Emmetsburg Care Center

2405 21st Street, Emmetsburg, IA 50536 (712) 852-4266
For profit - Corporation 46 Beds LEGACY HEALTHCARE Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
33/100
#267 of 392 in IA
Last Inspection: July 2025

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

Overview

Emmetsburg Care Center has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns and poor performance in multiple areas. It ranks #267 out of 392 nursing homes in Iowa, placing it in the bottom half overall, and #4 out of 5 in Palo Alto County, suggesting limited local options for better care. The facility's trend is worsening, with issues increasing from 5 in 2024 to 7 in 2025. Staffing is average with a 3/5 rating, but the turnover rate of 56% is concerning, indicating that many staff members leave. The center has incurred $39,530 in fines, which is higher than 88% of Iowa facilities, reflecting ongoing compliance problems. There are some strengths, such as a good rating of 4/5 for quality measures, and average RN coverage, but serious weaknesses include critical issues like failing to serve the correct therapeutic diets for residents and inadequate nursing supervision leading to falls. For example, one resident did not receive the proper diet according to their medical needs, and others fell because the facility did not provide the appropriate assistance during transfers. These findings highlight both the facility's challenges and the need for families to carefully consider their options.

Trust Score
F
33/100
In Iowa
#267/392
Bottom 32%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
5 → 7 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
56% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
$39,530 in fines. Lower than most Iowa facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 31 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Iowa. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
12 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 5 issues
2025: 7 issues

The Good

  • 4-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

2-Star Overall Rating

Below Iowa average (3.0)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Staff Turnover: 56%

Near Iowa avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $39,530

Above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

Chain: LEGACY HEALTHCARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is elevated (56%)

