JEANNE JUGAN RESIDENCE

185 SALEM CHURCH ROAD, NEWARK, DE 19713 (302) 368-5886
Non profit - Corporation 40 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
88/100
#7 of 43 in DE
Share this report: Email Text Facebook WhatsApp
Last Inspection: March 2024

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

Overview

The Jeanne Jugan Residence in Newark, Delaware, has earned a Trust Grade of B+, indicating it is above average and recommended for families considering options. It ranks #7 out of 43 facilities in Delaware, placing it in the top half of the state, and #4 out of 25 in New Castle County, meaning only three local options are better. The facility is improving, with the number of issues decreasing from 7 in 2022 to 3 in 2024. Staffing is a strong point, boasting a 5-star rating and a turnover rate of only 29%, significantly lower than the state average. While there have been no fines, which is a positive sign, the facility has had some concerns including a failure to ensure that a resident received their prescribed medication over several days, and issues with the ventilation in the soiled linen room. Overall, Jeanne Jugan Residence has strengths in staff stability and recent improvements, but families should be aware of some past medication administration issues.

Trust Score
B+
88/100
In Delaware
#7/43
Top 16%
Safety Record
Low Risk
No red flags
Inspections
Getting Better
7 → 3 violations
Staff Stability
✓ Good
29% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 19 points below Delaware's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Delaware facilities.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 110 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
14 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★★★
5.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
↔
Stable
2022: 7 issues
2024: 3 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
  • Low Staff Turnover (29%) · Staff stability means consistent care
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover is low (29%)

    19 points below Delaware average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, staff retention, fire safety.

The Bad

No Significant Concerns Identified

This facility shows no red flags. Among Delaware's 100 nursing homes, only 1% achieve this.

