VANTAGE AT HAMPDEN LLC

34 MAIN STREET, HAMPDEN, MA 01036 (413) 566-5511
For profit - Limited Liability company 100 Beds VANTAGE CARE Data: November 2025 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
44/100
#190 of 338 in MA
Last Inspection: February 2025

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

Overview

Vantage at Hampden LLC has a Trust Grade of D, which means it is below average and has some concerning issues. It ranks #190 out of 338 facilities in Massachusetts, placing it in the bottom half, and #16 out of 25 in Hampden County, indicating that there are better options nearby. The facility's trend is stable, with two issues noted both in 2024 and 2025, but it has faced some critical incidents, such as failing to provide adequate supervision for a quadriplegic resident, leading to potential injuries. Staffing is rated average with a turnover rate of 39%, which is good compared to the state average, but the facility has less RN coverage than 95% of Massachusetts facilities, raising concerns about the quality of care. Additionally, the facility has had fines amounting to $16,801, which is average for the state; however, families should be aware of the specific incidents that have occurred, including missed assessments and inadequate dining environments for residents.

Trust Score
D
44/100
In Massachusetts
#190/338
Bottom 44%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Holding Steady
2 → 2 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
39% turnover. Near Massachusetts's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
$16,801 in fines. Lower than most Massachusetts facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 18 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Massachusetts. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
○ Average
9 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 2 issues
2025: 2 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (39%)

    9 points below Massachusetts average of 48%

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

3-Star Overall Rating

Near Massachusetts average (2.9)

Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities

Staff Turnover: 39%

Near Massachusetts avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $16,801

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Chain: VANTAGE CARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 9 deficiencies on record

