REGENCY HEALTHCARE & REHAB CENTER

801 N. BROOM STREET, WILMINGTON, DE 19806 (302) 654-8400
For profit - Limited Liability company 100 Beds NATIONWIDE HEALTHCARE SERVICES Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
13/100
#25 of 43 in DE
Last Inspection: July 2025

Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.

Overview

Regency Healthcare & Rehab Center in Wilmington, Delaware has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns and a poor quality of care. It ranks #25 out of 43 facilities in Delaware, placing it in the bottom half, and #14 out of 25 in New Castle County, meaning only a few local options are worse. The facility's performance is worsening, with issues increasing from 6 in 2024 to 10 in 2025. Although staffing is rated 4 out of 5 stars, the turnover rate is high at 55%, above the state average, which may affect resident care quality. Notably, the center has faced serious fines totaling $226,471, which is higher than 95% of Delaware facilities, indicating ongoing compliance problems. There have been several critical incidents, including a case where a resident was sexually abused by a staff member, and another incident where a resident suffered harm due to inadequate support during a shower, requiring emergency treatment. This combination of high fines, serious incidents, and a poor trust grade raises considerable concerns for families considering this facility for their loved ones.

Trust Score
F
13/100
In Delaware
#25/43
Bottom 42%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
6 → 10 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
55% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
$226,471 in fines. Lower than most Delaware facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 37 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Delaware. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
27 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 6 issues
2025: 10 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.

The Bad

3-Star Overall Rating

Near Delaware average (3.3)

Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities

Staff Turnover: 55%

Near Delaware avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $226,471

Well above median ($33,413)

Significant penalties indicating serious issues

Chain: NATIONWIDE HEALTHCARE SERVICES

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is elevated (55%)

7 points above Delaware average of 48%

The Ugly 27 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening 3 actual harm
Jul 2025 2 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

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, it was determined that for one (R11) out of two residents reviewed for ADLs (Activities of...

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 one (R11) out of two residents reviewed for ADLs (Activities of Daily Living) and one (R27) out of six residents reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to follow the plan of care. For R11, a soiled and wet dressing was not changed per the physician's order. For R27, the facility failed to ensure re-admission orders on 6/28/25 were reviewed by on call provider and transcribed accurately. Findings include: 1. Review of R11's clinical record revealed: 6/19/25 - R11 was re-admitted to the facility and required assistance with personal care. 3/26/25 - A review of R11's quarterly MDS assessment revealed that R11 had intact cognition. 6/20/25 - R11 had a physician's order to cleanse the right wrist skin tear with NSS pat dry apply Xeroform (gauze dressing for wounds with drainage) and CDD daily and PRN (when necessary) every evening shift. 6/26/25 9:00 AM - During an observation, R11 was seen from the shower room being wheeled to the nurses' station by staff. R11 was observed with a soiled and soaked dressing on the right wrist dated 6/25/25. 6/26/25 9:05 AM - R11 was observed calling E6 (RN) who walked by and asked the nurse if he was getting a treatment on the skin tear. R11 stated, I just had a shower and showed E6 his right wrist. 6/26/25 9:06 AM - E6 was seen and heard responding to R11 saying, The dressing was changed yesterday (6/25/25) by the wound nurse. If you want it change, it is scheduled for the 3-11 shift so that will be done this afternoon. E6 was observed walking away leaving R11 in the Nursing station. 6/26/25 9:10 AM - In an interview, R11 told the surveyor that he thought the nurse [E6] would change his dressing. R11 further stated, I raised my wrist so she can see that the dressing was soiled, wet and needed to get changed. She [E6] said the afternoon staff will do it. She just walked away, you saw her! 6/26/25 9:30 AM - In a follow up observation, R11's right wrist was still noted with the same soiled and wet dressing. R11 told the surveyor, She [E6] is not going to do anything about this now. 6/26/25 9:35 AM - During an interview, E2 (DON) confirmed that R11's skin tear dressing should be changed not just per schedule but also when it is visible wet or soiled. E2 further stated, . The nurse [E6] should change R11's soiled and wet dressing. 6/30/25 4:10 PM - Findings were reviewed with E1 (NHA) and E2 (DON). 2. Review of R27's clinical record revealed: 6/28/25 7:10 PM - A nurse's note by E9 (LPN) documented, Resident returned from the ER [emergency room] . Discharge dx [diagnosis] provided by the ER was cellulitis [infection] at the PEG tube site . Bacitracin [antibiotic] ointment is to be applied topically to the PEG site twice daily for 10 days for cellulitis . 6/28/25 11:37 PM - A physician's order by E9 was entered in R27's electronic medical record as apply to Peg-site BID [twice a day] x [times] 10 days Dx Cellulitis every day and evening shift for Dx Peg-site cellulitis for 10 days. The facility failed to accurately transcribed the ER discharge order in R27's electronic medical record. 7/1/25 10:30 AM - During an interview, R27 reported that nursing staff on the previous night shift was not aware of the new physician's order for her Peg tube area. 7/1/25 1:15 PM - During an interview, E9 (LPN) confirmed that he entered R27's physician's order for Bacitracin ointment. E9 confirmed that he did not review the ER discharge order with the facility's on-call provider before entering it in her medical record. 7/1/25 2:50 PM - During an interview, E11 (RN/House Supervisor) confirmed that she did not review or handle R27's readmission on [DATE] as E9 (LPN) stated that he would take care of it. E11 confirmed the facility's process when readmitting a resident from the ER/hospital to call the facility's on-call provider, review the discharge orders with the provider then enter the orders in the resident's electronic health record. 7/1/25 3:00 PM - Findings were reviewed with E1 (NHA), E2 (DON), E7 (RN Regulatory Nurse) and E8 (Clinical Services).
CONCERN (D)