The Ugly 14 deficiencies on record

Mar 2024 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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and review of other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to immediately report to the State Agency for one (R128) out of two residents reviewed for abu...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and review of other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to immediately report to the State Agency for one (R128) out of two residents reviewed for abuse. Findings include: Review of R128's clinical record revealed: 8/23/23 - Review of the facility investigation of an alleged physical abuse revealed the following: - On 8/23/23 2:15 PM, E2 (DON) informed E9 (SW) that R128 reported E15 (CNA) beat her up in her room. E20 (RN) performed a physical check of R128 ' s body from head to toe and reported not finding any bruises that would substantiate R128's allegation. - On 8/23/23 2:50 PM, E9 went to R128's room to discuss the incident with R128. E9 spoke briefly with R128 and inquired about R128's well-being and if R128 wanted to discuss anything. R128 said she was tired and did not feel like having a visit at this time. 8/25/23 11:25 AM - A report was submitted to the State Agency by E4 (ADON). 3/20/24 1:03 PM - During an interview E9 said, .(E3) reported the allegation of abuse to me. In, addition E9 said, .I believe the reporting time for abuse is within 24 hours. 3/20/24 2:15 PM - An interview with E3 confirmed, the facility was aware of the late reporting. In addition, E3 stated that the facility had documented on the five day follow up report submitted to the State Agency, .In the future, allegations of abuse will be reported immediately. The facility failed to ensure that an event reported by a resident of alleged abuse was reported State Agency. in the required two hours. Findings were reviewed with E1 (NHA) and E3 (DON) during the exit conference on 3/21/24 at 3:00 PM.
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 record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure annual completion of abuse training for two (E18 and E19) out of eight staff reviewed. Findings include: The f...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure annual completion of abuse training for two (E18 and E19) out of eight staff reviewed. Findings include: The facility policy on abuse last updated 4/2023 indicated, Staff and volunteers will receive education about resident mistreatment, neglect, and abuse, including injuries of unknown source exploitation, and misappropriation of property upon first employment and annually after that . 3/20/24 10:01 AM - E5 (RN) Inservice Director was provided a worksheet requesting dates of staff training. 3/21/24 Review of the staff training worksheet provided revealed: - E18 last received training for abuse, neglect, and exploitation on 10/14/21. - E19 last received training for abuse neglect, and exploitation on 8/18/22. During an interview on 3/21/24 at 10:49 AM, E5 (RN) Inservice Director, confirmed the finding, and stated, We send out an email blast for them to complete the trainings but they don't return them. Findings were reviewed with E1 (NHA) and E3 (DON) during the exit conference on 3/21/24 at 3:00 PM.
CONCERN (F)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to have measures in place to prevent the growth of Legionella and other opportunistic waterborne pathogens when they did...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to have measures in place to prevent the growth of Legionella and other opportunistic waterborne pathogens when they did not identify areas in the facility where Legionella could grow and spread and failed to establish measures for monitoring of water testing. Findings include: The facility policy for the Legionella Water Management Program, last updated July 2017, indicated As part of the infection prevention and control program, our facility has a water management program .The purposes of the water management program are to identify areas in the water system where Legionella bacteria can grow and spread, and to reduce the risk of Legionnaires disease. The water management program includes the following elements: A detailed description and diagram of the water system in the facility .identification of areas in the water system that could encourage growth and spread of Legionella and other water borne bacteria. The water management program will identify measures that are monitored. 8/19/21- The facility completed testing for Legionella in three areas of the facility. All areas were negative for the presence of Legionella. 3/21/24 12:57 PM - E5 (ICP) confirmed the facility had no current or past cases of Legionella. During an interview on 3/21/24 at 1:19 PM with E5 (ICP) and E12 (Maintenance Director) E12 reported that the facility did random testing however did not identify specific areas that could encourage the growth of Legionella. E12 also confirmed the facility did not have a diagram of the water system that identified possible areas for growth and that the current program did not have an established steps for frequency of water testing. Findings were reviewed with E1 (NHA) and E3 (DON) during the exit conference on 3/21/24 at 3:00 PM.
