DEER'S HEAD CENTER

351 DEER'S HEAD HOSPITAL ROAD, SALISBURY, MD 21801 (410) 543-4000
Government - State 80 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
75/100
#14 of 219 in MD
Last Inspection: July 2024

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

Overview

Deer's Head Center in Salisbury, Maryland, has a Trust Grade of B, which indicates it is a solid choice but not without room for improvement. It ranks #14 out of 219 facilities in the state, placing it in the top half, and is the best option among four facilities in Wicomico County. However, the facility is experiencing a worsening trend, with issues increasing from four in 2019 to eight in 2024. Staffing is a notable strength, with a perfect 5/5 rating and only 30% turnover, which is lower than the state average, meaning staff members are likely to know the residents well. On the downside, the facility has incurred $41,265 in fines, higher than 85% of Maryland facilities, indicating ongoing compliance issues. Additionally, while there is excellent RN coverage, more than 99% of state facilities, there have been serious concerns highlighted, including an incident where a staff member yelled at a resident and another where a resident reported feeling treated poorly during care, suggesting potential issues with staff interactions. Overall, while there are strengths in staffing and care quality, families should be aware of the concerning incidents and fines.

Trust Score
B
75/100
In Maryland
#14/219
Top 6%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Worse
4 → 8 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
30% turnover. Near Maryland's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
$41,265 in fines. Lower than most Maryland facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 281 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of Maryland nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
Violations
⚠ Watch
15 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★★★
5.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★★★★
5.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2019: 4 issues
2024: 8 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
  • 4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (30%)

    18 points below Maryland average of 48%

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

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 30%

16pts below Maryland avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $41,265

