CENTER AT EDEN HILL, LLC
For profit - Individual
80 Beds
VERITAS MANAGEMENT GROUP
Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
80/100
#1 of 43 in DE
Photo by The Center at Eden Hill
Photo by Lisa Wildermuth
Photo by Lisa Wildermuth
1 / 7 photos
Last Inspection: June 2024
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Overview
The Center at Eden Hill, LLC has a Trust Grade of B+, which means it is recommended and considered above average. It ranks #1 out of 43 nursing homes in Delaware and #1 out of 7 in Kent County, placing it at the top of the local options. The facility is improving, with the number of issues decreasing from five in 2024 to three in 2025. Staffing is a strong point, as they have a 5-star rating with 38% turnover, which is below the state average, and they offer better RN coverage than 76% of facilities in Delaware. However, there have been some concerns, such as failures to hold required quality assurance meetings and monitor food safety standards, which indicate areas that need attention despite the overall positive ratings and lack of fines.
- Trust Score
- B+
- In Delaware
- #1/43
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 38% turnover. Near Delaware's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Delaware facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 82 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of Delaware nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 21 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
80/100
Top 2%
No red flags
5 → 3 violations
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★★★
5.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★★★★
5.0
Inspection Score
↔
Stable
2024: 5 issues
2025: 3 issues
The Good
-
5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
-
5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (38%)
10 points below Delaware average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Staff Turnover: 38%
Near Delaware avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Chain: VERITAS MANAGEMENT GROUP
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 21 deficiencies on record
May 2025
3 deficiencies
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 F0578
(Tag F0578)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that for three (R38, R76, and R234) out of four residents reviewed for Advance Directives, the facility failed to offer an opportunity to formul...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that for three (R38, R76, and R234) out of four residents reviewed for Advance Directives, the facility failed to offer an opportunity to formulate an advance directive. Findings include:
1. Review of R38's clinical record revealed:
4/30/25 - R38 was admitted to the facility.
5/1/25 - A BIM's assessment was completed for R38 with a score of 15 indicating R38 was cognitively intact.
5/1/25 11:05 AM - A social history assessment was completed for R38 and documented that R38 was a full code and had a general POA. The assessment did not determine if R38 had an advanced directive or wanted to formulate one.
5/14/25 10:38 AM - During an interview, E18 (Clinical Liaison) confirmed that the admitting nurse is responsible to review admission documents with the residents upon admission.
5/14/25 10:42 AM - During an interview, E13 (LPN) confirmed that the admitting nurse is responsible to complete the resident assessments.
5/14/25 12:17 PM - During an interview, E1 (NHA) and E2 (DON) stated that the physician will discuss advanced care options with the residents during an exam.
2. Review of R76's clinical record revealed:
4/23/25 - R76 was admitted to the facility.
4/24/25 - A BIM's assessment was completed for R76 with a score of 15 indicating R76 was cognitively intact.
4/24/25 4:02 PM - A social history assessment was completed for R76 and documented that R76 was a full code. The assessment did not determine if R76 had an advanced directive or wanted to formulate one.
5/14/25 10:38 AM - During an interview, E18 (Clinical Liaison) confirmed that the admitting nurse is responsible to review admission documents with the residents upon admission.
5/14/25 10:42 AM - During an interview, E13 (LPN) confirmed that the admitting nurse is responsible to complete the resident assessments.
5/14/25 12:17 PM - During an interview, E1 (NHA) and E2 (DON) stated that the physician will discuss advanced care options with the residents during an exam.
3. Review of R234's clinical record revealed:
5/9/25 - R234 was admitted to the facility.
5/10/25 12:02 PM - A BIM's assessment was completed for R234 with a score of 15 indicating R234 was cognitively intact.
5/11/25 6:30 AM - A social history assessment was completed for R234 and documented that R234 was a full code. The assessment did not determine if R234 had an advanced directive or wanted to formulate one.
5/14/25 10:38 AM - During an interview, E18 (Clinical Liaison) confirmed that the admitting nurse is responsible to review admission documents with the residents upon admission.
5/14/25 10:42 AM - During an interview, E13 (LPN) confirmed that the admitting nurse is responsible to complete the resident assessments.
5/14/25 12:17 PM - During an interview, E1 (NHA) and E2 (DON) stated that the physician will discuss advanced care options with the residents during an exam.
The facility lacked evidence of offering an opportunity to formulate an advance directive for R38, R76 and R234.
5/20/25 2:15 PM - Findings were reviewed with E1 (ED) and E2 (DON).
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
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, it was determined that for one (R24) out of two residents reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to report the allegations of abuse to the State Agency within tw...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, it was determined that for one (R24) out of two residents reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to report the allegations of abuse to the State Agency within two hours. Findings include:
A facility policy titled, Abuse and Neglect Prohibition last revised October 12, 2022, documented:
1. State Reporting Obligations: The facility will report all allegations and substantiated occurrences of abuse, neglect . to the administrator, State Survey Agency . in accordance with Federal and State law through established procedures. a. If the events that caused the allegation involve abuse .a report is made not later than 2 hours after the management staff becomes aware of the allegation
1. Review of R24's clinical record revealed:
4/15/25 - R24 was admitted to the facility.
4/16/25 - A BIMS assessment documented that R24 was cognitively intact with a score of 15.
5/10/25 - R24 stated that nursing staff touched her inappropriately while taking vital signs.
5/12/25 3:01 PM - E1 (ED) reported the allegation of abuse incident to the State Agency.