Oct 2022 7 deficiencies
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 record review, policy review, observations and interview, it was determined that for one (R29) out of 12 sampled residents, the facility failed to ensure that R29 received respiratory care co...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, policy review, observations and interview, it was determined that for one (R29) out of 12 sampled residents, the facility failed to ensure that R29 received respiratory care consistent with her physician orders. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy: Oxygen Therapy, Nasal Cannula revised 8/2018, revealed the following: . Policy Purpose: To improve oxygenation and provide comfort to residents experiencing respiratory difficulties. Policy Procedure: . 6. Attach pre-filled humidifier bottle to flow meter if using concentrator . 7. Attach nasal cannula/face mask tubing to humidifier bottle, if using concentrator . Review of R29's clinical record revealed: 8/27/18- R29 was admitted to the facility with multiple diagnoses including Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). 7/18/22- A physician order was written for Oxygen therapy to be administered to R29 via nasal tubing (nasal cannula) related to COPD with an acute exacerbation (increase of symptoms). 7/19/22- A physician order was written to change the Oxygen tubing and the humidifier every two weeks. 10/19/22- 11:15 AM- R29 was observed to be receiving Oxygen through a nasal cannula attached to an Oxygen concentrator; a humidifier bottle was not attached to the concentrator. 10/24/22- 10:00 AM- R29 was observed to be receiving Oxygen through a nasal cannula attached to an Oxygen concentrator; a humidifier bottle was not attached to the concentrator. 10/25/22- 9:45 AM- R29 was observed to be receiving Oxygen through a nasal cannula attached to an Oxygen concentrator; a humidifier bottle was not attached to the concentrator. 10/25/22- 9:50 AM- During an interview, E6 (LPN) confirmed that R29's Oxygen concentrator did not have a humidifier bottle attached. Findings were reviewed with E1 (NHA) and E2 (DON) during the Exit Conference on 10/27/22, beginning at 3:15 PM.
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, interview and review of the Manufacturers' recommendations as indicated, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a prescribed drug and biological currently in u...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and review of the Manufacturers' recommendations as indicated, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a prescribed drug and biological currently in use must be labeled with the open/discard date to ensure that they are used and disposed of according to the Manufacturers' recommendations. Findings included: Tubersol is a diagnostic biological used to detect Tuberculosis (a potentially serious infectious disease that mainly affects the lungs). According to the Tubersol Manufacturer's package insert (undated), a vial of Tubersol that was opened for 30 days should be discarded. Azelastine is a prescribed medication used to treat allergic rhinitis (stuffy nose/congestion). The Azelastine's Manufacturer's package insert (revised 9/2018) stated, The correct amount of medication in each spray cannot be assured . after 200 sprays have been used, even though the bottle is not completely empty. The bottle should be discarded after 200 sprays have been used . 10/26/22 at 10:45 AM - Observation of Medication Storage with E11 (RN) revealed the following: - an opened multi-use vial of Tubersol with no open date listed; and - an opened prescribed nasal spray medication, Azelastine, for R28 with no open/discard date listed. Findings were immediately confirmed with E11 during the observation and interview. 10/27/22 at 3:30 PM - Findings were reviewed during the Exit Conference with E1 (NHA) and E2 (DON).
CONCERN (E)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

