LAKE PARK HEALTHCARE CENTER

1850 ALICE STREET, OAKLAND, CA 94612 (510) 835-5511
For profit - Corporation 35 Beds ASPEN SKILLED HEALTHCARE Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
53/100
#381 of 1155 in CA
Last Inspection: November 2024

Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.

Overview

Lake Park Healthcare Center has received a Trust Grade of C, which means it is average among nursing homes, ranking in the middle of the pack. In California, it ranks #381 out of 1,155 facilities, placing it in the top half, and #35 out of 69 in Alameda County, indicating that only a few local homes are rated higher. The facility is improving, as the number of reported issues decreased from 9 in 2023 to 3 in 2024. Staffing is a concern, with a turnover rate of 60%, significantly higher than the California average of 38%. However, it boasts good RN coverage, exceeding 88% of state facilities, which helps ensure better resident care. On the downside, the center has incurred $44,421 in fines, higher than 93% of California facilities, signaling compliance issues. Specific incidents of concern include critical failures in food safety practices, where food temperatures were not monitored for all residents, and serious lapses in medication security, where a treatment cart was left unlocked and accessible to residents. Additionally, food storage practices were unsafe, with raw pork stored above ready-to-eat shrimp, raising the risk of foodborne illnesses. While there are strengths in RN coverage and an improving trend, these serious deficiencies warrant careful consideration.

Trust Score
C
53/100
In California
#381/1155
Top 32%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
9 → 3 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
60% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
○ Average
$44,421 in fines. Higher than 60% of California facilities. Some compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 63 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of California nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
Violations
⚠ Watch
18 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★☆
4.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 9 issues
2024: 3 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 60%

14pts above California avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $44,421

Above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

Chain: ASPEN SKILLED HEALTHCARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is elevated (60%)

12 points above California average of 48%

The Ugly 18 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening
Nov 2024 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to follow appropriate infection control practice when reusable resident-care equipment was not cleaned/disinfected in between res...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to follow appropriate infection control practice when reusable resident-care equipment was not cleaned/disinfected in between residents. This failure had the potential to cause resident infection via cross-contamination. During a concurrent observation and interview on 11/5/24, at 7:46 a.m., in the resident bedroom hallway with Licensed Vocational Nurse 1 (LVN 1), LVN 1 took the blood pressure machine out of the drawer, did not sanitize the cuff and stated it was the first blood pressure she took that day. LVN 1 obtained resident 84's blood pressure reading, laid the blood pressure machine/cuff on the cart, prepared Resident 84's medications, and administered them. LVN 1 then obtained Resident 19's blood pressure (taken earlier by the Certified Nursing Assistant), then prepared and administered Resident 19's medications. LVN 1 then picked up the blood pressure machine/cuff and obtained Resident 11's (a resident on Enhanced Barrier Precautions [infection control interventions designed to reduce transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms in nursing homes]) blood pressure readings. LVN 1 returned to the hallway and placed the blood pressure machine/cuff on top of the cart, prepared Resident 11's medications, then administered them. LVN 1 did not clean the blood pressure cuff immediately after use on Resident 11. During an interview on 11/5/24, at 2:17 p.m., with the Infection Preventionist (IP), the IP stated multi-use resident care items such as blood pressure equipment should be sanitized or disinfected between residents to prevent the spread of infection, especially since some of the facility residents have compromised immunity and are on enhanced barrier precautions. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P & P) titled, Cleaning and Disinfection of Resident-Care Items and Equipment, dated 10/2018, the P&P indicated, Reusable items are cleaned and disinfected or sterilized between residents . During a review of the facility's P & P titled, Enhanced Barrier Precautions, dated 6/20/24, the P&P indicated, The facility shall clean and disinfect the non-critical resident-care items or equipment (such as stethoscope, sphygmomanometer [A device used to measure blood pressure, composed of an inflatable cuff to collapse and then release the artery under the cuff in a controlled manner], or digital thermometer) using EPA [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] approved disinfectant or in accordance with the manufacturers and current guidelines before and after use with another resident.
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to properly secure medications and sharp instruments when one treatment cart was left unlocked and unsupervised, in an area where...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to properly secure medications and sharp instruments when one treatment cart was left unlocked and unsupervised, in an area where residents could access it. This failure had the potential for accidental medication administration, ingestion or injury to residents residing in the facility. During an observation on 11/05/24, at 7:46 a.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse 1 (LVN 1) in the hallway, a treatment cart containing topical medications, ointments, scissors, nail clippers, and other treatment supplies was observed unlocked. The treatment cart was situated in between six resident bedrooms and the activity/dining room, and multiple residents passed the treatment cart during this time. The cart remained unlocked while LVN 1 went in four separate resident bedrooms to administer medications, until 11:30 a.m. In an interview on 11/5/24, at 11:30 a.m., with LVN 1, LVN 1 stated the treatment cart contained prescribed medications. During an interview on 11/5/24, at 2:07 p.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated the treatment cart contained medications and items that residents should not have access to, and so it should always be locked when unattended. The DON stated residents with dementia might open drawers and take things out, causing them harm. During review of policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Storage of Medications, undated, the P&P indicated compartments (including, but not limited to drawers, cabinets, rooms, refrigerators, carts and boxes) containing drugs and biologicals shall be locked when not in use, and trays or carts used to transport such items shall not be left unattended if open or otherwise potentially available to others.
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure food was stored and prepared under safe and sanitary conditions when: 1. Dry food items were stored less than 6 inches...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure food was stored and prepared under safe and sanitary conditions when: 1. Dry food items were stored less than 6 inches above the floor. 2. Refrigerated and frozen food items were unlabeled, and undated. 3. Dry food items were past their use by date. 3. Raw pork was stored directly over ready to eat shrimp. 4. There was dark brownish matter inside the resident ice machine, above the ice bin. These failures had the potential to put residents at risk for food borne illness and cross-contamination (transfer of bacteria or other microorganisms from one substance to another) that could have resulted in infection or spread of infection. Findings: During an observation on 11/04/24, at 9:40 a.m., the kitchen refrigerator had an opened container of raw pork directly above and an opened container of ready to eat shrimp. During a concurrent observation and interview on 11/4/24, at 10:13 a.m., with Registered Dietician (RD), the kitchen and food storage were observed. The dry storage had three bulk boxes of cereal stored less than six inches above the floor. RD stated food stored less than six inches above the floor was a risk for contamination. The Freezer had one opened package of hash browns with use by date of 11/1/24, one undated, opened package of bacon, and three unlabeled, undated, opened packages of unknown meats. RD stated frozen food should be labeled and dated. RD stated unlabeled and undated food needed to be thrown out because they did not know how old it was and it was a risk for food borne illness. In the kitchen there was one turmeric seasoning with a 9/10/24 use by date, one white pepper seasoning with a 7/16/24 use by date, one sesame seed seasoning with a 10/6/24 use by date, and one jug of honey with a 9/21/24 use by date. RD stated the seasonings and honey should have been thrown out because they were past their use by dates, and they were a risk for food borne illness. RD stated ready to eat shrimp should not have been stored below raw pork because it was a risk for food borne illness. During an observation on 11/4/24, at 11:59 a.m., the resident refrigerator- freezer was observed. The refrigerator had one bowl of oranges and one plastic container of cake that was not labeled with a resident identifier. The refrigerator had one opened package of butter, one container of soup, and one pack of yogurt not labeled with a resident identifier or date. The freezer had one container of ice cream and two ice cream sandwiches that were not labeled with a resident identifier or date. The freezer had six instant cold packs for injuries and pain stored among resident food. During a concurrent observation and interview on 11/04/24, at 12:10 p.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON), the resident refrigerator- freezer was observed. DON stated all food should have been labeled with date and resident name or room number. DON stated food that was not labeled with date and resident name, or room number were a risk for cross contamination. DON stated the instant cold packs for injuries and pain should not have been in the freezer and were a risk cross contamination. During a concurrent observation and interview on 11/07/24, at 8:59 a.m., with Maintenance Director (MD), the resident ice machine was observed. There was a dark brownish matter on the inside of the ice machine where the ice was made, and above the ice bin. MD stated it looked like mold. During a concurrent observation and interview on 11/07/24, at 9:17 a.m., with Dietary Manager (DM), DM stated the ice machine needed to be shut down, and residents would not get ice from there until it was cleaned and sanitized. During an interview on 11/07/24, at 10:32 a.m., with DM, DM stated the ice machine should have been cleaned and sanitized every six months and as needed. DM stated it was important to keep it clean to prevent food borne illness. During a review of the instant ice pack label, the label indicated, Caution: For external use only . Do not swallow contents. If contents accidentally swallowed drink large amounts of water (not milk) and contact Poison Control Center or physician. The label indicated, Ingredients: Urea blend and water. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Food Receiving and Storage, revised October 2017, the P&P indicated, Foods shall be received and stored in a manner that complies with safe food handling practices. The P&P indicated, Food Services, or other designated staff, will maintain clean food storage areas at all times. The P&P indicated, Food in designated dry storage areas shall be kept off the floor (at least 18 inches) . The P&P indicated, All foods stored in the refrigerator or freezer will be covered, labeled and dated (use by date). The P&P indicated, Uncooked and raw animal products and fish will be stored separately in drip-proof containers and below fruits, vegetables and other ready-to-eat foods. The P&P indicated, Food items and snacks kept on the nursing units must be maintained as indicated . All foods belonging to residents must be labeled with the resident's name, the item and the use by date.The P&P indicated, .toxic substances . will not be stored in the kitchen area or in storerooms for food.
Oct 2023 8 deficiencies 1 IJ (1 facility-wide)
CRITICAL (L)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Someone could have died · This affected most or all residents

