LIFE CARE CENTER OF PALM BAY

175 VILLA NUEVA AVE, PALM BAY, FL 32907 (321) 952-1818
For profit - Corporation 141 Beds LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
70/100
#69 of 690 in FL
Last Inspection: January 2025

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

Overview

Life Care Center of Palm Bay holds a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good facility, though not without its issues. It ranks #69 out of 690 nursing homes in Florida, placing it in the top half, and is the best option among 21 facilities in Brevard County. The facility shows an improving trend, with the number of issues decreasing from 5 in 2023 to 2 in 2025. Staffing is a strength, with a rating of 4 out of 5 stars and a turnover of 35%, which is lower than the state average. However, the $51,600 in fines raised concerns, as this amount is higher than 80% of other Florida facilities, suggesting ongoing compliance challenges. Specific incidents include a failure to provide adequate supervision for a vulnerable resident, which led to a serious fall resulting in a cervical fracture, and a lack of care plan meetings for residents, meaning some were not informed about their care. While the facility provides strong RN coverage, more than 85% of Florida facilities, these incidents highlight areas where improvements are needed. Overall, this facility has notable strengths but also important weaknesses to consider.

Trust Score
B
70/100
In Florida
#69/690
Top 10%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
5 → 2 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
35% turnover. Near Florida's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$51,600 in fines. Higher than 87% of Florida facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 57 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Florida. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
○ Average
8 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 5 issues
2025: 2 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (35%)

    13 points below Florida average of 48%

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

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 35%

11pts below Florida avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $51,600

Above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

Chain: LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 8 deficiencies on record