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

Dental Services (Tag F0791)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, it was determined that for one (R73) out of two residents reviewed for dental, the facility failed to provide the opportunity for follow up dental services. Findi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that for one (R73) out of two residents reviewed for dental, the facility failed to provide the opportunity for follow up dental services. Findings include: Review of R73's clinical record revealed: 2/11/23 - R73 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including dementia. 10/13/24 - A review of P1's (Dental) Report of Consultation documented, . Pt [R73] refused dental exam and treatment today .Recommendation: Pt would need pre-sedation prior to further treatment or dental exam. A handwritten note was also noted on the same consultation report documenting, . check oral cavity for follow up need .resident need a follow up, nursing to make apt (appointment). 11/19/24 - R73 had a physician's order to consult dental for evaluation and treatment as indicated. 11/25/24 - R73's annual MDS assessment revealed that his cognition was moderately impaired. 6/24/25 - During a telephone interview, FM1 (Family Member) stated, Dad [R73] never had any dental consults since last year. I was not notified. Last time I saw him, his teeth looked like never been cleaned by the dentist for a year now. 6/26/25 2:00 PM - In an interview, E1 (NHA) confirmed that R73's follow up dental appointment was not done until today and that [P1] will see him later today. 6/30/25 4:10 PM - Findings were reviewed with E1 (NHA) and E2 (DON).
Feb 2025 8 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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview, record review and review of other facility documents, it was determined that for two (R42 and R43) out of eight residents reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure that R42...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, record review and review of other facility documents, it was determined that for two (R42 and R43) out of eight residents reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure that R42 was free from resident - to - resident physical abuse by R43 and R43 was free from physical abuse by R42. Findings include: A review of the facility's abuse policy titled, Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation and Misappropriation Prevention Program, revised April 2021, indicated, . The resident abuse, neglect and exploitation prevention program .1. Protect residents from abuse . by anyone including , other residents; . Cross refer F600 Ex. 2., F684 and F690 1. A review of R43's clinical record revealed the following: 5/25/22 - R43 was initially admitted to the facility with diagnoses including dementia. 7/30/24 (revised 1/31/25) - R43's behavioral care plans included, physical aggression/abuse against others including, hitting resident on arm, throwing water on a resident and repeated episodes of aggression. R43's care plan approaches included, Administer medications as ordered, allow resident time to calm down and reapproach, approach in calm, quiet manner, offer reassurance and support, psych consult, when necessary, remove resident from situation, and redirect when aggression is observed. 7/31/24 - R43's admission MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment revealed that R43's cognition was severely impaired with a BIM's score of 5. R43 had no mood symptoms however R43 had verbal and physical behavioral symptoms occurring 1-3 days during the review period. 9/19/24 - R43 was re-admitted to the facility from a hospitalization with diagnoses including but not limited to dementia, bipolar disorder and insomnia due to mental disorder. 10/2/24 - R43's significant change MDS assessment revealed that R43's cognition was moderately impaired with a BIM's score of 9. R43 had no mood or behavioral symptoms exhibited during the review period. 10/15/24 - R43 was care planned for new disruptive behavior related to throwing objects at other residents and interventions included ensuring the safety of R43 and others and establishing boundaries and limits with R43. 11/4/24 - A psych note documented, . returned from psych hospitalization . on 9/19, [R43] was admitted for 13 days due to agitation and disorganization . 11/4/24 9:41 PM - A nurse's progress note documented, [R43] picked up a cup of water and threw it on another resident (unidentified). [R43] redirect with 1:1 . 11/5/24 12:22 AM - A facility incident report submitted to the State Agency documented that on 11/5/24 at 11:50 PM, .[R42] was at the nursing station when another resident [R43] threw a plastic cup of water at his head . 11/5/24 - R43's behavior care plan intervention was updated to include offering R43 with activities that will entertain . enjoys watching TV. 11/9/24 4:33 PM - A facility incident report submitted to the State Agency documented that on 11/9/24 at 3:34 PM, .[R43] was sitting in (sic) a chair in front of the Nurse's Station while watching TV . raised his arm and hand while holding a cup of water and threw the water on [R42] . R42 was seated next to R43 (left side). 11/9/24 (revised 11/13/24) - R43's behavior care plan intervention was updated to include close observation. 11/17/24 5:05 PM - A facility incident report submitted to the State Agency documented that on 11/17/24 at 3:45 PM, .[R42] was just sitting down at the nurses station watching TV, when the other resident approach (sic) him and threw a cup of water on him. 11/18/24 - R43's behavior care plan intervention was updated to include monitor [R43] when giving beverages to attempt to avoid aggressive behavior with throwing beverage at other residents. 12/13/24 - An untimed facility incident witness statement by E21 (former DON) documented, .[R43] was seen to have a toilet seat cover from a commode at the nursing station. [R43] was seen putting the toilet seat cover behind his back in his wheelchair and began to wheel himself to his room (which is next to the nursing station). [R42] was walking around the nursing station and passed [R43]. [R43] was seen speaking to [R42] however unknown what was said. [R43] then took the toilet cover from behind him and hit [R42] in the left shoulder . 12/13/24 - R43 was care planned for aggression from another resident related to being hit with a commode toilet seat and resident hitting another resident with commode. R43's intreventions included safety measures - including strategies to reduce the risk of infection, falls, injury initiated as appropriate. 1/31/25 - R43's behavior care plan intervention was updated to include [R43] to go to (psych hospital) when needed as ordered. The facility failed to ensure that (R42) was free from physical abuse by R43 when on multiple occasions on 11/5/24, 11/9/24 and 11/17/24 R43 threw water on R42. In addition, on 12/13/24, R43 hit R42 with a toilet cover on R42's left shoulder. 1/31/25 5:00 PM - Finding was discussed with E1 (NHA). Cross refer F600 Ex. 1 2. A review of R42's clinical record revealed the following: 3/15/18 - R42 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including but not limited to depression, anxiety disorder and dementia. 3/16/18 - R42 was care planned for impaired cognition and interventions including but not limited to, . Needs supervision/assistance with all decision making. 9/18/24 - R42's quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment revealed that R42's cognition was severely impaired with a BIM's score of 3 and no mood or behavioral symptoms during the review period. 11/13/24 (revised 12/23/24) - R42 was care planned for physical behaviors as evidenced by slapping a resident in the face .physical aggression . getting a cup of water thrown on him by another resident and being hit by another resident and then hitting back in the head. R42's interventions included: analyze times, places, circumstances, triggers and what de-escalates behavior and document and R42 to be moved to another unit to ensure [R42's] safety. 11/18/24 - R42 was care planned for alteration in comfort related to receiving aggressive behavior from another resident. Interventions included but not limited to ensuring that R42 feels safe and removing R42 from situation (12/30/24). 12/13/24 8:55 AM - A facility incident report submitted to the State Agency documented that on 12/13/24 at 12:30 AM, . [R42] was observed suddenly hitting another resident [R43] over the head with a bedside commode toilet seat without provocation . 12/13/24 - An untimed facility incident witness statement by E21 (former DON) documented, . [R42] then took the toilet cover (from R43) and hit [R43] in the head . 12/13/24 - R42 was care planned to refrain from initiating aggressive behavior with interventions including: - remove and or distract [R42] if possible if his demeanor changes and is showing signs of aggression or anger; - [R42] encouraged to refrain from initiating aggressive behavior from others - Safety measures . imitated as appropriate and; - Speak calmly to resident. The facility failed to ensure that R43 was free from physical abuse by R42 when on 12/13/24 R42 hit R43 with a toilet cover in the head. 1/31/25 5:00 PM - Finding was discussed with E1 (NHA). 2/4/25 at 3:00 PM - Findings were reviewed during the exit conference with E1 (NHA), E2 (DON), E15 (RM), E16 (VPO), E17 (DCS), E18 (Corp. IP/SD) and E19 (RN).
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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, it was determined that for three (R23, R53 and R89) out of three residents reviewed for communication the facility failed to ensure eash residents' MDS assessment...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, it was determined that for three (R23, R53 and R89) out of three residents reviewed for communication the facility failed to ensure eash residents' MDS assessments accurately reflected their status. Findings include: 1. Cross refer to F656 and F676 R23's clinical record revealed: 11/8/24 - R23 was admitted to the facility. 11/9/24 7:41 AM - R23's admission evaluation documented: . 8. Preferred Language: SPANISH 9. Do you need or want an interpreter to communicate with a doctor or health care staff? YES . 11/14/24 - The admission MDS assessment, under Section A, documented that R23's preferred language was English. 2/4/25 at 1:30 PM - During an interview, E14 (RNAC) reviewed the 11/14/24 admission MDS and confirmed the MDS should have indicated Spanish as the preferred language. 2. R53's clinical record revealed: 11/16/24 - R53 had an active physician's order for depakote an anticonvulsant medication every 12 hours. 11/25/24 - An acute progress note by E24 (NP) documented to continue with depakote. 11/28/24 - The quarterly MDS assessment, under Section N, lacked evidence that R53 was taking depakote during the last 7 days. 2/4/25 at 1:30 PM - During an interview, E14 (RNAC) reviewed the 11/28/24 quarterly MDS and confirmed the inaccuracy. 3. R89's clinical record revealed: 11/7/24 - R89 was admitted to the facility with diagnosis of a stroke. 11/9/24 - R89's Physical Therapy evaluation documented that right and left lower extremities range of motion were impaired. 11/13/24 - The admission MDS assessment documented R89's no functional limitation in range of motion for lower extremities. 2/4/25 at 1:30 PM - During an interview, E14 (RNAC) confirmed the MDS inaccuracy. 2/4/25 at 3:00 PM - Findings were reviewed during the exit conference with E1 (NHA), E2 (DON), E15 (RM), E16 (VPO), E17 (DCS), E18 (Corp. IP/SD) and E19 (RN).
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 interview, it was determined that for one (R69) out one resident reviewed for mood/behavior, the facility failed to coordinate with the PASRR program under Medicaid and refe...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, it was determined that for one (R69) out one resident reviewed for mood/behavior, the facility failed to coordinate with the PASRR program under Medicaid and refer the resident for an assessment. Findings include: 1. R69's clinical record revealed: 12/17/24 - A PASRR Level 1 Screen was completed by the hospital and documented that R69 had no mental health diagnosis known or suspected and no current mental health medications prescribed. 12/27/24 - R69 was admitted to the facility. 1/13/25 - A psychiatric evaluation documented, . past psychiatric history of depression and anxiety . review of psychotropic med (medication) regimen and management of mood/behaviors . Does endorse feelings of anxiousness intermittently . Available records prior to facility admit reviewed and appreciated. Reportedly w/ (with) lengthy psych history and diagnosis of anxiety as well as depression . noted h/o (history of) paranoia. Resident was previously treated in the past with Olanzapine [antipsychotic] . 1/13/25 - A physician's order prescribed mirtazapine medication daily for R69's depression. 1/14/25 - A physician's order prescribed xanax medication two times a day and as needed for R69's anxiety. 1/15/25 - R69 was care planned for anxiety and depression with approaches that included, but were not limited to, administering medications as ordered. 1/29/25 - A psychiatric note documented, . seen today at request of facility staff due to worsening anxiety . Recommendations: 1. Continue mirtazapine . for depression . benefits greater than risks at this time. 2. Continue xanax . for anxiety . 5. Plan to contact out patient psych provider . for additional history/verification, may need to consider resume olanzapine/alternative AP [antipsychotic] as there is evidence of potential underlying psychotic process . 1/31/25 at 1:45 PM - During an interview, E9 (SSD) was asked if he submitted a referral to the PASARR office to have a Level 1 screen completed for R69. E9 replied no. 2/4/25 at 3:00 PM - Findings were reviewed during the exit conference with E1 (NHA), E2 (DON), E15 (RM), E16 (VPO), E17 (DCS), E18 (Corp. IP/SD) and E19 (RN).
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 F0676 (Tag F0676)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, it was determined that for one (R23) out of three residents reviewed for communication, the facility failed to provide Spanish-speaking translation/interpretation...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, it was determined that for one (R23) out of three residents reviewed for communication, the facility failed to provide Spanish-speaking translation/interpretation services during nursing care for R23. Findings include: The facility's policy and procedure entitled Translation and/or Interpretation of Facility Services, revised November 2020, stated, This facility's language access program will ensure that individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP) shall have meaningful access to information and services provided by the facility . 6. Competent oral translation of vital information that is not available in written translation . shall be provided in a timely manner . 10. It is understood that in order to provide meaningful access to services provided by this facility, translation and/or interpretation must be provided in a way that is culturally relevant and appropriate to the LEP individual . Cross refer to F641 and F656 11/8/24 - R23 was admitted to the facility. 11/9/24 at 7:41 AM - R23's admission evaluation documented: . 8. Preferred Language: SPANISH 9. Do you need or want an interpreter to communicate with a doctor or health care staff? YES . 12/22/24 at 2:38 PM - A nurses note documented, Reported to me that resident is on the floor. Resident lying on the floor on her left side, able to move all extremities . Resident unable to state what happened due to language issues . 12/23/24 at 9:43 AM - A nurses note documented, At 0300 (3 AM) resident CNA came to the nurses station stating resident was lying on the floor in her room. Supervisor and nurse immediately rushed to room . Resident was observed lying on the floor on her stomach next to the bed. Resident could not explain where and what she was doing. Resident only speaks Spanish . The facility lacked evidence that nursing staff were utilizing translation services, including during the 12/22/24 and 12/23/24 post-fall assessments. 2/4/25 at 2:00 PM - During an interview, E1 (NHA) was asked for evidence of nursing staff utilizing translation services for R23. E1 provided a list of eight transactions for translation service payments with dates and times from the corporation. Neither date of 12/22/24 or 12/23/24 were listed on this document nor was there documentation in R23's clinical record that translation services were provided. 2/4/25 at 3:00 PM - Findings were reviewed during the exit conference with E1 (NHA), E2 (DON), E15 (RM), E16 (VPO), E17 (DCS), E18 (Corp. IP/SD) and E19 (RN).
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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation and interview, it was determined that for one (R43) out of three residents reviewed for bowe...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation and interview, it was determined that for one (R43) out of three residents reviewed for bowel and bladder, the facility failed to evaluate R43's decline in urinary continence and failed to maintain or restore continence after R43's multiple falls related to his need for toileting assistance. Findings include: Cross refer F600 and F684 A review of R43's clinical records revealed the following: 7/24/24 - R43 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including but not limited to dementia. 7/25/24 - R43 was care planned for ADL (Activities of Daily Living) deficit related cognition with interventions including assisting R43 to attend activities of choice. In addition, R43 was set up for care and supervise/verbal dues (sic) to assure he follow thru. 7/25/24 - R43 was care planned for falls related to .poor safety awareness .with interventions including offering toileting before going to bed (8/14/24) and reminding R43 not to go to the bathroom without help (10/25/24). 7/31/24 - R43's admission MDS assessment revealed that R43's cognition was severely impaired and was always continent of urine and bowel during the review period. 9/6/24 (revised 1/22/25) - R43 was care planned for behaviors as evidenced by urinating on the floor and also defecating on the AC (air condition) unit. R43's interventions included encouraging R43 to call for assistance when he is ready to use the bathroom and providing R43 with a urinal. 9/19/24 - R43 was re-admitted from the psych hospital from [DATE] through 9/19/24 9/19/24 - A facility Bladder and Bowel Continence Evaluation - readmission Assessment documented: Is resident completely continent? - No Functional Mobility, Manual Dexterity, Toileting Ability - Extensive Assist Bowel Continence - Occasional Bladder Continence - Occasional Resident toileting preference - Brief List any further important details - none 9/25/24 - a facility Bladder and Bowel Program Evaluation - Quarterly Assessment documented: How long has the resident been incontinent - don't know Has a trial of a toileting program attempted? No Current toileting program or trial - No Bowel - continent of stool - no Is a toileting program currently being used .? - No Program initiation: urinary TP - No .bowel TP - No Do not initiate program, why? - (no answer) 10/2/24 - R43's significant change MDS assessment revealed that R43's cognition was moderately impaired and was frequently incontinent of urine and bowel. R43 was not on a toileting program during the review period. 10/3/24 - A facility Bladder and Bowel Program Evaluation - Quarterly Assessment documented: How long has the resident been incontinent - don't know Has a trial of a toileting program attempted? Unable to determine Current toileting program or trial - No Bowel - continent of stool - no Is a toileting program currently being used .? - No Program initiation: urinary TP - No .bowel TP - No Do not initiate program, why? - (no answer) 11/14/24 - R43 was care planned for risk for skin break down as evidenced by incontinence and limited mobility with interventions including incontinent care after each incontinent episode. 1/2/25 - R43's quarterly MDS assessment revealed that R43's cognition was moderately impaired and was always continent of urine and occasionally incontinent of bowel during the review period. 1/3/24 - A facility Bladder and Bowel Program Evaluation - Quarterly Assessment documented: How long has the resident been incontinent - N/A - continent Has a trial of a toileting program attempted? No Current toileting program or trial - No Bowel - continent of stool - yes Is a toileting program currently being used .? - No Program initiation: urinary TP (Toileting Program) - No .bowel TP - No Do not initiate program, why? - continent of bladder and bowel 1/31/25 - A review of R43's fall incident reports from August 2024 through December 2024 revealed the following: - 8/13/24 11:40 PM - Resident was found sitting on the floor at the bathroom door with his feet facing his bed . - 8/14/24 12:04 AM - Resident fell out of wheelchair onto his left side .Stated he was trying to take himself to the bathroom .had recent fall related to toileting himself . - 10/17/24 12:45 PM - Resident was transferring self from bed to go to the bathroom without asking for assistance, he fell before reaching to the bathroom, he reported hitting his head .was going to the bathroom fell and hit his head. - 10/17/24 1:00 PM - Resident was found on the floor next to the bathroom in his room. Resident stated he was trying to use the bathroom and he fell . stated that he hit his head and he was nauseous .sent resident to hospital for further evaluation . Resident is being offered a commode and a medical review is underway due to resident frequent falls .Where Changes made to the care plan? Yes offer commode. Resident to be toileted via commode. - 10/18/24 5:10 AM - Resident sitting on buttocks at the foot of the bed. I was trying to use the bathroom . - 10/21/24 10:10 AM - Resident lying on the floor by the bathroom door trying to go to the bathroom. 1/30/25 9:31 AM - During an obsevation, R43 was observed sitting on the bench in front of the nurse station while watching TV. E3 (ADON) and E4 (LPN/UM) were observed talking in the nurses station. 1/31/25 9:33 AM - In a follow up observation, R43 stood up with unsteady gait, transferred self on the wheelchair and propelled his way to his room. R43 parked his wheelchair outside the bathroom, stood up, entered the bathroom unassisted and unsupervised. The sound of the toilet flushed was heard. R43 came out the bathroom and with unsteady gait turned to sit on the wheelchair. R43 was seen self propelling back to the nurses station. 1/31/24 9:35 AM - During interview, E6 (LPN) stated that R43 is continent of bowel and bladder and is able to go to the toilet but will still require staff supervision. E6 added that R43 was a high fall risk and has impulsive and aggressive behaviors that could be harmful to himself, to the other residents or to the staff. We have to be careful when we are around him cause he gets agitated so easily and he is not compliant with asking for assistance when using the bathroom. The facility failed to evaluate R43's toileting decline and initiate a personalized toileting program to address his falls while attempting to use the toilet. 1/31/25 5:00 PM - Findings were discussed with E1 (NHA). 2/4/25 at 3:00 PM - Findings were reviewed during the exit conference with E1 (NHA), E2 (DON), E15 (RM), E16 (VPO), E17 (DCS), E18 (Corp. IP/SD) and E19 (RN).
CONCERN (E) 📢 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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Cross refer F690 3. Review of R43's clinical records revealed: 9/19/24 - R43 was re-admitted to the facility with diagnoses including but not limited to dementia, bipolar disorder and insomnia due to...