Above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

The Ugly 15 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Jul 2024 8 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2) The surveyor reviewed the facility reported incident (FRI) MD00160152 packet 07.10.24 at 2:15 PM. On 04.24.20, as staff #1 wa...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2) The surveyor reviewed the facility reported incident (FRI) MD00160152 packet 07.10.24 at 2:15 PM. On 04.24.20, as staff #1 was coming up the back staircase from dialysis reportedly yelling was heard by the staff and once the door was opened, observed Resident #2 and staff # 51 screaming at each other. Staff # 51 was observed turning off the call light for room [ROOM NUMBER]A, resident #2's room, while leaving the room staff #51 yelled to hell with you to resident # 2. Staff #51 was placed on administrative leave on 4.24.20 and a facility investigation was started. On 07/09/24 09:20 AM Resident # 2 denied any current examples of abuse in recent months. Both verbal altercations involved male GNA s. The first verbal altercation that occurred was on 04.24.2020 with staff # 51 and the resident does not recall the specifics. The second incident (verbal altercations with GNA #59) the resident recalled occurred on 11.02.2020, and Resident #2 remembers the incident. Resident #2 stated that he/she was able to speak his/her mind and he/she was satisfied with the results of the investigation that the administrative team shared with him/her. On 07.10.2024 at 11:12AM Resident #2 stated that staff currently treat him with respect and that he/she enjoys being the President of the Resident Council. The Resident was out of bed in a motorized wheelchair in the hallway in front of the nurses' station On 07.12.24 at 10:30 AM the surveyor requested that the HR file for staff #51, the alleged perpetrator. At 1:16 PM on 07.12.2024 the surveyor reviewed the hard copies of staff #51's human resource (HR) record. Staff #51 had a hire date of 09.14.2013 and resigned on 05.04.2020. The packet of staff #51's HR included a copy of the employee's 12.23.19 performance evaluation. This employee was reported to the Maryland Board of Nursing (MBON) on 04.24.2020 by the facility administrator. The resident #2 wrote a statement/grievance regarding the incident on 04.24.20 and stated that he/she started ringing the call bell at 2:25 PM x's 3 requesting to be assisted with changing his diaper. Staff #51 responded at 2:40 PM and 2:55 PM and proceeded to argue and curse at the resident without providing the requested assistance with ADL's. On 07.12.24 at 1:54 PM the surveyor spoke with the nursing home administrator (NHA) who was one the witnesses for the incident related to Resident #2. She stated that she did not remember if the employee was sent home immediately. The NHA stated that the time of the incident was close to the change of shift on 04.24.2020. Also, the NHA stated that she would check with the HR director to verify the date and time staff #51 was placed on administrative leave and left the workplace. On 07.12.24 at 2:00 PM the surveyor spoke with another witness, staff # 58 who stated that she/he was not aware of when the perpetrator, staff # 51 left the unit on 04.24.20 and that she/he was in another resident's room at the time of the incident. 3) On 07.10.24 at 1:20 PM the surveyor reviewed the OHCQ intake related to Resident # 2. Per the facility related incident report (FRI) MD00160152 on 11.02.2020 at 09:00 AM, a facility employee, GNA #59 verbally abused resident #2 on the Whispering [NAME] clinical unit. The verbal abuse was substantiated by the facility in its final report dated 11.09.2020. Enclosed within the FRI was a complaint form and a handwritten statement that was completed by LPN #69 and dated 11.02.2020 in which the employee stated that resident #2 stated to her that GNA # 59 told him/her to shut the f .up. Also, enclosed within the FRI packet was a memorandum written by staff #70, dated 11.10.2020 counseling staff # 69 for not assisting and intervening not immediately responding to LPN #69 request for assistance to deescalate the verbal interactions between staff #59 and resident #2. Additionally, a statement written by GNA# 59 admitting that he /she loudly whispered shut the F .up to resident #2 was enclosed in the FRI provided to the surveyor by the administrator. The surveyor interviewed the DON and the Corporate Operations Officer (COO) on 07.11.24 at 1240 PM and reviewed the contents of resident #2's 11.02.2020 packet related to MD#00160152. On 07.12.24 at 1:20 PM the surveyor requested the administrator to provide written documentation that GNA #59 was immediately removed from the clinical setting after the incident. Documentation provided by the administrator showed that GNA #59 was placed on administrative leave around 10:00 AM after being interviewed by the unit manager, staff # 56 and remained on administrative leave for four days. On 07.12.24 at approximately 1:30 PM the surveyor reviewed the human resources records of GNA #59 who was no longer employed by the facility. 4) On 07.10.24 at 9:40 AM the surveyor reviewed the intake, MD00204619 related to resident #11. The facility reported the resident was verbally abused by a volunteer, staff # 63 on 04.10.24 at 12:15 PM. Surveyor reviewed the facility reported incident (FRI) packet which documented that Resident #11 went to the facility canteen and started yelling obscenities when it was time to pay for his food. The resident was upset that he/she was charged tax. Per the facility documentation the resident was also upset that he /she did not get a free soda. According to the facility report, staff # 64 overheard resident # 11 yelling and cursing. Also, staff # 64 observed staff #63 walk from the canteen to the hallway and ask for security. Staff # 64 also reported that resident #11 stated: You got security? and staff #63 responded, He will put you in handcuffs. Security Guard Staff #65 reported that staff #63 was agitated when he/she arrived and overheard him/her say, I hope he gets arrested and handcuffed. Staff # 65 entered the canteen and removed resident #11 and returned the resident via wheelchair to his/her room. Resident #11 requested the administrator file a complaint on his behalf shortly after the incident described above. The volunteer was suspended administratively for four days while the investigation was completed. The staff #63 was verbally counseled by his/her supervisor and received Relias training related to abuse, resident rights, customer service, and de-escalation techniques upon return from administrative leave. Staff #63, the volunteer completed the required training based on the documentation within the FRI packet. On 07.10.24 at 12:16 PM the surveyor observed resident #11 in his wheelchair in his room looking at his lunch tray. The surveyor asked the resident whether he/she remembered the incident that occurred in April 2024 in the canteen. Resident #11 stated that he/she did recall being angry with the volunteer. The resident stated that he planned to go to the canteen today to purchase food because he/she was not satisfied with the lunch that was delivered to his room. Resident # 11 denied experiencing any other verbal abuse from facility staff. On 07.10.24 at 12:20 PM the surveyor spoke with the RN passing medications in front of resident #11's room. RN #68 stated that the resident has a history of being short tempered, yelling, and being verbally abusive but when allowed to cool down will respond positively to verbal interactions displayed by staff. On 07.11.24 at 12:45 PM the surveyor interviewed the DON and CNO regarding the contents of the facility incident report related to resident # 11 and reviewed the contents of the facility incident report and the events documented. The potential citation was discussed with the administrative team on 07.12.24 prior and during the exit conference. 5) The surveyor reviewed the hard copy documents of the facility incident report (FRI) MD00193399 provided by the administrative team on 07.10. 24 at 1:00 PM. The facility report described an unusual occurrence related to an incident of resident-to-resident physical abuse. The perpetrator, resident # 38 with a history of dementia walked into resident #28's room on 06.06.23 around 07:30 PM. Resident #28 called for help and the facility staff came to the resident's room. The facility documented that resident #28 reported that resident # 38 hit resident #28's left hand and left side of his'/her face with the call bell cord which resulted in a minor injury. The surveyor found no documentation that any staff members had observed the physical abuse based on the documentation in the initial self -report. The only reported witness was resident #28, the victim per the facility documentation provided to the surveyor. Review of the resident # 38's electronic medical record showed one documented episode of physical aggression towards staff members but none towards any residents during the previous three months. The FRI packet provided by the facility administrative team, included a copy of the initial report submitted to OHCQ dated and timed: 06.07.23, at 11:00 AM. Per the initial report the incident of physical abuse perpetrated by Resident # 38 occurred on 06.06.2023 at 7:30 PM. Resident # 38 was placed on every 15 minute check, a psychiatric consult was ordered, and a medication review for his/her dementia diagnosis was recommended per the facility report completed on 06.13.23. The resident had a dementia and aggressive behavior care plan. Additionally, the facility failed to include any progressive notes or change of condition documentation related to minor injuries sustained by Resident #28 in the facility