FOULK LIVING

1212 FOULK ROAD, WILMINGTON, DE 19803 (302) 478-4296
For profit - Corporation 46 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
83/100
#6 of 43 in DE
Last Inspection: February 2024

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

Overview

Foulk Living in Wilmington, Delaware, has a Trust Grade of B+, which means it is above average and recommended for families considering this nursing home. It ranks #6 out of 43 facilities in the state, placing it in the top half, and #3 out of 25 in New Castle County, indicating it has only two local competitors that are better. The facility is improving, reducing its issues from 11 in 2022 to 8 in 2024. Staffing is a strength here with a perfect 5-star rating, a low turnover rate of 12% compared to the state average of 42%, and more registered nurse coverage than 79% of Delaware facilities. However, $19,837 in fines is concerning, suggesting some compliance problems, and recent inspections revealed serious issues, including a resident sustaining multiple fractures due to unsafe transport and concerns about food safety and pest control in the kitchen. Overall, while Foulk Living has many strengths, families should be aware of these weaknesses as they make their decision.

Trust Score
B+
83/100
In Delaware
#6/43
Top 13%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Better
11 → 8 violations
Staff Stability
✓ Good
12% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 36 points below Delaware's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$19,837 in fines. Higher than 93% of Delaware facilities. Major compliance failures.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 75 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
19 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★★★
5.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2022: 11 issues
2024: 8 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Low Staff Turnover (12%) · Staff stability means consistent care
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover is low (12%)

    36 points below Delaware average of 48%

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

The Bad

Federal Fines: $19,837

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

The Ugly 19 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Feb 2024 8 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, it was determined that for one (R1) out of six residents reviewed for accident hazards and falls, the facility failed to ensure R1's environment was free from acc...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, it was determined that for one (R1) out of six residents reviewed for accident hazards and falls, the facility failed to ensure R1's environment was free from accident hazards as possible. On 6/28/23, while being driven back to the facility in a borrowed transport van from another facility, an accident occurred which resulted in R1 sustaining multiple fractures. The unsafe facility transport caused R1 harm. Based on review of the facility's evidence to correct the non-compliance and the facility's substantial compliance at the time of the current survey, the deficiency was determined to be past non-compliance as of 7/5/23. Findings included: R1's record revealed: 9/8/21 - R1 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including, but not limited to, cancer and difficulty in walking. 5/31/23 - A significant change MDS assessment documented that R1 was cognitively intact with a BIMS of 15. 6/28/23 - The facility's incident report and investigation revealed that after attending a social outing, R1 was being driven back to the facility when the transport van driver tapped the brake causing R1's wheelchair to propel forward and R1 to slide out of the wheelchair onto the van's floor. R1 was returned to the facility where 911 was called and fire company EMS (Emergency Medical Services) transported R1 to the hospital. 6/28/23 11:08 AM - Per C1's (hospital Forensic Nurse Examiner) notes, R1 arrived at the hospital after a motor vehicle collision with complaints of right and left leg pain. Reportedly R1 stated, I fell out of my wheelchair when the bus stopped short. 6/28/23 1:17 PM - The hospital record documented, [R1] was on a transportation van when it came to a sudden stop causing [R1] to fall out of [R1's] wheelchair striking [R1's] head and bilateral lower extremities. The record documented findings of a frontal contusion and abrasion no active bleeding left lower extremity medial aspect of calf large laceration with exposed adipose tissue measuring approximately 15 cm by 10 cm. [R1's] right lower extremity with 2 linear lacerations to the lateral aspect of [R1's] lower leg approximately 10 cm in length bleeding noted dressing applied .[R1] is complaining of significant pain to [R1's] left lower extremity with any movement. 6/28/23 3:00 PM - R1's facility progress note documented, At around 10:20 (AM) received a call from the receptionist that 'a resident fell in the van outside'. Rushed to the assisted living entrance and the transportation van pulled up and noticed [R1] lying on the foot bed of the van supine in front of her wheelchair. [R1] verbalized that she slid from the wheelchair during the van transport and that her legs hurt. Denies any LOC (loss of consciousness), or head injury. [R1] was awake and oriented to person, place, time and situation. Laceration noted laterally on bilateral shins. Scant amount of blood noted, no active bleeding noted. Nurse Practitioner [E30] in the building made aware, ordered to ok to send [R1] to the hospital. Emergency Service called and [R1] picked up by . fire company EMS (Emergency Medical Service). [R1's family member] . made aware of the incident and verbalized that she would meet [R1] at the hospital. 6/28/23 11:34 PM - Per the hospital record, R1 was transferred to another hospital after the previous facility noted bilateral open tibia-fibula fractures that occurred earlier that day when R1 was being transported in a wheelchair and not strapped in causing [R1] to fall out of the wheelchair. The hospital record documented a need for surgical repair. 6/28/23 - The facility's documented immediate actions in response to R1's transport accident included the following: - canceled all other appointments and resident transport for the day; - suspension of the driver [E18] because the preliminary investigation indicated that [E18] did not follow safety protocol .; - observation of the van and wheelchair immediately after the incident revealed that the shoulder strap was not fastened; - training initiated and completed by the plant manager [E21] on proper and safe medical transport; and - initiation of an investigation of the incident. 6/28/23 - The facility's in-service training documentation included the following: - Loading and Unloading Non-Ambulatory Wheelchair Passenger Policy (operating the wheelchair lift, positioning the wheelchair in the vehicle, attaching the two rear securement straps, attaching the two front securement straps, attaching the lap belt, attaching the shoulder belt); - Wheelchair Securement Checklist; and - Training (must include and frequency). The in-service training was completed on the same day, 6/28/23, of R1's accident. 6/29/23 - The hospital records documented that R1 was . going to the operating room for ORIF bilateral periprosthetic proximal tibia fractures today. 7/5/23 - R1 was readmitted to the facility from the hospital. 7/5/23 - The facility's documented plan of correction as a result of the investigation was: - the van driver [E18] was terminated; - root cause analysis - was determined to be related to driver's [E18] negligence by breaching his duty of care to the resident by not applying a restraint device when it was ordinary, prudent and reasonable. This action resulted in the resident sliding out of the wheelchair when the transportation van slowed down; - care plan changes - residents care plan was updated to include safe resident transport. Interventions for this goal was to have resident properly fastened in the wheelchair transportation vehicle; - systemic changes - trained drivers with best practices for loading and unloading non-ambulatory wheelchair passengers to safety. Specifically, all drivers returned demonstration of attaching the shoulder belt. Before each transport the driver must utilize wheelchair securement checklist to ensure residents are secured in transport vehicle. 2/26/24 10:23 AM - During an interview with E1 (DON, interim NHA), with E2 (ADON) and E4 (Corporate Clinical Specialist) present, On 6/28/23, we received a call from the front desk asking if nurses could come to the parking lot STAT. We went outside and I [E1] saw [R1] sitting in the van on the floor, the wheelchair was behind [R1] and [R1] was half lying and half sitting, and both legs were crooked and bleeding. I immediately called 911 and we tried to stop the bleeding. R1 was asked if she was in any pain and R1 denied pain. R1 did say that the van floor was hard on her back. I noticed that the wheelchair was stuck In the van and that R1 was not strapped in. I immediately asked the driver [E18] if he strapped [R1] in, he said that he did not and that he didn't know why he did not. I called her daughter . We did vital signs which were normal and wrapped her legs to stop the bleeding. The fire company was here quickly - they got here before the paramedics. 2/26/24 2:53 PM - During a follow-up interview with E1, with E2 and E4 present, the plan of correction was initiated on 6/28/23 and completed on 7/5/23. 2/26/24 at 2:55 PM - Based on the Surveyor's review of the facility's thorough investigation, documented response, completion of audits from 7/7/23 to 11/24/23, staff interviews and no further transportation incidents, R1's accident was determined to be past non-compliance harm. 2/26/24 3:15 PM - Findings were reviewed at the exit conference with E1, E2 and E4.
CONCERN (D)