Read full inspector narrative →
Cross refer F690 3. Review of R43's clinical records revealed: 9/19/24 - R43 was re-admitted to the facility with diagnoses including but not limited to dementia, bipolar disorder and insomnia due to mental disorder. 1/31/25 - A review of R43's fall incident reports from August 2024 through December 2024 revealed that R43 fell six (6) times related to his need for assistance with toileting on the following dates: - 8/13/24 11:40 PM; - 8/14/24 12:04 AM; - 10/17/24 12:45 PM; - 10/17/24 1:00 PM; - 10/18/24 5:10 AM and; - 10/21/24 10:10 AM. 1/31/25 - A review of R43's care plan lacked evidence that person centered care plan was developed to maintain or restore bladder and bowel continence after R43's multiple falls related to his need for toileting assistance. 1/31/25 5:00 PM - During interview, E1 (NHA) confirmed that an incontinence care plan was not developed for R43 and that the clinical team will be looking into it. 2/3/25 3:52 PM - In an email correspondence, E1 sent an attached file pertaining R43's incontinence care plan initiated on 2/2/25. The facility failed to ensure R43's person centered care plan interventions and a personalized toileting program was reviewed to address R43's falls related to R43's need to use the bathroom. 2/4/25 at 3:00 PM - Findings were reviewed during the exit conference with E1 (NHA), E2 (DON), E15 (RM), E16 (VPO), E17 (DCS), E18 (Corp. IP/SD) and E19 (RN). Based on record review and interview, it was determined that for three (R23, R89 and R43) residents reviewed for care plans the facility failed to develop and implement person-centered care plans, that included measurable objectives and timeframes, to meet each residents' needs. Findings include: Cross refer to F641 and F676 1. R23's clinical record revealed: 11/8/24 - R23 was admitted to the facility. 11/9/24 7:41 AM - R23's admission evaluation documented: . 8. Preferred Language: SPANISH 9. Do you need or want an interpreter to communicate with a doctor or health care staff? YES . 11/14/24 - The admission MDS assessment, under Section A, incorrectly documented that R23's preferred language was English. From 11/8/24 through 1/7/25, R23 lacked a person-centered communication care plan as a Spanish-speaking resident. 1/8/25 - Two months after R23 was admitted to the facility, a care plan was initiated for communication problem related to language barrier with an approach that included, but was not limited to, obtaining translation services. 1/13/25 - R23 was discharged to home. 2/4/25 2:00 PM - During an interview, finding was reviewed with E1 (NHA). 2. R89's clinical record revealed: 11/7/24 - R89 was admitted to the facility. 11/8/24 - A care plan entitled, Resident to attends (sic) activities of choice until next progress note. The goal was Resident will attend group activities of choice until next review. Approaches were: escort to activity as needed; provide independent activity material as needed; provide monthly calendar; and remind resident of upcoming activities and/or event. 2/4/25 at 2:00 PM - During an interview, finding was reviewed with E1 (NHA). The facility failed to develop and implement a person-centered activity care plan for R89 that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet R89's medical, mental and psychosocial needs.
CONCERN (E) 📢 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 multiple residents

Based on clinical record review and interview, it was determined that for one (R43) out of one sampled resident, the facility failed to ensure the physician's order to administer quetiapine fumarate (...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on clinical record review and interview, it was determined that for one (R43) out of one sampled resident, the facility failed to ensure the physician's order to administer quetiapine fumarate (Seroquel) . Findings include: Cross refer F600 Review of R43's clinical record revealed: 7/24/24 - R43 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including dementia. 7/25/24 - R43 was care planned for receiving antipsychotic medication (to help manage his aggressive behaviors) and is at risk for behaviors and side effects. 7/30/24 - R43 was care planned for behavior as evidenced by physical aggression and interventions included to administer meds as ordered. 11/7/24 - R43 had a physician's order for quetiapine fumarate (Seroquel) 50 mg give 1 tablet by mouth two times a day for bipolar disorder. 12/3/24 1:11 PM - A nurse progress noted documented, . quetiapine fumarate . med presently N/A (not available), reordered from pharmacy . 12/4/24 10:15 AM - A nurse progress note documented, . quetiapine fumarate . med not delivered from pharmacy despite being reordered. Spoke to pharmacy and they stated that 'the claim was paid and it will be sent on our evening delivery'. will pass in rpeort . 12/4/24 1:37 PM - A nurse progress note documented, . quetiapine fumarate .awaiting delivery of med . 12/5/24 9:36 AM - A NP encounter note documented, .Of note, patient (sic) quetiapine (sic) 50 mg tablets not delivered by pharmacy and missed PM dose yesterday as well as AM and PM doses today, per nursing staff pharmacy reported to be delivered this evening. Will plan to administer additional 50 mg doses at bedtime with routine 200 mg order . 1/31/25 12:34 PM - Review of R43's December 2024 MAR revealed that R43 missed three (3) doses of quetiapine fumarate 50 mg 1 tab on 12/3/24 at 2 pm. The following day, 12/4/24, R43 missed two more doses at 8:00 AM and 2:00 PM, for a total of three missed doses. 1/31/25 2:40 PM - In an interview, E4 (LPN/UM) confirmed that R43's quetiapine fumarate 50 mg doses were not administered on 12/3/24 at 2:00 PM and on 12/4/24 at 8:00 AM and at 2:00 PM. 1/31/25 3:10 PM - During interview, E1 (NHA) confirmed that the physician was not notified right away on 12/3/24 when the quetiapine fumarate medication was not available. 1/31/25 5:00 PM - Findings were discussed with E11 (NHA). 2/4/25 at 3:00 PM - Findings were reviewed during the exit conference with E1 (NHA), E2 (DON), E15 (RM), E16 (VPO), E17 (DCS), E18 (Corp. IP/SD) and E19 (RN).
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0802 (Tag F0802)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a qualified person in charge was present during all hours of operation. The presence of a certified food pr...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a qualified person in charge was present during all hours of operation. The presence of a certified food protection manager reduces the risk for a foodborne outbreak especially for vulnerable populations. CMS recognizes the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Food Code and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) food safety guidance as national standards to procure, store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in long term care facilities in a safe and sanitary manner. 1/29/25 11:00 AM - Review of the kitchen staff work schedule provided by E23 (District Food Service Manager) revealed that only one staff person E22 (Food Service Manager) out of three (E22, E23 and E25) who possessed valid Food Protection Manager certificates from an Accredited Food Safety Program was scheduled to work from 12/1/24 through 12/28/24. E22 was scheduled to work seventeen days out of twenty-eight on the December 2024 kitchen staff schedule and eight days out of fourteen on the partial January 2025 schedule. E23 and E25 (Dietary) were not listed to work any days on the December 2024 or January 2025 kitchen staff schedule. 2/4/25 at 3:00 PM - Findings were reviewed during the exit conference with E1 (NHA), E2 (DON), E15 (RM), E16 (VPO), E17 (DCS), E18 (Corp. IP/SD) and E19 (RN).
Dec 2024 3 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

