THE HAVEN OF BRIDGEPORT

900 EAST CORPORATION, BRIDGEPORT, IL 62417 (618) 945-2091
For profit - Corporation 99 Beds HAVEN HEALTHCARE Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
50/100
#409 of 665 in IL
Last Inspection: May 2024

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

Overview

The Haven of Bridgeport has a Trust Grade of C, meaning it is average compared to other nursing homes. It ranks #409 out of 665 facilities in Illinois, placing it in the bottom half, but it is the only option in Lawrence County. The facility is improving, with issues decreasing from 6 in 2024 to just 1 in 2025. Staffing is a concern, receiving a rating of 1 out of 5 stars, but it does have a low turnover rate of 0%, which is good. There have been no fines, indicating compliance, but specific incidents include a serious fall where a resident sustained a rib fracture due to improper transfer assistance and concerns about food safety and sanitization in the kitchen that could affect all residents. Overall, while there are some significant weaknesses, such as staffing and specific incident reports, the facility's low turnover and lack of fines suggest some positive aspects as well.

Trust Score
C
50/100
In Illinois
#409/665
Bottom 39%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Better
6 → 1 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
Turnover data not reported for this facility.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Illinois facilities.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 25 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Illinois. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
13 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Staff Levels
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 6 issues
2025: 1 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Below Illinois average (2.5)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Chain: HAVEN HEALTHCARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 13 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Apr 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview, observation and record review, the facility failed to answer call lights in a timely manner for 3 of 12 residents (R6, R7, R8) reviewed for call light response times in a sample of...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, observation and record review, the facility failed to answer call lights in a timely manner for 3 of 12 residents (R6, R7, R8) reviewed for call light response times in a sample of 12. Findings include: 1. On 3/31/2025 at 11:47am, R7 activated her call light and at 12:15pm, V2 (Director of Nursing) responded. On 3/31/2025 at 12:25pm, R7 who was alert to person, place and time stated staff do not answer the call lights very quickly and she frequently has to wait 25-30 minutes for her call light to be answered. R7 said it doesn't matter what time of day it is or who is working, call lights are not answered very quickly. R7 said the resident council brings up the call light issue, but nothing has changed. 2. On 3/31/2025 at 10:55am, R6 who was alert to person, place and time stated she usually has to wait about 30 minutes for her call light to be answered. R6 said resident's have complained in resident council about the call light response times. 3. On 3/31/2025 at 12:00pm, R8 who was alert to person, place and time stated staff do not answer her call light very fast and she waits about 30 minutes to get her call light answered. 4. Resident council meeting minutes dated 1/29/2025 documented the residents brought forth complaints to administration concerning call light response times. Resident council meeting minutes dated 2/25/2025 documented the residents again brought forth complaints to administration concerning call light response times. On 4/3/2025, V2 (Director of Nursing) said she knows call lights have been a problem lately. V2 said they will re-educate staff on timely call light response times. V2 said she expected the residents call light to be answered in 15 minutes or less.
Oct 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

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 residents received timely assistance with toile...

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 residents received timely assistance with toileting and showers for 2 (R1 and R4) of 4 residents reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADL's) in the sample of 10. Findings Include: 1. R4's admission Record with a print date of 10/23/24 documents R4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that include sepsis, polyosteoarthritis, malignant neoplasm, dysthymic disorder, hypertension, heart disease, atrial fibrillation, syncope and collapse. R4's MDS (Minimum Data Set) dated 10/16/24 documents a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score of 13 which indicates R4 is cognitively intact. This same MDS documents R4 requires substantial/maximal assistance with toilet transfer and moving from a sitting to standing position. R4's current Care Plan documents a Focus Area of I have an ADL (Activities of Daily Living) self-care/mobility performance (functional abilities) deficit that may fluctuate with activity throughout the day r/t (related to) NSTEMI (non-ST elevation myocardial infarction), poly osteoarthritis, obesity, depression, AIB (abnormal illness behavior), heart disease. Date Initiated: 02/28/24 The interventions documented for this Focus Area include; If resident resists with ADL's, reassure resident, leave and return 5-10 minutes later and try again. Date Initiated: 02/28/2024 .Toilet hygiene: My usual performance is partial/moderate assistance. Date Initiated: 02/28/2024 Toilet transfer: My usual performance is substantial/maximal assistance. Date Initiated: 02/28/2024 . This same Care Plan documents a Focus Area of I am frequently incontinent of bladder .Date Initiated: 03/03/2024 The interventions documented for this Focus area include, Check and change Q (every) 2-3 H (hours) and PRN (as needed). Date Initiated: 03/03/2024 On 10/21/24 at 10:45 AM, R4 was sitting in a recliner covered with a blanket and there was an odor of urine noted by this surveyor. R4 stated she sleeps in her recliner. R4 stated she was sitting in wet clothes and had been since she got up that morning. R4 stated she couldn't remember what time, but V3 (Certified Nursing Assistant/CNA) came in and turned the call light off. R4 stated she couldn't go to the bathroom by herself and no one had helped her up yet this morning. R4 stated she wears a brief for incontinence. On 10/21/24 at 10:49 AM, V3 (CNA) stated she was the CNA providing care to R4 today. V3 stated she had not assisted R4 with toileting since she came on duty at 6:00 AM. V4 stated she turned the call light off in R4's room around 10:30 AM, the floor had been mopped and was wet and she told R4 she would come back after the floor dried. V3 stated R4 normally tells staff when she had to go to the bathroom and R4 hadn't asked V3 to assist her with toileting. This surveyor walked with V3 to R4's room. V3 removed the blanket covering R4's legs and assisted R4 to stand. R4's gown was saturated with urine with a brown ring around the edges, up to her waist. R4's chair (that she sleeps in) had two bed pads on it, both pads were saturated with urine with brown rings around them. V3 removed the bed pads from R4's chair and the chair was wet in the seat and halfway up the back. R4 ambulated to the bathroom and removed her incontinence brief that was saturated with urine and brown/dark yellow in color. On 10/23/24 at 1:30 PM, V2 (Director of Nurses/DON) stated her expectation would be that every resident be checked on every two hours. V2 stated that means not just looking in the room but asking the resident if they need anything. V2 stated she didn't know why staff didn't offer to assist R4 with toileting. The facility Bowel and Bladder- Assessment and Toileting Programs dated 11/28/12 documents, Purpose: Based on the resident's comprehensive assessment the facility will ensure that each resident with bowel or bladder incontinence will receive appropriate treatment and services to restore as much normal bowel or bladder functioning as possible Types of Incontinence programs include: .3) Check and Change: Using the information obtained from the voiding pattern data the decision may be made to not place the resident on a scheduled toileting program. Instead the facility implements a care plan whereby the resident is checked frequently and cleaned as necessary. The facility may use supplies such as adult disposable briefs 2. R1's admission Record with a print date of 10/23/24 documents R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that include diabetes, cirrhosis of liver, unsteadiness on feet, hypertension, heart failure, acute kidney failure, and osteoporosis. R1's MDS dated [DATE] documents a BIMS score of 14, indicating R1 is cognitively intact. This same MDS documents R1 is dependent on staff for showers. R1's current Care Plan documents a Focus Area of, I have an ADL self-care/mobility performance (functional abilities) deficit that may fluctuate with activity throughout the day r/t NSTEMI, CHF (congestive heart failure), CAD (coronary artery disease), HTN (hypertension), NASH liver cirrhosis, DM2 (diabetes mellitus type 2), peripheral neuropathy, arthritis. Date Initiated: 09/20/2024 . The interventions for this Focus area include,Shower/Bathe self: I take a shower/bath/bath at sink/bed bath my usual performance is dependent. Date Initiated: 09/20/2024 R1's facility record did not document R1 was assisted with a shower or bath throughout her stay at the facility from 9/19/24 through 9/25/24. On 10/23/24 at 2:30 PM, V2 (DON) stated R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and her shower days were on Tuesdays and Thursdays. V2 stated there is no documentation R1 received assistance with a shower/bath from 9/19/24 to 9/25/24. The facility Shower and Tub Bath policy dated 11/28/12 documents, Purpose: To ensure resident's cleanliness to maintain proper hygiene and dignity. Guidelines: A shower, tub bath or bed/sponge bath will be offered according to resident's preference two times per week or according to the resident's preferred frequency and as needed or requested .
May 2024 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