report- incident packet. The facility did not include any statements from the staff working the evening shift on 06.06.23 or any statements from other residents who were located on the same unit on 06.06.23 within the initial or the final facility report to OHCQ. During an on 07.10.24 12:06 PM resident #28 stated that he/she remembers the incident, but no serious injury occurred on 06.06.23 when he/she was struck by resident #38. Currently the resident # 28 denies any type of verbal or physical abuse occurring during the past year and does feel safe in the clinical unit. On 07.11.24 at 12:40 PM the surveyor interviewed the DON and CNO regarding the contents of the facility incident report related to resident # 28. The surveyor expressed concern regarding the lack of documentation related to the incident within its final report to OHCQ dated for 06.13.23 at 3 PM. The DON and CNO stated that they would attempt to find additional information related to the 06.06.23 FRI. The surveyor discussed the lack of documentation within the facility report regarding the perpetrator with dementia and the facility efforts to prevent the resident-to-resident physical abuse incident. As of 5:30 PM on 07.12.24 during the exit conference the facility failed to provide any additional documentation related to substantiated physical abuse towards resident #28 by resident # 38. The deficient practice to prevent a resident-resident physical abuse incident was discussed during the exit conference on 07.12.24 with facility administrative staff. Based on review of records, observation, and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to keep residents safe from physical and verbal abuse. This was evident for 4 (Residents #27, #2, #11, and #28) of 10 residents reviewed for abuse, one of which was determined to have sustained actual harm (Resident #27). The Findings include: 1) On 7/10/24 at 10:14 AM, the surveyor reviewed the facility's investigation of an incident that took place between Geriatric Nursing Assistant (GNA) #36 and Resident #27. The review revealed that, on 5/30/23 at about 10:00 AM, GNA #36 was working with Resident #27 and was transporting him/her to the shower. During transport, the resident defecated onto the floor. The GNA responded by yelling at the resident, grabbing the resident's face and turning his/her head to the floor, saying 'Look at what you did, why would you do this?' This was witnessed by GNA #37, registered nurse (RN) #8, RN #38, and Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #4, although not all of them witnessed the GNA yelling directly at the resident or grabbing his/her face. The investigation substantiated verbal and physical abuse by GNA #36 of Resident #27 and provided evidence that GNA #36 was terminated from employment and reported to the Maryland Board of Nursing. Resident #27's medical record was reviewed on 7/10/24 at 10:30 AM. The review revealed that Resident #27 had the diagnosis of vascular dementia. Resident #27's most recent quarterly minimum data set (MDS) assessment prior to the incident on 5/30/23 had an assessment reference date (ARD) of 5/11/23. The quarterly assessment coded that Resident #27 had a brief interview of mental status (BIMS) score of 3/15 (indicating severe cognitive impairment); was totally dependent on staff for bed mobility, transfer, locomotion on and off the unit, eating, toilet use, and personal hygiene; and was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. Ongoing review of Resident #27's record failed to reveal any resident assessment or incident documentation following the incident on 5/30/23. The first note found after 5/30/23 was dated 6/3/23 at 7:35 PM and stated that there were no issues noted with Resident #27. Review of behavior documentation did not show any behaviors after the incident. Observation of the resident on 7/9/24 at 1:00 PM and throughout the survey showed that the resident was comfortable, pleasant, and showed no signs of fear. The resident was unable to communicate meaningfully with the surveyors and appeared confused. On 7/10/24 at 3:00 PM, the surveyors were provided with timekeeping documentation for GNA #36. The documentation showed that GNA #36 worked a full day on 5/30/23 (8 hours), called out sick on 5/31/23, and then was placed on administrative leave until her eventual termination on 6/28/23. An interview with GNA #37 on 7/10/24 at 2:16 PM confirmed that she witnessed GNA #36 yelling in Resident #27's ear, saying, why did you shit on the floor, and swearing at the resident. When asked if she felt that GNA #36's actions were verbal abuse, she said yes. An interview with the Staff Development Director was conducted on 7/10/24 at 3:15 PM. During the interview, the Director stated that he did not provide any additional abuse training to staff after the incident on 5/30 involving Resident #27 and GNA #36. The Director did recall performing a review of staff training on abuse, but wasn't able to confirm that it was an audit of all employee records. He stated there was no documentation of the review. On 7/11/24 at 9:00 AM, review of GNA task documentation revealed that GNA #36 documented % eaten for Resident #27's lunch on 5/30/23. A phone interview was conducted with RN #8 on 7/11/24 at 9:14 AM. During the interview, the RN stated that she was on the unit on 5/30/23 at the time of the incident involving Resident #27 and GNA #36. RN #8 stated that she witnessed GNA #36 yelling at Resident #27. RN #8 considered the yelling to be abusive and humiliating to the patient. She said that the patient was known to be incontinent and to lack the ability to respond appropriately or to show emotion. He couldn't help [defecating onto the floor], and GNA #36's actions were not right. RN #8 recalled telling RN #38 (not available for interview) to get the unit manager and report what happened as potential abuse. An interview was conducted with ADON (then-Unit Manager) #4 on 7/11/24 at 9:28 AM. The ADON remembered being called by the administrator to go investigate a commotion on the Whispering [NAME] unit. The ADON did not hear shouting herself. She arrived to find GNA #37 cleaning feces off the floor. GNA #37 said to her that Resident #27 defecated on the floor while being transported to the shower room. GNA #37 said that GNA #36 was working with the resident when the resident defecated and began shouting at the resident. The ADON instructed GNA #36 not to work with Resident #27 for the rest of the day but did not stop GNA #36 from working on the unit. The ADON requested statements from GNA #36 and #37 which were supplied to her in a short time. The ADON stated that GNA #37's statement only mentioned that GNA #36 had been yelling. Continuing the interview, the ADON stated that she was approached by the Administrator later on the same day, around 2:30 PM. The Administrator informed her that GNA #37 had reported additional details about the incident that morning. GNA #37 had claimed that, in additional to yelling at the resident, GNA #36 had also pulled on Resident #27's lip, forcing him/her to face the pile of feces on the floor. The ADON stated that she then asked GNA #37 to confirm these details and amend her statement. The ADON said that these additional details elevated the occurrence from only verbal abuse to being verbal and physical abuse. On 7/11/24 at 9:58 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Administrator. During the interview, the Administrator confirmed overhearing a commotion on the Whispering [NAME] unit outside of her office on the morning of 5/30/23. She recalled asking ADON #4 to investigate the situation but stated that she didn't witness any of the incident herself. She also confirmed that GNA #37 came to her office later in the day on 5/30/23 to provide the additional details about seeing GNA #36 pulling on Resident #27's lip and showing him/her the pile of feces. Ongoing review of the facility's investigation file revealed GNA #37's witness statement. The statement had an initial text that was signed and dated 5/30/23. An addendum could be seen below the signature in the same handwriting. The initial text stated that GNA #36 was very upset about Resident #27 defecating on the floor and that GNA #36 was pretty loud in the hallway. The initial text did not mention that GNA #36 touched the resident. However, the addendum did, stating that GNA 36 held [Resident #27's] face and showed him/her what he/she had done on the floor but it wasn't with any force or harm. Review of the facility's abuse policy on 7/11/23 revealed that the following definition was categorized as verbal abuse: Derogations - A patient shall not be spoken to in a threatening manner or by threatening words which cause the patient to have a non-therapeutic feeling of having been ridiculed, scorned or teased, or in general spoken to with rude or harsh words. Although Resident #27 did not have any documented emotional distress, behaviors, or other negative outcomes from the incident on 5/30/23, the resident was known to be unable to respond normally to situations, to communicate effectively with staff, or to express their feelings clearly. In situations where a resident is unable to express their feelings such as this, the Reasonable Person Concept can be used to approximate how a reasonable person in the resident's situation would have reacted for the purpose of determining the outcome of a deficient practice. Using this concept, it was determined that a reasonable person would have experienced humiliation, anger, shame, and intimidation in response to the actions of GNA #36. Therefore, it was determined that psychosocial harm occurred to Resident #27.
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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

