WINDEMERE NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER

ONE HOSPITAL ROAD, OAK BLUFFS, MA 02557 (508) 696-6465
Non profit - Corporation 106 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
75/100
#61 of 338 in MA
Last Inspection: March 2025

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

Overview

Windemere Nursing & Rehabilitation Center has a Trust Grade of B, which means it is considered a good option for families looking for care. It ranks #61 out of 338 facilities in Massachusetts, placing it in the top half, and is the only facility in Dukes County. However, the trend is worsening, with reported issues increasing from 2 in 2024 to 4 in 2025. Staffing is rated at 4 out of 5 stars, but the turnover rate is concerning at 58%, which is higher than the state average. Fortunately, the facility has not incurred any fines, indicating compliance with regulations, and has more RN coverage than 96% of Massachusetts facilities, which is a strong point since RNs can catch potential issues. On the downside, there have been serious concerns about resident supervision. For example, the facility failed to implement effective care plans that could prevent falls for several residents, and medications were not always stored securely. Additionally, the facility did not adequately address problematic issues like falls in its quality improvement programs. Overall, while Windemere has notable strengths, families should consider these weaknesses when making their decision.

Trust Score
B
75/100
In Massachusetts
#61/338
Top 18%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Worse
2 → 4 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
58% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Massachusetts facilities.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 88 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of Massachusetts nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
Violations
⚠ Watch
16 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 2 issues
2025: 4 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

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

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 58%

12pts above Massachusetts avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Staff turnover is elevated (58%)

10 points above Massachusetts average of 48%

The Ugly 16 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Mar 2025 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement an individualized, person-centered care plan to meet the physical, psychosocial and functional needs fo...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement an individualized, person-centered care plan to meet the physical, psychosocial and functional needs for one Resident (#29), out of a total sample of 12 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive care plan was developed to address the use of psychotropic medications that identified Resident specific target behaviors, non-pharmacological interventions, and measurable goals of treatment. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Comprehensive Assessment and Interdisciplinary Care Planning, dated 8/11/19, indicated but was not limited to: -The care plan must identify resident specific targeted signs/symptoms of depression, resident specific interventions, including non-pharmacological approaches, and measurable goals for the use of antidepressant medication to meet the resident's needs. This must also be considered for all psychoactive medications, diuretics, anti-coagulants, and diabetic agents. Resident #29 was admitted to the facility in June 2024 and had diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, dementia with other behavioral disturbances, vascular dementia with anxiety, and claustrophobia. Review of the Minimum Data Set assessment, dated 12/17/24, indicated Resident #29 had severe cognitive impairment as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 00 out of 15, wandered daily and received psychotropic medication daily. Review of Resident #29's medical record indicated Physician's Orders for the following psychotropic medication: -Seroquel (antipsychotic) 25 milligrams (mg) once a day (7/9/24); and -Citalopram (Celexa-antidepressant) 20 mg once a day (6/20/24) Review of January 2025 through March 2025 Medication Administration Records indicated Seroquel and Citalopram were administered as ordered by the physician. Review of comprehensive care plans included but was not limited to: - Problem: Resident receives psychotropic medication Celexa related to depression (Initiated 6/30/24). - Approaches: Encourage Resident to attend activities of interest; provide 1:1 support as needed; monitor for effectiveness of medication; monitor mood and response to medication (sedation); pharmacy consult review. -Goal: Resident will be prescribed the lowest effective dose of medication (Target Date: 3/31/25). The care plan developed for the use of Celexa failed to identify Resident specific targeted signs/symptoms of depression and measurable goals of treatment to meet the Resident's needs. -Problem: Resident is receiving Seroquel (antipsychotic) related to vascular dementia with behaviors (initiated 6/21/24). -Approaches: Gradual Dose Reduction attempt started on 6/27/24, discontinued on 7/9/24; Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS) every 6 months; monitor for extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS-involuntary movements, muscle stiffness, and tremors), monitor Resident's behavior and response to medication, pharmacy consultant review. -Goal: Resident will not exhibit signs of drug related side effects or adverse drug reaction. The care plan developed for the use of Seroquel failed to identify Resident-specific targeted behaviors, Resident-specific interventions, including non-pharmacological approaches, and measurable goals of treatment to meet the Resident's needs. During an interview on 3/19/25 at 1:34 P.M., the Nursing Supervisor said she is responsible for care plan development. She said Resident #29's care plans should include specific behaviors, signs/symptoms for the use of Celexa and Seroquel and measurable goals but do not. During an interview on 3/19/25 at 2:00 P.M., the Director of Nursing reviewed Resident #29's medical record and said the care plan does not identify appropriate targeted behaviors, sign or symptoms to be monitored with non-pharmacological approaches for the use of psychotropic medications, but it should.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on document review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to maintain professional standards of practice for one Resident (#8), out of a total sample of 12 residents. Specifically, the...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on document review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to maintain professional standards of practice for one Resident (#8), out of a total sample of 12 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure physician's orders for compression stockings/edema care were clear and implemented as prescribed. Findings include: Review of Lippincott Manual of Nursing Practice 11th edition, dated 2019, indicated the following: -The professional nurse's scope of practice is defined and outlined by the State Board of Nursing that governs practice. Review of the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Nursing Advisory Ruling on Nursing Practice, dated as revised April 11, 2018, indicated: - Nurse's Responsibility and Accountability: Licensed nurses accept, verify, transcribe, and implement orders from duly authorized prescriber's that are received by a variety of methods (i.e., written, verbal/telephone, standing orders/protocols, pre-printed order sets, electronic) in emergent and non-emergent situations. Licensed nurses in a management role must ensure an infrastructure is in place, consistent with current standards of care, to minimize errors. Resident #8 was admitted to the facility in June 2018 with diagnoses including: Chronic peripheral venous insufficiency, heart failure (inability of the heart to pump enough blood throughout the body resulting in swelling in the legs and feet), and polyneuropathy (damage or dysfunction of the nerves effecting the peripheral nervous system). Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 1/14/25, indicated the Resident was cognitively intact with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15. During an observation with interview on 3/18/25 at 9:30 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #8 in bed with their right leg elevated on a pillow. Resident #8 said he/she prefers to stay in bed full time related to an issue with their right lower extremity (RLE). The RLE was without any device, bandaging or anti-embolism stocking at this time and the skin appeared intact with some swelling observed. Review of the Physician's progress notes indicated but were not limited to the following: 2/21/25: Right leg is always swollen, but worse now. Can't tolerate compression stockings. Right leg swelling - primary: Occupational therapy ordered for manual drainage, elevate leg, compressive wrap (ace bandage) since unable to tolerate compression stockings. Review of the current Physician's Orders as of 3/19/25 indicated but were not limited to the following: Apply ace bandage to Right foot/leg every morning and remove at hour of sleep (HS), please document if refused (2/21/25) Thigh high compression stockings on both legs in the A.M. remove at HS. Please document if refused. (2/15/2024) Review of the March 2025 Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for Resident #8 indicated but was not limited to the following: Apply Ace bandage to right foot/leg every morning and remove at HS. *Documented as not administered: item not available on 4 of 19 opportunities *Documented as refused on 4 of 19 opportunities (indicating 3 of 4 of those times the Resident had compression stocking in place) The documentation indicated the Resident had the Ace bandage on his/her right leg/foot 11 out of 19 days. Thigh high compression stockings on both legs in the A.M., remove at HS *Documented as refused on 2 of 19 opportunities The documentation indicated the Resident had thigh high compression stockings on 17 out of 19 days. During an interview on 3/19/25 at 8:20 A.M., the surveyor observed Resident #8 in bed with their RLE elevated on a pillow. The Resident said he/she does not have a stocking or wrap on their RLE at this time. The Resident said he/she didn't know what the staff would put on him/her today because the staff put whatever they want on him/her and do not ask the Resident their preference for either the wrap or compression stocking. The Resident said he/she prefers the thigh high stocking that he/she had in the past, but that is never an option. It is either the ace bandage wrap or knee high compression stocking that is placed on their RLE. The surveyor made the following observations of Resident #8: 3/18/25 at 1:03 P.M. and 3:55 P.M., Resident had a knee high compression stocking in place to his/her RLE 3/19/25 at 9:50 A.M. and 12:59 P.M., Resident had a knee high compression stocking in place to his/her RLE During an interview on 3/19/25 at 9:50 A.M., Resident #8 said he/she was in a bit of a mood because the staff placed the knee high compression stocking on his/her RLE and didn't listen to him/her when he/she asked about the thigh high stocking. The Resident said he/she does not like the wrap because it is either too tight or too loose and pretty much does nothing. During an interview on 3/19/25 at 9:55 A.M., Nurse #3 entered the Resident's room and said the Resident has two orders to manage their RLE edema, the leg wrap or the compression stocking. She said which the staff uses is dependent on which one the Resident will allow on any given day as the Resident frequently refuses. The nurse observed the compression stocking in place on the Resident at this time and said the Resident is supposed to have a thigh high compression stocking not a knee high stocking according to the order. She looked around the room and asked the Resident if he/she would like the wrap instead and the Resident declined. She offered to remove the knee high stocking from the Resident until the ordered thigh high compression stocking could be retrieved but the Resident declined and said he/she prefers to keep something on the RLE. On review, she agreed the order does not indicate one or the other and the orders appear as though both should be in place, which would be clinically inappropriate. The Nurse said the physician's order for compression stockings is specific to thigh high stockings and that is not what is in place at this time, therefore the order is not being followed as written. She said she doesn't know how that knee high stocking got on the Resident and she had not signed off the order for compression stockings being applied yet on this day. During an interview on 3/19/25 at 10:46 A.M., the Director of Nurses said she was made aware of the situation with Resident #8's compression stockings. She said there should not be two conflicting orders. Physician's orders are to be followed as written by the prescribing physician and need clarification. She said the lymphedema is not new for the Resident and needed to be managed as tolerated by the Resident in accordance with the ordered treatment and then staff can document if the Resident refuses on any given day, but the documentation should be clear. She said the staff should have followed the order for thigh high compression stockings and not substituted them for knee high stockings as that was not what was ordered. She said it appeared the Nurses were signing off the thigh high compression stockings each day, although they were not in use, and they should have noticed the stocking in place was not the ordered length and retrieved the correct stockings but did not.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure for one Resident (#133), out of a total sample of 12 residents, that the resident's drug regimen was free from unnecessary psychotro...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure for one Resident (#133), out of a total sample of 12 residents, that the resident's drug regimen was free from unnecessary psychotropic medications to promote or maintain the Resident's highest practicable mental, physical, and psychosocial well-being. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure targeted behaviors and signs and symptoms of potential adverse consequences were monitored for the use of the antipsychotic medication Quetiapine. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Psychotropic Medications Policy, dated 11/15/2017, indicated but was not limited to: -Facility should comply with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) State Operations Manual Appendix PP, and all other applicable laws relating to the use of psychopharmacologic medications including gradual dose reductions. -All medications used to treat behaviors should be monitored for efficacy, risks, benefits, and harm or adverse consequences. Resident #133 was admitted to the facility in March 2025 and had diagnoses including mild cognitive impairment and restlessness and agitation. The Minimum Data Set assessment was in progress. Review of the medical record indicated Physician's Orders including but not limited to: -Quetiapine (antipsychotic) 25 milligrams (mg) at bedtime for restlessness and agitation (3/14/25) Review of the March 2025 Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated Quetiapine was administered as ordered by the physician. Further review of the medical record failed to indicate Resident #13's restlessness and agitation was monitored for efficacy of Quetiapine and that the Resident was monitored for potential adverse consequences for its use. During an interview on 3/19/25, the Director of Nursing reviewed Resident #133's medical record and said they were not monitoring the Resident's targeted behaviors to ascertain the effectiveness of the antipsychotic therapy and were not monitoring the Resident for potential adverse consequences but should be.
CONCERN (E)