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, it was determined that for one (R2) out of three residents reviewed for accidents, the fa...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, it was determined that for one (R2) out of three residents reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to provide a safe environment by having two staff members present to assist with turning when R2 received a shower on 10/25/24. R2 sustained harm due to the traumatic removal of the nephrostomy tube during care and needed to be transported to the hospital for emergency treatment. On 10/26/24, R2 was again sent to the emergency room for evaluation of the injuries to his face, torso and lower extremeties. 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, this deficiency was determined to be past non-compliance as of 10/29/24. Findings include: R2's clinical records revealed: 2/26/16 - R2 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including traumatic brain injury, tracheostomy, enteral tube feeding and neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder (which required the use of a nephrostomy tube for the drainage of urine from the bladder.) 2/29/16 - R2's care plan documented, . [R2] is totally dependent on staff to provide shower .totally dependent on staff for repositioning and turning 10/27/17 - R2's care plan documented, .2 person assist [assistance] with turning and repositioning . 4/16/19 - R2's clinical records documented, 2 person assist [assistance] with bed mobility and transfers. 6/10/24 - R2's Treatment Administration Records (TAR) documented, Nephrostomy Care every shift and PRN (as needed). 8/19/24 - R2's quarterly MDS documented, Dependent, on staff for all activities of daily living. 10/1/24 - R2's Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) documented, Bath/Shower x (times) 2 person assist. 10/25/24 9:32 AM - A clinical progress (E2 DON) documented, IDT (Interdisciplinary Team) note LATE ENTRY s/p [status post] potential fall in shower, that resident is to be a 2 person [assistance] during shower care. 10/25/24 10:50 AM - R2's clinical records documented, Resident was assessed to have a dislodged Nephrostomy tube r/t repositioning during shower 10/25/24 11:48 AM - A clinical progress note (NP) documented, .Resident was receiving a shower when his nephrostomy tube got displaced, nursing staff also report that while turning patient inquired [acquired] multiple scratches to his feeding base [tube feeding site], mild abrasion. Will be sent out to the ER for replacement of tube. The facility failed to identify that R2's plan of care for two person assistance during his shower was implemented. 10/26/24 3:14 PM - R2's clinical records documented, . Family present with concerns of abrasions noted to residents left temple, forehead, above left eyebrow, and toes to b/l [bilateral] feet . mother and father expressed concerns of the number of staff present during shower, and appearance of shower bed . 10/26/24 6:38 PM - R2's clinical records documented, CNA today at around 1745 [5:45 PM] reported to the supervisor, that in the afternoon hours, she was told by the CNA who was taking care of resident yesterday, that resident fell in the shower room. resident noted with bruises and scratches on the left side of the face, right toes and right shoulders. immediately after receiving this information, On call for MD/POA made aware, new order to send resident to ER for evaluation. resident left facility via 911 ambulance to [NAME] hospital at 1815 [6:15 PM] pm . The facility's failure to ensure that R2's plan of care for two person assistance during the shower was implemented caused him to to go the emergency room twice, on 10/25/24 and 10/26/24. 10/26/24 7:05 PM - A facility reported incident submitted to the Division documented, A fall was reported that on 10/25 resident [R2] fell in the shower room and an aide picked him up without telling anyone. The facility's root cause analysis of the incident determined that the aide attempted to turn the resident to put a brief on him in the shower bed with the rails in the down position and R2 almost slid off. He hit the tiled wall of the shower and sustained the various injuries. 10/27/24 1:20 PM - R2's clinical records documented, . Nickel sizes bruise, yellow in color noted to left temporal [temple] area, abrasion to eyebrow 1.9 cm by 1 cm, abrasion to left cheekbone 2.7 cm by 3 cm, abrasion to right cheek 0.8 cm by 0.4 cm, abrasion to right knee 3.0 x 0.7 cm, abrasions to left second, third, fourth and fifth toes, nails to second and third toes [nails] broken, toes to right foot noted with then abrasions . 12/31/24 11:30 AM - During an interview E5 (CNA) stated, I helped [E7] put the resident [R2] on the shower bed. We used the Hoyer lift, and he [E7] took him to the shower room. I did not go into the shower room with him. 12/31/24 12:00 PM - During a telephone interview E6 (CNA) stated, E7 (CNA) asked me to bring some towels to the shower room. I brought the towels and took the dirty ones out. The Surveyor asked E6 if she helped E7 during R2's shower. E6 stated, No, I had my own residents to take care of. 12/31/24 12:30 PM - During an interview E3 (LPN) stated, I was called to see the resident (R2) in the shower room because his toes and face were bleeding. I noticed that the nephrostomy tube looked longer than it usually looked. I told the aide to put him back to bed so I can look at it again. I then saw that the tube was laying on the bed, and I knew that he needed to go to the hospital to have another one put in. The Surveyor asked E3 if R2 was wearing a brief when he was assessed in the shower room. E3 stated, I don't think he was wearing a brief because I would have had to pull it down to see the nephrostomy tube site on his back. The facility failure to provide 2 persons assistance for R2, a completely dependent resident during the shower caused the nephrostomy tube to become dislodged. This required R2 to be sent to the hospital for a new nephrostomy tube placement. 12/31/24 2:30 PM - An interview with E1 (NHA) revealed that E7 was suspended pending the investigation and will be terminated upon return. The facility completed audits of all residents and verified their transfer statuses. The facility also had in-servicing training with signatures for the trainings that began on 10/26/24 and completed on 10/29/24. The facility's in-service training documentation included: Transfer mobility [NAME], shower gurney and siderails. Based on the review of the facility's investigation, documented response, documented completion of in-service training and audits, staff interviews and no further incidents related to injuries or accidents of residents who received showers with the required number of staff members, R2's accident was determined to be past non-compliance harm. The plan of correction was initiated on 10/26/24 and completed on 10/29/24. 12/31/24 3:17 PM - Findings were reviewed at the Exit conference with E1 (NHA), E7 (Corporate Director of Rehab) and E8 (RN Risk Manager).
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 F0710 (Tag F0710)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review, it was determined that for one (R5) out of three residents reviewed for Physician services, the facility failed to ensure the physician/provider completed the required Control ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, it was determined that for one (R5) out of three residents reviewed for Physician services, the facility failed to ensure the physician/provider completed the required Control Prescription [C2- a required form for any controlled (Drug Enforcement Administration's drug schedules II through V) medications that the pharmacy must have completed with the provider's signature and DEA number in order to release the medication to the facility)] form for three medication orders (lacosamide, clonazepam, perampanel) that were necessary for R5's immediate care. Findings include: The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)'s drug schedule classifies drugs into different groups based on their risk of abuse or harm. (www.dea.gov) Cross refer F755 Review of R5's clinical record revealed: 12/27/24 Friday 6:36 PM - R5 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses, including but were not limited to, seizures and anxiety. 12/27/24 - E10 (MD/Medical Director) ordered in R5's EMR, .clonazepam (anti-anxiety medication) 1 mg- give 1 tablet by mouth every 12 hours for anxiety .Fycomba (perampanel) (anti-seizure medication) 6 mg - give 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime for seizure prevention .lacosamide (anti-seizure medication) 200 mg - give 1 tablet by mouth two times a day for seizures . The admitting physician [E10], who also functions as the Medial Director for the facility, failed to complete the required C2 forms for clonazepam (schedule IV controlled anti-anxiety medication), lacosamide (schedule V controlled anti-seizure medication) and perampanel (schedule III controlled anti-seizure medication) when he placed the orders for these drugs in R5'e EMR on Friday,12/27/24, for R5's immediate care. 12/27/24 11:03 PM - E13 (RN) documented in R5's EMR health status note, .but no C2 forms were sent to pharmacy except for the oxycodone prescription. The pharmacy reported that they had not received prescriptions for the resident's seizure control medication. The on-call provider from [medical practice] was updated on the situation, and a review of the medications was conducted. The writer [E13, RN] provided the pharmacy's phone number and fax number to the provider so that the missing prescriptions could be sent to the pharmacy. The facility failed to ensure the physician (E10) /provider (E15) completed the C2 forms that were required upon admission for necessary medication for R5's immediate care. 12/29/24 6:24 PM - On Sunday evening, E12 (LPN) documented in R5's EMR health status note, [E15] NP (nurse practitioner) was called again regarding the following meds that need scripts, clonazepam, lacosamide, midazolam and Mycomba (sic). She stated that she called the pharm (pharmacy) and they sent the C2 form to complete and refax. She's unable to do that so she recommended the forms will be filled out in A.M. Resident made aware. E15 (NP) failed to complete and return to the pharmacy the required C2 forms that were necessary to fill the orders for R5's clonazepam, lacosamide and perampanel medications despite being contacted two times by the facility nursing staff. For over sixty hours, the facility failed to have a physician/provider available on weekends with the capability to complete C2 forms. There was no documented explanation of why the provider (E15) was unable to complete and return the C2 form to meet R5's medication needs. R5 was in the facility for three days with active orders for three medications, which due to the lack of appropriate documentation, the pharmacy was unable to fill. Therefore, R5 missed five doses of clonazepam, three doses of Fycomba and five doses of lacosamide. 12/31/24 3:17 PM - Findings were reviewed at the Exit conference with E1 (NHA), E7 (Corporate Director of Rehab) and E8 (RN Risk Manager).
CONCERN (E) 📢 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 F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, it was determined that for one (R5) out of three residents reviewed for pharmacy services,...

