Good Shepherd Nursing Home
159 Edgington Lane, Wheeling, WV 26003 · Non profit - Church related · 192 certified beds · (304) 242-1093 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- a high number of inspection citations overall (34) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $27,378 in federal fines (most recent 2026-05-07)
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 3 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 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 | 18.2% | 14.7% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 8.5% | 6.3% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.6% | 0.4% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.2% | 1.6% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.4% | 7.6% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.1% | 4.4% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 13.3% | 15.9% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 10.3% | 27.0% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.9% | 97.6% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 6.9% | 4.2% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 28.3% | 22.1% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 4.1% | 13.4% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.0% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 91.9% | 79.4% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 14.8% | 22.5% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 5.5% | 11.3% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.13 | 1.80 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.91 | 1.84 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
51.0% 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 146 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 57.8% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 109 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 0.14 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 11% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 15% 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 | 51.0%CMS range 42.9–59.1 | 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 | 8.9%CMS range 6.0–12.4 | 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 | 57.8% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 55.0% | 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 | 53.2% | 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 | 99.2% | 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 | 98.5% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.8% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 1.6% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.0%CMS range 4.3–12.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.75 | 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 192 beds and averages 174.9 residents a day — about 91% occupied, or roughly 17 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 3.65 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.46 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.43 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.33 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.79 on weekdays — 12% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.55 to 0.25 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 44% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
34 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 23 are one tap away and print in full.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2026-05-07 · 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 record review and staff interviews the facility failed to provide an environment free from accident hazards by not assessing the need for hand rail assist bars. This failure created an immediate jeopardy situation and caused the entrapment of one resident who was found deceased with their head and arm between the hand rail and mattress. This failed practice had the potential to affect all residents residing in the long term care facility because all residents except one (1) have the bilateral hand rail assist bar. Resident identifier: #100. Facility census: 174. Findings Include:a) Resident #100A review of the Facility Reported Incident (FRI) completed on [DATE] at approximately 11:00 AM revealed the following:On [DATE] at 10:25 PM upon entering the resident's room, staff noticed the resident's lower body was on the floor but her head was between the hand held assist rail and mattress. Staff immediately placed her back into bed and assessed her. It was determined that this resident had no vitals.…