2 actual harm
Jan 2025 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure 2 of 3 residents reviewed for Care Planning were offered pa...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure 2 of 3 residents reviewed for Care Planning were offered participation in plans or revisions to their care, out of a total sample of 54 residents, (#39, #86). Findings: 1. Review of the medical record revealed resident #39, an [AGE] year old male was admitted to the facility from an acute care hospital on 4/02/23. The resident's diagnoses included, abnormalities of gait and mobility, insomnia, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, osteoarthritis, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), presence of cardiac pacemaker, acute kidney failure, atrial fibrillation (abnormal heart rhythm), artificial opening of urinary tract, and type 2 diabetes mellitus. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) Quarterly Assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 12/31/24 revealed during the look-back periods, resident #39 scored 15 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) that indicated he was cognitively intact. The assessment showed there were no delusions or behaviors, the resident did not walk, required a wheelchair for mobility, staff supervision and assistance to complete activities of daily living (ADLs), he had frequent, very severe/horrible pain, received high-risk insulin, anti-coagulant (blood thinner), hypoglycemic (sugar lowering), and anticonvulsant (seizure) medications, and no active discharge plan to the community occurred. On 1/06/25 at 3:38 PM, resident #39 was observed sitting in a wheelchair in the facility's activity room. The resident explained he was not aware of his plan of care meetings, nor had he been invited to attend. He said he had problems with his meals, shoulder pain, and he hadn't received therapy that could help with his strength and movement in a long time. The resident stated, I need updates; I have a lot going on. Review of resident #39's Comprehensive Care Plan included focuses, interventions, and goals for Activities, Advanced Directives, ADL assistance and therapy services, ADL self-care performance deficit, insomnia, discharge planning, hearing deficit, risk for oral/dental health problems, diabetes mellitus, risk for falls, anticoagulant therapy, compression fracture, medication self-administration, potential nutritional problems, knee pain, risk for skin integrity breaks, suprapubic catheter care, bladder obstruction, impaired visual function, and COPD. The Order Summary Report included active physician's orders for Biofreeze Gel for pain, Melatonin 3 milligrams (MG) at bedtime for insomnia, Eliquis (blood thinner) 5 MG twice daily for blood clots, Gabapentin 100 MG three times daily for neuropathy, Brinzolamide 1% Suspension eye drops twice daily for glaucoma, Metoprolol 12.5 MG twice daily for blood pressure, Lantus Insulin 12 units at bedtime, Novolog insulin 5 units before meals, and Novolog Insulin as needed per sliding scale before meals for diabetes mellitus. The most recent Care Plan Conference Record dated 10/22/24 noted the resident's family representative was unable to be reached by phone. The form did not indicate the resident or his family were invited. On 1/09/25 at 9:06 AM, the Director of Rehabilitation checked resident #39's medical record and said the last time he received any Physical Therapy (PT) was in January 2024, one year prior. She said a screening for a resumption of services was available to the resident, if requested. She could not recall, and did not locate a recent screen for determination of services in the resident's medical record. On 1/09/24 at 9:24 AM, the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) MDS Coordinator explained long term care resident care plan meetings were scheduled every quarter and a business card with the date and time were provided to the resident. She acknowledged she could not locate any documented record of resident #39's most recent invitation. She stated, it's important for the resident [to attend the meetings] so they know if they've made progress, and if they have therapy, to discuss discharge planning and what to expect next if discharge is not pending. 2. Review of the medical record revealed resident #86, a [AGE] year old female was admitted to the facility from an acute care hospital on [DATE]. The resident's diagnoses included, left hip fracture, muscle weakness, abnormalities of gait (walking pattern) and mobility, dementia, dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), heart failure, malnutrition, insomnia, arthritis, and history of falling. The most recent MDS Quarterly Assessment with an ARD of 12/19/24 noted resident #86 scored 7 out of 15 on the BIMS that indicated she was cognitively impaired. The assessment showed there were no delusions or behaviors, the resident did not walk, she required a wheelchair for mobility, and staff assistance to complete ADLs and mobility functions. The assessment indicated she had frequent, very severe/horrible pain, shortness of breath with exertion and when lying flat, received high-risk diuretic (fluid removing), opioid (narcotic pain) and anticonvulsant (seizure) medications, and that no active discharge plan to the community occurred. The Order Summary Report included active physician's orders for ace wraps to both legs for edema, Amlodipine 10 MG once daily for blood pressure, Diclofenac 1% gel to the left knee for pain, Dicyclomine 10 MG four times daily for irritable bowel syndrome, Enalapril 10 MG once daily for blood pressure, Gabapentin 400 MG three times daily for neuropathy, Lasix 40 MG once daily for edema, Levothyroxine 150 Micrograms (MCG) once daily for thyroid hormone, Percocet 5-325 MG twice daily and every 8 hours as needed for pain, Primidone 100 MG at bedtime for tremors, and Spironolactone 12.5 MG once daily for edema. Resident #86's Comprehensive Care Plan included focuses, interventions, and goals for Activities, Advanced Directives, Medication allergies, Activities of Daily Living (ADL) assistance and therapy services, ADL self-care performance deficit, insomnia, a return home discharge plan, impaired cognition, congestive heart failure, hearing deficit, potential for dehydration, edentulous (no natural teeth), hypothyroidism, risk for falls/history of falls, incontinence, irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea, anemia, Rheumatoid Arthritis, left hip fracture, tremors, pain, risk for impaired skin integrity, potential nutritional problems, and impaired visual function for dry eyes. On 1/07/25 at 9:38 AM, resident #86 was observed sitting in a chair in her room. The resident said she was not aware there were care plan meetings or participated in plans and reviews of her care. Review of the most recent Care Plan Conference Record dated 12/31/24 did not note staff attempted to reach the resident's family and read, IDT meeting, Care Plan: Diet, Diagnosis, weight, code status discussed. No family present. On 1/09/25 at 9:16 AM, the Registered Nurse (RN) MDS Coordinator said family representatives were notified of care plan meetings by phone and the Care Plan Conference Records were marked by a check box when invitations were provided. The RN explained, it's [the meeting] important so they can speak on behalf of themselves; if they need to express something that's important to them; it's about them, they are the one who is here getting care; it's important for them to participate. On 1/09/24 at 2:45 PM, the DON explained the MDS staff reported to her and resident care plans were reviewed every morning with the Interdisciplinary Team. She said it was important for residents to have the opportunity to participate in their plan of care so they could voice their concerns and staff could look into any problems. Review of the facility's standards and guidelines titled, Comprehensive Care Plans and Revisions dated 9/11/24 read, .the facility will ensure . each resident and resident representative, if applicable is involved in developing the care plan and making decisions about his or her care. Review of the facility's admission Packet included the residents' [NAME] Of Rights that read, . the resident has the right to be informed of, and participate in, his or her treatment, including the right to be fully informed in language that he or she can understand of his or her total health status, including but not limited to, his or her medical conditions, the right to participate in the development and implementation of his or her person-centered plan of care. the right to participate in establishing the expected goals and outcomes of care, the type, amount, frequency, and duration of care, and any other factors related to the effectiveness of the plan of care .