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 one (R5) out of three residents reviewed for pharmacy services, the facility failed to obtain and administer three ordered medications (lacosamide, clonazepam, perampanel) to R5 from 12/27/24 to 12/29/24, which resulted in multiple missed doses of each medication. Findings include: Cross refer F710 R5's clinical record revealed: 12/27/24/ 11:14 AM - C1 (hospital physician assistant) documented in R5's interagency discharge orders, . Discharge Diagnoses: fracture of right radius (arm) . seizure . Medication Orders Upon discharge: . lacosamide 200 mg - 1 tablet by mouth two times a day . perampanel (Fycomba) 6 mg - give 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime for seizure prevention . clonazepam 1 mg - take 1 tablet by mouth every 12 hours . 12/27/24 Friday - R5 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses, including but were not limited to, seizures and anxiety disorder. 12/27/24 - E10 (MD/ Medical Director) ordered in R5's EMR (electronic medical record), . clonazepam 1 mg- give 1 tablet by mouth every 12 hours for anxiety . Fycomba (perampanel) 6 mg - give 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime for seizure prevention . lacosamide 200 mg - give 1 tablet by mouth two times a day for seizures . 12/27/24 6:36 PM - E9 (agency RN) documented in R5's EMR, . Reason for admission- per resident/caregiver: Fracture to wrist, S/P (status post) fall at home . Review of R5's December 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed the following medications were not administered to R5: - on Friday, 12/27/24, one dose of Fycomba, Clonazepam and Lacosamide; - on Saturday, 12/28/24, one dose of Fycomba, two doses of Clonazepam and two doses of Lacosamide; and - on Sunday, 12/29/24, one dose of Fycomba, two doses of Clonazepam and two doses of Lacosamide. Instead, E11 (LPN) and E12 (LPN) were documenting 9 or 3, which according to the MAR legend 9 means other/see nurses notes and 3 means out of the facility. 12/27/2024 11:03 PM - E13 (RN) documented in R5's EMR health status note, . but no C2 (control prescription form) forms were sent to pharmacy except for the oxycodone prescription. The pharmacy reported that they had not received prescriptions for the resident's seizure control medication. The on-call provider from [medical practice] was updated on the situation, and a review of the medications was conducted. The writer [E13] provided the pharmacy's phone number and fax number to the provider so that the missing prescriptions could be sent to the pharmacy. The facility's failure to obtain and send the necessary C2 forms to the pharmacy to ensure delivery of these three medications during the weekend resulted in R5 missing three doses of Fycomba (anti-seizure medication), five doses of clonazepam (anti-anxiety medication) and five doses of lacosamide (anti-seizure medication). 12/29/2024 6:24 PM - E12 (LPN) documented in R5's EMR health status note, [name] NP (nurse practitioner) was called again regarding the following meds that need scripts, clonazepam, lacosamide, midazolam and Mycomba (sic). She stated that she called the pharm (pharmacy) and they sent the C2 form to complete and refax. She's unable to do that so she recommended the forms will be filled out in A.M. Resident made aware. Review of R5's C2 forms for Fycomba, Clonazepam and Lacosamide revealed the forms were completed and sent to the pharmacy on Monday, 12/30/24, on the fourth day after admission. The facility lacked evidence that the required C2 forms were completed upon R5's admission on [DATE]. C2 forms are required to be completed and sent to the pharmacy with the prescriber's signature and DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) number before medications can be delivered to the facility. 12/31/24 2:10 PM - During a telephone interview, C2 (pharmacy tech at [pharmacy]) confirmed that [pharmacy] received the C2 form via fax for clonazepam on 12/30/24 and lacosamide on 12/31/24. At the time of the call, the pharmacy did not have documentation of receiving the C2 form for Fycomba. 12/31/24 2:35 PM - During an interview, E1 (NHA) confirmed that the code 9 on the MAR legend stood for other/see nurse notes and that R5 had not received the medication. 12/31/24 3:17 PM - Findings were reviewed at the exit conference with E1 (NHA), E7 (Corporate Director of Rehab) and E8 (RN Risk Manager).
Oct 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to report R1's allegation of sexual abuse to the Administrator or the State Agency within two hours when it became know...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to report R1's allegation of sexual abuse to the Administrator or the State Agency within two hours when it became known on the weekend of 10/5/24. The facility reported the allegation on 10/8/24. Findings include: The facility's policy entitled Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation or Misappropriation- Reporting and Investigating, last revised September 2022, stated, . 1. If resident abuse . is suspected, the suspicion must be reported immediately to the administrator and to other officials according to state law . 3. 'Immediately' is defined as: a. within two hours of an allegation involving abuse . Review of R1's clinical record revealed: 11/16/22 - R1 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses, including but was not limited to, stroke with left-sided weakness. 8/15/24 - R1's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented R1's Basic Inventory of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14, which was reflective of normal cognitive function. 10/8/24 10:40 AM - During an interview, R1 stated that the encounter of alleged inappropriate touch happened before the summer. R1 stated that he wears an incontinence brief and the incident occurred when he was being changed for bed. R1 also stated that he reported this incident to E8 (former Social Work Director) shortly after it occurred. R1 also stated that this type of behavior occurred multiple times. Review of E8's employee file revealed that E8 (former Social Work Director) was terminated from the facility on 7/7/23 for not a good fit. 10/8/24 11:15 AM - E1 (NHA) was notified by S1 (State Investigator) of R1's abuse allegation. 10/8/24 11:40 AM - E1 (NHA) stated that neither he nor E2 (DON) had been aware that E6 (CNA) was not caring for R1 or that R1 had made an abuse allegation involving E6. 10/8/24 12:20 PM - E2 (DON) called the State Agency to report R1's sexual abuse allegation. This was 3 days after the nursing supervisor E9 was made aware of R1's allegation on 10/5/24. 10/8/24 1:07 PM - During an interview, E6 (CNA) stated that approximately April of 2024 another resident (R5) told him that R1 was claiming that E6 had given him (R1) a hand job. E6 stated that he immediately told the nurse [E7, LPN], who told him not to take care of him any more. I reported it to my supervisor [E7]. The aides report things to the nurses all the time but they don't do anything about it a lot of the time. My nurse is my chain of command. Review of E7's Employee file revealed that E7 was terminated on 5/29/24 from the facility for falsifying records. Attempts to contact E7 were unsuccessful as the phone number that the facility provided was no longer in service. 10/8/24 2:28 PM - During an interview, E9 (RN/Nursing Supervisor) stated that on Saturday, October 5th E10 (CNA) told me that E6 (CNA) could not have R1 in his assignment. E9 proceeded to ask why E6 could not have R1 and was informed that R1 had accused E6 of stroking his penis while he was giving care. So he [E6] had not taken care of R1 in a long-time. The aides had been swapping assignments. I wasn't aware of this information prior to that. E9 (RN/Nursing Supervisor) then asked E6 about the allegation and he [E6] said the nurses knew about it. E9 stated, I assumed everyone else knew. I just started working as a supervisor in September 2024 . It did strike me as odd. But the CNAs said they have been swapping assignments for months . I don't know why I did not report it. I thought management knew. This was the first that I learned of it [the allegation]. 10/9/24 12:45 PM - During a telephone interview, E10 (CNA) stated, I was working on Saturday [10/5/24]. When the supervisor asked why E6 could not take care of R1, E6 said he could not have him [R1] because he [R1] has accused me of jerking him [R1] off during care. E6 said he told management. He [E6] never took care of R1 again. It is hard to work when E6 is on the schedule. The switches have been going on for months. The CNAs have to do a lot of switches because there are several residents that don't want E6 to care for them or E6 does not want to care for . I was standing right there and heard what E6 said. E6 said it right in front of E9 (Nursing Supervisor) . The supervisors make the assignments and the unit clerks switches the rooms if swaps are needed . I have been inserviced by [the facility] regarding abuse and neglect. You have to tell your supervisor as soon as you hear it [an allegation]. 10/9/24 1:15 PM - During an interview regarding the exclusion of E6 not caring for R1, E2 stated, Until yesterday [10/8/24], I knew nothing about it. E2 also confirmed that when staffing exclusions are made, it has to be verified by the unit managers/nursing supervisors. E2 also confirmed that multiple in-person inservices are given to the staff throughout the year regarding abuse and neglect. 10/9/24 2:15 PM - Findings were reviewed at the exit conference with E1 (NHA), E2 (DON), E3 (Corporate Risk Manager) and E4 (Corporate Director of Clinical).
Jul 2024 2 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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, it was determined that for one (R95) out of nine sampled residents reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to protect R95 from verbal abuse. Findings include: Rev...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that for one (R95) out of nine sampled residents reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to protect R95 from verbal abuse. Findings include: Review of R95's closed clinical record revealed: 11/23/22 - R95 was admitted to the facility. 5/25/23 - R95 had a care plan for physical and verbal aggression. Interventions included but not limited to listen to resident and try to calm. 8/24/23 - R95 had a care plan for verbal aggression to staff, yelling and threatening to have staff fired and interfering with care and disruptive behavior in the dining hall. Interventions included listen to resident and try to calm. 5/15/24 3:10 PM - A facility incident report submitted to the State agency documented that R95 was in the dining room awaiting dinner service. R95 got frustrated when he felt that E6 was ignoring him and yelled (fuck). E6 then cursed R95 and yelled at him. 5/15/24 - A written statement by E5 (RN) documented, At approximately 1715 (5:15 PM), I heard a screaming from the dining room. I saw [E6] at the entrance of the dining room upset and saying motherfucking way. I went in and saw [R95] and [E6] going back and forth using curse words. [R95] kept repeating 'I ain't no bitch you are.' [E6] said 'the fuck, you don't talk to me that way' and went into the kitchen. I asked [R95] what happened and he said that that they did not have the meal ticket for him and he kept calling her 15 - 20 times but she keeps walking from table to table ignoring him. When he got frustrate (sic) and slammed his phone on the table saying 'fuck', she said to him 'you don't fucking talk to me like that.' When she got to the kitchen doorway, she said ' you got me fucked up you dumbass bitch' . 5/15/24 - A written statement by E10 (CNA) documented, While I was in the dining room [R95] and [E6] had an altercation. [R95]'s (meal) ticket wasn't down there with the rest of the tickets .[R95] kept calling [E6] name (sic) but she didn't answer him so he yelled out 'fuck' then [E6] starting (sic) say stuff like 'I don' know who yall think yall be talking to' then .start arguing more and calling each other names like 'Bitches'. 5/15/24 - A written statement by E11 (CNA) documented, .[R95] had a loud verbal outburst when his question was not instantly answered. [E6] then raised her voice in retaliation to tell [R95] to 'not speak to her in that way' (sic) and she was helping someone else and would answer him when she was done. They then went back and forth yelling. 5/15/24 - A review on Employee Corrective Action (ECA) revealed that E6 was discharged from the contract company for poor performance, insubordination and rule violations. 5/21/24 8:14 AM - A progress note by E12 (SW) documented, .follow up with [R95] about incident that happened last week in (sic) dining room and it was reported no issues. Psych services was offered but resident refused . Findings were reviewed with E1 (NHA) and E2 (DON) during the Exit Conference on 7/17/24 beginning at approximately 2:00 PM.
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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review and interview, it was determined that for one (R40) out of one resident reviewed for hearing and visioin the facility failed to ensure the MDS was accurate for one ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interview, it was determined that for one (R40) out of one resident reviewed for hearing and visioin the facility failed to ensure the MDS was accurate for one (R40). Findings include: A review of R40's clinical record revealed: 5/2/23 - Resident was admitted to the facility. 5/2/23 - An inventory list included hearing aid and charger on admission. 5/7/24 - An annual MDS documented Hearing aid or other hearing appliance used. The response was recorded as No. 5/15/24 - A review of R40's care plan states that R40 is at risk for impaired communication. [R40] is very hard of hearing. 7/16/24 11:33 AM - During an interview with E8 (RNAC) it was confirmed that the MDS for hearing was wrong. Findings were reviewed with E1 (NHA) and E2 (DON) during the Exit Conference on 7/17/24 at approximately 2:00 PM.
Dec 2023 3 deficiencies 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview, record review and review of other facility documentation it was determined that for one (R37) out of twelve residents reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to prevent abuse. For ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, record review and review of other facility documentation it was determined that for one (R37) out of twelve residents reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to prevent abuse. For R37 sexual abuse by a staff CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant). An immediate jeopardy (IJ) was identified starting on 6/5/23. Due to the facility's corrective measures following the incident, this is being cited as immediate jeopardy, past non-compliance with an abatement date of 6/10/23. R37 had sustained psychosocial harm as R37 was still affected by the abuse. Findings include: A facility policy and procedure titled Identifying Types of Abuse documented . 1. As part of the abuse prevention strategy, volunteers, employees, and contractors hired by this facility are expected to be able to identify the different types of abuse that may occur against residents . 2. Abuse of any kind against residents is strictly prohibited . 3. Abuse towards a resident can occur as staff to resident abuse . 4. Sexual abuse is non-consensual conduct of any type with a resident . 5. Abuse may result in psychological, behavioral, or psychosocial outcomes. 1. Review of R37's clinical record revealed: 3/8/22 - R37 was admitted to the facility with a diagnosis of stroke, left side weakness, and difficulty in walking. 3/23/23 - R37's annual MDS assessment documented R37 required extensive physical assistance of two staff persons for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toileting, and personal hygiene. Additionally, R37 required limited physical assistance of one staff person for locomotion on the unit. 6/19/23 - Review of R37's quarterly MDS assessment revealed R37's cognition was intact. The facility investigation documented the following timeline for R37's allegation of sexual abuse on 6/5/23. 6/4/23 10:57 PM - E21 (CNA) clocked in for the 11:00 PM - 7:00 AM shift for work. 6/5/23 8:00 AM - E21's shift ended. 6/5/23 10:30 AM - R37 reported to E1 (NHA) and E18 (SW) that E21 (CNA) had sexually abused R37 multiple times since a week or two before Mother's Day. In addition, R37 stated, [R37] was emotionally distraught (distressed) and wanted counselling. 6/5/23 11:00 AM - E19 (HR) called E21, during the verbal interview E21 had been suspended pending the facility investigation related to R37's allegation that E21 had sexually abused R37. 6/5/23 10:51 AM - The facility submitted a report to the State of Delaware for a staff to resident allegation of sexual abuse. 6/5/23 1:00 PM - The facility initiated mandatory educations related to abuse, and the importance of staff to resident appropriate conversations and staff to resident relationships. 6/5/23 1:22 PM - E3 (PA) examined and interviewed R37. 6/5/23 1:50 PM - R37's family had been notified by the facility of the allegation of sexual abuse. 6/5/23 2:54 PM - R37 was transported to the hospital for further evaluation and treatment. 6/5/23 4:08 PM - The facility notified the police department. 6/5/23 4:12 PM - R37 had a sexual assault examination performed at the hospital. 6/5/23 4:15 PM - All current residents interviewed to identify concerns related any type of inappropriate sexual behavior from staff. 6/5/23 11:15 PM - R37 was transported back to the facility from the hospital. 6/6/23 1:15 AM - Police officers were dispatched to the facility to interview R37. 6/7/23 - A care plan initiated for R37 titled Bedside Care documented . 1. Two female staff to always provide care. 12/11/23 11:41 AM - During an interview R37 stated, E21 had sexual intercourse with [R37] on the weekends when E21 was scheduled to work. In addition, R37 revealed E21 attempted to have R37 perform oral sex on E21. Further into the interview R37 had become emotionally upset and tearful. R37 revealed that the sexual contact with E21 occurred multiple times. 12/11/23 12:32 PM - An interview with E1 revealed being notified of R37's allegation of sexual contact with E21. In addition, E1 revealed R37 reported being in a sexual relationship with E21. 12/12/23 10:42 AM - During a phone interview E21 confirmed, E21 had sexual contact with R37. Additionally, E21 revealed, the sexual contact happened more than one time. 12/13/23 10:06 AM - 10:17 AM - Staff interviews with E13 (Receptionist), E11 (CNA) and E20 (LPN) confirmed staff educations had been provided on different types of abuse, staff to resident appropriate conversations and staff to resident relationships/boundaries. In addition, staff interviewed verbalized indicators of sexual abuse, and the steps of reporting the allegation. Review of the facility's action plan and audits to identify concerns related to inappropriate sexual behaviors from staff continued for four weeks and monthly for three months and until no issues had been identified. Additionally, audit results were reviewed at weekly QAPI meetings. It has been determined that the facility abated the IJ on 6/10/23. Findings were reviewed during the Exit Conference with E1 (NHA) and E2 (DON) pn 12/15/23 at 3:00 PM.
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 F0602 (Tag F0602)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview it was determined that for two (R438 & R47) out of three residents reviewed for pain, the facility failed to ensure PRN narcotic pain medications were not inapprop...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview it was determined that for two (R438 & R47) out of three residents reviewed for pain, the facility failed to ensure PRN narcotic pain medications were not inappropriately diverted to an agency nurse on 8/23/23. Due to the facility's corrective measures following the incident, this is being cited as past non-compliance. Findings include: 1. Review of R438's clinical record revealed: 7/25/23 - R438 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including but not limited to multiple sclerosis and diabetes. 7/26/23 - R438 was ordered Oxycodone (narcotic pain relief medicine) 5 mg (milligrams) by mouth every 6 hours PRN (as needed order) for pain level 5-10. 8/23/23 1:28 PM - E44 (LPN) documented administering oxycodone 5mg by mouth to R438. Review of R438's medication administration record (MAR) by this surveyor revealed R438's pain scale was assessed every shift for the month of August 2023 and 100 percent of the time the pain level was documented as 0. R438 had only 4 doses of oxycodone in the month of August 2023; two of those four doses were administered by E44 on 8/2/23 and 8/23/23. 8/24/23 - E3 (PA) informed E7 (unit manager) of a conversation with R438 in which R438 stated that she had not received any pain meds on Wednesday, 8/23/23 despite E44 documented that he gave oxycodone 5mg on 8/23/23 at 1:28 PM. 8/25/23 - R438's PRN oxycodone pain medication order was discontinued. 10/30/23 - R438's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented R438's Basic Inventory of mental status (BIMS) score as 15, which was reflective of normal cognition. 12/13/23 9:59 AM - During an interview, E3 stated, That day (8/24/23) he [E44, LPN] was acting odd, out of character, talking loudly .I know him from other buildings. Then he went into the bathroom with a small bag, if a woman did that I would not think twice about it, but for a guy that was odd .and he came out of the bathroom still acting out of character. I was afraid to leave my bag at the nurses' station .because I had a script (prescription) pad in it. He used to be a good nurse when he worked at [another facility]. Then when I spoke with the resident [R438] about her pain medication on the previous day (8/23/23), she typically was not taking pain medicine . she had a PRN order for oxycodone 5 mg PO every 6 hours as needed so it was unusual that she requested the pain meds the day before (8/23/23). She [R438] denied taking it the day before (8/23/23) but E44 (LPN) had documented that he had given it to her. I reported it to [E7] the Unit manager. 12/13/23 11:09 AM - During a telephone interview, R438 stated when asked about the medications that she received on 8/23/23, My nurse was a Caucasian male and he wore glasses, not a big man. He gave me some pills. They were trying to get me to have a bowel movement. Then he came back and gave me a clear liquid (lactulose) to make me go. I had a big BM. Didn't request pain medicine. To my knowledge, I was not given any pain medicine. He gave me my meds and made sure I was OK. 2. Review of R47's medical record revealed: 4/5/23 - R47 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including but not limited to stroke, history of cancer of the larynx and S/P (status post) laryngectomy (removal of the voice box). 7/17/23 - R47's MDS assessment documented a BIMS score as 13, which was reflective of normal cognition. 8/17/23 - E3 (PA) ordered R47, Percocet 10-325 mg (oxycodone with Tylenol) (narcotic pain relief medicine) give one tab by mouth every 8 hours as needed for pain. 8/23/23 9 AM - E47 signed a [facility] Leave of Absence form stating that she [R47] was out of the facility from 9 AM until 4:30 PM. 8/23/23 12:47 PM - E44 (LPN) documented administering percocet to R47, stating the pain relieve was effective. Review of R47's MAR revealed R47 had a documented pain level of 3 on 8/23/23 by E44 (LPN) on the pain scale but on the PRN percocet order, E44 (LPN) documented R47's pain as a level of 7 and that E44 administered percocet to R47 at 12:47 PM on 8/23/23. Of note, R47 was documented as being out of the facility on a leave of absence with her granddaughter at this time. 8/24/23 4:30 PM - E3 (PA) alerted E49 (former DON) of the possibility of a documentation error vs. possible medication diversion. An investigation was initiated and included a 90 day look back. 8/25/23 - The facility's corrective actions at the time of the incident included: - E44 (agency LPN) was removed from the facility schedule - E44's staffing agency was notified about the investigation - interviews of residents in E44's assignments to assure that residents had not suffered uncontrolled pain - notification of the State agency (DHSS) of a possible medication diversion - notification of the State Board of Licensure when investigation revealed a pattern of more PRN medications being documented as administered for the residents that E44 cared for - E44 was placed on the company's Do Not Return list so he would not be able to work in any of the company's facilities - all nurses were educated regarding medication diversion -audit of all narcotic sheets 30 days prior to date of discovery -unit managers monitoring with review narcotic sign out sheets weekly and investigation any abnormalities Correction was verified onsite by review of facility documents and interview with facility staff. 12/13/23 9:44 AM - During an interview, R47 who speaks using a tracheoesophageal voice prosthetic, stated that she remembered speaking to an investigator about this incident. After being shown the 8/23/23 Leave of Absence form, R47 confirmed that was her signature on the form and that she left at approximately 9 AM and returned close to dinner around 4:30 PM. My granddaughter was rushing me so I did not get my pain meds (percocet PRN) prior to going. When asked why R47 is prescribed pain medications, R47 stated, I get pain meds for low back pain . at the time took it intermittently. Now I get it every day. R47 also denied that she received the pain medication when she returned to the building but he (E44) was gone by then, I had a different nurse. 12/13/23 12:29 PM - During an interview when asked if he [E1] felt E44 was diverting narcotics, E1 (NHA) stated, What do you think? He [E44] is not working here anymore. That one lady was not even in the building when he signed out narcotics for her. 12/15/23 3:00 PM - Findings were reviewed with E1 (NHA), E2 (DON), E23 (Corporate risk manager) and E24 (Corporate Director of Clinical reimbursement) at the exit conference .