5/19/25 9:22 AM - During an interview, E10 (RN) stated that on 5/10/25, E11 (LPN) notified her about an allegation of abuse from R24. E10 stated that she went to interview R24, and R24 stated that a nurse on the overnight shift had touched the side of her breast while taking her vital signs. E10 then stated she let E2 (DON) know that same day. E10 then continued to do interviews for the investigation.
5/19/25 1:35 PM - During an interview, E2 stated that E10 did tell her about the incident from R24 on 5/10/24 and asked E10 to do the investigation. E2 further confirmed this was an allegation of abuse and explained that was why the investigation was started that day.
The report of the alleged abuse was submitted two days after the alleged incident occurred.
5/20/25 2:15 PM - Findings were reviewed with E1 and E2.
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
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review it was determined that for one (R38) out of twenty-four residents reviewed in the investigative sample, the facility failed to follow a physician's order. Findings...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review it was determined that for one (R38) out of twenty-four residents reviewed in the investigative sample, the facility failed to follow a physician's order. Findings include:
1. Review of R38's clinical record revealed:
4/30/25 - R38 was admitted to the facility.
4/30/25 - A physician's order was written for metoprolol tartrate 25 mg give one tablet by mouth two times a day for hypertension and hold for SBP (systolic blood pressure) less than 110 and heart rate less than 60.
5/2025 - The May MAR documented metorprolol tartrate 25 mg given on the following dates when the systolic blood pressure or heart fell outside of the parameters:
-5/11/25 BP 124/59 HR 55.
-5/13/25 BP 128/62 HR 58.
-5/14/25 BP 145/60 HR 55.
-5/15/25 BP 143/62 HR 55.
5/20/25 9:41 AM - During an interview, E5 (NP) stated the expectation with medications not meeting parameters to administer should be reported to the medical provider and the expectation was for the medication to be held. E5 confirmed that she was not aware of R38's medication being held for parameters and confirmed that medication was administered with no adverse effects noted.
5/20/25 10:40 AM - During an interview, E15 (RN) stated the expectation with medications not meeting parameters would be to hold the medication and explain to the resident why it is being held. E15 also stated that the medication being held should be reported to the provider. E15 confirmed that R38's medication was administered from the aforementioned dates.
5/20/25 2:15 PM - Findings were reviewed with E1 (ED) and E2 (DON).
Jun 2024
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, it has been determined that for one (R46) out of forty five residents reviewed for care plans, the facility failed to develop a care plan to address wax build up ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it has been determined that for one (R46) out of forty five residents reviewed for care plans, the facility failed to develop a care plan to address wax build up in the ears. Findings include:
5/18/24 - R46 was admitted to the facility.
5/31/24 11:00 AM - A physician's order written for R46 documented, Debrox Otic (relating to the ear) Solution 6.5% (Carbamide Peroxide) Otic instill five drop (sic) in both ears two times a day for earwax for five days flush with warm water on the fifth day.
6/7/24 10:53 AM - A physician's order written for R46 documented, Debrox Otic (relating to the ear) Solution 6.5% (Carbamide Peroxide) Otic instill five drop (sic) in both ears two times a day for earwax for five days flush with warm water on the fifth day.
6/13/24 10:30 AM - Further review of R46's clinical record lacked evidence that a person centered care plan had been created to address the wax build up in R46's ear.
6/13/24 10:45 AM - During an interview E19 (RN, UM) confirmed that a care plan had not been created for wax build up in R46's ear.
Findings were reviewed during the exit conference on 6/13/24 at 2:30 PM with E1 (NHA) and E2 (DON) and representatives with the Ombudsman office.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined that for one (R3) out of three residents reviewed for ADL (Activities of Daily Living) the facility failed to provide nail care. Fi...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined that for one (R3) out of three residents reviewed for ADL (Activities of Daily Living) the facility failed to provide nail care. Findings include:
A facility policy and procedure titled, Dignity updated, 3/14/24 documented: Patients shall receive assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs) every shift, as appropriate. ADLs include bathing, grooming, dressing, eating, oral hygiene, ambulation, toilet activities and trimming of toenails.
Review of R3's clinical record revealed:
5/15/24 - R3 was admitted to the facility.
5/15/24 - Review of R3's care plan for ADL's revised 5/26/24 documented interventions included provide assistance as needed with grooming, bathing, and personal hygiene and per patient's preferences and R3 required an assist of one for grooming and personal hygiene. Further review of R3's care plan lacked evidence that R3 had refused nail care.
5/17/24 - Review of R3's care plan for confusion/forgetfulness revised 5/26/24 documented interventions included assist as needed.
5/20/24 - An admission MDS assessment revealed R3 was moderately cognitively impaired. R3 required substantial maximum assist of one for showers and bathing and partial moderate assist of one for toileting.
6/6/24 10:30 AM - A random observation of R3's hands revealed dark encrusted debris underneath each fingernail on the right and left hand. Additionally, R3's fingernails were long and needed to be trimmed on both hands.
6/7/24 9:36 AM - During a telephone interview R3's FM1 stated, I have asked them a couple of times to cut them, but the staff just take their time doing things.
6/10/24 9:40 AM - A second observation revealed R3's fingernails on the right and left hand had not been cut and R3 continued to have dark encrusted debris underneath his fingernails.
6/10/24 10:52 AM - During an observation E20 (CNA) entered R3's room. E20 asked [R3], are you ready to get washed up. [R3] said, yes. E20 then left R3's room.