⚠️ Facility-wide issue

Based on observation, interview and records review the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 18 out of 18 s...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and records review the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 18 out of 18 sample selected residents (Resident 234, 22, 30, 8, 237, 236, 10, 235, 21, 27, 17, 134, 137, 11, 135, 136, 31 and 138) who were residing at the facility and receiving food from the facility's kitchen when: 1. Facility did not ensure food temperatures were checked before serving to all 18 residents (IJ). 2. Multiple Dietary staff did not wear hair nets and beard nets while working in the kitchen. 3. A Dietary staff did not wash hands upon entering the kitchen. 4. 24 plated foods were stored in the refrigerator without covers and three of three-gallon tub ice creams with no lids were stored in the freezer. 5. Ice Cream freezer had frost around the rim and inside the freezer. 6. Multiple items in the walk-in freezer were undated and unlabeled. 7. [NAME] used water instead of nutrient fluids for making pureed food. These failures had the potential to result in the outbreak of foodborne illness that affected the 18 residents who resided in the facility. On 10/24/23, at 1:16 p.m., the facility Administrator (ADM), Director of Nursing (DON) and Operation Director (OD) were informed of an Immediate Jeopardy situation (IJ - a situation in which the provider's noncompliance with requirements has caused or is likely to cause serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to a resident), for failure to ensure adequate cooking and proper holding temperatures. (Poorly cooked food or food that is not held at appropriate temperatures may promote the growth of pathogens that cause food-borne illness). The IJ lifted on 10/25/23 at 10:30 a.m., when the facility submitted an acceptable plan of action; Dietary manager finished in-servicing kitchen staff on checking food temperature before serving and set up the system in place to record the food temperature for each meal in the kitchen. Findings: A review of the facility's Diet Type Report, dated 10/25/23, indicated 18 residents received food from the facility's kitchen. 1. During a concurrent observation and interview on 10/24/23, at 11:00 a.m., the Head [NAME] (HC) prepared food on plates to pass to staff for serving to residents, and HC did not check the food's temperature before putting the food on the plates. HC stated, we don't check the food temperature, and the facility did not have a temperature log to record the food temperature. During an interview on 10/24/23, at 11:00 a.m., with [NAME] 2, [NAME] 2 stated the facility did not check the food's temperature and did not have a temperature log to record the food temperature. During an interview on 10/24/23, at 11:00 a.m., with the Dietary Manager (DM), DM confirmed that HC did not check the food temperature before serving, the facility did not have a food temperature log and checking the food temperature before serving was important to prevent foodborne illnesses in the residents. During a concurrent observation and interview on 10/24/23, at 11:30 a.m., with DM, surveyor checked the food temperature inside the chafing dishes and the following food items with the following temperatures were observed: the temperature of cooked chicken for chicken sandwiches was 110 degrees Fahrenheit (F-a scale of temperature), the temperature of cooked shrimp for shrimp sandwiches was 85 degrees F, the temperature of cooked sweet potatoes was 100 degrees F, the temperature of cooked spinach was 150 degrees F, and the temperature of the soup was 140 degrees F. A review of the facility menu titled, Lake Park Healthcare Center Weekly Menu: Fall/Winter 2023 Week 2, indicated the menu for the date of 10/24/23 for lunch was Ham and bean soup, Coleslaw, Grilled shrimp po boy or chicken patty sandwiches, sweet potato rounds, southern style spinach, southern fudge pie. A review of the facility's policy and procedure P&P titled, Food Temperatures, undated, indicated . 6. the following range of temperatures is recommended for food at point of tray assembly. a. Broth, soup, hot beverages: 180-190 degrees F, b. Meat, portioned for service: 160 degrees F, Casserole dishes, creamed items, creamed soups: 160 degrees F, Potatoes and vegetables: 160 degrees F, . 2. During an observation on 10/23/23, at 10:14 a.m., [NAME] 1, [NAME] 2 and Chef were not wearing a hairnet/beard net while preparing lunch in the kitchen, and on 10/24/23, at 10:30 a.m., HC was working in the kitchen with a long beard and without wearing a beard net. During an interview on 10/24/23, at 10:30 a.m., with HC, HC stated wearing a beard net and hairnet is important for infection control. A review of the facility policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Personal Hygiene, undated, indicated . if hair is long and not covered properly with the cap, a hair net must be worn . 3. During a concurrent observation and interview on 10/23/23, at 10:14 a.m., Chef entered the kitchen and started to move food out of a shopping bag without washing his hands. Chef confirmed he had not washed his hands prior to moving food out of the shopping bag. A review of the facility policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Personal Hygiene, undated, indicated . Hands must always be washed prior to beginning work . 4. During a concurrent observation and interview on 10/23/23, at 10:14 a.m., 24 plated foods (including: boiled eggs, cheese, ham and vegetables) were stored in the refrigerator without covers, and three-three gallon ice cream tubs had no lids and were stored in the freezer. Chef confirmed the food items were not covered and stated those items needed to be covered for infection control. A review of the facility (P&P) titled, Lake Park Healthcare Center Weekly Menu: Fall/Winter 2023 Week 2, indicated the menu for the date of 10/23/23 for breakfast was scrambled egg or boiled egg, bacon, cream of wheat, breakfast bread, seasonal fruit and Jelly/Margarine. A review of the facility policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Food Storage, undated, indicated . 15. Leftover food is stored in covered containers or wrapped carefully and securely . A review of the facility policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Procedure for Refrigerated Storage, dated 2018, indicated . 5. Food should be covered and stored loosely to permit circulation of air . 5. During a concurrent observation and interview on 10/23/23, at 10:14 a.m., with Chef, ice cream freezer had frost around the rim and inside the freezer. Chef confirmed there was frost around the rim and inside the freezer and stated there should not be any frost in the freezer. DM was not able to provide any policy related to freezer with frost. 6. During a concurrent observation and interview on 10/23/23, at 10:14 a.m., with Chef, three packages of pork and two bags of bread were found undated and unlabeled in the walk-in freezer. Chef confirmed the pork and two bags of bread were undated and unlabeled and stated they should have dates and labels. A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Procedure for Refrigerated Storage dated 2018, indicated . 9. Food items should be arranged so that older items will be used first. Dating the packages or containers will facilitate this practice . 7. During a consecutive interview and observation on 10/24/23, at 11:00 a.m., with HC, HC added water instead of nutritive fluid such as milk or broth to shrimp sandwiches to make puree. HC stated he did not know that he could not add water to make puree. A review of the facility recipe titled, Shrimp Grilled Po Boy-4484, Recipe Summary card, indicated . Puree steps: Remove desired number of servings and add nutritive liquid, milk, broth . A review of the facility policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Pureed Food Preparation, undated, indicated . never use water. Only use nutritive liquids such as broth, milk .
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Comprehensive Assessments (Tag F0636)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool used to guide resident care) was completed within the required timeframes for o...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool used to guide resident care) was completed within the required timeframes for one of 22 sampled residents (Resident 21). Resident 21's annual MDS was not completed within 14 days of the Assessment Reference Date (ARD, a date set to establish a uniform look-back period for all the responses to MDS coding items). This deficient practice had the potential to result in Resident 21 not receiving the appropriate care and services needed based on the resident's current health status. Findings: A review of Resident 21's admission Record, printed 10/26/23, indicated Resident 21 was admitted to the facility in 2022 with diagnosis of hypertension (high blood pressure). During a concurrent interview and record review on 10/26/23, at 10:06 a.m., with the MDS Coordinator, Resident 21's MDS Assessments were reviewed. The MDS Coordinator stated a comprehensive MDS should have been completed and submitted no later than 14 days from the ARD. MDS Coordinator stated Resident 21 had delayed completion and submission of the annual MDS Assessment which indicated an ARD of 8/16/23 and was 57 days overdue. During an interview on 10/26/23, at 10:34 a.m., with the MDS Resource, MDS Resource stated resident assessments should be completed and submitted in a timely fashion to effectively provide appropriate resident care. A review of the MDS Manual, Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Version 3.0 Manual, dated October 2023, indicated, For Annual Assessment (Comprehensive), the MDS Completion Date may be no later than 14 days from the ARD .
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0638 (Tag F0638)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool used to guide resident care) were completed and submitted within the require...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool used to guide resident care) were completed and submitted within the required timeframes for three of 22 sampled residents (Resident 17, Resident 20, and Resident 21). Resident 17, Resident 20, and Resident 21's quarterly MDS' were not completed within 14 days of the Assessment Reference Date (ARD, a date set to establish a uniform look-back period for all the responses to MDS coding items) and were not submitted within 14 days from the completion of the MDS Assessments. These deficient practices had the potential to result in Resident17, Resident 20, and Resident 21 not receiving the appropriate care and services needed based on their current health status. Findings: A review of Resident 17's admission Record, printed 10/26/23, indicated Resident 3 was admitted to the facility in 2022 with diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (a chronic disease that causes severe inflammation of the joints). A review of Resident 20's admission Record, dated 10/26/23, indicated Resident 20 was admitted to the facility in 2022 with diagnosis of dementia (memory loss). A review of Resident 21's admission Record, dated 10/26/23, indicated Resident 21 was admitted to the facility in 2022 with diagnosis of hypertension (high blood pressure). During a concurrent interview and record review on 10/26/23, at 10:06 a.m., with the MDS Coordinator, Resident 17, Resident 20, and Resident 21's MDS Assessments were reviewed. The MDS Coordinator stated a quarterly MDS should have been completed no later than 14 days from the ARD and submitted no later than 14 days from the completion of the MDS Assessment. MDS Coordinator stated Resident 17, Resident 20, and Resident 21 had delayed completion and submission of quarterly MDS Assessments. Resident 17's quarterly MDS Assessment indicated an ARD of 8/18/23 and was 55 days overdue. Resident 20's quarterly MDS Assessment indicated an ARD of 7/29/23 and was 75 days overdue. Resident 21's quarterly MDS Assessment indicated an ARD of 8/12/23 and was 61 days overdue. During an interview on 10/26/23, at 10:34 a.m., with the MDS Resource, MDS Resource stated resident assessments should be completed and submitted in a timely fashion to effectively provide appropriate resident care. A review of the MDS Manual, Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Version 3.0 Manual, dated October 2023, indicated, For Quarterly Assessment (Non-Comprehensive), the MDS Completion Date must be no later than 14 days from the ARD and the Transmission Date (submission of assessment electronically) no later than 14 days from the MDS Completion Date .
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