2 life-threatening
Feb 2025 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0604 (Tag F0604)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that one Resident (#37) out of a total sample of 19 residents, was free from physical restraints. Specifically, the f...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that one Resident (#37) out of a total sample of 19 residents, was free from physical restraints. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure that Resident #37 was assessed for the use of a rectangular cushion, which was positioned on his/her right side of the bed under the fitted sheet, and being used to prevent the Resident from putting his/her feet over the side of the bed. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Use of Restraints, dated 2001, indicated restraints shall only be used for the safety and well-being of the resident (s) and only after other alternatives have been tried unsuccessfully. The policy also included the following: -restraints shall only be used to treat the resident's medical symptom (s) and never for discipline or staff convenience, or for the prevention of falls -when the use of a restraint is indicated, the least restrictive alternative will be used for the least amount of time necessary, and the ongoing re-evaluation for the need for restraints will be documented. -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 freedom of movement or restricts normal access to one's body. -if the resident cannot remove a device in the same manner in which the staff applied it given the resident's physical condition, and this restricts his/her typical ability to change position or place, that device is considered a restraint. -prior to placing a resident in restraints, there shall be a pre-restraining assessment and review to determine the need for restraints. The assessment shall be used to determine possible underlying causes of the problematic medical symptom and to determine if there are less restrictive interventions that may improve the symptoms. -restraints should only be used upon the written order of a physician and after obtaining consent from the resident and/or representative . Resident #37 was admitted to the facility in July 2019 with diagnoses including Dementia with behavioral disturbance, lymphedema, abnormal gait and mobility and need for assistance with personal care. Review of the Falls Care Plan, initiated 1/20/20, included the following interventions: -Resident will attempt to self transfer, initiated 5/15/23 -keep bed in lowest position with brakes locked, initiated 1/20/20 -keep call light and frequently used items within reach at all times, initiated 1/20/20 -non-skid socks on at all times, initiated 4/10/20 -pressure bed alarm while in bed, initiated 10/8/20 Review of Resident #37's Restraint Assessment, last completed on 2/17/21, indicated: -no restraints were in use. -bilateral side rails were in place for transfers and positioning. Review of the Side Rails Care Plan, initiated 3/20/22, indicated the Resident utilized 1/4 side rails for independent bed mobility enablers to feel safe and secure, and included the following intervention: -at no time should full side rails be used that restrict the Resident from being able to get in/out of bed, initiated 3/20/22 Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 1/14/25, indicated Resident #37: -had severe cognitive impairment as evidenced by a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 2 out of 15 -utilized a wheelchair -required substantial/maximum assistance of staff with activities of daily living (ADLs), repositioning and transfers -utilized a bed alarm daily -did not utilize restraints Review of the Nursing Evaluation, dated 1/17/25, indicated Resident #37: -was not independently mobile -had cognitive impairment -was a high risk for falls due to score of 12 (high risk - score of greater than or equal to 10) -1/4 side rails have been requested for use when the Resident was in bed -had periods of agitation and confusion and no alternatives to side rails have been tried -was likely to roll, slip or slide from bed Review of the February 2025 Physician's orders indicated the following: -pressure bed alarm at hour of sleep (HS) every evening shift, initiated 10/8/20 -two 1/4 side rails when in bed to assist with positioning and transfers, initiated 3/15/22 -elevate lower extremity when in bed every day and evening shift, initiated 5/5/23 -remove ace wraps from bilateral lower extremities at HS every night, initiated 10/30/24 -TEDS (Thrombo-embolic deterrent stockings) stockings or ace wraps after morning care every day for edema, initiated 11/21/24 Review of the Resident #37's current Certified Nurses Aide (CNA) Care Card (instructions for specific care) indicated the following under safety: -will attempt to self transfer -non-skid socks on at all times -pressure bed alarm while in bed On 2/4/25 at 8:51 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #37 lying upright in bed during the breakfast meal. The surveyor observed the Resident's left side of the bed was against the wall and a bolster was on the Resident's entire right side. The surveyor observed that bilateral 1/4 side rails were positioned on both sides of the bed and a bed alarm was on the bedside table. On 2/5/25 at 9:16 A.M., the surveyor observed the following: -Resident #37 was dressed, and uncovered while lying in bed. -Bilateral 1/4 side rails were in place. -the Resident's left side of the bed was flush against the wall. -a bolster mattress (mattress with raised edges on the upper and lower sections. The middle of the mattress is flat to allow access out the bed) was in place. -a rectangular cushion was observed under the fitted sheet on the Resident's right side of the bed where the flat part of the mattress was. At this time, Unit Manager (UM) #1 entered the Resident's room, and the surveyor asked about the rectangular cushion positioned under the fitted sheet on the right side of the Resident's bed. UM #1 said she thought the rectangular cushion was probably under the fitted sheet so that the Resident was made aware of bed boundaries but she was not sure. During an interview on 2/5/25 at 9:28 A.M., CNA #1, who regularly worked with Resident #37, said the Resident required assistance from staff to get in and out of bed. CNA #1 said the Resident no longer attempted to get out of bed anymore, but liked to hang his/her feet/legs over the edge of the bed. CNA #1 said Resident #37 had issues with edema (swelling), so the rectangular cushion was placed under the fitted sheet to prevent the Resident from putting his/her legs over the edge of the bed. CNA #1 said they had tried to use pillows on the bed, but the Resident kicks the pillows off the bed. On 2/7/25 at 8:43 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #37's left side of the bed was against the wall, bilateral 1/4 side rails were in the up position and a bolster mattress was in place. The surveyor further observed a rectangular cushion was on the floor between the Resident's right side of the bed and the bedside table. The Resident was not in the room at the time. Resident #37 was observed up, dressed and in the common area seated in a wheelchair. During a follow-up interview on 2/7/25 at 9:22 A.M., CNA #1 said she worked the 7:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. shift and from 3:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M. CNA #1 said when she worked the evening shift and assists Resident #37 to bed, she would put the rectangular cushion under the fitted sheet on the Resident's right side of the bed in the middle between the raised edges of the mattress. CNA #1 said when the rectangular cushion was in place, the Resident was unable to put his/her legs over the edge of the bed. CNA #1 said the Resident used to attempt to get out of bed without assistance, so he/she had a bed alarm, but no longer attempted to get out of bed. CNA #1 said the rectangular cushion was put into place about a month ago to prevent the Resident from putting his/her legs over the side of the bed. CNA #1 said it was discussed by the CNAs and relayed to the Nurses who were also in agreement. On 2/7/25 at 9:45 A.M., the surveyor and UM #1 observed the Resident's room and UM #1 said she was unaware that the rectangular cushion was being used for Resident #37 until it was observed on 2/5/25. UM #1 said if the rectangular cushion was put under the fitted sheet to prevent the Resident from putting his/her feet/legs over the side of the bed, it would be considered a restraint because the Resident should be able to move his/her legs at will. UM #1 said the Nurses have been applying wraps to the Resident's lower legs to assist in managing his/her edema, and that the Resident would not be able to remove the rectangular cushion because it was positioned under the fitted sheet. UM #1 said that if the rectangular cushion was an intervention that was going to be used, an assessment would need to be completed to determine if it was necessary and if it could be considered a potential restraint. UM #1 said if the rectangular cushion was assessed and indicated for use, the Resident's care plan would need to include this intervention. Review of the Resident's clinical record indicated no documented evidence for the use of the rectangular cushion, bolster mattress or the Resident's bed placement against the wall. During an interview on 2/7/25 at 10:31 A.M., with UM #1, Assistant Director of Nurses (ADON) and the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON said the Resident's bolster mattress has a flattened surface in the middle to allow movement/access in and out of bed. The DON said if the rectangular cushion was placed under the Resident's fitted sheet (where the flattened mattress surface was), it would prevent the Resident's body from moving in and out of bed. The DON said if the rectangular cushion was going to be used as an intervention, it would need to be assessed and care planned. The DON said other interventions, like body pillows placed on top of the fitted sheet, that could be removed easily by the Resident could have been trialed first. The DON further said that a recent fall event had occurred in the facility and that the facility staff have been super aware in ensuring interventions were in place to prevent further resident falls, and that staff may be initiating interventions without communicating with management's awareness. The DON said education needed to be provided to the staff about devices that are going to be utilized for residents so that these devices can be assessed and if other options were more appropriate.
CONCERN (E)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a homelike environment for resident dining on three units (South Unit, North Unit and East Unit) of three units observed. Specifical...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a homelike environment for resident dining on three units (South Unit, North Unit and East Unit) of three units observed. Specifically, the facility failed to: -provide meals and/or meal assistance timely to Residents (#23, #59, #3, and #11), who were seated with other residents during meals. -remove resident meals off the meal trays before serving meals during communal dining. Findings include: On 2/4/25 from 8:10 A.M. through 8:48 A.M., the surveyors observed the following: a. On the South Unit: -8:10 A.M., the meal cart arrived and breakfast meal trays were provided to residents seated in the day room. Resident #23 was seated at a table in the day room with another resident who was provided with his/her breakfast meal. Resident #23 was awake, dressed and seated in a modified wheelchair at the time and was not provided with a breakfast tray. -8:30 A.M., Resident #23 was provided with his/her breakfast meal tray (20 minutes after another resident seated at the same table). Staff were observed to sit beside Resident #23 and assist him/her with the breakfast meal. The resident who was seated at the same table with Resident #23 had finished the breakfast meal at this time. -All breakfast meals provided to residents in the day room were served on meal trays. b. On the North Unit: -Approximately 8:35 A.M., numerous residents were observed in the Lounge area and the day room across from the Lounge area. -The breakfast meals for the residents in the Lounge area and the day room were served on meal trays. c. On the East Unit: -8:27 A.M., the first meal cart arrived on the unit. Seven residents were observed in the day room. One of the seven residents received their breakfast meal. Two other residents were observed seated at the same table as the served resident and were not provided with their meals at the time. -8:35 A.M., the second meal cart arrived on the unit. -8:36 A.M. through 8:38 A.M., meals were provided to the two residents who were seated next to the resident previously served his/her meal and was eating (9 and 11 minutes later respectively) -8:48 A.M., all breakfast meals were provided to the remaining residents in the day room. -All of the breakfast meals provided to the residents in the day room were served on meal trays. On 2/5/25 from 12:01 P.M. through 12:18 P.M., the surveyors observed the following: a. On the South Unit: -12:01 P.M., 14 residents were observed in the day room and four residents were seated at a small table in the alcove near the nursing station. Two of the four residents seated at the dining table in the alcove had their lunch meals and were being assisted by staff while the other two residents seated at the table did not have their