8 points above Iowa average of 48%

The Ugly 12 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening 1 actual harm
Jul 2025 6 deficiencies 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0805 (Tag F0805)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on diet orders, staff interviews, clinical record review, hospital record review and facility policy review the facility f...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on diet orders, staff interviews, clinical record review, hospital record review and facility policy review the facility failed to serve the appropriate therapeutic diets to meet resident's needs according to their diet orders for 1 of 6 residents reviewed (Resident #3). The State Agency informed the facility of the Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) on 7/24/25 at 11:27 AM that began as of 7/17/25. The Facility Staff removed the IJ on 7/24/25 through the following actions:-Education to the nursing staff started on 7/24/25 to ensure they confirm the diet order and serve the appropriate diet and diet modifications. -Like residents include residents with orders for modified or altered diets. An audit was completed for residents with orders for modified or altered diets to ensure the diets are correct. The scope was lowered from a J to a G at the time of the survey after ensuring the facility implemented education.The facility reported a census of 43 residents.Findings include: Resident #3's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] assessment identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMs) score of 14, indicating intact cognition. The MDS identified Resident #3 required set up or clean-up assistance with eating. The MDS included diagnoses of diabetes mellitus and noninfective gastroenteritis (inflammation of the stomach) and colitis (inflammation of the colon). The MDS documented Resident #3 was on a mechanically altered and therapeutic diet. A Diet order dated 5/13/24 directed the staff to administer a mechanical soft, ground meat texture diet related to Barrett's esophagus with dysplasia (presence of precancerous cells in the lining of the esophagus (tube that carries food from mouth to stomach), replaced by intestinal like tissue due to gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). In addition the diet order directed staff to provide supervision/cues for pacing, give a drink after 1-2 bites of food, give one food item at a time, soft foods only and no bread. The Care Plan with target date of 9/28/25 documented Resident #3 was at risk for altered nutritional status related to obesity, diabetes mellitus and gastrointestinal complications. The care plan directed staff to provide diet as order, feed one item at a time and encourage Resident #3 to sit up straight. The Care Plan lacked information related to Resident #3 swallowing issues and diet restrictions.Review of the Kardex (used by the facility certified nursing assistants (CNAs) as a snapshot of resident care) lacked documentation regarding Resident #3's diet order and restrictions. A Progress Note dated 7/17/25 at 9:52 PM documented Resident #3's blood sugar was 49 mg/dl (milligrams per deciliter) and the resident was given orange juice and peanut butter toast. A Progress Note dated 7/17/25 at 11:19 PM documented at 9:55 PM, Staff E, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) entered Resident #3's room and the resident was groggy. Resident #3's blood sugar was checked and 49 mg/dl. The note documented Resident #3 was given 8 oz (ounces) of orange juice and peanut butter and a CNA sat with the resident. At 10:10 PM, Resident #3's blood sugar was 69 mg/dl and 4 oz of a protein shake was given. Resident #3 was sitting on the side of the bed heaving and bringing up small amounts of mucus. At 10:35 PM, Resident #3's blood sugar was checked and 63 mg/dl. Resident #3 was given 8 oz of orange juice with 2 packets of sugar. Resident #3 continued to sit on the edge of the bed heaving and bringing up mucus. The note revealed Resident #3 vitals were the following: Temperature 97.5, Pulse 114 per minute, Respirations 20 per minute, Blood Pressure 99/56 and oxygen saturation (oxygen in the blood) was 63% on room air. The note indicated oxygen at 2 liters per nasal cannula was applied. A phone call to the emergency room (ER) was placed informing the ER of Resident #3's condition. At 10:42 PM, a phone call to 911 was placed and informed them of the need for transport and Resident #3's condition. At 11:00 PM Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) arrived at the facility.A Prehospital Care Report dated 7/17/25 documented EMTs arrived and found Resident #3 seated on the side of the bed with staff present. The note documented when the staff checked Resident #3's blood sugar they discovered the blood sugar was low, they held the insulin and gave him orange juice and toast with peanut butter. A ED (Emergency Department) Note dated 7/17/25 documented Resident #3 presented to the ER with difficulty breathing and was brought by the local EMS for altered level of consciousness, low oxygen saturation and hypoglycemia (low blood sugar). The note documented the staff reported Resident #3 had low blood sugar after supper and was given orange juice, peanut butter sandwich and a supplemental shake. A Hospital Critical Care History and Physical Note dated 7/18/25 documented Resident #3 was admitted to the hospital related to acute hypoxic respiratory failure (lungs cannot provide enough oxygen to the blood leading to dangerously low blood oxygen levels) on AIRVO (high flow nasal cannula system designed to deliver warmed and humidified air and oxygen mixtures to patients that experience respiratory distress) in setting of aspiration pneumonia (foreign material like food, liquid or vomit is inhaled into the lungs) due to impacted food bolus (piece of food gets stuck in the esophagus). A Speech/Language Pathology Note dated 7/22/25 documented speech was informed from nursing that Resident #3 was given a peanut butter sandwich prior to admission, likely leading to admission to the hospital. The note documented the need to ensure the care facility was adhering to the resident's modified diet and strategies.On 07/23/2025 4:36 PM, Staff E, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) reported on the evening of 7/17/25 she went to Resident #3's room to check his blood sugar and give him insulin. She said his blood sugar was low at 49 mg/dl. She said she gave him orange juice and one slice of peanut butter toast. She said Resident #3 started coughing and spitting up. She reported his blood sugar came up a little. She said Staff J told her to give Resident #3 a protein shake. She said his blood sugar had gone down a little bit. She said Staff J gave Resident #3 orange juice with sugar in it. She said Resident #3 was still coughing up a little bit and turning a little gray in color. She said Resident #3's oxygen saturations were low so she called the emergency room and 911. She said Staff J applied oxygen. She said she could not recall how many liters were applied. She said she turned over care to the EMTs. She said when the EMTs arrived, Resident #3's blood sugar had gone up to normal range but his color remained grey and his oxygen saturations were still low. She reported Staff I, CNA was in the room with Resident #3 when he ate the peanut butter toast. She said he ate all of it. When asked if Resident #3 could have bread, she said she did not have time to look at the care plan. She said after she sent him to the ER, she looked at the care plan and she did not see where he could not have toast. She said she did not see any dietary restrictions on the care plan. She said she also looked in the Physician orders and read the diet order but did not open up the order so she did not read it in its entirety.On 7/23/25 at 4:50 PM, Staff I, CNA reported she worked the evening shift on 7/17/25. She said Staff E, LPN needed a CNA to sit with Resident #3 because he had low blood sugar so she went to his room. She said Staff E gave him orange juice and two pieces of regular wheat bread with peanut butter. She said Resident #3 was not supposed to have bread because it makes him throw up and he can not digest it. She said Resident #3 did not have his teeth in when he was trying to eat the peanut butter bread. She said she did not question the nurse regarding the bread as the nurse was supposed to know what she was doing. She said Resident #3 was kind of out of it, he could talk but was really shaky. She said Staff E left the room to make phone calls as Resident #3's oxygen saturation was low at 65% and his pulse was 114. She said she sat next to Resident #3 on the bed. She said he was tearing off pieces of the peanut butter bread with his mouth. She said she was not sure how big of pieces he was getting but that he was chewing up the bread. She said he ate both pieces of the peanut butter bread. She said she was talking to him and telling him to sit up and not to lean forward too far. She reported after Resident #3 ate both pieces of the bread he was gagging, coughing, and was phlegmy. She said Staff J, RN gave Resident #3 another orange juice. She said he started coughing up chunks of the bread. She said Staff J was telling Resident #3 to cough and that it was good to cough to clear his airway. She said it looked like Resident #3 was having a hard time breathing. She said Resident #3 had oxygen on and there was brown substance coming out his nose and into the oxygen tubing. She said it looked like peanut butter was coming out his nose. She said Resident #3's face/hands were cold and his color was pale. She reported Resident #3 almost fell backwards onto the bed. She reported Staff J got behind Resident #3 and put her arms around him and did motions like the Heimlich maneuver to help him with his coughing. She reported later she did tell Staff E that Resident #3 was not supposed to have bread. She said Staff E was not aware of that. She said she felt all the nurses knew that Resident #3 could not have bread. She reported she did not feel it was her place to give direction to the nurse as she thought the nurse was doing something to help him. She said she was surprised Staff E didn't know Resident #3 could not have bread because she worked at the facility quite often. On 7/24/25 at 8:57 AM, the MDS Coordinator reported as far as she was aware Resident #3 was not to have any bread including toast. She said Resident #3 has been in and out of hospital related to esophagus issues. She said Resident #3 eats too fast. She said Resident #3 has to have his esophagus stretched every so often. She said Resident #3 has a history of getting food stuck in his esophagus. She said bread