CONCERN (E) 📢 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 F0688 (Tag F0688)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interview it was determined for one (R37) out of one resident reviewed for range of motion (ROM) the facility failed to ensure the resident received the ordered foot brace t...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview it was determined for one (R37) out of one resident reviewed for range of motion (ROM) the facility failed to ensure the resident received the ordered foot brace to prevent a decline in range of motion. Findings include: The facility policy on resident mobility and range of motion last updated July 2017 indicated, Residents with limited mobility will receive appropriate services, equipment and assistance to maintain or improve mobility . Review of R37's clinical record revealed: 3/18/22 - R37 was admitted to the facility with multiple diagnoses including weakness and paralysis affecting the left side. 10/20/23 - A therapy order was written by E8(RD) for R37 to wear left foot brace at night on after evening care, off after morning care for foot drop as tolerated. 10/20/23 - A care plan for alteration in mobility requiring restorative nursing program related to decreased strength upper and lower extremities was updated to include the intervention for R37 to wear left foot brace at night on after evening care off after morning care. October 20 - 31 2023 - Review of CNA documentation revealed 5/11 evenings that R37's left foot brace was not applied and not refused. November 2023 - Review of CNA documentation revealed 20/30 evenings that R37's left foot brace was not applied and not refused. During an interview on 12/14/23 at 3:23 PM E45 (CNA) an evening CNA who has been assigned to R37 more than once confirmed that she does not apply R37's leg brace. E45 stated, She wears a brace during the day time, I haven't seen a brace for at night. During an interview on 12/14/23 at 3:27 PM E8 (RD) explained, At night she wears it so that the top of the foot more comfortable and it keeps in a neutral position. During an interview on 12/14/23 at 3:57 PM with R37 it was reported that the evening staff was not applying the residents brace. When asked if R37 was given an explanation why staff did not apply the brace when requested R37 stated, They say no, that therapy should be doing it and that they shouldn't have to. R37 permitted the surveyor to visualize the brace, which was located in the second drawer of the nightstand, on the right side of drawer nearest to the window. During an interview on 12/15/23 at 10:12 AM E47 (CNA) confirmed that R47 was not wearing a brace E47 began providing morning care. During an interview on 12/15/23 at 10:19 AM E46 (LPN) a day shift nurse who has been assigned to R37 more than once confirmed that she has not had to remove R37's brace in the mornings. E46 stated that R37 has nothing on her legs in the morning, I go in and apply her stockings. During an interview on 12/15/23 at 10:21 AM E7 (LPN) and unit manager on R37's unit reviewed R37's CNA documentation related to application of the left foot brace in the evening. E7 confirmed the brace was documented as not applied and explained that Nurses are supposed to make sure that R37's brace is applied in the evening. E7 confirmed she was unaware the brace was not being applied and clarified that resident refusals of the brace are documented. December 2023 - Review of CNA documentation revealed 6/14 evenings that R37's left foot brace was not applied and not refused. Findings were reviewed during the exit conference with E1 (NHA) and E2 (DON) on 12/15/23 at 3:00 PM.
May 2023 2 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 facility documentation as indicated, it was determined that for one (R497) out of two residents reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to report an allegation of abus...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and review of facility documentation as indicated, it was determined that for one (R497) out of two residents reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse within the two hour required time frame to the State Agency. Findings include: The facility's policy entitled Abuse Investigation and Reporting, last revised 7/17, stated, . Reporting . 2. An alleged violation of abuse . will be reported immediately, but not later than: a. Two (2) hours if the alleged violation involves abuse . 12/15/22 7:20 AM - The facility's investigation documented the alleged violation of abuse involving E33's (CNA) aggressive behavior towards other nursing staff within proximity of R497 after the resident missed her transportation to an appointment. 12/15/22 12:59 PM - The facility investigation documented that the alleged violation of abuse was reported to the State Agency, approximately five and half hours later. 5/10/23 10:05 AM - Interview with E2 (DON) confirmed the reporting time. 5/16/23 3:15 PM - Findings were reviewed during the Exit Conference with E1 (NHA), E2 (DON) and E3 (Corporate Director of Clinical Services).
CONCERN (E) 📢 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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interview, it was determined that for five (R4, R34 R47, R51 and R86), out of nine residents sampled for medication review, the facility failed to consistently act on irregu...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, it was determined that for five (R4, R34 R47, R51 and R86), out of nine residents sampled for medication review, the facility failed to consistently act on irregularities identified during medication regimen reviews (MRRs) by the pharmacist. In addition, for R4 and R51, the facility failed to consistently complete and acquire Physician signatures on the required monthly medication regimen review (MRR) by a Pharmacist. Findings include: 1. Review of R47's clinical record revealed: 5/10/23 - R47's MRRs from January 2023 - April 2023 were reviewed. The pharmacist identified irregularities on 1/20/23. A Consultant Pharmacist Recommendations to Nursing Staff dated 1/20/23 revealed a request to update the AIMS (Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale) assessment for R47 who was receiving Zyprexa, an antipsychotic medication, at that time. R47's last assessment found in the electronic health record was from 6/30/22. There was no response by nursing found in the clinical record. 5/10/23 10:55 AM - In an interview, E2 (DON) stated that he started working in the facility only in February 2023. E2 added that he did not know what was going on with the pharmacy recommendations at that time. 5/10/23 11:00 AM - In an interview, E2 (DON) confirmed that there was no physician response to several months of R47's pharmacy recommendations and they were not in the clinical record. 2. Review of R86's clinical record revealed: 5/15/23 - R86's MRR's from February 2022 - April 2023 were reviewed. The pharmacist identified irregularities on the following dates: 2/23/23 and 3/24/23. On 2/23/23, the pharmacy review identified the following: -clarify pain scales when nurses should administer acetaminophen 650 mg every 6 hours when needed for pain and ibuprofen 200 mg every 4 hours when needed for pain -to document the rationale in the medical record and indicate duration of therapy for Ativan (for anxiety) PRN (when necessary) use more than 14 days or to discontinue use -clarify and update the diagnosis for seroquel that will support the use of antipsychotic therapy -clarify and update the diagnosis for flomax (treatment for enlarged prostrate) therapy On 3/24/23, the pharmacy identified the need to document the rationale in the medical record and indicate duration of therapy for Ativan PRN (when necessary) use more than 14 days or to discontinue use There was no response by E32 (Medical Director) found in the clinical record. 5/10/23 11:00 AM - In an interview, E2 (DON) confirmed that there was no physician response to several months of R86's pharmacy recommendations and they were not in the clinical record. 3. Review of R4's medical record revealed: 2/17/23- R4 was admitted to the facility. 5/9/23 9:45 AM- The Surveyor requested copies of MRR documentation from E1 (NHA) for R4 after not locating any in R4's medical record. 5/15/23 2:45 PM- E1 confirmed the inability to find the MRRs for R4 for February 2023 and March 2023. 4. Review of R51's medical record revealed: 9/24/21- R51 was admitted to the facility. 5/9/23 9:15 AM- Review of R51's medical record lacked evidence of monthly MRR reviews from December 2022 through April 2023. The Surveyor requested copies of MRR's from E1 for R51 for the past five months. 5/15/23 12:14 PM- During a telephone interview with P1 (Consultant Pharmacist), the Surveyor requested documentation of the January 2023 MRR. 5/16/23 2:45 PM- E3 (Director of Clinical services) supplied a copy of the MMR for January 2023; there was no Physician response or signature on the document. E3 confirmed the January 2023 MRR lacked a Physician signature. 5/10/23 12:45 PM- E1 (NHA) provided copies of the Consultant Pharmacist's MRR's: Listing of Residents Reviewed with No Recommendations. R51's name appeared on the February and March 2023 lists, despite the MAR documenting Erivedge 150 mg by PEG one time daily, an inappropriate route of administration. The medication was not to be crushed or broken. P1 failed to identify and correct the inappropriate route of administration (via PEG tube) of Erivedge from 10/15/22 to 1/12/23 (104 days) and 2/7/23 to 4/4/23 (56 days). P1 failed to report and document this irregularity on both the February 2023 and March 2023's MRRs. 5/15/23 12:14 PM- During an interview with P1, Independent Pharmacist, she stated that she never identified any problems with respect to the Erivedge. 5. Review of R34's clinical record revealed: 2/25/15 - R34 was admitted to the facility. 11/10/22 - A Physician's order was written for Penicillin Tablet 500 mg - give one tablet four times a day for ABT (antibiotic). P1 (Consultant Pharmacist) wrote Consultant Pharmacist Recommendations to R34's Physician for the months of November 2022 and January 2023 through April 2023 requesting that the Physician update the Penicillin order to include a stop date and a reason for the use of the Penicillin. 5/16/23 9:47 AM - During an interview, E2 (DON) confirmed that R34's monthly Consultant Pharmacist Recommendations were not acknowledged or acted upon by the facility Physician and staff for the months of November 2022 and January 2023 through April 2023. Findings were reviewed during the Exit Conference with E1 (NHA), E2 (DON), and E3 (Director Clinical Services) on 5/16/23, at approximately 3:15 PM.
Nov 2022 6 deficiencies 2 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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of R446's clinical record revealed: 8/12/22 - R446 was admitted to the facility with a broken left lower leg which req...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of R446's clinical record revealed: 8/12/22 - R446 was admitted to the facility with a broken left lower leg which required surgery, a seizure disorder and Cerebral Palsy. 8/18/22 - A surgical note provided to the facility related to R446's left leg wound ordered: Remove dressing/staples on 8/29/22 (prior to x-ray please). Incisions open to air. Dry dressing PRN (as needed) for any drainage. 9/6/22 2:05 PM - A Physician Assistant progress note included: Remove left knee stabilization brace since it is causing further irritation and pressure/pain, knee can be stabilized with ace wrap. Review of R446's Physician's orders revealed that the facility lacked evidence of an order to remove R446's left leg brace and to apply an ace wrap to R446's left leg. 9/7/22 11:06 PM - A Nursing progress note documented: Left lateral (leg) incision with open area draining serosang ([sic] appears like diluted blood) drainage, no odor. Area cleansed with NSS (normal saline solution) and clear dry dressing applied. Review of R446's September treatment record revealed that R446 did not have a Physician's order to apply a dressing to R446's left leg surgical wound. 9/12/2022 1:00 AM - A Practitioner progress note documented: Cellulitis is still present with some drainage but appears to be less swollen, Band-Aid is in place. R446's record continued to lack evidence of an order for any type of dressing to be applied to his left leg. 11/18/22 10:55 AM - During an interview, E27 (RCD) confirmed that the facility failed to follow a recommendation by the Practitioner and write an order to remove R446's leg brace and apply an ace wrap to R446's left leg. E27 also confirmed that the facility failed to write a treatment order as recommended by R446's Surgeon and that they completed two treatments to his leg without a Physician's order. 11/18/22 beginning at approximately 1:00 PM - Findings were reviewed with E1 (NHA), E26 (CRM), E27 (RCD), and E20 (ADON, RH). Based on record review, interview, and review of facility policy and procedure, it was determined that for two (R63 and R446) out of two residents reviewed for a change in condition, the facility failed to immediately identify a significant change in condition when R63 experienced a change in motor function of his left arm and hand from his baseline, beginning with the neurological evaluation (neurochecks) on 10/15/22 at 10:14 AM through 10/15/22 at 10:14 PM. On 10/16/22 at 7:50 AM, 911 was called by the facility to transfer R63 to the emergency room (ER). Emergency Medical Services (EMS) records indicated that the call was received by EMS on 10/16/22 at 7:50 AM, approximately 22 hours from the onset of a significant change of condition on 10/15/22 at 10:14 AM. The above failures resulted in harm when R63 experienced a significant decline in loss of function from his baseline and a delay of care for more than 22 hours. For R446 the facility failed to follow the practitioners' recommendations to remove a leg brace and apply an ace wrap and they failed to write a treatment order prescribed by the Surgeon and did leg treatments without an order. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Change in a Resident's Condition or Status, with a revision date of May 2017, stated, .1. The nurse will notify the resident's Attending Physician or physician on call when there has been a (an): a. accident or incident involving the resident .d. significant change in the resident's physical/emotional/mental condition .g. need to transfer the resident to a hospital/treatment center .4. Unless otherwise instructed by the resident, a nurse will notify the resident's representative when: a. The resident is involved in an accident or incident that results in an injury including injuries of an unknown source; b. There is a significant change in the resident's physical, mental, or psychosocial status .e. It is necessary to transfer the resident to a hospital/treatment center .Except in medical emergencies, notifications will be made within twenty-four (24) hours of a change occurring in the resident's medical/mental condition or status . Cross refer F580, Ex. 1 1. Review of R63's record revealed: 11/1/21 - R63 was admitted to the facility. 8/9/22 - The quarterly MDS assessment documented that R63 was moderately impaired for daily decision making with a BIMS of 10. 10/14/22 11:30 PM - A neurocheck documented R63's baseline assessment, including that he was able to move all extremities and that his hand grips were equal. 10/14/22 11:45 PM - A Health Status Note by E12 (LPN) documented that R63 had an unwitnessed fall at approximately 11:30 PM in the shower room and reported that he did not hit his head, but had red spots on the back of his shoulders. R63 was able to move all extremities without limitation and no other injuries or bruising was noted. Vital signs (vs) were within normal limits and R63 had no pain or discomfort. 10/15/22 8:01 AM - A Health Status Note by E13 (LPN) documented that a call was placed to E19 (MD), the on-call Physician related to the resident's complaint of back pain due to the fall on 10/14/22 at 11:30 PM. E19 stated not to request an x-ray and instead to administer pain medication and continue to monitor the resident for pain. E19 also recommended that R63 to continue with PT/OT therapy as usual. In addition, the in house Supervisor was made aware. 10/15/22 8:46 AM - A Health Status Note by E15 (RN) documented that the facility was continuing to monitor R63's condition by conducting neurochecks. 10/15/22 10:14 AM - A neurocheck documented a change in which R63 was unable to move his left arm and his right hand grip was greater than the left. There was lack of evidence that the facility identified this as a significant change in condition and they failed to consult the Attending Physician during this period of time. 10/15/22 2:14 PM - A neurocheck continued to document R63's change in condition in which R63 was unable to move his left arm and his right hand grip remained greater than the left. There continued to be lack of evidence that the facility identified this as a significant change in condition and they failed to consult the Attending Physician. 10/15/22 6:14 PM - A neurocheck documented that R63 was unable to move his left arm and his right hand grip was greater than the left. 10/15/22 6:14 PM - A Health Status Note documented by E14 (Agency LPN) documented, Resident was assessed and was noted out of his baseline. Could not walk to bathroom. Resident requesting to use urinal. Unable to move left arm. VS (vital signs) stable. Notified supervisor. Despite the fact that the above note documented that a Supervisor was notified, there was lack of evidence that the Supervisor responded. Additionally, there was continued lack of evidence that the facility failed to consult the Attending Physician. 10/15/22 10:22 PM - A neurocheck continued to document that R63 was still unable to move his left arm and his right hand grip was greater than the left. Although E14 (Agency LPN) recognized that R63 was not at his baseline and notified the Nursing Supervisor the previous evening, the significance of the changes were not acted upon and the facility failed to consult the Attending Physician. Additionally, there was lack of further monitoring of R63's condition after the 10/15/22 10:22 PM neurocheck until R63's vital signs were obtained prior to being transferred to the hospital on [DATE] at approximately 8:40 AM (more than nine hours later). 10/16/22 8:40 AM - An Order Administration Note by E14 (LPN) documented that R63 was sent to the ER. 10/16/22 9:50 AM - A Health Status Note documented by E16 (Agency RN) documented, Primary nurse notified this supervisor that resident didn't look like himself. So I went and I assessed the patient, and noticed him not doing things he obviously always did. He usually walks, goes to the bathroom, now is using a urinal, and all of sudden he needs to be fed, all vt (sic) WNL (vs within normal limits) and he couldn't move his left arm and so I called 911. Review of the initial hospital records, dated 10/16/22 and timed 10:07 AM, documented a diagnosis of an intracranial hemorrhage (bleeding inside the skull that puts pressure on the brain) and plan to transfer the resident to another hospital. 11/1/22 1:43 PM - Review of the receiving hospital's Interagency Discharge Orders indicated that R63 was diagnosed with bleeding on the right side of the brain likely due to high blood pressure. 11/17/22 11:54 AM - A telephone interview was conducted with E18 (LPN, Unit Manager) who confirmed that R63 had a change in condition, as documented on the neurocheck dated and timed 10/15/22 at 10:14 AM in which R63 was unable to move his left arm and his left hand grip was weaker than the right hand grip. Due to the facility's delay in identifying the significant change on 10/15/22 at 10:14 AM, R63 experienced a delay in emergency care until 911 was called and E63 was transferred to the hospital on [DATE] at 8:40 AM, approximately 22 hours later.
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