meals. One of the 14 residents in the day room was observed without a meal and was seated among other residents who were eating and/or being assisted by staff. During an interview at 12:06 P.M., Nurse #2 said the residents without a lunch tray need assistance from staff to eat. Nurse #2 said the residents' lunch trays are on the meal cart at this time. -12:10 P.M., (9 minutes later), the three residents (two residents in the alcove area and one resident in the day room) previously observed without their lunch meals were provided assistance with their lunch meal. -All of the lunch meals provided to the residents in the day room and alcove area were served on meal trays. b. On the North Unit: -12:17 P.M., ten residents were seated in the Lounge area at tables or with tray tables positioned in front of them. -12:18 P.M., seven residents were observed in the day room. Resident #59 and Resident #3 were seated at a table across from each other. Resident #11 was seated next to the table in a modified wheelchair. Resident #59 was provided with his/her lunch tray and was being assisted by a Certified Nurses Aide (CNA). Resident #3 had a covered lunch tray in front of him/her and was not being assisted. Resident #11 did not have a lunch meal provided at the time. -12:20 P.M., Resident #11 was observed to call out Nurse give me mine. When the surveyor asked Resident #11 what he/she was looking for, the CNA who was assisting Resident #59 said Resident #11 was looking for his/her lunch meal. -12:23 P.M., Resident #11 was provided his/her lunch tray and was assisted by a CNA. Resident #3's covered lunch tray remained positioned in front of him/her, and he/she was observed to be looking around. -12:29 P.M. (11 minutes later), Resident #3 was assisted with his/her lunch meal. -All of the lunch meals provided to the residents in the Lounge area and the day room were served on meal trays. c. On the East Unit: - 12:18 P.M., the residents seated in the day room for lunch were served on meal trays. On 2/7/25 from 7:51 A.M. through 8:34 A.M. the surveyors observed the following: a. On the South Unit: -7:51 A.M., the first meal cart arrived on the unit. Numerous residents were observed in the day room seated at tables or in chairs/wheelchairs with tray tables positioned in front of them. Several residents were also observed at the table in the alcove near the nursing station. -8:19 A.M., all residents were provided their breakfast meals and were eating or being assisted by staff. -All of the breakfast meals provided to residents in the day room and alcove area were served on meal trays. b. On the North Unit: -7:54 A.M., the first meal cart arrived on the unit. Three residents were observed in the day room and eight residents were observed in the Lounge area. Staff were observed starting to distribute the breakfast meals. -8:07 A.M., the second meal cart arrived to the unit. -8:16 A.M., Resident #59 was seated with Resident #3 at a table in the day room. Resident #11 was positioned next to the table in a modified wheelchair. Resident #59 was provided with a covered meal tray at the time. -8:22 A.M., Resident #11 was provided with a covered breakfast tray on an overbed table which was positioned behind him/her. Resident #59 remained seated with the covered breakfast tray positioned in front of him/her. Resident #3 did not have a meal, was awake and observed to be looking around the room. -8:25 A.M., Resident #11 was provided assistance with his/her breakfast meal. -8:32 A.M., Resident #59 was provided assistance with his/her breakfast meal (16 minutes after being provided the breakfast tray). Resident #3 remained without a meal. -8:34 A.M., Resident #3 was provided with his/her breakfast meal and was assisted by a CNA. -All of the breakfast meals provided to residents seated in the Lounge area and day room were served on meal trays. During an interview on 2/7/25 at 9:20 A.M., CNA #1 who worked regularly at the facility, said the resident meals have always been served on meal trays. During an interview on 2/7/25 at 9:52 A.M., Unit Manager (UM) #1 said the residents who eat in the communal areas on the North and South Units have always been served on meal trays. UM #1 said she was made aware of the concerns about some of the residents who were seated at tables without being provided assistance or without a meal and said this should not occur. UM #1 said a covered meal tray should not be provided to a resident until assistance could be provided. UM #1 further said serving meals on trays was not homelike for the residents and she could understand the concern. During an interview on 2/7/25 at 10:37 A.M., with UM #1, the Assistant Director of Nurses (ADON) and the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON said the residents who eat in the communal areas have been served on meal trays since she could remember. The DON said she was not sure why this was, and that she could understand why this was not homelike and could be a dignity concern. UM #1 said they have also started discussing having assigned seating for the tables so that residents who are able to converse and feed themselves can be seated together and those that need assistance from staff were provided with their meals and assistance at the same time.
Nov 2024 2 deficiencies 2 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on records reviewed and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who was a functional quadriplegic (co...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on records reviewed and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who was a functional quadriplegic (complete immobility due to severe disability or frailty from another medical condition without injury to the brain or spinal cord), was essentially non-verbal, unable to participate in his/her care, and was totally dependent on staff to meet all of his/her care needs, the Facility failed to ensure he/she was provided with nursing care and treatment that met professional standards of quality, when on [DATE], after Nurse #1 was notified by Nurse Aide (NA #1) that during care Resident #1 began to slide out of bed and she (NA #1) lowered him/her to the floor, although Nurse #1 said she assessed Resident #1 for the potential for injury prior to moving him/her off the floor, Nurse #1 was unable to say what she did to assess him/her. There were no nursing assessments and no progress note to support Nurse #1 assessed Resident #1 at all. Nurse #1 also never reported the incident to anyone. Over the next several days Resident #1 was noted to have visual signs of discomfort, he/she verbalized being in pain and at one point when moved by staff, he/she yelled out my neck, was noted to have bruising, swelling to his/her neck and his/her head was tilted to one side. On [DATE], Resident #1 was transferred to the Hospital Emergency Department (ED) and was diagnosed with multiple cervical spine fractures, that typically occur as a result of an impact injury, he/she was placed in an Aspen (rigid neck brace, used to support neck by limiting movement) collar, was admitted to Hospice services in the Hospital, and on [DATE], he/she died. Findings include: Standard of Practice Reference: Pursuant to Massachusetts General Law (M.G.L.), chapter 112, individuals are given the designation of Registered Nurse and Practical Nurse which includes the responsibility to provide nursing care. Pursuant to the Code of Massachusetts Regulations (CMR) 244, Rules and Regulations 3.02 and 3.04 define the responsibilities and function of a Registered Nurse and Practical Nurse, respectively. The regulations stipulate that both the Registered Nurse and Practical Nurse bear full responsibility for systematically assessing health status and recording the related health data. They also stipulate that both the Registered Nurse and Practical Nurse incorporate into the plan of care and implement prescribed medical regimens. The Rules and Regulations 9.03 define the Standards of Conduct for Nurses where it is stipulated that a nurse licensed by the Board shall engage in the practice of nursing in accordance with accepted standards of practice. Review of the Facility Policy, titled Falls- Clinical Protocol, dated 2017, indicated but was not limited to: - The staff will evaluate, and document falls that occur while the individual is in the facility; for example, when and where they happen, any observations of the events, etc. - Falls should be identified as witnessed or unwitnessed events. - For an individual who has fallen, staff will attempt to define possible causes within 24 hours of the fall. - Falls should be categorized as those that occur while trying to rise from sitting or lying to an upright position, those that occur while upright and attempting to ambulate, and other circumstances such as sliding out of a chair or rolling from a low bed to the floor. - Delayed complications such as late fractures and major bruising may occur hours or several days after a fall. Review of the Facility Policy, titled Accidents and Incidents - Investigating and Reporting, revised [DATE], indicated, but was not limited to: - All accidents or incidents involving residents, employees, visitors, vendors, etc., occurring on our premises shall be investigated and reported to the Administrator. - The Nurse Supervisor/Charge Nurse and/or Department Director or Supervisor shall promptly initiate and document investigation of the accident or incident. - The following data, as applicable, shall be included in the Report of Incident/Accident Form: - The date and time accident took place - The nature of injury/illness (e.g., bruise, fall, nausea, etc.). - The circumstances surrounding the accident or incident. - Where the accident or incident took place. - The name(s) of witnesses and their accounts of the accident or incident. - The injured person's account of the accident or incident. - The time the injured person's attending Physician was notified as well as the time the Physician responded and his/her instructions. - The date/time the injured person's family was notified and by whom. - The condition of the injured person, including his/her vital signs. - The disposition of the injured (i.e., transferred to hospital, put to bed .). - Any corrective action taken. - Follow-up information. - Other pertinent data as necessary and required. - The signature of the person completing the report. Resident #1 was admitted to the facility in [DATE], diagnoses included Dementia and Functional Quadriplegia (complete immobility due to severe disability or frailty from another medical condition without injury to the brain or spinal cord). Review of Resident #1's most recent Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated [DATE], indicated he/she was severely cognitively impaired, had unclear speech, was rarely/never understood and was totally dependent on staff for all Activities of Daily Living (ADLs). Review of Resident #1's ADL Care Plan, reviewed and renewed with his/her [DATE] MDS, indicated he/she was dependent on staff for care, that he/she required an assist of two for transfers and required one to two staff members to provide toileting/incontinence care needs. Review of the Report submitted by the Facility via the Health Care Facility Reporting System (HCFRS), dated as submitted [DATE], indicated that Resident #1 began exhibiting non-verbal signs of pain on [DATE], the pain was thought to be muscular in nature and was treated with Ibuprofen. However, on [DATE], Resident #1 continued to express non-verbal signs of pain, the provider was notified, X-rays were ordered, bruising was noted on the right side of Resident #1's neck and an internal investigation was conducted. The Report indicated that on the evening of [DATE], NA #1 lowered Resident #1's siderail, rolled him/her over to remove the mechanical lift sling from underneath him/her and left his/her bedside to go into the bathroom to wet washcloths [to provide incontinence care]. Shortly thereafter, Nurse Aide (NA) #1 observed Resident #1's legs/lower torso sliding over the side of the bed, she went back to his/her bedside, lowered him/her to the floor and called out to Nurse #1 for help. The Report indicated Nurse #1 assessed Resident #1, determined there were no visible injuries, and assisted NA #1 with transferring Resident #1 back to bed. The Report further indicated that the facility concluded upon re-enactment of the incident, that NA #1 left Resident #1 unattended in his/her bed lying on his/her right side, on the right-hand side of the mattress with the right siderail down, with the bed in a high (raised) position while she went into the bathroom to wet washcloths with warm water. The Report also indicated that it was determined that the bruising [to Resident #1's neck] was likely a result of Resident #1's neck coming into contact with the bed's lowered siderail while he/she was being lowered to the floor. The Report indicated the hospital determined that Resident #1 had sustained neck fractures. Review of the Emergency Department Notes, dated [DATE], indicated the following: - Patient has pretty significant elevated blood pressure mildly elevated temperature and some tachycardia (heart rate higher than normal), not on antihypertensives (medication used to treat high blood pressure), or any other medications other than occasional Motrin for perceived discomfort. - Computerized Tomography (CT scan, a diagnostic imaging procedure that uses a combination of X-rays and computer technology to produce images of the inside of the body) to be obtained of soft tissue of the neck and CT