KULA HOSPITAL
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Kula Hospital has a Trust Grade of C, which means it is average and falls in the middle of the pack compared to other facilities. It ranks #24 out of 41 nursing homes in Hawaii, placing it in the bottom half, and #3 out of 3 in Maui County, indicating there are limited local options. The facility is improving, having reduced issues from 11 in 2024 to just 1 in 2025. Staffing is a strength with a rating of 4 out of 5 stars, but the turnover rate is concerning at 60%, significantly higher than the state average. While Kula Hospital has not incurred any fines, there are serious concerns regarding resident safety, including a serious incident where a resident suffered physical injuries due to staff mishandling and another where non-consensual contact occurred involving a resident unable to consent. Overall, while the nursing home shows some positive trends and good staffing ratings, there are significant weaknesses in safety and oversight that families should consider carefully.
- Trust Score
- C
- In Hawaii
- #24/41
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 60% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Hawaii facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 118 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of Hawaii nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 32 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
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
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Hawaii average (3.4)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
14pts above Hawaii avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
12 points above Hawaii average of 48%
The Ugly 32 deficiencies on record
Jan 2025
1 deficiency
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
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, observation, record and document review, the facility failed to report two incidents that met criteria to t...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2024
1 deficiency
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
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, record and document review, the facility failed to protect the rights of two Resident's (R )1 ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2024
10 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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2) Observation was conducted on 06/03/24 at 12:27 PM on the third-floor dining room. Hospital Aide (HA) 1 was heard stating, Who...
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 interviews and record review, the facility failed to promote the participation for one of the sampled residents (R) 9 a...
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 observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure interventions to prevent or improve pressure ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0726
(Tag F0726)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure nurse competency in medication administration as evidenced by Registered Nurse (RN)5 administering a laxative/stool so...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0757
(Tag F0757)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure adequate monitoring was done for one resident (Resident (R)...
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
Based on observation, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure the staff followed the proper use gloves and performed hand hygiene procedures during wound dressing change for Reside...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Room Equipment
(Tag F0908)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, staff interview, record review, and review of equipment service manual, the facility failed to follow routine maintenance cleaning of the cabinet filter, based on the manufacture...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations and staff interview, the facility failed to secure storage rooms located on the second and fourth floors where hazardous chemicals were kept. As a result of this deficient practi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0727
(Tag F0727)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a Director of Nursing (DON) on a full-time basis. The same staff member covers the long-term care (LTC), the Critical Access Hospit...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
3) Observation was conducted on the third-floor nutrition room on 06/04/24 at 09:04 AM. The fridge contained a strawberry banana flavored yogurt labeled, best by 05/23/24. The freezer contained an Eng...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2023
12 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 observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident's right to a dignified existence for Resident (R)79. While providing care, Staff(S)45's interaction included verbal tauntin...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0578
(Tag F0578)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2) Record review of R72's paper chart. R72's face sheet revealed that he is a [AGE] year-old resident admitted to the facility o...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0604
(Tag F0604)
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 ensure the resident's right to be free from physica...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0655
(Tag F0655)
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 (RR), the facility failed to develop a baseline care plan that provided effec...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident who is unable to carry out Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) received the necessary services to maintain good personal ...
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
Staffing Information
(Tag F0732)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure its nurse staffing information posted on the third floor contained the required data elements. Specifically, the posted nurse staffing...
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
Based on observations, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to provide a complete and accurately documented medical record of one resident (R), R21, out of a sample of 19 residents. Reh...
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 F0925
(Tag F0925)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and interviews, the facility failed to implement an effective pest control program so that the facility is free of pest. As a result of this deficient practice, residents are at r...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2) On 04/11/23, the state agency (SA) received an anonymous complaint (ACTS #10217) regarding skin tears, bruising, and quality ...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 F0725
(Tag F0725)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2) On 02/16/23 a complaint (ACTS #10096) was received by the state agency (SA) with allegations of insufficient staffing affecti...
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 observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to update their facility assessment as required annually or when there is a change that would require a substantial modificati...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate protective and preventive measures...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2022
8 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
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, the facility failed to protect one resident's right to be free from abuse from other residents. As a result of this deficient practice, Resident (R)22 was observe...
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) On 06/28/22 at 10:48 AM, a record review of R37's medical chart was conducted that documented Resident (R)37 was admitted to ...
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 observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive person-centered care plan tha...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, record review and interview with staff members, the facility did not provide necessary services for a resident who is unable to carry out activities of daily living to maintain ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and record review, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision while a resident wandered on the un...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0700
(Tag F0700)
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 ensure a resident was assessed for risk of entrapme...
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
Based on observation and interviews, the facility failed to ensure infection control practices were implemented for a resident (Resident (R)62) with an indwelling catheter.
Findings include:
On 06/2...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0886
(Tag F0886)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff conducting point-of-care (POC) COVID-19 outbreak testing on themselves conducted the testing in a manner consist...
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
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Hawaii facilities.
- • 32 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • Grade C (50/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
- • 60% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
About This Facility
What is Kula Hospital's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns KULA HOSPITAL 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 Kula Hospital Staffed?
CMS rates KULA HOSPITAL's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 60%, which is 14 percentage points above the Hawaii average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.
What Have Inspectors Found at Kula Hospital?
State health inspectors documented 32 deficiencies at KULA HOSPITAL during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 31 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Kula Hospital?
KULA HOSPITAL is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 105 certified beds and approximately 91 residents (about 87% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in KULA, Hawaii.
How Does Kula Hospital Compare to Other Hawaii Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Hawaii, KULA HOSPITAL's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.4, staff turnover (60%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Kula Hospital?
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 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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's high staff turnover rate.
Is Kula Hospital Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, KULA HOSPITAL 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 Kula Hospital Stick Around?
Staff turnover at KULA HOSPITAL is high. At 60%, the facility is 14 percentage points above the Hawaii 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 Kula Hospital Ever Fined?
KULA HOSPITAL has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.
Is Kula Hospital on Any Federal Watch List?
KULA HOSPITAL 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.