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 interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide care and services in accordance with professional standard...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide care and services in accordance with professional standards of practice related to not scheduling physician ordered specialist consultation, for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for , of a total sample of 54 residents, (#14). Findings: Resident #14 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] from an acute care hospital with diagnoses that included obstructive sleep apnea, atherosclerotic heart disease of native coronary artery, and presence of cardiac pacemaker. Review of resident #14's Annual Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE], revealed that she had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 14 out of 15 which indicated intact cognition. She had no upper or lower limb impairment and required minimal to no assistance with Activities of Daily Living. On 01/07/25 at 11:22 AM Resident #14 stated that she had been in the facility for over a year but had not seen the cardiologist to check the batteries of her pacemaker. She said that prior to being admitted to the facility she was seeing the cardiologist every six months and would like to see one. She reported that her son was involved and helped manage her care. According to the American Heart Association, pacemakers were indicated for people with abnormal heart rhythms, also known as arrythmias. Pacemakers should be checked every six months to a year to assess the battery and find out how the wires were working, (retrieved from www.heart.org/en/health-topics/arrhythmia/prevention on 1/10/25 at 3:00 PM). Review of resident #14's active physician orders revealed that on 10/15/24 there was a prescriber written order for a cardiology consult to check the pacemaker. There was no documentation in the medical record to show that the facility had scheduled the appointment or that the resident had scheduled it on her own. Review of resident #14's medical record revealed a care plan for pacemaker care initiated on 11/27/23 with interventions that included cardiology consult as ordered, pacemaker checks as ordered, and documentation in the medical record of heart rate, rhythm, and battery check. Both interventions were initiated on 10/16/24 but there was no documentation in the medical record indicating that a battery check had been done per the plan of care. Review of the Care Plan Conference Record for resident #14 dated 12/03/24, revealed the resident's son attended the meeting and asked about scheduling a cardiologist appointment. On 1/09/25 at 10:14 AM, the Unit Manager (UM) of the Bayside unit confirmed she was responsible for scheduling appointments. She said that every morning she would print out the orders for all residents on the unit to verify if any consults had been ordered. She confirmed that resident #14 was ordered a cardiology consult on 10/16/24 but she was unable to find any documentation that showed the consult had been scheduled. She said that she had been hired on 10/31/24 and was unsure why the order had not been followed. She said that she must have missed it when she printed out the orders every morning. The Director of Nursing was also present during the interview with Bayside unit UM and stated that her expectation was for physician orders to be followed by staff or have documentation to reflect why an order was not followed and the physician notified. Review of the facility's Policies and Procedures on Physician Orders revised 2/26/24, revealed that the facility was obligated to follow and carry out the orders of the prescriber in accordance with all applicable state and federal guidelines.
Apr 2023 5 deficiencies 2 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to review, revise, and ensure interventions were implemented for a pe...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to review, revise, and ensure interventions were implemented for a person-centered care plan for falls to address supervision for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for accidents of a total sample of 39 residents, (#1). Findings: Resident #1, a [AGE] year-old female, was admitted to the facility initially on 1/04/21, with her most recent readmission on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included, Multiple sclerosis, contracture of the left and right knees, history of falls, major depressive disorder, and cognitive communication deficit. On 4/12/23 the diagnosis of stable burst fracture of the first cervical vertebra was added. The resident's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with Assessment Reference Date of 3/30/23, revealed the resident's cognition was moderately impaired, with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 09/15. Resident #1 required extensive assistance of two persons for bed mobility, dressing, toilet use and personal hygiene, and was totally dependent on staff for transfers. Her balance during transitions and walking, for surface-to-surface transfer was not steady and the resident was only able to stabilize with staff assistance. She had impairment in functional limitation in range of motion to both sides of her lower extremities. On 4/17/23 at 11:20 AM, resident #1's daughter stated her mother was a fall risk. She recalled her mother had 12 to 15 falls since she was admitted to the facility and added the facility knows she is at risk for falls. The daughter explained on 4/10/23, her mother fell from her wheelchair in the day room and broke her neck. She said her mother had reached for a cup that had dropped to the ground and when she reached to pick it up, she fell out of her wheelchair. She noted her mother was transferred to the hospital after the fall and was then sent to a higher level care of care for trauma. She conveyed surgery was not done but her mother had to wear a neck brace/collar for nine weeks. She stated she did not know what to do to keep her mother safe. On 4/19/23 at 4:39 PM, the resident's care plans at risk for falls related initiated 1/05/21, revised 12/17/21, and Actual fall initiated 1/28/23, revised 4/11/23, were reviewed with the Director of Nursing (DON). The care plans revealed the resident had falls on 2/12/21, 3/05/21, 5/21/21, 5/29/21, 7/13/21, 8/30/21, 9/2/21, 10/03/21, 9/12/22, 1/28/23, and 2/01/23. On 4/10/23 the resident fell from her wheelchair, sustained a neck fracture, and was transferred for a higher level of care. Care plan interventions included, ensure items in reach, raised edge mattress, medication review, bed in lowest position, call bell in reach, and therapy screens. There was no indication that supervision was addressed on the care plans. Care plan interventions did not address supervision, and when asked about supervision to mitigate the risk for falls, the DON said they could not provide one to one supervision all the time. However, there was no intervention for one-on-one supervision, or any additional monitoring to ensure resident #1's safety. On 4/19/23 at 11:38 AM, the Harborside Registered Nurse/Unit Manager (RN/ UM) stated care plans were updated with input from the leadership team. She explained that when a resident fell, the team discussed the fall and interventions were put in place. The resident's care plans for falls were reviewed with the RN/UM. She said she could not say what the level of supervision was implemented for the resident prior to her fall on 4/10/23. On 4/19/23 at 11:45 AM, the RN MDS Coordinator, stated that to develop a care plan, a review of the resident's clinical records would be conducted, which would include diagnoses, medications, documentation by nurses, and Certified Nursing Assistants, along with input from the resident, family/responsible party. He stated care plans were discussed during the risk meeting and morning meeting, and interventions would be a collaborative decision by the Interdisciplinary Team. The MDS Coordinator confirmed the resident had multiple falls since her admission to the facility, and that her cognition was moderately impaired. The resident's care plans for risk for fall, and actual falls were reviewed with the MDS Coordinator. He stated the care plans did not address level of supervision needed or frequent rounding for resident #1. The Facility's policy and procedure Person Centered Care Planning dated 8/16/22 read, The facility will develop a person-centered care plan that addresses the goals .needs . of the resident The care plan will reflect interventions that are person-centered, measurable, and include time frames to achieve the desired outcomes.
SERIOUS (G)