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 · E2026-05-07 · tag F0700 — patternTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interviews, observation and document reviews, the facility failed to complete an accurate bed rail assessment for a resident.The current assessment did not fully assess resident's risks/needs for side rails. This was true for Resident #100. and had the potential to affect more than a minimal number of residents residing in the long term care facility. Facility Census: 174. Findings included: a) Resident #100During an interview with Facility Administrator on 05/06/26 at 3:27 PM, she reported new beds had recently been obtained for everyone but bariatric residents in the facility and denied that any resident had been assessed for need of bed rails. Side Rail Safety Assessments are completed for the beds quarterly but not for the need of the side rail as it pertain to specific residents. A review of document entitled GSNH-Side Rail Safety Assessment was reviewed with the following questions that were assessed by looking at the bed and/or an Interdisciplinary Team discussing the residents (not assessing the resident in person) per Director of Nursing on 05/06/26 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 · E2025-08-22 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — patternHonor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview, resident interviews, and observation the facility failed to ensure residents knew they had the right to file grievances anonymously. This deficient practice had the potential to affect more than a limited number of residents. Facility Census: 181 Findings included: a) Resident #470 and #26 During facility entrance observation and resident interviews on 08/18/25 at approximately 2:40 PM, Resident #470 stated she did not know how to file a grievance anonymously.In an interview with Resident #26 On 08/18/25 at 2:53PM, She stated she did not know how to file a grievance/complaint anonymously.Based on a record review of Section C of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) records, both Residents #470 and #26 had capacity and was cognitively intact. Based on the facilities Grievance policy and Procedure, the residents have the right to file grievances without discrimination or reprisal. The facility will notify residents individually and through postings on the right to file grievances verbally, in writing, or anonymously. During resident council meeting on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-08-22 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure the resident environment remained as free of accident hazards as possible; and that the resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents. Mounted wall heaters had maintenance access panel covers missing exposing thin sharp metal edges, wires and hot pipes in 3 (three) resident rooms. This failed practice was a random opportunity for discovery. Resident identifiers #58, #146, #33, and #74. Facility Census: 181. Findings Included:a) On 08/18/25 at 11:50 AM, during a facility entrance walkthrough it was observed that the wall mounted heater maintenance access panel covers were missing and exposing thin sharp metal edges, hot pipes, and wires in room [ROOM NUMBER], #343, and #347, where Resident #58, #146, #33, and #74 reside.On 08/20/25 at approximately 9:28 AM, during a walk through and interview with Employee #136, she acknowledged the wall heaters maintenance access panel covers were missing and exposing…
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 · E2025-08-22 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — patternProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, staff interviews and resident interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents receive the help and care they need without waiting long periods of time. This deficient practice had the potential to affect more than a limited number of residents. Resident identifiers: #86, #181, #161, #23, #400, #19, #48, #86, #45, and #99. Facility Census: 181Findings included:a) On 08/18/25 at 2:53PM, In an interview with Resident #26, She stated on Sunday(08/19/25) she had to wait 45 minutes to get staff to take her to the restroom and stated she was going to soil herself. She said I know I wear briefs, but it is not comfortable to wet in them. I try not to if I can help it. She stated that long wait times often happen on the weekends and evening shifts but also sometimes on day shift as well. She also stated that staff will come in and turn off the call light, say they will be right back, leave the room and not return causing her to have to repush the call light button.On 08/21/25 at approximately 11:18 AM Resident # 193's daughter stated that her mother was a resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-08-22 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — patternEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that the recommendations by the pharmacist were reviewed, addressed, responded to, and signed by the physician. Resident identifiers: #16, #1, #15, #23, and #19. Facility Census: 181. a) Resident #16 Resident #16's record review on 08/202/5 at 2:00 PM revealed the following recommendations: On 03/11/25 the Consulting Pharmacist stated: Patient has had significant weight loss. Recommend assessing for weight loss and the possible need for the initiation of medication to help with appetite. There was no review, or acknowledgement of the recommendation by the physician. The recommendation was unsigned. On 07/16/25 the Consulting Pharmacist noted: Patient has had several soft blood pressures located in their vital signs. Recommend adding monitoring/hold parameters for BP (blood pressure) medications. There was no review, or acknowledgement of the recommendation by the physician. The recommendation was unsigned. During an interview with the DON on 08/20/25 at approximately 11:35 AM, a request was made for any…