2) On 7/9/24 at 10:32 AM, the administrative team provided the survey team with a copy of the facility reported incident that occurred on July 17, 2020. Review of the documentation of the incident rep...

Read full inspector narrative →
2) On 7/9/24 at 10:32 AM, the administrative team provided the survey team with a copy of the facility reported incident that occurred on July 17, 2020. Review of the documentation of the incident reported by the facility, it stated that, On July 17 [2020] at 11:41, Resident #37 reported to Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) #1, that on July 15th, in the evening, staff came to provide care and he/she was treated like 'a sack of potatoes'. In addition, it stated, Resident #37 further stated he/she felt this incident was 'assault and battery' though he/she declined to have law enforcement notified. The Self- Report Form completed by the facility stated the Type of Report was Abuse (as denoted by an X in the Abuse type). Furthermore, the Self- Report Form completed by the facility stated the incident was initially reported to OHCQ on 7/17/2020 at 1528 (3:28 PM). On 7/12/24 at 9:11 AM in an interview with NHA #1, when asked about the day of the incident with Resident #37 in July 2020, she stated she remembered Resident #37 and that he/she was here for quite some time. During the interview, she stated he/she was alert and oriented. Furthermore, the NHA #1 stated that the process for investigating abuse allegations is an alleged incident is reported within 2 hours if there is an allegation of abuse. She also stated that abuse was any verbal, physical, sexual, mental abuse, neglect, or misappropriation of funds. The surveyor showed NHA #1 the Self- Report Form that stated she was the staff member notified of the allegation by Resident #37 on 7/17/2020 at 11:41 AM and that the Self- Report Form documented OHCQ was notified 7/17/2020 at 3:28PM who confirmed it was outside of the 2 hour window. On 7/10/24 at 1:23 PM, review of the facility's policy, Abuse Prevention General Policy section revealed, The Administrator and Director of Nursing will send a self-report to the OHCQ within 2 hours of discovery of neglect or abuse. Furthermore, the Definitions section revealed, An Allegation is a spoken or written statement, offered without proof that an event occurred. Abuse means the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain or mental anguish (42 CFR 488.301). This also includes the deprivation by an individual, including a caretaker, of good or services that are necessary to attain or maintain physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. This presumes that the instances of abuse of all residents, even those in a coma, cause physical harm or pain or mental anguish. 3) The surveyor reviewed the intake MD00193399 related to Resident #28 on 07.09.2024 at 11:40 AM. The facility had reported that on 06.06.23 at approximately 7:30 PM, Resident #28 called staff for help from his room, while sitting on his/her bed. The nurse found the perpetrator Resident # 38 standing in front of Resident #28. The surveyor reviewed the hard copy documents of the facility incident report (FRI) provided by the administrative team on 07.10. 24 at 1:00 PM. Within the report related to resident-to-resident physical abuse: the perpetrator, Resident # 38 with a history of dementia walked into Resident #28's room. The facility documented that Resident #28 reported that Resident # 38 hit resident #28's left hand and left side of his/her face with the call bell cord which resulted in a minor injury. The surveyor found no documentation that the any staff members observed the physical abuse based on the documentation in the initial self-report and the only witness was Resident #28, the victim. The FRI packet provided by the facility administrative team, included a copy of the initial report submitted to OHCQ dated and timed: 06.07.23, at 11:00 AM. Per the initial report the incident of physical abuse perpetrated by Resident # 38 occurred on 06.06.2023 at 7:30 PM. Additionally, the facility failed to include any progressive notes or change of condition documentation related to minor injuries sustained by Resident #28. The facility did not include any statements from the staff working the evening shift on 06.06.23 or any statements from other residents who were located on the same unit on 06.06.23. On 07.11.24 at 12:40 PM the surveyor interviewed the DON and CNO regarding the contents of the facility incident report related to resident # 28. The surveyor expressed concern regarding the lack of documentation related to incident that was substantiated by the facility within its final report to OHCQ on 06.13.23 at 3 PM which exceeded the 5-day final submission timeframe. The DON and Chief Nursing Officer (CNO) stated that they would attempt to find additional information related to the 06.06.23 FRI. As of 5:30 PM on 07.12.24 during the exit conference the facility failed to provide any additional documentation related to substantiated physical abuse towards resident #28 by resident # 38. Based on review of records and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to report instances of abuse to the state agency (SA) within 2 hours of it being identified or reported and the final report within 5 working days. This was evident for 3 of 11 facility reported incidents reviewed during the survey. The Findings include: 1) On 7/10/24 at 10:14 AM, the surveyor reviewed the facility's investigation of an incident that took place between Geriatric Nursing Assistant (GNA) #36 and Resident #27. The investigation determined that, on 5/30/23 at about 10:00 AM, GNA #36 verbally and physically abused Resident #27 after the resident defecated on the floor during transport. This was witnessed by GNA #37, registered nurse (RN) #8, and RN #38. The investigation provided evidence that GNA #36 was terminated from employment and reported to the board of nursing. Further review of the investigation file revealed an initial facility self-report form dated 5/31/23 at 7:00 AM, 21 hours after the incident occurred and was witnessed by multiple staff. Additionally, an email was found that was written by the Chief Nursing Officer (CNO, Staff #29) dated 5/31/23 at 6:51 AM that stated, I will be filing a self-report of this incident. An interview with GNA #37 on 7/10/24 at 2:16 PM confirmed that she witnessed GNA #36 yelling in Resident #27's ear, saying, why did you shit on the floor, and swearing at the resident. She confirmed that she considered what she witnessed to be abuse and that ADON #4, her unit manager at the time of the incident, had been informed of the incident only minutes after the incident occurred. A phone interview was conducted with RN #8 on 7/11/24 at 9:14 AM. During the interview, the RN confirmed that she witnessed GNA #36 yelling at Resident #27 on 5/30/23, considered it abuse, and told RN #38 (not available for interview) to get the unit manager and report what happened. An interview was conducted with ADON #4 on 7/11/24 at 9:28 AM. The ADON confirmed that she arrived to the scene of the incident around 10:15 AM on 5/30/23 and quickly determined that verbal abuse had possibly occurred. The ADON indicated that she did not complete a self-report to the state agency about the incident, saying that the CNO is usually responsible for that. No evidence could be found that the CNO had been notified of the incident prior to the morning of 5/31/23. Review of the facility's Abuse Prevention policy on 7/11/24 revealed the statement, If unable to [immediately] rule out without a doubt that alleged abuse is unsubstantiated, a self-report will be sent to the OHCQ within 24 hours of discovery. No part of the policy required staff to file a self report within 2 hours in instances of abuse or serious injury. Cross Reference F 600
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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on review of resident records and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to keep residents protected from an alleged perpetrator during an abuse investigation....

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of resident records and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to keep residents protected from an alleged perpetrator during an abuse investigation. This was evident 1 of 11 facility reported incidents during the survey. The Findings include: On 7/10/24 at 10:14 AM, the surveyor reviewed the facility's investigation of an incident that took place between Geriatric Nursing Assistant (GNA) #36 and Resident #27. The review revealed that, on 5/30/23 at about 10:00 AM, GNA #36 was working with Resident #27 and was transporting him/her to the shower. During transport, the resident defecated onto the floor. The GNA responded by yelling at the resident, grabbing the resident's face and turning his/her head to the floor, saying 'Look at what you did, why would you do this?' This was witnessed by GNA #37, registered nurse (RN) #8, RN #38, ADON #4, although not all of them witnessed the GNA yelling directly at the resident or grabbing his/her face. The investigation substantiated verbal and physical abuse by GNA #36 of Resident #27 and provided evidence that GNA #36 was terminated from employment and reported to the board of nursing. On 7/10/24 at 3:00 PM, the surveyors were provided with timekeeping documentation for GNA #36. The documentation showed that GNA #36 worked a full day on 5/30/23 (8 hours), called out sick on 5/31/23, and then was placed on administrative leave until her eventual termination on 6/28/23. An interview with GNA #37 on 7/10/24 at 2:16 PM confirmed that she witnessed GNA #36 abuse Resident #27 verbally, yelling in his/her ear and swearing. GNA #37 also stated that she believed GNA #36 continued working with the resident for the rest of the day. On 7/11/24 at 9:00 AM, review of GNA task documentation revealed that GNA #36 documented % eaten for lunch on 5/30/23, suggesting that the GNA continued to work with the resident after the incident. An interview was conducted with ADON (then-Unit Manager) #4 on 7/11/24 at 9:28 AM. During the interview, the ADON stated that she arrived on the scene of the incident at 10:15 on the morning of 5/30/23. She stated that GNA #37 explained what happened and then said that GNA #36 was in the shower with the resident. The ADON asked RN #39 and an unknown GNA to come relieve GNA #36 of working with Resident #27 in the shower. The ADON instructed GNA #36 not to work with Resident #27 for the rest of the day but did not stop GNA #36 from working on the unit. The ADON requested statements from GNA #36 and #37 which were supplied to her in a short time (possibly about an hour). GNA #36 completed her shift. When asked about whether the incident as she understood it on the morning of 5/30/23 constituted abuse, she said that she felt it was verbal abuse, and that later information she gained at 2:30 PM made her believe it was also physical abuse. She stated that, instead of having the GNA continue to work on the nursing unit, she would have kept the GNA in my office and off the nursing unit if she knew that the GNA had perpetrated physical abuse as well. She explained that as a manager, I cannot relieve an employee from duty. Human Resources can only do that. Ongoing review of the facility's investigation revealed an email from the Chief Nursing Officer (CNO, Staff #29) dated 5/31/23 at 6:51 AM. In the email, the CNO writes In the past, when a situation like this occurred, the GNA was put on administrative leave until an investigation is completed . [GNA #36] should not be caring for any of our residents at this point. She called out sick today. Additionally, a letter was found dated 5/31/23 addressed to GNA #36 and written by a human resources representative that informed GNA #36 that she was being placed on administrative leave pending investigation. No evidence could be found showing that GNA #36's assignment or work hours changed on the day of the incident, 5/30/23. Review of the facilitiy's Abuse Prevention policy on 7/11/24 revealed a statement that said, In a staff-to-patient abuse allegation, the employee involved will be removed from the care of the patient immediately pending investigation and the patient will be kept safe.
CONCERN (D)