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on review of the online Health Care Facility Reporting System (HCFRS: web-based system that health care facilities must use to report incidents and allegations of abuse, neglect, and misappropri...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of the online Health Care Facility Reporting System (HCFRS: web-based system that health care facilities must use to report incidents and allegations of abuse, neglect, and misappropriation) and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure staff reported/reported timely to the Department of Public Health (DPH), bruises of unknown origin on two occasions for one Resident (#29), out of a total sample of 12 residents. Findings include Review of the facility's policy titled Abuse, Mistreatment, or Neglect, dated 8/11/94, indicated but was not limited to: -This policy establishes the commitment of the facility to ensure that residents are free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, and exploitation; allegations or findings of prohibited conduct are reported and investigated in accordance with this Policy and applicable laws, rules and regulations; and that employees understand that they are required to report incidents or allegations of mistreatment and other conduct prohibited by this Policy and applicable law, as well as injuries of unknown origin to the Director of Nursing, Administrator and other officials as required by law. -Identification of possible incidents or allegations which need investigation-Physical marks on the Resident's body or physical injury of unknown source. -Notify the Administrator, Director of Nursing, and the State Survey Agency immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made when the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury. -Notify the Administrator, Director of Nursing, and the State Survey Agency immediately, but not later than 24 hours after the allegation is made if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury. Resident #29 was admitted to the facility in June 2024 and had diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, dementia with other behavioral disturbances, vascular dementia with anxiety, and claustrophobia. Review of the Minimum Data Set assessment, dated 12/17/24, indicated Resident #29 had severe cognitive impairment as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 00 out of 15, wandered daily and was independent/supervision for all activities of daily living (ADL). a. Review of Nurse's Notes, dated 2/6/25, indicated a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) reported to the nurse that Resident #29 was observed to have bruising to his/her bilateral upper extremities. The nurse assessed the Resident and noted a dark purple bruise on the right upper extremity measuring 3.5 centimeters (cm) x 3 cm and a faded bruise on the left upper extremity measuring 3 cm x 0.5 cm. The Resident's Health Care Proxy (HCP) and Physician were notified. Review of an Incident/Accident Report, dated 2/6/25, indicated a CNA reported that Resident #29 was found to have bruising to his/her bilateral upper arms. Further review of the investigation indicated that the Resident would yell out if injured, and due to his/her ambulatory status, the bruises appear to have occurred during his/her daily routine. b. Review of Nurse's Notes, dated 2/16/25, indicated Resident #29 had a bruise to his/her right thigh measuring 5.5 cm x 4.5 cm and was a mix of yellow/purple in color and a bruise to his/her left lateral plantar (the left side of the sole of the foot, specifically the outer portion) measuring 1.5 cm x 1 cm and was dark purple in color. The Resident's HCP and Physician were notified. Review of an Incident/Accident Report, dated 2/16/25, indicated while the Resident was being showered, a CNA notified the Nurse of a bruise to the Resident's left foot and a bruise to the left thigh. Further review of the investigation indicated Resident #29 ambulates independently in the facility and the day program (5 days a week) and it is possible that the Resident bumped into tables. Review of the HCFRS on 3/19/25 at 1:10 P.M., failed to indicate that the bruises of unknown origin to Resident #29's bilateral upper extremities identified 41 days prior on 2/6/25 and bruises of unknown origin to the Resident's right thigh and left foot identified 31 days prior on 2/16/25 were reported to DPH as required. During an interview on 3/19/25 at 1:19 P.M., Nurse #2 said he didn't know how the bruises on Resident #29's body occurred. During an interview on 3/19/25 at 1:34 P.M., the Nursing Supervisor said she completed the incident reports for the bruises identified on Resident #29's body on 2/6/25 and 2/16/25. She said they do not know how the bruises occurred, but assumes it happened because he/she wanders a lot and likes to obsessively clean things. She said the Resident may have bumped into something or it may have happened at the day program that he/she attends in the community five days a week. The Nursing Supervisor said she called the day program and was told they didn't know anything about the bruises. During an interview on 3/19/25 at 2:00 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) reviewed the incident reports, dated 2/6/25 and 2/16/25. She said they do not know how the bruises occurred because they were not witnessed, and the Resident could not explain what happened. She said the day program is a social program, not clinical at all, and many other people from the community attend. She said there is no true supervision of the Resident while he/she is there. The DON said the bruises of unknown origin were not reported because they assumed it happened at the day program, which the Resident attends five days a week for eight hours a day, or at the facility when he/she wanders around the unit. After reviewing incident reports, she said the bruises of unknown origin should have been reported but were not.
Mar 2024 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, document review, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure hot beverages were served at a safe temperature for one Resident (#24), which resulted in a burn, fr...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, document review, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure hot beverages were served at a safe temperature for one Resident (#24), which resulted in a burn, from a total sample of 12 residents. Findings include: Resident #24 was admitted to the facility in March 2018 with diagnoses including dementia, dysphagia (swallowing difficulty), and muscle weakness. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 12/4/23, indicated Resident #24 was unable to complete the Brief Interview for Mental Status as evidenced by a score of 99, had severely impaired skills for daily decision making, and required set-up assistance from staff with the activity of eating and drinking. Review of the facility's internal investigation report indicated that on 2/2/24 around 8:40 P.M., Resident #24 asked a Certified Nursing Assistant (later identified as CNA #1) for a cup of coffee while in the unit dining room. The investigation indicated the CNA brewed a cup of coffee utilizing a single-serve hot beverage brewing system in the staff break room and provided it to the Resident in two paper hot cups. The CNA's statement indicated the Resident spilled the hot coffee down the front of his/her body. The Resident was then taken to the bathroom by CNA #1 and CNA #2 and cold compresses were applied to his/her abdomen. On 3/6/24 at 9:46 A.M., the surveyor inspected the unit's staff break room and observed a single-serve hot beverage brewing system on the counter. No thermometers or instructions for ensuring beverages were served to residents at the proper temperature were noted. During an interview on 3/7/24 at 8:35 A.M., the Director of Nursing said they do not have a policy or anything in place right now on the units to ensure hot beverages are provided to residents at safe temperatures. On 3/7/24 at 2:55 P.M., a message was left for CNA #1 to return the surveyor's telephone call. On 3/8/24, CNA #1 returned the surveyor's telephone call, and during an interview at 9:05 A.M., the CNA said on 2/2/24 around 8:30 P.M., Resident #24 asked her for a cup of coffee. She said she looked in the kitchenette cabinet and found no coffee, then went to the staff break room. She said she found some coffee pods and brewed a cup of coffee in the single-serve hot beverage brewing system. CNA #1 said she used two cups so the coffee wouldn't be so warm for the Resident to hold on to. She said she did not measure the temperature of the coffee or otherwise make sure it was not too hot for the Resident. She said a short time after she gave the Resident the coffee, he/she spilled it on him/herself. She said the area on the Resident's abdomen was red for a week. She described it as a strip of redness across his/her abdomen that became like a thin burn mark. She said over the week, the area became darker and raised. CNA #1 said she is not aware of a policy about providing hot liquids to residents and has not received any education regarding serving hot liquids to residents.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, staff interview, and review of the manufacturers' recommendations for use, the facility failed to ensure that ophthalmic medications were labeled, dated, and stored to ensure the...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, and review of the manufacturers' recommendations for use, the facility failed to ensure that ophthalmic medications were labeled, dated, and stored to ensure the efficacy of the medication and prevent the potential for infection in 1 of 2 medication carts on 1 of 2 units inspected. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled General Dose Preparation and Medication and Administration, dated 12/1/07, indicated but was not limited to: -Facility staff should enter the date opened on the label of medications with shortened expiration dates. On 3/6/24 at 3:00 P.M., the surveyor inspected the Unit 3 Medication Cart with Nurse #5 and observed the following: The top drawer of the medication cart had multiple boxes stored which contained various eye medications. The individual boxes of eye medications were labeled with handwritten dates from 11/2023 to 1/2024 as follows: -a box containing a bottle of Artificial Tears for Resident #10 was labeled as opened on 11/11/23. -a box containing a bottle of Artificial Tears for Resident #9 was labeled as opened on 11/12/23. -a bottle of Artificial Tears for Resident #21 was labeled as opened on 12/31/23. -a bottle of Artificial Tears for Resident #1 was labeled as opened on 1/12/24. -a bottle of Timolol 0.5 % ophthalmic solution (used to treat glaucoma) for Resident #19 was not labeled with the date it was opened. During an interview on 3/6/24 at 3:00 P.M., Nurse #5 observed the various dates on the boxes containing the Artificial Tears and said she wasn't sure how long the Artificial Tears were safe to use after opening the bottle. She also said that there was no date that indicated when the medication should be discarded. Nurse #5 said she was not aware of the risk of infection that existed following the use of the eye drops past 4 weeks after opening. Nurse #5 did not know when the bottle of timolol eye solution was opened but said that Resident #19 received the eye medication twice/day. Review of the patient brochure for Tears Naturale (artificial tears) indicated that patients should Stop using the bottle 4 weeks after first opening, to prevent infections. Review of the manufacturer's instructions for use for Timolol 0.5% ophthalmic solution indicated to discard any solution remaining in the dropper bottle 4 weeks after the date on which the container is first opened due to the risk of infection. During an interview on 3/06/24 at 3:39 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) said she understood the concern regarding the potential for infection of artificial tears/timolol eye drops after being open for greater than 4 weeks. She also said that the labeling of eye medications should reflect a shortened expiration date based on the manufacturer's expiration date due to the risk of infection.
Oct 2022 10 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (H)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff provided residents with adequate supervision for four Re...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff provided residents with adequate supervision for four Residents (#22, #26, #1, and #8), out of 16 sampled residents, and an environment free from accident hazards on two of two units in the facility. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure: 1. For Resident #22, that effective care plan interventions were developed and implemented to prevent a fall with major injury; 2. For Resident #26, that effective care plan interventions were developed and implemented to prevent seven falls; 3. For Resident #1, that effective care plan interventions were developed and implemented to prevent three falls; 4. For Resident #8, that effective care plan interventions were developed and implemented to prevent four falls ; 5. The clean utility room on Unit 4 was locked and hazardous items including topical treatments were securely stored and not accessible to wandering residents; and 6. Medications were not left unsecured and accessible to residents on a medication cart on Unit 3. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Fall Prevention Program, last revised 8/2021, included, but was not limited to: -Goal: To identify residents at risk for falls and assure appropriate intervention for prevention of falls are implemented. To prevent injury with falls to the extent possible. -Procedure: Residents determined to be high risk for falls, may have the following preventative measures implemented: -Physical Therapy screen and follow recommendations -Frequent visual safety checks at regular intervals if necessary -Residents determined to be at risk will have the potential for falls reviewed at the weekly RISK team meeting and addressed on their care plan with the appropriate interventions documented. The CNA [Certified Nursing Assistant] assignment will indicate the resident is at risk for falls -The CNA Care Plan/Assignment & Resident Care -Plan will be updated with any change when the change occurs FALLS: 1. Resident #22 was admitted to the facility in March 2018 with diagnoses including dementia and a history of falls. Review of the Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] indicated that Resident #22 requires extensive assistance of two staff for transfers, bed mobility and utilized a wheelchair. The assessment indicated the Resident was unsteady and only able to stabilize with assistance when moving from a seated position to standing. Review of Resident #22's Interdisciplinary Care Plans included, but was not limited to: -Problem: Resident is at risk for falling related to a history of falls, dementia, incontinence and poor safety awareness (3/6/18) -Approach: Keep visible when up due to impulsive and history of falls (12/7/21); No chuck pad on wheelchair to prevent sliding from chair (7/6/20); Prefers to stay up until 10:00 P.M. (2/28/21); Encourage resident to assume a standing position slowly (3/6/18); Give resident verbal reminders not to ambulate/transfer without assistance (3/6/18); Keep bed in lowest position with brakes locked (3/6/18); Prompted toileting every A.M., P.M., before/after meals, bedtime and as needed (3/6/18) -Goal: Resident will remain free from injury with fall initiated (9/20/20) Review of the medical record indicated Resident #22 had seven falls from December 2021 to October 2022. Review of the falls indicated: 1.12/7/21 at 8:15 A.M., Resident was found on the floor mat next to bed. Review of the documentation failed to indicate what interventions were in place at the time of the fall, or interventions implemented to reduce the risk of future falls. 2. 2/9/22 at 10:15 P.M., Resident was found on the floor in the bathroom doorway in his/her room. Intervention identified to prevent the risk of falls was an eval. Review of the medical record failed to indicate an eval was conducted. No new interventions were put in place to prevent further falls. 3. 2/13/22 at 4:15 A.M., Resident was found on the floor mat next to bed. Intervention identified to prevent the risk of falls was an eval. Review of the medical record failed to indicate an eval was conducted. No new interventions were put in place to prevent further falls. 4. 6/18/22 at 10:00 A.M., Resident was found on the floor in the dining room on his/her back with blood coming from the head area. Review of the documentation failed to indicate what interventions were in place at the time of the fall. Intervention identified to prevent the risk of falls was an eval. A staff statement (CNA) indicated Resident #22 was toileted at 8:00 A.M. and was last seen sleeping in his/her wheelchair in the unit dining room. Review of the medical record failed to indicate any new interventions to prevent further falls. Review of a 6/18/22 Nursing Progress Note indicated that at approximately 10:00 A.M., the Nurse and CNA heard a thump, saw Resident #22 on the floor in the unit dining room on his/her back with blood coming from his/her head. The Resident was sent to the emergency room for evaluation. Review of the medical record and Hospital Discharge summary, dated [DATE], indicated Resident #22 presented to the Emergency Department after having an unwitnessed fall from his/her wheelchair with a head strike and laceration to the right forehead. The documentation indicated facility staff report the Resident slides out of his/her wheelchair occasionally. The assessment and plan indicated the Resident did not sustain a fracture but had a large forehead laceration and hematoma. The wound was cleaned and was going to be repaired by the PA (Physician's Assistant), however the size of the hematoma made it impossible to approximate the wound edges. Even with removal of some clot, the wound was too gaping to suture. Review of a 6/19/22 Nursing Progress Note indicated the forehead laceration measured 4.9 centimeters (cm) x 1.5 cm. 5. 