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 · E2025-08-22 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation and staff interviews, the facility failed to store food in a safe sanitary manner in regard to expired milk and storing medical supplies in the freezer in the resident's pantry. This has the potential to affect more than a limited number of residents. Facility census: 181.Findings Included: a) Kitchen During the initial kitchen tour on 08/21/25 at 11:35 AM observations found: Walk-in refrigerator -found 4 half gallons of milk expired. During an interview on 08/21/25 at 11:40 a.m., the Dietary manager confirmed the milk was expired. During the tour on 08/18/25 at 11:45 AM of the resident pantries found medical Ice packs stored in resident freezers in four (4) of five (5) pantries. An interview on 08/18/25 at 11:45 AM with the Dietary Manager confirmed the medical ice packs should not be stored with resident food.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-08-22 · 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 record review, facility policy review and interview, the facility failed to have a water management plan that followed nationally accepted standards (CDC), and incorporated measures to control and prevent Legionella and other opportunistic waterborne pathogens. Facility Census: 181. Findings Include:a) During an interview on 08/19/25 at approximately 11:13 AM the Maintenance Director (MD) #130 provided legionella testing results for four (4) different locations around the facility. The results were negative. Monthly temperature logs were reviewed. MD #130 provided monthly flushing and disinfection logs for dead ends and unused rooms, equipment and showers, verifying that the facility performed control measures, such as flushing and draining dead ends, and unused showers. MD #130 stated that there had been no outbreaks of Legionella or other waterborne infections. Upon requesting a copy of the facility's Water Management Plan, MD #130 stated that he did not have a copy of the Water Management Plan.…
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 · D2025-08-22 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to promote the resident's right to a dignified existence. Resident #41 was observed in the hallway in only his brief. This was a random opportunity for discovery. Resident Identifier #41. Facility census: 181.Findings Include: a) Resident #41On 08/20/25, at approximately 9:31 AM, Resident #41 was observed in a wheelchair outside his room, wearing only a brief. He was clearly visible to staff and other residents walking down the hallway. Staff members were seen passing by the resident without expressing any concern about his attire. This concern was brought to the attention of Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #24, who responded, I don't know why he hasn't been dressed yet! LPN #24 then went directly to the resident and wheeled him back to his room. She was observed to instruct a Nursing Assistant (NA) to help Resident #41 get dressed. The Director of Nursing was notified of this finding on 08/202/25 at approximately 10:30 AM.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-22 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for room [ROOM NUMBER] and #340. This failed practice was a random opportunity for discovery. Facility Census: 181. Findings included:a) room [ROOM NUMBER]:Upon survey entrance and resident interviews on 08/18/25 at 12:05 PM, a discolored surface of residue build up at the base of the pipe behind the raised toilet seat was discovered. b) room [ROOM NUMBER]:Upon survey entrance and resident interviews on 08/18/25 at 1:05PM, two (2) dried brown substance smears were observed on the right-side wall below the toilet seat.On 08/20/25 at 9:28AM, during a walk through and staff interview with Employee #136, she acknowledged the brown smears in room [ROOM NUMBER]'s bathroom. The discolored residue build-up in room [ROOM NUMBER]'s bathroom was still there, and she stated she would have them taken care of.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-22 · 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 and interview, the facility failed to notify the Office of the Long-Term-Care Ombudsman of the resident's discharge from the facility. Resident Identifier: #188. Facility Census: 181. Findings Include:a) Resident #188The resident was no longer at the facility. A closed record review performed on 08/20/25 at 9:30 AM revealed that the resident was transferred to the hospital on [DATE]. Record review revealed that the resident's Power of Attorney (POA) was notified on 05/24/25. During an interview with Social Worker #183 on 08/20/25, at approximately 1:20 PM, she presented a document that verified the notification of the resident's family members and the responsible party. When asked whether the Ombudsman had been notified, SW #183 indicated that she would need to check for that information.At approximately 10:00 AM on 08/21/25 SW #183 stated that she did not have any documentation to verify that the Ombudsman had been notified.During an interview with the Administrator on 08/21/25, 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.