2. Review of R1's clinical record revealed: 10/22/14- R1 was admitted to the facility. 9/5/22- A physician's order was written for Exemestane Tablet 25 mg by mouth daily for breast cancer. 10/17/22 th...

Read full inspector narrative →
2. Review of R1's clinical record revealed: 10/22/14- R1 was admitted to the facility. 9/5/22- A physician's order was written for Exemestane Tablet 25 mg by mouth daily for breast cancer. 10/17/22 through 10/19/22- Progress note: Exemestane Tablet 25 mg. Give 25 mg by mouth in the morning for breast cancer for 90 days after meal awaiting delivery. The 10/1/22-10/27/22 electronic medication administration record revealed that Exemestane Tablet 25 mg was not documented as administered to R1 on 10/17/22, 10/18/22 and 10/19/22. 10/27/22- 2:45 PM- During an interview, E2 (DON) confirmed that Exemestane was not administered to R1 on 10/17/22, 10/18/22 and 10/19/22. Findings were reviewed with E1 (NHA) and E2 during the Exit Conference on 10/27/22, beginning at 3:15 PM. Based on record reviews, interviews and review of the facility policy, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that medications were administered in accordance with the resident care plan and per Physician orders for two (R1 and R30) out of 12 sampled residents. Findings include: Review of the facility policy entitled Medication, Administration, last reviewed August 2018, stated, .20. If medication is ordered but not present: a. Reasonable time for new medications is twenty-four (24) hours if ordered after 4 p.m. or arrival in the Pharmacy Tote during the third (3rd) shift . b. If any discrepancies, phone the pharmacy to inform of not receiving the medication. The nurse must notify their supervisor . Cross refer to F755 1. R30's clinical record revealed: R30 was admitted to the facility in 2018. 4/12/22 - Review of R30's care plan included a potential nutritional problem related to GERD (gastroesophageal reflux disease or acid reflux), including medication as ordered. 6/11/22 - A physician's order was written for Nexium DR (delayed release) 40 mg by mouth every morning for GERD. Review of the electronic Medication Administration Record (eMAR) for August 2022 revealed that Nexium was not administered from 8/15 through 8/23, nine days, despite a Physician's order for it to be given daily. Review of the progress notes from 8/15/22 through 8/23/22 revealed that awaiting (pharmacy) delivery followed by the initials of the assigned nurse was present daily for Nexium. The progress notes lacked evidence that the pharmacy was called, the Nursing Supervisor was notified and/or that the Physician was advised so they had an opportunity to give a new order or state what they wanted to do until the medication was available. 8/25/22 - The above Physician's order was revised and stated stock. The 8/15/22 - 8/23/22 progress notes lacked evidence that Nexium was obtained from stock medications (meds) and/or administered. 10/25/22 at approximately 3:00 PM- E2 (DON) was interviewed. Concerns about the lack of Nexium administration were reviewed and confirmed. When asked what her expectation was, E2 stated the Nurses were to call the Physician to get the medication order changed or advise that they can't get the medication, an example was given for the medication being on back order. Before that, E2 stated that the Nurse should have already called the pharmacy to find out when the medication would be delivered so the Nurse had the information to give to the Physician. The Surveyor asked if there was a document to show if Nexium was signed out for administration from facility stock meds. None was received by the survey exit on 10/27/22.
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 record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide routine pharmaceutical services for acquiring and receiving medication to meet one residents (R30) needs out...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide routine pharmaceutical services for acquiring and receiving medication to meet one residents (R30) needs out 12 sampled. The facility failed to make any attempts to call or contact the pharmacy when R30 ran out of Nexium. As a result, R30 did not receive her Nexium for 9 days from 8/15/22 through 8/23/22. It was unclear whether Nexium was a stock med in the facility at the time and whether it was available to be given in the interim. Findings include: R30's clinical record revealed: Review of the facility policy entitled Medication, Administration, last reviewed August 2018, stated, . 20. If medication is ordered but not present: a. Reasonable time for new medications is twenty-four (24) hours if ordered after 4 p.m. or arrival in the Pharmacy Tote during the third (3rd) shift . b. If any discrepancies, phone the pharmacy to inform of not receiving the medication . Cross refer to F684, example 1 1. R30's clinical record revealed: 6/11/22 - A physician's order was written for Nexium DR (delayed release) 40 mg by mouth every morning for GERD (gastroesophageal reflux disease or acid reflux). Review of the electronic Medication Administration Record (eMAR) for August 2022 revealed that Nexium was not administered from 8/15 through 8/23, nine days, despite a Physician's order for it to be given daily. Review of the progress notes from 8/15/22 through 8/23/22 revealed that awaiting (pharmacy) delivery followed by the initials of the assigned nurse was present daily for Nexium. The progress notes lacked evidence that the pharmacy was called. 8/25/22 - The above Physician's order was revised and stated stock. The 8/15/22 to 8/23/22 progress notes lacked evidence that Nexium was obtained from stock medications (meds) and/or that it was administered. 10/25/22 at approximately 3:00 PM - E2 (DON) was interviewed. Concerns about the lack of Nexium administration were reviewed and when asked what her expectation was, E2 stated the Nurse should have called the pharmacy to find out when the medication would be delivered. The Surveyor asked if there was documentation to show if Nexium was signed out for administration from the facility stock meds. None was received by the survey exit on 10/27/22, however, the Surveyor received a list of meds in facility stock entitled OTC (over the counter) Medications that included Nexium 20 mg. It was unclear how many Nexium capsules were in stock as daily administration would require two 20 mg capsules and if Nexium was removed from stock for R30. E2 confirmed this and stated, We need to come up with a procedure. 10/27/22 at 3:30 PM - Findings were reviewed during the exit conference with E1 (NHA) and E2.
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 observations and interviews, it was determined that the facility did not store food and utensils in a sanitary manner. Findings include: The following were observed on 10/18/22 from 1:10 PM t...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and interviews, it was determined that the facility did not store food and utensils in a sanitary manner. Findings include: The following were observed on 10/18/22 from 1:10 PM to 2:10 PM during the initial kitchen tour: 1. The ceiling tile in the fume hood area was loose. 2. The dry storage area had uncovered fluorescent light bulbs. Findings were reviewed and confirmed with E19 (Food Service Director) on 10/18/22 at approximately 2:00 PM. 10/27/22 at 3:30 PM - Findings were reviewed during the Exit Conference with E1 (NHA) and E2 (DON).
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

3. Review of R1's clinical record revealed: 8/22/14- R1 was admitted to the facility. 8/18/22 to 8/23/22 - R1 was hospitalized . 8/24/22 to 8/29/22 - R1 was hospitalized . Findings were reviewed with...