7/25/22 at 4:00 A.M., Resident was found on the floor mat next to bed. Intervention identified to prevent the risk of falls was a PT eval. Review of the medical record failed to indicate a PT eval was conducted and no interventions were implemented to prevent further falls. 6. 9/19/22 at 10:30 P.M., Resident was found on the floor mat next to bed. Intervention identified to prevent the risk of falls was PT to screen. Review of the Rehabilitation Screen documentation failed to indicate any new interventions were recommended. 7. 10/5/22 at 12:32 A.M., Resident found on the floor mat next to bed. Intervention identified to prevent the risk of falls was screen. Review of the Rehabilitation Screen documentation failed to indicate any new interventions were recommended. During an interview on 10/7/22 at 11:30 A.M., the surveyor and Nursing Supervisor reviewed Resident #22's falls. The Nursing Supervisor said that the team had discussed different interventions to prevent falls but had not implemented any. She could not explain why the Resident's fall on 6/18/22 was unwitnessed and the care plan intervention of being kept visible when up due to impulsive behavior was not implemented . The Nursing Supervisor confirmed that no new interventions have been developed or implemented to prevent Resident #22 from having further falls. Review of the medical record on 10/20/22 indicated that Resident #22 was found on the floor mat next to bed. Intervention identified to prevent the risk of falls was a raised perimeter mattress placed on the Resident's bed. 2. Resident #26 was admitted to the facility in August 2017 with diagnoses including hypertension. Review of the 8/22/22 Minimum Data Set assessment indicated that Resident #26 requires supervision for transfers, walking in his/her room, toileting and personal hygiene. The assessment also indicated that the Resident is unsteady while walking, turning around, turning around and facing the opposite direction while walking and moving on and off the toilet. Review of interdisciplinary care plans included, but was not limited to: Problem: Resident is at risk for falling related to unsteady gait, psychotropic medication use (8/22/17) Approach: Keep call light and personal items in reach at all times (8/22/17); Encourage resident to use environmental devices such as hand grips, handrails, etc. (8/22/17); Provide verbal cues to stand tall and slow down during ambulation (12/9/19); Per request of Resident, handheld assist as required (2/6/20); Extra railing added along the wall to the bathroom for extra support (2/7/20) Goal: Resident will be free from injury (9/3/20) Review of the medical record indicated Resident #26 had seven falls from February 2022 to October 2022. Review of the falls failed indicated: 1. 2/18/22 at 1:45 A.M., Resident was found lying face down on the floor next to bed with pants around his/her ankles. A bruise was noted to the Resident's forehead and a skin tear to his/her left elbow. Review of documentation failed to indicate what interventions were in place at the time of the fall, or interventions implemented to reduce the risk of falls. 2. 4/3/22 at 12:15 A.M., Resident was found sitting on his/her buttocks in front of the toilet. Intervention identified to prevent the risk of falls was PT screen. Review of the Rehabilitation Screen documentation failed to indicate any new interventions were recommended. 3. 4/12/22 at 8:45 P.M., Resident was found on the floor lying on his/her right side in the bathroom. Intervention identified to prevent the risk of falls was PT screen. Review of the Rehabilitation Screen documentation indicated a recommendation for Occupational Therapy (OT) to evaluate and treat the Resident to increase safety and independence in room. The Physician wrote an order for an OT evaluation and treatment. Review of the 5/24/22 OT evaluation indicated the treatment plan would include therapeutic activity, therapeutic exercise, self-care/home management and balance twice a week for eight weeks. The OT evaluation failed to indicate any Resident specific interventions staff could implement to prevent further falls. 4. 5/21/22 at 9:05 P.M., Resident was found sitting on the floor in the bathroom. The section of the report to identify steps taken to prevent recurrence was blank. Review of the medical record failed to indicate any new interventions were implemented to prevent further falls. Review of a 5/27/22 OT treatment note indicated that while transferring to the toilet, Resident #26 continues to be unsafe due to increased knee flexion and shuffling gait. 5. 5/29/22 at 6:58 A.M., Resident was found on the floor in his/her room by custodial staff. The section of the report to identify steps taken to prevent recurrence was blank. Review of a 6/10/22 OT treatment note indicated Resident #26 presents with impaired insight into errors and deficits, requiring maximum cueing to maximize safety. Review of a 9/13/22 OT treatment note indicated Resident #26 walked to the bathroom with distant supervision and cueing and education for safety. 6. 10/2/22 at 8:44 P.M., Resident was found on the floor sitting on the floor in the bathroom. Interventions identified to prevent the risk of falls was: placed on falling star prevention program, encourage resident to ring call bell in bathroom for dressing/undressing. During an interview on 10/20/22 at 11:44 A.M., Physical Therapist (PT) #1 said she is aware Resident #26 has had multiple unwitnessed falls in the bathroom. She said the Resident participates in the Vitality program three days a week (ambulation by rehabilitation staff). The surveyor and PT reviewed the Resident's OT notes and were unable to identify any approaches identified for staff to implement to prevent further falls. She said every two-hour toileting program or increased supervision are interventions that could be implemented to prevent further falls, but she could not explain why they have not been attempted. During an interview on 10/20/22 at 12:25 P.M., Nurse #2 said that Resident #26 gets weak and falls in the bathroom. The surveyor asked Nurse #2 if she has any ideas of how to prevent the Resident from falling again and she said that he/she may be receptive to every 2-hour toileting, or distant supervision. The Nurse did not know why these interventions had not been attempted. 3. Resident #1 was admitted in 4/2010 with diagnoses which included, dementia in other diseases, bipolar disorder, delusional disorders, anxiety disorder, unspecified, and Parkinson's Disease. The Resident's BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score of 6 out of 15, indicated the presence of severe cognitive impairment. Additionally, the Resident was identified by the facility to be at high risk for falls, according to a John Hopkins Fall Risk Assessment score of #18 (>#13 High Risk). According to the Resident's Plan of Care for: Resident at risk for falling R/T Parkinson's disease, history of falls, poor safety awareness, was revised on 10/20/2022 (date of survey). The Goal was-Resident will remain free from injury. Approaches to achieve the goal were as follows: Start Date 10/18/22 -Resident identified as a fall risk. Place resident on Falling Star program. Start Date 7/30/2020 -Wander Guard placed on w/c (wheelchair) for safety. Start Date 4/30/2010 -Do not leave alone in bathroom. -Encourage resident to assume a standing position slowly. -Encourage resident to use environmental devices such as hand grips, hand rails, etc. -Give resident verbal reminders not to ambulate/transfer without assistance. -Keep call light in reach at all times. -Keep personal items and frequently used items within reach. -Provide resident with safety device /appliance: Gait belt, wheelchair. -Provide toileting assistance QAM, Before/after meals, HS and PRN. -Reacher within reach at all times. -Wheelchair for all mobility. Further Record review on 10/20/22, indicated that, despite the Plan of Care to prevent accidents and injury, the Resident experienced a total of 3 falls between the period of 5/2022 to 9/22/22 as indicated below: 1. On 5/13/2022 at 7:10 A.M., the Resident reportedly slid out of the wheelchair to the floor across from the nurse's station in the hallway by the clean utility room. The Resident was assessed by the nurse and no injuries were reported. The incident report indicated that steps taken to prevent recurrence included: PT eval (physical therapy) evaluation, refused wedge, frequent positioning, at times the Resident sits on the edge of the wheelchair. No additional interventions were listed following this fall to provide increased supervision and safety. 2. On 9/16/2022 at 2:45 A.M., the Resident was reportedly found lying on the floor (unwitnessed) in his/her room, sustained bruises to bilateral hands, right arm skin tear and bruises/abrasions on right lower leg. The incident investigation indicated that a PT eval would be done to prevent recurrence. No other interventions were listed to prevent further falls/injury, provide adequate supervision, and maintain the Resident's safety. 3. On 9/18/22 at 5:05 P.M., the Resident was reportedly found on the floor (unwitnessed) by a CNA (certified nursing assistant) on his/her knees with his/her head laying on the mattress at the foot of the bed. Interventions listed to prevent recurrence included use of the reacher (resident stated reaching for it unknown what) Encourage out of bed for meals d/t (due to) impulsivity. Although interventions were considered for this Resident, the Resident would not reliably remember information provided by staff, due to his/her severe cognitive decline. No additional interventions were implemented to provide greater supervision to maintain the Resident's safety and prevent injury. On 10/20/22 at 11:11 A.M., the Resident was observed in her room, sitting in his/her wheelchair, unsupervised, watching television. The Resident appeared to recognize this writer, and with garbled speech commented on their clothing. The Resident was observed rummaging through his/her drawers, wanted to shut his/her TV off but had difficulty doing so due to his/her debility in movement. Several minutes later, the Resident propelled the wheelchair to the doorway to his/her room, unsupervised, and appeared unsure of what to do. The Resident was non-ambulatory. The Administrator was interviewed on 10/20/22 at 1:50 P.M., regarding the frequent falls for this Resident, one fall with skin tears and bruises, and the risk for additional falls and injury remained due to ineffective safety interventions and supervision. The Administrator said that interventions to prevent falls had not been effective. 4. Resident #8 was admitted in 9/2017 with diagnoses which included unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbance. The medical record indicated that the Resident scored a 4 out of 15 on the BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status), which indicated severe cognitive impairment. Therapy indicated on 9/5/22, that an assist of 1 person continued to be required for all stand pivot transfers and the Resident was able to propel the wheelchair using BLE (bilateral lower extremities). On 9/5/22, a John Hopkins Fall Risk Assessment was performed which indicated a score of #18, placing the Resident at high risk for falls. The Resident's plan of care to address Falls was reviewed and indicated the following goals and interventions: GOAL: Resident will remain free from injury. Start Date: 9/26/2017 Approach: Provide toileting assistance per resident's toileting schedule -Give resident verbal reminders to use her call bell and wait for staff to assist her. Keep personal items in reach -Call light and personal items within reach. Night light on at HS (hour or sleep) Start Date: 12/14/21 Approach: Call before you fall/reminder sign posted at wheelchair height. Start Date: 10/18/22 Approach: Resident identified as a high risk for falls. Resident placed on Falling Star program. Falling star placed in resident shadow box for fall identification. Start Date: 10/19/22 Approach: Resident falls identified when reaching for items. Table ordered to allow resident to wheel wheelchair into, edges to prevent cards from slipping off, and is adjustable to resident. 1. On 6/15/22 at 5:00 P.M., the Resident fell and was found on the floor (unwitnessed) next to his/her wheelchair. Review of the incident/accident report, indicated that when asked, the Resident said that he/she was standing and reaching and then, I don't know. A small hematoma was found on the back of the Resident's head. The incident/accident report indicated that steps taken to prevent recurrence was a PT screen. 2. On 8/3/22 at 2:30 P.M., the Resident was found on the floor (unwitnessed) in his/her room next to his/her wheelchair. The incident/accident report indicated that the Resident was able to move all extremities, vital signs were stable, the Resident was alert and answering questions appropriately. The Resident was unable to state how he/she fell. The wheelchair was at reach beside the Resident. A reddened area was noted at the right, lower rib cage which resolved after 10 minutes. Steps taken to prevent recurrence noted on the incident/accident report were, PT eval and new tray table attempt for cards. No additional interventions were considered to prevent further falls/injury to the Resident. Physical therapy's evaluation of the Resident on 8/4/22, indicated, Frequent visual checks by all staff recommended and anticipation of needs to limit his/her reaching far forward. 3. On 8/17/22 at 1:45 P.M., Resident was reportedly heard yelling help. According to the incident/accident report, upon entering the room, the nurse found the Resident lying on the floor on his/her left side between the radiator and the closet. The Resident was alert, assessed by the nurse, and found to have no injuries. The incident/accident report indicated that, steps taken to prevent recurrence were, -encourage Resident to ring call bell for fallen cards, and -continue to reinforce call bell use. (Resident with severe dementia) 4. On 9/13/22 at 6:33 A.M., the Resident was found (unwitnessed) sitting on the floor in his/her room leaning against the bed. According to the incident/accident report, the Resident fell out of bed while trying to get to his/her wheelchair to use the bathroom. No apparent injuries were noted. The incident/accident report indicated that steps taken to prevent recurrence included, -educate resident on importance of waiting for assistance. -Reinforce call bell use. (Resident with severe dementia) In spite of approaches listed in the Resident's plan of care, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision and effective/appropriate interventions to prevent falls/accidents. Interview with the administrator on 10/20/22 at 1:55 P.M., said that the facility had a significant number of falls. She acknowledged that interventions, at times, were not effective and did not necessarily take into account the unique behaviors of residents and patterns associated with the falls. SAFETY HAZARDS 5. On 10/4/22 from 1:30 P.M. to 1:56 P.M., the surveyor observed two residents wandering the hallway on Unit 4 (secured unit/Memory Impaired). There was no facility staff visible in the unit hallway at the time of the observation. On 10/4/22 at 1:57 P.M. on Unit 4, the surveyor approached a closed door labeled clean utility. The door had a numerical combination lock on it, but the door was not pulled tight and secured and was easily pushed open. The room contained an unlocked treatment cart with a plastic caddy placed on top of the cart containing a bottle of fingernail polish remover, 12 bottles of fingernail polish, and one wooden manicure stick. The drawers of the treatment cart contained: -Drawer #1: two boxes of zinc oxide skin protectant ointment, two boxes of hemorrhoidal ointment, two tubes moisture barrier antifungal cream, one bottle of skin prep spray. -Drawer #2: one box of 200 alcohol prep wipes -Drawer #3: one bottle of fecal occult blood developing solution, one bag of wooden specimen sticks -Drawer #4: one box of Bacitracin Zinc antibiotic ointment Shelves in the clean utility room contained: -five bottles of baby powder -16 bottles of moisturizing body lotion with mineral oil -22 bottles of deodorant -15 bottles of shampoo -13 bottles of body wash -14 bottles of hand sanitizer -five cans of shaving cream -one box of 144 packets of Bacitracin antibiotic ointment -four boxes of zinc oxide ointment -30 packets of white petroleum skin protectant -three boxes of denture cleanser tablets -seven boxes of denture adhesive -seven boxes of toothpaste -18 bottles of mouthwash During an interview on 10/4/22 at 2:08 P.M., the surveyor showed Nurse #1 the unsecured clean utility room door. Nurse #1 pushed open the door and said the room is supposed to be locked at all times. 6. On 10/20/22 from 12:18 P.M. to 12:22 P.M., the surveyor observed one resident wandering the hallway on Unit 3. There was no facility staff visible in the unit hallways at the time of the observation. On 10/20/22 at 12:22 P.M. on Unit 3, the surveyor observed a medication cart positioned against the nursing station desk (opposite side that faces the unit dining room). There were 26 medication cards filled with prescription medication, two boxes of inhalers and a bag filled with medications and treatments on top of the medication cart. The surveyor observed Nurse #2 and a Certified Nursing Assistant in the unit dining room approximately 30 feet away from the medication cart. The line of sight from the dining room to the medication cart was obstructed by walls surrounding the nursing station. At 12:24, Nurse #2 approached the surveyor at the medication cart and said that she had to change out an oxygen tank for a resident seated in the dining room. She said that before changing the oxygen tank, she should have either locked the medications in the cart or brought them to the medication room.