was more prone to get stuck in his esophagus. On 7/24/25 at 9:15 AM, the Dietician reported Resident #3 was not to have any bread including toast. She said the dietary department does not even give Resident #3 cake if it is dry. She said Resident #3 has had his esophagus stretched before and this is not the 1st time there have been issues. On 7/24/25 at 11:00 AM, the Administrator reported if the resident's diet order documented no bread, then bread should not be given. She reported she was not aware Resident #3 received bread/toast prior to going to the hospital. She said she did not do an investigation because he had a history of swallowing/esophageal problems and she was not aware he had received bread. She said she was going to have to do some education with the nursing staff and have a full blown meeting regarding following diet orders. She said she knew staff was aware that Resident #3 had swallowing problems because staff would give one food and drink item at a time because Resident #3 would eat too fast and then vomit. She said she would expect the nurse to open up the Physician order and read the entire order. On 7/24/25 at 11:57, the MDS Coordinator verified the swallowing issues and diet restrictions were not addressed on the current care plan. She said the issues had been addressed a year ago with the old corporation but did not transfer over to the new care plan with the new corporation. A facility policy titled Mechanically Altered Diet and Thickened Liquids revised 1/2024 documented the purpose of the policy was to prepare diets and liquids as prescribed to meet residents' needs. The policy further documented mechanically altered diets are prepared and served as prescribed by the Physician and in a form to meet individual needs. The care plan should reflect the resident's needs.
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 clinical record review, staff and resident interviews, facility policy review, and observations. The facility failed to...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff and resident interviews, facility policy review, and observations. The facility failed to provide adequate nursing supervision to prevent accidents and injuries for 3 out of 7 residents reviewed for falls. Resident #2 experienced a fall outside of the facility and was not receiving an appropriate level of assistance. Resident #4 and #37 had a fall from a mechanical stand. The facility failed to use the correct harness and provide the correct level of assistance with transfers. The facility reported a census of 43. Findings include: 1. Resident #2’s Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating intact cognition. Resident #2’s MDS included diagnoses of heart failure, hypertension (high blood pressure), diabetes mellitus, anxiety and depression. The MDS coded Resident #2 substantial/maximal assistance, meaning the helper does more than half the effort, the helper lifts or holds the trunk or limbs and provides more than half the effort for toileting transfers. The MDS described Resident #2 continent of urine. Interview with Resident #2 on 07/23/2025 at 10:43 a.m. he stated that he had an appointment in another town approximately an hour and forty minutes away from the facility and was riding in the front seat of the transport vehicle because it was more comfortable for that long of a drive. He stated he didn’t take his wheelchair or his cane per his choice. Resident #2 stated that he had this driver before and had no issues. Resident #2 stated that they had stopped at a gas station on the way because he didn’t think he could make it to the clinic where his appointment was before using the restroom. Resident #2 stated he had been having diarrhea over the last couple of days and thought this was taken care of. Resident #2 stated he was utilizing the rock wall outside of the gas station to walk to the restroom and stated the transport driver was helping him. Resident #2 stated he got dizzy and fell to the ground. Resident #2 stated he hit his head and scraped his right knee. Resident #2 stated they called the ambulance to come get him and take him to the emergency room. Resident #2 stated he never made it into the restroom. Resident #2 stated the facility knew about the diarrhea, he stated he had been taking medication to help with that. Resident #2’s Care Plan with an initiated date of 5/23/25 revealed Resident #2 was at risk for falls related to generalized weakness, dependent on staff for mobility. Resident #2 needed assistance with transfers and ambulation. Resident #2 needed contact guard assist for long distance ambulation, and to utilize a gait belt and cane. Staff to do set up assist and check for accuracy and cleanliness for toileting. Resident #2 needed assistance from one staff member for dressing. Review of the clinical Physician Order’s revealed Resident #2 takes Apixaban (blood thinner) 5mg twice daily by mouth. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for July 2025 revealed Resident #2 requested Loperamide (antidiarrheal) 2mg to help with diarrhea on 7/8/25 and 7/9/25. Review of the fall risk evaluation through the admission assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #2 had a history of falls. The facility Progress Notes dated 7/10/25 at 8:45 a.m. revealed Resident #2 left the facility for an appointment with a transport car to go to a doctor’s appointment. The Facility Incident Report (IR) documented in the Progress Notes on 7/10/25 at 10:33 a.m. revealed the facility received a call from a friend of Resident #2 informing the facility Resident #2 had a fall attempting to utilize a restroom at a gas station on the way to his appointment. Resident #2 was transported to the emergency room for further evaluation. The emergency room nurse reported Resident #2 was ambulating into a bathroom and felt dizzy leading to a fall. Per the Incident Report Resident #2 was to have contact guard assist (a therapist or caregiver provides occasional physical support, like light touch, to help a patient with balance or stability while they perform a task, but the patient is mostly doing the work themselves) with long distance ambulation, a gait belt and cane. The intervention documented is to have a staff member accompany Resident #2 to appointments. Review of the emergency department’s final report dated 7/10/25 revealed Resident #2 presented to the emergency room (ER) via Emergency Medical Services (EMS) for presyncopal (the sensation of lightheadedness, dizziness, or feeling faint without actually losing consciousness) episode, while ambulating in the bathroom had a bowel movement and became lightheaded. Resident #2 noted he had several loose stool bowel movements over the course the past couple days and had been having this paroxysmal (something that occurs suddenly and intensely, often in a recurring or periodic way) on and off diarrhea for the past few weeks which he had taken medication for however patient is unable to recall the medication. Resident #2 complained of acute, focal, persistent mild pain along the right chest, hip and leg. Resident #2 confirmed hitting his head. Resident #2 received a left posterior scalp dense subcutaneous hematoma (localized collection of clotted blood beneath the skin, often appearing as a raised, firm, and painful lump. It is a more significant form of bleeding than a typical bruise, involving larger blood vessels and a more substantial amount of pooled blood) measuring 2.1 x 1.4 x 0.7 centimeters (cm). Interview with the Administrator on 07/23/2025 at 11:19 a.m. revealed the nurses made the appointment for Resident #2, he utilized the medicaid transportation and the appointment is longer than 30 miles from the facility. The Administrator stated that they take into consideration the type of appointment, how long the resident will be gone and if they are going to need to utilize the restroom to determine if they need to send a staff member along. Review of the facility’s policy named Fall Occurrence revised 2/2024 revealed it is the policy of the facility to ensure that residents are evaluated for fall risks and implement interventions to minimize risk for falls and/or risk for injury from falls. A Fall Risk Assessment is completed by the nurse upon admission, readmission, and as necessary. Based on assessment, interventions are implemented and placed on a care plan. An incident report will be completed by the nurse each time a resident has a fall. Residents will be assessed by a licensed nurse prior to being moved after a fall. The nurse will notify the physician and resident representative. Additional intervention(s) will be implemented post fall. Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) may change the intervention(s) if IDT investigation identifies a more appropriate intervention for the individual fall. The resident’s care plan will be updated with any new or revised intervention(s). Neurological assessment will be initiated for unwitnessed falls and/or falls that are witnessed and resident hits their head (neuros completed as directed on neuro flowsheet) Documentation and monitoring to be completed for 72 hours post fall. The Administrator reported the facility does not have a transportation policy. Interview with the Administrator on 07/24/2025 at 1:13 p.m. revealed the only Incident Report is in the Progress Notes and the root cause is the driver broke procedure/protocol and stopped for Resident #2. The Administrator stated the drivers are not supposed to stop. The Administrator stated they do not have a contract with this company, it is all done through the Managed Care Organization (MCO). The Administrator stated the driver is a friend of Resident #2, so they will be sending a staff person with him from now on. The Administrator stated this fell back on the facility anyway even when the driver broke protocol. 