JASPER COUNTY NH

15 A SOUTH SIXTH STREET, BAY SPRINGS, MS 39422 (601) 764-2101
Government - County 110 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
45/100
#119 of 200 in MS
Last Inspection: November 2024

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

Overview

Jasper County Nursing Home has received a Trust Grade of D, indicating below-average quality and some concerns that families should consider. It ranks #119 out of 200 facilities in Mississippi, placing it in the bottom half, but it is the only nursing home in Jasper County, meaning there are no local alternatives. The facility is showing improvement, with issues decreasing from 8 in 2024 to 2 in 2025. Staffing is a strength, rated 4 out of 5 stars, with a turnover rate of 46%, which is slightly better than the state average. However, there have been serious incidents, including a medication error where a resident was given blood pressure medication intended for another resident, leading to a hospitalization, and a lack of respect for residents' dignity during care. While the home has no fines on record, families should weigh these strengths against the identified weaknesses.

Trust Score
D
45/100
In Mississippi
#119/200
Bottom 41%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Better
8 → 2 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
46% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Mississippi facilities.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 27 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Mississippi. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
15 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 8 issues
2025: 2 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Below Mississippi average (2.6)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Staff Turnover: 46%

Near Mississippi avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

The Ugly 15 deficiencies on record

2 actual harm
Jan 2025 2 deficiencies 2 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure services provided met current pro...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure services provided met current professional standards when Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 prepared two (2) residents medications simultaneously and administered the wrong medications to Resident #1, resulting in the resident being admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) of a local acute care hospital due to an adverse reaction for one (1) of four (4) sampled residents. Resident #1 Findings Included: A review of the facility policy titled Medication Set-Up and Administration, revised 5/31/2023, revealed, Medications are administered by licensed nurses .as ordered by the physician and in accordance with professional standards of practice .8. Identify residents by photo in the electronic medication administration record (EMAR). Record review of the facility's Incident Note revealed, 12/15/2024 22:56 (10:56 PM) Incident Note .@1930 (7:30 PM) arrived to station 4 and notified of cart nurse (LPN #1) medication error. Logged into point click care to observe medications given in error. Obtain resident's allergies and medication list. While gathering data, delegated to cart nurse to obtain vitals. Resident awake, alert, and oriented. Vitals 99/55bp (blood pressure), 80p (pulse), O2 95% (oxygen saturation) . (At) 1945 MD notified of medication error and resident's condition. Order given to monitor resident bp for three hours; every 15 minutes the first hours, then thirty minutes the last two hours. Notified cart nurse of order. Cart nurse notified that resident bp decreased to 81/28. Resident awake, alert, oriented, and voice no c/o (complaints of) discomfort at time. Explained to resident that he will be placed in Trendelenburg position to help reduce bp from decreasing significantly. Placed in Trendelenburg with feet propped on pillow. (At) 1948 (7:48 PM) DON notified of med error. 1950 (7:50 PM) RR (Resident Representative) notified of medication error and order to be monitor for three hours. RR wanted to explanation as to how medication error occurred. Explained that Charge Nurse (CN) was unaware of the exact details of the error, apologized for error, and if any changes CN will notify of changes. 2200 (10:00 PM) Cart nurse notified that resident was c/o difficult of breathing in Trendelenburg position and that she has to raise his head for comfort. Vitals was obtained with bp resulting in 63/19 and Md was notified immediately. Order obtained to send to (local hospital). 2205 Emergency service was called. 2208 RR .notified that resident was being sent to ER (emergency room). RR stated, I am not happy and will be meeting with y'all tomorrow. (At) 2222 (10:22 PM) Emergency service arrived. vitals obtained with bp resulting to 60/40. EMT (Emergency Medical Technician) stated that he had to get bp stable before moving resident. IV (Intravenous) line started in right forearm by EMT. IV bolus given by EMT. Vitals obtain with bp 90/70. Resident then moved to stretcher. Resident awake, alert, and oriented. Resident asked for cell phone to be transferred with him. Placed on lap. Resident left facility with Emergency Service at 2242 (10:42 PM). Record review of the Physician Orders for Resident #1 revealed physician's order, 12/15/2024 to SEND TO (Acute hospital) DUE TO ADVERSE REACTION one time only for Prophylaxis (Prevention) . Record review of the written Witness Statement, signed by LPN #1 and dated 12/15/24 revealed LPN #1 had given the wrong medications to Resident #1 accidentally and immediately realized it wasn't his medications. The statement included measures taken by LPN #1 following the error, which included notification of the LPN #2, the Charge Nurse, the resident's physician, Resident Representative (RR), and the Director of Nursing (DON). Record review of the acute hospital's Final Report, dated 12/26/24, revealed