Show the remaining 23 citations
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-22 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to update the PASARR for Resident #19, after the resident was diagnosed with a major mental disorder after admission to the facility. This was true for one (1) of four (4) residents reviewed for PASARR during the survey process. Resident Identifier: 19. Facility census: 181. a) Resident #19On 08/21/25, a record review of the resident's electronic medical record (EMR), the resident's admission PASARR, dated 08/31/23, indicated no level II was needed. Section lll #30 MI/MR Assessment indicated Other developmental disabilities.A continued record also revealed Resident#19 received a diagnosis of Paranoid Schizophrenia on the diagnosis listed after admission on [DATE] but did not receive a new PAS to address whether specialized services were needed. On 08/21/25 at 11:06 AM, an interview with the Director of Nursing confirmed the PAS presented to the surveyor did not indicate Paranoid Schizophrenia and was never updated.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-08-22 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the clarification of a resident's medication order for a drug that was required to be taken with food h. This was a random opportunity for discovery. Resident Identifier #40. Facility Census: 181.Findings Include: a) Resident #40 Record review on 08/20/25 at 8:59 AM revealed that Resident #40 had the following order dated 05/01/25, prescribed by her physician:Sensipar Oral Tablet 30 MG (Cinacalcet HCl)Give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for elevated calciumThe United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines state the following for administration of Cinacalcet (Sensipar):For all indications, Cinacalcet (Sensipar) should be taken with food or shortly after a meal and should always be taken whole and not divided. Sensipar lowers serum calcium and, therefore, patients should be carefully monitored for the occurrence of hypocalcemia. Potential manifestations of hypocalcemia include paresthesia's, myalgias, muscle cramping, tetany, and convulsions. Serum calcium should be measured within 1 week after…
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 · D2025-08-22 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to follow weight policy and ensure resident weight was accurate and if needed a re weight preformed. Resident #51's weights were not rechecked per policy. This was a random discovery during the survey process and had the potential to effect more then a limited number of residents. Resident identifier: #51. Facility census: 181 a) Resident #51Resident #51 had five weights entered into the charting that should have triggered a re-weigh on that same day, as well as notification to the Medical Doctor. The facility failed to preform the re-weigh or notify the MD per facility policy. Record review on 08/21/25 at 9:55 AM revealed the following:Five weight events of 5% loss / gains from 01/01/25 - 08/12/25 01/01/25 145.8 pounds ( 5.5% (7.6 pounds) from previous weight01/01/25 145.8 lbs, 5.5% / 7.6 lbs from previous weight used by system01/04/25 145.8 lbs, 5.5% / 7.6 lbs from previous weight used by system. 07/01/25 143 lbs, 7% / 10 lbs from previous weight used by system08/04/25 133 lbs, 7% /10 lbs from previous weight used by…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-08-22 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that the recommendations by the pharmacist were reviewed, addressed, and responded to, by the physician. This effected 2 out of 4 residents sampled. Resident Identifier 23 and 1. Census:181 The facility FAILED TO MEET STANDARD as evidenced by:The facility failed to ensure the pharmacist recommendations where address by the physician to ensure medication need or adjustment for residents #1 and #23. There were no copies of the recommendations in the electronic charts, the hard copies had the recommendations in them, but were unsigned by MD for the last two months. Resident (1) Record Review: 08/20/2025 MRR - was not signed into the resident's chart. There was not an electronic or hard copyMissing signature of MD on last two MRR's dated 7/31/25 & 6/30/25 Had sign here tags in place for MDInterview: 8/20/2025Pharmacist stated that they place a copy in the hard chart for the MD to review and sign.Resident (23) Record Review :08/20/2025 MRR - was not signed into the residents chart. MRR - was not signed into the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-06-28 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — patternDevelop 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 medical record review, policy review, resident interview and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the residents had the right to participate and must be given the opportunity to participate in development, review and revision of his/her care plan. This was true for four (4) of 36 reviewed for care plans during the Long-Term Care Survey Process. Resident identifiers: Resident #6, Resident #158, Resident #116 and Resident #43. Facility census: 118. Findings included: A review of the facility policy titled Care Planning-Interdisciplinary Team with a revision date of 04/13/23 read as follows: .3. The resident, the resident's family and/or the resident's legal representative/guardian or surrogate are encouraged to participate in the development of and revisions to the resident's care plan a) Resident #6 During an interview on 06/26/23 at 3:06 PM Resident #6 stated that I have never