MDS Data Transmission (Tag F0640)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Discharge Assessment Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool used to guide resident care) were completed no later than 14 cale...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Discharge Assessment Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool used to guide resident care) were completed no later than 14 calendar days after the discharge date and submitted no later than 14 days after the MDS completion for four of 22 sampled residents (Resident 3, Resident 16, Resident 20, and Resident 23). This failure resulted in delayed completion and submission of Resident 3, Resident 16, Resident 20, and Resident 23's MDS Discharge Assessments. Findings: A review of Resident 3's admission Record, printed 10/26/23, indicated Resident 3 was admitted to the facility in 2020 with diagnosis of heart disease. A review of Resident 16's admission Record, printed 10/26/23, indicated Resident 16 was admitted to the facility in April 2023 with diagnosis of metabolic encephalopathy (a condition in which brain function is disturbed). A review of Resident 20's admission Record, printed 10/26/23, indicated Resident 20 was admitted to the facility in 2022 with diagnosis of dementia (memory loss). A review of Resident 23's admission Record, printed 10/26/23, indicated Resident 23 was admitted to the facility in May 2023 with diagnosis of fracture of the right femur (broken thighbone). During a concurrent interview and record review on 10/26/23, at 10:06 a.m., with the MDS Coordinator, Resident 3, Resident 16, Resident 20, and Resident 23's MDS Assessments were reviewed. The MDS Coordinator stated a discharge MDS should be completed and transmitted within 14 days of a resident's discharge. MDS Coordinator stated Resident 3, Resident 16, Resident 20, and Resident 23 had delayed completion and submission of MDS Assessments. Resident 3's Discharge MDS Assessment indicated an ARD of 8/21/23 and was 52 days overdue. Resident 16's Discharge MDS Assessment indicated an ARD of 8/1/23 and was 72 days overdue. Resident 20's Discharge MDS Assessment indicated an ARD of 8/15/23 and was 58 days overdue. Resident 23's Discharge MDS Assessment indicated an ARD of 7/28/23 and was 76 days overdue. During an interview on 10/26/23, at 10:34 a.m., with the MDS Resource, MDS Resource stated resident assessments should be completed and submitted in a timely fashion for a more accurate staffing and quality measure counting. A review of the MDS manual, Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Version 3.0 Manual, dated October 2023, indicated, For Discharge Assessment - return not anticipated (Non-comprehensive), the MDS Completion Date must be no later than 14 days after the discharge date and Transmission Date (submission of assessment electronically) no later than 14 days after the MDS Completion .
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0727 (Tag F0727)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review the facility failed to provide the services of a Registered Nurse (RN) for at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week when the facility did not have RN in a...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to provide the services of a Registered Nurse (RN) for at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week when the facility did not have RN in all weekends since August/2023. This failure resulted in not following the CMS regulation and not having RNs to do the staff supervision, emergency coordinator, physician liaison, as well as direct resident care. Findings: A review of RN schedule for weekends indicated the RN was missing on the schedule for four days on the weekends for the dates of 10/21/23, 10/14/23, 10/7/23 and 10/8/23. During an interview on 10/25/23, at 11:14 a.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON), DON stated that they did not have RN coverage for some days on the weekends. DON stated having an RN is important every day because they need to have supervision of the other facility staff, and that is a requirement of the Centers of Medical and Medicare Services (CMS). DON also stated the facility policy follows the CMS requirement. A review of CMS regulation for the facility's RN schedule indicated §483.35(b) Registered nurse §483.35(b)(1) Except when waived under paragraph (e) or (f) of this section, the facility must use the services of a registered nurse for at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week.
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. A review of Resident 11's admission Record [face sheet] indicated, Resident 11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with mu...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. A review of Resident 11's admission Record [face sheet] indicated, Resident 11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnosis including liver cancer. During an interview on 10/24/23, at 09:59 a.m., Resident 11 stated she did not have any shower since admitted to the facility and she is concerned about her hygiene. A review of Resident 11's Shower Schedule indicated Resident 11 should have received a shower twice a week. During a concurrent record review and interview on 10/25/23, at 11:00 a.m., with the Director of Staff Development (DSD), DSD reviewed the POC Response History [shower sheet] and confirmed that the Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) documented two times showers not applicable on 10/11/23 and 10/17/23. DSD stated CNAs should document resident's shower every time and not document not applicable, instead documenting the showers in detail. DSD was not able to provide any other documents that showed Resident 11 had a shower twice a week. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide the necessary services to maintain good personal hygiene for three of 22 sampled residents (Resident 30, Resident 234, and Resident 11). This failure resulted in Resident 30, Resident 234, and Resident 11's missed scheduled showers and a potential to cause low self-esteem and embarrassment to the residents. Findings: 1. A review of Resident 30's admission Record, dated 10/25/23, indicated Resident 30 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of metabolic encephalopathy (a condition in which brain function is disturbed), prostate cancer, and muscle weakness. A review of Resident 30's clinical record titled, Brief Interview for Mental Status (3.0 BIMS - a brief screener that aides in detecting cognitive impairment), dated 10/9/23, indicated a score of 9 (moderately intact). A review of Resident 30's clinical record titled, Plan of Care (POC) Response History, subtitled, Task: SELF CARE: Shower/Bathe Self and mobility: Tub/Shower Transfer, 30-day look-back, dated 10/22/23, indicated only a bed/towel bath was provided. Further review of Resident 30's clinical record titled, Skin Check Sheet, resident's last recorded shower was dated 9/7/23. A review of the facility's Shower Schedule, indicated Resident 30 was scheduled to have showers two times per week during the morning shift between the hours of 7 a.m.-3:30 p.m During a concurrent observation and interview on 10/23/23, at 10:21 a.m., Resident 30 had a noticeable thick beard and mustache. Resident 30 stated he preferred to be shaved during showers but had not been showered regularly as scheduled. Resident 30 stated his last shower was two weeks ago. During a concurrent interview and record review on 10/25/23, at 9:50 a.m., with the DSD, Resident 30's clinical records were reviewed. DSD stated Resident 30 had no documented showers for at least a month. DSD also stated showers were documented either on POC Response History or Skin Check Sheet. DSD stated the CNAs needed training on documentation, either in POC or the shower sheet, and needed reminders to provide residents showers as scheduled or as needed. 2. A review of Resident 234's admission Record, dated 10/25/23, indicated Resident 234 was admitted to the facility 9/28/23 with diagnoses of metabolic encephalopathy and muscle weakness. A review of Resident 234's clinical record titled, Brief Interview for Mental Status (3.0 BIMS), dated 10/2/23, indicated a score of 12 (cognitively intact). A review of Resident 234's clinical record titled, POC Response History, subtitled, Task: SELF CARE: Shower/Bathe Self and mobility: Tub/Shower Transfer, 30-day look-back, dated 10/22/23, indicated only a bed/towel bath was provided. A review of Resident 234's Care Plan on ADL self-performance and support, initiated on 9/30/23, indicated, Self-Care Deficit as evidenced by - Requiring assistance or is dependent in .Bathing . A review of the facility's Shower Schedule, indicated Resident 234 was scheduled to have showers two times per week during the evening shift between the hours of 3-11:30 p.m. During an interview on 10/23/23, at 10:30 a.m., with Resident 234, Resident 234 stated she had only showered once, which was more than three weeks ago, since admission to the facility. Resident stated she wished she had more showers, at least twice a week. During an interview on 10/25/23, at 11:27 a.m., with the Certified Nursing Assistant 1 (CNA 1), CNA 1 stated regular showers were important to keep the residents refreshed, to check the resident's skin, and to moisturize and avoid skin breakdown. During an interview on 10/24/23, at 2:10 p.m., with the Director of Staff Development (DSD), DSD stated residents were showered at least two times a week, during morning or evening shift, and were provided bed baths during non-shower days. A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Shower Policy, indicated, It is the policy of this facility to shower or bathe residents at least two times per week and identify any pertinent skin issues with residents during routine inspections of residents at shower/bath times .