without contrast C-spine (cervical spine - area of the neck), to evaluate for fracture, abscess or hematoma. - Patient non-verbal, eyes open, bruise to right neck under right ear. Patient cries out in pain with palpation to swollen area and making noises like he/she wants to clear his/her throat. Facility staff reported this is his/her baseline to Emergency Medical Services, family states this is not his/her baseline. - Neurosurgery consulted, patient placed in cervical collar (device that supports the neck and limits its movement) for stability and pain control with Dilaudid (a potent opioid medication to control pain). Review of Resident #1's Hospital admission History and Physical, dated [DATE], indicated the following: - CT of cervical spine with unstable fractures through T7 vertebral bodies (referring to part of the seventh thoracic vertebra found in the middle of the chest between the seventh and eighth pair of ribs) extending through the lamina, facets, and spinous process. The fracture extends through the lateral masses of the C5, fracture involves all three columns of the spine. -CT of the soft tissue of the neck with nondisplaced transverse fracture of the C5 vertebral body (fracture to part of the C5 vertebra where the broken bone pieces have not moved out of alignment) extending through the posterior elements (the back side of the vertebra which includes the spinous process and lamina which affect the supporting ligaments and bony structures at the back of the spine) with slight kyphosis (forward bend in the spine) at the fracture site but no fragment displacement. Mild paraspinal hemorrhage and edema, no associated mass effect. Review of a National Institutes of Health (NIH) .gov article titled Cervical Spine Fractures Overview, last updated [DATE], indicated fractures of the cervical spine result from abnormal movement or a combination of movements including hyperflexion, hyperextension (injuries that occur when a joint is moved beyond its normal range of motion), rotation (moving from side to side too far), axial loading (applying force directly along the axis of a structure), and lateral bending (caused by excessive sideways bending) of the spinal column, and sub-axial spine (C3-C7) fractures are commonly seen with high impact accidents such as motor vehicle accidents. Further review of the NIH.gov article indicated three-column fractures extending through the anterior vertebral body all the way through to the posterior ligaments are highly unstable, and cervical spine fractures are high-risk injuries with the potential for devastating neurological sequelae. Review of Resident #1's Hospital Hospice Consultation Notes, dated [DATE], indicated the following: - Patient lying in bed pale, resting with eyes closed, and unresponsive to verbal or physical stimulation. Bruising and swelling noted to right side of neck with Aspen collar in place. Respiratory rate 12 breaths per minute with shallow, irregular breathing noted. - Patient requiring the following medications for symptom management: Fentanyl (a potent pain medication) 12 micrograms (mcg) patch to right arm, change every 72 hours, Hydromorphone 0.5 milligrams (mg) intravenous (through the vein) administered seven times and Glycopyrrolate (a medication used to alleviate excess oral secretions in terminal patients) 0.2 mg intravenous administered one time, Lorazepam (a medication used to alleviate anxiety and/or restlessness) 0.5 mg administered five times. - Symptoms unable to be managed in alternative setting as patient continues to require frequent Registered Nurse (RN) assessment and IV medication titration (adjustments) that would not be possible outside of an acute care environment. Death appears imminent and moving patient out of this environment would be contraindicated. During a telephone interview on [DATE] at 1:30 P.M., Family Member #1 said when she went to visit Resident #1 on Thursday, [DATE] she noticed there were several people in his/her room, and she heard Resident #1 yelling out like he/she was in pain. Family Member #1 said she noticed that Resident #1's head was tilted sideways so far that his/her left ear was touching his/her left shoulder. Family Member #1 said she saw that Resident #1 had a red and purple lump behind his/her right ear. Family Member #1 said she was unaware of any recent falls or injuries Resident #1 may have sustained that would have explained the injury. Family Member #1 said she called Resident #1's Guardian to inform her of the situation and she said the Guardian requested Resident #1 be sent to the hospital immediately. Family Member #1 said Resident #1 was dependent on nursing staff for all his/her care needs. Family Member #1 said Resident #1 was unable to move on his/her own [he/she was dead weight], would generally just lay where he/she was placed and to her knowledge had never fallen out of bed. Family Member #1 said she went to the hospital after Resident #1 was transferred, and was informed that Resident #1 had several fractures in his/her neck that caused bleeding, and due to his/her age and condition, he/she was not a surgical candidate. Family Member #1 said Resident #1 was provided comfort measures at the Hospital and died on [DATE]. During a telephone interview on [DATE] at 2:28 P.M., (which included a review of her Written Witness Statement, dated [DATE]), Nurse Aide (NA) #1 said on the evening of [DATE], after she and another Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) transferred Resident #1 into bed utilizing a Hoyer lift, the other CNA left the room, and she removed the hoyer sling out from underneath him/her. NA #1 said she positioned Resident #1 on his/her right side, [on the right-hand side of the bed per facility re-enactment] with his/her left leg crossed over the top of his/her right leg, and left Resident #1 in that position because she needed to provide incontinent care. NA #1 said she left Resident #1 on his/her side and proceeded to go into the bathroom [which did not provide a direct view of Resident #1] and began to fill a wash basin and wet some washcloths. NA #1 said at one point, she looked out the bathroom door and noticed that Resident #1 had started to roll towards the edge of the bed with his/her legs extending over the side of the bed. NA #1 said she immediately returned to Resident #1's bedside, removed her gloves, lowered the bed closer to the floor [because she left Resident #1's bed in a higher position to provide care] grabbed a nearby cushioned fall mat, pulled it towards Resident #1's bedside, wrapped her arms around Resident #1's upper body, held his/her torso against her chest and lowered him/her to the floor. NA #1 said after she lowered Resident #1 to the floor, she called out for help several times and when nobody came, she went to Resident #1's doorway, saw Nurse #1 at the medication cart and asked for assistance. NA #1 said Nurse #1 entered the room and asked her what happened. NA #1 said she heard Nurse #1 ask Resident #1, are you o.k.? NA #1 said Nurse #1 assisted her in using the Hoyer lift to transfer Resident #1 back to bed. During an interview on [DATE] at 2:58 P.M., (which included a review of her Written Witness Statement, dated [DATE]), Nurse #1 said on [DATE], while she was in the hallway at the medication cart, NA #1 came to Resident #1's doorway and asked for assistance. Nurse #1 said when she entered Resident #1's room, she saw Resident #1 lying face up on the floor next to his/her bed. Nurse #1 said she concluded he/she did not have any injuries, and she, along with NA #1, they transferred Resident #1 back to bed using a Hoyer lift. Nurse #1 said she asked NA #1 several times in several different ways what happened, and that NA #1 said Resident #1 was slipping off the bed, so she (NA #1) lowered Resident #1 to the floor, that Resident #1 did not fall, and he/she did not hit his/her head. Nurse #1 said this incident occurred around 8:00 P.M. on [DATE]. Nurse #1 said although she assessed Resident #1 prior to helping transfer him/her back to bed, she did not assess his/her vital signs, nor did she document anything or tell anybody about this incident. When the surveyor asked Nurse #1 to describe her assessment of Resident #1 prior to transferring him/her back to bed, Nurse #1 was unable to explain how she concluded that Resident #1 was not injured. Nurse #1 could not say what she conducted for assessments, including whether or not she checked for range of motion, or since Resident #1 was non-verbal, if she assessed him/her for visual signs of pain or discomfort and there was no documentation to support Nurse #1 even obtained a set of vital signs for Resident #1. During the interview, Nurse #1 never said she asked Resident #1 if he/she was o.k., or if she got a response at all from him/her. Nurse #1 said she was aware of the Facility's policies related to falls and reporting incidents, and said if NA #1 told her that Resident #1 fell, she would have completed the Fall Packet (documentation the facility requires nurses to complete after a resident falls), but said as far as she knew, Resident #1 had not fallen out of bed, but had been assisted to the floor with the help of NA #1. During an interview on [DATE] at 11:10 A.M., (which included a review of her Written Witness Statement, undated), Nurse #2 said on [DATE], she had just finished passing her morning medications, was seated at the nursing station, that Resident #1 was seated in the common area in his/her wheelchair directly across from the Nurse's Station and she heard Resident #1 screaming, which was unusual for him/her. Nurse #2 said she asked a CNA to assist her to transfer Resident #1 back to bed so she could assess him/her. Nurse #2 said she began her assessment of Resident #1 from the legs up and when she got to her upper extremities, Resident #1 yelled, my neck! Nurse #2 said she recognized that this was very unusual behavior for Resident #1 as he/she did not often form coherent words when talking. Nurse #2 said she immediately contacted Unit Manager #1 to update her on the situation and requested Unit Manager #1 contact the Nurse Practitioner (NP). Nurse #2 said given that she had no knowledge of, and there was no documentation of any accidents or trauma involving Resident #1, it was thought that his/her pain was muscular in nature and she administered pain medication to Resident #1 according to the NP's orders. When asked if an incident occurred in which a staff member had to lower a resident to the floor, would that be considered a fall? Nurse #2 said absolutely, it would be considered a fall. Nurse #2 also said for any incident deemed to be a fall, the Nurse is required to complete a Fall Packet which includes checklist to ensure a resident is thoroughly assessed for potential injury(s) and the incident itself, is documented and followed up on by nursing. Nurse #2 reviewed the Fall Packet with the surveyor. The Fall Packet checklist included the following: - Assess vital signs and initiate Neuros (Neurological Assessments - A neurological exam completed at fixed intervals that evaluates brain and nervous system functioning) if the fall was unwitnessed or the resident hit their head). - Witness statements obtained from everyone on the unit. - In the Electronic Health Record (EHR), document a Pain Assessment, Fall Assessment, and Skin Assessment. - Notify Physician and family, document person and time. - Initiate intervention specific to fall/injury and update Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) Care Card (instructions meant for the CNA relative to residents' individual care needs). - Document Nursing Note in EHR - Send screen request to rehab, and for evening and night shift, slide under therapy door. - Complete Risk Management Assessment in EHR - Return to Unit Manager/Supervisor when completed. Nurse #2 further said she had no knowledge Resident #1 had experienced a fall prior to his/her expression of severe pain on [DATE], and said had the Fall Packet been completed, subsequent shift nursing staff would have been aware he/she fell, that the reason for his/her pain would have been apparent and treatment interventions would likely have been different. During an interview on [DATE] at 11:40 A.M., Unit Manager #1 said looking back at things now, staff noticed a change in Resident #1 after [DATE] [the day of the unreported fall]. Unit Manager #1 said on [DATE], Resident #1 vomited and stayed in bed the whole day, [which was unusual for him/her] but he/she did not have any outward signs or complaints of pain. Unit Manager #1 said on [DATE], Nurse #2 alerted her that Resident #1 was yelling out in pain and complained of neck pain. Unit Manager #1 said that was unusual because Resident #1 did not often verbalize words that made sense. Unit Manager #1 said she notified the Nurse Practitioner (NP) who asked if Resident #1 had fallen or gotten hurt in any way. Unit Manager #1 said she told the NP Resident #1 had not had any falls, not that she was aware of, and the NP prescribed Motrin because he felt Resident #1's pain was likely muscular in nature. Unit Manager #1 said Resident #1 was administered pain medication, appeared comfortable, and upon assessment there did not appear to be any visible evidence of an injury. Unit Manager #1 said on [DATE], she observed a CNA feeding Resident #1 in bed and noticed his/her posture seemed off. Unit Manager #1 said Resident #1's bed was slightly reclined so she asked the CNA to sit Resident #1 up in a more upright position, but that the CNA then told her that Resident #1 exhibited signs of pain when the head of the bed was upright. Unit Manager #1 said she assessed Resident #1, noted he/she still had neck pain, so she contacted the NP again and requested an order for X-ray of his/her neck. Unit Manager #1 said during the X-ray, Resident #1 was observed to be in significant pain any time they tried to help position his/her head and neck for the X-ray. Unit Manager #1 said it was at that time, she noticed Resident #1 had bruising along the back right side of his/her neck that had not been observed previously and she knew Resident #1 needed to be sent to the Emergency Department (ED) for further evaluation. Unit Manger #1 said Resident #1's granddaughter was present and on the telephone with Resident #1's Guardian who consented for him/her to be transferred to the Hospital. Unit Manager #1 said she notified the Director of Nurses who began an investigation, and that it was during that investigation that they learned NA #1 had lowered Resident #1 to the floor on [DATE], because he/she was falling out of bed. Unit Manager #1 said Nurse #1 did not follow facility protocol relative to falls. Unit Manager #1 said that Nurse #1 should have completed the Fall Packet as well as the Risk Management Assessment in the Electronic Health Record (EHR) which includes Fall Risk, Pain, and Skin Assessments as well as a Neurological Assessment if the resident hit their head or if the fall was unwitnessed. Unit Manager #1 said the Nurse is required to fully assess the resident at the time of the fall [which includes when a resident is lowered to the floor] and only if the resident was assessed as being stable, then the resident could be moved and transferred back to a chair or bed. Unit Manager #1 said for Resident #1, none of this documentation was completed for the incident on [DATE], and had this been done, they would have known that his/her pain was likely related to the fall and would have been treated as such. During an interview on [DATE] at 3:30 P.