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0655 (Tag F0655)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed for one Resident (#179), out of a total sample of 16 residents, to complete and implement a baseline care plan that included initial goals, in...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed for one Resident (#179), out of a total sample of 16 residents, to complete and implement a baseline care plan that included initial goals, interventions, and a summary of the resident's fall risk and medications. Findings include: Resident #179 was admitted to the facility in September 2022. Review of the admission History and Physical completed by the attending physician indicated Resident #179 had diagnoses including depression, atrial fibrillation, diabetes mellitus, and a personal history of falls. Review of the September 2022 admission Physician's Orders indicated the Resident was prescribed Zoloft (an antidepressant), Eliquis (an anticoagulant), and Lantus insulin. Review of the Fall Risk Assessment Tool completed and signed on 9/28/22 indicated Resident #179 was at moderate risk for falls. Review of the Occupational Therapy Screen completed upon admission indicated the Resident required supervision for mobility with a rolling walker. Review of the Baseline Care Plan for Resident #179 failed to indicate care plans for the moderate fall risk, use of psychotropic medication (Zoloft), use of anticoagulant medication (Eliquis), or use of Lantus insulin. During an interview on 10/6/22 at 8:57 A.M., Social Worker #1 said the Resident was admitted from the community for a history of falling and furniture walking at home. She said the baseline care plan indicating the last fall to be one year ago was inaccurate. She said the baseline care plan does not involve any goal setting or interventions necessary and those items are determined after they get to know the Resident better and are part of a larger care plan process a few weeks after admission. During an interview on 10/6/22 at 9:03 A.M., Rehab staff #1 said all new admissions are screened upon admission. She said the Rehab Department doesn't have much involvement in the baseline care plan process but does provide information to nursing from the screens that are completed. She said the Rehab Team does not create goals or any interventions on the baseline care plan. During an interview on 10/6/22 at 12:22 P.M., the Director of Nurses said the baseline care plan should have as much information as possible to help the staff best care for and monitor the Resident until a full comprehensive care plan is developed. Upon reviewing the baseline care plan for Resident #179 she said it did not have any goals or interventions in place indicating the Resident's fall risk, nor did it address the medications or any monitoring for medications including monitoring for side effects.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on policy review, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that individualized, comprehensive care plans were developed and consistently implemented for two Residents (#13 and ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on policy review, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that individualized, comprehensive care plans were developed and consistently implemented for two Residents (#13 and #22), out of 16 sampled residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: 1. For Resident #13, a. develop a care plan to reflect the provision of community volunteer services; and b. develop a care plan for the use of anticoagulant medication; and 2. For Resident #22, to develop a care plan for the use of psychotropic medication that identified resident specific targeted behaviors, individualized interventions, and measurable goals. Findings include: 1. Resident #13 was admitted to the facility in October 2021 with diagnoses including dementia and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Review of October 2022 Physician's Orders indicated: -Continue [local] Hospice Care (7/27/21) a. Review of Hospice documentation binder indicated Resident #13 was seen by a Registered Nurse twice monthly since July 2021. The documentation included comprehensive assessments of the Resident's pain, respiratory status, cardiovascular system, gastrointestinal/nutrition, genitourinary, musculoskeletal system, activities of daily living, fall risk assessment, psychosocial status, skin assessment, Braden Scale for predicting pressure sore risk, vital signs, and review of the Resident's medication regime. Review of interdisciplinary care plans failed to indicate a care plan had been developed for services provided to Resident #13 by a volunteer community Hospice organization. During an interview on 10/06/22 at 9:54 A.M., the facility's Social Worker reviewed Resident #13's medical record and said that the Hospice Care is a volunteer program in the community that provides Hospice and Palliative Care. She said a Registered Nurse comes into the facility twice a month to see the Resident. The Social Worker said she thought she developed a care plan for this service but did not. b. Review of October 2022 Physician's Orders indicated: -Eliquis (anticoagulant) 2.5 milligrams (mg) twice a day (7/27/21) Review of Interdisciplinary Care Plans failed to indicate a care plan had been developed for the use of Eliquis. 2. Resident #22 was admitted to the facility in March 2018 with diagnoses including dementia and depression. Review of the October 2022 Physician's Orders indicated: -Sertraline/Zoloft 25 mg, two tablets once a morning for major depressive disorder (4/10/21) Review of interdisciplinary care plans included, but was not limited to: -Problem: Resident has a history of depression (3/6/18) -Approach: Zoloft 50 mg daily (1/30/20); Document symptoms of depression (3/6/18); Encourage participation in activities of choice (3/6/18); Monitor mood and behavior each shift (3/6/18) -Goal: Will not show any decrease in level of care related to depressive symptoms times 90 days (9/20/20) Further review of the care plan failed to identify Resident specific targeted signs/symptoms of depression, Resident specific interventions, including non-pharmacological approaches, and measurable goals for the use of antidepressant medication to meet the Resident's needs. During an interview on 10/5/22 at 3:35 P.M., the surveyor and Nurse #1 reviewed Residents #13 and #22's medical records. Nurse #1 confirmed that there was no care plan in place for the use of anticoagulant medication for Resident #13, and Resident #22's care plan for the use of psychotropic medications did not include Resident specific targeted behaviors, Resident specific interventions, and measurable goals of treatment.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0757 (Tag F0757)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to monitor three Residents (#179, #18, and #13), out of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to monitor three Residents (#179, #18, and #13), out of a total sample of 16 residents, for potential adverse reactions and side effects to Eliquis, an anticoagulant medication used to thin the blood and prevent clots. Findings include: Review of Bristol [NAME] Squib's website indicated Eliquis may have side effects and to call your doctor or get medical help right away if you have any of these signs or symptoms of unexpected bleeding or bleeding that lasts a long time, such as: -Unusual bleeding from the gums -Nosebleeds that happen often -Menstrual or vaginal bleeding that is heavier than normal -Bleeding that is severe, or you cannot control -Red, pink, or brown urine -Red or black stools (looks like tar) -Coughing up or vomiting blood -Vomit that looks like coffee grounds -Unexpected pain, swelling, or joint pain -Headaches -Feeling dizzy or weak 1. Resident #179 was admitted to the facility in September 2022 with diagnoses including atrial fibrillation. Review of the Physician's Orders for October 2022 indicated Resident #179 was prescribed Eliquis. Review of the October 2022 Medication Administration Record (MAR) for Resident #179 indicated Eliquis was administered as prescribed but failed to indicate any monitoring for potential signs and symptoms of adverse reactions including bruising or bleeding. 2. Resident #18 was admitted to the facility in August of 2022 with diagnoses including respiratory failure and atrial fibrillation. Review of the Physician's Orders for October 2022 indicated Resident #18 was prescribed Eliquis. Review of the October 2022 MAR for Resident #18 indicated Eliquis was administered as prescribed but failed to indicate any monitoring for potential signs and symptoms of side effects such as bleeding or bruising. During an interview on 10/06/22 at 11:21 A.M., Nurse #3 said neither Resident #179 nor Resident #18 had any formalized monitoring for their anticoagulant use and that is not a process that is in place at this facility. During an interview on 10/6/22 at 12:24 P.M., the Director of Nurses said there is nowhere that nurses routinely document the monitoring for potential side effects of anticoagulants like Eliquis, but her expectation is the nurses are aware of any potential side effects and would document them if they should occur. 3. Resident #13 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Review of the October 2022 Physician's Orders included, but was not limited to: -Eliquis 2.5 milligrams (mg) twice daily (7/27/21) The Physician's Orders failed to include monitoring the Resident for potential side effects of anticoagulant use. Review of August 2022 through October 2022 MARs indicated Eliquis was administered as ordered by the Physician. Further review of the medical record failed to indicate that staff monitored the Resident for signs/symptoms of bleeding as required. During an interview on 10/5/22 at 3:35 P.M., Nurse #1 reviewed Resident #13's medical record and said signs/symptoms of potential side effects of anticoagulant use are not monitored but should be.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain medical records that were complete, accurate, and systematically organized within accepted professional standards and practi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain medical records that were complete, accurate, and systematically organized within accepted professional standards and practice for one Resident (#12), out of a total sample of 16 residents. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Cardiac Pacemaker Monitoring, last revised 9/2022, included but was not limited to: -If Windemere has not received a report regarding the pacemaker check in seven business days, Windemere staff will contact provider's office and request report to be filed in patient/resident medical chart. Resident #12 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including sick sinus syndrome and presence of a cardiac pacemaker (an artificial device for stimulating the heart muscle and regulating its contractions). Review of the medical record indicated Physician's Orders included but was not limited to: -Pacemaker checks via telephone, every 3 months via remote access (4/10/20) Review of the medical record indicated documentation for pacemaker checks conducted on: -9/12/19 -10/14/19 -9/25/20 -4/26/21 -10/25/21 There was no additional pacemaker check documentation in the medical record. During an interview on 10/05/22 at 2:09 P.M., the surveyor and Nurse #1 reviewed Resident #13's medical record. Nurse #1 said there was no additional pacemaker check documentation in the medical record. During an interview on 10/6/22 at 2:00 P.M., the Staff Development Coordinator said the Resident's pacemaker check documentation was not in his/her medical record and had to be downloaded and printed from the hospital's electronic medical record.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0679 (Tag F0679)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure for two Residents (#6 and #25), out of a total sample of 16 residents, and for one unit (Unit 4-secured/memory impaire...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure for two Residents (#6 and #25), out of a total sample of 16 residents, and for one unit (Unit 4-secured/memory impaired unit) of two units, an activity program was implemented that engaged the residents and supported their physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Findings include: Review of the facility's policies, Activities and Recreation, last revised 6/2001, and Memory Care at Windemere, dated 9/2022, included, but was not limited to: -This facility provides an organized program of purposeful activities and recreation suited to the needs and interests of all its residents, from those who are bed ridden to those who are fully ambulatory. -Knowing each person's past and current interests has allowed us to gear each day to meet the needs of all our residents. -The program is designed to fulfill basic psychological, intellectual, physical, social and spiritual needs and utilizes a range of community, social, recreational, public and voluntary resources to promote facility-community relationships and to provide a broad assessment of scheduled activities. -The Activities Director supervises all volunteer activities and arranges for religious services, and participates in resident reviews, staff meetings and in-service educational programs. -Ancillary staff are employed to assist the Activities Director and to provide a minimum of 20 hours of activity and recreation per unit per week. -All residents are evaluated by the Activities Department following admission to determine the resident's interests, dislikes, goals, and needs. From this assessment an activity care plan is developed which is specific to the needs of each resident and consistent with the findings. 1. Review of the August, September, and October 2022 monthly activity calendars failed to indicate 20 hours of scheduled activity and recreation per week on each unit (14 to 18 hours a week on Unit 3 and 6 hours a week on Unit 4) according to facility policy. On 10/4/22 at 11:15 A.M., the surveyor observed seven residents in the Unit 4 dayroom. The television was on and playing a children's movie. One resident was seated at a table watching/listening to a movie on a DVD player; one resident was doing a puzzle; one resident was asleep while seated at a table; two residents were seated at tables with their backs facing away from the television; one resident was asleep in a wheelchair and one resident was scooting him/herself in a wheelchair in the room. No activity staff were on the unit. During an interview on 10/4/22 at 11:18 A.M., Nurse #1 said some residents are taken off the unit when there is musical entertainment on Unit 3, but others stay behind and there are no activity staff on the unit regularly. On 10/4/22 at 1:55 P.M., the surveyor observed six residents in the Unit 4 dayroom. The television was on and playing a Christmas movie. One resident was watching the movie; three residents were sleeping while seated at tables; one resident was scooting him/herself in a wheelchair in the room, and one resident was sitting idly with his/her back to the television. No activity staff were on the unit. On 10/5/22 at 10:06 A.M., the surveyor observed eight residents in the Unit 4 dayroom. Four residents were sleeping in their chairs, two residents were watching television, and three residents were seated at tables with their backs to the television sitting idly. No activity staff were on the unit. At 10:16 A.M., a staff member came onto the unit and accompanied four residents off the unit to listen to musical entertainment. Four residents remained in the Unit 4 dayroom. On 10/6/22 at 3:03 P.M., the surveyor observed three residents in the Unit 4 dayroom. Two residents were sleeping in their chairs and one resident was awake watching television. 2. Resident #6 was admitted to the facility in February 2005 with diagnoses including dementia. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 9/12/22, indicated that it is somewhat important for Resident #6 to participate in religious services or practices. Review of the Annual Recreation Assessment, dated 9/12/22, indicated Resident #6's activity preferences included spiritual/religious activities with a focus of programming to include religious activities. Review of the August, September, and October 2022 Activity Calendars failed to indicate any religious or spiritual programming to meet his/her needs. 3. Resident #25 was admitted to the facility in August 2021 with diagnoses including unspecified dementia, mood disturbance, and anxiety. Review of the MDS assessment, dated 8/1/22, indicated that it is somewhat important for Resident #6 to participate in religious services or practices. Review of the Annual Recreation Assessment, dated 8/2/22, indicated Resident #25's activity preferences included spiritual/religious activities with a focus of programming to include religious activities. Review of the August, September, and October 2022 Activity Calendars failed to indicate any religious or spiritual programming to meet his/her needs. Further review of the activity calendars failed to indicate residents were provided 20 hours of activity and recreation per unit per week. During an interview on 10/6/22 at 3:55 P.M., the Activity Director (AD) said only one activity is scheduled on Unit 4 daily because the residents on that unit get up in the morning, eat breakfast, a few residents go off the unit to listen to music, eat lunch, and then take a nap in the afternoon. She said that she is the only activity staff for the facility and the Certified Nursing Assistant on the unit can turn on the television for the residents if she wants to. The AD said that she does not have anyone come in from the community to meet the residents' religious/spiritual needs.
CONCERN (E)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