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to: 1. maintain an accurate accountability sheet that documented the number of controlled substances (Diazepam tablets) that sho...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to: 1. maintain an accurate accountability sheet that documented the number of controlled substances (Diazepam tablets) that should be available for destruction and 2. provide pharmaceutical services including the provision of routine medications to meet the needs of one of seven (Resident 19) sampled Residents. These failures had the potential to cause diversion of controlled medication (illegal use of medication not intended by the provider) and adverse health outcomes related to incorrect medication administration. Findings: 1. A review of Resident 19's Controlled Drug Record indicated that Resident 19 was discharged from the facility on 10/10/23 with sixteen tablets of diazepam (controlled medication for treatment of anxiety) 5 mg tablets. During a concurrent observation and interview on 10/24/23, at 2:32 pm, with the DON (Director of Nursing), in the DON's office, it was observed there were additional diazepam tablets for Resident 19 stored in her office cabinet for destruction. The DON counted a total of 30 diazepam tablets, but there was no controlled accountability sheet associated with the medication. The DON stated that every controlled drug medication should have an accountability sheet, but she could not find one for the diazepam tablets belonging to Resident 19. During a concurrent interview on 10/24/23, at 2:37 pm, the DON stated when a controlled medication is in need of destruction, both the nurse and the DON would review and fill out the accountability sheet to verify the quantity to be destroyed. The DON stated when the medication is given to the DON for destruction, the accountability sheet and the medication are then kept in a locked cabinet in the DON's office to be verified and destroyed with their pharmacist later. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Controlled Medication Storage, dated 8/2014, the P&P indicated, Current controlled medication accountability records are kept at nursing station. When completed, accountability records are kept on file for 1 year at the facility.
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and document reviews, the facility failed to ensure its medication error rate was less than 5...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and document reviews, the facility failed to ensure its medication error rate was less than 5% for two of seven sampled residents (Resident 22 and Resident 234) when the medication error rate was 16/67%. This failure had the potential for adverse health outcomes related to incorrect medication administration. Findings: 1. During an observation on 10/23/23, at 10:06 a.m., Licensed Vocational Nurse 1 (LVN 1) administered a Multi-vitamin with Mineral Tablet, Aspirin (reduces pain, swelling and inflammation) 81 mg chewable tablet to Resident 22, but did not administer Solifenacin Succinate (used to treat bladder problems) Oral Tablet 5 mg to Resident 22. During a record review of Resident 22's Order Summary Report, dated 10/23/23, the Order Summary Report indicated, Multivitamin & Mineral Oral Liquid (1 ml by mouth one time a day), Solifenacin Succinate Oral Tablet (5 mg by mouth one time a day), and [NAME] Aspirin Oral Tablet (no strength in mg noted, 1 tablet by mouth one time a day). During a record review of Resident 22's Medication Administration Record (MAR), dated October 2023, the MAR indicated, [NAME] Aspirin Oral Tablet (no strength listed) and Multi-vitamin & Mineral Oil Liquid was administered to Resident 22 on 10/23/23 at 9:00 a.m. The MAR also indicated, Solifenacin Succinate Oral Tablet was administered to Resident 22 at 10/23/23 at 9:00 a.m. During an interview on 10/23/23, at 2:17 p.m., with LVN 1, LVN 1 stated the facility did not carry [NAME] Aspirin so she gave what she assumed to be correct (Aspirin 81 mg) to Resident 22. LVN 1 stated she should have confirmed the strength of the medication with the physician. LVN 1 also stated that the facility did not have Multi-Vitamin Liquid & Mineral Oil Liquid on hand, so she gave the caplet form so that the resident received the medication. LVN 1 stated she thought she gave Solifenacin Succinate Oral Tablet to Resident 22 and stated, I must have missed that one. A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Administering Medications, dated December 2012, the P&P indicated, Medications must be administered in accordance with the orders, including any required time frame. 2. During an observation on 10/23/23, at 10:51 a.m., with LVN 1, LVN 1 gave Resident 234 Calcium + Vitamin D (maintains bone and heart health) 500 mg/200 IU Caplet but did not give 10 mg Prednisone (reduces inflammation) Oral Tablet or Lovenox (prevents formation of blood clots) injection as ordered. LVN 1 also applied a Lidocaine 5% (prevents pain) patch to Resident 234's right shoulder. During a record review of Resident 234's Order Summary Report, dated 10/23/23, the Order Summary Report indicated, Lidocaine External Patch (5% apply to left ankle topically one time a day for pain and remove per schedule), Lovenox Injection Solution Prefilled Syringe (40mg/0.4ML inject subcutaneously one time a day), Oyster Shell Oral Tablet (500 mg 2 tablets by mouth two times a day) and Prednisone Oral Tablet (10 mg 1 table by mouth one time a day for pain). During a record review of Resident 234's Medication Administration Record (MAR), dated October 2023, the MAR indicated Lovenox Injection and Prednisone Oral Tablet was not administered to Resident 234 on 10/23/23 at 9:00 a.m. The MAR also indicated the Lidocaine Patch 5% was applied to Resident 234's right shoulder and Resident 234 was administered Oyster Shell Tablet 500 mg at 9:00 a.m. on 9/23/23. During an interview on 10/23/23, at 2:27 p.m., LVN 1 stated that although there is no order for Lidocaine Patch to be placed on right shoulder, she applied it there because the resident requested it. LVN 1 stated she could not administer the Lovenox and the Prednisone to Resident 234 because the facility did not have it in stock. She stated that the medications were ordered from the pharmacy, but they did not always arrive timely, especially prior to weekends. LVN 1 stated that she gave Calcium 500 mg + Vitamin D to Resident 234 (instead of the ordered medication Oyster Shell 500 mg), because that is what the facility had on hand. During an interview on 10/24/23 at 10:36 a.m., Licensed Vocational Nurse 2 (LVN 2) stated medications for Resident 234 (Lovenox Injection and Prednisone tablet) were not yet received from pharmacy, and Resident 234 had not received the medications again on this date. LVN 2 stated that she often had to call the pharmacy to prompt them to send medications in a timely manner. A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Administering Medications, dated December 2012, the P&P indicated, Medications must be administered in accordance with the orders, including any required time frame.