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said she was sitting in the Nursing office located near Resident #1's room on [DATE] and overheard Resident #1 yelling out in pain. The DON said she went to see what was happening and observed Resident #1 cry out in pain every time the X-ray Technician and nursing staff attempted to adjust his/her position. The DON said they immediately stopped the process, determined that Resident #1 needed to be transported to the Hospital ED and called 911. The DON said Nursing staff observed bruising to Resident #1's neck during the X-ray process, and she began an internal investigation. The DON said that during her interviews with staff, Nurse #1 said during the evening shift on [DATE], NA #1 had reported to her that she lowered Resident #1 to the floor to prevent him/her from falling out of bed, and that Nurse #1 said she never reported, documented or told anybody about the incident. The DON said she was made aware of Resident #1's increasing pain, as well as the interventions put in place to alleviate it, but if it had been known that Resident #1 had been lowered to the floor, different interventions would likely have been implemented when he/she began to exhibit pain. The DON said Nurse #1 should have completed an A&I (Accident/Incident) Report, completed the Risk Management documentation in the Electronic Health Record (EHR) which included Pain, Fall and Skin Assessments, should have written a Progress Note, and obtained witness statements on the spot, however Nurse #1 did none of this. On [DATE], the Facility was found to be in Past Non-Compliance and presented the Surveyor with a plan of correction that addressed the areas of concern identified in this survey, The Plan of Correction is as follows: A) [DATE], Resident #1 was transferred to the Hospital for further assessment and treatment, and did not return to the facility. B) [DATE] through [DATE], Administrative staff reviewed previous incident reports for the potential for residents with suspected injury of unknown origin, with review of individual residents nursing Plans of Care and CNA Care [NAME], no concerns for failure to report where identified, reviews will continue as needed. C) [DATE], Facility Administration conducted an ad hoc Quality Assessment and Performance Improvement (QAPI) meeting, with review of current facility policies, and development of an Action Plan, review of the meeting minutes indicated the Facility Leadership team met and developed a plan of correction related to the deficient practices. D) [DATE], Facility Administration suspended Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #1 and Nurse #1, and as as a result of the facility's internal investigation, they were both terminated. E) [DATE] through [DATE], the Staff Development Coordinator and Director of Nursing educated all clinical staff regarding the following: -Facility policy's related to Falls and Clinical Protocols which included nursing assessments and nursing documentation and the Facility Policy related to Accidents/Incidents, Investigating and Reporting, - Incident reports and staff statements must be completed at the time of the incident. - Events that required reporting to the nurses, Nursing Supervisor(s), the on-call Nurse, or the Director of Nursing - Falls: witnessed, unwitnessed, which included if a resident is lowered to the floor, - Abuse: verbal, physical, neglect, and reporting requirements, - Skin issues: skin tears, bruises, documentation and reporting, - Plans of Care/ CNA Care [NAME] review of interventions for appropriateness and current based on care needs. F) [DATE] through [DATE], The Director of Nursing initiated and conducted facility-wide audits to ensure all incidents that have occurred had appropriate and complete incident and accident reports and reviewed that any new onset of pain, skin changes and changes in condition to determine if they should be further investigated. Audits to be continued as needed. G) The Director of Nursing or designee will conduct daily audits of incidents and condition changes, and findings will be reviewed at the Quarterly QAPI meetings, ongoing. H) The DON and/or designee are responsible for overall compliance.
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who was a functional quadriplegic (c...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who was a functional quadriplegic (complete immobility due to severe disability or frailty from another medical condition without injury to the brain or spinal cord), who was totally dependent on staff to meet all of his/her needs, the facility failed ensure he/she was provided with an adequate level of staff supervision during the provision of care to maintain his/safety to prevent an incident/accident resulting in serious injury. On [DATE], Nurse Aide (NA) #1, prepared Resident #1, who was in bed, for incontinent care. NA #1 raised the bed from the low position, repositioned Resident #1 on his/her right side, and left Resident #1 unattended while she went into the bathroom to fill the wash basin with water. Although Nurse Aide #1 said she was able to monitor Resident #1 while she was in the bathroom, while standing at the sink, the facility determined during their investigation that NA #1 could not visualize him/her. NA #1 said she saw Resident #1 start to slide out of bed, and after Resident #1 was on the floor, NA #1 reported to nursing that she had lowered him/her to the floor. Over the next several days Resident #1 was noted to have visual signs discomfort, he/she verbalized being in pain and at one point when moved by staff, he/she yelled out my neck and was noted to have bruising, swelling to his/her neck and it was tilted off to one side. On [DATE], Resident #1 was transferred to the Hospital Emergency Department (ED) and was diagnosed with multiple cervical spine fractures, that typically occur as a result of an impact injury, like a fall, he/she was placed in an Aspen (rigid neck brace used to support neck by limiting movement) collar, was admitted to Hospice Services at the Hospital, and on [DATE] he/she died. Findings include: The Facility's Policy, titled Falls-Clinical Protocol, dated 2017 indicated but was not limited to: - As part of the initial assessment the physician will help identify individuals with a history of falls and risk factors of subsequent falling - The staff will document risk factors for falling in the resident's record and discuss the resident's fall risk. - Falls should be categorized as those that occur while trying to rise from sitting or lying to an upright position, those that occur while upright and attempting to ambulate, and other circumstances such as sliding out of a chair or rolling from a low bed to the floor. The Facility's Policy, titled Accidents and Incidents - Investigating and Reporting, revised [DATE] indicated but was not limited to: - All accidents or incidents involving residents, employees, visitors, vendors, etc., occurring on our premises shall be investigated and reported to the administrator. Review of the Emergency Department Notes, dated [DATE], indicated the following: - Patient has pretty significant elevated blood pressure mildly elevated temperature and some tachycardia (heart rate higher than normal), not on antihypertensives (medication used to treat high blood pressure), or any other medications other than occasional Motrin for perceived discomfort. - Computerized Tomography (CT scan, a diagnostic imaging procedure that uses a combination of X-rays and computer technology to produce images of the inside of the body) to be obtained of soft tissue of the neck and CT without contrast C-spine (cervical spine - area of the neck), to evaluate for fracture, abscess or hematoma. - Patient non-verbal, eyes open, bruise to right neck under right ear. Patient cries out in pain with palpation to swollen area and making noises like he/she wants to clear his/her throat. Facility staff report this is baseline to Emergency Medical Services, family states this is not baseline. - Neurosurgery consulted, patient placed in cervical collar (device that supports the neck and limits its movement) for stability and pain control with Dilaudid (a potent opioid medication to control pain). Review of Resident #1's Hospital admission History and Physical, dated [DATE], indicated the following: - CT of cervical spine with unstable fractures through T7 vertebral bodies (referring to part of the seventh thoracic vertebra found in the middle of the chest between the seventh and eighth pair of ribs) extending through the lamina, facets, and spinous process. The fracture extends through the lateral masses of the C5, fracture involves all three columns of the spine. -CT of the soft tissue of the neck with nondisplaced transverse fracture of the C5 vertebral body (fracture to part of the C5 vertebra where the broken bone pieces have not moved out of alignment) extending through the posterior elements (the back side of the vertebra which includes the spinous process and lamina which affect the supporting ligaments and bony structures at the back of the spine) with slight kyphosis (forward bend in the spine) at the fracture site but no fragment displacement. Mild paraspinal hemorrhage and edema, no associated mass effect. Resident #1 was admitted to the facility in [DATE], diagnoses included Dementia and Functional Quadriplegia (complete immobility due to severe disability or frailty from another medical condition without injury to the brain or spinal cord). Review of Resident #1's most recent Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated [DATE], indicated he/she was severely cognitively impaired, had unclear speech, was rarely/never understood, and was totally dependent on staff for all levels of care. Review of Resident #1's ADL Care Plan, reviewed and renewed with his/her [DATE] MDS, indicated he/she was dependent for care and required one to two staff members for toileting/incontinence care needs. Review of Resident #1's Care [NAME] (utilized by Certified Nurse Aides, provides direct care staff with a brief overview of each resident's needs) indicated that he/she was dependent with personal hygiene, and required one to two staff members for toileting/incontinence care. During a telephone interview on [DATE] at 1:30 P.M., Family Member #1 said when she went to visit Resident #1 on Thursday, [DATE] she noticed there were several people in his/her room, and she heard Resident #1 yelling out like he/she was in pain. Family Member #1 said she noticed that Resident #1's head was tilted sideways so far that his/her left ear was touching his/her left shoulder and saw that Resident #1 had a red and purple lump behind his/her right ear. Family Member #1 said she was unaware of any recent falls or injuries Resident #1 may have sustained that would have explained his/her condition. Family Member #1 said she call Resident #1's Guardian to inform her of the situation and that the Guardian requested Resident #1 be sent to the hospital immediately. Family Member #1 said Resident #1 was dependent on nursing staff for all his/her care needs. Family Member #1 said Resident #1 was unable to move on his/her own [he/she was dead weight], would generally just lay where he/she was placed and to her knowledge had never fallen out of bed. Family Member #1 said she went to the hospital after Resident #1 was transferred, and was informed that Resident #1 had several fractures in his/her neck that caused bleeding, and due to his/her age and condition, he/she was not a surgical candidate. Family Member #1 said Resident #1 was provided comfort measures at the Hospital and died on [DATE]. During