 2/15/22 due to a clogged Foley catheter. On 04/14/22 at…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-04-15 · 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 resident record review, staff interviews and facility document review, the facility failed to notify the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman in writing of hospital discharges for 1 of 38 residents (Resident #88, a closed record resident) in the survey sample. The findings included; Resident #88 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged on 2/23/2022 to an acute care facility. The current diagnoses included; Anemia and Coronary Artery Disease. The quarterly Revision Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 02/12/2022 coded the resident as completing the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) and scoring 15 out of a possible 15. This indicated Resident #88 cognitive abilities for daily decision making were intact. In section G(Physical functioning) the resident was coded as requiring extensive assistance of two persons with bed mobility. Requires total dependence of two person's physical assist with transfers. Requires total dependence…
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 before2022-04-15 · 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 interviews, clinical record review and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to revise 1 of 38 residents (Resident #10) comprehensive personal-centered care plan in the survey sample. The findings included: The facility staff failed to revise Resident #10's comprehensive person centered care plan to include her current code status of Do Not Resuscitate (DNR). Resident #10 was originally admitted to the nursing facility on 03/06/19. Diagnosis for Resident #10 included but not limited to Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). The current Minimum Data Set (MDS) a quarterly assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 04/14/22 coded the resident with a 02 of a total possible score of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), indicating severe cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #10's Physician Order Sheet (POS) for April 2022 revealed the following order: Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) starting on 03/01/21. Resident #10's person-centered comprehensive care plan created on 03/07/19 document the resident/Responsible Party has…
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 · D2022-04-15 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, resident interview, staff interview, clinical record review, and review of facility documents, the facility staff failed to obtain weights and labs necessary for management of acute on chronic hypoxic and hypercapnic respiratory failure due to CHF and COPD exacerbations for 1 of 38 residents (Resident #61), in the survey sample. The findings included: Resident #61 was originally admitted to the facility 1/5/21 and readmitted [DATE] after an acute care hospital stay. The current diagnoses included; obstructive sleep apnea (OSA)congestive Heart failure (CHF), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and post COVID-19. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) 3/18/22 coded the resident as completing the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) and scoring 12 out of a possible 15. This indicated Resident #61's cognitive abilities for daily decision making were intact. In section G (Physical functioning) the resident was coded as requiring total…
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 before2022-04-15 · tag F0727 — failed to provide required RN coverage — isolatedHave a registered nurse on duty 8 hours a day; and select a registered nurse to be the director of nurses on a full time basis.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to ensure a Registered Nurse (RN) coverage for 8 hours, 7 days a week. The facility staff failed to ensure RN coverage for 8 consecutive hours for 24 days. The findings included: On 04/14/22 at approximately 11:00 AM, the facility's actual worked schedule was reviewed with Other Staff #2 (Nursing Scheduler) and revealed there was no RN coverage for the following days: 1/01/22,1/02/22, 1/08/22, 1/15/22, 1/16/22, 1/22/22, 1/23/22, 1/30/22, 1/31/22, 2/05/22, 2/12/22, 2/13/22, 2/19/22, 2/20/22, 2/26/22, 2/27/22, 3/05/22, 3/06/22, 3/12/22, 3/13/22, 3/19/22, 3/19/22, 4/02/22, 4/03/22. 04/15/22 at approximately, 1:15 PM a pre-exit interview was conducted with The Director of Nursing (DON) and the facility Administrator concerning the above issue. The DON was asked what should have been done concerning the above issue. She stated, I have an RN (Registered Nurse) that provides weekend coverage. The ADON (Assistant Director of Nursing) stated she worked weekends since she started in October (2021).…
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 · D2022-04-15 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record reviews and staff interviews, the facility staff failed to ensure drug regimen of each resident were reviewed monthly for two residents (Resident #44 and #56) in the survey sample of 38 residents. The findings included: 1. Resident #56 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included hypertension, depression, dementia, Parkinson's disease, hypothyroidism, coronary artery disease and psychosis. This resident did not have monthly drug regimen reviews provided by a pharmacist for irregularities. Resident #56 was coded on a Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] in the area of Cognitive Pattern for Basic Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) as a (06). In the area of medications this resident was coded as receiving Antipsycotic and Antidepressant medications on a routine basis. Resident #56 was noted to be receiving the following medications Seroquel, Klonopin, and Effexor on a routine basis. A review of Pharmacy Reviews did not include reviews for the months of October 2021…
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 · D2022-04-15 · 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, clinical record review, review of facility documents and during the course of a complaint investigation, the facility's staff failed to accurately document in one residents medical record for 1 of 38 residents (Resident #35), in the survey sample. The findings included: Resident #35 was admitted to the facility 9/26/1991 and readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses for Resident #35 include: Contracture, unspecified and Quadriplegia, unspecified. The significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 02/21/2022 coded the resident as not having the ability to complete the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS). The staff interview was not conducted. Resident's cognitive skills for decision making were coded as severely impaired for daily decision making. In section G(Physical functioning) the resident was coded as requiring total dependence of one person with bed mobility, locomotion on and off units, dressing, eating, toilet use,…