PASARR Coordination (Tag F0644)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review the facility failed to refer a resident for a Level II Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) for 3 (R40, R15 and R43) of 3 residents reviewed for PAS...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to refer a resident for a Level II Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) for 3 (R40, R15 and R43) of 3 residents reviewed for PASARR's in the sample of 33. Findings Include: 1. R40's admission Record documents an admission date of 11/02/2021 and documents diagnoses including: Bipolar disorder, current episode mixed, unspecified, with diagnosis date of 5/25/22, Major Depressive Disorder, single episode unspecified, with diagnosis date 11/02/2021, and Unspecified Dementia with a diagnosis date of 11/02/2021. R40's current Level 1 PASARR dated 11/03/2021 documents long term care placement was appropriate. 2. R43's admission Record documents an admission date of 02/19/2019 and documents diagnoses including: Major Depressive Disorder recurrent, unspecified with diagnosis date of 04/21/2019, and Psychotic disorder with delusions due to known physiological condition with diagnosis date of 06/12/2019. R43's current Level I PASARR dated 05/10/2023 documents a diagnosis of Major Depression but did not include Psychotic disorder with delusions. The document goes on to say No Level II Required. On 05/30/2024 at 2:25 P.M. V1 (Administrator) stated that she was unaware that R40 and R43 needed a Level II Screen. V1 stated that V12 (Bookkeeper) and V13 (Social Service) do the screens. On 5/30/24 at 2:30 P.M., V12 and V13 were interviewed. V12 stated that she was not aware that R40 and R43 had a diagnosis that would need a Level II. V12 stated that she was not aware that R40 had a new diagnosis but would go run new screens immediately. V13 stated that she would ensure it get completed as she was unaware of his diagnosis. 3. R15's admission Record documents an admit date of 4/19/2016. This admission record includes the following diagnoses: visual hallucinations with an onset date of 7/11/23 and bipolar disorder with onset date of 4/26/23. R15's current PASARR (Preadmission Screening and Resident Review) level one was completed as an OBRA (Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act)-1 initial screen on 4/19/16 documenting that R15 was not suspected for Mental Illness or Developmental Disease. On 5/31/24 at 10:30 AM, V12 (Bookkeeper) stated that she was unaware of the added diagnoses for mental illness so she will submit for a level 2 PASARR today. The policy Preadmission Screening and Annual Resident Review (PASARR) dated 11/28/2012 with a revision date of 11/13/2018 documents The objective of the PASARR policy is to ensure that individuals with mental illness and intellectual disabilities receive the care and services that they need in the most appropriate setting. The PASARR will be evaluated annually and upon any significant change for those individuals.
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 interview and record review the facility failed to ensure dependent residents received timely assistance for toileting needs for 2 of 2 residents (R48 and R55) reviewed for Activities of Dail...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure dependent residents received timely assistance for toileting needs for 2 of 2 residents (R48 and R55) reviewed for Activities of Daily Living in the sample of 33. The findings include: 1. R48's admission Record documented an original admission date to the facility as 11/30/2022. R48 is documented with diagnoses including Parkinson's Disease, Blindness, one eye, Difficulty walking, Pain in right knee and unsteadiness on feet. R48's Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date of 05/26/2024 documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status Score of 15, indicating R48 is cognitively intact. The same MDS documented in Section GG0130, toileting assistance is documented as substantial / maximal assistance. Section GG0170 also documented substantial / maximal assistance status for toileting transfers. Section H0300 documented R48 as being occasionally incontinent. R48's Plan of Care documented a focus area of ADL (Activities of Daily Living) Self Care / Mobility Performance Deficit with a date initiated as 12/10/2021. Interventions listed for this focus area document, (R48's) usual performance for toileting is substantial / maximal assistance. On 05/28/24 at 10:59 AM, R48 was observed sitting in her wheelchair in her room. R48 was observed being alert and oriented to person, place, and time. R48 stated she has concerns with the facility and the amount of time it takes staff to answer call lights. R48 stated that the average time it takes for call lights to be answered is 30 minutes up to one hour. R48 stated she can confirm these times by the use of the clocks in her room, which were visualized during this interview. R48 stated it isn't a specific day or time when this occurs. R48 stated she has experienced incontinence episodes waiting for staff to take her to the restroom. R48 stated she finds it frustrating and embarrassing when she experiences incontinence and has to have her clothes changed. 