DUNBAR VILLAGE TERRACE

725 DUNBAR AVE, BAY SAINT LOUIS, MS 39520 (228) 466-3099
For profit - Partnership 60 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
51/100
#67 of 200 in MS
Last Inspection: July 2025

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

Overview

Dunbar Village Terrace in Bay Saint Louis, Mississippi, has a Trust Grade of C, meaning it is average and falls in the middle of the pack. It ranks #67 out of 200 facilities in the state, placing it in the top half, and is the best option among only two facilities in Hancock County. The facility is improving, with issues decreasing from six in 2024 to three in 2025. However, staffing is a concern, with a low rating of 1 out of 5 stars and a high turnover rate of 60%, which is above the state average. Additionally, there have been some troubling incidents, including a resident with cognitive impairment who was able to exit the facility unsupervised, posing a serious risk, and there were also issues with medication administration and food safety, such as moldy strawberries found in the kitchen.

Trust Score
C
51/100
In Mississippi
#67/200
Top 33%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
6 → 3 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
60% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$8,021 in fines. Higher than 78% of Mississippi facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
RN staffing data not reported for this facility.
Violations
○ Average
9 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 6 issues
2025: 3 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

3-Star Overall Rating

Near Mississippi average (2.6)

Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities

Staff Turnover: 60%

13pts above Mississippi avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $8,021

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Staff turnover is elevated (60%)

12 points above Mississippi average of 48%

The Ugly 9 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening
Jul 2025 3 deficiencies
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 observation, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure services were provided in accordance with professional standards of practice observed during ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure services were provided in accordance with professional standards of practice observed during medication administration when the nurse allowed Resident #11 to self-administer two (2) different prescribed nasal sprays without assessing whether he was capable of doing so safely for one (1) of four (4) residents observed. (Resident #11). Findings include:A review of the facility's policy titled Resident Self-Administration of Medication, with a reviewed/revised date of 5/2025, revealed, .It is the policy of this village to support each residents' right to self-administer medication. A resident may only self-administer medications after the village's interdisciplinary team has determined which medications may be self-administered safely. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines.4. The results of the interdisciplinary team assessment are recorded on the Medication Self-Administration Assessment Form, which is placed in the resident's medical record.On 7/30/25 at 8:32 AM, during a medication administration observation, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #2 was observed administering two (2) nasal spray medications to Resident #11: Azelastine Hydrochloride (HCL) Solution 137 micrograms (mcg)/spray and Fluticasone Propionate Nasal Suspension 50 mcg/actuation. LPN #2 instructed Resident #11 to self-administer one (1) spray to each nostril for both medications. Resident #11 was observed administering two (2) sprays to each nostril of the Fluticasone. LPN #2 stated that the resident usually administered his own nasal sprays but confirmed she was unsure whether the resident had been assessed to self-administer. She acknowledged that the resident used two (2) sprays of Fluticasone, although the order specified one (1) spray to each nostril.On 7/30/25 at 10:10 AM, during an interview with Resident #11, he stated the nurse always gave him his nasal sprays, but he administered them himself. He explained he always gave himself two (2) sprays of each medication because it made it easier for both him and the nurse.On 7/31/25 at 9:37 AM, during an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), she stated there were no residents in the facility who had been assessed or had physician orders to self-administer medications. She acknowledged being aware that Resident #11 administered his own nasal sprays but explained that if a resident could not follow dosage instructions, they would not qualify for self-administration. She confirmed it was her expectation that all nurses ensure a resident has been assessed for self-administration and that medications are administered in accordance with physician orders.A record review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #11 on 11/6/24 with diagnoses including Dementia.A record review of the Order Summary Report with active orders as of 7/31/25, revealed Resident #11 had a Physician's Order for Fluticasone Propionate Nasal Suspension, dated 3/14/25 for 1 (one) spray in both nostrils two (2) times a day for Rhinitis, and there were no orders noted for self-administration.A record review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 5/30/25 revealed Resident #11 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13, which indicated he was cognitively intact.A review of the electronic health record (EHR) and paper chart revealed there was no Self-Administration Assessment Form completed for Resident #11.