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 · F2019-10-04 · tag F0925 — failed to control pests — widespreadMake sure there is a pest control program to prevent/deal with mice, insects, or other pests.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to maintain an effective pest control system. The findings included: During the kitchen inspection on 10/01/19 at 11:45 A.M. house flies were observed in the kitchen area. Drain flies were observed in the mop room and dishwasher room. Fruit flies and house flies were observed in the conference room. House flies were observed in the dining room area. Flies were observed on all units. During an interview on 10/03/19 at 2:50 P.M. with the Maintenance Director she stated, the drain flies, fruit flies and house flies have been a concern and there is a need for pest control. The Maintenance Director stated The Pest Control company came out on 10/03/19 at 11:18 A.M. to service the facility. A copy of the work order was provided by the Maintenance Director. A review of the Pest Management policy indicated: Mission- We shall first seek to understand the unique needs of each customer, formulate effective solutions, and implement the actions in a timely professional manner. No further information was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2019-10-04 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — patternDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interviews, clinical record review and facility document review, the facility staff failed to provide the resident or resident's representative education regarding the benefits and potential side effects of influenza immunization for four of 39 residents in the survey sample, (Resident #33, #10, #96, #88). The findings include: 1. Resident #33 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included but were not limited to major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, high blood pressure, and type two diabetes. Resident #33's most recent MDS (minimum data set) was a quarterly assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 7/25/19. Resident #33 was coded as being moderately impaired in cognitive function scoring 11 out of 15 on the BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) exam. Review of Resident #33's clinical record revealed that she received her last flu vaccine on 10/4/18. The following was documented in her clinical record: Immunization: Influenza:…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-10-04 · tag F0557 — isolatedHonor the resident's right to be treated with respect and dignity and to retain and use personal possessions.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interview and facility documentation review, it was determined that the facility failed to replace personal property damaged by facility laundry for one resident out of 39 records reviewed. The findings included: Resident #32 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] with most recent admission occurring on 4/26/2019 with diagnoses of, but not limited to, chronic pain syndrome and epilepsy. Resident #32's most recent MDS (minimum data set) assessment was a quarterly review assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 7/21/19. Resident #32 was coded as being intact in cognitive function scoring 15 out of possible 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status) exam. The resident was assessed to have clear speech and no impairments in understanding others. Resident #32 was assessed at requiring extensive support with dressing and personal hygiene. An interview conducted on 10/2/2019 at approximately 12:37 p.m. with Resident #32 who reported two of her clothing items returned from…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-10-04 · 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, and staff interviews, the facility's staff failed to assure 1 of 39 residents (Resident #59), in the survey sample call bell was within reach at all times. The findings included: Resident #59 was originally admitted to the facility 2/5/18 and has never been discharged from the facility. The current diagnoses included, left sided hemiplegia (paralysis). The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 8/27/19 coded the resident as completing the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) and scoring 14 out of a possible 15. This indicated Resident #59 cognitive abilities for daily decision making were intact. In section G (physical functioning) the resident was coded as requiring extensive assistance of two people with transfers and toileting, extensive assistance of one person with bed mobility, dressing and personal hygiene and total care of one person bathing and locomotion. One 10/1/19 at approximately 12:30 p.m., the resident was observed seated in a wheelchair close to the foot of the bed with the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-10-04 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolatedEnsure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review and staff interview, the facility staff failed to ensure one of 39 residents in the survey sample, Resident #68, was free from physical restraints. The facility staff had tube socks in use to Resident #68's bilateral arms to prevent scratching of a wound. The findings included: Resident #68 was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included, but not limited to, dementia, Type 2 Diabetes mellitus without complications, dementia, depression, sepsis, osteomyelitis of vertebra, sacral and sacrococcygeal region. A Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] assessed Resident #68 Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) a score of 6 which indicated severe cognitive impairment. In the area of Functional Status this resident was assessed in the area of Activities of Daily Living (ADL'S) as requiring total dependence of two persons for bed mobility and toileting. Extensive assistance of one person physical assist for dressing and personal hygiene. In the area 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 before2019-10-04 · 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