attended a care meeting or been invited. During an interview on 06/26/23 at 2:48 PM Social Services (SS) #155 stated the care plan meetings are held two (2) weeks after the Minimum Data Set…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-06-28 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — patternProvide activities to meet all resident's needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY . Based on observation, policy review, medical record review, resident interview and staff interview, the facility failed to implement an ongoing resident centered activities program designed to meet the interest of and support the physical, mental and psychosocial well-being of each resident. This practice was found for four (4) of four (4) Residents reviewed for the Activity Care Area during the Long term care survey process. Resident identifiers: #6, #36, #1 and #72. Facility census: 181. Findings included: A review of the facility policy titled Activity Policy with a revision date of 04/13/23 read as follows: .Individualized and group activities are provided that reflect the schedules, choices and rights of the residents. They are offered at hours convenient to the resident, including evenings, holidays and weekends. They reflect the cultural and religious interests, hobbies, life experiences, and personal preferences of the residents. Activities appeal to men and women as well as those of various age groups…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-06-28 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — patternProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to manage pain in accordance with professional standards of practice for one (1) of six (6) residents reviewed for the care area of pain. Resident identifier: #51. Facility census: 181. Findings included: a) Resident #51 Review of Resident #51's medical records showed an order written on 05/30/23 for hydrocodone-acetaminophen every four (4) hours as needed for severe pain [rated] 6-10. The resident had no other pain medication ordered. On the following dates, at the following times, hydrocodone-acetaminophen was given even though the Resident reported her pain level was less than six (6): - 05/31/23 at 6:04 AM, pain level was rated five (5). - 06/04/23 at 3:50 AM, pain level was rated one (1). - 06/08/23 at 6:07 AM, pain level was rated four (4). - 06/13/23 at 2:49 PM, pain level was rated four (4). During an interview on 06/28/23 at 2:22 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed Resident #51 had received hydrocodone-acetaminophen when her pain level was less than the physician-ordered pain level parameters for the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-06-28 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY . Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide Notice of Discharge to the Office of the State Long Term Care (LTC) Ombudsman during a discharge/transfer. This was true for one (1) of one (1) residents reviewed for hospitalization. Resident identifier #178. Facility census 181. Findings included: a) Resident #178 Record review on 06/28/23 at 10:27 AM, revealed Resident #178 was discharged to the hospital on [DATE]. Subsequent review of the Resident #178's medical record showed it did not contain evidence the Notice of Transfer or Discharge was provided to the Ombudsman upon discharge on [DATE]. On 06/28/22 at 10:04 AM during an interview the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed the Ombudsmen was not notified of the discharge on [DATE].
- Potential for harm · D2023-06-28 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the residents Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) reflected the admission diagnosis. This was true for three (3) of five (5) reviewed for the PASRR care area during the Long-Term Care Survey. Resident identifiers: Resident #30, Resident #76, Resident #8. Facility census: 181. Findings included: a) Resident #30 During a record review on 06/27/23 at 10:37 AM, Resident #30's medical record revealed admitting diagnoses of anxiety disorder and bipolar disorder. Further review of the medical record revealed a PASRR dated 09/15/22, Section 30 Current Diagnosis, was coded None. During an interview on 06/27/23 at 2:48 PM with Social Services #155 stated I do not complete the PASRR, I just send it to the state for approval. The physician and a nurse complete them. During an interview on 06/27/23 at 3:09 PM, the DON acknowledged the PASRR was not completed with the diagnosis of bipolar disorder. b) Resident #76 A medical record review on 06/27/23, of the list of admission diagnoses for Resident #76…
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 before2023-06-28 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice by failing to comply with physician's orders. This deficient practice had the potential to affect three (3) of 36 residents reviewed in the long-term care survey sample. Resident identifiers: #60, #43, and #158. Facility census: 181. Findings included: a) Resident #60 Review of Resident #60's physician's orders showed an order written on 07/10/22 for the following laboratory testing every January and July: complete blood count, comprehensive metabolic panel, ferritin, iron, and lipid panel. Review of Resident #60's laboratory results for January 2023 showed results for the complete blood count and comprehensive metabolic panel. No results for the ferritin, iron, and lipid panel were in the resident's medical file. During an interview on 06/27/23 at 4:04 PM, Registered Nurse (RN) #8 confirmed the ferritin, iron, and lipid panel laboratory testing had not been performed in January 2023 as ordered by the physician. b)…