CONCERN (D)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and the facility's ServSafe (a food safety training and certification program) documentation review, the facility failed to ensure that food was stored in a safe and s...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and the facility's ServSafe (a food safety training and certification program) documentation review, the facility failed to ensure that food was stored in a safe and sanitary manner to prevent contamination and deterioration for one (1) of two (2) kitchen observations.Findings include:A review of the facility's ServSafe document The Flow of Food: Purchasing, Receiving and Storing, dated 2020, revealed, . Receiving and Inspecting.make sure enough trained staff are available to receive and inspect food items promptly . Food Quality.Appearance Reject food that is moldy or has an abnormal color . Do not overload coolers or freezer to prevent good air flow, use open shelving .On 7/28/25 at 10:15 AM, during an observation of the kitchen and an interview with the Dietary Manager (DM), seven (7) pints of strawberries with visible mold were observed on a cardboard flat between two (2) flats of grapes in the walk-in cooler. Additionally, eight (8) oranges with a dried appearance, mold, and soft texture, and two (2) lemons with green and black mold were observed. The DM confirmed the fruit was stored for resident consumption and explained that the fruit was typically inspected at the time of use. He acknowledged that the oranges were from that morning's snack cart. In the dry storage room, a drinking cup was observed stored inside the flour bin and a measuring cup was observed stored inside the sugar bin. Both cups were in direct contact with the food product and were being used as scoops. The DM immediately removed the cups and confirmed they had been in use.On 7/28/25 at 11:40 AM, during an interview with the Registered Dietitian (RD), she stated that she had been informed of the kitchen findings by the DM. She explained that the molded fruit was discarded immediately and confirmed that the cups were removed from the flour and sugar bins.On 7/31/25 at 10:31 AM, during an interview with the Administrator, she stated that the fruit found in the cooler had not been served to residents. After being informed that the oranges were found on the morning snack cart and that fruit is routinely served with meals, the Administrator acknowledged that kitchen staff had daily opportunities to identify and remove unfit fruit. She also confirmed she had been made aware of the findings of cups being used as scoops and being stored in the flour and sugar bins.
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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that all clinical records, including nurse practitioner (NP) visit notes, were readily accessible to licensed nursing ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that all clinical records, including nurse practitioner (NP) visit notes, were readily accessible to licensed nursing staff responsible for resident care for one (1) of 15 sampled residents, Resident #5, with the potential to affect fifty-seven (57) residents who reside in the facility. Findings include:On 7/28/25 at 1:54 PM, during an observation and interview, Resident #5 was observed wearing a right wrist splint. The resident explained she fell at home and broke her femur and wrist. She stated she continued to have some pain but received pain medications as ordered and that the nurse practitioner recently changed how often she could receive them.On 7/29/25 at 1:10 PM, during an interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 she stated Resident #5's pain medication frequency was recently changed from every four (4) hours to every six (6) hours. She explained she typically reviewed progress notes in the EHR for any changes related to residents and confirmed there were no progress notes from the NP in the EHR for Resident #5.On 7/29/25 at 1:15 PM, during an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), she reviewed EHRs on her computer and explained the NP visited Resident #5 on 7/11/25 because the resident was discharged from the hospital with a ten (10)-day supply of Norco. She stated the NP notes were entered into a separate system that was only accessible to facility management. She confirmed the notes were not accessible to floor nurses and stated that if a nurse needed information regarding what occurred during a NP visit, they would need to call the NP directly or contact the on-call nurse. She acknowledged this process was unconventional but was a method that could be used for clarification if a nurse had a question about what occurred during a NP visit. The DON confirmed the NP sees all residents in the facility upon admission, annually, and as needed.On 7/30/25 at 8:30 AM, during an interview with the Administrator, she stated the facility communicated changes in resident care, including new physician orders, during morning meetings and through messaging within the EHR system. The Administrator explained the facility transitioned to an EHR system that was not compatible with the NP's software and therefore could not be viewed by the floor staff. The provider's progress notes not being readily accessible in resident charts were something that had fallen through the cracks during the software transition. A record review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #5 on 6/25/25 with current diagnoses including Aftercare Following Joint Replacement Surgery.A record review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 7/2/25 revealed Resident #5 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13, which indicated she was cognitively intact.
Apr 2024 1 deficiency 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