2. R55's admission Record documented an original admission date to the facility as 01/10/2022. R55 is documented with diagnoses including Morbid Obesity, Chronic Kidney disease, Difficulty walking, and unsteadiness on feet. R55's Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date of 03/13/2024 documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status Score of 15, indicating R55 is cognitively intact. The same MDS documented in Section GG0130, dependent status for toileting. Section GG0170 also documented dependent status for toileting transfer. Section H0300 documented R55 as being frequently incontinent. R55's Plan of Care documented a focus area of ADL (Activities of Daily Living) Self Care / Mobility Performance Deficit with a date initiated as 04/22/2022. Interventions listed for this focus area document, (R55's) usual performance for toileting is dependent, may use sit to stand with 2 people. On 05/28/2024 at 10:59 AM, R48 was observed in her bed, and was alert and oriented. R48 stated she has experienced incontinence episodes waiting for staff to take her to the restroom. R48 stated that she has noted it taking up to 30 minutes for staff to respond to the call lights. R48 stated she finds it frustrating and embarrassing when she experiences incontinence episodes while waiting to be placed on the bed pan. On 5/31/2024 at 9:30 AM, V1 (Administrator) stated that her expectation is that call lights be acknowledged by staff within 10-15 minutes. V1 stated that she is aware of the call light complaints from resident council and has started QA (Quality Assurance) rounds on call light monitoring. V1 stated that call light times are monitored, and staff are educated regarding call light answering. V1 stated that any staff member can answer a call light. On 05/31/2024 at 12:35 PM, V2 (Director of Nursing) stated it is her expectation that call lights are answered within 5 minutes of them being pushed. Review of the Resident Council meeting minutes for December 2023 to April 2024, as provided by the facility document the following concerns: 12/27/23 - Nursing: Ignore Lights. 1/24/24 - Nursing: Passing up call lights. 2/28/24 - Nursing: Residents stated at times call lights are not being answered in a timely manner. 4/27/24 - Nursing: Call lights, sometimes have to wait to be answered. The facility policy titled Call Light with a revision date of 02/02/2018, documents under Guidelines that Resident call lights will be answered in a timely manner.
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review the facility failed to implement interventions to prevent falls with injuries for 1 of 1 (R169) residents reviewed for falls in a sample of 33. The Findings Inclu...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to implement interventions to prevent falls with injuries for 1 of 1 (R169) residents reviewed for falls in a sample of 33. The Findings Include: R169's admission Record documents an admission date of 5/24/24. The admission record also includes the following diagnoses: unsteadiness on feet, abnormalities of gait and mobility, and lack of coordination. R169's admission MDS (Minimum Data Set) dated 5/27/24 documents that R169 has a BIMS (Brief Interview of Mental Status) score of 15, indicating that R169 is cognitively intact. This same MDS documents in Section GG that R169 needs supervision/touching assistance-helper provides verbal cues and/or touching/steadying and/or contact guard assistance as resident completes activity. Assistance may be provided throughout the activity or intermittently. R169's Care Plan under the focus area of I have an ADL (Activities of Daily Living) self-care/mobility performance (functional abilities) deficit that may fluctuate with activity throughout the day related to recent history of closed fracture of neck of left femur. The Interventions for this focus area include for sit/lying and toileting that partial/moderate assistance is needed. These interventions have an initiation date of 5/28/24. The initial fall occurrence dated 5/27/24 at 22:00 (10:00 PM) documents that the location of the fall occurred in the resident's room and that the nurse was called down to the resident's room to assess a fall that occurred as he was being assisted to the restroom by V11 with his walker when he lost his balance and fell backwards. R169 hit his head on the edge of the bed in the room causing a 3 centimeter laceration on the back of his head, and hit his left elbow causing a large skin tear to both areas. The action taken immediately per this report was that R169 was sent to emergency room for evaluation. On 5/30/24 at 1:50 PM, V2 (Director of Nursing) stated that V11 (Certified Nurse Assistant) let go of R169 to turn the call light off and when she did that he fell backward. V2 went on to state that he had a line placement that day and still may have been groggy from that. V2 stated that she has since educated the staff on proper transfers with a 'hemi' walker. V2 stated that R169 was not admitted to the hospital after evaluation he was sent back with no injuries or new orders. V2 stated that R169 returned to the facility at 5:00 AM on 5/28/24. V2 stated that R169 has the skin tear to his elbow and his head required no orders other than to keep clean and dry. On 5/30/24 at 2:00 PM, V11 stated that she went to assist R169 to the bathroom and let go of him to turn on the bathroom light. When she did he fell and hit his head on the bed and scratched his arm. V11 stated that she thinks maybe his slip on shoes may have been part of the problem, but it happened so fast she isn't sure why he slipped and fell. V11 stated that she has never worked with R169 prior to this day, nor had she worked with any resident that used this type of walker. V11 stated that R169 didn't have a gait belt on either because of the type of walker that he uses. On 5/30/24 at 2:30 PM, V15 (Therapy Director) stated that a resident who is coded as a supervision/or touching assistance should not be left unattended for the potential of a fall. V15 also stated at this time that a gait belt should be used on R169 when he is up walking with his 'hemi' walker or at any time due to his unsteadiness. The Fall Prevention Program policy, dated 11/21/17, documents the purpose of this policy is to assure the safety of all residents in the facility, when possible. The program will include measures which determine the individual needs of each resident by assessing the risk of falls and implementation of appropriate interventions to provide necessary supervision and assistive devices are utilized as necessary. The Transfers-Manual Gait Belt and Mechanical Lift policy, with a revision date of 1/19/18, documents 9. use of gait belt for all physical assists transfers is mandatory .
CONCERN (D)