2. According to the Minimum Date Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], Resident #1 scored 10 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) indicating moderate cognitive impairment. The resident exhibited a functional limitation in Range of Motion of both lower extremities. The resident was dependent on staff for toileting, and required substantial/maximal assistance with rolling in bed, and transfers, and did not walk. The resident's diagnoses included a need for assistance with personal care, morbid obesity, and lymphedema. The resident had no falls since the previous assessment. The Care Plan with a goal target date of 8/17/25 identified the resident at risk for falls related to generalized weakness, and depending on staff for transfers. Interventions included the new sling for the sit to stand (lift)in house. The Care Plan identified the resident required assistance with activities of daily living (ADL's) related to weakness, and a history of falling. Interventions included transferring with substantial/maximal assist of 2 staff members. Sit to stand with assist of 2 per physical therapy (PT) 2-3-25. The Progress Notes dated 5/2/25 documented a CNA paged the Nurse to the resident's room where they noted the resident on the floor with the sit to stand lift in front of her, and the aide holding her back up. The CNA reported the resident slipped out of the sling by lifting her arms up. The Nurse noted the belt on the sling clasped together like it should be. The CNA reported the resident did not hit her head. The resident was incontinent of bowel at the time. They helped the resident off the floor by the Nurse and the CNA with the use of the gait belt, and placed in her recliner. Preliminary Recommendations for consideration as further preventative measures included use of the hip sling when using the sit to stand with the resident. During an observation on 7/22/25 at 9:40 a.m. Staff C, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) and Staff D, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) placed the sit to stand lift up to the resident, hooked the lift sling to the lift on the harness hooks, with no safety tabs. Staff hooked the safety strap in front of the resident and tightened. They had the resident hold onto the handles and lifted, and rolled to the recliner and sat down. During the transfer, staff used the gray sling. On 7/22/25 at 1:24 p.m. Staff E LPN stated she recalled the incident with the resident. She said when she got to the room, the resident was on the floor and the sling off. The CNA told her the resident slipped through when she raised her arms up. She said the waist belt was clasped together, but she didn't know if it had been tightened. She didn't know how she would have slipped through if it was snug. She said the new intervention was the use of a hip sling. She said no education was provided. She did not know of any other incidents with the lift, or any other incidents with the staff involved. On 07/22/25 at 3:03 p.m. Staff F CNA stated he was assisting the resident with the sit to stand lift from the commode. He cleaned her and pulled her pad up and tried to get the commode back under her because she was weak. She let go of the handles of the sling and put her arms up and slipped through the sling up to her head and neck. He said he lowered her with the sling. He thought he used the green sling. He said he received no education after the incident. They were to have 2 staff with transfers with the the lift for this resident. He did not know about a different sling to use with her after the incident. The sit to stand lift Operator's Instructions revised 3/11/09 documented: Attaching the harness to the sit to stand included with the lift arm in the lowest position, attach the harness to the hooks at the end of the sit to stand lift arm using the loops at the end of the harness. The manufacturer suggested the following components and operating points be scheduled for inspection at intervals not greater than a month. Any detected deficiency must be rectified before putting the stand back into service. Safety tabs need to be checked to make sure they were installed correctly, not missing or torn. 3. Resident #37 MDS dated [DATE] identified a BIMS score of 15, which indicated intact cognition. The MDS identified Resident #37 required substantial/maximal assistance with all transfers. The MDS documented Resident #37 was non-ambulatory. The MDS included diagnoses of cerebral palsy (abnormal development or damage to the area of the brain that controls movement, balance and posture), anxiety, depression and hypertension (high blood pressure). The Care Plan with a target date of 9/10/25 documented Resident #37 required assistance with activities of daily living (ADL’s) and was at risk for falls due to diagnosis of cerebral palsy. The Care Plan directed staff to use a sit to stand lift for all transfers. A Progress Note titled Incident Report dated 6/22/25 at 11:38 PM documented Staff C, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) was called into Resident #37’s room by Staff F, Certified Nursing Assistance (CNA). Upon entering the room Staff C observed Resident #37 lying on the floor on her left side with a pillow under her head next to the sit to stand lift. According to the note, the sit to stand lift sling belt was around Resident #37’s waist and the straps were disconnected. The note documented when Staff F lifted Resident #37 with the sit to stand lift, the first strap of the two straps that were connected slid causing the Resident #37’s left side to drop a few inches. Staff F then lowered Resident #37 to the ground and placed a pillow under her head. The note documented further preventive measures were to assess the sit to stand lift and use the gray sling. The green sling was placed at the nurses station to be assessed further. A Progress Note dated 7/1/25 at 8:51 AM documented Resident #37 was seen for a 60 day recertification visit by her Physician. The note documented Resident #37 reported she was lowered to the floor. Resident #37 complained of continued left thigh pain and pain when standing. The note documented new orders were received to obtain left hip/pelvis x-ray due to diagnosis of fall/pain. A Progress Note dated 7/6/25 at 2:14 PM documented the facility received signed x-ray results of Resident #37’s femur/pelvis with no acute abnormalities. On 7/21/2025 at 2:01 PM, Resident #37 reported a couple weeks ago she had a fall from the sit to stand lift. She reported she thought something had happened with the equipment and the sling had slipped off from the stopper. She said she was lowered to the floor. Resident #37 said she had x-rays done and there were no fractures. On 7/22/25 at 9:30 AM, observed a sit to stand lift in the hallway by Resident #37’s room with two different slings made by two different manufacturer’s lying on top of the machine (one sling was gray in color and the other sling was blue). Observations of the slings revealed they were not made by the same manufacturer as of the sit to stand lift. The tag on the gray sling was dated 6/13/25 and directed the sling only to be used with lifts that were made by the same manufacturer. The tag on the blue sling was not dated, worn and very hard to read. On 7/22/25 at 9:50 AM, observed Staff A, CNA and Staff B, CNA transfer Resident #37 with the sit to stand lift. They placed a gray sling behind Resident #37’s back and then fastened the safety belts around Resident #37’s waist and legs. They then hook the sling onto the harness hooks and raised the sit to stand lift up while Resident #37 held onto the handle with her left hand. The safety belts loosened around the waist and legs while Resident #37 was raised up and the CNAs did not adjust or tighten the belts. They positioned Resident #37 with the sit to stand lift in front of the commode, pulled down her pants, removed the incontinence brief and then lowered her onto the commode in a sitting position. Observation revealed the gray sling used during the transfer was not manufactured by the same company as the sit to stand lift. On 7/22/25 at 1:26 PM, Staff F, CNA reported he had put the sling under Resident #37's arms and hooked the sling to the sit to stand lift. He said the sit to stand lift had rubber boots on the handles. He said he thought the straps must have gotten stuck on the rubber boot. He said when he stood her up she started to fall as the straps on the left side of the lift became unhooked and came off the ring. He stated that he had not double checked the straps before standing the resident up. He said the belt around the waist was attached and pulled tight. He reported that he did not have the leg strap in place. He said he lowered Resident #37 to the floor using the sit to stand lift. He said he has never had any issues before using the sit to stand lift before. When asked what type of sling was being used during the incident, he said it was a gray sling with rubber grip and padding under the arms. He said it was one of the new slings that the facility had gotten in because the old slings were bad and not in good shape. On 7/22/25 at 2:30 PM, the Administrator reported after Resident #37 had a fall involving the sit to stand lift, she walked around the facility to make sure the staff knew how to use the sit to stand lift and she thought they did. The Administrator reported the facility had gotten new slings for the sit to stand lifts recently. When brought to the attention of the Administrator that the new slings were not the same manufacturer as the sit to stand lifts, she said that the slings worked with the machines. When asked what the facility expectation was with following the sit to stand operator’s manual, she said she would have to check with Corporate to see what they wanted her to do. She said she felt the sit to stand operator’s manual was a recommendation. On 7/22/25 at 2:48 PM, Staff G, Nurse Consultant reported the facility was going to order the correct slings for the sit to stand lifts. She said the staff would use the mechanical full body lifts for transfers until the new slings arrived. The sit to stand Operator’s Instructions revised 3/11/09 documented the manufacturer’s sling/harnesses are made specifically for the sit to sand lifts. The operator’s instructions documented for the safety of the resident and caregiver, only the slings/harness made by the same manufacturer as the sit to stand lift should be used. In addition, the operator’s instructions, directed when transferring a resident, for the safety of the resident, securely fasten the safety strap around the resident’s torso and pull the strap to tighten. As the resident is being raised, simultaneously tighten the safety strap buckled around their torso.