4. Resident #19 was admitted to the facility in August 2021 with diagnoses including recurrent depressive disorder. Review of the October 2022 Physician's Orders for Resident #19 indicated he/she rec...

Read full inspector narrative →
4. Resident #19 was admitted to the facility in August 2021 with diagnoses including recurrent depressive disorder. Review of the October 2022 Physician's Orders for Resident #19 indicated he/she received Lexapro (an antidepressant) and Trazodone (an antidepressant) both once a day. Review of Resident #19's care plans indicated a care plan for psychotropic medication use related to a history of depression and included an intervention to administer medications, monitor and record effectiveness as needed, and report any adverse effects. Review of the October 2022 MAR for Resident #19 failed to indicate any monitoring for signs and symptoms of potential side effects of these medications. Further review of the medical record failed to indicate any nursing documentation for the monitoring of potential adverse effects of the Resident's dual antidepressant use. During an interview on 10/5/22 at 1:35 P.M., Nurse #2 said there is nowhere that she is aware of that the nurses document the monitoring of signs and symptoms of adverse effects from psychotropic medications. 5. Resident #179 was admitted to the facility in September 2022 with diagnoses including depression. Review of the Physician's Orders for October 2022 indicated Resident #179 was prescribed Zoloft (an antidepressant). Review of the October 2022 MAR for Resident #179 failed to indicate any monitoring for signs and symptoms of potential side effects or effectiveness of his/her psychotropic medication. Review of the medical record failed to indicate any documentation regarding monitoring the effectiveness or for potential side effects of Resident #179's antidepressant use. During an interview on 10/5/22 at 2:01 P.M., the Nursing supervisor said that nurses do not document the monitoring of psychotropic medications for side effects or effectiveness unless the involved resident has a behavior intervention record, but they do not use one for all residents on psychotropic medications. During an interview on 10/5/22 at 2:42 P.M., Nurse #2 said Resident #179 was on Zoloft, but she was not aware of any behaviors or mood dysfunctions that the Resident suffers from, as there was no behavior intervention record available for this Resident. She said she does not have any way to monitor the effectiveness of the antidepressant, nor was there a system in place to consistently monitor the Resident for potential signs and symptoms of adverse effects from his/her psychotropic medication. During an interview on 10/6/22 at 12:24 P.M., the Director of Nurses said there is no process in place in which the nurses monitor for the effectiveness of psychotropic medications. She said behavior sheets are used on a short-term basis for residents who are exhibiting a behavior and not necessarily correlated with the prescribed psychotropic medications. She said there is no process in place for the nurses to document the monitoring of the residents for potential adverse effects to their prescribed psychotropic medications. Based on record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure that each resident's drug regimen was free of unnecessary drugs to promote or maintain the residents' highest practicable mental, physical, and psychosocial well-being, according to the facility's policy for five Residents (#13, #22, #25, #19, and #179), out of a total sample of 16 residents. Specifically, the facility failed for Residents #13, #22, #25, #19, and #179, to ensure resident specific, targeted behaviors and potential adverse consequences of use were monitored for the use of psychotropic medications as required. Findings include: 1. Resident #13 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including major depressive disorder. Review of the October 2022 Physician's Orders indicated: -Sertraline 25 milligrams (mg) once a day for major depressive disorder (7/26/22) The Physician's order failed to include monitoring of targeted behaviors, signs/symptoms of adverse consequences for the use of the antidepressant medication as required. Review of August, September, and October 2022 Medication Administration Records (MAR) indicated Sertraline was administered as ordered by the physician. Further review of the medical record failed to indicate that staff monitored resident specific, targeted signs/symptoms/behaviors to ascertain the efficacy of psychotropic medications administered to treat depression. 2. Resident #22 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including major depressive disorder. Review of the October 2022 Physician's Orders indicated: -Sertraline 25 mg, two tablets once a morning for major depressive disorder (4/10/20) Review of August, September and October 2022 MARs indicated Sertraline was administered as ordered by the physician. The physician's order failed to include monitoring of targeted behaviors, signs/symptoms of adverse consequences for the use of the antidepressant medication as required. Further review of the medical record failed to indicate that staff monitored resident specific, targeted signs/symptoms/behaviors to ascertain the efficacy of psychotropic medications administered to treat depression. 3. Resident #25 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including generalized anxiety disorder. Review of the October 2022 Physician's Orders indicated -Sertraline 25 mg once a day for generalized anxiety disorder (1/31/22) Review of August, September and October 2022 MARs indicated Sertraline was administered as ordered by the physician. The physician's order failed to include monitoring of targeted behaviors, signs/symptoms of adverse consequences for the use of the psychotropic medication as required. Further review of the medical record failed to indicate that staff monitored resident specific, targeted signs/symptoms/behaviors to ascertain the efficacy of psychotropic medications administered to treat anxiety. During an interview on 10/5/22 at 3:35 P.M., Nurse #1 said residents' behaviors are only monitored for the first two weeks they are on a new psychotropic medication, and signs/symptoms of potential side effects of the medication are not monitored but should be.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure all medications/treatments used in the facility were safely and securely stored in accordance with currently accepted professional pri...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure all medications/treatments used in the facility were safely and securely stored in accordance with currently accepted professional principles on two of two units in the facility. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure: 1. medications were properly stored in locked compartments and not left on top of a medication cart on Unit 3; and 2. the Unit 4 clean utility room which contained an unlocked treatment cart was secured. Findings include: 1. On 10/4/22 at 1:57 P.M. on Unit 4 (secured unit/Memory Impaired), the surveyor approached a closed door labeled clean utility. The door had a numerical combination lock on it, but the door was not pulled tight and secured and was easily pushed open. The room contained an unlocked treatment cart. The drawers of treatment cart contained: -Drawer #1: two boxes of zinc oxide skin protectant ointment, two boxes of hemorrhoidal ointment, two tubes moisture barrier antifungal cream, one bottle of skin prep spray. -Drawer #3: one bottle of fecal occult blood developing solution -Drawer #4: one box of Bacitracin Zinc antibiotic ointment Shelves in the clean utility room contained: -one box of 144 packets of Bacitracin antibiotic ointment -four boxes of zinc oxide ointment -30 packets of white petroleum skin protectant During an interview on 10/4/22 at 2:08 P.M., the surveyor showed Nurse #1 the unsecured clean utility room door. Nurse #1 pushed open the door and said the room is supposed to be locked at all times. 2. On 10/20/22 at 12:22 P.M. on Unit 3, the surveyor observed a medication cart positioned against the Nursing station desk (opposite side that faces the unit dining room). There were 26 medication cards filled with prescription medication, two boxes of inhalers and a bag filled with medications and treatments on top of the medication cart. The surveyor observed Nurse #2 and a Certified Nursing Assistant in the unit dining room approximately 30 feet away from the medication cart. The line of sight from the dining room to the medication cart was obstructed by walls surrounding the nursing station. At 12:24, Nurse #2 approached the surveyor at the medication cart and said that she had to change out an oxygen tank for a resident seated in the dining room. She said that before changing the oxygen tank she should have either locked the medications in the cart or brought them to the medication room.
CONCERN (F)