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

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure therapeutic diets were provided as ordered for 1 of 2 residents (R18) reviewed for therapeutic diets in the sample of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure therapeutic diets were provided as ordered for 1 of 2 residents (R18) reviewed for therapeutic diets in the sample of 33. The Findings Include: R18's admission Record documents an admission date of 01/30/2024. admission diagnoses listed include: Atrial Fibrillation, Atherosclerotic heart disease if native coronary artery, heart failure, and essential hypertension. R18's Physician's Order Sheet documents a dietary order of NAS (No Added Salt), regular texture, regular consistency dated 1/30/24. On 05/28/2024 at 11:57 A.M. R18 stated that she never receives the diet that is on the card. R18 stated that she always gets other foods not on the card. Tray diet card documents R18's diet as Heart Healthy. The tray card stated R18 should receive Meatballs with spiral noodles, Italian blend vegetables, garlic bread, beverage and butterscotch bars. At this time, R18 received Ravioli, Italian blend vegetables, garlic bread, and pudding. The facility Diet Spreadsheet documents on day 24, Tuesday (5/28/24), the Regular Diet for lunch served is beef ravioli w/ (with) marinara sauce, Italian blend vegetables, butterscotch bars, garlic bread, and beverage. The Heart Healthy Diet served for lunch on the same date documents Meatballs w/ spiral noodles, Italian blend vegetables, butterscotch bars, bread, and beverage. On 05/29/2024 at 12:09 P.M. R18's tray card documented she should receive Hot pork on bun, Sweet potato fries, fiesta blend vegetables, glazed applesauce cake, and beverage. R18's lunch tray observed at this time contained the following items: Bratwurst on bun, potato wedges, fiesta blend vegetables, applesauce cake, and beverage. The facility Diet Spreadsheet documents on day 25, Wednesday (5/29/24), the Regular Diet for lunch is Bratwurst on a bun, sweet potato fries, fiesta blend vegetables, glazed apple sauce cake, and beverage. The Heart Healthy Diet served for lunch the same date documents hot pork on a bun, fiesta blend vegetables, glazed applesauce cake, and beverage. On 05/29/2024 at 12:16 P.M. V2 (Director of Nursing) stated that the residents should receive the diet that is printed on the card. V2 stated if the menu had changed the residents should have been notified. V2 stated in the past the diets served has been the same as what the diet card shows. V2 stated that there has been a change in leaders in the dietary department that happened recently and this could have caused some confusion. On 05/29/2024 at 12:21 P.M. V14 (cook) stated the menu was different today because the proper food items were not ordered by the dietary manager who recently quit. V14 stated they made substitutions with alternatives they have until a new order comes in.
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

Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to properly label/cover food items and prevent cross contamination. This failure has the potential to affect all 67 residents res...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to properly label/cover food items and prevent cross contamination. This failure has the potential to affect all 67 residents residing in the facility. The Findings Include: On 5/28/24 at 10:00 AM, during the initial tour of the kitchen, the following items were found not to be labeled and/or covered in the refrigerators: drink pitchers not labeled, desert bowls that were covered but not labeled, shredded cheese not labeled, and salad not labeled. The cake was found to be uncovered on a tray and not labeled. During the initial kitchen tour, the bulk sugar container had a cup with no handle in the container. Other food debris that was brown in color was seen in a bulk sugar container, and the lid to sugar container was sticky and had dust and food substance stuck to it. On 5/28/24 at 11:00 AM, V12 (Cook) stated that she will correct these concerns as they have recently lost their dietary manager and they are working through that. The food storage policy dated 2020 documents .1. General storage guidelines to be followed: all food items will be labeled. The label must include the name of the food and the date by which it should be sold, consumed, or discarded Review of the Long-Term Care Facility Application for Medicare and Medicaid dated 5/28/24 documented 67 residents reside in the facility.
Jul 2023 4 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 observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to safely transfer and immediately report a fall for one ...