Oct 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0806 (Tag F0806)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide food that accommodated resident ' s preferenc...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide food that accommodated resident ' s preferences for one of four sampled residents (Resident 1). This failure had the potential to result in inadequate food intake, weight loss, and emotional distress. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included fracture of the right second metatarsal bone (long bone of the second toe), anemia (lower than normal amount of healthy red blood cells), and chronic migraine. During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a resident assessment instrument used to identify resident care problems to be addressed in an individualized care plan.) dated 9/6/23, the MDS indicated a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS, a scoring system used to determine the resident's cognitive status in regard to attention, orientation, and ability to register and recall information) score of 15 (a BIMS score of 13-15 is an indication of intact cognitive status). During an interview on 10/5/23 at 10 a.m. with Resident 1, Resident 1 expressed frustration over getting food items that were not her preferences. Resident 1 stated telling Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) what food items Resident 1 could not have because of her multiple medical conditions. Resident 1 stated everybody in the facility knew she could not have onions, bell peppers, pineapples, anything spicy, anything that had breading, food that had vinegar, and fried foods. Resident 1 stated being frustrated, agitated, and angry about food served. During an interview on 10/5/23 at 10:33 a.m. with CDM, CDM stated Resident 1 was screened for any food preferences within 48 hours after admission to the facility. CDM stated Resident 1's dietary preferences included baked or grilled plain fish or white chicken only and no peppers. CDM stated, the past days, CDM did random meal tray checks before the Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) served the trays and caught the kitchen staff two times of not following what was written on the meal ticket. During a review of Resident 1's Dietary Profile/Malnutrition Risk Tool dated 8/31/23, the Dietary Profile/Malnutrition Risk Tool indicated Resident 1's food groups included meat and milk/dairy. Food Preferences was left blank with no responses. During a concurrent observation and interview on 10/5/23 at 11:43 a.m. with Resident 1, the lunch tray for Resident 1 was observed. There was a cup of sliced mixed fruits; a bowl of vegetable salad with a light brown dressing in a separate small plastic cup; a cup of hot water; a packet of green tea; and a plate of rice, plain chicken breast, and snow peas. The small bowl of vegetable salad had shredded red bell pepper and onions. Resident 1 stated the tray was typical of what Resident 1 had been served since being admitted to the facility. Resident 1 also stated she did not know what dressing came with the salad. The meal ticket that came with the lunch tray indicated Resident 1's dislikes included onions and bell peppers. The meal ticket also indicated olive oil and lemon juice only for salad dressing. During an interview on 10/5/23 at 12:15 p.m. with Pantry Staff (PS), PS stated she made the Asian salad from shredded cabbage, carrots, almonds, red onions, green and red bell peppers, and fried noodles. PS stated she did not follow a recipe for it and made the salad from memory. PS also stated there were three kinds of vegetable salads that were served alternately that included Asian salad, which was served during lunch time; mixed green salad from shredded carrots, cucumber, cherry tomatoes, and salad dressing; and Caesar salad from romaine lettuce, parmesan cheese and croutons. During an interview on 10/5/23 at 12:18 p.m. with Dietary Services Director (DSD), DSD stated the kitchen staff were used to following recipes from the old food service company even after a new company took over. DSD stated kitchen staff did not want to follow the new recipes from this new company, they just made food from memory. DSD stated PS chopped up vegetables, tossed them all in one big bowl, divided in smaller portions and served to the residents. DSD stated Resident 1's salad was served with toasted sesame dressing and not olive oil and lemon juice as indicated in the meal ticket. DSD stated the facility did not have written policy and procedure to address residents' food preferences.
Aug 2022 6 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, interviews, and document reviews, the facility failed to be free of medication error rate of five percent or greater for two medication errors observed out of 27 opportunities w...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and document reviews, the facility failed to be free of medication error rate of five percent or greater for two medication errors observed out of 27 opportunities when gloves were not worn during the administration of a Lidocaine patch (medication used for pain) and eye drop medication administration policies and procedures were not followed. The medication error rate was calculated as followed: two divided by 27 then multiplied by 100, which was equal to 7.4 percent. This failure had the potential for the spread of infection and a decreased medication therapeutic effect for the affected residents. Findings: A review on the facility's the policy and procedure, dated 5/16, titled, Medication Administration Transdermal Delivery Systems (Patches) indicated, the patch is in place and maintaining proper placement of the patch and care of the application sites .PROCEDURES .Perform hand hygiene .Put on gloves . During an observation on 08/09/22, at 8:30 a.m., Licensed Vocation Nurse (LVN) 1 was observed not putting on gloves prior to the administration of a Lidocaine 4% patch. LVN 1 applied the Lidocaine patch to Resident 1 without having gloves on her hands. During an interview on 08/09/22, at 10:00 a.m., LVN 1 was asked why she had not put on gloves prior to applying the Lidocaine 4% patch. LVN 1 stated she did not know it was required per policy. LVN 1 stated it makes sense since you do not want the medication absorbed through the hands. LVN 1 also acknowledged it could also be an infection control issue. If her hands are not cleaned properly and gloved, she could spread infection. A review of the facility's policy and procedure, dated 5/16, titled, Medication Administration Eye Drops, indicated, To administer ophthalmic solution into the eye in a safe and accurate manner . Shake the eye drops container .Do NOT let tip of dropper touch the eye or any other surface .Instruct resident to close eyes slowly to allow for even distribution over surface of the eye .While the eye is closed, use one finger to compress the duct in the inner corner of the eye for 1-2 minutes. This reduces systemic absorption of the medication. Alternatively, the resident may keep his/her eyes closed for approximately three minutes . During an observation on 08/09/22, at 9:00 a.m., LVN 1 administered one eye drop of Brimonidine (medication used to lower pressure in the eye) to each of Resident 2's eyes. LVN 1 did not shake the eye drop container prior to administration. LVN 1 touched the tip of the dropper to Resident 2's eyelashes. LVN 1 did not compress the duct in the inner corner of the eyes for one to two minutes or ask Resident 2 to keep their eyes closed for approximately three minutes. During an interview on 08/09/22, at 10:05 a.m., with LVN 1, LVN 1 stated she did not shake the eye drop container prior to administration. LVN 1 stated she might have touched the tip of the dropper to Resident 2's eyelashes; however, LVN 1 stated she was trying to give the drop quickly because of Resident 2's history of non-compliance. LVN 1 further said she had forgotten to compress the duct in the inner corner of the eyes or ask Resident 2 to close their eyes for approximately three minutes.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store and label food safely when Refrigerator #1 (Ref #1) had two boxes of lactose free milk and one soy original milk with n...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store and label food safely when Refrigerator #1 (Ref #1) had two boxes of lactose free milk and one soy original milk with no labeled open dates and times. This deficient practice placed the residents at risk for food borne illnesses. Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/8/22, at 9:25 a.m., with Director of Dining Services (DSS), in the kitchen, it was observed that in Ref #1, there were two opened boxes of lactose free milk and one opened box of original soy milk that did not have the open date and time on it. DSS stated they put the date received on the boxes but do not put the open date and time on the milk. DSS stated they follow the manufacturer's best by date indicated in the box to determine when it would be discarded. During a concurrent interview and policy review, on 8/9/22, at 10:37 a.m., with DSS, the facility's document titled, Food Safety Management System: PQA-Food Product Shelf-Life Guidelines, dated 01/28/2022 was reviewed. The Food Safety Management System: PQA-Food Product Shelf-Life Guidelines indicated, Milk Substitutes can be stored in the refrigerator for seven to ten days days, if opened. DSS confirmed to determine the seven to ten day time period, there should be an open date placed on the milk boxes.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Antibiotic Stewardship (Tag F0881)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and document review, for one of nine sampled residents (Resident 1), the facility failed to ensure a resident was monitored during the use of antibiotic (medication used to treat ba...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and document review, for one of nine sampled residents (Resident 1), the facility failed to ensure a resident was monitored during the use of antibiotic (medication used to treat bacterial infections) when Resident 1 was prescribed amoxicillin (antibiotic medication) and was not monitored. This failure resulted in the potential for prolonged and unnecessary use of the antibiotic for Resident 1. Findings: During an interview on 8/9/22, at 1:08 p.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1, LVN 1 stated there were two residents currently on antibiotics LVN 1 was aware of, a resident who had surgery and the other resident had a tooth procedure. LVN 1 stated she received the antibiotic order from the doctor, and the doctor tells her when to start and stop the medication. LVN 1 stated she was not responsible to do a review of infections treated with antibiotics. LVN 1 stated there were two residents currently on antibiotics, one resident received antibiotic for surgery and the other for a tooth procedure. During an interview on 8/9/22, at 2:43 p.m., with the Infection Preventionist (IP), the IP stated she was the Antibiotic Steward, hired a month ago. The IP stated the Antibiotic Stewardship binder was not in order and the facility did not track the necessary information. IP stated, they are not following McGreer's (a criteria that evaluates for infection). The IP stated antibiotics should have a system to monitor for the name of antibiotic, what is used for, when it was started, and when the medication should end. The IP stated everyone on an antibiotic should be tracked, even those who used it to preserve health and prevent the spread of an infection. Review of the physician's order, dated 6/22/22, for Resident 1, it indicated the order, AMOXICILLIN 500 MG CAPSULE NOTES: [None], Instructions: [None], Therapeutic Range: [None], Quantity: 1, Route: Oral, Frequency: two times daily starting 06/22/22, Status: Active (current); DC [discontinue] date: [no end date], Class: [None]. Review of the facility's policy and procedure, titled, Antibiotic Stewardship - Review and Surveillance of Antibiotic Use and Outcomes, revised on December 2016, indicated, Antibiotic usage and outcome data will be collected and documented using a facility-approved antibiotic surveillance tracking form. The data will be used to guide decisions for improvement of individual resident antibiotic prescribing practices and facility-wide antibiotic stewardship . 1. As part of the facility antibiotic stewardship program, all clinical infections treated with antibiotics will undergo review by the infection preventionist, or designee. 2. The IP or designee, will review antibiotic utilization as part of the antibiotic stewardship program and identify specific situations that are not consistent with the appropriate use of antibiotics. a. Therapy may require further review and possible changes if: (1) the organism is not susceptible to antibiotic chosen; (2) the organism is susceptible to narrower spectrum antibiotic; (3) therapy was ordered for prolonged surgical prophylaxis; or (4) therapy was started awaiting culture, but culture results and clinical findings do not indicate continued need for antibiotics. 3. At the conclusion of the review, the provider will be notified of the review findings. 4. All resident antibiotic regimens will be documented on the facility-approved antibiotic surveillance tracking form. The information gathered will include: a. resident name and medical record number; b. Unit and room number; c. date symptoms appeared; d. name of antibiotic; e. start date of antibiotic; f. pathogen identified; g. site of infection; h. date of culture; i. stop date; j. total days of therapy; k. outcome; and l. adverse events.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0888 (Tag F0888)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to develop policies and procedures to address COVID-19 (an infectious disease spread by person to person through respiratory d...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to develop policies and procedures to address COVID-19 (an infectious disease spread by person to person through respiratory droplets) vaccinations for their nursing registry staff. This failure had the potential for registry staff to spread COVID-19 infection to the residents and the facility's regular staff. Findings: During an interview on 8/8/22, at 10:30 a.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 2, LVN 2 stated she was from the registry and worked on-call at the facility to work eight or 12 hour shifts. During an interview 8/10/22, at 11:00 a.m., with the Administrator (ADM), the ADM stated the facility used a lot of registry personnel (licensed nurses and certified nurse assistants) and did not keep a log or verify their COVID-19 vaccination statuses. ADM stated the registry agency checked vaccination statuses of the registry personnel beforehand and sent them to work at the facility. During an interview on 8/9/22, at 10:30 a.m., with the Infection Preventionist (IP), IP stated she was new and started a month ago. The IP provided the document, titled, COVID-19 Staff Vaccination Status for Providers. The IP stated COVID-19 vaccinations for registry staff was not included on the document because the registry agency verified their vaccination statuses. IP stated the Executive Director (ED) kept track of the vaccination statuses because the building was being sold. IP further stated it was the facility and IP's responsibility that registry staffs' COVID-19 vaccinations statuses were verified. During an interview and concurrent record review on 8/10/22, at 11:00 a.m., with the ED, the ED stated the building was in the process of being sold and she kept track of all the facility's paperwork. A review of the ED's untitled and undated document, indicated a list of staff names of COVID-19 vaccinations tracked. The list was organized according to departments: Admin, Health Unit, Assisted Living, Facility Operations, and Dining Services. The list did not include registry staff names or any titles. The ED provided the COVID-19 Mitigation Plan and stated the facility follows this as their policy and procedure for staff vaccinations. Review of the facility's policy and procedures titled, Mitigation Plan and Plan for Epidemic Outbreak Specific to COVID-19 Mitigation Plan Report, dated 3/8/22, indicated it did not include a system to track and securely document COVID-19 vaccination status for all staff. Another document, titled, Lake Park SNF [Skilled Nursing Facility] Facility Assessment Plan, 2022, dated 8/18/22, indicated, Infection Control-Infection prevention and control program. The facility must establish an infection prevention and control program that must include, at a minimum, the following elements: (a) A system for reviewing, identifying, reporting, investigating and controlling infections .to all residents, staff, volunteers, visitors and other individuals providing services under a contractual arrangement based upon facility assessment conducted according to accepted national standards.