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 before2023-06-28 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY . Based on observation, record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure wander guard devices were properly maintained to prevent elopement hazards. This failed practice was true for one (1) of two (2) Residents reviewed for elopement. Resident identifier: #151. Facility census: 181. Findings included: a) Resident #151 On 06/26/23 at 11:37 AM Resident #151 was observed ambulating throughout the hallway, near the 3 central elevator on 3rd floor. Resident #151 was noted to have a wander guard bracelet in place on the left lower extremity. Record review showed an order dated 02/11/23 to apply accutech [wander guard] bracelet for safety and check every shift for safety. Record review of the facility's policy titled, Safety/Accident Prevention, Accu Check System, not dated, showed that functioning of the transmitters was to be checked weekly. The policy's use statement showed wander guards were to be used to guarantee that residents with cognitive impairment were safe from exiting the building while…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-06-28 · 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
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain an accurate and correct medical record. This was discovered for one (1) of 36 residents reviewed for the area of advance directives. Resident #175 did not have an order for hospice services and the Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order was incomplete. Resident identifier: #175 Facility census: 181. Findings included: a) Resident #175 a1) During a medical record review on 06/28/23, revealed no diagnosis for hospice services on the current physician's orders. Further review indicated the care plan had been updated on 06/26/23 for hospice services. In an interview with Registered Nurse (RN) #164 on 06/28/23 at 12:16 PM, the RN verified there were no current orders for hospice services for Resident #175. a2) A review of the DNR order was found to be incomplete. There was no physician's signature and date, and the Medical Power Attorney (MPOA) signature was not dated. In an interview with Registered Nurse (RN) #100 on 06/27/23 at 8:22 AM, the RN verified the DNR order did not have a physician's signature and there were…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-06-28 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Appropriate hand hygiene was not performed during the pressure ulcer dressing change for one (1) of one (1) pressure ulcer dressing change observations. Resident identifier: #60. Facility census: 181. Findings included: a) Resident #60 Review of the facility's policy statement titled Wound Care indicated the facility's policy for removing the soiled dressing before wound treatment was as follows: - Put on exam glove. Loosen tape and remove dressing. Place dressing in plastic bag. Pull glove over dressing from one hand and then the other. - Remove gloves and place in plastic bag. The policy did not identify that hand hygiene must be performed between removing the soiled gloves and applying clean gloves and before proceeding with the wound treatment. On 06/28/23 at 10:07 AM, observation of Resident #60's left Achilles heel 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 · D2023-06-28 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to document that vaccination education was provided to residents receiving influenza vaccination. This failed practice had the potential to affect three (3) of five (5) residents reviewed for the care area of immunizations. Resident identifiers: #60, #97, and #30. Facility census: 181. Findings included: a) Policy Review Review of the facility's policy titled Prevention and Control of Influenza with a review date of March 2023 stated that residents with capacity or their Medical Power of Attorneys would be given information regarding the benefits and potential side-effects of the immunization. No policy implementation date was given. The policy contained no guidance regarding documentation of that information was provided to the resident. b) Resident #30 Review of Resident #30's progress note showed a note written by Social Worker (SW) #155 on 09/09/22 that stated, 9/7/22. Spoke with [resident's first name]. She would like to receive the flu vaccine. The resident's medical records contained no evidence was found that…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2022-03-30 · tag F0732 — patternPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to display the staffing posting in a prominent place readily accessible to residents and visitors. This was a random opportunity for discovery. Facility census: 178. Findings included: a) Staff Posting On 03/30/22 at 8:37 AM, an observation found no staff postings on the second or third floor of the facility. Review of the facility found there are three (3) floors with seven (7) units where resident reside. The staff posting is unavailable for residents and visitors to readily view on six (6) of seven (7) units. During an interview on 03/30/22 at 8:47 AM, the Human Resources Director #268 revealed the staff posting could only be seen at the main entrance of the building and on One South. On 03/30/22 at 9:38 AM during an interview with the Regulatory Compliance Officer, she verified the staff postings are only located at the main entrance of the building and on One South. .
