YUKIO OKUTSU STATE VETERANS HOME
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Yukio Okutsu State Veterans Home has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the care provided. It ranks #30 out of 41 facilities in Hawaii, placing it in the bottom half of state options, and #7 out of 7 in Hawaii County, meaning it is the least favorable choice locally. The facility's performance is worsening, with the number of reported issues increasing from 10 in 2023 to 11 in 2024. Staffing is a major concern, with a low rating of 1 out of 5 stars and a staggering 99% turnover rate, which is far above the state average. Additionally, there have been serious incidents, such as a resident sustaining multiple fractures due to improper use of a mechanical lift and another resident developing severe pressure injuries due to inadequate care. While the quality measures score is strong at 5 out of 5, the overall picture raises significant red flags for potential residents and their families.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Hawaii
- #30/41
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 99% turnover. Very high, 51 points above average. Constant new faces learning your loved one's needs.
- Penalties ⚠ Watch
- $13,049 in fines. Higher than 79% of Hawaii facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 55 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Hawaii. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 39 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Hawaii average (3.4)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
52pts above Hawaii avg (47%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
51 points above Hawaii average of 48%
The Ugly 39 deficiencies on record
Nov 2024
11 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the resident's right to a dignified existence and is treated with respect and dignity for one resident (Resident (R)36) sampled. Reg...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0561
(Tag F0561)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to facilitate a resident's self-determination through support of the resident's choice of food preferences for one resident (Resident (R)58) sam...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2) R43 is a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. On 10/17/24, R43 fell out of his wheelchair and was transfer...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan (CP) for pain whi...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide appropriate medical care for one resident (R...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0698
(Tag F0698)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to provide care consistent with professional standards ...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 F0726
(Tag F0726)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to provide competent nursing services for one resident (Resident (R)1...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than 5%, as evidenced by two medication errors observed out of 30 opportunities, for a...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to clean and maintain food serving equipment, dishes, and utensils in a sanitary condition. This deficient practice places the residents at ri...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0883
(Tag F0883)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's medical record included documentation that indicated the resident did not receive the influenza immunizations for one ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0847
(Tag F0847)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the Binding Arbitration Agreements (BAA) followed all the requirements as specified in the regulations. Specifically, the agreements...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2023
10 deficiencies
1 Harm
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 interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure one of the residents (Resident (R) 161) in the sample was ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2) R43 is a [AGE] year-old resident admitted on [DATE] for long-term care. Diagnoses include end stage renal disease and depende...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to implement person-centered comprehensive care plan for one of two sampled residents (Resident (R) 39). An intervention to pr...
Read full inspector narrative →
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** 2) R43 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] for long-term care. Interview conducted with R43 in his room on 10/24/23 at 01:39 ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, observation and record review, the facility failed to provide consistent repositioning for one of the one s...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the medication error rate was less than 5 percent for one of five sample residents Resident (R)46. This deficient ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure appropriate temperatures for one of its two medication refrigerators that are monitored and maintained. This deficient...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure shared medical devices were properly disinfe...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review (RR) and interview, the facility did not provide a written notice to specify a bed-hold at the time of tr...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure dishes used to serve food were appropriately sanitized in accordance with professional standards for food service safet...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2022
18 deficiencies
2 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and interview with staff members, the facility failed to ensure residents received care to ...
Read full inspector narrative →
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Deficiency F0697
(Tag F0697)
A resident was harmed · 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 that adequate pain management was provided to ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to treat residents with respect and dignity to promote maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life.
Findings includ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0572
(Tag F0572)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview with residents, the facility did not assure staff provide ongoing communication to residents about their rights.
Findings include:
On 10/12/13 at 09:00 AM an interview was conducte...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0574
(Tag F0574)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on resident interview, the facility failed to ensure residents are provided with informational notice of how to contact the Ombudsman or the State Agency.
Finding includes:
On 10/12/22 at 09:30 ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0577
(Tag F0577)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on resident interview, the facility did not assure residents were aware of their right to examine the results of the most recent survey of the facility conducted by State or Federal surveyors.
...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 observations, interview, and record review, the facility failed to timely update the care plans for two residents (R), ...
Read full inspector narrative →
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** 3) On 10/11/22 at 1:00 PM, observation and interview were done with R39 in his room. R39 sat at the edge of his bed wearing a na...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0740
(Tag F0740)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2) Resident (R)34 is a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that include muscular dystrophy, he...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0744
(Tag F0744)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and record review, the facility failed to ensure one resident (R) diagnosed with dementia, received the app...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure that one resident (R) was free from a significant medication e...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure all medications used in the facility were stored in accordance with professional standards. Proper storage practices of all medication...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that the health record for one resident (R)7, o...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
2) On 10/10/22 at 10:36 AM, an observation was done at the bedside of Resident (R)34. A urinal with 200 milliliters of urine was observed on R34's bedside table. Approximately two inches from the used...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 6) R13 is a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with admitting diagnoses that include schizophrenia, and post...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0725
(Tag F0725)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
6) On 10/10/22 at 12:00 PM, an interview was done with a family member (FM)2 who wished to remain anonymous. FM2 stated that she visited her husband almost daily and had witnessed several times especi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0838
(Tag F0838)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on review of the facility's assessment, the facility failed to include the facility's assessment of the facility's resources to meet the needs of their resident population.
Findings include:
Th...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, in response to a COVID-19 outbreak identified on 12/15/22, the facility fa...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 3 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 39 deficiencies on record, including 3 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • $13,049 in fines. Above average for Hawaii. Some compliance problems on record.
- • Grade F (33/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Yukio Okutsu State Veterans Home's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns YUKIO OKUTSU STATE VETERANS HOME an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Hawaii, 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 Yukio Okutsu State Veterans Home Staffed?
CMS rates YUKIO OKUTSU STATE VETERANS HOME's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 99%, which is 52 percentage points above the Hawaii average of 47%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 100%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Yukio Okutsu State Veterans Home?
State health inspectors documented 39 deficiencies at YUKIO OKUTSU STATE VETERANS HOME during 2022 to 2024. These included: 3 that caused actual resident harm and 36 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Yukio Okutsu State Veterans Home?
YUKIO OKUTSU STATE VETERANS HOME is owned by a government entity. Government-operated facilities are typically run by state, county, or municipal agencies. The facility is operated by HAWAII HEALTH SYSTEMS CORPORATION, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 95 certified beds and approximately 63 residents (about 66% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in HILO, Hawaii.
How Does Yukio Okutsu State Veterans Home Compare to Other Hawaii Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Hawaii, YUKIO OKUTSU STATE VETERANS HOME's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.4, staff turnover (99%) is significantly higher than the state average of 47%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Yukio Okutsu State Veterans Home?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "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 high staff turnover rate and the below-average staffing rating.
Is Yukio Okutsu State Veterans Home Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, YUKIO OKUTSU STATE VETERANS HOME 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 3-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Hawaii. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at Yukio Okutsu State Veterans Home Stick Around?
Staff turnover at YUKIO OKUTSU STATE VETERANS HOME is high. At 99%, the facility is 52 percentage points above the Hawaii average of 47%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 100%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. 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 Yukio Okutsu State Veterans Home Ever Fined?
YUKIO OKUTSU STATE VETERANS HOME has been fined $13,049 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Hawaii average of $33,209. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.
Is Yukio Okutsu State Veterans Home on Any Federal Watch List?
YUKIO OKUTSU STATE VETERANS HOME 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.