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

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, it was determined that for one (R42) out of one resident reviewed for hospitalization, the facility failed to notify the resident and the resident's representativ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, it was determined that for one (R42) out of one resident reviewed for hospitalization, the facility failed to notify the resident and the resident's representative in writing, of R42's transfer to the hospital, including the reason for the transfer. Findings include: Review of R42's clinical record revealed: 1/11/24 - R42 was admitted to the facility. 1/16/24 - R42 was transferred to the hospital because of a decline in physical and mental condition. R42 was admitted to the hospital and was discharged back to the facility on 1/19/24. 2/22/24 2:20 PM - During an interview, E23 stated that she provided a verbal communication to R42's representative of R42's hospital transfer, including the reason for the transfer. E23 stated that a written communication was not provided. 2/26/24 3:15 PM - Finding was reviewed at the exit conference with E1 (DON, Interim NHA), E2 (ADON), and E4 (Clinical Specialist).
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

PASARR Coordination (Tag F0644)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interviews, it was determined that for one (R3) out of one reviewed for PASARR, the facility failed to refer R3 for a PASARR level II evaluation when R3 was diagnosed with d...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interviews, it was determined that for one (R3) out of one reviewed for PASARR, the facility failed to refer R3 for a PASARR level II evaluation when R3 was diagnosed with delusional disorder in June 2023. Findings include: R3's clinical record revealed: 12/29/21 - R3's Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) documented, .No Level II required . There is no evidence of a PASRR (sic) condition of an intellectual/developmental disability or serious behavioral health condition. If changes occur or new information refutes these findings, a new screen must be submitted. 6/15/23 - R3 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses, including but not limited to, dementia, heart disease and delusional disorder. 6/16/23 - R3's care plan documented, .I have impaired cognitive function or impaired thought processes r/t (related to) dementia and delusional d/o (disorder). 12/15/23 - R3's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment Section I Active diagnoses documented I5950 Psychotic Disorder (other than schizophrenia). 2/21/24 3:52 PM - During an interview, E23 (Social Worker) stated that she relies on Nursing or the MDS/ RNAC to notify her if there is a new diagnosis that requires a new PASARR evaluation. Once notified, she completes the online PASARR application requesting an evaluation. 2/21/24 4:02 PM - Surveyor requested and was provided all known copies of R3's PASARRs by the facility. The facility was only able to produce the PASARR evaluation dated 12/29/21. 2/26/24 3:15 PM - Findings were reviewed at the exit conference with E1 (DON, Interim NHA), E2 (ADON) and E4 (Corporate Clinical Specialist).
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 record review and interview, it was determined that for one (R1) out of six residents reviewed for accident hazards and falls, the facility failed to ensure R1's received immediate medical at...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, it was determined that for one (R1) out of six residents reviewed for accident hazards and falls, the facility failed to ensure R1's received immediate medical attention following a bus accident that caused a fall from the wheelchair. Findings included: Cross refer F689 The facility policy titled Individual Safety Responsibilities: Authorized Driver Last revised 6/15/07 documented: 12. Traffic Accident: In the event of a traffic accident: Help anyone who is injured, call an ambulance if necessary . R1's record revealed: 9/8/21 - R1 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including, but not limited to, cancer and difficulty in walking. 5/31/23 - A significant change MDS assessment documented that R1 was cognitively intact with a BIMS of 15. 6/28/23 - The facility's incident report and investigation revealed that after attending a social outing, R1 was being driven back to the facility when the transport van driver tapped the brake causing R1's wheelchair to propel forward and R1 to slide out of the wheelchair onto the van's floor. While resident was on the floor of the transportation van E19 (Housekeeping Manager) who was in the front passenger seat stated he saw that E18 (van driver, former employee) was in a panic, E19 asked E18 to stay with the resident while he drove back to the facility 1.3 miles away very slowly. E19 called the facility's receptionist and informed her they were in an accident and they would need help once they got to the facility. 6/28/23 3:00 PM - R1's facility progress note documented, At around 10:20 (AM) received a call from the receptionist that 'a resident fell in the van outside'. Rushed to the assisted living entrance and the transportation van pulled up and noticed [R1] lying on the foot bed of the van supine in front of her wheelchair. [R1] verbalized that she slid from the wheelchair during the van transport and that her legs hurt. Denies any LOC (loss of consciousness), or head injury. [R1] was awake and oriented to person, place, time and situation. Laceration noted laterally on bilateral shins. Scant amount of blood noted, no active bleeding noted. Nurse Practitioner [E30] in the building made aware, ordered to ok to send [R1] to the hospital. Emergency Service called and [R1] picked up by . fire company EMS (Emergency Medical Service). [R1's family member] . made aware of the incident and verbalized that she would meet [R1] at the hospital. 