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

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on a review of medical records and interview with facility staff and interview with resident's family, it was determined that the facility failed to provide written notice with the reason for tr...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on a review of medical records and interview with facility staff and interview with resident's family, it was determined that the facility failed to provide written notice with the reason for transfer to a resident or resident representative. This was evident for one resident (Resident #13) out of one resident reviewed for hospitalization. This findings include: On 07/11/24 at 02:29 PM, during review of Resident #13's record, surveyors discovered a nursing progress note written by registered nurse (RN) #60 on 7/7/2024 at 5:24 PM that stated that Resident #13 was transferred to the hospital for a change in mental status on that date at 4:50 PM. The note stated that the resident's representative was made aware. However, the note did not indicate that a written notice of discharge was provided to the resident or their representative at that time. No other progress note indicated that a written notice of transfer was provided to the resident or their representative. On 07/11/24 at 04:10 PM, during and interview with RN #44, she was asked about the protocols for documenting hospital transfers. She stated that nurses document about a resident's transfer in the electronic record, and that ready-made packets with the patient's demographic information, diagnoses, medications, and laboratory test results are provided to the transport team after getting the doctor's order to transfer the resident. She also stated that families are contacted mostly through phone calls and this notification is documented in a free progress note (a progress note without subheading) and also confirmed that a note is not sent with the resident or family as family members are hardly around at the time of transfer. On 07/11/24 at 04:20 PM, a record review of Resident #13's paper and electronic medical record was done and there was no evidence of written notification being provided to the resident or the resident's family. On 07/12/24 at 10:51 AM, Resident #13 was seen in bed with his/her representative at bedside. When the resident was asked if he/she was notified of his/her last hospital transfer, he/she found it difficult to respond. The resident representative was asked if he/she was notified of the recent hospital transfer, and he/she stated that he/she was called when the facility wanted to send the resident out to the hospital and was made aware verbally of the transfer. He/she stated this was also true for past hospitalizations, that they had told him/ her in person or on the phone. The resident representative denied ever being notified in writing.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0625 (Tag F0625)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on review of medical records and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to implement a process to ensure that residents and resident representatives were made ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of medical records and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to implement a process to ensure that residents and resident representatives were made aware of the facilities bed hold policy upon transfer to the hospital. This was evident for one resident (Resident #13) out of one resident reviewed for hospitalization. This findings include: On 07/11/24 at 02:29 PM, during record review, surveyors discovered a nursing progress note written by registered nurse (RN) #60 on 7/7/2024 at 5:24 PM that stated that Resident #13 was transferred to the hospital for a change in mental status at 4:50 PM of the same day. The note stated that the resident's representative was made aware and the resident was sent out via physician' s order. There was no mention of a bed hold policy noted in the note. On 07/11/24 at 04:05 PM, surveyors conducted an interview with RN #44. When she was asked about the protocol for when a patient is to be sent to the hospital, she stated that nurses document in the electronic record and a packet is given to the transport team. When she was asked about the bed hold policy, she confirmed that the bed hold policy was not given to the resident or family during the time of transfer. She confirmed that there was no copy of the bed hold policy given to Resident #13 for his/her transfer on 7/7/24. On 07/12/24 at 09:14 AM, an interview was conducted with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON). When she was asked about the bed hold policy, she stated that there was an admission checklist and a bed hold policy given at the time of admission. She stated that the bed hold policy is followed when residents come back from the hospital. She confirmed that there was no written (paper) bed hold policy given to the resident or families around the time of a resident's transfer to the hospital by nursing staff. On 07/12/24 at 09:54 AM, during an interview with a licensed social worker (Staff #21), he was asked what he does during a resident's transfer to the hospital. He stated that he did only his Minimum Data Set section. He also stated that upon admission, he went over the bed hold policy with each resident. He confirmed that paper bed hold policy is not given to residents and families at the time of transfer to the hospital. Staff #21 came back at 10:13 AM to inform surveyors that a copy of the bed hold policy is not given to residents or their representatives when residents are hospitalized and that going forward, it was something they are looking into starting.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on medical record review and interviews it was determined that the facility staff administered a psychotropic medication that was contraindicated for Dementia, failed to monitor a resident for e...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on medical record review and interviews it was determined that the facility staff administered a psychotropic medication that was contraindicated for Dementia, failed to monitor a resident for extrapyramidal side effects, and failed to complete a gradual dose reduction in the past year. This deficient practice was evidenced in 1 (#21) of 1 resident record reviewed for unnecessary psychotropic medications during the survey. The findings include: According to the Mayo Clinic )a not-for-profit academic medical center), Quetiapine is used alone or together with other medicines to treat bipolar disorder (depressive and manic episodes) and schizophrenia. Quetiapine extended-release tablet is also used together with other antidepressants to treat major depressive disorder. This medicine should not be used to treat behavioral problems in older adult patients who have dementia or Alzheimer disease. Quetiapine is an antipsychotic medicine that works in the brain. On 07/08/24 at 12:55 pm during observation rounds the surveyor entered Resident #21's room and observed the resident in a chair sleeping. The surveyor called Resident #21's name several times until they awakened and was able to speak with the surveyor. On 07/10/24 at 9:52 am the surveyor observed Resident #21 in bed and the surveyor was unable to arouse the resident. Unit Manager #28 entered the resident's room and was able to arouse the resident with difficulty. Resident #21 opened their eyes briefly and went back to sleep. On 07/10/24 at 11:28 am the surveyor asked Medical Director #30 when a resident is on a psychotropic medication, when is a gradual dose reduction (GDR) attempted. Medical Director #30 verbalized a GDR is attempted every 6 months; during the Mood-Behavior rounds the intent of a GDR is discussed. The multidisciplinary team such as nursing, therapy, and the Activities staff is involved during the rounds. They try to get residents off psychotropic medications. Medical Director #30 indicated residents who have Schizophrenia, Huntington's Disease, and Tourette's Syndrome, a GDR is not indicated and Resident #21 had a history of Schizophrenia. On 07/10/24 at 1:15 pm the surveyor reviewed Resident #21 EMR (electronic medical record) which revealed the resident did not have a history of Schizophrenia, but the resident did have a history of Dementia. Further review of the EMR revealed the resident was prescribed Quetiapine Fumarate 25 mg PO (by mouth) BID (two times a day). The medication was ordered on 04/18/22. Also, Resident #21 was ordered Quetiapine Fumarate 25 mg PO QD (every day) at 9:00 pm and Quetiapine Fumarate 50 mg PO QD at 9:00 pm. The start date for both medications is 04/26/23. The surveyor reviewed the progress notes and there was not documentation to verify a GDR was attempted. On 07/12/24 at 10:14 am the surveyor received