- Potential for harm · E2022-03-30 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — patternEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation of medication administration, staff interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the facility's medication error rate was less than five (5) percent. Facility staff failed to administer medications according to professional standards for two (2) residents during medication administration contributing to a 10.53 % medication error rate. This deficient practice was a random opportunity for discovery and had the potential to affect more than a limited number of residents. Resident identifiers: Resident # 123 and #89 Census: 178 Findings included: a) Policy review On 03/29/22 the facility policy, titled, Drug Therapy Oral Administration of Medication, no revision date, was reviewed. Under Key Procedural Points, the policy addressed under item 3: Not all tablets or capsules can be crushed. Crushing enteric-coated tablets of time- release capsules destroy their intended effect. If resident has problems swallowing whole tablets or capsules, obtain an order for medications to be given in immediate release liquid or form, if available. Under Section 3 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 · Ecited before2022-03-30 · 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 policy review, observation, medical record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention program to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections including Covid-19 and influenza in regard to precaution signage at resident doors, medication pass, and dietary services. These practices had the potential to affect more than a limited number of residents residing in the facility. Resident identifiers: Resident identifiers: #128, #105, #35 and #84. Room identifier: #224. Facility census: 178. Findings included: Record review of the facility's policy titled, Infection Control, with a revision date of June 2021, showed that signs will be placed on the door to indicate precautions needed prior to entering a residents room. a) Resident #128 An observation on 03/28/22 at 11:14 AM found no signage on Resident #128's door to indicate precautions. On 03/28/22 at 11:14 AM completed the initial tour and interview with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-03-30 · 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 interview, the facility failed to revise a care plan when the resident required increased assistance with meals. Resident identifier: #21. Facility census: 178. Findings included: a) Resident #21 On 03/28/22 at 1:20 PM, observation of resident #21 who did not have a lunch tray. On 03/28/22 at 1:25 PM, interview with Nurse Aide #83 when resident #21 would receive lunch tray and Nurse Aide #83 replied, in a few minutes she requires assistance with meals. On 03/29/22 at 1:00 PM, review of Resident #21 care plan showed resident was able to feed self once the tray was set up. On 03/29/22 at 2:04 PM interview with Administrative Nurse #3 to show Resident # 21 [NAME] to this surveyor and resident # 21 is to have a one (1) person assist for all meals. Resident #21 care plan states Resident #21 is to feed her self once tray is set up. No revision occurred with Care Plan. Administrative Nurse #3 agreed the Care Plan was not updated. On 03/29/22 at 4:20 PM, interview with Director of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-03-30 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and staff interview, the facility failed to meet professional standards of quality when a non-crushable medication was crushed and administered to Resident #142. In addition, the facility failed to ensure Resident #89 had been assessed and approved by the physician to self administer two (2) inhalers. This was a random opportunity for discovery. Resident identifiers: #89 and #142. Facility census: 178. Findings included: a) Resident #89 During an observation of a medication pass for Resident #89 on 03/29/22 at 9:18 AM with Licensed Nurse (LPN) #47 found the two (2) inhalers were placed on the overbed table. This resident removed the inhaler (Combivent a bronchodilator), from the box, shook the inhaler and proceeded to self-administer one (1) puff. Resident #89 wiped out the mouth piece with a tissue and put the inhaler back in the box. Resident #89 then removed the second inhaler (Symbicort a steroid) and proceeded to self-administer two (2) puffs. Again, this resident wiped the mouth piece with a tissue and put the inhaler back in the box. LPN #89 took both…
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 before2022-03-30 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure one (1) of 35 sampled residents reviewed, received treatment and care in accordance with physician's orders. The facility failed to ensure physician's orders were implemented for Resident # 217. Resident identifier: Resident #217. Facility census: 178. Findings included: a) Resident #217 A review of the electronic medical record, on 03/28/22 showed a current physician's order, with a start date of 03/09/22, for Resident #217 to have heels floated at all times when in bed every shift. An observation on 03/29/22, at 8:00 AM, with Licensed Practical Nurse #44 (LPN #44), Resident #217 was lying in bed and had her heels directly on the bed and had not been floated. An interview on 03/29/22 at 8:00 AM, with LPN #44, verified Resident #217 did not have her heels floated as required by the physician's order. .