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined that for one (R445) out of one resident reviewed for hydration, the faci...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined that for one (R445) out of one resident reviewed for hydration, the facility failed to ensure that R445 received adequate hydration to prevent a hospitalization for dehydration and acute kidney injury (AKI). This resulted in harm to the resident. Findings include: The following was revealed in R445's clinical record: 9/28/22 - R445 was admitted to the facility with a history of a stroke affecting the right side, aphasia (unable to speak) and chronic kidney disease stage 3 due to intravenous (IV) contrast dye. 9/28/22 - The Hospital Discharge Summary included that R445 should have a BMP (a lab test to evaluate kidney and electrolyte levels, including sodium) one week after discharge and follow up with nephrology (kidney doctor) in two to seven days. The facility had no record of the labs being completed. 9/29/22 - A care plan was initiated and last revised on 9/30/22 included that R445 had potential for alteration in nutrition and hydration related to abnormal nutritional labs, mechanically altered diet related to a stroke, diet related to chronic kidney disease and diabetes. Interventions included: -Assist with meals as needed; -Encourage food and fluids as needed; -Monitor oral intakes and record; -Resident requires set up help with meals. 9/29/22 4:00 PM - The admission Nursing Assessment included that R445 had swallowing and chewing problems and a urinary catheter for urinary retention. 9/30/22 3:37 PM - A Physician note documented that R445 could feed himself with set up help. October 2022 fluid intake documented totals: 10/1 - 560 mL (milliliters), 10/2 mL- 720 mL, 10/3 - 480 mL, 10/4 - 60 mL, 10/5 - 840 mL, 10/6 - 840 mL, 10/7 - 720 mL, 10/8 - 1080 mL, 10/9 - 420 mL, 10/10 - 240 mL, 10/11 - 840 mL, 10/12 - 1090 mL, 10/13 - 240 mL, 10/14 - 600 mL, 10/15 - 480 mL, 10/16 - 260 mL on the 17th it was documented that R445 refused fluids. 10/3/22 - The History and Physical by the Physician documented that R445 currently required maximum assistance with ADLs. Encourage hydration (fluids) to monitor blood count, electrolytes and sugars. Routine labs were ordered. There was no evidence of labs to monitor the blood count or electrolytes for R445 in the clinical record. 10/4/22 - An admission MDS assessment documented that R445 was cognitively impaired, required extensive assistance of one person physical assist for eating / drinking and personal hygiene, used a wheelchair and had an impairment to the upper and lower limbs of one side of the body. The assessment also documented the resident did not have any swallowing difficulty. 10/14/22 1:38 PM - A dietary note documented that R445 had poor oral intake with a weight loss of six pounds from admission through 10/10/22 (12 days). 10/17/22 2:23 PM - A health status note stated, M.D. (Medical Doctor) notified to further evaluate resident; resident reportedly has decreased appetite; sleeping more; and is no longer transferring with one assist; resident's vitals (vital signs) are stable; resident responds to verbal and tactile (touch) stimuli; but more sleepy than usual. 10/17/22 2:35 PM - A change in condition note documented an altered level of consciousness, needs more assistance with ADL's, general weakness and swallowing difficulty. The Primary Care Provider instructed staff to send R445 to the emergency room. 10/18/22 - Hospital record review revealed that R445 was admitted with hypernatremia (elevated sodium level), elevated BUN, elevated creatinine and chronic kidney disease stage 4 (progressed from stage 3). 10/18/22 - The History and Physical on admission to the hospital was obtained and the following was described about R445's condition: Patient . with a history of chronic kidney disease a creatinine base line of 3.5 (normal 0.74 to 1.35), urinary retention, and recent stroke affecting the right side. R445 was just discharged [DATE] to a nursing facility. R445 is presenting to the emergency room with lethargy (sleepiness), altered mental status, low blood pressure, and poor oral intake. Also, R445's foley catheter had been recently removed. Laboratory values reported a Sodium of 173 (normal 135 to 145) Bicarb 17 (normal 22 to 32), BUN 195 (normal 6 to 24), Creatinine 10.5 (R445's baseline was 3.5), [NAME] Blood Count of 16.5 (normal 4.5 to 11). Nephrology was called for a critically elevated sodium level and IV fluid resuscitation was recommended. An intensive care unit (ICU) alert was called for persistently elevated sodium level and altered mental status. R445 was admitted to the ICU with toxic metabolic encephalopathy (acute confusion) due to severe hypernatremia (increased sodium), uremia/AKI. The Hospital Assessment and Plan included: Hypernatremia Increased sodium levels Likely due to significant dehydration (not enough fluid intake). R445 required multiple liters of fluid administered intravenously (to rehydrate). A kidney doctor was consulted related to the dehydration and hypovolemia (low blood plasma). 11/17/22 - An interview with E43 (Dietitian) revealed that R445's assessed fluid needs were calculated as requiring 1800 to 2000 mL fluid intake daily (in 24 hours). When asked about monitoring for changes or decreased fluid intake, E43 responded that he would look at that, but was unaware that R445 had a decrease in fluid intake and wasn't notified. 11/17/22 2:00 PM - An interview with E18 (Unit Manager) revealed that he would pass the information about decreased fluid and meal intake along at shift report and notify the Physician of any changes in the resident. There was no evidence in the clinical record that the facility responded to the decreased fluid intake until R445 became lethargic on 10/17/22. 10/13 through 10/16/22 R445 received a third or less of the assessed fluid intake of 1800 to 2000 mL. 11/17/22 1:50 PM - During an interview with E45 (CNA), it was revealed that CNA's document what fluids they give residents throughout the shift and what the resident drinks from the meal trays. The facility lacked evidence that R445, an alert and oriented resident with global aphasia (unable to speak), dependent for care and he required set up help, was not provided the necessary dietary calculated amount of fluid to maintain hydration. Based on the recorded fluid amounts totaled for R445, 14 of 16 days was less than half the amount of fluids required. This failure resulted in harm when R445 required treatment in the hospital for fluid and electrolyte imbalance, dehydration and AKI on 10/17/22. 11/18/22 beginning at approximately 11:46 AM - Findings were reviewed with E1 (NHA), E26 (CRM), E27 (RCD), and E20 (ADON, RH).
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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, it was determined that for one (R63) out of one resident reviewed for notification of change, the facility failed to immediately consult R63's Attending Physician...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, it was determined that for one (R63) out of one resident reviewed for notification of change, the facility failed to immediately consult R63's Attending Physician when R63 had a significant change in condition and was unable to move his left arm and his left hand grip became weak. In addition, the facility failed to notify R63's family representative of the significant change. Findings include: Cross refer F684, Ex. 1 Review of R63's record revealed: 11/1/21 - R63 was admitted to the facility. 8/9/22 - The quarterly MDS assessment documented that R63 was moderately impaired for daily decision making with a BIMS of 10. 10/14/22 11:45 PM - A Health Status Note by E12 (LPN) documented that R63 had an unwitnessed fall in the shower room. 10/15/22 8:01 AM - A Health Status Note by E13 (LPN) documented that a call was placed to E19 (MD), the on-call Physician related to the resident's complaint of back pain due to the fall on 10/14/22. E19 stated not to request an x-ray and instead to administer pain medication, continue to monitor the resident for pain and for R63 to continue with PT/OT therapy as usual. 10/15/22 10:14 AM - A Neurological Evaluation (neurocheck) documented a change in which R63 was unable to move his left arm and his right hand grip was greater than the left. There was lack of evidence that the facility notified R63's Attending Physician of this significant change in condition. Additionally, there was lack of evidence that R63's family representative was notified. 10/15/22 6:14 PM - A Health Status Note documented by E14 (Agency LPN) stated, Resident was assessed and was noted out of his baseline. Could not walk to bathroom. Resident requesting to use urinal. Unable to move left arm. VS stable. Notified supervisor. There was a lack of evidence of immediately consulting R63's Attending Physician of the significant change and of notifying R63's family representative as documented in the above note. 10/16/22 8:40 AM - An Order Administration Note by E14 (LPN) documented that R63 was sent to the emergency room (ER). 10/16/22 9:50 AM - A Health Status Note documented by E16 (Agency RN) documented that he was informed by the Primary Nurse of R63's change in condition and E16 called 911. There was lack of evidence that R63's Attending Physician was notified of R63's transfer to the ER. 11/17/22 11:54 AM - A telephone interview was conducted with E18 (LPN, Unit Manager) who confirmed there was lack of evidence that R63's family representatives, FM1 or FM2 were notified when R63 had a fall on 10/14/22. E18 stated that it could have been because R63 was his own decision maker. E18 confirmed that R63 had a change in condition, as documented on the neurocheck, dated and timed 10/15/22 at 10:14 AM, when R63 was unable to move his left arm and his left hand grip was weaker than his right grip. Additionally, E18 confirmed that the Attending Physician should have been consulted immediately. 11/18/22 beginning at approximately 11:46 PM - Findings were reviewed with E1 (NHA), E26 (CRM), E27 (RCD), and E20 (ADON, RH).
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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, it was determined that for one (R48) out of 30 sampled residents, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person - centered care plan to addr...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that for one (R48) out of 30 sampled residents, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person - centered care plan to address R48's physical aggression. Findings include: 3/18/22 - R48 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including anxiety and depression. 4/11/22 - The Facility Incident Report facility follow up investigation report documented that on 4/4/22, Resident (R48) smacked Resident (R10) for using the n-word (racial slur). The report also stated that care plan changes would be made. 6/18/22 at 3:05 PM - A nurse progress note by E29 (RN Unit Manager) documented that, .resident (R48) was agitated, yelling and cursing and using profanity words. Resident (R48) stated that while going out for smoking she backed up to another resident (R42) who started to curse her and in the process the resident (R48) slapped the other resident (R42) in the face twice . This was the second time that R48 slapped or smacked another resident. 11/15/22 at 10:00 AM - Review of R48's care plan lacked evidence that R48's behavioral aggression was initiated when R48 smacked R10 on 4/4/22. Further review revealed that R48's care plan for physical aggression was not added to the care plan until 6/18/22 and was last revised 9/18/22. Physical aggression was not added to the care plan as indicated on the 4/11/22 facility investigation report. 11/15/22 at 3:30 PM - Findings were discussed with E1 (NHA). 11/17/22 at 3:15 - Findings were reviewed with E1, E26 (Risk Manager) and E27 (Regional Clinical Director) during the initial Exit Conference.
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 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 one (R4) out of 30 sampled residents, the facility failed to co...