2/26/24 10:23 AM - During an interview with E1 (DON, interim NHA), with E2 (ADON) and E4 (Corporate Clinical Specialist) present, On 6/28/23, we received a call from the front desk asking if nurses could come to the parking lot STAT. We went outside and I [E1] saw [R1] sitting in the van on the floor, the wheelchair was behind [R1] and [R1] was half lying and half sitting, and both legs were crooked and bleeding. I immediately called 911 and we tried to stop the bleeding. R1 was asked if she was in any pain and R1 denied pain. R1 did say that the van floor was hard on her back. I noticed that the wheelchair was stuck In the van and that R1 was not strapped in. I immediately asked the driver [E18] if he strapped [R1] in, he said that he did not and that he didn't know why he did not. I called her daughter . We did vital signs which were normal and wrapped her legs to stop the bleeding. The fire company was here quickly - they got here before the paramedics. Review of the incident report and facility investigation lacked evidence as to why the van driver did not call for emergency help at the time of the accident and instead drove back to the facility where emergency services were called. 2/26/24 3:15 PM - Findings were reviewed at the exit conference with E1, E2 and E4.
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 F0712 (Tag F0712)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, it was determined that for one (R195) out of one resident reviewed for physician services, the facility failed to ensure that R195 was seen for the required physi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, it was determined that for one (R195) out of one resident reviewed for physician services, the facility failed to ensure that R195 was seen for the required physician visits. Findings include: Review of R195's clinical record revealed: 4/30/2019 - R195 was admitted to the facility. Review of the electronic medical record (EMR), revealed the following alternating physician/ nurse practitioner visits were made to R195 from June 2022 thru February 3, 2023: 6/3/22 - E3 (MD) 8/3/22 - E30 (NP) 9/21/22 - E30 12/7/22 - E30 2/3/23 - E30. E3 did not visit the R195 in October 2022, which was the month R195 should have received a required physician visit. 2/26/24 3:15 PM - Finding was reviewed at the exit conference with E1 (DON, Interim NHA), E2 (ADON), and E4 (Clinical Specialist).
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 record review it was determined that for one (R36) out of twenty-six medication administration observations, the facility failed to provide accurate labeling to fac...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined that for one (R36) out of twenty-six medication administration observations, the facility failed to provide accurate labeling to facilitate consideration of precautions and safe administration. For (R36), the medication label was not updated with the new order. Findings include: 2/23/24 8:31 AM - During an observation with E17 (LPN) for medication administration, the medication packet label for quetiapine Seroquel a medication used to treat certain mental/mood disorders was noted to read as quetiapine 25 MG tablet - give 1 tablet by mouth 3 times a day. However, the order and MAR (medication administration record) documented that the order was updated to be given two times a day beginning 1/29/24. During the observation E17 was interviewed and it was revealed the label should have been updated to reflect the change. E17 did confirm the new versus old order. 2/26/24 - During an interview E16 (LPN) revealed that when there is a medication change, the nurse who receives the communication would have been responsible for placing an FYI label on the medication packet. Then when it's time for a new blister pack, the medication will come from the pharmacy with a changed label. The change would also be documented in a communication log book and the change would be communicated to each shift and for multiple days until everyone knows about it. 2/26/24 3:15 PM - Findings were reviewed at the exit conference with E1 (DON, Interim NHA), E2 ADON, and E4 (Clinical Specialist).
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, it was determined that for one (R18) out of one reviewed for food, the facility failed to ma...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, it was determined that for one (R18) out of one reviewed for food, the facility failed to maintain appetizing food temperatures for food trays that are delivered to third floor residents in their rooms. Findings include: R18's clinical record revealed: 3/24/23 - R18 was admitted to the facility. 2/7/24 - E3 (MD) updated R18's diet order to regular diet, regular texture and regular/thin liquid consistency. 2/21/24 3:28 PM - During an interview, R18 stated that she takes all her meals in her room and her, food is delivered cold all the time. 2/23/24 11:30 AM - The Surveyor went to the kitchen to request a test lunch tray for the hot entrée. 2/23/24 12:07 PM - The Surveyor observed food being plated for the third floor food truck. 2/23/24 12:35 PM - The third floor food truck arrived on the third floor. 