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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review, review of the QAPI (Quality Assurance Performance Improvement) Policies and Procedures, review of the QAPI Annual Plan, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure that...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, review of the QAPI (Quality Assurance Performance Improvement) Policies and Procedures, review of the QAPI Annual Plan, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure that its QAPI plans and procedures identified problematic clinical issues, such as falls, and failed to implement effective strategies in accordance with its QAPI Program, to correct or minimize the risk of falls and injury. Findings include: Review of the Administrative Policies and Procedures for Quality Assurance & Performance Improvement, dated 1/22/2013, indicated the Design and Scope of the QAPI program will be ongoing & comprehensive, dealing with the full range of services offered by the facility, including all departments. When fully implemented, the program will address all systems of care & management practices, & will include clinical care, quality of life, & resident choice. The QAPI policy further indicated that Our goal is safety & high quality with all clinical interventions while emphasizing autonomy & choice in daily life for residents (or resident's agents). Our plan utilizes the best available evidence to define & measure goals. During the course of the recertification survey from 10/4/22 to 10/20/22, the facility was identified as having multiple residents who had experienced a significant number of falls, some unwitnessed, and some with significant injury to include fractures and lacerations as noted below. Record review indicated that from 5/7/22 (QAPI COVID-19 waiver lifted) to 10/20/22, there were a total of 14 falls as indicated below: In June 2022, one resident fell and sustained a head laceration. In July 2022, three residents experienced a total of four falls. One resident had two falls. One resident sustained a fractured cervical vertebrae. In August 2022, one resident experienced 2 falls, both on the same day. In September 2022, two residents experienced one fall each. One of two residents sustained head trauma and received 12 sutures for a right ear laceration. In October 2022, five resident experienced a fall. During an interview on 10/7/22 at 1:00 P.M., the surveyor reviewed the Facility's Annual QAPI Plan with the Administrator. The Administrator said monthly and quarterly meetings are held to discuss areas of concern and topics included but was not limited to: -Resident incidents -Quality and Safety Measures Further review of the QAPI Annual Plan (monthly and quarterly meetings), from 5/2022 to 10/2022, indicated, The annual QAPI work plan will be created with an effort to include initiatives from different domains to reflect a global approach to quality improvement. Domains listed in the QAPI work plan included Fall prevention &/or fall with injury. The facility was unable to provide information to support that falls had been reviewed by the QAPI committee. During an interview on 10/7/22 at 10:21 A.M., the Administrator said the facility's QAPI program/plan had not developed strategies, or identified a Root Cause Analysis, to address the significant number of resident falls identified by the survey team, or a documented plan (Performance Improvement Plan) to reduce/minimize falls/injury to residents in the future.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