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 one (R4) out of 30 sampled residents, the facility failed to conduct a quarterly reviews and revisions of R4's care plan. Findings include: Review of R4's clinical record revealed: 3/4/22- R4 was admitted to the facility. 6/21/22- A MDS (Minimum Data Set) quarterly assessment was completed. Record review lacked evidence of a care plan conference being held in June 2022. 9/9/22- A MDS quarterly assessment was completed. Record review lacked evidence of a care plan conference being held in September 2022. 11/9/22- A care plan conference was held for R4. 11/17/22- During an interview, E4 (SSD) confirmed that 11/9/22 was the only date that a care plan conference was held for R4 since R4's admission on [DATE].
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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

2. Review of R246's clinical record revealed: 11/3/22 - R246 was admitted to the facility with multiple diagnoses including generalized muscle weakness and the need for assistance with personal care. ...

Read full inspector narrative →
2. Review of R246's clinical record revealed: 11/3/22 - R246 was admitted to the facility with multiple diagnoses including generalized muscle weakness and the need for assistance with personal care. 11/4/22 - R246's care plan was created for incontinence care with interventions to have a toileting schedule as the resident allows. 11/10/22 - An admission MDS assessment documented R246 as frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder and required extensive assistance with toileting. During a medication observation on 11/10/22 the following occurred: 11:33 AM- E10 (LPN) entered R246's room to obtain the residents blood sugar and at that time R246 reported to E10 that he had been incontinent and needed to be changed. E10 said Ok and continued to obtain the residents blood sugar. E10 did not provide R246 with incontinence care nor delegate incontinence care to another staff member. 11:45 AM- E10 (LPN) returned to R246's room and administered the required insulin. E10 did not provide incontinence care nor delegate another staff member to assist R246. 12:00 PM - At Surveyor request R246 turned on the call bell. R246 stated, I had it on, I told them I had poop in my pants, been (sic) told them 25 minutes ago. 12:29 PM - E8 (CNA) entered R246's room and completed R246's incontinence care, approximately one hour later. 11/18/22 beginning at approximately 1:00 PM - Findings were reviewed with E1 (NHA), E26 (CRM), E27 (RCD), and E20 (ADON, RH). Based on observations, interviews, and record review, it was determined that for two (R63 and R246) out of eight sampled residents for ADL review the facility failed to ensure that a resident who was unable to carry out activities of daily living receives the necessary services to maintain personal hygiene . Findings include: 1. Review of R63's clinical record revealed the following: 8/9/22 - The quarterly MDS assessment indicated that R63 required assistance of staff for personal hygiene. 11/1/22 - R63 was readmitted to the facility from the hospital with left upper extremity weakness. 11/10/22 11:29 AM and 11/15/22 11:00 AM - During random observations of R63's right hand nails revealed dark, dried debris encrusted underneath each of the nails. 11/16/22 12:00 PM - A joint observation with E17 (CNA) confirmed R63's right hand nails had a build-up of dark debris underneath. E17 stated that nail care should be completed as needed and during shower days. 11/18/22 4 PM - An interview with E18 (LPN, UM) revealed that nail care should be provided daily, as needed, and on scheduled shower days. E18 verbalized that the facility does not have evidence of when nail care was last provided.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 3 harm violation(s), $226,471 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 27 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $226,471 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Delaware. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (13/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 13/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Regency Healthcare & Rehab Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns REGENCY HEALTHCARE & REHAB CENTER an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Delaware, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.

How is Regency Healthcare & Rehab Center Staffed?

CMS rates REGENCY HEALTHCARE & REHAB CENTER's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 55%, which is 9 percentage points above the Delaware average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.

What Have Inspectors Found at Regency Healthcare & Rehab Center?

State health inspectors documented 27 deficiencies at REGENCY HEALTHCARE & REHAB CENTER during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 3 that caused actual resident harm, and 23 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Regency Healthcare & Rehab Center?

REGENCY HEALTHCARE & REHAB CENTER is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by NATIONWIDE HEALTHCARE SERVICES, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 100 certified beds and approximately 92 residents (about 92% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in WILMINGTON, Delaware.

How Does Regency Healthcare & Rehab Center Compare to Other Delaware Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Delaware, REGENCY HEALTHCARE & REHAB CENTER's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.3, staff turnover (55%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Regency Healthcare & Rehab Center?

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

Is Regency Healthcare & Rehab Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, REGENCY HEALTHCARE & REHAB CENTER has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 3-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Delaware. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Regency Healthcare & Rehab Center Stick Around?

Staff turnover at REGENCY HEALTHCARE & REHAB CENTER is high. At 55%, the facility is 9 percentage points above the Delaware average of 46%. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Regency Healthcare & Rehab Center Ever Fined?

REGENCY HEALTHCARE & REHAB CENTER has been fined $226,471 across 3 penalty actions. This is 6.4x the Delaware average of $35,344. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.

Is Regency Healthcare & Rehab Center on Any Federal Watch List?

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