Based on interviews, record review, facility policy review, and facility investigation review, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent Resident #1, who was identified as an elop...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews, record review, facility policy review, and facility investigation review, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent Resident #1, who was identified as an elopement and wandering risk and had moderate cognitive impairment, from exiting the facility unnoticed and unsupervised for one (1) of four (4) residents reviewed. Resident #1 Resident #1 was observed by a therapy staff member to be in the lobby of the facility at approximately 12:00 PM on 4/6/24. The therapy staff member left the facility to pick up lunch and as she returned to the facility, she observed Resident #1 near the side of the main road, approximately 100 feet from the facility grounds at approximately 12:08 PM. The facility staff were unaware that Resident #1 had exited the facility. The facility's failure to provide supervision resulted in Resident #1's elopement and has the likelihood to result in serious harm, serious injury, serious impairment, or death for Resident #1 and all other cognitively impaired residents who leave the facility unsupervised. The State Agency (SA) identified an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) and Substandard Quality of Care (SQC), which began on 4/6/24. The SA notified the Administrator of the IJ on 4/11/24 at 4:35 PM and provided an IJ Template. Based on the facility's implementation of corrective actions on 4/6/24, the SA determined the IJ and SQC to be Past Non-Compliance (PNC) and the IJ was removed on 4/7/24, prior to the SA's entrance on 4/11/24. Findings include: A review of the facility's, Missing Resident Policy, dated 5/2018, revealed the facility had a process in place regarding missing residents. A record review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #1 on 3/24/23 with current diagnoses including Dementia. A record review of the Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date of 3/13/24 revealed Resident #1 required a staff interview to asses her cognition and her cognitive skills for daily decision making was moderately impaired. Record review of the facility's Investigative Report, dated 4/8/24, revealed on 4/6/24 at 12:00 PM, Resident #1 left the facility unwitnessed with a wander guard (device worn by a resident to trigger an alarm near exit doors) on and was found approximately 100 feet off campus by Certified Occupational Therapist Assistant (COTA) and Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) #1. The resident had been having exiting behavior earlier that day and was redirected. Upon leaving the facility, the COTA noticed the resident was engaging in conversation in the front room of the facility. She drove to a local restaurant to pick up her lunch and upon her return CNA #1 was looking for Resident #1 in the front room. The COTA asked CNA #1 if Resident #1 was their resident and pointed in the direction of the resident. CNA #1 retrieved Resident #1 and brought her back to the facility. The resident was dressed in pants, a top, an overcoat, a hat, and slip-on shoes, and the weather was 71 degrees and sunny. Record review of the local weather history revealed on 4/6/24 at 11:53 AM, the temperature was 71 degrees Fahrenheit and the weather conditions were fair. During an interview on 4/11/24 at 12:33 PM, CNA #1 confirmed Resident #1 was approximately 100 feet from the facility grounds, sitting on the lawn next to the street. CNA #1 stated on 4/6/24, she last observed Resident #1 at approximately 11:45 AM while she was passing out lunch trays to the residents. CNA #1 reported that at approximately 12:08 PM she went to look for Resident #1 when the COTA entered the facility and asked if the lady wearing the white hat was the facility's resident. CNA #1 immediately ran towards the resident to bring her back to the facility and reported the incident to the Director of Nurses (DON). On 4/11/24 at 12:50 PM, during an interview with CNA #1 and observation of the route from the front door of the facility to the location where Resident #1 was located, there was an incline from the front door down to the parking lot. The parking lot was paved to the roadway, but there were no sidewalks beside the roadway. The grass was short, and the ground was even. CNA #1 pointed out the cement slab where Resident #1 was sitting. The cement slab was slightly raised from the ground, approximately six (6) inches high and was within five (5) feet of the main roadway, across from a residential driveway. In the area behind the cement slab where she was sitting, there was a steep embankment. The traffic was light with one (1) car observed passing by on the roadway at the time of the observation. The resident was located approximately 220 yards from the front door and approximately 50 yards down the road from the facility grounds. On 4/11/24 at 1:15 PM, during an interview with the Director of Nurses (DON), she confirmed on 4/6/24 after lunch, CNA #1 informed her of finding Resident #1 outside the facility. The DON was at the facility and immediately assessed the resident and notified the Administrator. The DON stated she found no physical injuries and no psychosocial harm when she assessed Resident #1. The facility began their investigation and reported the event to the required agencies. On 4/11/24 at 2:22 PM, during an interview with the Maintenance Director, she stated she had been informed Resident #1 had exited the building on 4/6/24 while she was wearing a wander guard device. She came to the facility on 4/6/24 to check the door alarms and wander guard devices and did not find an issue. The Maintenance Director stated she routinely checked both exit doors two times daily, and checked the wander guards to ensure the alarms were functioning properly. She explained the housekeeping staff were responsible for checking the doors on weekends. The door alarm vendor came to the facility on 4/7/24 and determined there was radio static interference (service interruptions caused by external radio waves or electrical activity). Prior to the elopement, the doors at the front entrance