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 observation, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident with a history of pressure so...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident with a history of pressure sores received adequate repositioning to prevent a new pressure sore from developing for 1 resident with a pressure sore (Resident #4). The facility reported a census of 43 residents. The MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment identifies the definition of pressure ulcers:Stage I is an intact skin with non-blanchable redness of a localized area usually over a bony prominence. Darkly pigmented skin may not have a visible blanching; in dark skin tones only it may appear with persistent blue or purple hues.Stage II is partial thickness loss of dermis presenting as a shallow open ulcer with a red or pink wound bed, without slough (dead tissue, usually cream or yellow in color). May also present as an intact or open/ruptured blister.Stage III Full thickness tissue loss. Subcutaneous fat may be visible, but bone, tendon or muscle is not exposed. Slough may be present but does not obscure the depth of tissue loss. May include undermining and tunneling.Stage IV is full thickness tissue loss with exposed bone, tendon or muscle. Slough or eschar (dry, black, hard necrotic tissue). may be present on some parts of the wound bed. Often includes undermining and tunneling or eschar.Unstageable Ulcer: inability to see the wound bed.Other staging considerations include:Deep Tissue Pressure Injury (DTPI): Persistent non-blanchable deep red, maroon or purple discoloration. Intact skin with localized area of persistent non-blanchable deep red, maroon, purple discoloration due to damage of underlying soft tissue. This area may be preceded by tissue that is painful, firm, mushy, boggy, warmer or cooler as compared to adjacent tissue. These changes often precede skin color changes and discoloration may appear differently in darkly pigmented skin. This injury results from intense and/or prolonged pressure and shear forces at the bone-muscle interface.Findings include: According to the Minimum Date Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], Resident #1 scored 10 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) indicating moderate cognitive impairment. The resident exhibited a functional limitation in Range of Motion of both lower extremities. The resident was dependent on staff for toileting and required substantial/maximal assistance with rolling in bed, and transfers, and did not walk. The resident's diagnoses included a pressure ulcer of unspecified buttock, stage 3. The Progress Notes dated 1/31/25 at 2 p.m. documented the resident arrived at the facility. The resident had previously admitted to the hospital on [DATE] with an open area to her coccyx, treated as a pressure ulcer stage 3 with maceration (softening and breakdown of skin due to prolonged exposure to moisture) of the buttock. The Progress Notes dated 5/1/25 at 8:08 a.m. documented the pressure ulcer healed.The Braden Scale for predicting the development of pressure ulcers dated 4/28/25 scored the resident at 16, indicating low risk. The resident assessment included the resident chairfast with very limited mobility. On the Braden Scale and Clinical Evaluation, the facility answered yes to the resident having a history of, or an existing pressure sore. If answered yes, the resident should be considered high risk.According to the MDS assessment dated [DATE], Resident #1 scored 9 on the BIMS indicating moderate cognitive impairment. The resident exhibited a functional limitation in ROM of both lower extremities. The resident was dependent on staff for toileting and required substantial/maximal assistance with rolling in bed, and transfers, and did not walk. The resident's diagnoses included non-Alzheimer's dementia, need for assistance with personal care, morbid obesity, and lymphedema. The resident did not have a pressure ulcer and utilized a pressure reducing device for the bed and the chair. The MDS did not mark the resident on a turning and repositioning program.The current Care Plan with a goal target date of 8/17/25 identified the resident had a pressure ulcer of the coccyx. Interventions included encouraging the resident to reposition, following the facility policy/protocol for the prevention/treatment of skin breakdown, observing skin condition with activity of daily living care, pressure reducing devices on her chair and bed, providing preventative skin care, and using pillows/positioning devices as needed.The Progress Notes dated 6/27/25 at 4:10 p.m. documented a call to the resident's Primary Care Provider (PCP) and notified them of a new skin wound finding (pressure ulcer of the coccyx). The PCP gave orders for treatment and repositioning.On 7/21/25 at 11:07 a.m. the resident stated she had a sore on her backside. It did not hurt, and was getting better.During an observation on 7/22/25 at 9:30 a.m. Staff C, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) completed the dressing change to the resident's pressure ulcer. The wound appeared as a deeper crater. On 7/24/25 at 9:24 a.m. the Administrator stated the resident did not sleep in the bed, and if in bed, she laid on her side. She slept in her recliner with a pressure reduction cushion, and they repositioned her in the chair. She said they documented in the record that they repositioned her every 2 hours. She didn't know if she could get the report (that documented repositioning) back further than 30 days. The repositioning was documented on the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) (since the pressure sore identified on 6/27/25).An email from the administrator dated 7/25/25 at 10:07 a.m. documented she had tried, but can't get a report (documentation of repositioning). She stated prior to the ulcer the resident received barrier cream with cares, and they did repositioning with all of their residents for prevention, that should be on her Kardex. The current Kardex included a non-pharmacological intervention of repositioning and offloading sore areas.Neither the Care Plan or the Kardex contained specific instructions for the resident's positioning needs prior to the pressure sore developing.The facility Skin Management Guide reviewed 11/23 documented the risk factors for developing pressure sores included immobility and a previous history of a pressure ulcer. The Braden Scale was the clinically validated tool used to identify potential levels of risk for developing pressure sores. The policy identified interventions to consider for high risk included increased frequency of repositioning and advancing pressure ulcer support surfaces. The National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel (NPIAP) Pressure injury Prevention Points last updated in 2016, included developing a plan of care based on the areas of risk, rather than on the total risk assessment score. For example, if the risk stemmed from immobility, address turning, repositioning, and the support surface. Repositioning and mobilization included:a. Turning and repositioning all individuals at risk for pressure injury, unless contraindicated due to medical condition or medical treatments. b. Choosing frequency for turning based on the support surface in use, the tolerance of skin for pressure and the individual's preferences.c. Considering lengthening the turning schedule during the night to allow for uninterrupted sleep.d. Turning the individual into a 30-degree side lying position and using your hand to determine if the sacrum was off the bed.e. Avoiding positioning the individual on body areas with pressure injury.f. Considering the level of immobility, exposure to shear, skin moisture, perfusion, body size and weight of the individual when choosing a support surface.g. Continuing to reposition an individual when placed on any support surface.h. Use a pressure redistributing chair cushion for individuals sitting in chairs or wheelchairs.i. Reposition weak or immobile individuals in chairs hourly.
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, clinical record review, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to provide a safe and sa...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, clinical record review, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to provide a safe and sanitary environment to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 1 of 1 resident reviewed (Resident #37). The facility reported a census of 43 residents.Findings include: Resident #37's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] assessment identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating intact cognition. The MDS identified Resident #37 required substantial/maximal assistance for transfers and toileting. Resident #37's MDS included diagnoses of hypertension (high blood pressure), diabetes mellitus, cerebral palsy, and anxiety disorder. On 7/22/25 at 9:50 AM, observed Staff A, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) and Staff B, CNA transfer Resident #37 onto the commode with a sit to stand lift. Staff A and Staff B entered Resident #37's room and applied gloves. Staff A applied compression socks and braces to Resident #37's lower legs with gloved hands. Staff A then removed her gloves and did not complete hand hygiene. Staff A and Staff B then hooked up Resident #37 to the sit to stand lift and stood Resident #37 up from the recliner. Staff B positioned Resident #37 with the sit to stand lift in front of the commode. Staff A pulled down Resident #37's pants, removed the incontinence brief, placed the brief in the commode and pushed the brief down inside the commode with her bare hands. Staff A did not complete hand hygiene after removing/touching the incontinence brief. Staff B then lowered Resident #37 on to the commode. Staff A unhooked the harness from the sit to stand lift and removed it. Staff A then went to the sink and put a wash cloth in the sink with soap and water. Staff A then put on a pair of gloves without completing hand hygiene prior. Staff A then proceeded to undress and change Resident #37's clothing while sitting on the commode with gloved hands. Staff A put Resident #37's dirty pants and shirt directly on the floor. After Resident #37 was redressed, Staff A hooked Resident #37 to the sit to stand lift and gave her the call light. Staff A then removed her gloves, picked up the clothes off of the floor and put the clothes in the hamper. Staff A then washed her hands at the sink. Staff A reported Resident #37's incontinent brief was wet when she had removed it. In addition, Staff A acknowledged she did not complete hand hygiene after she removed her gloves.On 7/23/25 at 9:41 AM, the Administrator reported it was an expectation for staff to complete hand hygiene after removing gloves per standard of practice. She said she had provided education to the staff and was working on ordering small bottles of hand sanitizer for the staff to carry with them. A facility policy titled Hand Hygiene revised 10/2023 documented the purpose of the policy was to prevent the spread of infection. The policy directed the staff to complete hand hygiene using alcohol- based hand rub during the following situations: Before and after direct resident contact. Before and after assisting a resident with toileting. Before moving from work on soiled body site to a clean body site on the same resident. After contact with blood, body fluids or surfaces contaminated with blood and body fluids. After removing gloves.
CONCERN (E)