2/23/24 12:36 PM- The Surveyor and E25 (Food Service Director) observed the CNAs delivering food trays to the residents in the dining room. 2/23/24 12:52 PM - The Surveyor and E25 observed food tray being delivered to room [ROOM NUMBER]. 2/23/24 12:55 PM - The Surveyor and E25 observed food tray being delivered to room [ROOM NUMBER]. 2/23/24 12:59 PM - The Surveyor and E25 observed food tray being delivered to R18's room. 2/23/24 12:59 PM - E25 obtained food temperatures for the test tray. The salmon tested at 121 degrees F (Fahrenheit), the rice at 118 degrees F, the soup at 123 degrees F and the vegetables at 127 degrees F. 2/23/24 1:00 PM - The Surveyor tasted the food tray. The food was presented in a very appetizing manner; however the salmon, rice and veggies was were very unpalatable as they were cool. The soup was also cool to taste and therefore, not enjoyable. 2/26/24 3:15 PM - Findings were reviewed at the exit conference with E1 (DON, Interim NHA), E2 (ADON) and E4 (Corporate Clinical Specialist).
CONCERN (F) 📢 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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, staff interview and review of other documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure food was stored in a sanitary manner; failed to ensure the dishwasher oper...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview and review of other documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure food was stored in a sanitary manner; failed to ensure the dishwasher operated at the correct temperature level to sanitize the residents' dishes; failed to maintain dishwasher temperature logs; failed to ensure food stored in a container was maintained in a clean and sanitary manner and failed to ensure the kitchen area was maintained in a sanitary condition, and failed to maintain refrigerator temperature logs. Findings include: Review of the facility policy for Preventing Foodborne Illness, last updated 2017 indicated, Food and nutrition employees will follow appropriate hygiene and sanitary procedures to prevent the spread of food borne illness .Employee's must wash their hands .Functioning of the refrigeration and food temperatures will be monitored. 1. During the follow up tour conducted on 2/20/24 at 11:30 AM the following was observed: -Empty soap dispenser at the hand washing sink in the food preparation area with slow drain and pooling water. -Wall adjacent to the hand washing sink in the food preparation area visible black substance on wall and wall and siding separating. -E25 (FSD) and E27 (cook) observed without beard restraints. -E26 (cook) wearing hair unsecured and on collar. -Flour handle inside bin, not on holder immediately confirmed by E28 (dietary staff) -February 2024 Production refrigerator near kitchen line temperature log last dated as completed on 2/8/24. 2. During a second follow up tour conducted 2/21/24 at 9:33 AM the following was observed: -E25 (FSD), E29 (dishwasher) and E27 (cook) observed without beard restraints. -E26 (cook) observed wearing hair unsecured and on collar. 3. During observation of the function of the facility's dish machine on 2/21/24 at 9:41 AM - 10:09 AM the facility dish machine failed to reach temperatures required for heat sanitization of 165 degrees. E25 confirmed that the facility used a high temperature process dish sanitization. E25 then reported that the dish machine function display screen has been malfunctioning off and on and that the facility did not have a maximum registering thermometer to run through the dish washing cycle. During repeated dish washing cycles the following was observed: - 9:51 AM - 9:54 AM Wash cycle 133 degree's and rinse cycle 115 degree's. second wash 135 45 seconds. -9:55 AM -9:56 AM Wash cycle 126 degree's, rinse cycle 118 degrees with display screen readingwarning too low, wash cycle 126 degree warning too low, rinse cycle 113. -9:57 AM - 9:58 AM Wash cycle 131 degree's, rinse cycle 133 degree's. -9:59 AM - 10:01 AM Wash cycle 141 -139 degree fluctuation. -10:02 AM - 10:03 AM Wash cycle 149 -150 degree's, rinse cycle 155 - 157 degree's. -10:04 AM - 10:06 AM Wash cycle 156-159 degree fluctuation. -10:09 AM - E25 stated that When this happens repeatedly we sanitize again using chemicals. I'm going to call and try to get someone out. Observations from both follow up kitchen visits were discussed and E25 confirmed the findings. 2/21/24 11:07 AM - Review of maintenance records revealed service calls and completion of repairs to the facility's dish machine on the following dates: 10/2/23 ,11/7/23,11/16/23, 11/17/23 and 1/21/24. 2/21/24 11:30 AM - Review of dish machine temperature logs revealed the following: -December 2023 lacked evidence of log entries from 12/4/23 - 12/20/23, then 12/22/23-12/31/23. A hand handwritten note on the log indicated, Display Malfunctioning in the spaces without entries. -January 2024 lacked evidence of log entries on 1/4, 1/11, 1/12, 1/14 -1/21 and 1/23-1/31. -February 2024 lacked evidence of log entries from 2/1 - 2/15, 2/17 and 2/18. 2/21/24 1:51 PM - Kitchen tour findings were reviewed with E1 (DON) who reported maintenance workers have been contacted regarding dish washing machine repairs. 2/22/24 - A maintenance repair person repaired the facility dishwashing machine. The report documented Not hitting temperature, and rinse motor running constantly .replaced the main control board as it was faulty. Machine is now hitting temperature . 2/26/24 3:15 PM Findings were reviewed at the exit conference with E1 (DON, Interim NHA), E2 ADON, and E4 (Clinical Specialist).
May 2022 11 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