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, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision and monitoring for a vulnerable, phys...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision and monitoring for a vulnerable, physically, and cognitively impaired resident to prevent fall with major injury for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for accidents, of a total sample of 39 residents, (#1). This failure contributed to an unwitnessed fall resulting in a fracture of the cervical vertebra. Findings: Resident #1, a [AGE] year-old female, was admitted to the facility initially on 1/04/21, with her most recent readmission on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included, multiple sclerosis, contracture of the left and right knees, history of falls, major depressive disorder, and cognitive communication deficit. On 4/12/23 the diagnosis of stable burst fracture of the first cervical vertebra was added. The resident's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with Assessment Reference Date of 3/30/23, revealed the resident's cognition was moderately impaired, with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 09/15. The assessment noted resident #1 required extensive assistance of two staff persons for bed mobility, dressing, toilet use and personal hygiene, and was totally dependent on staff for transfers. Her balance during transitions and walking, for surface-to-surface transfer was not steady and the resident was only able to stabilize with staff assistance. She had impairment in functional limitation in range of motion to both sides of her lower extremities. A nursing progress note documented by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) G dated 4/10/23 read, At approximately 7:20 PM this nurse heard the other nurse yelling help. Someone is on the floor Resident (#1) was lying on the floor in front of w/c (wheelchair) face-down and actively bleeding from forehead .Pressure applied to area and 911 called .Transported to (name of hospital) via ambulance. Review of the resident's Fall Risk Evaluation dated 2/14/2023 revealed a score of 18 and fall risk score on 4/13/23 was 24. The form did not have a key/legend to explain the score, category was 10 or above The hospital's history and physical dated 4/10/23 revealed her chief complaint was neck pain. The document read, per report, patient was reaching to grab something when she fell forward out of her wheelchair . Had complaints of severe neck pain .CT (Computerized Tomography) scan of her cervical spine demonstrated a C1(cervical) burst fracture. Trauma transfer was requested for higher level care .Forehead laceration and multiple areas of skin tears .CT head Impression: Frontal scalp laceration. CT c-spine: acute burst-type fracture. [NAME] fracture involving C1 vertebral body. The hospital Progress Note -Trauma dated 4/11/23 listed the resident's problems as active forehead laceration, Jefferson's fracture (C1 burst fracture with subluxation of the right lateral mass), right shoulder pain, friction burns/skin tears, and acute pain secondary to trauma. A Jefferson's fracture is another name for a bone fracture of the front and back arches of the C1 vertebra. (Retrieved on 4/28/23 from healthline.com) A C1 through C2 vertebrae injury is considered to be the most severe of all spinal cord injuries as it can lead to full paralysis. (Retrieved on 4/28/23 from www.spinalcord.com). The Neurosurgery consult dated 4/11/23 read, This accident has caused Jefferson's fracture and further maligned the upper cervical canal; there is more canal stenosis at C1\2 than prior. Because of her medical issues I prefer to treat her cervical fracture with a collar. She needs to wear it for 90 days at all times except to eat and shower. If she tends to fall out of a wheelchair then she should be bed bound for safety. The Florida Agency for Health Care Administration 5000-3008 Medical Certification for Medicaid Long-Term Care Services and Patient Transfer Form dated 4/12/23 revealed resident #1's diagnosis included, Trauma .fall from wheelchair. Resident #1's Admission/readmission Collection Tool dated 4/12/23 revealed the resident had cognitive impairment, was confused, oriented to place, and had poor trunk control. Documentation read, Resident has a fracture of the C1 has orders to keep her neck brace on at all times. On 4/17/23 at 11:20 AM, resident #1 was lying in bed on her back. She had a neck collar/brace on with dried blood to her right forehead, and in her hair. A dressing was noted to her left upper arm, dated 4/17/23. The resident's daughter was at the resident's bedside and verbalized the resident was a fall risk. The daughter said that on 4/10/23 her mother was in the dayroom by herself and her cup fell on the floor. She explained her mother reached for her cup and fell from her wheelchair. She said her mother was transferred to the hospital and a broken neck was identified. She said she was then transferred to a trauma hospital for higher level of care. The daughter indicated surgery was not done, and her mother had to wear neck brace/collar for nine weeks. She noted her mother had twelve to fifteen falls in the facility since her admission. She said the facility knows she was a fall risk, but she was alone in the dayroom. She stated she did not know what to do to keep her mother safe. On 4/18/23 at 9:54 AM resident #1 recalled she was by herself when she fell in the dayroom. She remembered it felt like she was on the floor forever before she was assisted but could not recall the details of the incident. On 4/18/23 at 3:10 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) F confirmed she was assigned to resident #1 on the 3 PM to 11 PM shift on 4/10/23, the day of the incident. CNA F said the resident required total care and a mechanical lift for transfers. She recalled on 4/10/23, she transported resident #1 by wheelchair from the main dining room to the day room on the Harborside Unit. She said the resident always sat at a table in the day room and read. She remembered the resident wanted some water, and she provided it for her, and left the day room. She explained that she was in the shower room when a coworker called and told her that resident #1 was on the floor. CNA F said that when she went to the dayroom, the resident was on the floor face down, and blood was coming from her forehead. She noted the resident told her she tried to pick her cup off the floor and fell. The CNA indicated the nurse was in the day room when she arrived and 911 was called and transported the resident to the hospital. CNA F said the resident was placed in the dayroom, because she had a tendency of trying to get out of her wheelchair. She recalled three other residents were in the day room at the time she transferred the resident there. The CNA said no staff was in the dayroom when the resident fell, and said the last time she saw the resident was at 6:20 PM. She was aware the resident sustained a fractured neck, and said she now required three persons to provide care. She explained staff should check on residents every fifteen minutes if residents were assessed as being at risk for falls but she could not confirm if resident #1 was checked every fifteen minutes. On 4/18/23 at 3:23 PM, the Harborside Registered Nurse/Unit Manager (RN/UM) stated she was not at the facility when resident #1 fell and sustained a neck fracture. She said she was made aware of the incident when she came to work the following day and an investigation was initiated by the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) and herself. She explained they called the staff who worked on the 3 PM to 11 PM shift on 4/10/23 and obtained statements. She indicated the resident sat in her wheelchair after dinner in the Harborside day room when she dropped her cup, bent down to pick it up, and fell. She reported the resident sustained C-spine fracture. She identified their investigation showed two other residents were in the day room, but no staff were present. The RN/UM explained resident resident #1 was at risk for falls. She said that if residents were in the dayroom, they should always be supervised