a copy of Resident #21's behavioral report. The last documented behavior occurred on 01/08/24 at 11:13 pm. According to the note written by the nurse, the resident was resistive to care and medication administration. The staff had difficulty getting the resident to go to bed but was persuaded to do so. Review of Resident #21's EMR revealed the resident was not being monitored for extrapyramidal side effect related to psychotropic medication administration. On 07/12/24 at 2:45 pm during a telephone interview with Certified Registered Nurse Practitioner (CRNP) #47 they verbalized Resident #21 was admitted from a state hospital on a higher dose of Quetiapine; shortly after the resident was admitted the medication was discontinued. Resident #21 has Dementia with a lot of behaviors and physical aggression. Within the last month the resident displayed behaviors such as cursing, hollering and being belligerent. Sometimes they grab people or push them away. When asked about behavioral monitoring CRNP #47 verbalized behavioral monitoring is a nursing question. When asked about a GDR being done, CRNP #47 verbalized providing documentation the previous day that a GDR was done. The surveyor made CRNP #47 aware the documentation did not have a name of a medication, the dose, or any information to verify a GDR was attempted. CRNP #47 did not know when Resident #21 had a GDR; they believe it was last September. A GDR is done annually; twice in the first year, three months part and annually. On 07/12/24 at 3:06 pm during an interview with Medical Director #30 the surveyor reported after reviewing Resident #21's diagnoses, the resident did not have a history of Schizophrenia. Medical Director #30 verbalized reviewing the resident's medical diagnoses and agreed the resident did not have a history of Schizophrenia. Medical Director #30 verbalized the resident's medication regimen was changed once in 2022 and twice in 2023 and that they try to make sure the lowest possible dose of medication is given. Once they get them down to a certain point and behaviors occur, they must stop a GDR. Medical Director #30 was made aware the GDR documentation the surveyor received did not include a name of a medication, a dose, or any changes indicating a dose reduction of a medication occurred. There was not sufficient documentation to verify a GDR was done
CONCERN (D)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate was less than 5 percent. This was evident for 2 (...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate was less than 5 percent. This was evident for 2 (#28, #42) of 4 residents observed with 32 medication administration opportunities which resulted in an error rate of 31.25% by 2 (#55, #58) of 4 staff observed. The findings include: On 7/11/24 at 8:45 AM the surveyor walked up, introduced self, and advised that they wanted to observe med (medication) pass. Registered Nurse (RN) #55 stated she just came from administering morning medications to Resident #28 who complained of 7/10 throat pain and wanted to see if he/she has a PRN (as needed) pain medication ordered. Upon scrolling through the electronic health record (EHR) she then stated, he/she does have an order for PRN acetaminophen 500mg (milligrams), 2 tablets. RN #55 dispensed the medication and at 8:47 AM entered Resident #28's room and administered the medication. On 7/11/24 at 9:20 AM, review of Resident #28's medical record revealed an order for Good Sense Pain Relief Extra Strength 500 MG Tablet, Medication Order, 500 MG, Oral, Tablet, Analgesic/Anti-Inflammatory/Migraine/Gout Agents/Anesthetics, ANALGESICS - NonNarcotic. 2 Tablet by mouth As Needed Every Eight Hours for pain 1-6/10. 55 mins Effectiveness. On 7/11/24 at 9:35 AM in an interview with RN #55 when asked about the asked the indication for the acetaminophen, she pulled up the order in the EHR and stated the indication is for pain 1-6/10. The surveyor asked what pain score the resident reported to her and the nurse stated 7. During the interview, when asked if as the order is written she should have administered the acetaminophen, RN #55 stated no. RN #55 failed to follow physician's orders. The Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) was notified of the concerns on 7/11/24 at 9:54 AM. During a second medication administration observation that took place on 7/11/24 at 9:27 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #58 administered amlodipine 5mg, carvedilol 25mg, clobazam 10mg, modafinil 200mg, lacosamide 20mL (milliliters), keppra 15mL, prednisone 10mg, and lansoprazole 10mL to Resident #42. Review of Resident #42's medical record on 7/11/24 at 9:28 AM revealed that all the above medications were ordered and scheduled to be administered Every day at 8:00 AM. On 7/11/24 at 9:32 AM, in an interview with LPN #58 when asked the standard of practice for administering a medication on time, she stated it is that you administer medications up to 1 hour before or 1 hour after the scheduled time. During the interview, LPN #58 confirmed the medications were late and stated we can write a note in the MAR (medication administration record) why it [medication] was late. LPN #58 administered the medications at 9:27 AM which was 1 hour and 27 minutes after the prescribed time. On 7/11/24 at 9:54 AM, review of the facility's Medication Management Policy; Chronic Hospital and CCF Units revealed, Medications are administered to patients/residents by qualified personnel in compliance with federal and state laws and standards of professional practice. Furthermore, in the Medication Error Management Definitions section of the policy it stated, Medication Error- a discrepancy between what the physician ordered and what was reported to occur; types of errors include omissions, extra doses, wrong doses, unauthorized drugs, wrong drug form, wrong rate, wrong time, wrong administration technique, transcription. The administrative team was made aware of the findings at the time of survey exit on 7/12/24 at 4:45 PM.
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 record review and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to don appropriate personal...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to don appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) when transferring a resident. This was evident for 1 (#4) of 21 residents reviewed during the survey. The findings include: On 7/9/24 at 9:20AM in an interview with Unit Manager (UM) #28, when asked about the Enhanced Barrier Precaution (EBP) signage (with 9B [Room # for Resident #4] written on it in black marker) she stated it is not for a current infection, but for staff to be aware of a history of infection. Furthermore, she stated, I believe [s/he] has a history of MRSA (methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus). During the interview, she stated yes, there is different signage for a resident on transmission based precautions (TBP) versus EBP. The surveyor made UM #28 aware that the facility matrix provided to the survey team by Staff #3 yesterday (7/8/24 at 1:06 PM) had an X for Resident #4 under TBP. UM #28 asked, Can I look that up? and pulled up the electronic health record (EHR). She then stated, the order is in as EBP and she could ask the Director of Nursing (DON) about that because they may have made an error. During the interview she stated, she could call the Infection Control Nurse (ICN) #41 which she did. After talking to ICN #41, UM #28 stated, [Resident #4] has no active infection. During the interview, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) approached UM #28's office at 9:26 AM. UM #28 explained the situation and the ADON stated, it [facility matrix] was brought down to you all [survey team] quickly and there are errors. She further stated, I looked at it yesterday and saw some mistakes. In addition, the ADON stated she usually likes to look it over but was busy and that it [facility matrix] said we have an IV [Intravenous] and that is not true anymore. The ADON stated, I am going to get you an updated copy. Review of Resident #4's medical record on 7/9/24 at 10:04 AM revealed the resident was ordered, Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) Treatment Order Precautions and Directions: Every eight hours Every day at Day Shift 7:00am-2:59pm, Evening Shift 3:00pm-10:59pm, Night Shift 11:00pm-06:59am. EBPs are indicated during high-contact resident care activities including; dressing, bathing, showering; transferring; providing hygiene; changing linens, changing briefs or assisting with toileting; device care e.g. indwelling catheters of any type; wound care requiring a dressing. EBP signage instructs staff on what must be done (hand hygiene, gowns, gloves) and when. On 7/9/24 at 10:12 AM UM #28 was observed performing hand hygiene and entering Resident #4's room to assist Geriatric Nursing Assistant (GNA) #35, transfer the resident to