6/10/24 10:55 AM - E20 was observed entering R3's room to provide care.
6/10/24 11:09 AM - During an interview E20 stated, Usually I do nail care if I see that a resident's fingernails are physically dirty, and they need to be cut or if they ask me to while I am doing care, then I would do nail care.
6/10/24 2:10 PM - R3's fingernails remained long on both hands with dark encrusted debris underneath his fingernails on both hands.
6/11/24 8:30 AM - R3's fingernails had not been cut and continued to have dark encrusted debris underneath his fingernails on both hands.
6/11/24 8:33 AM - During an interview and observation E19 (RN, UM) stated, Usually they do an assessment of the nails to see if they need to be cut or when the resident gets their shower. E20 confirmed R3's fingernails were dirty and needed to be cut. E20 updated the staff and requested that R3 be provided nail care.
The facility failed to provide appropriate support and assistance for R3's personal hygiene and grooming when the facility failed to cut and trim R3's fingernails in accordance with R3's documented plan of care.
Findings were reviewed during the exit conference on 6/13/24 at 2:30 PM with E1 (NHA) and E2 (DON) and representatives from the Ombudsman.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review it was determined that for one (R46) out of one resident reviewed for hearing the facility failed to administer ear drops as ordered by the physician for wax build...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review it was determined that for one (R46) out of one resident reviewed for hearing the facility failed to administer ear drops as ordered by the physician for wax build up in R46's ears. Findings include:
R46's clinical record revealed;
5/18/24 - R46 was admitted to the facility.
5/18/24 - A hospitalist progress note documented R46, had left ear pain deep-seated cerumen (wax build up) status post (treated) Debrox (ear wax removal drops).
5/20/24 - A physicians encounter note documented R46, had ear wax and was treated.
5/22/24 - An admission MDS (Minimum Data Set) revealed that R46 was cognitively intact.
5/31/24 11:00 AM - A physician's order written for R46 documented, Debrox Otic (relating to the ear) Solution 6.5% (Carbamide Peroxide) Otic instill five drop (sic) in both ears two times a day for earwax for five days flush with warm water on the fifth day.
6/6/24 11:38 AM - During an interview R46 stated, I have an ear infection and I can't sleep at night because of the pain in my left ear. R46 then said, I have told them, but they are not doing anything about it.
6/7/24 10:53 AM - A physician's order written for R46 documented, Debrox Otic (relating to the ear) Solution 6.5% (Carbamide Peroxide) Otic instill five drop (sic) in both ears two times a day for earwax for five days flush with warm water on the fifth day.
6/10/24 10:29 AM - During an interview E21 (RN) stated, [R46] complained about ear pain about two weeks ago, that was the last time I was here. E21 stated, [R46] has pain medication and he is on Debrox ear drops, now. E21 also stated, [R46] has Melatonin (Sleep Aid) to sleep at night.
6/11/24 11:00 AM - An interview with E19 (RN UM) confirmed R46 had not been administered Debrox ear drops as ordered 5/31/24 through 6/5/24. E19 confirmed the coding used on R46's MAR (Medication Administration Record) was not a code E19 was familiar with. E19 stated, When a medication has been administered by the nurse you will see the nurses' initial and a check mark on the MAR. Additionally, E19 stated, I do not recognize this chart code U-SA this is the first time I have seen this on a MAR.
6/12/24 12:11 PM - A telephone interview with CH1 (Consultant Pharmacist) revealed that Debrox ear drops were delivered to the facility for R46 on 5/31/24 and signed for at 6:24 PM.
6/12/24 1:00 PM - During an interview and observation E2 (DON) stated, I do not recognize the code U-SA on R46's MAR for Debrox ear drops.
6/12/24 3:49 PM - Another interview with E2 confirmed, I can't provide you with the documentation that R46's ear drops were administered 5/31/24 through 6/5/24 as ordered.
The facility failed to ensure that R46 received care and services to aid in the treatment of excessive wax build up and ear discomfort which affected the residents daily living.
Findings were reviewed during the exit conference on 6/13/24 at 2:30 PM with E1 (NHA) and E2 (DON) and representatives with the Ombudsman office.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review and interview, it was determined that for one (R51) out of one resident sampled for respiratory care, the facility failed to provide respiratory care consistent wit...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interview, it was determined that for one (R51) out of one resident sampled for respiratory care, the facility failed to provide respiratory care consistent with professional standards of practice. Findings include:
Review of R51's clinical record revealed:
5/1/24 - R51 was admitted to the facility with multiple diagnoses including a sudden onset of respiratory failure with hypoxia (low oxygen level reaching the body tissues).
5/6/24 - R51's admission MDS assessments revealed that R51 was moderately cognitively impaired and was not on oxygen therapy.
5/12/24 - R51 was care planned for alteration in respiratory status/difficulty in breathing related to sudden onset respiratory failure with hypoxia. Interventions including but not limited to providing oxygen as ordered.
5/29/24 12:31 PM - A nurse progress note documented, .patient is on 4L/min (liters/min) oxygen due to fluctuating O2 Sat (oxygen saturation or level) between 89% to 91% RA (room air) .
5/31/24 1:00 AM- A physician encounter note documented, Pulse Oximetry (measures blood oxygen saturation levels - desired range 94% to 100%) on RA was 97% on 5/31/24 8:25 PM, .Patient also requested to start titrating (continuously measure and adjust the oxygen flow rate) patient off of oxygen .