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for one (R...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for one (R1) out of one sampled resident for hospice investigation. Findings include: Cross refer F697 Review of R1's clinical record revealed: 11/16/21 - R1 was admitted to the facility under Hospice services. 11/16/21 - The admission Nursing Comprehensive Pain Assessment documented that R1 verbalized abdominal pain. 11/29/21 - The admission MDS Assessment documented that R1 was receiving scheduled routine and as needed pain medications and was not receiving non-medication intervention(s) for pain. 12/8/21 - The facility developed and implemented a care plan which stated that R1 was on pain medication therapy, however, there was lack of evidence of interventions to address R1's abdominal pain that was verbalized and documented on the admission nursing pain assessment dated [DATE]. The care plan lacked both pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for pain. 2/16/22 - The facility developed and implemented a care plan that R1 was at increased risk for alteration in comfort, however, there was lack of evidence of the location of the pain, what specific pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions were to be utilized, as well as the goal for pain management. 5/26/22 - The above findings were reviewed and confirmed with E2 (DON) and E3 (ADON). Findings were reviewed with E2 (DON) and E3 (ADON) during the Exit Conference on 5/27/22, beginning at 4:00 PM.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, it was determined that for two (R1 and R15) out of 22 sampled residents, the facility fail...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, it was determined that for two (R1 and R15) out of 22 sampled residents, the facility failed to ensure that the care plan was prepared by an IDT (Interdisciplinary Team) and held with the Attending Physician or his/her designee, the Nurse's aide with responsibility for the resident, a staff member from Nutrition/Food Service staff, and other professionals in disciplines as determined by the resident's needs. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Care Plan, with a revision date of 9/2013, stated that IDT includes other appropriate staff or professionals as determined by the resident's needs or as requested by the resident. 1. Review of R1's clinical records revealed: 11/16/21 - R1 was admitted to the facility under Hospice services. 11/29/21 - The admission MDS Assessment was completed. 12/9/21- Review of the Plan of Care Conference Summary lacked evidence that R1's Attending Physician or designee, the Nurse's Aide responsible for the resident, and staff from the Hospice Agency participated in the IDT care planning process. 3/1/22 - The Quarterly MDS Assessment was completed. 3/17/22 - Review of the Plan of Care Conference Summary lacked evidence that R1's Attending Physician or designee, the Nurse's Aide responsible for the resident, and staff from the Hospice Agency participated in the IDT care planning process. 5/23/22 1:10 PM - An interview with HOS RN1 (Hospice RN) revealed that she has been providing skilled nursing services on a weekly basis and verbalized that she has not been invited or attended any of the IDT Care Plan meetings since R1's admission to the facility on [DATE]. 5/24/22 11:16 AM - An interview with E4 (Social Worker) revealed it was the facility's practice to invite staff of Hospice agencies to the IDT Care Plan meeting either verbally or via email. E4 stated that for R1, the Hospice Liaison was informed of the IDT Care Plan meetings. The Surveyor requested evidence of the invitation for the IDT Care Plans meetings held on 12/9/21 and 3/17/22. 5/25/22 10:15 AM - A follow-up interview with E4 (SW) revealed that the facility was unable to provide evidence that R1's Hospice Agency was invited to the IDT Care Plan meeting. 2. Review of R15's clinical records revealed: 6/4/21 - R15 was admitted to the facility. 6/17/21 - The admission MDS Assessment was completed. There was lack of evidence that the facility conducted an IDT Care Plan meeting after completion of the admission MDS assessment dated [DATE]. 9/17/21 - The Quarterly MDS Assessment was completed. 9/23/21 - Review of the Plan of Care Conference Summary lacked evidence that R15's Attending Physician or designee, the Nurse's Aide responsible for the resident, and staff from Nutrition/Food Services participated in the IDT care planning process. 12/17/21 - The Quarterly MDS Assessment was completed. There was lack of evidence that the facility conducted an IDT Care Plan meeting after completion of the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE]. 3/10/22 - The Quarterly MDS Assessment was completed. 3/24/22 - Review of the Plan of Care Conference Summary lacked evidence that R15's Attending Physician or designee and the Nurse's Aide responsible for the resident participated in the IDT care planning process. 5/26/22 1:45 PM - An interview with E4 (SW) confirmed that the facility was unable to provide evidence that a IDT Care Plan meeting was held after completion of the MDS Assessments on 6/17/21 and 12/17/21. In addition, the facility was unable to provide evidence that R15's Attending Physician/designee and the Nurse's Aide responsible participated in the IDT care planning process. 5/26/22 - The above findings were reviewed and confirmed with E2 (DON) and E3 (ADON). Findings where reviewed with E2(DON) and E3 (ADON) during the Exit Conference on 5/27/22, beginning at 4:00 PM.
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, interview and review of facility documents, it was determined that for one (R23) out of 22 sampled residents, the facility failed to ensure that R23's physician's order for lab...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, interview and review of facility documents, it was determined that for one (R23) out of 22 sampled residents, the facility failed to ensure that R23's physician's order for laboratory tests was completed. Findings include: Review of R23's clinical record revealed: 3/20/22 - R23 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including high blood pressure, bradycardia (slow heart rate) and DVT (Deep Vein Thrombosis - occurs when a blood clot (thrombus) forms in one or more of the deep veins in the body, usually in the legs). 3/30/22 (revised 4/12/22) - A care plan was developed for R23's potential for actual alteration in cardiovascular status related to high blood pressure, bradycardia and DVT with interventions including to obtain and report lab work as ordered by the healthcare practitioner. 4/8/22 - A physician's order was received for a CBC (Complete Blood Count - blood test used to evaluate overall health and detect a wide range of disorders) and BMP (Basic Metabolic Panel - set of tests that measure blood sugar, calcium levels, kidney function, and chemical and fluid balance) one time only for a baseline for R23. 5/27/22 at 2:10 PM - Review of R23's clinical record lacked evidence of results for the CBC and BMP ordered on 4/8/22. Review of the Lab Form Book on the third floor revealed R23's lab slip was placed for a blood draw on 4/10/22 (Sunday) instead of Monday, 4/11/22 (the day the lab came to the facility to draw routine blood samples). 5/27/22 at 2:35 PM - In an interview, E5 (RN Supervisor) confirmed that R23's CBC and BMP were not done. E5 further stated that a doctor's order was just obtained now for a stat (immediate) CBC and BMP to be done today (5/27/22) for R23. 5/27/22 at 2:45 PM - Findings were discussed with E2 (DON), E3 (ADON) and E5. Findings where reviewed with E2 (DON) and E3 (ADON) during the Exit Conference on 5/27/22, beginning at 4:00 PM.