Resident #1 was admitted to the acute care facility following transfer from (the facility) for accidental medication ingestion. Patient was given the wrong medications by nursing staff at the facility .Medications included Lisinopril 40 mg (milligrams), Lipitor 20 mg, Carvedilol 25 mg, Hydroxyzine 25 mg, and Seroquel 50 mg. Upon arrival to ER (emergency room) patient was noted to be bradycardic and hypotensive requiring IV fluids and Levophed for blood pressure control .Patient is being admitted to ICU . On 1/02/24 at 1:30 PM, an interview Resident #1 stated that he recalled receiving the wrong medications on 12/15/24 and said he was told he received medications that were prescribed for his roommate. He stated, I have had a time. It was rough. I had to go and stay in the hospital. I hope that never happens again. On 1/02/24 at 2:00 PM, an interview with the RR for Resident #1 revealed the facility nursing staff had notified him on the evening of 12/15/24 that Resident #1 had accidentally been administered the wrong medications and then later that Resident #1 was being transferred to an acute care hospital due to his blood pressure being too low after having been given two antihypertensive medications in error. He stated that he reported to the hospital and the resident was admitted to the ICU. On 1/02/24 at 2:35 PM, an interview the Director of Nurses (DON) stated that current standards of practice for medication administration included resident rights for medication administration. This would include the right medication and dose. She confirmed that nurses were expected to adhere to the current standards of practice and to make sure they were administering the right medications to the right resident. She stated that during her investigation as to the cause of medication error involving Resident #1 on the evening of 12/15/24, she determined that LPN #1 had not followed current standards of practice or facility policy for medication administration because she had pre-poured medications when she prepared the medications for both residents at the same time and took the medications into the room at the same time. She reported that failure of LPN #1 to prepare, administer and document each resident's medications for one resident at a time, that LPN #1 had confused the medications and administered the medications prescribed for Resident #4 to Resident #1. She confirmed that following administration of the wrong medications to Resident #1, LPN #1 had notified the Charge Nurse, LPN #2, the resident's physician, the resident's RR and the DON. She confirmed that the physician issued instructions to monitor Resident #1's blood pressure and notify him if the resident's blood pressure decreased because two of the medications were antihypertensive agents. The DON explained that when the resident's blood pressure decreased, the nursing staff notified the resident's physician and received orders for transfer to acute care hospital for treatment of hypotension. The DON stated that the facility had provided In-Service training for all nurses beginning 12/16/24 which included Resident Drug Administration Rights, identification of the right resident prior to administration of medications and avoidance of pre-pouring medications and preparation of medications for more than one resident at a time. She stated that the facility had also implemented a one hundred percent (100%) mandatory competency check-off for all nurses for medication administration. She stated that the incident had been investigated and reported to all agencies per federal and state guidelines with LPN #1 placed on suspension pending conclusion of the investigation. She stated that the employment of LPN #1 had been terminated upon conclusion of the investigation due to her failure to follow facility policy. She stated that the incident and investigation results were presented to the Quality Assurance (QAPI) committee during the committee meeting on 12/18/24, which was attended by the facility Infection Preventionist and the Medical Director. She confirmed that Resident #1 returned to the facility on [DATE]. On 1/02/24 at 3:00 PM, an interview with the Administrator confirmed that nurses were expected to follow the facility policy and current standards of practice for medication administration. He stated that the facility investigation concluded that the cause of the incident was that LPN #1 had prepared medications for more than one resident at a time and taken both residents medications into the room at the same time and become distracted/confused and administered the wrong medications to Resident #1. He confirmed that that the incident and investigation results were presented to the QAPI committee during the committee meeting on 12/18/24, which was attended by the facility Infection Preventionist and the Medical Director, during which the facility policy was reviewed with no revisions made. A record review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #1 on 8/1/24 with diagnoses including Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and Hypertension. A record review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 11/26/24 revealed Resident #1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11, which indicated the resident's cognition was moderately impaired. Based on the implementation of the facility's corrective actions on 12/18/2024, the deficient practice was determined to be past noncompliance, and the facility was found in compliance effective 12/19/2024. Validation: The State Agency (SA) validated on 1/2/2025, through interview and record review that all corrective actions had been implemented as of 12/18/24, and the facility was in compliance as of 12/19/24, prior to the SA's entrance on 1/2/2025.
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

A resident was harmed · 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 prevent a significant medication error wh...