Read full inspector narrative →
3. Review of R1's clinical record revealed: 8/22/14- R1 was admitted to the facility. 8/18/22 to 8/23/22 - R1 was hospitalized . 8/24/22 to 8/29/22 - R1 was hospitalized . Findings were reviewed with E1 (NHA) and E2 (DON) during the Exit Conference on 10/27/22, beginning at 3:15 PM. Based on interviews and clinical record reviews, it was determined that for three out of four sampled residents (R1, R5 and R30) reviewed for hospitalization/discharge, the facility failed to provide notice of the hospital transfers to the Ombudsman. Findings included: 1. R5's clinical record revealed: 4/26/22 to 4/29/22 - R5 was hospitalized . 10/27/22 at 9:06 AM - During an interview, E5 (SW) confirmed that the Ombudsman's Office was not notified of R5's April 2022 hospitalization. 2. R30's clinical record revealed: R30 was admitted to the facility in 2018. 5/29/22 to 6/10/22 - R30 was hospitalized . 10/25/22 at approximately 3:00 PM - E2 (DON) was interviewed and asked if the Ombudsman was notified of R30's transfer to the hospital. E2 stated, I don't know. 10/25/22 at approximately 3:10 PM - E5 (Social Services) was interviewed and confirmed that she didn't know that the Ombudsman was supposed to be notified when residents were transferred to the hospital or discharged .
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to post the required nurse staffing information r...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to post the required nurse staffing information requirement in a prominent place, readily accessible to residents and visitors for two out of two nursing units. Findings include: 1st Floor Observation 10/27/22 8:50 AM - An observation on the 1st floor Holy Family nursing station, revealed that nursing staffing data was posted on the magnetic white board. The posting lacked the licensed nurses and CNA (Certified Nurse Aide) hours and the resident census of the day. 2nd Floor Observation 10/27/22 8:55 AM - An observation on the 2nd floor St. (saint) [NAME] nursing station revealed that nursing staffing data was posted on the magnetic white board. The posting lacked the licensed nurses and CNA hours and the resident census of the day. Lobby Hallway Observation 10/27/22 9:00 AM - An observation in the corner of the lobby hallway revealed that nursing staffing data was posted on a legal sized paper and the Surveyor could not easily read from a two foot distance. The posting lacked the facility name. In addition, the staffing information was posted in the lobby's corner hallway which was not a prominent place and it was not readily accessible to residents and visitors on the 1st and 2nd floors. 10/27/22 at 12:30 AM - Findings were discussed with E12 (Coordinator) and E13 (HR). Findings were reviewed with E1 (NHA) and E2 (DON) during the Exit Conference on 10/27/22, beginning at 3:15 PM.
Mar 2020 4 deficiencies
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 record review and interview it was determined that for one (R32) out of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications, the facility failed to ensure that physician orders for stool test...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview it was determined that for one (R32) out of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications, the facility failed to ensure that physician orders for stool testing was completed. Findings include: 3/14/18 - A physicians order was initiated to have R32's stool tested for blood every three months. 6/24/19 and 12/17/19 - Progress notes documented that stools tested negative. 3/5/2020 at 2:00 PM - During an interview, E2 (DON) revealed that evidence could not be found that a stool test was completed in September 2019. Findings were reviewed with E1 (NHA), E2 and E3 (ADON) on March 6, 2020 during the exit conference beginning at approximately 3:20 PM.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0697 (Tag F0697)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview it was determined that for one (R33) out of one sampled resident reviewed for pain management, the facility failed to identify the residents pain management goals....