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Comprehensive Assessments (Tag F0636)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** During a review of Resident 1's MDS Section C, dated 7/21/22, the MDS Section C indicated, a Brief Interview for Mental Status n...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** During a review of Resident 1's MDS Section C, dated 7/21/22, the MDS Section C indicated, a Brief Interview for Mental Status needed to be conducted. MDS Section C indicated Repetition of Three Words, Temporal Orientation, and Recall was coded with a dash line and the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS-screening used to assist with identifying a resident's current cognition) Score was coded with a zero and a dash. During a phone interview on 8/11/22, at 9:41 a.m., with MDS Coordinator, MDS Coordinator stated, when a dash is coded for Section C, it means the interview with the resident has been scheduled but it was not done and a coding of a zero and a dash in the BIMS score means that the interview was not done. 4. During a review of Resident 157's MDS Section A, dated 7/21/22, the MDS Section A indicated, Resident 157's type of assessment was an admission Assessment and Resident 157 was admitted on [DATE]. During a review of Resident 157's MDS, undated, the MDS indicated, that the following sections were blank: Sections B, C, D, E, F, G, GG, H, I, J, M, N, O, P, Q, S, and V. During a phone interview on 8/11/22, at 9:41 a.m., with MDS Coordinator, MDS Coordinator stated the MDS was not done for Resident 157 in July 2022. MDS Coordinator stated, if the coding is blank, it means the assessment was not done. MDS Coordinator further stated Section Z reflected what assessments were done and who completed the assessment. During a review of Resident 157's Section Z (Assessment Administration), undated, MDS Section Z indicated sections A and K were completed. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Resident Assessments, dated November 2019, the P&P indicated, A comprehensive assessment of every resident's needs is made at intervals designated by OBRA [Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, also known as the Nursing Home Reform Act of 1987] and PPS [Prospective Payment System] requirements. The P&P also indicated, a. OBRA required assessments=conducted for all residents in the facility: (1) Initial Assessment (Comprehensive)- Conducted within fourteen (14) days of the resident's admission to the facility. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure four of nine sampled residents' (Resident 112, 107, 1, and 157) admission (an assessment within 14 calendar days after admission) or Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS, a comprehensive assessment of each residents' functional capabilities and helps nursing home staff identify health problems) assessments were completed when: 1. Resident 112's admission MDS assessment was not completed, 2 Resident 107's Annual MDS assessment was not completed, 3. Resident 1's MDS Section C (Cognitive Patterns) was not completed, and 4. Resident 157's admission MDS assessment was not completed. These failures had the potential for Residents 112, 107, 1, and 157 to not receive individualized plan of care based on their physical, mental, and emotional needs. Findings: 1. A review of the Resident 112's Admission MDS assessment, dated 7/18/22, with an observation end date of 7/25/22, indicated the following sections were not filled and fully completed: Section C-Cognitive Patterns, Section D-Mood, Section F-Preferences for Customary Routine and Activities, Section G-Functional Status, Section H-Bladder and Bowel, Section I-Active Diagnoses, Section J-Health Conditions, Section L-Oral/Dental Status, Section M- Skin Conditions, Section N-Medications, Section O-Special Treatments, Procedures, and Programs, Section P-Restraints and Alarms, and Section S-California [Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatments--POLST]. During an interview on 8/11/22, at 9:47 a.m., with the MDS Coordinator, MDS Coordinator stated Resident 112's admission assessment should have been completed on 7/24/22, which was 14 days after Resident 112's admission to the facility. MDS Coordinator stated Resident 112's MDS is still open. The MDS Coordinator stated MDS assessments needed to be completed timely, to help develop the care plan for the resident and for also CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) to have access to residents' data. 2. A review of Resident 107's Annual MDS assessment, with an observation end date of 7/25/22, indicated the following sections were not filled and fully completed: Section C- Cognitive Patterns- C1310 Signs and Symptoms of Delirium, Section E- Behaviors- E0100 Potential Indicators of Psychosis, Section F-Preferences for Customary Routine and Activities, Section G- Functional Status, Section H- Bladder and Bowel, Section J- Health Conditions, Section L- Oral/Dental Status, Section M- Skin Conditions, Section N- Medications, Section O- Special Treatments, Procedures, and Programs, Section P- Restraints and Alarms, and Section S-California [Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatments--POLST]. During an interview on 8/11/22 at 9:47 a.m., the MDS Coordinator stated Resident 107's Annual assessment was not completed, and it was overdue.
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to follow its pneumonia vaccine policy and procedure for four of nin...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to follow its pneumonia vaccine policy and procedure for four of nine sampled residents (Resident 109, 110, 112, 113) when Residents 109, 110, 112, and 113 were not offered the pneumonia vaccination and their immunization records were not updated. This failure had the potential for vulnerable residents in the facility to become exposed to bacteria that causes serious infections in the lungs, ears, sinuses, brain/spinal cord tissue, and blood. Findings: Review of the facility's Resident Immunization Record, indicated Resident 113 received a pneumococcal vaccine on 7/13/2016 at the acute care hospital, Resident 109 received the pneumococcal vaccine on 11/24/14 at the acute care hospital, Resident 112 received the pneumococcal vaccine on 1/15/15 at the acute care hospital, and Resident 110 received the pneumococcal vaccine on 3/28/16 at the acute care hospital. During an interview on 8/10/22, at 11:15 a.m., with the Infection Preventionist (IP), the IP stated she looked in all the areas where updated pneumonia vaccine records could be kept with no success. IP stated Residents 109,110, 112 and 113 were not updated with their pneumonia vaccines and Residents 109, 110, 112, and 113 were overdue for their next pneumococcal vaccine. Review of the facility's policy, titled Pneumococcal Vaccine, revised on October 2019, it indicated, All residents will be offered pneumococcal vaccines to aid in preventing pneumonia/pneumococcal infections. 1. Prior to or upon admission, residents will be assessed for eligibility to receive the pneumococcal vaccine series, and when indicated, will be offered the vaccine series within thirty days of admission to the facility unless medically contraindicated or the resident has already been vaccinated. 2. Assessments of pneumococcal vaccination status will be conducted within five working days of the resident's admission if not conducted prior to admission. 3. Before receiving a pneumococcal vaccine, the resident or legal representative shall receive information and education regarding the benefits and potential side effects of the pneumococcal vaccine. Provision of such education shall be documented in the resident's medical record. 4. Pneumococcal vaccines will be administered to resident (unless medically contraindicated, already given, or refuse: per facility's physician-approved pneumococcal vaccination protocol. 5. Residents/representatives have the right to refuse vaccination, If refused, appropriate entries will be documented in each resident's medical record . Review of the undated facility document, titled, Administering Pneumococcal Vaccines (PCV13 and PPSV23) to Adults, indicated to assess adults age [AGE] years or older for the need of the pneumococcal vaccination.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
  • "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), $44,421 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 18 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $44,421 in fines. Higher than 94% of California facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
  • • Grade C (53/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 53/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Lake Park Healthcare Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns LAKE PARK HEALTHCARE CENTER an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered above average nationally. Within California, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.