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 facility staff failed to send the required documentation upon transfer to the hospital for two of 39 residents in the survey sample, Resident #33 and #26. The findings include: 1. Resident #33 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included but were not limited to, major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, high blood pressure, and type two diabetes. Resident #33's most recent MDS (minimum data set) was a quarterly assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 7/25/19. Resident #33 was coded as being moderately impaired in cognitive function scoring 11 out of 15 on the BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) exam. Review of Resident #33's clinical record revealed that Resident #33 was transferred to the hospital on 8/27/19. The following note was documented: 8/27/2019 14:36 (2:36 p.m.) SBAR S Situation: Change in condition, symptoms or signs I am calling…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-10-04 · tag F0625 — isolatedNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on resident interview, staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, it was determined that facility staff failed to send written bed hold notification upon transfer to the hospital for one of 39 residents in the survey sample, Resident #33. The findings include: Resident #33 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included but were not limited to major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, high blood pressure, and type two diabetes. Resident #33's most recent MDS (minimum data set) was a quarterly assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 7/25/19. Resident #33 was coded as being moderately impaired in cognitive function scoring 11 out of 15 on the BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) exam. Review of Resident #33's clinical record revealed that Resident #33 was transferred to the hospital on 8/27/19 for a change in condition. There was no evidence in Resident #33's clinical record that written bed hold notification was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-10-04 · 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, facility document review, and clinical record review, it was determined that facility staff failed to ensure an accurate MDS (minimum data set) assessment for two of 39 residents in the survey sample, Residents # 102 and #59. The findings include: Resident #102 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included but were not limited to, type 2 diabetes, atrial fibrillation, high blood pressure and muscle weakness. Resident #102's most recent MDS (minimum data set) assessment was a discharge, return not anticipated, assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 8/2/19. Resident #102 was coded as being intact in cognitive function scoring 15 out of possible 15 on the BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) exam. Further review of Resident #102's MDS coded Resident #102 in Section A2100. Discharge Status, as being sent to the hospital. Review of Resident #102's August 2019 nursing notes revealed the following notes: 8/2/19 at 08:52 a.m.: (Name of Resident #102)…
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 before2019-10-04 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review and staff interview the facility staff failed to revise the comprehensive care plan for two of 39 residents in the survey sample, Resident #23 and Resident #68. The findings included: For Resident #23, the facility staff failed to include a focus, interventions, or goals for inappropriate sexual comments/requests made to staff. Resident #23 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included hypertension, contractures of left hip, sleep disorder, anxiety disorder, major depression and osteoporosis. An annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] assessed this resident in the area of Cognitive Patterns as scoring a 14 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment which indicated intact cognition. In the area of Mood this resident was assessed as feeling down, depressed or hopeless. In the area of Functional Status Activities of Daily Living (ADL's) this resident was assessed as requiring total dependence of two person physical assist in the area of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-10-04 · 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 observations, resident interview, staff interviews, and clinical record review the facility staff failed to ensure 1 of 39 residents (Resident #21), in the survey sample received fingernail care prior to his fingernails becoming long with broken edges and a brownish substance beneath them. The findings included: Resident #21 was originally admitted to the facility 1/16/16 and had never been discharged from the facility. The current diagnoses included rheumatoid arthritis and severe deformity of bilateral feet. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 7/16/19 coded the resident as completing the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) and scoring 14 out of a possible 15. This indicated Resident #21's cognitive abilities for daily decision making were intact. In section G (Physical functioning) the resident was coded as requiring extensive assistance of 1 person with eating, total care of two people with bed mobility and toileting and total care of one person with transfers, locomotion, dressing, personal hygiene and bathing.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-10-04 · tag F0687 — failed to care for feet properly — isolatedProvide appropriate foot care.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, resident interview, and staff interviews the facility staff failed to ensure 1 of 39 residents (Resident #21), in the survey sample received foot care prior to the toe nails advancing to painful, long and curvy nails. The findings included: Resident #21 was originally admitted to the facility 1/16/16, and had never been discharged from the facility. The current diagnoses included; rheumatoid arthritis and severe deformity of bilateral feet. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 7/16/19 coded the resident as completing the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) and scoring 14 out of a possible 15. This indicated Resident #21's cognitive abilities for daily decision making were intact. In section G (Physical functioning) the resident was coded as requiring extensive assistance of 1 person with eating, total care of two people with bed mobility and toileting and total care of one person with transfers, locomotion, dressing, personal hygiene and bathing. On 10/1/19 at approximately 11:45 a.m., Resident #21 was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-10-04 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, family interview, staff interview, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to ensure necessary respiratory care and services were provided for 2 of 39 residents in the survey sample (Residents #97 and #10). For Resident #97, the facility staff failed to ensure resident specific tracheostomy equipment was easily accessible in case of an emergency, failed to provide tracheostomy care without compromising the resident's respiration/airway and failed to administer oxygen (O2) as ordered. For Resident #10, the facility staff failed to administer oxygen as ordered. The findings included: 1. Resident #97 was originally admitted to the facility 9/6/19 and had never been discharged from the facility. The current diagnoses included sarcoidosis requiring a tracheostomy. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 9/13/19 coded the resident as completing the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) and scoring 0 out of a possible 15. This…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-10-04 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — isolatedEnsure that nurses and nurse aides have the appropriate competencies to care for every resident in a way that maximizes each resident's well being.