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview it was determined that for one (R33) out of one sampled resident reviewed for pain management, the facility failed to identify the residents pain management goals. Findings include: Review of R33's clinical record revealed: 6/6/18 - A care plan related to pain did not include R33's pain goal. 1/20/2020 - A quarterly pain assessment indicated that R33 had pain. The assessment lacked R33's goal for an acceptable pain level. 1/21/2020 - A quarterly MDS assessment documented that R33 had frequent pain. February 2020 - The most recent orders on the medication administration record documented that R33 took Valium for muscle spasms, Oxycodone for chronic pain, Tylenol for chronic pain and Gabapentin (for nerve pain) for muscle spasms. Orders included: Document pain intensity on a scale of 0-10, 0= no pain and 10 = worst pain possible three times a day. Without assessing a resident for their desired pain goal it would be impossible to determine the effectiveness of the pain management interventions. 3/5/2020 2:15 PM - During an interview with R33 it was established that R33 has chronic pain. During an Interview on 3/5/2020 at 3:00 PM, E4 (RN) revealed that there was a document where the acceptable pain goal was recorded. E4 was unsure where it was currently located since the facility switched to a computerized medical record. During an interview on 3/6/2020 at 3:20 PM with E2 (DON), it was confirmed that R33 did not have a pain goal identified. E2 further revealed that an acceptable pain goal was added to R33's plan of care. These findings were reviewed with E1 (NHA) and E2 during the exit conference on 3/6/2020 at 3:20 PM.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0730 (Tag F0730)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that nurse aide performance evaluations were completed at least once every 12 months for two (E7 and E8) out o...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that nurse aide performance evaluations were completed at least once every 12 months for two (E7 and E8) out of five employees sampled. Findings include: 3/6/2020- Review of employee performance reviews revealed the following: - E7 (CNA) had a hire date of 8/3/12. The most recent date of evaluation was 8/3/18. - E8 (CNA) had a hire date 7/9/13. The most recent date of evaluation was 7/19/18. During an interview on 3/6/2020 at 11:31 AM, E3 (ADON) confirmed that the facility was unable to provide evidence that performance reviews were completed at least once every twelve months for E7 (CNA) and E8 (CNA). These findings were reviewed with E1 (NHA) and E2 (DON) during the exit conference on 3/6/2020 at 3:20 PM.
CONCERN (F)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the laundry room was maintained to prevent contamination of clean laundry. Findings include: 3/2/2020 10:27 AM -...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the laundry room was maintained to prevent contamination of clean laundry. Findings include: 3/2/2020 10:27 AM - An observation of the soiled linen room revealed there was no evidence of negative pressure. E5 (Laundry Supervisor) confirmed there was no negative pressure and stated they were going to follow up with maintenance. 3/2/2020 2:33 PM - An observation of the soiled laundry room revealed there was no evidence of negative pressure. 3/3/2020 2:45 PM - An observation of the soiled linen room showed evidence of negative pressure. 3/6/2020 10:39 AM - An interview with E6 (Maintenance Director) revealed that the motor to ventilate the soiled linen room was not working and it was replaced on 3/3/2020. These findings were reviewed with E1 (NHA) and E2 (DON) during the exit conference on 3/6/2020 at 3:20 PM.
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+ (88/100). 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.
  • • 29% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 19 points below Delaware's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Concerns
  • • 14 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is Jeanne Jugan Residence's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns JEANNE JUGAN RESIDENCE 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 Jeanne Jugan Residence Staffed?

CMS rates JEANNE JUGAN RESIDENCE's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 29%, compared to the Delaware average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Jeanne Jugan Residence?

State health inspectors documented 14 deficiencies at JEANNE JUGAN RESIDENCE during 2020 to 2024. These included: 12 with potential for harm and 2 minor or isolated issues.

Who Owns and Operates Jeanne Jugan Residence?

JEANNE JUGAN RESIDENCE is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 40 certified beds and approximately 20 residents (about 50% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in NEWARK, Delaware.

How Does Jeanne Jugan Residence Compare to Other Delaware Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Delaware, JEANNE JUGAN RESIDENCE's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.3, staff turnover (29%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Jeanne Jugan Residence?

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 Jeanne Jugan Residence Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, JEANNE JUGAN RESIDENCE 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 Jeanne Jugan Residence Stick Around?

Staff at JEANNE JUGAN RESIDENCE tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 29%, the facility is 17 percentage points below the Delaware average of 46%. Low turnover is a positive sign. It means caregivers have time to learn each resident's needs, medications, and personal preferences. Consistent staff also notice subtle changes in a resident's condition more quickly. Registered Nurse turnover is also low at 20%, meaning experienced RNs are available to handle complex medical needs.

Was Jeanne Jugan Residence Ever Fined?

JEANNE JUGAN RESIDENCE 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 Jeanne Jugan Residence on Any Federal Watch List?

JEANNE JUGAN RESIDENCE 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.

JEANNE JUGAN RESIDENCE

185 SALEM CHURCH ROAD, NEWARK, DE 19713 | (302) 368-5886

B+
Trust Grade (88/100)
5.0
CMS Rating
14
Deficiencies

Strengths

  • 5-star staffing
  • Low turnover (29%)

Concerns

  • Review findings

Ask about: Rn Coverage

nursinghomedata.org | Data: CMS November 2025