were not locked, but now the doors are locked, and a code must be entered in the keypad to open the doors. On 4/11/24 at 3:00 PM, during an observation and interview, Resident #1 was ambulating in the hallway with a fast-paced and steady gait. She was unable to recall anything that occurred on 4/6/24 when she left the facility, and she was unable to recall how or why she exited the facility. During a phone interview on 4/11/24 at 4:00 PM, with the COTA, she confirmed on 4/6/24 she was at work at the facility. She explained that she worked part-time and did not know all the residents at the facility. On 4/6/24 at 12:00 PM, she noticed a person in the front lobby wearing a white hat. The COTA left the facility and went through a drive through at a local sandwich shop to pick up her order. On the way back to the facility, at approximately 12:08 PM, she noticed the same woman, wearing a white hat, sitting on the ground on a sidewalk on the side of the road. The COTA walked into the facility and asked CNA #1 if the person sitting on the side of the road was a resident and informed her where she was sitting. CNA #1 immediately ran to Resident #1 and brought her back to the facility. On 4/11/24 at 4:15 PM, during an interview with the Administrator, she confirmed on 4/6/24 at approximately 12:00 PM, the COTA, who worked part-time at the facility was not knowledgeable of all the residents. The COTA happened to notice Resident #1 because of her white hat in the front room before going to a local restaurant to get lunch. Upon her return, she observed Resident #1 sitting on a sidewalk about 100 feet from the facility grounds, but since she was not aware she was a resident, she did not stop. She informed CNA #1 and questioned if Resident #1 was the facility's resident, and pointed to the direction of where she was sitting. CNA #1 immediately ran to her and brought her back to the facility. The DON was present in the facility at that time and immediately assessed the resident for injuries, of which she had none. The Administrator confirmed Resident #1 was a wandering risk and was wearing a wander guard device. The Administrator was notified of the incident, came to the facility, and reported to the required agencies within two (2) hours of the incident. The facility began the investigation, which they felt was a faulty wire of the wander guard system since the system worked when tested. The facility submitted a corrective action plan as follows: 1. On April 11, 2024, the Administrator (ADM) and Director of Nurses (DON) were notified of an immediate jeopardy for F689 for failure to provide supervision to prevent an elopement for Resident #1 who was identified as an elopement and wandering risk. 2. On April 6, 2024, when Resident #1 was retrieved and re-entered the building at approximately 12:08pm, she was immediately assessed by the DON. A body audit was completed with no injury noted. Resident was interviewed by the DON. The DON verified that her wander guard was properly placed and functioning. 3. Resident #1 was immediately placed on alert charting by the DON on 4/6/2024 to identify location every hour. 4. The DON immediately notified the ADM of the elopement on 4/6/2024 by 12:20pm. The DON then notified the responsible party of the resident and the Medical Director by 12:30pm. The ADM notified the Maintenance Director 1:00pm. 5. The ADM notified the State Agency on 4/6/2024 by 2:00pm 6. The ADM notified the Attorney General on 4/6/2024 4:00pm. 7. On 4/6/2024, all residents were checked and accounted for in the building by the Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) and reported to the ADM. Staff was interviewed by the DON and the ADM to determine if any resident was exit seeking that had not already been identified. None were identified. 8. The DON and ADM began investigation and collection of statements from all staff present on 4/6/2024. 9. All residents with wander guards were checked for proper placement and function by the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Supervisor on 4/6/2024. All were found to be properly placed and functioning. 10. All exit doors and alarms were checked for proper functioning by the Maintenance Technician on 4/6/2024 by 1:15pm. 11. Vendor #1, the door alarm provider, was called by the Maintenance Director on 4/6/2024 to schedule an onsite visit. 12. The ADM began a 24-hour door monitoring schedule on 4/6/2024 until Vendor #1 could conduct an on-site visit. 13. The notice to visitors on the door was revised by the ADM to be bigger and brighter instructing to not let any resident out of the door without notifying staff on 4/6/2024. 14. ADM began inservicing all staff on the Missing Resident policy and the Safe Guarding the Wandering Resident policy on 4/6/2024. Staff to be inserviced before returning to work. 15. The plan of care of Resident #1 was updated to reflect the elopement by the Registered Nurse on 4/6/2024. 16. All tasks in the electronic healthcare record of residents with wanderguards were updated by the LPN Supervisor on 4/6/2024 to include the task of the Certified Nursing Assistant to check the proper placement of the wanderguard every shift. On 4/6/2024 the CNAs began to be inserviced on this by the LPN Supervisor. Staff to be inserviced before returning to work. 17. The Elopement Risk Evaluation began being updated on all residents on 4/6/2024 by the nurse supervisors. No new residents with risk of elopement were identified. 18. The Elopement Risk Binder was created for all residents with wanderguards to include their picture, name, date of birth and medical record number by the LPN Supervisor on 4/6/2024. The staff was inserviced on these binders and their location at each nurse desk beginning 4/6/2024. Staff to be inserviced before returning to work. 19. All nurses were inserviced and completed a competency check-off on how to test a transmitter (wanderguard) every shift as indicated on the Medication Administration Record (MAR) beginning 4/6/2024 by the LPN Supervisor. Staff to be inserviced before returning to work. 20. Daily Stand Up Agenda in which all staff attends on two shifts was updated by the ADM on 4/6/2024 to include identifying what residents have wanderguards. Note that the agenda previously included to identify any doors/alarms not working properly and any elder who is at risk for elopement. 