by a staff member. She conveyed staff on the 3 PM to 11 PM staff were scheduled to rotate in the dayroom at 30-minute increments to supervise residents. She could not provide a staff rotation schedule for 4/10/23 when the resident fell. On 4/19/23 at 9:05 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated resident #1 had diagnosis of multiple sclerosis, had history of falls, and required maximum assistance from staff for her activities of daily living. She explained LPN G reported she gave pain medication to resident #1 at 7:00 PM on 4/10/23. At 7:20 PM, LPN G heard someone calling for help, as someone was on the floor. She indicated LPN H's statement revealed that around 7:30 PM she the resident said, oh Lord and observed resident #1 on the floor face down with blood coming from her face. The DON verbalized that all CNAs on the 3 PM to 11 PM shift on 4/10/23 were interviewed. She noted interviews revealed the resident had dinner and left the main dining room at 5:45 PM, by self- propelling herself to the Harborside day room where two other residents were. This contradicted CNA F's statement that she brought the resident in her wheelchair to the main dining room to the day room. The DON said CNAs were rotated in the day room in thirty minute increments. She explained on 4/10/23, CNA F, the resident's assigned CNA was giving a shower to another resident, one CNA was on break, and she was not sure of where the other two CNAs were at the time the resident fell. She indicated the two nurses, LPN G and LPN H were in the hallway giving medications. On 4/19/23 at 9:25 AM, the ADON recalled that on 4/11/23, she reviewed the fall incident and spoke to LPN H who saw the resident on the floor. LPN H told her she was at the nurses' station, and saw the resident in the day room, however, she did not see the fall. She noted LPN H only heard when the resident said, oh my God. The ADON said LPN H informed that when she went to the resident, she saw a cup on the floor. When she asked the resident what happened, the resident said she dropped her cup and was reaching for it. The ADON said the fall happened at the entrance of the Harborside day room. She recalled that Staff Development reached out to LPN G, the resident's primary nurse, who came back in and documented a statement. She verbalized the DON then took over the investigation. On 4/19/23 at 9:30 AM, the DON stated she was not at the facility when the incident occurred, and when she returned, she asked the UM to reach out to all the staff. She recalled the fall was discussed by the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) on 4/11/23. She said the team did not think the fall was an adverse incident since the resident was able to make her needs known, could self-propel in her wheelchair, was in a reclining high back wheelchair, was positioned appropriately, and did not lack capacity. She said an incident report was not submitted to the Agency for Health Care Administration as this was not an injury of unknown origin, the facility knew what happened. She acknowledged the resident sustained a major injury as a result of the fall and was transferred to a higher level of care. On 4/19/23 at 4:39 PM, the resident's falls and care plan for falls were reviewed with the DON. The resident had falls on 2/12/21 at 4:30 PM, 3/05/21 at 6:56 PM, 5/21/21 at 11 AM, 5/29/21 at 3:30 PM, 7/13/21 at 8:40 PM, 8/30/21 at 11:40 AM, 9/2/21 at 1:41 PM when the resident fell from her wheelchair in the bathroom, on 10/03/21 the resident slid from her wheelchair, on 9/12/22 at 4:21 AM. On 1/28/23 at 1:08 PM, the resident was observed on the floor on her knees, complained of pain in both knees, and was sent to the hospital. On 2/01/23 at 5:15 AM, the resident was found lying on the floor mat with her head at the foot of her bed, and her feet towards the head of the bed. The resident said she was looking for her sister and slid off the bed. She stated she hit her right hip and knees, was medicated with Tylenol, and x rays of the hip, pelvic, femur, and knees were ordered by the ARNP. On 4/10/23 the resident fell from her wheelchair, sustained a neck fracture, and was transferred for a higher level of care. Care plan interventions included to ensure items within reach, a raised edge mattress, medication review, bed in lowest position, antibiotic therapy for urinary tract infection, call bell in reach, therapy to screen, and naps after lunch as tolerated. There was no indication on the care plans to address supervision of the resident despite being at risk for falls and twelve actual falls including the fall on 4/10/23 with major injury. When asked to speak about the level of supervision the resident required, the DON said they could not have one-on- one supervision all the time. There was however no intervention on the care plan for one to one supervision or any type of supervision to monitor the resident to mitigate risk for falls. On 4/19/23 at 10:48 AM, the Director of Rehab stated resident #1 had limited range of motion to her knees, and therapy worked with her heavily on wheelchair positioning. Resident #1's Occupational Therapy (OT) Evaluation & Plan of Treatment revealed the resident's start of care was on 4/13/23. The reason for the referral was Pt (patient) had a fall out of the w/c (wheelchair) resulting in a C1 Burst-Jefferson's fracture, now in a Miami J C collar on at all times except for eating and bathing. The document revealed that equipment prior to the resident's start of care included a standard wheelchair, and documentation indicated the resident had impaired safety awareness. The Physical Therapy (PT) Evaluation & Plan of Treatment with start of care on 4/13/23, indicated the resident was referred to PT following a fall out of her wheelchair with cervical fracture. The document read, This fall caused a [NAME] fracture and further malalignment of upper cervical canal. The evaluation indicates that equipment prior to onset/hospitalization included bilateral floor mats, hospital bed, and a standard wheelchair with pressure relieving cushion. On 4/19/23 11:09 AM, CNA E stated that resident #1 was able to make her needs know, but sometimes the evening shift reported periods of confusion. CNA E stated that if residents were at risk for fall, CNAs were told to place the residents in the day room, so nurses, and CNAs could monitor the residents. She said that up until resident #1's incident, no staff provided supervision in the day room. CNA E verbalized that during the day shift, activity staff were usually in the day room doing various activities, but not during the 3 PM to 11 PM shift. On 4/19/23 at 12:49 PM, the ARNP stated she assumed care for resident #1 on 3/01/23. She said the resident was assessed by psychiatry and was deemed to be lacking ability to make her own decision, prior to her fall on 4/10/23. The ARNP said the resident had an overall decline since March 2023, On 4/19/23 at 1:25 PM, in a telephone interview, LPN H recalled that on 4/10/23, resident#1 was trying to come out of the Harborside day room by self-propelling her wheelchair. LPN H said she was at the nurses' station cleaning her medication cart when she heard the resident say, oh my God. The LPN said she turned, and the resident was on the floor face down, gushing blood from her forehead. The resident told her she was trying to get her cup and complained of pain to her head. She noted the resident's assigned nurse, LPN G was in the long hallway giving medications and no staff member was in the day room. She said resident #1 was the only person in the dayroom at that time. On 4/19/23 at 1:42 PM, in a telephone interview, LPN G stated she worked on the 3 PM to 11 PM shift on 4/10/23 and confirmed that resident#1 was included in her assignment. LPN G verbalized that she knew the resident for quite some time and had seen the resident decline. She indicated sometimes the resident was confused and delusional. She recalled the last time she saw the resident on 4/10/23 was at 6:45 PM when she administered the resident's pain medication, Hydrocodone. She remembered the resident was in her wheelchair, watching television. The LPN recalled she left the resident in the