a telephone interview on [DATE] at 2:28 P.M., (which included a review of her Written Witness Statement, dated [DATE]) NA #1 said on the evening of [DATE], she and another Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) utilized a Hoyer lift (a mechanical device that helps move people with limited mobility from one place to another) to transfer Resident #1 into bed. NA #1 said the other CNA left the room, she removed the Hoyer sling that was underneath Resident #1 and then positioned Resident #1 on his/her right side with his/her left leg crossed over the top of his/her right leg. NA #1 said she left Resident #1 in this position because she needed to provide incontinent care. NA #1 said left Resident #1 on his/her side, unattended, and went into the bathroom to began to fill a wash basin and wet some washcloths. NA #1 said she monitored Resident #1 by looking out the bathroom door, because she knew Resident #1's bed was raised in a higher position. However, based on staff interviews and the facility's investigation into the incident, it was determined that while NA #1 was filling the basin with water at the sink, NA #1 did not have a direct view of and could not visualize Resident #1, to ensure his/her safety. NA #1 said at one point she saw that Resident #1 had started to roll towards the edge of the bed with his/her legs extending over the side of the bed, so she immediately returned to Resident #1's bedside. NA #1 said she removed her gloves, lowered the position of the bed so it was closer to the floor, grabbed a nearby cushioned fall mat, pulled it towards Resident #1's bedside, wrapped her arms around Resident #1's upper body, held his/her torso against her chest and lowered him/her to the floor. NA #1 said she called out for help several times and when nobody came, she went to Resident #1's doorway, saw Nurse #1 at the medication cart and asked for assistance. NA #1 said Nurse #1 entered the room and asked her what happened and then asked Resident #1 if he/she was ok. NA #1 said she and Nurse #1 transferred Resident #1 back to bed using the Hoyer lift. During an interview on [DATE] at 2:58 P.M., (which included a review of her Written Witness Statement, dated [DATE]), Nurse #1 said while she was in the hallway at the medication cart, NA #1 came to Resident #1's doorway and asked her for assistance. Nurse #1 said when she entered Resident #1's room, she saw Resident #1 lying face up on the floor next to his/her bed. Nurse #1 said she concluded he/she did not have any injuries, and she, along with NA #1 transferred Resident #1 back to bed using a Hoyer lift. Nurse #1 said she asked NA #1 several times in several different ways what happened, and that NA #1 said Resident #1 was slipping off his/her bed, so she lowered Resident #1 to the floor. Nurse #1 said NA #1 told her that Resident #1 did not fall, and he/she did not hit his/her head. Nurse #1 said this incident occurred around 8:00 P.M. on [DATE]. Nurse #1 said although she assessed Resident #1 prior to returning him/her back to bed, she did not assess his/her vital signs, nor did she document anything in his/her medical record or write a report related to this incident, and said she did not report the incident to anybody. During an interview on [DATE] at 11:10 A.M., (which included a review of her Written Witness Statement, undated), Nurse #2 said on [DATE], she had just finished passing her morning medications, was seated at the nursing station and Resident #1 was seated in the common area in his/her wheelchair directly across from the Nurse's Station. Nurse #2 said she heard Resident #1 screaming which was unusual for him/her. Nurse #2 said she asked a CNA to assist her to transfer Resident #1 back to bed so she could assess him/her. Nurse #2 said when she assessed Resident #1's upper extremities, Resident #1 yelled, my neck! Nurse #2 said this was very unusual behavior for Resident #1 as he/she does not often form words when talking. Nurse #2 said she immediately contacted Unit Manager #1 to update her on the situation. Nurse #2 said given they had no knowledge of, and there was no documentation of any accidents or trauma involving Resident #1, after speaking with the Nurse Practitioner (NP), it was thought the pain was muscular in nature and she administered pain medication to Resident #1, according to the NP's order. During an interview on [DATE] at 11:40 A.M., Unit Manager #1 said, looking back on things, staff noticed a change in Resident #1 after [DATE], when he/she had an [unreported] fall. Unit Manager #1 said on [DATE], Resident #1 vomited and stayed in bed the whole day, which was unusual for him/her. Unit Manager #1 said on [DATE], Nurse #2 alerted her that Resident #1 was yelling out in pain and complained of neck pain. Unit Manager #1 said that was odd because Resident #1 did not often verbalize words that made sense. Unit Manager #1 said on [DATE], she observed a CNA feeding Resident #1 in bed and noticed his/her posture seemed off. Unit Manager #1 said Resident #1's bed was slightly reclined and that she asked the CNA to sit Resident #1 in a more upright position, but the CNA told her that Resident #1 exhibited signs of pain when the head of the bed was too upright. Unit Manager #1 said she assessed Resident #1, noted he/she still had neck pain, so she contacted the NP again and requested an order for a neck X-ray. Unit Manager #1 said during the neck X-ray, Resident #1 was in significant pain any time they tried to position his/her head and neck for the X-ray. Unit Manager #1 said she noticed that Resident #1 had bruising along the back right side of his/her neck that had not been observed previously. Unit Manager #1 said Resident #1's granddaughter was present and on the telephone with Resident #1's Guardian who consented to him/her being transferred to the Hospital ED for evaluation. Unit Manager #1 said she notified the Director of Nurses who began an investigation, and that it was during that investigation that they learned that on [DATE], that NA #1 said she lowered Resident #1 to the floor because he/she was falling out of bed. Unit Manager #1 said Resident #1 was unable to roll him/herself if placed on his/her back, but he/she could have possibly rolled over by him/herself if he/she were left on his/her side. Unit Manager #1 said Resident 1's bed was not visible to staff who were at the bathroom sink, and he/she should not have been left unattended in the position NA #1 described because it was unsafe. During an interview on [DATE] at 3:30 P.M., the Director of Nurses (DON) said she was sitting in the Nursing office located near Resident #1's room on [DATE] and overheard Resident #1 yelling in pain. The DON said she went to see what was happening and observed Resident #1 cry out in pain every time the X-ray Technician and nursing staff attempted to adjust his/her position. The DON said nursing staff also observed bruising to Resident #1's neck during the X-ray process. The DON said they immediately stopped the process, determined that Resident #1 needed to be transported to the Emergency Department and called 911. The DON said she immediately began an internal investigation. The DON said that during her interviews with staff, Nurse #1 reported that on [DATE], Resident #1 was lowered to the floor by NA #1 during the evening shift. The DON said after she learned that NA #1 had reportedly lowered Resident #1 to the floor on [DATE], she had NA #1 show her exactly what had happened by having NA #1 do a re-enactment demonstration in Resident #1's room. The DON said they recreated the incident with herself (DON) assuming the role of Resident #1. The DON said she positioned herself by lying in the bed on her right side, left leg crossed over her right leg, with the side rail down, and the bed not in the lowest position. The DON said NA #1 then re-enacted the incident by trying to lower her (DON) to the floor just as she said she lowered Resident #1 to the floor. The DON said there was no way Resident #1's head or neck did not encounter the side rail, despite the side rail being lowered, because the top edge of the side rail extended above the mattress. The DON also said Resident #1 was not visible to NA #1 from the bathroom, that his/her bed should have been in the lowest position and was not, and he/she should not have been left unattended and out of direct view of NA #1. On [DATE], the Facility was found to be in Past Non-Compliance and presented the Surveyor with a plan of correction that addressed the areas of concern identified in this survey, The Plan of Correction is as follows: A) [DATE], Resident #1 was transferred to the Hospital for further assessment and treatment, and did not return to the facility. B) [DATE] through [DATE], Administrative staff reviewed previous incident reports for the potential for residents with suspected injury of unknown origin, with review of individual residents nursing Plans of Care and CNA Care [NAME], no concerns for failure to report where identified, reviews will continue as needed. C) [DATE], Facility Administration conducted an ad hoc Quality Assessment and Performance Improvement (QAPI) meeting, with review of current facility policies, and development of an Action Plan, review of the meeting minutes indicated the Facility Leadership team met and developed a plan of correction related to the deficient practices. D) [DATE], Facility Administration suspended Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #1 and Nurse #1, and as as a result of the facility's internal investigation, they were both terminated. E) [DATE] through [DATE], the Staff Development Coordinator and Director of Nursing educated all clinical staff regarding the following: -Facility policy's related to Falls and Clinical Protocols which included nursing assessments and nursing documentation and the Facility Policy related to Accidents/Incidents, Investigating and Reporting, - Incident reports and staff statements must be completed at the time of the incident. - Events that required reporting to the nurses, Nursing Supervisor(s), the on-call Nurse, or the Director of Nursing - Falls: witnessed, unwitnessed, which included if a resident is lowered to the floor, - Abuse: verbal, physical, neglect, and reporting requirements, - Skin issues: skin tears, bruises, documentation and reporting, - Plans of Care/ CNA Care [NAME] review of interventions for appropriateness and current based on care needs. - Resident safety related to positioning (seated and in bed), siderails, call bells within reach, bed/chair alarms, bed in lowest position and floor safety mats. F) [DATE] through [DATE], The Director of Nursing initiated and conducted facility-wide audits to ensure all incidents that have occurred had appropriate and complete incident and accident reports and reviewed that any new onset of pain, skin changes and changes in condition to determine if they should be further investigated. Audits to be continued as needed. G) The Director of Nursing or designee will conduct daily audits of incidents and condition changes, and findings will be reviewed at the Quarterly QAPI meetings, ongoing. H) The DON and/or designee are responsible for overall compliance.
Dec 2023 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Assessments (Tag F0636)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to complete an accurate comprehensive assessment, accord...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to complete an accurate comprehensive assessment, according to the required Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) process, for one Resident (#61) out of a total sample of 18 residents. Specifically, the facility staff failed to assess Resident #61's cognitive status and mood through the required resident interview process when the Resident had adequate hearing, clear speech, and sometimes made him/herself understood and sometimes understood others. Findings include: Resident #61 was admitted to the facility in September 2021 with diagnoses including Dementia with behavioral disturbance. Review of Resident #61's comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated the following: - The Resident had adequate hearing. - The Resident had clear speech. - The Resident could sometimes make him/herself understood. - The Resident sometimes understood others. - The Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) should be attempted with all residents. - The BIMS was not conducted with the Resident because he/she was rarely/never understood. - The Mood interview should be attempted with all residents. - The Mood interview was not conducted with the Resident because he/she was rarely/never understood. On 12/20/23 at 8:32 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #61 seated upright on his/her bed. The Resident was looking at the surveyor and speaking in a language that was not English. On 12/20/23 at 2:30 P.M., the surveyor observed Resident #61 seated in the Activity Room with Activities Aide (AA) #1. AA #1 held the Resident's hand and the Resident's eyes were closed. During an interview at the time, AA #1 said Resident #61 primarily spoke Spanish. AA #1 said she also spoke Spanish and the Resident could sometimes understand her when he/she was spoken to in Spanish. AA #1 further said that the Resident could sometimes make him/herself understood in Spanish. During an interview on 12/21/23 at 2:37 P.M., the Social Worker (SW) said the BIMS and Mood interviews should have been attempted as required with Resident #61 for the comprehensive MDS assessment dated [DATE], but this was not done.
CONCERN (D)