21. On 4/7/2024, Vendor #1 serviced the door and installed keypads in which the door remains locked. A code is required in order to enter and exit the door. 22. Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee met on 4/6/2024 that included the Administrator, Director of Nurses, Medical Director, RN Consultants, Infection Preventionist, LPN Supervisor, Maintenance Director, President/Co-Owner, and Chief Operating Officer to discuss the elopement of Resident #1 and updating the plan of care. Reviewed the Missing Resident policy. No recommendations for changes were made. 23. QAPI committee met again on 4/10/2024 to include Administrator, Director of Nurses, RN Consultant, Nurse Practitioner, Social Service Director, LPN Supervisor, Maintenance Director, Activities Director, Admissions Coordinator, Administrative Assistant, and Infection Preventionist as a follow up to ensure all interventions that were put in place were effective. No concerns were noted. All findings will be discussed at the monthly Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) meeting for a minimum of three months or until the compliance is maintained. 24. The Elopement Risk Evaluation is to be completed by the Registered Nurse (RN) Supervisor on all new residents upon admission and quarterly thereafter beginning 4/6/2024. 25. Beginning 4/6/24, visual checks to be initiated for all residents by the medication cart nurse for the first 72 hours upon admission and a wanderguard to be placed if deemed necessary. 26. Missing Resident and Safeguarding the Wandering Resident policies continue to be inserviced upon hire and quarterly thereafter. Monitoring to be completed as follows: Elopement Drill to continue to be completed quarterly. The wanderguard audit will continue to be completed monthly by LPN supervisor. Maintenance Director/Housekeeping to continue with daily door checks 2x/day. Wanderguard proper placement and functioning to be checked every shift on the MAR. The Village alleges that all corrective actions were completed by April 6, 2024, and the Immediate Jeopardy is removed as of 4/7/2024. The SA validated the corrective action plan: On 4/12/24, the SA validated through interview and record review, on April 11, 2024, the Administrator (ADM) and Director of Nurses (DON) were notified of an immediate jeopardy for F689 for failure to provide supervision to prevent an elopement for Resident #1 who was identified as an elopement and wandering risk. On 4/12/24, SA validated through interview and record review, on April 6, 2024, when Resident #1 was retrieved and re-entered the building at approximately 12:08pm, she was immediately assessed by the DON. A body audit was completed with no injuries noted. Resident was interviewed by the DON. The DON verified that her wander guard was properly placed and functioning. On 4/12/24, the SA validated through interview and record review Resident #1 was immediately placed on alert charting by the DON on 4/6/2024 to identify location every hour. On 4/12/24, the SA validated through interview and record review the DON immediately notified the ADM of the elopement on 4/6/2024 by 12:20pm. The DON then notified the responsible party of the resident and the Medical Director by 12:30pm. The ADM notified the Maintenance Director at 1:00pm. On 4/12/24, the SA validated through interview and record review the ADM notified the State Agency on 4/6/2024 by 2:00pm. On 4/12/24, the SA validated through interview and record review the ADM notified the Attorney General on 4/6/2024 4:00pm. On 4/12/24, the SA validated through interview and record review on 4/6/2024, all residents were checked and accounted for in the building by the Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) and reported to the ADM. Staff was interviewed by the DON and the ADM to determine if any resident was exit seeking that had not already been identified. None were identified. On 4/12/24, the SA validated through interview and record review the DON and ADM began investigation and collection of statements from all staff present on 4/6/2024. On 4/12/24, the SA validated through interview and record review all residents with wander guards were checked for proper placement and function by the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Supervisor on 4/6/2024. All were found to be properly placed and functioning. On 4/12/24, the SA validated through interview and record review all exit doors and alarms were checked for proper functioning by the Maintenance Technician on 4/6/2024 by 1:15pm. On 4/12/24, the SA validated through interview and record review that Vendor #1, the door alarm provider, was called by the Maintenance Director on 4/6/2024 to schedule an onsite visit. On 4/12/24, SA validated through interview and record review the ADM began a 24-hour door monitoring schedule on 4/6/2024 until Vendor #1 could conduct an on-site visit. On 4/12/24, SA validated through interview and record review The notice to visitors on the door was revised by the ADM to be bigger and brighter instructing to not let any resident out of the door without notifying staff on 4/6/2024. On 4/12/24, SA validated through interview and record review ADM began inservicing all staff on the Missing Resident policy and the Safe Guarding the Wandering Resident policy on 4/6/2024. Staff to be inserviced before returning to work. On 4/12/24, the SA validated through interview and record review the plan of care of Resident #1 was updated to reflect the elopement by the Registered Nurse on 4/6/2024. On 4/12/24, the SA validated through interview and record review all tasks in the electronic healthcare record of residents with wander guards were updated by the LPN Supervisor on 4/6/2024 to include the task of the Certified Nursing Assistant to check the proper placement of the wander guard every shift. On 4/6/2024 the CNAs began to be in-serviced on this by the LPN Supervisor. Staff to be in-serviced before returning to work. On 4/12/24, the SA validated through interview and record review the Elopement Risk Evaluation began being updated on all residents on 4/6/2024 by the nurse supervisors. No new residents