6/5/24 1:06 PM - Nurse progress notes documented R51 had a respiratory concern and shortness of breath with exertion and was on 2 L/min oxygen therapy.
6/6/24 10:53 AM - R51 was observed sitting in her wheelchair with oxygen in use at 3L/min via nasal canula.
6/8/24 2:54 PM - A nurse progress note documented that R51 had a respiratory concern and shortness of breath with exertion and was on 2 L/min oxygen therapy.
6/9/24 7:28 PM - A nurse progress note documented that R51 was on oxygen therapy at 4L/min.
6/10/24 10:54 AM - During a random observation, R51 was observed with oxygen in use at 4L/min via nasal canula.
6/10/24 - A review of R51's physician's order revealed a lack of evidence of R51's oxygen therapy via nasal cannula (NC).
6/10/24 11:56 AM - During an interview, E5 (LPN) confirmed that R51 did not have a physician's order for her oxygen therapy. In addition, E5 stated, .[R51] still requires oxygen therapy because her oxygen level at room air drops between 89%-90% when we titrate it .We will fix the physician's order and have it clarified.
6/12/24 3:50 PM - Findings were discussed with E2 (DON). E2 confirmed that R51 did not have a physician's order for her oxygen therapy until the surveyor brought it to the facility's attention. E2 presented to the surveyor a copy of R51's new physician order for oxygen therapy dated 6/10/24.
Findings were reviewed during the exit conference on 6/13/24 at 2:30 PM with E1 (NHA) and E2 (DON) and representatives with the Ombudsman office.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview it was determined that for one (R40) out of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medication review the facility failed to ensure adequate monitoring of antipsyc...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview it was determined that for one (R40) out of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medication review the facility failed to ensure adequate monitoring of antipsychotic medication was completed. Findings include:
The facility policy on antipsychotic medication use last updated 2/13/24 indicated, AIMS evaluation to be completed within 14 days of admission, then should also be evaluated for tardive dyskinesia at least every six months.
5/22/24 - R40 was admitted to the facility with multiple diagnoses including, unspecified dementia, psychotic disturbance, and mood disturbance.
5/22/24 - A physicians order was written for R40 to receive an AIMS testing/assessment every 180 days.
5/23/24 - An MRR was completed for R40 with a recommendation that indicated, resident is currently receiving an antipsychotic and requires an AIMS test at baseline and every six months thereafter. The MRR was signed as recognized the same date.
5/25/24 - An admission MDS assessment documented that R40 received antipsychotic medications.
6/1/24 - A care plan for use of antipsychotic medications was created for R40 that included the interventions to complete an AIMS test on admission and as needed. Monitor side effects as needed.
6/10/24 8:15 AM - The surveyor requested an copy of R40's most recent AIMS test. Simultaneously review of R40's medical record, including MAR and progress notes lacked evidence of daily side effect monitoring related to the use of antipsychotic medications.
6/10/24 10:25 AM - An AIMS assessment was completed for R40 and then submitted to the surveyor.
During an interview on 6/10/24 at 12:14 PM, E19 (RN) and unit manager for R40's unit confirmed the finding. E19 stated that AIMS testing is completed, Close to admission then every six months. E19 visualized R40's MAR and confirmed daily monitoring for side effects related to antipsychotic medication was mistakenly absent.
Findings were reviewed during the exit conference on 6/13/24 at 2:30 PM with E1 (NHA) and E2 (DON) and representatives with the Ombudsman office.
Jun 2023
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0790
(Tag F0790)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview it was determined that for one (R45) out of one resident reviewed for dental services, the facility failed to provide assistance with obtaining dental services. Fi...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview it was determined that for one (R45) out of one resident reviewed for dental services, the facility failed to provide assistance with obtaining dental services. Findings include:
The facility policy on dental services, last updated 5/3/22, indicated that The center is responsible for the loss or damage of dentures when the loss or damage is due to the Center staff's misplacement, inadvertent disposal and/or destruction of dentures .Patients with lost or damaged dentures must be referred for dental services within three days.
5/8/23 - R45 was admitted to the facility.
5/22/23 7:37 PM - A
nursing note
in R45's clinical record documented, Patient reported to writer that he was missing his teeth. Staff asked where it might be, he stated that it might be on the tray table or in his sheets when his bed was changed. Staff helped him to look for it and called the kitchen to inform them.
5/24/23 8:00 AM - A
nursing note
in R45's clinical record documented, This nurse just received report that the resident lost his bottom dentures yesterday.
During an interview on 6/20/23 at 10:00 AM R45 stated, I came in with dentures and they lost them. I now have no bottom dentures. They said it's (sic) nothing they can do about it.
6/22/23 - A facility grievance form was created with a documented solution for a scheduled appointment with R45's dentist to have bottom dentures replaced and have them bill the facility cost of dentures/services.
During an interview on 6/22/23 3:46 PM E1(ED) and E2 (DON) confirmed the facility's response to R45's lost dentures as 6/22/23. Both E1 and E2 were not made aware of the lost dentures in May when R45 reported the lost dentures to nursing staff. E2 stated, Until yesterday we didn't know the dentures were missing, we had our scheduler make a dental appointment.
The facility lacked evidence of referring R45 for dental services within the required time frame of three days.
Findings were reviewed during the exit conference on 6/23/23 at 3:00 PM with E1 and E2.