2. Resident #2 was admitted to the facility in September 2010 with diagnoses that included degenerative disease of the nervous system and dementia. During an observation with interview on 10/4/22 at ...

Read full inspector narrative →
2. Resident #2 was admitted to the facility in September 2010 with diagnoses that included degenerative disease of the nervous system and dementia. During an observation with interview on 10/4/22 at 11:25 A.M., Resident #2 said staff are not brushing his/her teeth to his/her liking. The surveyor observed the Resident to have obvious plaque buildup on broken decaying teeth. The Resident said he/she sees someone from dentistry routinely. Review of the medical record indicated the Resident was seen by the dentist on 3/24/22, 6/18/22, and 4/15/22, and all three documented visits indicated the Resident had obvious or likely cavity or broken natural teeth. Review of the most recent MDS under section L, Oral dental status, did not accurately reflect Resident #2's dental condition as documented by the dentist. During an interview on 10/6/22 at 2:23 P.M., the MDS nurse reviewed the dentist evaluation sheets and said the MDS should have indicated: obvious or likely cavity or broken natural teeth, but it did not. Based on observation and interview the facility failed for two Residents (#13 and #2), out of a total sample of 16 residents, to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment accurately reflected the Residents' status. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure: 1. For Resident #13, section O of the MDS for Hospice services was accurately documented; and 2. For Resident #2, section L of the MDS for dental status was accurate. Findings include: 1. Resident #13 was admitted to the facility in July 2021 with diagnoses including sepsis. Review of the 7/18/22 MDS assessment section O indicated Resident #13 received Hospice services and had a condition or chronic disease that may result in a life expectancy of less than 6 months (requires Physician documentation). Review of the medical record failed to indicate Physician documentation that Resident #13 had a condition or chronic disease that may result in a life expectancy of less than 6 months. Further review of the medical record indicated the Resident receives Registered Nursing visits twice a month from a volunteer organization in the community and does not receive Hospice services. During an interview on 10/06/22 at 12:10 P.M., the Director of Nursing said Resident #13 receives twice monthly Registered Nurse visits from a volunteer program in the community and does not receive Hospice services. She said the MDS was inaccurate.
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