dayroom close to the television, along with other residents who were watching television. LPN G stated she moved her medication cart down to the long hallway and was there when she heard LPN H yelling. When she went to the dayroom, the resident was on the floor face down at the doorway that opened to the nurses' station with her wheelchair behind her. She recalled the resident complained her head was hurting, and she was bleeding a lot from her forehead. She reported pressure was applied to the bleeding site and 911 was called. LPN G explained that staff were not necessarily rotated. to supervise residents in the day room for safety. She acknowledged there was no scheduled rotation for staff to supervise residents in the day room. The resident's care plan was reviewed with LPN G. She stated she had not reviewed the resident's care plan recently and reported that staff just knew to make visual observations of residents at risk for falls. She did not explain the level of supervision required for resident #1 with 12 previous falls. On 4/19/23 at 3:42 PM, the Director of Rehab stated the resident did not propel her wheelchair with her feet, but with her hands. She verbalized that Therapy had set her up in a raised wheelchair, and explained this meant the wheelchair had the ability to go higher or lower based on the resident's height. The Director of Rehab said Maintenance and PT had the resident's chair raised one inch higher, so that straight leg rest could be placed, and the resident's feet would fit on the leg rest without dragging. Review of the resident's clinical records revealed the wheelchair was never adjusted. The Director stated the straight leg rest were placed to prevent dragging of the resident's feet, and at the time of the fall the resident was in a standard wheelchair, not in a high back wheelchair. On 4/20/23 at 12:59 PM, in an interview with the Administrator and DON, the Administrator said the facility did not lack supervising the resident, since LPN H was within 16.3 feet of the resident. The DON stated she reviewed the regulatory guideline regarding adequate supervision, and feels that the facility was in compliance. When asked how much supervision resident #1 required to keep her safe, the Administrator said the resident needed no more supervision than anybody else. The DON said supervision would depend on the time of the day. When asked if the facility interviewed the resident regarding the incident, the DON stated the facility did not obtain a statement /interview from the resident. The resident's Fall Risk Evaluation dated 2/14/23, and 4/13/23 were reviewed with the DON, and an explanation of the score could not be provided. At 4:22 PM, the DON stated the Fall Risk Evaluation in the resident's electronic clinical records did not have a legend/key. She said that in discussion with the Regional nurses she was informed that on the Evaluation form if the score was 10 and above, fall prevention intervention measures should be implemented. Review of the facility's policy and procedure Fall Management revised on 4/07/22, and reviewed on 9/29/22, revealed residents would be assessed for any fall risks, and appropriate interventions to minimize the risk of injury related to the falls would be identified. The document read, Implement interventions, including adequate supervision .consistent with a resident's needs .care plan and current professional standards of practice in order to eliminate the risk if possible, and if not, reduce the risk of an accident .Adequate supervision is determined by assessing the appropriate level and number of staff required .and the frequency of supervision needed. Review of the Facility Assessment Template reviewed on 10/11/22 revealed the care and services offered to residents by the facility included Mobility and fall/fall with injury prevention
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0688 (Tag F0688)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a physician's order was obtained for splint ap...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a physician's order was obtained for splint application after discharge from Occupational Therapy (OT) for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for limited Range of Motion (ROM), (#76), and failed to ensure resting hand splint was applied as per physician's order for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for limited ROM, of a total sample of 39 residents, (#84). Findings: 1. Resident #76 was an [AGE] year-old male, admitted to the facility on 4/ 12/18. His diagnoses included hemiplegia and hemiparesis following other nontraumatic intracranial hemorrhage affecting his left non-dominant side, generalized muscle weakness, pain, and diabetes type II. The resident's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 1/06/23 revealed the resident's cognition was moderately impaired with a Brief Interview For Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12/15. The assessment showed he had impairment in functional limitation in ROM on one side of his upper and lower extremities. Review of the Occupational Therapy (OT) Discharge Summary with dates of service from 1/31/23-2/13/23 revealed a discharge recommendation for the resident to wear a left resting hand orthosis for 4 hours per day, then use the left-hand palm guard as tolerated. On 4/17/23 at 11:37 AM, and 4/18/23 at 9:46 AM, resident #76 was sitting up in bed, watching television. The resident stated he had weakness to his left side. His left hand and fingers were contracted, and he was not wearing a splint. Resident #76 stated he did not have a splint for his left hand/fingers. On 4/18/23 at 4:12 PM, Registered Nurse (RN) C, stated resident #76 had a contracted left hand. Observation of the resident's contracture with RN C confirmed a splint was not in place. A review of the resident's physician's orders with RN C noted there was no order for splint application to the resident's left hand. On 4/19/23 at 10:19 AM, the Director of Rehab stated resident #76 had a left resting hand splint as tolerated. She stated OT did an evaluation on 1/31/23, and the resident was on OT case load through 2/14/23, working on wheelchair positioning, left hand ROM, and to encourage him to use a left resting hand splint. The Director of Rehab stated when the resident was discharged from OT, nursing staff were trained on how to apply the hand splint. She explained that a master splinting list was on each unit, created and updated by the Director of Therapy. She noted resident #76 was placed on the list on 2/14/23 after staff education was completed. The Director of Rehab verbalized that splinting was recommended for the resident due to worsening of his left-hand ROM and contractures, and the splint helped to prevent worsening of contracture. The Director of Rehab identified the therapist failed to enter the physician's order for splint application in the medical record and said, however, the other steps were in place, such as education and the master splinting list. She reported the splint was in a box in the resident's room and the Unit Manager, Nurses, and Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA) were aware. On 4/20/23 at 9:21 AM, the Harborside Registered Nurse/Unit Manager (RN/UM) stated the master splinting list was implemented by therapy, posted in the charting room, and Nurses, and CNAs were aware. The RN/UM said she was not sure if anyone reached out to the physician for an order for splint application for the resident. She explained the physician order for splinting was missed by both therapy and nursing staff. 