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 safely transfer and immediately report a fall for one (R22) of seven residents reviewed for risk of falls in the sample of 34. This failure resulted in R22 falling against the toilet during a one assist transfer and sustaining a rib fracture with resulting pain. This past noncompliance occurred between 6/17/23 and 7/12/23. Findings include: R22's Face Sheet documented an admission date of 6/10/23 and diagnoses including Alzheimer's Disease, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Diabetes Type 2, and Heart Failure. R22's 6/30/23 Care Plan dated documented a problem area, I am at risk for falls related to unsteady gait/balance, (and a) history of falls. R22's Fall Risk assessment dated [DATE] documented a score of 11, indicating that R22 is at risk for falls. R22's Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented that R22 requires extensive assistance from at least two staff members for transfers and toileting. Nurses Notes documented the following: 6/17/23 at 5:46pm: Resident started complaining of left rib pain after being transferred from shower chair to wheelchair. Family requested that the resident be sent out to (hospital) for xrays of ribs. I contacted (V8, Physician) who is on call for (V9, Physician) this weekend and he gave orders for left side rib xray and chest xray. Resident left facility via our transportation department. 6/17/23 6:30pm: Resident returned from having xray of left rib area and chest. 6/18/23 at 4:58am: Nurse went to check on resident and she was observed holding her left side and moaning in pain, (as needed) pain med(ications) given for discomfort. 6/18/23 at 11:14am: This nurse got xray results back for resident and xray results showed a Left 11th thoracic rib fracture. This nurse reported to (V8) which had called to check up on resident which was the Medical Doctor that gave orders to get xray. This nurse called (V11, POA/Power of Attorney) to inform them of the results. This nurse did let (V8) know that resident was doing normal activities when this nurse got results back and went to check up on pain level, but resident was participating in church activity. At this time resident has (as needed) Tylenol as ordered for the pain. A Fall Investigation dated 6/17/23 at 5:30pm documented, Residents POA approached this nurse regarding this resident experiencing a significant amount of pain in the left side rib area. POA stated to this nurse that she spoke to (V10, Certified Nursing Assistant/CNA) and (V10) stated to POA that she (V10) was trying to transfer the resident by herself and was unable to transfer her completely and sat her roughly on the toilet. This was not reported to the nurse (me) until the POA brought this to my attention. I assessed the resident in the area she was complaining of pain in. I did not note any significant marks on the resident at the time. I called (V8) who was on call for (V9) this weekend and explained the situation. (V8) gave orders to send the resident for xrays. Resident is unable to provide information at this time. An Xray Report dated 6/17/23 documented, Exam Description: Xray ribs left chest. Reason for study: Left lower ribs hurt after an aid helped her up .Findings: Left anterior 11th rib fracture. R22's Physicians Orders for June 2023 and July 2023 documented an order for Acetaminophen Extra Strength Oral Tablet 500 mg (milligrams), give 1 tablet by mouth every 6 hours as needed for pain. A MAR (Medication Administration Record) for June 2023 documented that the Acetaminophen was given on the following dates: 6/17/23 at 9:57pm, pain level '3' (On a zero to ten scale). Administration effective. 6/18/23 at 5:02am, pain level '3' Administration effective. 6/18/23 at 4:53pm, pain level '7' Administration effective. 6/28/23 at 11:58pm, pain level '3' Administration effective. 6/30/23 at 7:20pm, pain level; '5' Administration effective. A MAR for July 2023 documented that the Acetaminophen was not administered from 7/1/23 through 7/25/23. A document entitled Behavior Reports dated 6/17/23 handwritten and authored by V10 documented the following: Had resident on the toilet, my partner had to go do something, (I) tried to stand her (R22) up to clean her off and she fell sideways onto the toilet. My partner was outside the door and (I) had her help me get her off the toilet. She can stand up sometimes, and sometimes she can't. On 07/23/23 at 10:55am, R22 was observed in her room, sitting in a high backed wheelchair. R22 was alert and oriented only to herself. R22 stated she does not think she has sustained any falls at the facility. R22 had no complaints. On 7/25/23 at 1:31pm, V2 (Director of Nurses) stated on 6/17/23 at some time in the morning, V10 was trying to get R22 off the toilet by herself and R22 fell backward onto the toilet. V2 stated the Nurses Note dated 6/17/23 at 5:46pm stating the transfer from shower chair to wheelchair is inaccurate. V2 stated R22 was to be transferred by two staff and that V10 should have been aware of that when V10 got report at the beginning of her shift that morning. V2 stated V10 did not report the incident to the nurse when it happened but did report it to V11 (POA) in the afternoon of the same day when R22 complained of rib pain, with V11 reporting it to R22's nurse. V2 stated V8, the Physician covering for V9 (R22's Physician) gave the order to send R22 for x-rays, where it was discovered R22 had fractured a rib. V2 stated the new intervention added after the fall is that R22 is always to be transferred with two staff to assist, and V2 stated all staff were re-educated to do this. V2 stated all staff were also educated that falls are to be reported immediately. V2 stated R22 did not display sequelae from the fracture with the exception of some complaints of pain immediately after which were resolved with administration of Acetaminophen. On 07/25/23 at 02:01 PM, V10 stated that on 6/17/23 at some point in the morning, she and another CNA transferred R22 onto the toilet and the other CNA then went to answer a call light. V10 stated R22 wanted to get off the toilet, so V10 stood her up, but R22 stumbled backward, and her buttocks hit the seat 'pretty hard.' V10 stated she did not witness R22's chest make contact with the toilet. V10 stated she waited till the other CNA returned and they then transferred R22 off the toilet without incident. V10 stated she was busy and did not report the incident to the charge nurse. V10 stated V11 reported to V10 that R22 was having rib pain, V10 told V11 about the transfer incident and V11 reported it to the charge nurse. V10 stated she does not know why the 6/17/23 Nurses Note stated the resident was being transferred from the shower chair to the wheelchair. V10 stated she was aware R22 was to be transferred with two staff. V10 stated after the incident, all staff were re-educated that R22 is to always be transferred by at least two staff members, and falls are to be reported immediately. On 7/26/23 at 1:54pm, V9 (Physician) stated R22 was admitted on [DATE] as a transfer from another facility. V9 stated the facility notified her about the 6/17/23 injury as described above. V9 stated it is definitely possible the rib fractured occurred during the 6/17/23 fall. V9 stated R22 has no known history of osteoporosis, and there was no sequelae associated with the fall except complaints of pain relieved by Tylenol. V9 stated to her knowledge, R22 had no previous rib fractures and no previous complaints of rib pain. On 7/26/23 at 2:35pm, V1 (Administrator) stated all nursing and CNA staff were re-educated that R22 is to be transferred with two staff, and falls are to be reported immediately to the charge nurse. V1 stated the Quality Assurance interdisciplinary team met and discussed the fall and implemented the action of adding residents' transfer status prominently in the CNAs charting section so that when they log into the residents record, the transfer status is immediately seen. V1 stated V2 (DON) met with V10 three times weekly and provided transfer observation on the floor which occurred without incident, and V1 stated V10 has met her re-training objectives. V1 stated V10 is a seasoned CNA, and a dependable employee and administrative staff believe there will be no further issues with V10 performing unsafe transfers. On 07/27/23 at 8:33am, V11 (POA) stated she came to see R22 around lunchtime on 6/17/23. V11 stated R22 began complaining that her left side hurt. When V11 questioned R22, R22 stated, I was going to the bathroom, and they dropped me. V11 stated she questioned V10, who initially denied anything had occurred. V11 stated V10 finally admitted , She was taking (R22) to the bathroom, and she slipped out of her (V10's) hands. V11 stated V10 admitted she had not told any other staff members about this. V11 stated she informed the charge nurse, who knew nothing about it, and R22 was sent for an xray, which showed a rib fracture. V11 stated R22 complained about pain for a few days, but the pain resolved. V11 stated R22 has no history of rib fractures or rib pain. V11 stated when R22 was admitted to the facility, she recalls specifically telling V10 that R22 required the assistance of two staff for transfers. V11 stated it is her understanding that administration re-educated staff that R22 is always supposed to be transferred with two staff, and falls are to be immediately reported. V11 stated she has now noticed there are always two staff present during R22's care. A Fall Prevention Program Policy dated 11/21/17 documented, Purpose: To assure the safety of all residents in the facility, when possible. The program will include measures which determine the individual needs of each resident by assessing the risk of falls and implementation of appropriate interventions to provide necessary supervision and assistive devices are utilized as necessary .All assigned nursing personnel are responsible for ensuring ongoing precautions are put into place and consistently maintained. Fall/safety interventions may include but are not limited to: .Transfer conveyances shall be used to transfer residents in accordance with the plan of care. Residents at risk of falling will be assisted with toileting needs as identified during the assessment process and as addressed in the plan of care. Prior to the survey date, the facility took the following actions to correct the non-compliance: 1. From 6/23/23 through 6/30/23, all nursing and CNA staff were inserviced that R22's transfers are to be with the assistance of two staff at all times, and difficulty with any transfers are to be reported to the residents nurse immediately. Staff signed off on the attendance sheet, including V10. 2. For a total of four weeks, from 6/20/23 through 7/22/23, V10's resident transfers were audited three times weekly, with V10 demonstrating proficiency in all observations. 3. R22 is engaged in therapy services twice weekly to assist with core strengthening, transfers, and ADL's. (Activities of Daily Living). 4. The facility's electronic health records system has been updated so that when CNAs initially log into the system to document, resident's transfer status is prominently displayed. 5. On 7/12/23, the facility's Quality Assurance Committee met to review the above referenced fall. The Committee approved of the corrective Action Plan that had been submitted and reviewed the status of the plan without corrections.
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 observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to update restraint assessments and consents for one (R35...