his/her wheelchair. Neither staff member were observed donning a gown. On 7/9/24 at 10:20 AM in an interview with UM #28 when asked what they were doing in Resident #4's room she stated, transferring the resident with a [NAME] lift because you must have 2 people. When asked if she had shared that the resident is ordered EBP she stated yes, and you caught that. I did not have a gown on. During the interview when asked what personal protective equipment (PPE) do EBP orders and signage state providers and staff must don when transferring, UM #28 stated, I had my gloves on and should have had a yellow gown on too. On 7/9/24 at 10:27 AM in an interview with GNA #35 when asked what she was doing in Resident #4's room she stated she washed him/her up, provided ADL (activities of daily living) care to get him/her ready for the day, and transferred the resident from the bed to his/her wheelchair and that requires 2 people. When asked what PPE staff must wear when transferring residents who are ordered EBP, GNA #35 stated, I do not know what that means. The surveyor and GNA #35 walked around the corner to the resident's room. The surveyor pointed out the EBP signage with his/her room/bed, 9B, written on the sign and GNA #35 stated she thought he was cleared by now. UM #28 (whose office is located directly next to Resident #4's room) interjected and stated no, remember he/she has a history, so we must wear a gown and gloves to protect ourselves and other residents. UM #28 stated that she did not wear one [gown] either and to make sure to tell everyone [staff] up front too. When GNA #35 was asked if she was wearing a yellow gown when transferring Resident #4, she stated no.
Sept 2019 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, staff interview and medical record review, it was determined the facility failed to provide a dignified dining experience for two residents that needed assistance with eating lun...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview and medical record review, it was determined the facility failed to provide a dignified dining experience for two residents that needed assistance with eating lunch. This was evident for 2 residents (Residents #18, #26) observed during the lunch meal on the initial tour of the facility. The findings include: 1. Observation of the lunch meal service on the second floor on 9/3/19 at 12:40 PM revealed Resident #18 sitting at a table with the lunch meal tray sitting beside him/her and no nursing staff were assisting Resident #18 with the lunch meal. In an interview with the facility Charge Nurse #1 on 9/4/19 at 12:26 PM, Charge Nurse #1 stated that Resident #18 is totally dependent upon staff for all aspects of his/her care and requires staff to feed him/her all meals. Reviews of Resident #18's medical record revealed a nutritional care plan that included a nursing approach that instructed the nursing staff to feed Resident #18 all of his/her meals. 2. Resident #26 was seated at a different table and observed with a meal tray seated in front of him/her. Resident #26's meal tray had not been prepared, uncovered and set up, to allow Resident #26 to start the meal. In a follow up interview with Charge Nurse #1 on 9/4/19 at 12:26 PM, Charge Nurse #1 also stated that Resident #26 requires assistance to set up his/her meals and also requires the nursing staff to help Resident #26 with eating due to Resident #26's progressive hand weakness. Charge Nurse #1 stated that Resident #26 had some weight loss earlier in the year and the nursing staff updated Resident #26's care plan to assist with Resident #26's meal intake. Review of Resident #26's medical record revealed a care plan with a nursing approach that instructed the nursing staff to help with tray set up and supervision/assistance to keep utensils in proper direction.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0561 (Tag F0561)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to promote Resident (#8's) self-determination. This was evident for 1 of 27 residents selected for review of s...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to promote Resident (#8's) self-determination. This was evident for 1 of 27 residents selected for review of self-determination during the survey process. The findings include: Medical record review for Resident #8 revealed on 3/11/19 at 1:25 PM, the resident, in collaboration with the physician completed the MOLST form. The MOLST is an acronym for Medical Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment. The MOLST is a communication process designed to improve the quality of care of residents. MOLST orders are completed at the end of a thorough conversation or series of conversations between the resident (or the Health Care Agent or Surrogate if the resident is unable to make complex MOLST decisions) and their physician or nurse practitioner. The MOLST Program is an initiative to facilitate end-of-life medical decision-making. A MOLST form is different than a health care proxy. A health care proxy appoints a person called a health care agent to make medical decisions on someone's behalf if they are unable to make such decisions. Technically, a health care proxy is considered a legal document, whereas a MOLST form is considered a medical document. And a MOLST form must be signed both by a patient and a clinician. Because of these differences, it can be advisable to both execute a MOLST form and to appoint a health care agent. Further record record review revealed on 3/11/19 at 2:37 PM the physician ordered that Resident #8 was the primary decision maker for self. On 3/13/19 the facility staff obtained consent for: authorization for treatment and consent for the resident to participate in a student learning experience; however, the facility staff obtained that consent from the resident's sister. Interview with the Nursing Home Administrator and Director of Nursing on 9/5/19 at 10:00 AM revealed that Resident #8 does not always respond to questions when asked, may only shake head yes or no and cognition of Resident #8 varies at times. Further interview with the Nursing Home Administrator and Director of Nursing on 9/5/19 at 10:00 AM revealed Resident #8's sister is involved in making decisions related to care for Resident #8; however, the facility staff failed to determine that Resident #8 in not able to make medical decisions for self prior to accepting decisions from Resident #8's sister. Record review revealed the facility staff assessed the resident on 3/18/19 and documented the resident's cognition and BIMS was 12. Cognition is the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses. The BIMS stands for Brief Interview for Mental Status. The BIMS test is used to get a quick snapshot of how well the resident is functioning cognitively at the moment. It is a required screening tool used in nursing homes to assess cognition. Because the BIMS is given every quarter, the scores can help measure if you're improving, remaining the same, or declining in cognitive ability. The numeric value can be interpreted as follows: 13 to 15 points: intact cognition, 8 to 12 points: moderately impaired cognition and 0-7 points: severely impaired cognition. Interview with the Director of Nursing on 9/5/19 at 12:00 PM confirmed the facility staff failed to promote self-determination for Resident #8 by failing to obtain for the resident's sister to make medical decisions for Resident #8.
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on surveyor observation, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike env...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on surveyor observation, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment. This deficient practice has the potential to affect residents. The findings include: On 9/3/2019 at 12:27 PM during initial observations, the wall behind room [ROOM NUMBER] bed C in [NAME] Harbor was observed in disrepair with exposed drywall. At 12:43 PM the [NAME] Harbor shower room across from room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed with a pink substance and black dirt/debris on the shower floor. Further observation of the shower room revealed a large piece of plywood secured to the wall to cover a hole. The plywood was untreated and the porous surface was not easily cleanable. At 12:56 PM Elevator 3 was observed with dust, debris and a dead spider present in the square grate on the ceiling. The Administrator and Director of Nursing were made aware of these findings on 9/5/2019 during the exit conference.