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 observations, record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that one Resident (#79) who required assista...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that one Resident (#79) who required assistance with bed mobility, out of a total sample of 18 residents, received mobility assistance while in bed. Findings include: Resident #79 was admitted to the facility in October 2023 with the following diagnoses: Diabetes Type II Mellitus (DM - when the body does not produce enough insulin to maintain normal blood sugar levels) with other circulatory complications, adult failure to thrive (FTT- syndrome of global decline, that includes weight loss, decreased appetite, and poor nutrition), muscle weakness, need for assistance with personal care and chronic pain. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated the following: -Resident required substantial maximal assistance for the following while in bed: rolling left to right, sit to lying, lying to sitting on the side of the bed -Resident is able to make self understood -Resident usually understands verbal content During an observation and interview on 12/20/23 at 8:55 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #79 in bed eating breakfast, with the head of the bed elevated. His/her feet were observed to be pressed against the foot board. When the surveyor asked if he/she was comfortable, the Resident said no. Resident #79 said that he/she required someone to help boost (to be re-adjusted in the bed so that the person is closer to the head of the bed) him/her up in the bed, so his/her feet did not touch the footboard. During an observation and interview on 12/21/23 at 8:34 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #79 in bed eating breakfast, with the head of the bed elevated. His/her feet were observed to be pressed against the foot board. When the surveyor asked the Resident if he/she was comfortable, he/she answered no and said that he/she needed someone to help boost him/her up in bed, so his/her feet did not touch the footboard. The surveyor requested Nurse #1's assistance to boost Resident #79. During an observation and interview on 12/21/23 at 8:36 A.M., Nurse #1 said that the Resident required a boost in the bed and that his/her feet should not be pressed against the footboard. Nurse #1 further said that typically the Resident would be boosted up in the bed as he/she is tall, required a maximum assist for bed mobility, and when the head of bed was elevated, a bolster under his/her knees and wedge at the end of the bed so that his/her feet were not pressed against the foot board.
Jul 2022 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Dental Services (Tag F0791)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review, and interview the facility failed to ensure that its staff coordinated routine dental services to be provided for one Resident (#38) out of 19 sampled residents. Finding includ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, and interview the facility failed to ensure that its staff coordinated routine dental services to be provided for one Resident (#38) out of 19 sampled residents. Finding include: Resident #38 was admitted to the facility in August 2014. Review of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated, 2/16/22, indicated that Resident #38 had natural teeth. Review of the clinical record indicated that Resident #38's representative had signed a consent, dated 11/5/20, for dental services to be provided to the Resident at the facility. Review of the clinical record indicated that Resident #38 had not been seen by a dental provider. During an interview on 7/15/22, at 9:02 A.M. with Unit Manager (UM) #1, UM #1 said that Resident #38 should have been seen by the dental provider, but he/she had not been seen.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0700 (Tag F0700)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that its staff assessed five Residents (#19, #66, #193, #84 and #11) out of a total sample of 19 residents, for risk of...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that its staff assessed five Residents (#19, #66, #193, #84 and #11) out of a total sample of 19 residents, for risk of entrapment or considered appropriate alternatives, prior to the use of bed rails. Findings include: Review of the facility Bed Safety policy, dated 2017, indicated bed rails would be used for all residents on admission and have an assessment completed quarterly. 1. Resident #19 was admitted to the facility in April 2022. Review of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 4/20/22, indicated Resident #19 had moderate cognitive impairment as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11 out of a possible 15. During an observation and interview on 7/13/22 at 9:56 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #19 in bed with two quarter (1/4) length bed rails in the upright position. The Resident said he/she used bed rails daily. Review of a Physician's order, dated 4/21/22, indicated an order for use of two quarter bed rails when in bed to assist with positioning and transfer. Review of the record indicated no assessment for risk of entrapment and no evidence that alternatives had been trialed, prior to the use of bed rails. 2. Resident #66 was admitted to the facility in March 2022. Review of an MDS assessment, dated 3/22/22, indicated Resident #66 was cognitively intact as evidenced by a BIMS score of 13 out of 15. Review of a Physician's order, dated 3/24/22, indicated an order for use of two quarter bed rails when in bed to assist with positioning and transfer. On 7/13/22 at 10:03 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #66 in bed with two quarter bed rails in the upright position. The Resident said he/she always used bed rails when in bed. Review of the record indicated there was no assessment for risk of entrapment and no evidence that alternatives had been trialed, prior to the use of bed rails. 3. Resident #193 was admitted to the facility in July 2022. Review of a Physician's order, dated 7/10/22, indicated an order for two quarter bed rails up in bed to help promote bed mobility, safety and positioning. During an observation on 7/13/22 at 9:41 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #193 in bed with the two quarter side rails in the upright position. The Resident had his/her legs out of the bed (upper torso was still in bed) and was holding on to the left rail for support. The surveyor alerted Nurse #2 that the resident was attempting to self transfer and the nurse assisted the Resident safely back into bed. Review of the record indicated there was no assessment for risk of entrapment and no evidence that alternatives had been trialed, prior to the use of bed rails. 4. Resident #84 was admitted to the facility in June 2022. Review of a Physician's order, dated 6/23/22, indicated an order for two quarter bed rails up in bed to help promote bed mobility, safety and positioning. On 7/13/22 at 10:15 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #84 was fully dressed and lying in bed on top of the bed spread with two quarter bed rails in the upright position. During an interview on 7/13/22 at 10:30 A.M. with Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #1, CNA #1 said Residents #19, #66, #193, and #84 used two quarter bed rails when in bed. Review of the record indicated there was no assessment for risk of entrapment and no evidence that alternatives had been trialed, prior to the use of bed rails. During an interview on 7/14/22 at 3:05 P.M. with the Director of Nurses (DON), the DON said there was no evidence that Residents #19, #66, #193, and #84 trialed alternatives or were assessed for entrapment prior to implementing the use of bed rails. 5. Resident #11 was admitted to the facility in October 2021. On 7//12/22 at 10:56 A.M. the surveyor observed the Resident in bed with bilateral quarter side rails up. The Resident's eyes were closed. Review of a Physician's order, dated 3/24/22, indicated an order for two quarter side rails when in bed to assist with positioning and transfer. Review of the electronic health record (EHS) did not indicate an assessment for side rail use to assess for risks of entrapment, nor was there evidence to support any alternatives to side rails had been considered. During an interview on 7/14/22 at 2:05 P.M.with the DON, she said the facility does not do side rail assessments on admission, but does them quarterly per the facility policy. She said Resident #11 used side rails, but had not been assessed as yet. During an interview on 7/14/22 at 2:29 P.M., the Corporate Regional Nurse said the facility's policy needed to be updated to better reflect current regulations.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, policy review and interview, the facility failed to: 1) ensure that its staff stored and prepared foods under sanitary conditions in the kitchen and, 2) failed to properly store ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, policy review and interview, the facility failed to: 1) ensure that its staff stored and prepared foods under sanitary conditions in the kitchen and, 2) failed to properly store food brought in by visitors on one out of three unit kitchenettes. Findings include: 1. The facility staff failed to properly store foods in the freezer and maintain a sanitary environment in the kitchen area. Review of a facility policy titled Food Storage Cold Foods, revised 4/2018, included but was not limited to the following: -All Time/Temperature Control for Safety (TCS) foods, frozen and refrigerated, will be appropriately stored in accordance with guidelines of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Code. -All foods will be stored wrapped or in covered containers, labeled and dated, and arranged in a manner to prevent cross contamination. On 7/13/22 at 8:00 A.M., during an initial tour of the kitchen during the breakfast tray service, the surveyor observed the following concerns: a) A square vent located near the cooking area had a black, speckled, mildew like substance built up in the corners of the vent. b) A large rectangular vent near the tray line was caked with dust. c) There were black layers of dirt on the dish room floor around the plumbing and sanitizer buckets. d) There was water leaking on the floor around the plumbing below the three-compartment-sink and tiles had fallen off the wall. e) There was water leaking on the floor and layers of dirt built up around the plumbing near the oven and tiles had fallen off the wall. f) There were layers of dirt built up around the plumbing below the tray line. g) There were opened, undated, bags of frozen burger patties and fish fillets in the freezer. h) There was an undated bag of tater tots and an undated bag of ravioli in the freezer. On 7/15/22 at 8:55 A.M., during a follow up tour of the kitchen with the Food Service Director (FSD), the surveyor and FSD observed the following concerns: a) A square vent located near the cooking area had a black, speckled, mildew like substance built up in the corners of the vent. b)A large rectangular vent near the tray line was caked with dust. c) There were black layers of dirt on the dish room floor around the plumbing and sanitizer buckets. d) There was water leaking on the floor around the plumbing below the three-compartment-sink and tiles had fallen off the wall. e) There was water leaking on the floor and layers of dirt built up around the plumbing near the oven and tiles had fallen off the wall. f) There were layers of dirt built up around the plumbing below the tray line. g) There were opened, undated, bags of hamburger patties, tater tots and fish fillets in the freezer. h) There was an undated bag of hotdogs that was open to air in the freezer. During an interview on 7/15/22 at 9:20 A.M.with the FSD, she said all items in the freezer should be dated when opened and no items should have been left open to air. The FSD said the maintenance department was responsible for cleaning the air vents and she was not aware of the maintenance schedule for those. She further said she had been the FSD for approximately 3 months and there had been an ongoing issue with the plumbing in the dish room, three compartment sink area, under the oven and near the tray line. She said that was why there was water, built up dirt and tiles that had fallen off. She said it had been a problem for a few months and the Administrator was aware. During an interview on 7/15/22 at 9:25 A.M.with the Administrator, he said he was waiting for a contractor to fix the plumbing issues in the kitchen. He said it had been at least a few months and he had been having a hard time getting a hold of the contractor. The Administrator further said the maintenance director was on vacation and he was not aware of the maintenance schedule for cleaning the air vents in the kitchen. 2. The facility staff failed to properly label and date food brought in by visitors in the East Unit kitchenette. Review of a facility policy titled Foods Brought by Family/Visitors, revised 2014, included but was not limited to the following: -perishable foods must be stored in re-sealable containers with tightly fitting lids in the refrigerator. Containers will be labeled with the resident's name, the item and the use by date. -Nursing staff is responsible for discarding perishable foods on or before the use by date. On 7/15/22 at 9:52 A.M., during a tour of the East Unit kitchenette, the surveyor and Nurse #1 observed the following concerns in the refrigerator: a) A white styrofoam container of leftovers was labeled with a resident's name but was not dated. b) A plastic lidded container, containing a half eaten hamburger on a bun and a partially eaten bag of cheese flavored crackers, was not labeled or dated. During an interview on 7/15/22 at 9:55 A.M., Nurse #1 said staff should label left over food with the resident's name and date before putting it in the refrigerator. Nurse #1 further said the kitchen staff was responsible for maintaining the refrigerator on a daily basis and should have been throwing away any undated items.
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?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • 39% turnover. Below Massachusetts's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 9 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $16,801 in fines. Above average for Massachusetts. Some compliance problems on record.
  • • Grade D (44/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 44/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Vantage At Hampden Llc's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns VANTAGE AT HAMPDEN LLC an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Massachusetts, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.