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 update restraint assessments and consents for one (R35) of one resident reviewed for restraints in the sample of 34. Findings include: On 07/23/23 at 10:20am, R35 was observed in his room sitting in a high back wheelchair wearing a lap belt. R35 was awake and alert but did not respond verbally. R35's Face Sheet documented an admission date of 1/18/19, and diagnoses including Personal History of Traumatic Brain Injury, Abnormal Posture, and Unspecified Behavioral Syndromes Associated with Physiological Disturbances and Physical Factors. R35's Care Plan dated 6/26/23 documented a problem area, I use physical restraints: wheelchair seat belt related to uncontrolled body movements. (I am) To wear seatbelt when up in the wheelchair for safety and positioning, with a corresponding intervention, Ensure valid consent on chart prior to initiating restraint. R35's Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented that R35 has a Brief Interview for Mental Status Score of zero, indicating the resident is rarely or never understood, and requires daily use of a trunk restraint. R35's July 2023 Physicians Orders documented an order, Resident to wear seatbelt when up in the wheelchair for safety and positioning. Will release every 2 hours for 15 minutes and at meals if safe for the resident at that time. R35's medical record contained a Physical Restraint Informed Consent, signed by R35's POA (Power of Attorney) on 1/22/19. The record also contained a Restraint Evaluation Review dated 9/12/22. A Restraints Policy dated 5/24/18 documented, Purpose: To ensure that each resident is to attain and maintain his/her highest practicable well-being in an environment that prohibits the use of restraints for discipline or convenience and limits restraint use to circumstances in which the resident has medical symptoms that warrant the use of restraints .Periodic assessments shall address the resident's status in an effort to reduce or eliminate restraints whenever possible and assure the (least) restrictive method is used which allows the resident to function at their highest practicable level .The use of restraints will be reviewed by the Interdisciplinary Team periodically and at least quarterly thereafter .When alternatives to the use of restraints are ineffective, the physician will be contacted and further directions/orders requested to maintain a safe environment for the resident. If alternative measures have been unsuccessful and a determination that a physical restraint is necessary, then the use of the restraint including risks, possible negative outcomes, and benefits must first be explained to the resident, family member, or legal representative and written and/or verbal consent for use obtained. On 07/25/23 at 8:54am, V2 (Director of Nurses) stated Restraint Assessments and Restraint Consents are to be updated quarterly per facility policy. V2 acknowledged R35's consent and assessment had not been updated per policy and provided a Physical Restraint Informed Consent and Restraint Evaluation Review both dated 7/24/23, which she stated she updated yesterday.
CONCERN (D)

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

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

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 the correct textured diet was provided to one (...