  • "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Massachusetts facilities.
Concerns
  • • 16 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • 58% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is Windemere Nursing & Rehabilitation Center's CMS Rating?

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

How is Windemere Nursing & Rehabilitation Center Staffed?

CMS rates WINDEMERE NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 58%, which is 12 percentage points above the Massachusetts average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 62%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Windemere Nursing & Rehabilitation Center?

State health inspectors documented 16 deficiencies at WINDEMERE NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm, 14 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Windemere Nursing & Rehabilitation Center?

WINDEMERE NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 106 certified beds and approximately 32 residents (about 30% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in OAK BLUFFS, Massachusetts.

How Does Windemere Nursing & Rehabilitation Center Compare to Other Massachusetts Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Massachusetts, WINDEMERE NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (58%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Windemere Nursing & Rehabilitation Center?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's high staff turnover rate.

Is Windemere Nursing & Rehabilitation Center Safe?

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

Do Nurses at Windemere Nursing & Rehabilitation Center Stick Around?

Staff turnover at WINDEMERE NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER is high. At 58%, the facility is 12 percentage points above the Massachusetts average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 62%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Windemere Nursing & Rehabilitation Center Ever Fined?

WINDEMERE NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.

Is Windemere Nursing & Rehabilitation Center on Any Federal Watch List?

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