Aug 2021
12 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review it was determined that for two (R3 and R50) out of twenty-two residents in the investigative sample the facility failed to ensure that care plans were revised to r...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review it was determined that for two (R3 and R50) out of twenty-two residents in the investigative sample the facility failed to ensure that care plans were revised to reflect residents interventions. R3's care plan for preferences was not revised to include R3's preferred time to receive morning medications. R50's care plan for skin did not include the intervention for off loading, resistance to care, and refusals to off load. Findings include:
1. Review of R3's clinical record revealed:
5/31/21 - An admission MDS assessment documented R3 as mentally intact.
R3's care plan for personal preferences, last updated on 6/5/21, had a goal to meet R3's personal preferences during his stay, including an intervention of permission given to wake up R3 to administer medications, therapy or other services.
During an interview on 8/9/21 at 8:05 AM, R3 responded No when asked if he can make choices that affect his daily life such as when he receives his medications. R3 then stated, I don't like that they interrupt you with pills while eating they should give them a different time.
During an interview on 8/11/21 at 9:13 AM, E5 (RN) confirmed that R3 prefers all of his medications after breakfast. When asked how other nurses would know this information, E5 responded I tell them in report, the regular nurses should know. E5 was then asked whether R3's preferences care plan included this intervention E5 responded No and stated, I can discuss that with our supervisors and the NP.
Review of R3's care plan for preferences lacked evidence of R3's preference to have medications administered after meals.
2. Review of R50's clinical record revealed:
7/19/21- R50 was admitted to the facility with a pressure ulcer to the right heel.
7/19/21 - An order was written for R50 to have heels off loaded while in bed.
7/20/21 - A care plan for actual skin breakdown, a pressure ulcer to the right heel was created and then revised on 7/30/21. Interventions for the care plan did not include off loading of R50's heels.
8/7/21 - A care plan for being resistive to treatment/care related to mental impairment was created due to refusal of a knee immobilizer and hip abductor pillow at times. There was no documentation in the care plan regarding refusal of a pillow for off loading.
During an interview on 8/11/21 at 11:03 AM, E2 (DON) reported that R59 had a care plan for resisting off loading and stated, The nurse mentioned yesterday surveyors asked about it [off loading], but he is non-compliant. I have him care planned for that.
Findings were reviewed during the exit conference on 8/13/21 at 10:30 AM with E1 (NHA) and E2 (DON).
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined that for one resident (R307) out of two sampled residents for ADLs, the facility failed to help R307, who was dependent with some o...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined that for one resident (R307) out of two sampled residents for ADLs, the facility failed to help R307, who was dependent with some of his ADLs. Findings include:
7/24/21- R307 was admitted to the facility post-acute kidney injury and urinary tract infection.
7/25/21 - The baseline care plan revealed that R307 required extensive assistance for toileting, bed mobility, and was dependent for lower body dressing and transfers. Interventions in the care plan included help with grooming, bathing, and personal hygiene per the resident's preferences. The care plan also stated, I have actual/potential decline in my ability to perform my activities of daily living. Care plan tasks included bathing on Monday and Thursday as needed.
8/8/21 - A Physical Therapy note documented R307 had right sided weakness from an old stroke.
8/11/21 10:0 AM - R307 was observed to be ungroomed and unshaven. The surveyor asked if it was his preference to have a beard, R307 replied no. R307 stated that he had not been bathed or shaved in nine days.
8/11/21 10:49 AM - An interview with E21 (CNA) revealed Residents get bathed twice a week, however, since R307 has not been able to get in the shower, R307 would get a full bed bath twice a week. E21 further revealed that she washes R307 every morning.
8/11/21 11:00 AM - During an observation, R307 commented he had not had a bath in nine days. In an interview with E4 (RN), the surveyor asked what the facility policy was on helping with the shaving of male residents. E4 stated that in the past, the facility had someone who came in and provided this service, but it hasn't been available for a long time. E4 told R307 that if his wife could bring in an electric razor, he would shave him.
8/11/21 12:51 PM - Review of documentation revealed that there were two documented baths since admission and occupational therapy provided both. There was no evidence that nursing had completed a bath on R307.
8/12/21 10:05 AM - In an interview with E2 (DON), she commented that all residents are scheduled for baths twice a week. If they cannot get in the shower for some reason, they would be washed up at the sink or in bed. She said residents get washed up every day unless they refused.
8/12/21 12:00 PM - Review of nursing documentation revealed no evidence that E307 refused bathing.
Findings were reviewed during the exit conference on 8/13/21 at 10:30 AM with E1 (NHA) and E2 (DON).
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
2. 6/18/21 - Resident admitted to the facility
7/7/21 12:35 PM - A physician's order for Eucerin cream was written to be applied to both feet.
8/2/21 4:24 PM - The treatment administration record docu...
Read full inspector narrative →
2. 6/18/21 - Resident admitted to the facility
7/7/21 12:35 PM - A physician's order for Eucerin cream was written to be applied to both feet.
8/2/21 4:24 PM - The treatment administration record documented that the Eucerin cream was not available, and the treatment to R9's feet was not completed.
8/5/21 4:00 PM - During an interview, R9 reported that he had a treatment ordered for his feet that had only been done three times since it was ordered.
8/6/21 11:56 AM - An observation revealed that R9's feet were very dry. R9 again commented that there was a cream that was ordered for his feet, but the treatment had not been done because the cream was not available.
8/6/21 12:00 PM - During an interview, E16 (RN) revealed the cream was not available and that E16 was placing a pharmacy order for it.
8/10/21 8:49 AM - An interview with E6 (LPN) revealed the cream still had not arrived four days later.