with risk of elopement were identified. On 4/12/24, the SA validated through interview and record review the Elopement Risk Binder was created for all residents with wander guards to include their picture, name, date of birth and medical record number by the LPN Supervisor on 4/6/2024. The staff was in-serviced on these binders and their location at each nurse desk beginning 4/6/2024. Staff to be in-serviced before returning to work. On 4/12/24, the SA validated through interview and record review all nurses were in-serviced and completed a competency check-off on how to test a transmitter (wander guard) every shift as indicated on the Medication Administration Record (MAR) beginning 4/6/2024 by the LPN Supervisor. Staff to be in-serviced before returning to work. On 4/12/24, the SA validated through interview and record review Daily Stand-Up Agenda in which all staff attends on two shifts was updated by the ADM on 4/6/2024 to include identifying what residents have wander guards. Note that the agenda previously included to identify any doors/alarms not working properly and any Elder who is at risk for elopement. On 4/12/24, the SA validated through interview and record review on 4/7/2024, Vendor #1 serviced the door and installed keypads in which the door remains locked. A code is required to enter and exit the door. On 4/12/24, the SA validated through interview and record review Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee met on 4/6/2024 that included the Administrator, Director of Nurses, Medical Director, RN Consultants, Infection Preventionist, LPN Supervisor, Maintenance Director, President/Co-Owner, and Chief Operating Officer to discuss the elopement of Resident #1 and updating the plan of care. Reviewed the Missing Resident policy. No recommendations for changes were made. On 4/12/24, the SA validated through interview and record review QAPI committee met again on 4/10/2024 to include Administrator, Director of Nurses, RN Consultant, Nurse Practitioner, Social Service Director, LPN Supervisor, Maintenance Director, Activities Director, Admissions Coordinator, Administrative Assistant, and Infection Preventionist as a follow up to ensure all interventions that were put in place were effective. No concerns were noted. All findings will be discussed at the monthly Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) meeting for a minimum of three months or until compliance is maintained. On 4/12/24, the SA validated through interview and record review the Elopement Risk Evaluation is to be completed by the Registered Nurse (RN) Supervisor on all new residents upon admission and quarterly thereafter beginning 4/6/2024. Beginning 4/6/24, visual checks to be initiated for all residents by the medication cart nurse for the first 72 hours upon admission and a wander guard to be placed if deemed necessary. On 4/12/24, the SA validated through interview and record review Missing Resident and Safeguarding the Wandering Resident policies continue to be in-serviced upon hire and quarterly thereafter. On 4/12/24, the SA validated through interview and record review Monitoring to be completed as follows: Elopement Drill to continue to be completed quarterly. The wander guard audit will continue to be completed monthly by LPN supervisor. Maintenance Director/Housekeeping to continue with daily door checks 2x/day. Wander guard proper placement and functioning to be checked every shift on the MAR. All corrective actions were completed by 4/6/24, and the Immediate Jeopardy was removed as of 4/7/2024.
Jan 2024 5 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, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to develop comprehensive care plan interventions related to a resident with full length bed rails (Resi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to develop comprehensive care plan interventions related to a resident with full length bed rails (Resident #1) and a resident with an indwelling catheter (Resident #52) for two (2) of 17 sampled residents. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Comprehensive Care Plans, revised 7/29/2019, revealed, Policy Statement: An individual comprehensive care plan that includes measurable objectives and time frames to meet the resident's medical, nursing, mental, and psychological needs is developed for each resident . Resident #1 During an observation on 01/17/24 at 12:08 PM, Resident #1 had full length bed rails on both sides of the bed. The resident explained she does not remember how long she had the bed rails. She stated she was not able to lower the rails on her own and asked staff to lower them for her at times, but there were times that she wanted to have the bed rails raised as well. She said she was unable to get up without assistance and she was unable to walk. A review of the medical record revealed there was no care plan for Resident #1 regarding the use of full-length bed rails. A record review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #1 on 11/29/2018 with diagnoses that included Spastic Diplegic Cerebral Palsy. A record review of the Quarterly Minimum Date Set (MDS,) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 11/09/23, revealed Resident #1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14, which indicated she was cognitively intact. On 01/19/24 at 01:15 PM, an interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #2 (Minimum Data Set/Care Plan Nurse) revealed Resident #1 did not have a care plan addressing the full-length bed rails. LPN #2 explained the resident uses her own bed and she was unaware that the resident's bed had full length bed rails. On 01/19/24 at 03:00 PM, an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Administrator revealed they both expected the Care Plan nurse to develop a care plan to include all the resident's concerns and needs. Resident #52 During an observation on 1/17/24 at 12:38 PM, revealed Resident #52 had an indwelling catheter, and the catheter tubing was not anchored to the resident's leg to stabilize the catheter and prevent possible trauma. On 1/18/24 at 10:35 AM, during an observation and interview with the DON and Resident #52, Resident #52 stated she did not have a catheter anchor strap attached to her leg and