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review and interview, it was determined that for one (R26) out of three (3) sampled residents reviewed for accident investigations, the facility failed to provide assistiv...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interview, it was determined that for one (R26) out of three (3) sampled residents reviewed for accident investigations, the facility failed to provide assistive devices to prevent falls. Finding include: The following was reviewed in R26's clinical record: 2/23/22 - A physician's order was written for a Dycem on top of the wheelchair cushion daily to promote good positioning and to decrease the risk for sliding. 5/26/22 10:00 AM - R26 requested E7 (CNA) to transfer R26 from a recliner to her wheelchair. Once seated in the wheelchair, R26 began to independently self propel herself in the unit. 5/26/22 10:11 AM - R26 requested E5 (RN) to transfer R26 from her wheelchair back to the recliner. The Surveyor observed the lack of Dycem on top of the wheelchair cushion. E5 immediately went into R26's room, located the Dycem which was in R26's bathroom and placed the Dycem in R26's wheelchair. 5/26/22 - The above findings were reviewed with E2 (DON) and E3 (ADON). Findings where reviewed with E2(DON) and E3 (ADON) during the Exit Conference on 5/27/22, beginning at 4:00 PM.
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 (R9) out of one resident sampled for respiratory care investigation, the facility failed to provide respiratory care c...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interview, it was determined that for one (R9) out of one resident sampled for respiratory care investigation, the facility failed to provide respiratory care consistent with professional standards of practice. Findings include: Review of R9's clinical record revealed: 11/16/21 - R9 was admitted to the facility with multiple diagnoses including chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia (low oxygen level reaching the tissues). 11/30/21 - A physician's order was written for oxygen therapy via nasal cannula (NC) at 2 liters per minute (LPM). 5/20/22 10:05 AM - During a random observation, R9 was observed with oxygen via NC infusing at 2 LPM via an oxygen concentrator, however, the concentrator failed to have a filter present. 5/20/22 10:10 AM - A joint observation with E6 (LPN) confirmed the absence of the filter. E6 immediately removed the concentrator, obtained a new oxygen concentrator with a filter, connected R9's oxygen tubing to the new machine and placed the NC into R9's nostrils. 5/26/22 - The above findings were reviewed with E2 (DON) and E3 (ADON). Findings were reviewed with E2 (DON) and E3 (ADON) during the Exit Conference on 5/27/22, beginning at 4:00 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 (R1) out of one resident sampled for pain investigation, the facility failed to ensure that a complete pain assessment was conducte...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, it was determined that for one (R1) out of one resident sampled for pain investigation, the facility failed to ensure that a complete pain assessment was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of pain medication. Findings include: The pain management standards were approved by the American Geriatrics Society in April 2002 which included: appropriate assessment and management of pain; assessment in a way that facilitates regular reassessment and follow-up; same quantitative pain assessment scales should be used for initial and follow up assessment; set standards for monitoring and intervention; and collect data to monitor the effectiveness and appropriateness of pain management. The facility's Pain Management policy, dated March 2020, did not address the need for consistent assessment using the same pain scale before and after administration of routine pain medication when the pain level is more than zero. Policy General Guidelines Section 5 states that acute pain (or significant worsening of chronic pain) should be assessed every 30 to 60 minutes after the onset and reassessed as indicated until relief is obtained. Cross refer F656 The following was reviewed in R1's clinical record: 11/16/2021 - R1 was admitted to the facility under the continued care of hospice from her previous care setting and with multiple diagnoses, including chronic vascular disorders of the intestine. 11/16/21 - The admission Nursing Pain Evaluation documented that R1 verbalized pain in the abdominal area and described it as aching. 11/29/2021- The admission MDS Assessment documented that R1 verbalized aching pain with a pain level of 3 (three) out of 10 (with 0 being no pain and 10 being the worst possible pain) in the abdominal area. 11/22/2021 - A physician's order for routine pain medication by mouth was scheduled three times a day at 8 AM, 2 PM, and 8 PM. 12/8/2021 - The Care Plan stated that R1 was on pain medication therapy with interventions to include: administer medications as ordered by physician, monitor side effects and effectiveness every shift, review narcotic pain medication for efficacy, and assess whether pain intensity is acceptable to the resident. 12/21/2021 - A physician's order was written for as needed pain medication every 6 hours for mild pain (pain scale from 1 to 4). 1/24/2022 - A physician's order was written for narcotic pain medication as needed every 4 hours for pain. 3/25/22 5:00 PM - Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) documented that R1's pain level was a 5 prior to the administration of routine narcotic pain medication. There was lack of evidence that the facility reassessed the effectiveness of the medication after it was administered. 5/8/22 5:00 PM - Review of the MAR documented that R1's pain level was 8 prior to the administration of routine narcotic pain medication. There was lack of evidence that the facility reassessed the effectiveness of the medication after it was administered. 5/19/22 5:00 PM - Review of the MAR documented that R1's pain level was 4 prior to the administration of the routine narcotic pain medication. There was lack of evidence that the facility reassessed the effectiveness of the medication after it was administered. 5/24/22- 2:10 PM - An interview with E5 (RN) confirmed the lack of evidence of reassessment of R1's pain after the administration of pain medication on the above dates and times. 5/26/22 - The above findings were reviewed with E2 (DON) and E3 (ADON). Findings where reviewed with E2 (DON) and E3 (ADON) during the Exit Conference on 5/27/22, beginning at 4:00 PM.