8/11/21 8:40 AM - An interview with R9 revealed that the treatment still had not been done to his feet because the cream was not available.
Findings were reviewed during the exit conference on 8/13/21 at 10:30 AM with E1 (NHA) and E2 (DON).
Based on observation, interview and review of facility documentation it was determined that for two (R9 and R39) out of 22 residents reviewed for care and services, the facility failed to provide treatment in accordance with the plan of care. For R39, the facility failed to follow a physicians order for two different dressing changes and for R9, the facility failed to complete treatments to R9's feet. Findings include:
1. Review of R39's clinical record revealed:
a. 7/14/21- A physician's order was written to change R39's PICC line (IV access for long term medications) dressing every seven days and as needed.
7/20/21- An admission MDS Assessment documented R39 as receiving special treatments.
8/5/21 at 3:01 PM - An observation of R39's dressing to the PICC line was dated 7/21/21. The dressing had not been changed in fifteen days.
8/5/21- Interview with E2 (DON) confirmed the PICC line dressing had not been changed and confirmed the physicians order was to change the dressing every seven days and as needed.
b. 8/1/21 - A Physicians order for R39's dressing change to the right and left heel wounds documented to cleanse, apply foam pad, abdominal pad and wrap with ace wrap (elastic compression dressing).
8/2/21 - A wound care physician updated the order for the right and left heel wounds to cleanse, apply foam pad and wrap with gauze dressing.
8/10/21 - Review of the August TAR, last updated 8/2/21, lacked evidence that the treatment order was updated to reflect the changes.
8/10/21 11:42 AM - E19 (LPN) was observed changing R39's dressings to the right and left heel wounds. E19 asked R39 what type of dressing was being used on the right heel. R39 stated, It's a pink square and tape (foam dressing). E19 applied the pink square foam dressing and tape. No gauze dressing was used.
8/10/21 12:10 PM - During an interview with E19 when asked by the surveyor what type of dressings were ordered for R39's feet, E19 was unable to answer and confirmed the physician order was not verified before performing the dressing changes.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, it was determined that for one (R50) out of two residents sampled for pressure ulcer review, the facility failed to ensure that R50 received treatmen...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, it was determined that for one (R50) out of two residents sampled for pressure ulcer review, the facility failed to ensure that R50 received treatment and services to promote the healing of a pressure ulcer when R50's heels where not off loaded as per physicians orders. Findings include:
Review of the facility policy for Pressure Ulcers indicated, . Physician will authorize pertinent orders related to wound treatments.
Review of R50's clinical record revealed:
7/19/21- R50 was admitted to the facility with a pressure ulcer to the right heel and a broken hip.
7/19/21 - An order was written for R50 to have heels off loaded while in bed.
7/20/21 - A physicians progress note for wound care evaluation documented, treatment twice a day and off load in bed .Recommended use of pillows vs (versus) heel boots for off loading.
7/20/21 - A care plan for the actual skin break down and pressure ulcer to the right heel was created and then revised on 7/30/21. Interventions included skin treatments per physician orders.
7/26/21- An admission 5 day MDS assessment documented R50 as requiring extensive assistance of two people for bed mobility and being at risk for pressure ulcers with one unhealed pressure ulcer and the use of pressure reducing devices.
R50 was observed in bed without off loading on the following dates:
8/5/21 1:02 PM - R50's heels were directly on the bed.
8/6/21 8:14 AM - R50's heels were directly on the bed.
8/10/21 12:47 PM - R50's heels were directly on the bed.
8/10/21 1:49 PM - R50's heels were against the foot board.
8/11/21 9:26 AM - R50's heels were directly on the bed.
8/12/21 8:01 AM - R50's heels were directly on the bed.
8/12/21 9:12 AM - R50's heels were against the foot board.
During a wound care observation on 8/10/21 at 2:01 PM, E6 (RN) completed wound care treatment to R50 and when finished, E6 left R50's heel's directly touching the bed. E6 was asked about off loading and responded, No we just place this hip abductor pillow here for his broken hip, that's all.
8/10/21 2:18 PM - E18 (CNA) entered R50's room to obtain R50's weight. E18 then left R50's room without off loading R50's heels. When E18 was asked if R50 was to receive any other interventions to protect his heels, E18 stated, No, I don't think so, just the hip abductor pillow.
During an interview on 8/10/21 at 2:32 PM, E6 (RN) stated, Correction, the order for offloading is a standard protocol and R50's heels should be offloaded. E6 then accompanied the surveyor to R50's room and offloaded R50's heels with a pillow.
During an interview on 8/11/21 at 11:03 AM, E2 (DON) stated, I wanted to show you that I offloaded him. R50 was observed in bed with a heel boot to the right heel and the left heel directly on the bed; a physicians progress note written on 7/20/21 did not recommend the use of heel boots for off loading.
Findings were reviewed during the exit conference on 8/13/21 at 10:30 AM with E1 (NHA) and E2 (DON).
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to store and maintain drugs in accordance with acceptable professional principles by having undated insulin pens in one o...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to store and maintain drugs in accordance with acceptable professional principles by having undated insulin pens in one out of three medication (med) carts that were inspected. Findings include:
The facility policy entitled Medication Storage Policy, last updated 7/1/16, indicated, 12. Insulin products .note the date on the label for insulin vials and pens when first used .
8/6/21 3:30 PM - During observation of the second floor medication cart with E5 (RN), two opened and undated insulin pens were located in the first drawer. This finding was immediately confirmed by E5.