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 the correct textured diet was provided to one (R9) of one resident reviewed for pureed diets in a sample of 34. This past non-compliance occurred on 06/26/23. R9's Diagnoses Sheet documents admission to this facility on 06/05/09 with a primary diagnosis of Alzheimer's dementia with hemiplegia, and an additional diagnosis of dysphagia dated 06/30/23. Her most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicates she is moderately cognitively impaired with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 8. She is assessed to require set-up with supervision only for eating. R9's Care Plan dated 02/16/15 and updated most recently includes - (R9) has a swallowing problem r/t (related to) loss of food/liquids from mouth while eating. NAS (no added salt), mechanical soft pureed meat, honey thickened liquids, patient may have one sip of liquid from cup at a time, staff to supervise during all intake, 8 oz (ounce) of fortified milk with meals, puree meats and fruits except bananas, add fortified pudding with lunch and supper - Revised 8/3/2022; (R9) has a swallowing problem r/t loss of food/liquids from mouth while eating. NAS, mechanical soft pureed meat, honey thickened liquids, patient may have one sip of liquid from cup at a time, staff to supervise during all intake, 8 oz of fortified milk with meals, puree meats and fruits except bananas, add fortified pudding or equivalent with lunch and supper - Revised 6/15/2023. R9's July 2023 Physician's Order Sheet (POS) documents - NAS diet, Mechanical Soft, pureed meat texture, honey consistency, pureed fruit except bananas, super cereal with breakfast and fortified pudding or equivalent with lunch and supper for diet, start dated 01/26/23. R9's meal card dated 07/26/23 documents the same orders as on the July 2023 POS. R9's facility Incident Report dated 06/26/23 at 12:32 PM includes - Incident Description: Observed resident holding her throat. Resident leaned forward and encouraged to cough. Resident spit up 2 large hunks of cantaloupe. Incident Location: Dining Room. Person Preparing Report: V15 (Licensed Practical Nurse/LPN) Resident Description: Swallowed cantaloupe. Immediate Action Taken: Vitals, lung sounds, encouraged to cough up cantaloupe. Resident Taken to Hospital: No. Injuries Observed at Time of Incident: No injuries observed at time of incident. Level of Consciousness: Alert. Mobility: Wheelchair bound. Mental Status: Alert to person. Injuries Report Post Incident: No injuries observed post incident . Notes: 06/26/23 - Observed resident holding her throat. Resident leaned forward and encouraged to cough. Resident spit up 2 large hunks of cantaloupe. V16 (Physician)/V2 (Director of Nursing - DON) made aware. 06/26/23 - Diet reviewed. Resident fruit to be pureed. Met with dietary department for education and alerts noted on menu card. Alert will be highlighted on resident's menu. R9's progress note dated 6/26/2023 at 12:25 PM by V15 (LPN) documents - . Resident choked on cantaloupe in the dining room. This nurse encouraged her to cough and lean forward. Resident spit up 2 chunks and was able to clear throat. Lungs clear at this time. Resident also spit up lots of clear phlegm. MD (Medical Doctor) and DON made aware. On 07/26/23 at 12:29 PM, V15 stated, I was down the hall passing meds and staff brought (R9) to the nursing station and she was kind of foaming at the mouth and gagging. I instructed (R9) to lean forward and cough to try and clear her throat. V15 stated R9 ultimately spit up/vomited and chunks of cantaloupe came up. V15 stated at that time she was not aware of R9's diet orders but when she checked with speech therapy, she confirmed she was supposed to be receiving pureed fruit other than bananas. V15 stated after R9's choking incident she listened to her lungs to ensure she hadn't aspirated any food. V15 stated she believed there was a new dietary staff in the kitchen that had passed R9's lunch tray that day and apparently was not aware of the orders. V15 stated for the next 2 days a respiratory assessment was performed on V9 with negative findings. R9's Respiratory Assessments dated 06/26/23 and 06/27/23 were reviewed with no residual effects documented after R9 choked on the pieces of cantaloupe. On 07/26/23 at 12:41 PM, V12 (Dietary Aide) stated, It was my first 3-4 days of working in the dining room by myself and I was very unfamiliar with who eats what and at that time we did not have a supervisor over us. I was going based off another lady's word. I had asked V14 (Former Cook) if I was able to give (R9) cantaloupe because she was asking for it. I had not been trained and did not really know it had to be pureed. The nursing supervisor was upset and brought it to our attention that (R9) was not supposed to have cantaloupe that was not pureed. We were educated on the orders and talked to about the incident. When asked if she had looked at the meal card that day, V12 stated she just missed where it said, pureed fruit other than bananas because the meal card was confusing. When asked if she knew the difference between the different texture consistencies such as mechanical soft versus puree and how to ensure the correct food was on the resident tray, V12 stated, I do now. On 07/26/23 at 12:57 PM, V7 (Dietary Manager) stated, I started here about 3 weeks ago as the Dietary Manager. I think the staff coming into this were not well educated on the differences in mechanical soft versus pureed. I am not aware of when (R9's) order was put into place, but cantaloupe would not have been appropriate unless it is puree as ordered. On 07/26/23 at 1:19 PM, R9 stated she does remember choking on the cantaloupe on 06/26/23 but confirmed she has no residual effects from that incident. She stated, It just happened and has not happened since then. On 07/26/23 at 1:49 PM, V2 (DON) confirmed R9's dietary card did document she was to have pureed fruit (other than bananas) on 06/26/23 but stated the cantaloupe had not been pureed as ordered that day. On 07/26/23, V1 (Administrator) provided documentation outlining the actions taken by the facility prior to this survey date to correct the noncompliance. Prior to the survey date, the facility took the following actions to correct the deficient practice: 1. An IDT (Interdisciplinary Team) meeting was held on 06/26/23 at 1:53 PM with the following management staff - V2 (DON), V5 (LPN/Wound Nurse), V15 (LPN), and V17 (ST - Speech Therapy). a) Summary of IDT meeting: Resident was observed holding her throat and choking in the dining room. Resident leaned over and was coughing. Resident encouraged to cough and clear airway. Chunks of cantaloupe was coughed up. Nurse immediately done respiratory assessment. Resident could speak and had no further complaints after incident. MD notified. Respiratory assessment each shift for the next 2 days. ST to eval and treat. Resident will be monitored at all meals in the dining room. 2. A Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement meeting was held on 06/26/23. In attendance - V1, V2, and V7. Actions Steps Include: a) Provide education to dietary staff. Educated staff to read resident's dietary tray card with the actual food served at each meal. Responsible Person(s): V2, V7. Target Date: New hires monthly. B: Supervisor or designated staff will monitor dining room compliance. Responsible Person(s): V1, V2. Target Date: 06/26/23 and all meals. 3. Process/Steps to identify others having the potential to be impacted by the same deficient practice: All residents have the potential to be affected. 4. Measures put into place/systematic changes to ensure the deficient practice does not recur: V1 and V2 provided in-service with sign-in sheets to dietary staff regarding resident diet - Educate on diet types and alerts on place cards. Alerts to be highlighted.
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