no one at the facility had provided her with one. The resident revealed she had been using the leg straps from the leg drainage bag to try to hold the tubing in place. The DON provided the resident with a leg anchor to hold the tubing in place and the resident stated, This feels good. A record review of the medical record revealed there was no Care Plan intervention for staff to apply a leg strap to secure the indwelling catheter tubing to prevent possible trauma. Record review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #52 on 10/5/2023 with diagnoses that included Chronic Kidney Disease and Obstructive Reflux Uropathy. Record review of the admission MDS with an ARD of 10/16/23 revealed Resident #52 had a BIMS score of 14 which indicated she was cognitively intact. On 1/19/24 at 1:06 PM, an interview with LPN #2 confirmed she was responsible for developing and updating the comprehensive care plans and the updates. She stated that an indwelling catheter leg strap or anchor was not addressed on Resident #52's care plan and it should have been addressed. LPN #2 stated care plans were developed and were individualized for residents to ensure consistency of care, which helped improve services for the residents.
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure an indwelling catheter tubing was stabilized to prevent trauma and failed to provide incontin...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure an indwelling catheter tubing was stabilized to prevent trauma and failed to provide incontinence care in a manner to prevent complications for two (2) of three (3) residents observed for incontinence and catheter care. Resident #29 and #52. Findings Include: A review of the facility's policy Perineal Care, dated 10/2023, revealed . Peri (Perineal) care helps prevent skin breakdown of perineal area, itching, burning, odor, and infections. Perineal care is very important in maintaining the resident's comfort . Policy . 8. Gently clean the skin of the perineal area moving from front to back. Do not move from back to front due to the risk of introducing germs . Males: Retract foreskin in uncircumcised male. Grasp penis, clean tip of penis using a circular motion, wash down shaft of the penis and wash testicles. Replace foreskin of uncircumcised male . A review of the facility's policy Indwelling Catheter Use and Removal, undated, revealed, Policy: It is the policy of this village to ensure that indwelling urinary catheters that are inserted or remain in place are justified according to regulations and current standards of practice .Compliance guidelines .7. Additional care practices include .d. Keeping the catheter anchored to prevent excessive tension on the catheter, which can lead to urethral tears or dislodgement of the catheter . Resident #29 On 01/19/24 at 09:25 AM, during an observation and interview with Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #4, she reported Resident #29 was usually incontinent in the mornings and used a urinal during the daytime while he was awake. There was a strong urine odor in the resident's room and the resident's brief was saturated with urine. CNA #4 assisted Resident #29 to the toilet, removed the saturated brief, and performed incontinence care as he stood up in the bathroom. CNA #4 used an incontinence disposable wipe and cleaned the genital area, including the left and right groin area, and the scrotum and did not use a new wipe or change the position of the wipe with each stroke. CNA #4 did not clean the penis. After CNA #4 completed the incontinence care, she confirmed that she did not discard the disposable incontinence wipe or change the position of the wipe to ensure a clean area of the wipe was used with each stroke. CNA #4 also confirmed she did not clean the penis. On 01/19/24 at 10:10 AM, during an interview with Lead CNA #1, she explained CNA #4 should have used a new wipe with each stroke and should have cleaned the penis as part of incontinence care. She explained CNA#4 received training and a competency check-off when hired. On 01/19/24 at 03:00 PM, during an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), she explained she expected the CNAs to follow the proper procedures with incontinence care. A record review of the admission Record revealed the facility Resident #29 on 05/19/21 with diagnoses that included Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH) without Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms. A record review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 11/16/23 revealed Resident #29 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11, which indicated his cognition was moderately impaired. A record review of the Perineal Care Competency Audit, dated 10/19/23, revealed CNA #4 completed training with Lead CNA #1 regarding perineal care. Resident #52 On 1/17/24 at 12:38 PM, during an observation, Resident #52 had an indwelling catheter, and the catheter tubing was not anchored to the resident's leg to stabilize the catheter and prevent possible trauma. During an observation and interview with the DON and Resident #52, on 1/18/24 at 10:35 AM, Resident #52 stated she did not have a catheter anchor strap attached to her leg and no one at the facility had provided her with one. The resident revealed she had been using the leg straps from the leg drainage bag to try to hold the tubing in place. The DON provided the resident with a leg anchor to hold the tubing in place and the resident stated, This feels good. On 1/18/24 at 10:53 AM, an interview with the DON confirmed that Resident #52 did not have a leg strap to anchor and stabilize the catheter tubing and the resident confirmed that she liked the support of the leg strap when the DON placed it on the resident. The DON stated the indwelling catheter anchors were to be placed on residents' legs so that the catheter is anchored to prevent tension on the catheter and bladder. Record review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #52 on 10/5/2023 with diagnoses that included Chronic Kidney Disease and Obstructive Reflux Uropathy. Record review of the admission MDS with an ARD of 10/16/23 revealed Resident #52 had a BIMS score of 14 which indicated she was cognitively intact.
CONCERN (D)