2. Resident #84 was a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including, cerebral infarction, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting left side. Review of the resident's physician's orders revealed an order dated 2/15/22 for Splint/Brace: Comfy resting hand splint, Apply to Left hand to be worn at all times, off for care, as tolerated. The resident's quarterly MDS assessment with ARD of 3/17/23 revealed the resident's cognition was intact with a BIMS score of 15/15. The assessment revealed the resident had impairment in functional Limitation in ROM on one side of his upper and lower extremities. The resident's care plan for activities of daily living self-care performance deficit related to limited mobility, and left hemiplegia initiated on 10/15/19 and revised 7/23/20 revealed an intervention for splint/brace comfy resting hand splint, apply to left hand to be worn at all times. On 4/17/23 at 11: 51 AM, resident #84 was sitting in his wheelchair to the right of his bed. His left hand was contracted, and he was not wearing a splint. On 4/18/23 at 9:48 AM, resident #84 was in his wheelchair watching television. He did not have a splint to his left hand. The resident stated he should have a splint to his left hand daily when the nurses remembered. He recalled the last time his left-hand splint was placed was three days ago. He noted he never refused to wear the splint. On 4/18/23 at 4:15 PM, RN C stated resident #84's left hand was contracted. He reviewed the resident's physician's orders, and confirmed a physician order was in place for the resident to always have splint to his left hand. Observation of the resident's contracture was conducted with the RN. He confirmed the resident was not wearing a splint. The resident reiterated the splint had not been applied for three days. On 4/18/23 at 4:27 PM, the Harborside RN/UM stated resident #84 had physician's order for a comfy hand splint to be on at all times. The RN/UM could not confirm if the splint was applied as ordered. She stated that review of the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) showed the task was signed off by nurses as being done every shift. On 4/19/23 at 10:32 AM, the Director of Rehab stated the resident was on Occupational Therapy (OT) caseload from 2/09/22 through 2/22/2022. He was provided with a resting hand splint, and the order was still in effect. She explained the splint was to prevent worsening of his contracture. On 4/19/23 at 11:04 AM, CNA E stated therapy trained staff to don/doff splints, and said she should have placed the resident's left-hand splint on but did not. On 4/19/23 at 11:27 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) D stated CNAs usually applied the resident's splint, and she signed on the TAR for skin integrity, not for splint application. She said CNAs would let nurses know if the resident refused splint application, but there was no report of the resident's refusal to wear the splint. The facility did not have a policy regarding splint application. The DON stated they followed the Lippincott procedures-Splint application. The document read, Obtain a physician's order as needed prior to application .Verify the practitioner's order.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0655 (Tag F0655)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of resident #436's medical record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of syncope and co...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of resident #436's medical record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of syncope and collapse, fracture of the right femur with surgical repair, and depression. Review of resident #436's Baseline Care Plan documented it was completed on 04/05/23 by Registered Nurse (RN) A. On 04/17/23 at 1:45 PM, resident #436 stated, I have never had a meeting to discuss my care plan and I have not received a copy of my care plan. Review of resident 81's medical record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of right femur fracture, fracture of the second metacarpal bone of right hand, Alzheimer's Disease, depression, and chronic kidney disease. Review of resident #81's Baseline Care Plan documented it was completed on 03/19/23 by RN A. On 04/17/23 at 2:15 PM, resident #81 said she had not had a care plan meeting and had not received a copy of her care plan. Review of resident #439's medical record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Review of resident #439's Baseline Care Plan documented it was completed on 03/30/23 by RN A. On 04/17/23 at 2:30 PM, resident #439 explained he never had a care plan meeting and had not received a copy of his care plan. Review of resident #437's medical record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Transient Cerebral Ischemic Attack (TIA), dementia, neuropathy, and diabetes mellitus. Review of resident #437's Baseline Care Plan documented it was completed on 03/24/23 by RN A. On 04/17/23 at 3:50 PM, resident #437 said she never had a care plan meeting and never received a copy of her care plan. Review of resident #58's medical record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of left knee effusion and pain, depression, anemia, and diabetes mellitus. Review of resident #58's Baseline Care Plan revealed it was completed on 03/28/23 by RN B. On 04/18/23 at 10:50 AM, resident #58 stated she never had a care plan meeting and she never received a copy of her care plan. On 04/19/23 at 2:15 PM, RN A said she had been the Bayside Unit Manager and had completed the Baseline Care Plans for the newly admitted residents on the unit. I took it upon myself to ensure the Baseline Care Plans were completed on time. RN A explained the Baseline Care Plan was started as part of the resident's admission assessment. She said the Baseline Care Plan was in a checklist form and noted I never gave a copy of the Baseline Care Plans to the residents or their responsible party. On 04/19/23 at 3:55 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated, The Baseline Care Plans were completed by the nurse and a copy was given to the residents. She was informed residents #58, #81, #436, #437, #439, #545 and #547 had not received copies of their care plans. She did not explain why copies of the Baseline Care Plans were not provided to the residents. Review of the Facility's Baseline Care Plan Policy, dated 08/17/2022, read, Policy: A baseline care plan will be developed for every resident within 48 hours of admission to provide an initial set of instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered care of the resident that meet professional standards of care . Federal Regulations: . 483.21 (a) (3) The facility must provide the resident and their representative with a summary of the baseline care plan that includes but is not limited to: i. The initial goals of the resident. ii. A summary of the resident's medications and dietary instructions. iii. Any service and treatments to be administered by the facility and personnel acting on behalf of the facility. iv. Any updated information based on the details of the comprehensive care plan, as necessary . Procedure . 5. Provide the resident and/or representative with copies of the baseline care plan and physician orders . Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a copy of the Baseline Care Plan was provided to 7 of 7 sampled residents or their representatives out of a total sample of 39 residents, (#58, #81, #436, #437, #439, #545 and #547). Findings: 1. Review of the medical record revealed resident #545 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of left artificial hip joint, history of falls, gait and mobility abnormalities, neoplasm of bladder, bladder-neck obstruction, benign prostatic hyperplasia with lower urinary tract symptoms. Review of the baseline care plan summary assessment dated [DATE], revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 that indicated he was cognitively intact. On 04/17/23 at 1:30 PM, resident #545 stated he did not receive a written copy of his Baseline Care Plan. Review of resident #547's medical record noted she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of right artificial shoulder joint, muscle weakness, abnormalities of gait and mobility, and atrial defibrillation. Review of the staff assessment for mental status conducted on 04/07/23 revealed the resident was alert and oriented, was capable of making her own decisions and was able to make her needs known. On 4/17/23 at 10:00 AM, the resident stated she had participated in therapy and planned on returning to her home. She added she would be discharged from the facility within the next few days and was frustrated as she had not been provided a copy of her care plan.
CONCERN (E)