How is Lake Park Healthcare Center Staffed?

CMS rates LAKE PARK HEALTHCARE CENTER's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 60%, which is 14 percentage points above the California average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 64%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Lake Park Healthcare Center?

State health inspectors documented 18 deficiencies at LAKE PARK HEALTHCARE CENTER during 2022 to 2024. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 17 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Lake Park Healthcare Center?

LAKE PARK HEALTHCARE CENTER is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by ASPEN SKILLED HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 35 certified beds and approximately 28 residents (about 80% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in OAKLAND, California.

How Does Lake Park Healthcare Center Compare to Other California Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in California, LAKE PARK HEALTHCARE CENTER's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (60%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Lake Park Healthcare Center?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the facility's high staff turnover rate.

Is Lake Park Healthcare Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, LAKE PARK HEALTHCARE CENTER has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in California. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Lake Park Healthcare Center Stick Around?

Staff turnover at LAKE PARK HEALTHCARE CENTER is high. At 60%, the facility is 14 percentage points above the California average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 64%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Lake Park Healthcare Center Ever Fined?

LAKE PARK HEALTHCARE CENTER has been fined $44,421 across 7 penalty actions. The California average is $33,523. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Lake Park Healthcare Center on Any Federal Watch List?

LAKE PARK HEALTHCARE CENTER is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.