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

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, staff interviews, and policy review the facility failed to prepare and serve pureed food to meet the nutritional needs of 4 of 4 residents reviewed (Residents #18, #19, #21, #23)...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interviews, and policy review the facility failed to prepare and serve pureed food to meet the nutritional needs of 4 of 4 residents reviewed (Residents #18, #19, #21, #23). The facility reported a census of 43 residents. Findings include: A facility form titled Diet Type Report dated 7/21/25 identified four residents (Resident #18, #19, #21, #23) who received a pureed texture diet.On 7/23/25 at 11:15 AM, observed Staff H, [NAME] put 4 servings of pork tenderloins into the robo coupe (blender). She then added chicken broth and blended the contents. Staff H put the blended meat into a measuring cup and reported there were 2 1/2 cups. Staff H reviewed the Pureed Diet Portion Sizes/Scoop Chart and reported the serving/scoop size was a #12 scoop and a #16 scoop.On 7/23/25 at 11:45 AM, observed Staff H, [NAME] use a #10 scoop to serve the pureed meat to the four residents who received pureed meat. Observation at the end of the meal service revealed there was pureed meat left over in the pan (approximately 3/4 of a #10 scoop). On 7/23/25 at 1:00 PM, Staff H, [NAME] verified she used a #10 scoop for the pureed meat. She said she thought a serving size for meal was 3 ounces and used the #10 scoop instead of the #12 and #16 scoop. The cook acknowledged she had prepared 4 servings of pureed meat for 4 residents and that there should not be any pureed meat left over at the end of the meal service.On 7/23/25 at 1:10 PM, the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) reported she would expect the cook to follow the Pureed Diet Portion Sizes/Scoop Chart for the appropriate serving and scoop sizes.On 7/24/25 at 1:30 PM, the Administrator reported she did not have a policy on the puree process. She said the facility used the Pureed Diet Portion Sizes/Scoop Chart.
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 observations, staff interviews and policy review, the facility failed to ensure food was discarded after product expiration date, ensure freezers were clean/sanitized and prevent cross contam...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, staff interviews and policy review, the facility failed to ensure food was discarded after product expiration date, ensure freezers were clean/sanitized and prevent cross contamination during meal service. The facility identified a census of 43 residents.Findings include: An initial kitchen tour conducted on 7/21/25 at 9:30 AM, of the kitchen revealed the following items were stored in the refrigerator ready for service:a. 2 large containers of Philadelphia Cream Cheese- Expired 6/2025b. 1 large container of Philadelphia Cream Cheese with an open date 4/25- No expiration date on container. c. Plastic container labeled chicken broth- dated 7/7/25During the initial kitchen tour revealed the following observations:a. Freezer #1- food debris on the bottom of the freezer, broken plastic container with a sign that said hamburger. The plastic container had dried/frozen red substance on the bottom of the container along with food debris. The freezer door rubber seal was coming apart and there was ice build up and frost on the inside of the door. b. Freezer #2- food debris on the bottom of the freezerc. Freezer #3- 1/2 inch of ice on the bottom of the freezer and ice build up on the back of the freezer on the water drainage system.d. Freezer #4- food debris on the bottom of the freezerOn 7/23/25 at 11:45 AM, during meal service observed Staff H, [NAME] held plates of food against her dirty uniform to cut up the pork tenderloins into pieces for four different residents. Observation revealed the serving utensil for the mini baker potatoes fell into the pan multiple times, Staff H reached into the potatoes, picked up the utensil with her bare hands and then continued to use the same utensil to serve the potatoes. On 7/23/25 at 1:45 PM, the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) reported it was not appropriate for the plate of food to touch the cook's uniform. The CDM reported if a utensil fell into the food, she would expect the staff member to put on a glove to remove the utensil and then get a new utensil to serve with.A facility policy titled Food Handling revised 10/2023 documented the purpose of the policy was to adhere to the food safety standards described in the local Food Code and as per CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) food safety standards for long term care. The policy directed the following:1. Ready-to-eat food must not be touched with bare hands.2. Disposable gloves, tongs, or other dispensing devices must be used properly in accordance with safe food handling practices.3. All foods prepared in operation must be covered and labeled with date of preparation prior to storage in refrigerators and freezers. A use-by date should be specified.4. Staff to follow kitchen sanitation guidelines and center specific cleaning schedules.A facility policy titled Kitchen Sanitation and Cleanliness dated 6/17/10 documented the food service preparation, storage and service area will be maintained in clean and sanitary conditions. The policy documented food service preparation, storage and service areas to be assessed on a periodic basis to develop and edit appropriate cleaning schedules for each area. A system will be maintained to monitor and evaluate effective cleaning on a regular basis as part of the Quality Assurance process.
Feb 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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to perform adequate assessments following falls for 1 of 4 resid...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to perform adequate assessments following falls for 1 of 4 residents reviewed (Resident #2). The facility reported a census of 40 residents. Findings include: According to the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] Resident #2 scored 14 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) indicating no cognitive impairment. The resident had diagnoses including diabetes, heart failure, anxiety disorder, and repeat falls. The resident had a fall in the last month, the last 2-6 months, and since admission. The Care Plan with a goal target date of 4/19/25 identified Resident #2 at risk for falls, generalized weakness, a history of falling, and difficulty in walking. An Incident Report dated 1/9/25 at 8:55 p.m. documented Resident #2 shouted for help. The nurse ran to the resident's room and found the resident laying on the floor. The resident stated she tried to transfer herself to the bathroom without assistance. Upon assessment the resident's vital signs were were within normal limits. Pupils were equal and reacting to light, she had a strong grip strength, and intact skin.The resident stated she hit her head. No head injuries observed, and pain rated at 4. The fall protocol initiated and they were doing neuro (neurological) assessments. On 2/19/25 at 2:03 p.m. the Regional Nurse Consultant (RNC) replied to an email with an attached Neuro Flow Sheet which indicated how the flow sheet was used. The double sided Neurological (nervous system, brain, spinal cord, and peripheral nerves) Flow Sheet directed to complete neurological evaluation with vital signs initially, then every 30 minutes x 4, then every hour x 4, then every 8 hours x 9 (72 hours). More frequent evaluations may be necessary. They were to complete episodic charting for at least 72 hours including any pertinent evaluation findings related to the neurological evaluation. To review the most recent evaluation on the medical record and notify the physician of any changes from the previous evaluation. The Neurological Flow Sheet with a start date of 1/9/25 at 7:40 p.m. showed assessments were not completed at 10:10 p.m., 11:10 p.m. and 1/10/25 at 12:10 a.m. 1:10 a.m. and documented sleeping. The second page lacked any neuro assessments. An Incident Report dated 1/12/25 at 3:24 a.m. documented the writer went to administer Resident #2's bedtime (HS) meds and observed the resident laying on the floor on her left side with her legs facing her recliner and her head facing her bed. The resident could not explain how she fell. The Neurological Flow Sheet with a start date of 1/12/25 at 9:30 p.m. showed assessments were not completed 1/13/25 at 1, 2, 3, 4 a.m. and 8 p.m. and 1/14/25 at 4 a.m. documented sleeping. Assessment completed 1/13/25 at 12 p.m. The slots on 1/13/25 at 8 p.m. and 1/14/25 at 4 a.m. documented sleeping. An Incident Report dated 1/31/25 at 10:34 a.m. documented Resident #2 found sitting on floor leaned up against recliner in room when CNA rounding. Resident stated she was coming back from the bathroom and slipped. Neuros initiated per protocol. The Neurological Flow Sheet with a start date of 1/31/25 at 10:15 p.m. showed assessments not completed at 11:15 p.m., 11:45 p.m., and 2/1/25 at 12:45, 1:45, 2:45, and 3:45 a.m., documented sleeping. The second page showed the assessments completed only 2 of 9 times. On 2/20/25 at 9:38 a.m. the Regional Nurse Consultant stated they should be completing neuros per the neuro sheet.
Sept 2024 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0604 (Tag F0604)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, observations, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to protect resi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, observations, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to protect resident from the use of physical restraint that the resident could not remove on their own (Resident #28). The facility reported a census of 39 residents. Findings include: 1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #28 documented diagnoses of Alzheimer's Disease, anxiety disorder, history of falling. The MDS showed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 00, indicating severe cognitive impairment. The MDS showed Resident #28 was able to roll independently. Observation on 9/9/24 at 10:37 AM., revealed a pillow under the fitted sheet on Resident #28's right side of her back under the fitted sheet. On 9/12/24 at 10:20 AM interview with Staff J, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) revealed they are using the body pillow with Resident #28 so she doesn't roll out or bed. Staff J reported that she places it underneath the fitted sheet next to her. Staff J reported that she is not sure when the body pillow was implemented. On 9/12/24 at 10:40 AM, interview with Staff H, CNA, revealed they tuck the body pillow under the fitted sheet and cover it up. Staff H reported that they use the body pillow for safety hazards, because Resident #28 likes to get up and walk. On 9/12/24 at 10:49 AM, during interview the MDS Coordinator acknowledged and verified that the body pillow was not on the care plan and had no order for it. She reported they have since added it to the care plan. MDS coordinator verified how it should be placed outside of the bed or by the wall. MDS coordinator explained that she expected Resident #28 should be able to remove it, if it is under the fitted sheet it is a restriction. She revealed they are using it more for comfort. On 9/12/24 at 11:00 AM the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed the expectation of the body pillow is to be beside her in bed. The DON revealed she would never expect the body pillow to be placed under the fitted sheet because this is considered a restraint. She voiced that they have educated the staff on how to place the body pillow in bed. The facility policy named Physical Restraint Usage revised May 2005 instructed that physical restraints are defined as any manual method or physical or mechanical device, material or equipment attached or adjacent to the resident's body that the individual cannot remove easily, which restricts the freedom of movement or normal access to one's body. Physical restraints include tucking in or using velcro to hold a sheet, fabric or clothing tightly so that the resident's movement is restricted.
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 clinical record review and staff interviews the facility failed to develop a care plan to address risk factors and interventions for 2 out of 14 residents (Residents #35 and #6) reviewed for ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on clinical record review and staff interviews the facility failed to develop a care plan to address risk factors and interventions for 2 out of 14 residents (Residents #35 and #6) reviewed for comprehensive care plans.The facility reported a census of 39 residents. Findings include: 1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #35 dated 7/5/24 identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicated intact cognition. The MDS included diagnoses of anemia, atrial fibrillation (irregular heart rhythm), congestive heart failure (inability for the heart to pump blood), urinary tract infection (UTI) in the last 30 days, arthritis, osteoporosis, chronic pain, and low back pain. The MDS indicated Resident #35 was occasionally incontinent of urine. The MDS documented Resident #35 received diuretic and opioid medications during the assessment period (last 7 days). A Hospital Discharge Instruction form dated 6/28/24 documented Resident #35 had ongoing problems with recurrent UTIs. A Physician Order dated 6/28/24 directed staff to administer furosemide (diuretic medication) 20 mg (milligrams) one tablet one time a day every other day related to congestive heart failure. A Physician Order dated 7/21/24 directed staff to administer cefdinir (antibiotic) 300 mg twice a day for 7 days for UTI. A Physician Order dated 7/24/24 directed staff to administer oxycodone hcl 5 mg, give one tablet two times a day for pain and give one tablet by mouth as needed for pain. A Physician Order dated 8/27/24 directed staff to administer cefdinir (antibiotic) 300 mg twice a day for 7 days for UTI. Review of the current Care Plan with a target date of 10/13/24 did not address Resident #35 was at risk for urinary tract infections, what signs and symptoms to monitor for and interventions to reduce the risk for UTI. The Care Plan also did not address Resident #35 was taking high risk medication such as diuretic and opioid medications and what to monitor for including side effects while taking the medication. On 9/11/24 at 1:10 PM, The MDS Coordinator acknowledged and verified Resident #35 risks for UTIs and interventions were not addressed on the care plan. She reported she thought she had addressed it on the care plan as she had educated Resident #35 on proper toileting hygiene. She also acknowledged and verified the diuretic and opioid medications were not addressed on the care plan. She reported it was an expectation for high risk medications to be addressed on the care plan and that the medications had been missed. 2. The MDS assessment for Resident #6 dated 6/10/24 identified a BIMS score of 14, which indicated intact cognition. The MDS included diagnoses of atrial fibrillation, hypertension (high blood pressure), and renal disease. The MDS documented Resident #6 received anticoagulant medication (blood thinner) during the assessment period (last 7 days). A Physician Order dated 6/3/24 directed staff to administer apixaban (anticoagulant) 5 mg two times a day for hypertension. Review of Resident #6's Care Plan with a target date of 9/20/24 revealed the anticoagulant medication, potential side effects and what to monitor for while taking the high risk medication was not addressed on the comprehensive care plan. On 9/11/24 at 1:15 PM, the MDS Coordinator acknowledged and verified the anticoagulant medication was not addressed on Resident #6's Care Plan. She reported it was an expectation for high risk medications to be addressed on the care plan and that the medications had been missed. On 9/11/24 at 1:20 PM, The Administrator reported the facility does not have a policy on comprehensive care planning.