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

Tube Feeding (Tag F0693)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to date and label a tube feeding bag for one (1) of (1) residents reviewed for tube feeding management....

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to date and label a tube feeding bag for one (1) of (1) residents reviewed for tube feeding management. (Resident #4) Findings include: A review of the facility's policy Care and Treatment of Feeding Tubes, undated, revealed, Policy: It is a policy of this village to utilize feeding tubes in accordance with current clinical standards of practice, with interventions to prevent complications to the extent possible . On 01/17/24 at 12:36 PM, during an observation, Resident #4 was lying in bed with the head of the bed elevated. There was a tube feeding running at 70 cc (cubic centimeters)/hour (hr). The tube feeding formula bag did not contain a date, time, or label indicating when the bag of tube feeding was started. The bag had a manufacturer's label indicating the type of feeding as Isosource. There was a bag of water that did not contain a date, time, or label indicating when the water flush was started. On 01/17/24 at 4:16 PM, during an observation and interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #6, she confirmed that the feeding and water did not contain a date, time, or label indicating when the bag of tube feeding or water was started. She stated that the bags should include a label with the date and time so staff will know how long the tube feeding has been flowing and to ensure a resident does not receive old formula. LPN #6 said that it was the facility's policy to label the tube feeding daily when a new bag was hung. On 01/19/24 at 04:05 PM, during an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), she explained she expected staff to follow standard procedures for labeling tube feeding and all nurses had been educated on proper labeling. A record review of admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #4 on 02/07/23 with a diagnoses that included Acute Respiratory Failure with Hypoxia and Gastrostomy Complication. A record review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set with an Assessment Reference Date of 12/05/23 revealed Resident #4 was coded as having a feeding tube. A record review of the Order Summary Report, with active orders as of 01/18/2024, revealed Resident #4 had a Physician's Order, dated 8/31/23 for Enteral Feed Order .Continuous Feed: Isosource 1.5 to 70 ml (milliliter)/hr.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0700 (Tag F0700)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, and interviews the facility failed to inform a resident or the Resident Representative (RR) of the risk and benefits of full length bed rails prior to bed rail ins...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interviews the facility failed to inform a resident or the Resident Representative (RR) of the risk and benefits of full length bed rails prior to bed rail installation for one (1) of 17 sampled residents. Resident #1 Findings include: Record review of the facility's statement, dated 1/19/2024, provided by the Administrator revealed, (Proper Name of Facility) does not have a policy on bed rails. On 01/17/24 at 12:08 PM, during an observation, Resident #1 had full length bed rails on both sides of the bed. The resident explained she does not remember how long she had the bed rails. She stated she was not able to lower the rails on her own and asked staff to lower them for her at times, but there were times that she wanted to have the bed rails raised as well. She said she was unable to get up without assistance and she was unable to walk. On 01/18/24 at 03:00 PM, during an observation and interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3, she confirmed Resident #1 had full length bed rails and has had them for as long as she could remember. On 01/19/24 at 11:30 AM, during an interview with the Maintenance Director, she confirmed Resident #1 had her own bed that was donated to her from another resident and the bed had full length bed rails. A review of the medical record revealed there was no informed consent indicating the risk and benefits of full-length bed rails signed by the resident or RR. On 01/19/24 at 03:00 PM, during an interview with the Administrator, she confirmed Resident #1 had full length bed rails and there was no signed informed consent related to the bed rails. She said the facility did not have a policy regarding bed rails and the facility was planning on addressing the problem but had not gotten to it yet. A record review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #1 on 11/29/2018 with a diagnoses that included Spastic Diplegic Cerebral Palsy. A record review of the Quarterly Minimum Date Set (MDS,) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 11/09/23, revealed Resident #1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14, which indicated she was cognitively intact.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure PRN (as needed) psychotropic medic...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure PRN (as needed) psychotropic medications were discontinued after 14 days or had a documented indication for continued use by the prescriber, with a designated time frame for one (1) of five (5) residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Resident #44 Findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Use of Psychotropic Medication, undated, revealed, Policy: Residents are not given psychotropic drugs unless the medication is necessary to treat a specific condition, as diagnosed and documented in the clinical record, and the medication is beneficial to the resident, as demonstrated by monitoring and documentation of the resident's response to the medication(s) . Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 9. PRN orders for all psychotropic drugs shall be used only when the medication is necessary to treat a diagnosed specific condition that is documented in the clinical record, and for a limited duration (i.e.14 days) a. If the attending physician or prescribing practitioner believes that it is appropriate for the PRN order to be extended beyond 14 days, he or she shall document their rationale in the resident's medical record and indicate the duration for the PRN order . Review of Resident #44's Order Summary Report, with active orders as of 01/01/24, revealed orders for Lorazepam Concentrate 2 mg/ml (milligram/milliliter) give 0.5 ml by mouth every 4 (four) hours as needed for anxiety with an order date of 9/28/23, Lorazepam Injection solution 2 mg/ml inject 2 millimeters intramuscularly every 6 (six) hours as needed for agitation, with an order date of 9/27/23, and Lorazepam oral concentrate 2 mg/ml give 0.5 ml by mouth every 6 (six) hours as needed for agitation and shortness of breath, with an order date of 9/27/23. None of the above psychotropic medications had a stop date. Review of the admission Record, for Resident #44 revealed the facility admitted the resident to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included Senile Degeneration of the Brain, not elsewhere classified, Vascular Dementia, Unspecified Psychosis, and Depression. Review of the Comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) 12/5/23, revealed Resident #44 had been unable to complete the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) and the staff documented that the resident's cognitive skills for decision making were moderately impaired. On 01/19/24 12:54 PM, in an interview with Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), she confirmed that Resident #44's orders for Lorazepam should have been discontinued after 14 days, as that is the facility policy. On 01/19/24 at 1:47 PM, in an interview with the Nurse Practitioner (NP), she stated she was aware that psychotropic medications needed to have a stop state date of 14-days, but for some reason, the Lorazepam had been missed on Resident #44.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 9 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • Grade C (51/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
  • • 60% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 51/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Dunbar Village Terrace's CMS Rating?

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

How is Dunbar Village Terrace Staffed?

CMS rates DUNBAR VILLAGE TERRACE's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 60%, which is 13 percentage points above the Mississippi average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.

What Have Inspectors Found at Dunbar Village Terrace?

State health inspectors documented 9 deficiencies at DUNBAR VILLAGE TERRACE during 2024 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 8 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Dunbar Village Terrace?

DUNBAR VILLAGE TERRACE is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 60 certified beds and approximately 55 residents (about 92% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in BAY SAINT LOUIS, Mississippi.

How Does Dunbar Village Terrace Compare to Other Mississippi Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Mississippi, DUNBAR VILLAGE TERRACE's overall rating (3 stars) is above the state average of 2.6, staff turnover (60%) 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 Dunbar Village Terrace?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the facility's high staff turnover rate, and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Dunbar Village Terrace Safe?

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

Do Nurses at Dunbar Village Terrace Stick Around?

Staff turnover at DUNBAR VILLAGE TERRACE is high. At 60%, the facility is 13 percentage points above the Mississippi average of 46%. 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 Dunbar Village Terrace Ever Fined?

DUNBAR VILLAGE TERRACE has been fined $8,021 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Mississippi average of $33,159. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Dunbar Village Terrace on Any Federal Watch List?

DUNBAR VILLAGE TERRACE 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.