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

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to follow the menu for food items and serving sizes to ensure all resident received foods based on their individual prescribed d...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to follow the menu for food items and serving sizes to ensure all resident received foods based on their individual prescribed diets and nutritional requirements. Finding Review of the facility's lunch menu for 4/20/23 showed beef burgundy, buttered noodles, stir fry vegetables, garlic toast, frosted banana cake and beverage of choice. The lunch alternatives included ham salad sandwich, chips, marinated vegetable salad, and dinner roll. On 4/20/23 at approximately 11:58 AM, the dietary staff were at the lunch tray line. The therapeutic menu next to the steam table noted residents on mechanical soft diet texture and pureed diet texture, would receive a #16 scoop (2 ounces) of pureed bread. There was no pureed bread on the steam table. The cook who was plating the meals stated it was an oversight. Further observations of the steam table revealed a #12 (2.6 ounces) scoop was used to plate the pureed beef burgundy, pureed stir fry vegetables, and the mechanical beef burgundy. The therapeutic menu noted that a #10 (3.2 ounces) scoop was to be used for the pureed beef, pureed stir fry vegetables and the mechanical beef burgundy. This indicated residents who were either on a mechanical soft texture diet or puree texture diet received less food than what the menus had indicated. On 4/20/23 at 12:30 PM, the facility's Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) stated the facility had four residents on finger food diet. The therapeutic menu indicated these residents would receive bow tie pasta, pita bread and a cupcake. The facility's Consultant Registered Dietitian, (RD) and CDM were not able to explain the protein source for the finger food diet. The cook stated he did not make any bow tie pasta and they did not have any pita bread. He explained he sent buttered noodles and some broccoli that he picked out from the stir fry vegetables for the residents who were on finger food diet. There was no indication the cook was aware of what food items were to be served to residents on finger food diet. The CDM said the regular cook was sick today and the replacement cook was not very experienced. The RD and CDM did not explain why they did not provide any oversight for today's lunch meal, that was being prepared by a less experienced staff member. On 4/20/23 at 2 PM, the RD said she looked up the recipe for the finger foods. She explained the beef burgundy was to be placed into a pita for the residents on finger foods to be eaten like a sandwich.
May 2021 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0679 (Tag F0679)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide individualized activities to meet the interes...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide individualized activities to meet the interest and needs for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for activities of a total sample of 46 residents, (#80). Findings: Resident #80 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Parkinson's Disease and generalized weakness. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) admission assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 8 which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. Section F of the assessment Preferences for Customary Routine and Activities indicated it was very important for her to listen to music and to do her favorite activities. It was not very important to her to do things with groups of people or go outside to get fresh air when the weather was good. Resident #80 required extensive assistance from 2 staff for bed mobility and transfers and did not walk during the lookback period. She had unsteady balance, was only able to stabilize with assistance from staff and used a wheelchair for mobility. Review of resident #80's activity care plan initiated on 7/07/2020 revealed she had little to no involvement due to physical limitations. The goal was for the resident to express satisfaction with the type of activities and level of activity involvement. Interventions included explaining the importance of social interactions and encourage her to participate. The care plan directed staff to escort resident #80 to activity functions and provide room visits if she declined to attend small group activities. On 5/24/21 at 10:36 AM, resident #80 was lying in bed in a private room, staring through the window. The room was silent and there was no television or radio noted. She was alert, responded to her name only, but was not able to respond to simple questions or participate in conversation. There was a sign at the door indicating resident #80 was on contact isolation precautions. On 5/25/21 at 11:51 AM, resident #80 remained in bed seated in an upright position, again staring through the window. The room was still silent. On 5/26/21 at 10:58 AM, resident #80 was sitting up in bed with her eyes closed. On 5/26/21 at approximately 5:15 PM resident #80 remained alone in her room without any activities. On 5/26/21 at 5:37 PM, the Activities Director recalled resident #80 previously resided on the facility's Memory Care Unit. The Activities Director explained the resident was currently in a private room on the other unit as she had an infection. Review of the Record of One-To-One Activities form with the Activities Director revealed documentation that noted resident #80 watched television in her new room on the Harbor Side Unit on 5/23/21 and 5/25/21. The Activities Director was informed resident #80 did not have a television in her room. On 5/26/21 at 5:39 PM, the Activities Director entered resident #80's room and acknowledged there was no television or radio in the room. She explained the resident was placed in her new room on 5/21/21, and her television was not moved at that time. She said whenever a resident relocated to a different room, staff needed to ensure all items the resident enjoyed as activities were in the new room and accessible to the resident. The Activities Director said resident #80 enjoyed watching television and listening to music. On 5/27/21 at 1:14 PM, a telephone interview was conducted with resident #80's nephew. He was informed his aunt was placed in a private room without a television for 6 days. He said, I am taken aback that my aunt would just be in a room without television or radio all by herself. She enjoys listening to music. On 5/27/21 at 2:09 PM, the Activities Director stated activities were important to enhance the resident's quality of life. She explained documentation by activity staff dated 5/23/21 and 5/25/21 that reflected television watching activity was incorrect. On 5/27/31 at 3:23 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) A stated she regularly cared for resident #80 and remembered she always wanted to be in her bed watching television. CNA A said, She did not want to do anything else. On 5/27/21 at 3:25 PM, CNA B stated the resident loved to watch television in her room. CNA B, recalled, when she came out of her room, she would sit in the Day Room and watch television. The facility policy and procedure Activity Evaluation, reviewed 5/18/2020 read, The facility must provide, based on comprehensive assessment and care plan and the preferences of each patient, an ongoing program to support patients in their choice of activities . The document indicated the facility would provide person-centered care related to identifying each resident's preferred activities.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • 35% turnover. Below Florida's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 harm violation(s), $51,600 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 8 deficiencies on record, including 2 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • $51,600 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Florida. Major compliance failures.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 70/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Life Of Palm Bay's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns LIFE CARE CENTER OF PALM BAY an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much above average nationally. Within Florida, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.

How is Life Of Palm Bay Staffed?

CMS rates LIFE CARE CENTER OF PALM BAY's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 35%, compared to the Florida average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Life Of Palm Bay?

State health inspectors documented 8 deficiencies at LIFE CARE CENTER OF PALM BAY during 2021 to 2025. These included: 2 that caused actual resident harm and 6 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Life Of Palm Bay?

LIFE CARE CENTER OF PALM BAY 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 LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 141 certified beds and approximately 134 residents (about 95% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in PALM BAY, Florida.

How Does Life Of Palm Bay Compare to Other Florida Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Florida, LIFE CARE CENTER OF PALM BAY's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (35%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Life Of Palm Bay?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?"

Is Life Of Palm Bay Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, LIFE CARE CENTER OF PALM BAY has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 5-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Florida. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at Life Of Palm Bay Stick Around?

LIFE CARE CENTER OF PALM BAY has a staff turnover rate of 35%, which is about average for Florida nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Life Of Palm Bay Ever Fined?

LIFE CARE CENTER OF PALM BAY has been fined $51,600 across 1 penalty action. This is above the Florida average of $33,595. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.

Is Life Of Palm Bay on Any Federal Watch List?

LIFE CARE CENTER OF PALM BAY 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.