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 clinical record review, resident and staff interview and facility record review the facility failed to provide bathing ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, resident and staff interview and facility record review the facility failed to provide bathing assistance per resident preference for 1 of 8 residents reviewed for bathing (Resident #2). The facility reported a census of 39 residents. Findings include: 1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #2 revealed the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMs) score of 14, which indicated cognitively intact. Resident #2 had diagnoses of diabetes, major depressive disorder, and anxiety disorder. The MDS revealed the resident required substantial/maximal assistance (helper does more than half the effort) with bathing. The Care Plan with a target date of 10/31/24 identified Resident #2 required extensive assistance of 1 person to provide baths daily. The untitled Electronic Health Record (EHR) bathing record documented completed baths from 8/12/24 to 9/10/24. The record documented baths were completed only on 8/12/24, 8/19/24, 8/23/24, 8/25/24, 8/29/24, 9/5/24, 9/6/24 and 9/10/24. The clinical record for the resident lacked documentation of any other attempts to encourage the resident to bathe or refusals to bathe. On 9/10/24 at 12:18 PM interview with Staff C, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) revealed typically they are not able to provide bathing to the residents due to staffing. Staff C revealed at time they choose the residents and try to give them a bed bath, Staff C stated this is better than nothing, then we will reschedule the baths, and if necessary I will try to stay after to try to get them completed. They get pretty stacked up when we reschedule them to the next day, we will try to gather enough staff to get them done. On 9/10/24 at 2:56 PM during interview with Staff G, CNA reported they couldn't give showers because there was no staff. Staff G reported residents were complaining they weren't getting bathed. During interview on 9/11/24 at 9:46 AM with Staff B, CNA revealed that it is day by day with being able to do baths, we try to work them in the next day to get them complete, if they refuse, I would try to go back and reapproach them, the 1st refusal we document in the electronic health record, but if they refuse again I would tell the nurse. During interview on 9/11/24 at 1:37 PM with Staff I, CNA revealed that bathing the residents is day by day and sometimes we don't always have enough staff. The residents get pushed to another day or the next day and there have been times where residents weren't able to have a bath because we are just too short of staff. The facility reported they do not have a policy regarding bathing. On 9/11/24 with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed all baths are documented in the Electronic Health Record and they do not document on any other forms. The DON stated that she keeps track of the baths and goes through them each day.
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 clinical record review, staff interviews, and policy review the facility failed to provide assessment and interventions...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff interviews, and policy review the facility failed to provide assessment and interventions necessary for the care and services, to maintain the residents' highest practical physical well- being for 1 of 14 residents reviewed (Resident #18). The facility failed to complete a follow up assessment after the resident had complaints of headache, chest pain, jaw pain with an increased blood pressure and pulse. The facility also failed to notify the Physician and family of the condition change in a timely manner. The facility reported a census of 39 residents. Findings include: Resident #18's MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment dated [DATE] identified a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score of 07, indicating moderately impaired cognition. The MDS identified Resident #7 required partial to moderate assistance with bed mobility and transfers including toileting. The MDS included diagnoses of cancer, anemia, heart failure (inability of the heart to pump blood), hypertension (high blood pressure), and non-alzheimer's dementia. A Progress Note created on 4/30/24 at 6:40 AM for an effective date of 4/28/24 at 6:33 PM completed by Staff A, LPN (License Practical Nurse) revealed Resident #18 was experiencing symptoms of cardiopulmonary nature. The note documented Resident #18 had a nonproductive cough and chest pain with pressure, tightness and aching without radiation. The note also documented Resident #18 was experiencing a new or worsening ability to sleep while laying down. A Progress Note dated 4/28/24 at 6:35 PM revealed Resident #18 had complaints of headache, jaw pain, and chest pain. The note documented the following vital signs: blood pressure 160/89, temperature 98.4 degree fahrenheit, pulse 99 beats per minute, respirations 16 breaths per minute and oxygen saturation 96% (oxygen in the blood). The note indicated Resident #18's blood pressure and pulse were elevated according to her baseline. Resident #18's pain level was a 7 (pretty bad) on a scale 1-10. The note documented Staff A, LPN asked Resident #18 if she wanted to go to the emergency room (ER) and the residnet said no. The note further documented Staff A told the resident if it continued and she changed her mind to let the Staff A know. A Progress Note dated 4/29/24 at 6:46 AM documented the nurse called the ER to report on Resident #18 status. The note revealed Resident #18 had complaints of pain, discomfort all over. The note documented the following vital signs: blood pressure 148/74, pulse 110 beats per minute, respirations 24 breaths per minute, oxygen saturation 87% on room air and temperature 100.9 degrees fahrenheit. A PAINAD (pain assessment in advanced dementia) assessment completed revealed a pain score 10 out of 0-10. At 7:02 AM, the facility received a call from a triage nurse with direction to send Resident #18 to the ER. The note documented the family had not answered phone calls. A Progress Note dated 4/29/24 at 7:15 AM documented Resident #18 left the facility to the ER via facility van. A Progress Note dated 4/29/24 at 11:28 AM revealed Resident #18 was admitted to acute care for a diagnosis of Pneumonia. Resident #18's husband was made aware of hospitalization and gave consent to hold the bed. The Hospital History Physical Report dated 4/29/24 documented Resident #18 was admitted for pneumonia, hypoxia (low oxygen levels), anemia, and chest pain. The report revealed Resident #18 complained of some chest discomfort during an exam and an EKG (electrocardiography) and troponin level (test completed that may indicate a heart attack) had been completed. The note documented troponin levels x 2 were in the 40's and Resident #18 was stable at her baseline. The clinical record lacked documentation Resident #18's family or Physician was notified of the condition change on the evening of 4/28/24. The clinical record lacked follow up documentation, assessments, intervention after Resident #18 complaints of headache, jaw pain, and chest pain until the following morning on 4/29/24 at 6:56 AM. On 9/11/24 at 2:37 PM, the MDS Coordinator reported she recalled working on the morning of 4/29/24 and Resident #18 was not feeling well. She stated she completed a assessment, tried to call Resident #18's husband who did not answer and then sent her to the emergency room. The MDS Coordinator reviewed Resident #18's Progress Notes from 4/28 to 4/29 and stated she remembered thinking why are we waiting so long to send Resident #18 out. When asked if she would expect the Physician and family to be notified when a resident had complaints of headache, jaw pain and chest pain, she stated definitely. On 9/11/24 at 3:45 PM, the DON acknowledged and verified she would expect the Physician and family to be notified regarding complaints of chest and jaw pain. She stated Resident #18 does have a history of lung cancer and breast cancer. She stated she recalled coming to work on Monday morning (4/29) reading Resident #18's Progress Note from the night before and deciding to send her out. On 9/12/24 at 10:30 AM, the DON reported she had provided education to Staff A, LPN. The DON provided a employee counseling form dated 5/1/24. The counceling form documented the problem was concerns with documentation related to lack of assessment and family notification. The employee statement on the counseling form documented the employee will notify family and do more re-assessments and chart them. The form was signed by the DON and Staff A on 5/1/24. The DON acknowledged Resident #18 had dementia and cannot make medical decisions herself. A facility policy titled Family and Physician Notification related to Accident or Change in Medical Condition revised April 2012 documented the facility would immediately notify the resident, the resident's responsible party, and physician of an accident resulting in injury or a change in the resident's medical condition. The policy further documented the facility to notify the attending Physician or on-call MD (doctor of Medicine), Nurse Practitioner, Physician Assistant on call as soon as possible if the resident experience new or abrupt onset of chest pain, pressure tightness, unrelieved by current medication or accompanied by diaphoresis, change in vital signs or new EKG changes.
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 F0805 (Tag F0805)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, resident and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure residents received the proper diet texture to ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, resident and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure residents received the proper diet texture to meet the residents needs in 1 of 1 residents reviewed (Resident #31). The facility reported a census of 39 residents. Finding Include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #31 revealed the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMs) score of 12, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Resident #31 had diagnoses of hypertension (high blood pressure), renal insufficiency and difficulty in walking. The MDS revealed the resident was coded for a mechanically altered diet. The Care Plan with a target date of 12/20/24 identified Resident #31 to have a mechanical soft ground meat diet. Physician Orders dated 2/7/24 included an order for general diet, mechanical soft ground meat only texture, regular fluid consistency. Observation on 9/11/24 at 12:00 PM, with Staff C, Cook, plated and served a regular pork chop to Resident #31. Resident #31 had an order for a mechanical soft ground meat diet only. The CDM stated they know Resident #31 and she would prefer a regular pork chop. CDM stated we just cut it up because she likes it this way. CDM stated when we send her ground meat she changes her mind and sends it back to the kitchen. Observation on 9/11/24 at 12:30 PM, Resident #31 was eating the cut up pork chop in her room without supervision. Resident #31 stated this is how she liked her pork chop. Resident #31 stated the facility does a good job. Resident #31 reported she is on a ground meat diet because she has very little teeth. Resident #31 reported that she always eats her meals in her room. The facility policy named Ground Meat Diet Orders, with a file date of 7/03 revealed it is the purpose to provide appropriate texture meat products to enhance resident satisfaction, oral consumption and safety due to chewing or swallowing problems. Interview on 9/11/24 at 2:02 PM with the Dietician reported that she would expect the staff to notify her so we could get it on the care plan and write it on the diet card. Interview on 9/11/24 at 2:30 PM with the DON reported that she educated the CDM and that they need to notify the physician if a resident doesn't agree with the diet order. The DON reported they will get an order for Speech Therapy to evaluate Resident #31.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
  • "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