How is Vantage At Hampden Llc Staffed?

CMS rates VANTAGE AT HAMPDEN LLC's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 39%, compared to the Massachusetts average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Vantage At Hampden Llc?

State health inspectors documented 9 deficiencies at VANTAGE AT HAMPDEN LLC during 2022 to 2025. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 7 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 Vantage At Hampden Llc?

VANTAGE AT HAMPDEN LLC 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 VANTAGE CARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 100 certified beds and approximately 89 residents (about 89% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in HAMPDEN, Massachusetts.

How Does Vantage At Hampden Llc Compare to Other Massachusetts Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Massachusetts, VANTAGE AT HAMPDEN LLC's overall rating (3 stars) is above the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (39%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Vantage At Hampden Llc?

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?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations.

Is Vantage At Hampden Llc Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, VANTAGE AT HAMPDEN LLC has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 3-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Massachusetts. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Vantage At Hampden Llc Stick Around?

VANTAGE AT HAMPDEN LLC has a staff turnover rate of 39%, which is about average for Massachusetts 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 Vantage At Hampden Llc Ever Fined?

VANTAGE AT HAMPDEN LLC has been fined $16,801 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Massachusetts average of $33,247. 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 Vantage At Hampden Llc on Any Federal Watch List?

VANTAGE AT HAMPDEN LLC 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.