- Potential for harm · D2022-03-30 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY . Based on observation, staff interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide necessary treatment and services to promote healing of pressure ulcers. This was true for one (1) of six (6) residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. Resident identifier: #103. Facility census 178. Findings included: a) Resident #103 An observation on 03/30/22 at 9:30 AM of dressing changes to Resident #103 right and left heel found there was no dressing on the left heel when Registered Nurse (RN) #32 removed the resident's sock to perform the dressing change. A review of the medical record found Resident #103 had a Physician's order dated 03/16/22 {typed as written} Collagenase Ointment 250 unit/gram Apply to left heel topically every day shift for wound Cover with dry dressing. The treatment administration record (TAR) showed the treatment order date (03/16/22) there was no documentation the dressing was changed on 03/25/22 or 03/26/22 per physician order. A dressing change was documented on 03/29/22, but there was no…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-03-30 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to deliver respiratory care services consistent with professional standards of practice. Oxygen supplies were not stored safely or properly for residents reviewed during the Long-Term Care Survey Process (LTCSP). This was a random opportunity for discovery. Resident identifier: #376. Facility census: 178. Findings included: a) Resident #376 An observation of Resident #376 at 1:00 PM on 03/28/22 found a nebulizer machine on a stand beside the resident. Resident #376 was not using the nebulizer and the tubing and mouthpiece were sitting uncovered on the stand. Another observation on 03/29/2022 at 8:30 AM found Resident #376's a nebulizer mouthpiece and tubing were laying uncovered on top of the nebulizer machine. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #47 was in Resident #376's room. In an interview on 03/29/22 at 8:30 AM, LPN #47 verified the nebulizer mouthpiece and tubing were sitting on the stand and should be placed in a bag to be stored when not in use. In an interview on 03/30/22 at 11:00 AM the Director of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-03-30 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review, staff interview, and policy review, the pharmacist failed to identify irregularities for medications in excessive doses related to Acetaminophen (Tylenol). This was true for one (1) of five (5) residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Resident identifier: #16. Facility census: 178. Findings included: a) Resident #16 A medical record review for Resident #16 found, physician orders as follows for Resident #16: --Tylenol Tablet 325 MG (Acetaminophen) Give 650 mg by mouth every 4 hours as needed for pain with a start date of 12/19/21. --Acetaminophen Elixir Give 10 cc by mouth every 4 hours as needed for general discomfort with a start date of 12/21/21. It's possible for Resident #16 to receive 5850 milligrams of Acetaminophen in one day. On 03/30/22 at 9:58 AM an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) verified there was a potential for Resident #16 to receive an excessive dose of Acetaminophen. She stated that they changed the Acetaminophen order to liquid and didn't discontinue the pill form. .
“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
$27,378 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $27,378 — penalty dated 2026-05-07
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| KIRSCH, DONALD | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 05/01/2012 |
| BANDI, LAWRENCE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 06/24/2007 |
| GATES, ELIZABETH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 03/28/2001 |
| KEOGLER, ANNA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 03/26/2007 |
| YEAGER, MARY BETH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 03/27/1996 |
| BRANSFIELD, MICHAEL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 03/09/2005 |
| CINCINNATI, ANTHONY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 03/26/2007 |
| QUIRK, KEVIN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 03/08/2006 |
| YEAGER, WILLIAMS | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 06/24/2009 |
| MURPHY, MORGAN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 05/01/2017 |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
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 WV
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 West 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 515038. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-22, 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.