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s), $39,530 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 12 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $39,530 in fines. Higher than 94% of Iowa facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
  • • Grade F (33/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 33/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Emmetsburg Care Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns Emmetsburg Care Center an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within Iowa, 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 Emmetsburg Care Center Staffed?

CMS rates Emmetsburg Care Center's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 56%, which is 10 percentage points above the Iowa average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 60%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Emmetsburg Care Center?

State health inspectors documented 12 deficiencies at Emmetsburg Care Center during 2024 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, and 10 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Emmetsburg Care Center?

Emmetsburg Care Center is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by LEGACY HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 46 certified beds and approximately 42 residents (about 91% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in Emmetsburg, Iowa.

How Does Emmetsburg Care Center Compare to Other Iowa Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Iowa, Emmetsburg Care Center's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (56%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Emmetsburg Care Center?

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

Is Emmetsburg Care Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Emmetsburg Care Center has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Iowa. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Emmetsburg Care Center Stick Around?

Staff turnover at Emmetsburg Care Center is high. At 56%, the facility is 10 percentage points above the Iowa average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 60%. 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 Emmetsburg Care Center Ever Fined?

Emmetsburg Care Center has been fined $39,530 across 1 penalty action. The Iowa average is $33,474. 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 Emmetsburg Care Center on Any Federal Watch List?

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