CONCERN (D)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, review of facility documents and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the Food Service Department maintained the kitchen and stored food under san...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, review of facility documents and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the Food Service Department maintained the kitchen and stored food under sanitary conditions. Findings include: The following were observed on 5/19/2022 from 9:30 AM to 11:30 AM during the initial kitchen tour: -The ice cream scoops were dirty and stored in an unsanitary container; -The cart holding the 5 gallon ice cream containers was not cleaned and the bottom of the cart was covered in melted and refrozen ice cream; -A tray of non-potable ice was left on top of the ice cream containers creating cross contamination with ready to eat foods; -There were uncovered styrofoam drinking cups left all over the kitchen on the food service counter; -The kitchen floor was not cleaned and showed signs of significant disrepair and cracks making it not easily cleanable; -The 3 compartment sink was being used to store dirty dishes in the designated sanitized compartment of the 3 compartment sink, creating a cross contamination of clean dishes; -The wall behind the dishwasher had significant signs of mold and mildew; -The grease trap maintenance pipe was not removed and showed significant grease blockage; -A cardboard box was used as a trash can in the cooking area; -The microwave at the cooking area was dirty on the inside, while the door handle was not clean to the touch; -Frozen meat was left in the prep sink without running cold water; this is an improper thawing method; -Significant water pooling observed in the walk-in refrigerator. Findings were confirmed with E32 (Food Service Director) on 5/19/2022 at approximately 11:50 AM. 5/27/22 4:00 PM - Findings were reviewed with E2 (DON) and E3 (ADON) during the Exit Conference.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0888 (Tag F0888)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview, observation, and record review, it was determined that for one (E4 Social Services) out of eight staff reviewed for COVID-19 vaccination compliance, the facility failed to properly...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, observation, and record review, it was determined that for one (E4 Social Services) out of eight staff reviewed for COVID-19 vaccination compliance, the facility failed to properly approve and implement an exemption to the COVID-19 vaccination mandate/requirement. Findings include: 4/5/22 (Revised) - The CMS memo QSO-22-07-ALL indicated if a facility demonstrates that less than 100% of all staff have received at least one dose of a single-dose vaccine, or all doses of a multiple-dose vaccine series, or have been granted a qualifying exemption, or identified as having a temporary delay as recommended by the CDC, the facility is non-compliant under the rule . Facilities are required to ensure those staff .who have .been granted an exemption .adhere to additional precautions that are intended to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 .Medical exemption documentation must specify which authorized or licensed COVID-19 vaccine is clinically contraindicated for the staff member and the recognized clinical reasons for the contraindication. The documentation must also include a statement recommending that the staff member be exempted from the facility's COVID-19 vaccination requirements based on the medical contraindications . 11/21/21 (last updated) - The facility policy, entitled COVID-19 Vaccination Policy, included [The facility's management company] will require employees to be fully vaccinated for COVID-19 and to produce written confirmation that the vaccine was received or obtain an approved exemption as an accommodation .Employees seeking an exemption from this policy due to a medical reason .must submit a completed Request for Exception form to [The facility's management company] COVID-19 Vaccination Accommodations & Compliance team .If the exemption is approved, the employee will be allowed to return to work. If the exemption is not approved and the employee declines vaccination .the employee's employment will end and will be considered a voluntary termination .Vaccination and tracking will be managed by the community . 5/13/21 - E4 (Social Services) was hired by the facility. 5/20/22 10:00 AM - Review of the facility provided COVID-19 vaccination status matrix revealed that 97 of 98 employees were completely vaccinated and one employee was granted an exemption. 5/24/22 11:00 AM - E4 was observed wearing only a surgical mask. 5/24/22 11:00 AM - During an interview, E4 stated that she always wears a surgical mask because she cannot breathe properly when wearing a N-95. She explained that she has been getting COVID-19 tested twice a week, social distancing, and using zoom / telephone meetings when possible. 5/24/22 1:00 PM - During an interview, E3 (ADON) explained that the facility submitted E4's medical records to the new management company when they began in November 2021, but did not receive documentation that E4's exemption was approved. E3 added that E4's medical exemption was grandfathered in from the previous management company, but the facility did not have this documentation either. 5/25/22 2:30 PM - During an interview, E2 (DON) provided an undated copy of a letter from the facility's current management company stating, We have received and reviewed a request from your employee [E4] for an exemption from the requirement to receive the COVID-19 vaccination. This is to advise that the employee's request has been approved .The employee's exemption has the following requirements: The employee must wear a N95 mask at all times while at work; The employee must produce a negative COVID-19 test twice a week .Please ensure that the employee's N95 has been properly fitted .This approval is in place until June 7, 2022 . This documentation did not specify the following required information: that the exemption was based on medical contraindications, which COVID-19 vaccine was contraindicated, or the clinical reason. 5/25/22 2:35 PM - During an interview, E3 (ADON) stated E4 does not have a physician's note, but cannot tolerate wearing the N-95 mask because of medical conditions. E3 stated he was aware that E4 has only been wearing a surgical mask in the facility and she has not been fit tested for a N-95 mask. 5/27/22 4:00 PM - Findings were reviewed with E2 (DON) and E3 (ADON) during the Exit Conference.
CONCERN (E)