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to properly sanitize dishware. This has the potential to affect all 61 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: On ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to properly sanitize dishware. This has the potential to affect all 61 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: On 07/23/23 at 11:30 AM, the chemical sanitizer level in the dish machine was checked by V13 (Dietary Aide) for chlorine sanitizer and did not register any sanitizer on the test strip. After looking at the container of sanitizer and seeing it was empty, V13 (Dietary Aide) stated, the container ran out last night (07/22/23). On 07/23/23 at 11:50 AM, a new container of sodium hypochlorite solution (chlorine) sanitizer was brought into the kitchen and utilized for the dish machine. V13 (Dietary Aide) had to purge the dish machine for approximately two minutes before the sanitizer was pulled from the sanitizer container to the output into the water of the dish machine, indicating there was no sanitizer in the line. On 07/23/23 at 1:00 PM, V7 (Dietary Manager) stated there should be sanitizer in the dish machine, they are working out new procedures with her being new and some of the staff being new, but they should have notified her it was out and it should have been changed. V7 stated the breakfast dishes were washed with no sanitizer and maybe some of the evening dishes, she is not aware of when the sanitizer ran out. They should be checking it at the beginning of each shift. The facility document dated 2020 titled, Sanitation of Dining and Food Service Area documents: The dining services staff will uphold sanitation of the dining areas according to a thorough, written schedule. 2. Tasks will be designated to specific departmental positions (refer to sample cleaning schedule forms - daily, weekly, and monthly). Sample cleaning schedule documents: 15. Prep. (preparation) equipment/dishes/uteensils are effectively sanitized and properlyy stored. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents dated 07/23/23 documents 61 residents residing at the facility.
Aug 2022 2 deficiencies
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, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that there was no cross contamination during medication pass for 2 of 5 residents (R45, R49) reviewed for infection con...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that there was no cross contamination during medication pass for 2 of 5 residents (R45, R49) reviewed for infection control in the sample of 35. On 8/9/22 at 8:30 AM, V4 (Licensed Practical Nurse) was observed administering medications to R45 and R49 and did not wash her hands or use alcohol gel between each resident. On 8/10/22 at 3:45 PM, V2 (Director of Nursing) stated she will in-service the nurses again on handwashing and infection control. V2 stated V4 has access to hand gel and should have used it between residents. The facility's undated Medications Administration Oral policy documents under Important Points: line #2 Hand washing is to be performed before beginning, and after each resident contact unless antibacterial agent is used.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to update and implement the Pneumococcal Immunization policy and faile...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to update and implement the Pneumococcal Immunization policy and failed to provide Pneumococcal Immunization in accordance with CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) recommendations for 14 of 15 residents (R7, R16, R17, R42, R13, R28, R35, R10, R31, R22, R26, R11, R5, R33) reviewed for Pneumococcal Immunizations in the sample of 35. Findings include: On 8/10/22 at 3:30 PM, V2 (Director of Nursing) stated she's aware that the Pneumonia vaccines have not been given and the information regarding the resident Pneumonia vaccines hasn't been done. V2 stated they concentrated on taking care of the Covid-19 vaccines and all the documentation associated with Covid-19. V2 also stated they hired V3 (Registered Nurse/Infection Preventionist), and she will be focusing on the Flu and Pneumonia education and vaccines. On 8/9/22 at 1:00 PM, R42 stated that no one talked to her about getting the pneumonia vaccine. R24's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documents a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12, indicating R42 is cognitively intact with some forgetfulness. On 8/10/22 at 2:00 PM, R7 stated she had one pneumonia vaccine but hasn't had anyone say anything about a second pneumonia vaccine. R7's MDS dated [DATE] documents a BIMS score of 13, indicating R7 is cognitively intact. The facility's Immunization Report from 1/1/2010 through 8/10/22 documents the following: R7 had the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) vaccination on 10/30/15 but there is no documentation a Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine was offered or given. R42 had a Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine on 12/3/2020 but there is no documentation that R42 was offered or given the PPSV23 vaccine. R17 was given the PPSV23 on 10/30/15 but was not offered or given a Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine. R28 was given a Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine on 10/09/18 but was not offered or given the PPSV23. R35 was given a Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine on 3/24/14 but was not offered the PPSV23 vaccine. R5, R10, R11, R13, R16, R22, R26, R31 and R33 were not offered or given the Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine or PPSV23. The facility's policy on Pneumococcal Immunization, dated 3/8/2017 documents. 1. Before offering the pneumococcal immunization, each resident or the resident's representative will be provided education regarding the benefits and potential side effects of the immunization. 2. Each resident is offered a pneumococcal immunization, unless the immunization is medically contraindicated, or the resident has already been immunized; A second pneumococcal vaccine will be offered only when necessary, according to the CDC guidelines. 3. The resident or the resident's representation has the opportunity to refuse immunization. 4. The resident's medical record includes documentation that indicates, at a minimum, the following: That the resident or resident's representative was provided education regarding the benefits and potential side effects of influenza immunization. That the resident either received or did not receive the pneumococcal immunization due to medical contraindications or refusal. Review of current CDC recommendations, available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/vis-statements/pcv.html and dated 2/4/22, documents the following: Pneumococcal conjugate vaccine helps protect against bacteria that cause pneumococcal disease. There are three pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV13, PCV15, and PCV20). The different vaccines are recommended for different people based on their age and medical status. PCV13: Infants and young children usually need 4 doses of PCV13, at ages 2, 4, 6, and 12-15 months. Older children (through age [AGE] months) may be vaccinated with PCV13 if they did not receive the recommended doses. Children and adolescents 6-[AGE] years of age with certain medical conditions should receive a single dose of PCV13 if they did not already receive PCV13. PCV15 or PCV20: Adults 19 through [AGE] years old with certain medical conditions or other risk factors who have not already received a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine should receive either: -a single dose of PCV15 followed by a dose of pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23), or -a single dose of PCV20. Adults 65 years or older who have not already received a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine should receive either: -a single dose of PCV15 followed by a dose of PPSV23, or -a single dose of PCV20. According to https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104a1.htm, on October 20, 2021, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended 15-valent PCV (PCV15) or 20-valent PCV (PCV20) for PCV-naïve adults who are either aged =65 years or aged 19-64 years with certain underlying conditions. When PCV15 is used, it should be followed by a dose of PPSV23, typically =1 year later.
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
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Illinois facilities.
Concerns
  • • 13 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • Grade C (50/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 50/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is The Haven Of Bridgeport's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns THE HAVEN OF BRIDGEPORT an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within Illinois, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.

How is The Haven Of Bridgeport Staffed?

CMS rates THE HAVEN OF BRIDGEPORT's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes.

What Have Inspectors Found at The Haven Of Bridgeport?

State health inspectors documented 13 deficiencies at THE HAVEN OF BRIDGEPORT during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 12 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates The Haven Of Bridgeport?

THE HAVEN OF BRIDGEPORT 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 HAVEN HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 99 certified beds and approximately 69 residents (about 70% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in BRIDGEPORT, Illinois.

How Does The Haven Of Bridgeport Compare to Other Illinois Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Illinois, THE HAVEN OF BRIDGEPORT's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 2.5 and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting The Haven Of Bridgeport?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the below-average staffing rating.

Is The Haven Of Bridgeport Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, THE HAVEN OF BRIDGEPORT 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 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Illinois. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at The Haven Of Bridgeport Stick Around?

THE HAVEN OF BRIDGEPORT has not reported staff turnover data to CMS. Staff turnover matters because consistent caregivers learn residents' individual needs, medications, and preferences. When staff frequently change, this institutional knowledge is lost. Families should ask the facility directly about their staff retention rates and average employee tenure.

Was The Haven Of Bridgeport Ever Fined?

THE HAVEN OF BRIDGEPORT 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 The Haven Of Bridgeport on Any Federal Watch List?

THE HAVEN OF BRIDGEPORT 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.