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 observation, medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a pressure sensory alarm was functioning for a resident with a history of falls. This w...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a pressure sensory alarm was functioning for a resident with a history of falls. This was evident for 1 (Resident's #26) of 2 residents reviewed for accidents during an annual recertification survey. The findings include: During a review of Resident #26's medical record on 9/4/19, revealed Resident #26 had a fall without injury on 08/27/19 at 11:30 AM. In an interview with Charge Nurse #1 and LPN #1 on 9/4/19 at 12:23 PM, Charge Nurse #1 stated that Resident #26 has cognitive impairment to the point s/he thinks they can still perform daily tasks without assistance. Charge Nurse #1 stated Resident #26 still thinks s/he can use the toilet without assistance and will not alert staff or wait for staff to assist with the toileting. LPN #1 stated that on 8/27/19, Resident #26 had taken himself/herself to the toilet and fell in front of the toilet. LPN #1 stated the wheel chair pressure alarm was not functioning at the time of the fall. A review of Resident #26's medical record revealed a fall prevention care plan that instructs the nursing staff to apply a pressure alarm when Resident #26 is in bed or up in the wheelchair. A pressure alarm will alert staff that a resident is attempting to get up from the bed or their wheel chair without assistance. In a follow up interview with the facility Director of Nurses (DON) on 9/4/19 at 1:26 PM, the DON confirmed that Resident #26's wheel chair pressure alarm was not functioning on 8/27/19 at the time of Resident #26's fall. The DON confirmed Resident #26's fall prevention care plan indicates the wheel chair pressure alarm should have been engaged when Resident #26 is using his/her wheel chair.
Jul 2018 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0565 (Tag F0565)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, resident and staff interviews it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide a private space to support residents right to privacy while conducting their monthly res...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, resident and staff interviews it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide a private space to support residents right to privacy while conducting their monthly resident council meeting. The findings include: This surveyor was invited to attend the Resident Council meeting held on 7/10/18 from 2:00 PM to 2:50 PM. The Social Worker who was also invited assisted the Resident Council President to conduct the meeting. During the meeting 2 construction contractors, a business office contractor and a staff member from 2 North were observed entering the activities room without knocking or receiving permission to enter. The social worker had posted a sign on the door indicating that a resident council meeting was in progress and requested privacy. In an interview with the Social Worker staff #2 on 7/11/18 at 8:45 AM she was made aware of this concern and confirmed that the interruptions did occur though she makes every effort to post the sign and keep the door closed. In an interview with Resident #36 and Resident #29 on 7/11/18 confirmed that during most meetings there are usually at least 1 or 2 people who walk through the room. In an interview with the Administrator on 7/11/18 at 8:55 AM she was made aware of this concern and said she would speak to the residents about changing the meeting location to better ensure privacy.
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 review of medical record and staff interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to develop a comprehensive care plan addressing diagnoses for Residents (#29). This was evident for 1...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of medical record and staff interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to develop a comprehensive care plan addressing diagnoses for Residents (#29). This was evident for 1 of 25 residents selected for review during the survey process. The findings include: A care plan is an outline of nursing care showing all the resident's needs and the ways of meeting the needs. Care plans provide direction for individualized care of the resident. A care plan flows from each resident's unique list of diagnoses and should be organized by the individual's specific needs. It is a dynamic document initiated at admission and subject to continuous reassessment and change by the nursing staff caring for the resident. The care plan typically includes nursing and medical diagnoses, nursing interventions, and outcomes to ensure consistency of care. Medical record review for Resident #29 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that include, but not limited to: End Stage Kidney Disease; hyperlipidemia (an abnormally high concentration of fats or lipids in the blood); Human Immunodeficiency Virus; Epilepsy (seizures); History of a Cardiovascular Accident (stroke). Further record review revealed a right side sacral wound (the sacrum is the area at the base of the spine) which was first identified on 5/5/18 with a wound care order written on the same date. Wound care orders were revised on 5/15/18, 6/7/18 and 6/21/18. Review of the Care Plans for Resident #29 revealed that the facility staff failed to initiate a care plan for an actual wound and the care and management of the sacral wound. In an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 7/11/18 at 10:45 AM she was made aware of this concern, at this time surveyor asked if there were any additional care plans available regarding the sacral wound and treatment. The DON said that she would have the wound nurse come to address this concern. Interview with Registered Nurse staff #3 at 10:55 AM confirmed that there was no care plan established for the care and treatment of the sacral wound.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation and staff interview it was determined that the facility nursing staff failed to secure medications on one of two nursing units. The findings include: On 7/9/18 at 11:40 AM this s...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and staff interview it was determined that the facility nursing staff failed to secure medications on one of two nursing units. The findings include: On 7/9/18 at 11:40 AM this surveyor observed an unattended medication cart on the North 3 nursing unit. The medication cart was next to the wall just before the first resident room on the left. There was a three-sided container with three medication bottles, three syringes, and several lancets (which are used to draw blood) inside. The medication bottles contained vials of insulin for residents #29, #30, and #31. At 11:43 AM Staff #1 came out of the room and went to the medication cart. This surveyor interviewed Staff #1 and informed her of the findings. She secured the medications in response to the findings. The Administrator was informed of the findings on 7/11/18 at 8:38 AM.
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
  • • 30% turnover. Below Maryland's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • 15 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • $41,265 in fines. Higher than 94% of Maryland facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is Deer'S Head Center's CMS Rating?

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

How is Deer'S Head Center Staffed?

CMS rates DEER'S HEAD CENTER's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 30%, compared to the Maryland average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Deer'S Head Center?

State health inspectors documented 15 deficiencies at DEER'S HEAD CENTER during 2018 to 2024. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 14 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Deer'S Head Center?

DEER'S HEAD CENTER is owned by a government entity. Government-operated facilities are typically run by state, county, or municipal agencies. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 80 certified beds and approximately 31 residents (about 39% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in SALISBURY, Maryland.

How Does Deer'S Head Center Compare to Other Maryland Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Maryland, DEER'S HEAD CENTER's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (30%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (5 stars) is much above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Deer'S Head Center?

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

Is Deer'S Head Center Safe?

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

Do Nurses at Deer'S Head Center Stick Around?

DEER'S HEAD CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 30%, which is about average for Maryland nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Deer'S Head Center Ever Fined?

DEER'S HEAD CENTER has been fined $41,265 across 1 penalty action. The Maryland average is $33,492. 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 Deer'S Head Center on Any Federal Watch List?

DEER'S HEAD 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.