Findings were reviewed during the exit conference on 8/13/21 at 10:30 AM with E1 (NHA) and E2 (DON).
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the accuracy of resident records for one (R3) out of one resident reviewed for dialysis. R3 had admission orde...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the accuracy of resident records for one (R3) out of one resident reviewed for dialysis. R3 had admission orders to receive injections on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays at dialysis. R3 goes to dialysis on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. Findings include:
Review of R3's clinical record revealed:
5/24/21 - admission physician orders for R3 included an order for injections at dialysis on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays.
5/26/21 - R3's dialysis days were scheduled for Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays.
During an interview on 8/11/21 at 10:50 AM, E17 (RN, UM) on R3's floor confirmed the discrepancy for R3's injections to be given at dialysis and stated, I believe there was a change, and it was not updated.
8/16/21 - R3's orders were changed to reflect injections to be given at dialysis on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays.
Findings were reviewed during the exit conference on 8/13/21 at 10:30 AM with E1 (NHA) and E2 (DON).
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 review of facility documentation it was determined that for one (R39) out of one resident reviewed for wound care, the facility failed to ensure proper infection co...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and review of facility documentation it was determined that for one (R39) out of one resident reviewed for wound care, the facility failed to ensure proper infection control practices and handwashing during a dressing change. The facility failed to follow a physician's order for weekly dressing changes and apply protective caps to prevent a PICC line (IV access for long term medications) infection. Findings include:
1. Observation and review of R39's clinical record revealed:
a. 7/14/21- A physicians order included to change R39's PICC line dressing every seven days and as needed.
8/5/21 at 3:01 PM - During an observation of R39's dressing change to the left upper arm, a double lumen PICC line was dated 7/21/21. The dressing was ordered to be changed every seven days and as needed to prevent infection. R39's dressing had not been changed in fifteen days.
8/5/21 - During an interview, E2 (DON) confirmed the PICC line dressing had not been changed and confirmed the physicians order was to change the dressing every seven days and as needed.
b. 8/10/21 11:25 AM - E19 (LPN) was observed performing a dressing change to R39's left foot. E19 entered the room and put on a pair of gloves without performing hand hygiene and then picked up the trash can, contaminating her gloved hands. E19 did the dressing change, removed the gloves and left the room for approximately 30 seconds without performing hand hygiene.
8/10/12 11:42 AM - During a second observation of the right foot dressing change, E19 returned to the room and put on a pair of clean gloves without performing hand hygiene. After the treatment was completed, E19 removed the gloves and exited the room without performing hand hygiene.
8/10/21 12:10 PM - Interview with E19 confirmed that hand hygiene was not performed before or after the dressing changes on the left and right foot.
c. 8/10/21 2:25 PM - An observation of R39's PICC line revealed that only one out of the two lines was covered with the required cap. The uncovered line placed R39 at risk for infection. The facility failed to utilize protective IV caps to ensure a sterile IV PICC line was maintained to prevent infection.
Findings were reviewed during the exit conference on 8/13/21 at 10:30 AM with E1 (NHA) and E2 (DON).
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0943
(Tag F0943)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and review of facility documentation as indicated, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the required training on abuse, neglect, exploitation, misappropriation ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and review of facility documentation as indicated, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the required training on abuse, neglect, exploitation, misappropriation of resident property and dementia was completed for three (E9, E10 and E12) out of 15 randomly sampled staff members. Findings include:
The facility policy entitled . Abuse Investigations, revision indicated, . In-Service Training . All employees are required to attend our facility's resident rights and abuse prevention program in-service training sessions prior to having any resident contact .
1. Review of the facility's staff training log revealed:
E10's most recent abuse training was 7/14/19 and dementia training was 7/11/19.
E9's most recent abuse training was 11/14/19 and dementia training was 11/8/19.
E12's most recent abuse training was 1/16/20 and dementia training was 1/16/20.
8/12/21 at 1:30 PM - During an interview with E3 (Human Resources Director), E3 confirmed the absence of training for the employees listed above. No further evidence of training was provided.
Findings were reviewed during the exit conference on 8/13/21 at 10:30 AM with E1 (NHA) and E2 (DON).
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review, interview, and review of the facility's policy and procedure, it was determined that the facility failed to develop policies and procedures (P & P) for the monthly Medication R...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, interview, and review of the facility's policy and procedure, it was determined that the facility failed to develop policies and procedures (P & P) for the monthly Medication Regimen Review (MRR) that included the time frames for different steps in the MRR process. In addition, the facility failed to ensure that the June 2021 MRR by the Consultant Pharmacist was reviewed by the attending physician for one (R12) out of five sampled residents for unnecessary medication review. Findings include:
1. Review of the facility policy entitled, Pharmacy Services, last updated 12/3/19, failed to include the time frames for different steps in the MRR process and steps the pharmacist must take when he or she identifies an irregularity that requires urgent action to protect the resident and indicated, .The attending physician will document that he/she reviewed the identified irregularity, the action taken to address the irregularity, or the reason for not changing the medication related to the identified irregularity.
2. Review of R12's clinical record revealed:
6/30/21 - An MRR was completed for R12 by the pharmacist that included a recommendation to be responded to by the attending physician.
During an interview on 8/12/21 at 12:22 PM, E2 (DON) confirmed the facility could not provide evidence that R12's 6/30/21 MRR recommendation was reviewed by the attending physician and confirmed the facility policy did not include time frame's for the MRR process.