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

Garbage Disposal (Tag F0814)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, it was determined that the facility did not properly ensure that the facility was properly maintained to prevent pests. Finding include: During the initial kitchen tour on 5/19/2...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, it was determined that the facility did not properly ensure that the facility was properly maintained to prevent pests. Finding include: During the initial kitchen tour on 5/19/2022 at approximately 10:00 AM, the outside dumpster was observed to be in disrepair with a hole on the top which could allow pests to enter. This finding was reviewed and confirmed by E32 (Food Service Director) on 5/19/22 at approximately 11:50 AM.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and review of facility documentation, the facility failed to ensure that staff were fit tested for N-95 masks creating an unsafe environment by not implementing approp...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and review of facility documentation, the facility failed to ensure that staff were fit tested for N-95 masks creating an unsafe environment by not implementing appropriate infection control practices as recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Findings include: 9/3/21 (last reviewed) - On the CDC website, the document entitled Fit Test FAQ included, You should be fit tested at least annually to ensure your respirator continues to fit you properly. 2/2/22 (last updated) - On the CDC website, the document entitled Strategies for Optimizing the Supply of N95 Respirators included, .Proper use of respiratory protection by HCP requires a comprehensive program (including medical clearance, training, and fit testing) . September 2021 (last revised) - The facility policy, entitled Contingency and Crisis Use of N-95 Respirators, indicated conventional capacity measures include adopting just in time fit testing. September 2021 (last revised) - The facility policy, entitled Using Personal Protective Equipment included Personnel who enter the room of a resident with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection .use a NIOSH-approved N95 or equivalent or higher respirator, gowns, gloves, and eye protection. Of the eight staff sampled for compliance with infection prevention and control national standards, the facility was not able to provide evidence of N-95 mask fit testing in the past year. Two staff members (E28 Dietary and E30 LPN) were last fit tested in December of 2020. The facility had no records of fit testing for the following six staff: E4 (Social Services), E24 (OTA), E25 (hairdresser), E26 (CNA), E27 (CNA), and E29 (dietary). 5/25/22 3:30 PM - During an interview, E3 (ADON) confirmed that the last time fit testing was completed for facility staff was in December of 2020, and therefore any staff that were hired since then have not been fit tested. E3 confirmed that during the January 2022 COVID-19 outbreak, staff wore full PPE (personal protective equipment) including N-95 masks to provide care to residents. 5/26/22 11:45 AM - During an interview, E2 (DON) confirmed that none of the agency or contract staff have been tested by their agency. E2 explained that the facility has contracted with a vendor to perform N-95 mask fit testing for all staff members. 5/26/22 2:00 PM - During an interview, the above findings were reviewed and confirmed with E3 (ADON). 5/27/22 4:00 PM - Findings were reviewed with E2 (DON) and E3 (ADON) during the Exit Conference.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to post the nurse staffing in a prominent place, readily accessible to residents and visitors for two out of two nursing ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to post the nurse staffing in a prominent place, readily accessible to residents and visitors for two out of two nursing units. Findings include: 2nd Floor Observation 5/27/22 at 2:00 PM - An observation on the 2nd floor nursing station revealed that nursing staffing data was posted on the desk at the nursing station. The letter or font size was noted to be small to the point that the words could barely be read from a two foot distance. 3rd Floor Observation 5/27/22 at 2:05 PM - An observation on the 3rd floor nursing station revealed that nursing staffing data was posted on the desk at the nursing station. The letter or font size was noted to be small to the point that the words could barely be read from a two foot distance. 5:27/22 at 2:35 PM - The Surveyor asked R16, who was sitting in her wheelchair in front of the nursing station, if she could read the staffing posting, a two foot distance away from the nursing station desk. R16 stated that she could not read the posting, stating the words were too small and she asked the Surveyor to read the words for her. 5/27/22 at 2:40 PM - Findings were discussed with E2 (DON) and E3 (ADON). Findings were reviewed with E2 (DON) and E3 (ADON) during the Exit Conference on 5/27/22, beginning at 4:00 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+ (83/100). Above average facility, better than most options in Delaware.
  • • 12% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 36 points below Delaware's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Concerns
  • • 19 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • $19,837 in fines. Above average for Delaware. Some compliance problems on record.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is Foulk Living's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns FOULK LIVING 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 Foulk Living Staffed?

CMS rates FOULK LIVING's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 12%, compared to the Delaware average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Foulk Living?

State health inspectors documented 19 deficiencies at FOULK LIVING during 2022 to 2024. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm, 17 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Foulk Living?

FOULK LIVING is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 46 certified beds and approximately 43 residents (about 93% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in WILMINGTON, Delaware.

How Does Foulk Living Compare to Other Delaware Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Delaware, FOULK LIVING's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.3, staff turnover (12%) 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 Foulk Living?

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 Foulk Living Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, FOULK LIVING 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 Foulk Living Stick Around?

Staff at FOULK LIVING tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 12%, the facility is 33 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 17%, meaning experienced RNs are available to handle complex medical needs.

Was Foulk Living Ever Fined?

FOULK LIVING has been fined $19,837 across 2 penalty actions. This is below the Delaware average of $33,277. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Foulk Living on Any Federal Watch List?

FOULK LIVING 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.