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, family interview and staff interviews the facility staff failed to ensure staff was competent in tracheostomy tube care for 1 of 39 residents (Resident #97), in the survey sample. The findings included: Resident #97 was originally admitted to the facility 9/6/19 and had never been discharged from the facility. The current diagnoses included sarcoidosis requiring a tracheostomy. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 9/13/19 coded the resident as completing the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) and scoring 0 out of a possible 15. This indicated Resident #97's cognitive abilities for daily decision making were severely impaired. In section G (Physical functioning) the resident was coded as requiring extensive assistance of 1 person with bed mobility and total care with locomotion, dressing, eating, toileting, personal hygiene and bathing. Observations were made of the resident's room on 10/2/19, at approximately 11:00 a.m., with Licensed Practical Nurse #1. An ambu bag was on the table near the foot 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 before2019-10-04 · tag F0727 — failed to provide required RN coverage — isolatedHave a registered nurse on duty 8 hours a day; and select a registered nurse to be the director of nurses on a full time basis.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to ensure there was Registered Nurse (RN) coverage for eight consecutive hours in a twenty-four hour period. The findings include: During review of the facility's staffing for Registered Nurse coverage, the facility failed to ensure there was an RN for at least 8 consecutive hours a day seven days a week on 12/1/18, 12/2/18, 12/16/18, and 12/22/18. On 10/4/19 at 9:49 a.m., an interview was conducted with the scheduler Other staff member (OSM) #4. When asked how long she had been creating the schedule, OSM #4 stated that she had been doing the schedule for four years. When asked if it was difficult to get RN coverage back in December of 2018, OSM #4 stated, On the weekends. Yes. OSM #4 stated that there should be an RN on shift for 8 hours in a 24 hour period. OSM #4 confirmed through review of the as worked nursing staffing schedule that there was no RN coverage 8 consecutive hours in the 24 hours on 12/1/18, 12/2/18, 12/16/18, and 12/22/18. On 10/4/19 at 10:46 a.m., during the pre-exit meeting,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-10-04 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based record review and staff interview the facility staff failed to ensure medications were available for administration for two residents (Resident #68 and Resident #96 ) in the survey sample of 39 residents. The findings included: 1. Resident #68 was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included, but not limited to, sepsis, osteomyelitis of vertebra, sacral and sacrococcygeal region, Type 2 Diabetes mellitus without complications, dementia, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] assessed this resident in the area of Hearing, Speech, and Vision as having unclear speech. In the area of Cognitive Patterns this resident received a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 6 which indicated severe cognitive impairment. In the area of Functional Status this resident was assessed in the area of Activities of Daily Living (ADL) as requiring total dependence of two persons for bed mobility and toileting. Extensive assistance of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-10-04 · tag F0806 — failed to honor food preferences — isolatedEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food that accommodates resident allergies, intolerances, and preferences, as well as appealing options.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, resident interview, staff interviews, clinical record review, the facility's staff failed to review food preference with the resident and provide like food alternatives for 1 of 39 residents (Resident #95), in the survey sample. The findings included: Resident #95 was originally admitted to the facility 9/12/19 and the resident has never been discharged from the facility. The current diagnoses included; stroke with left hemiparesis. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 9/18/19 coded the resident as completing the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) and scoring 15 out of a possible 15. This indicated Resident #95's cognitive abilities for daily decision making were intact. In section G (Physical functioning) the resident was coded as requiring extensive assistance of 1 person with locomotion, dressing, eating, toileting, and personal hygiene, extensive assistance of 2 people with bathing, bed mobility, and transfers. On 10/1/19 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.
“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 SABER HEALTHCARE GROUP — 126 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 4 of 5 | 2.9 | +1.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 2.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
The other 125 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.9★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 125; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SHG AUTUMN, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 03/01/2016 |
| VOLPE, BENJAMIN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2019 |
| WEISBERG, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2016 |
| NICOLUZAKIS, GREGORY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2019 |
| SABER GOVERNANCE LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 09/01/2019 |
| JACKSON, ASHLEY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/28/2022 |
| SENA-BREITBERG, CHRISTINE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/16/2023 |
| CIBC BANK USA | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/31/2021 |
| CITRIN COOPERMAN ADVISORS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2016 |
| SABER HEALTHCARE GROUP LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2016 |
| SHG MANAGEMENT LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/01/2019 |
| WALKER & ASSOCIATES PC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2016 |
| TADROS, NABIL | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2012 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 21 rows in the source record cover these 13 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
7 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $1.1M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 11% 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 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in 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 495194. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-27, 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.