Findings were reviewed during the exit conference on 8/13/21 at 10:30 AM with E1 (NHA) and E2 (DON).
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 document review, it was determined that the facility failed to monitor food temperatures in accordance with professional standards for food safety for reheating/ h...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and document review, it was determined that the facility failed to monitor food temperatures in accordance with professional standards for food safety for reheating/ holding food items, ensuring sanitary storage of food, protecting quality of food, and maintaining consistent food temperature logs. Findings include:
1. 8/5/21- 8:37 AM - During a tour of the kitchen, the surveyor observed an approximately three (3) inch long icicle attached to the sprinkler head on the ceiling and several patches of frost and ice on the floor of the walk-in freezer. Interview with E14 (Cook) confirmed that occasionally the seal on the door doesn't function correctly causing condensation to form in certain spots in the freezer, which later turns into ice.
2. 8/6/2021 - 10:10 AM - During a review of the food temperature logs, the surveyor observed numerous meals out of five hundred forty-three (543) reviewed for temperatures had no temperatures recorded for the mechanical soft and pureed foods. Temperatures of cooked foods and cold ready to eat foods with alternative food preparation were not being consistently recorded prior to being served. According to the Delaware Food Code regulation 3-501.16 fish, meat, poultry, and vegetables must be heated and held at or above one hundred thirty-five (135) degrees Fahrenheit (F), and cold ready to eat foods must be held below forty-one (41) degrees (F) to maintain food safety.
8/10/2021 - 11:50 AM - Findings were reviewed and confirmed with E13 (Executive Chef).
These findings were reviewed during the exit conference on 8/13/21 at 10:30 AM with E1 (NHA) and E2 (DON).
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0868
(Tag F0868)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and review of facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the quality assessment and assurance committee (QAA) met at least quarterly and inclu...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and review of facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the quality assessment and assurance committee (QAA) met at least quarterly and included all of the required members. Findings include:
Review of the facility's undated QAPI (quality assurance and performance improvement) framework indicated the facility Will conduct quality assurance meetings on a monthly basis.
Review of the facilities QAPI meeting sign in sheets revealed the facility conducted quarterly QAPI meetings on the following dates: 7/23/20, 10/20/20, and 4/16/21. There were 6 months between the October 2020 and April 2021 meetings and there were no subsequent meetings following April 2021.
During an interview on 8/12/21 at 3:12 PM, E1 (NHA) confirmed the facility was not conducting quarterly QA meetings with the required members and stated, The next meeting would have been July.
Findings were reviewed during the exit conference on 8/13/21 at 10:30 AM with E1 (NHA) and E2 (DON).
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0574
(Tag F0574)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview and review of facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents were informed of the ombudsman including contact information and t...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and review of facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents were informed of the ombudsman including contact information and their right to file a grievance/complaint. Findings include:
8/10/21 1:21 PM - During a Resident Council Meeting, three out of three residents did not know the ombudsman's name or what the ombudsman's duties entailed and two out of three of the residents did not know how to file a grievance.
8/10/21 3:00 PM - A tour of the facility revealed that the ombudsman's name was posted at a level that would be difficult for a resident in a wheelchair to see.
8/10/21 3:15 PM - On a tour of the facility, a grievance form was found on the second and third floor nursing stations. They were located chest high when standing, too far up to be seen if sitting in a wheelchair.
8/11/21 9:00 AM - An interview with R9 revealed that he was not made aware of how to file a grievance with the facility.
8/12/21 1:22 PM - The facility admission package provided by E2 (DON), did not include what the ombudsman program is and how residents can file a grievance or complaint.
These findings were reviewed during the exit conference on 8/13/21 at 10:30 AM with E1 (NHA) and E2 (DON).
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
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
Strengths
- • Grade B+ (80/100). Above average facility, better than most options in Delaware.
- • No major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Delaware facilities.
- • 38% turnover. Below Delaware's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
- • 21 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.
✓ Report will be sent to your email
About This Facility
What is Center At Eden Hill, Llc's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns CENTER AT EDEN HILL, LLC an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much above average nationally. Within Delaware, 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 Center At Eden Hill, Llc Staffed?
CMS rates CENTER AT EDEN HILL, LLC's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 38%, compared to the Delaware average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Center At Eden Hill, Llc?
State health inspectors documented 21 deficiencies at CENTER AT EDEN HILL, LLC during 2021 to 2025. These included: 20 with potential for harm and 1 minor or isolated issues.
Who Owns and Operates Center At Eden Hill, Llc?
CENTER AT EDEN HILL, LLC 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 VERITAS MANAGEMENT GROUP, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 80 certified beds and approximately 72 residents (about 90% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in DOVER, Delaware.
How Does Center At Eden Hill, Llc Compare to Other Delaware Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Delaware, CENTER AT EDEN HILL, LLC's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.3, staff turnover (38%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (5 stars) is much above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Center At Eden Hill, Llc?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?"
Is Center At Eden Hill, Llc Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, CENTER AT EDEN HILL, LLC has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 5-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Delaware. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at Center At Eden Hill, Llc Stick Around?
CENTER AT EDEN HILL, LLC has a staff turnover rate of 38%, which is about average for Delaware nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.
Was Center At Eden Hill, Llc Ever Fined?
CENTER AT EDEN HILL, LLC has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.
Is Center At Eden Hill, Llc on Any Federal Watch List?
CENTER AT EDEN HILL, LLC 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.