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 prevent a significant medication error when Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 administered blood pressure medications to a resident that were prescribed for his roommate, resulting in Resident #1 being admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) of a local acute care hospital due to an adverse reaction for one (1) of four (4) residents reviewed. Resident #1 Findings Included: Record review of the facility's policy titled Medication Set-Up and Administration, dated 5/31/23 revealed, .Policy .Medications are administered by licensed nurses .as ordered by the physician and in accordance with professional standards of practice .Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines .8. Identify residents by photo in the EMAR (electronic medication administration record) . Record review of the facility's Incident Note revealed, 12/15/2024 22:56 (10:56 PM) Incident Note .@1930 (7:30 PM) arrived to station 4 and notified of cart nurse (LPN #1) medication error. Logged into point click care to observe medications given in error. Obtain resident's allergies and medication list. While gathering data, delegated to cart nurse to obtain vitals. Resident awake, alert, and oriented. Vitals 99/55bp (blood pressure), 80p (pulse), O2 95% (oxygen saturation) . (At) 1945 MD notified of medication error and resident's condition. Order given to monitor resident bp for three hours; every 15 minutes the first hours, then thirty minutes the last two hours. Notified cart nurse of order. Cart nurse notified that resident bp decreased to 81/28. Resident awake, alert, oriented, and voice no c/o (complaints of) discomfort at time. Explained to resident that he will be placed in Trendelenburg position to help reduce bp from decreasing significantly. Placed in Trendelenburg with feet propped on pillow. (At) 1948 (7:48 PM) DON notified of med error. 1950 (7:50 PM) RR (Resident Representative) notified of medication error and order to be monitor for three hours. RR wanted to explanation as to how medication error occurred. Explained that Charge Nurse (CN) was unaware of the exact details of the error, apologized for error, and if any changes CN will notify of changes. 2200 (10:00 PM) Cart nurse notified that resident was c/o difficult of breathing in Trendelenburg position and that she has to raise his head for comfort. Vitals was obtained with bp resulting in 63/19 and Md was notified immediately. Order obtained to send to (local hospital). 2205 (10:05PM) Emergency service was called. 2208 (10:08 PM) RR .notified that resident was being sent to ER (emergency room). RR stated, I am not happy and will be meeting with y'all tomorrow. (At) 2222 (10:22 PM) Emergency service arrived. vitals obtained with bp resulting to 60/40. EMT (Emergency Medical Technician) stated that he had to get bp stable before moving resident. IV (Intravenous) line started in right forearm by EMT. IV bolus given by EMT. Vitals obtain with bp 90/70. Resident then moved to stretcher. Resident awake, alert, and oriented. Resident asked for cell phone to be transferred with him. Placed on lap. Resident left facility with Emergency Service at 2242 (10:42 PM). Record review of the Physician Orders for Resident #1 revealed physician's order, 12/15/2024 to SEND TO (Acute hospital) DUE TO ADVERSE REACTION one time only for Prophylaxis (Prevention) . Record review of the written Witness Statement, signed by LPN #1 and dated 12/15/24 revealed LPN #1 had given the wrong medications to Resident #1 accidentally and immediately realized it wasn't his medications. The statement included measures taken by LPN #1 following the error, which included notification of LPN #2, the Charge Nurse, the resident's physician, RR and the Director of Nursing (DON). Record review of the acute hospital's Final Report, dated 12/26/24, revealed Resident #1 was admitted to the acute care facility following transfer from (the facility) for accidental medication ingestion. Patient was given the wrong medications by nursing staff at the facility .Medications included Lisinopril 40 mg (forty milligrams), Lipitor 20 mg, Carvedilol 25 mg, hydroxyzine 25 mg, and Seroquel 50 mg. Upon arrival to ER (emergency room) patient was noted to be bradycardic and hypotensive requiring IV fluids and Levophed for blood pressure control .Patient is being admitted to ICU (Internsive Care Unit) . During an interview with Resident #1 on 1/2/2025 at 1:30 PM, he recalled receiving the wrong medications on 12/15/2024 and was told it was his roommate's medications. He described the experience as a rough time because he had to stay in the hospital and expressed hope that it would never happen again. During an interview on 1/2/2025 at 2:00 PM, the RR confirmed being notified by the facility on 12/15/2024 of the medication error and the Resident #1's subsequent transfer to the hospital due to low blood pressure as a result. The RR also confirmed Resident #1 was transferred and admitted to the ICU of an acute hospital. During an interview on 1/02/24 at 2:35 PM, the DON revealed she stated that during her investigation as to the cause of medication error involving Resident #1 on the evening of 12/15/24, she determined that LPN #1 had not followed current standards of practice or facility policy for medication administration because she had pre-poured, or pre-pulled medications when she prepared the medications for both residents simultaneously and took both cups of medications into the room for the residents. She reported that failure of LPN #1 to prepare, administer and document each resident's medications for one resident at a time, LPN #1 had confused the medications and administered the medications prescribed for Resident #4 to Resident #1. She confirmed that following administration of the wrong medications to Resident #1, LPN #1 had notified the Charge Nurse, LPN #2, the resident's physician, the resident's RR, and the DON. She confirmed that the physician issued instructions to monitor Resident #1's blood pressure and notify him if the resident's blood pressure decreased because two of the medications were antihypertensive agents. The DON explained that when the resident's blood pressure decreased, the nursing staff notified the resident's physician and received orders for transfer to an acute care hospital for treatment of hypotension. The DON stated that the facility implemented corrective actions immediately by providing In-Service training for all nurses beginning 11/16/24 which included Resident Drug Administration Rights, identification of the right resident prior to administration of medications, and avoidance of pre-pouring medications and preparation of medications for more than one resident at a time. She stated that the facility had also implemented a one hundred percent (100%) mandatory competency check-off for all nurses for medication administration. She stated that the incident had been investigated and reported to all agencies per federal and state guidelines with LPN #1 placed on suspension pending conclusion of the investigation. She confirmed LPN #1 was terminated upon conclusion of the investigation due to her failure to follow facility policy. She stated that the incident and investigation results were presented to the Quality Assurance (QA) committee during the committee meeting on 12/18/24, which was attended by the facility Infection Preventionist and the Medical Director and reported Resident #1 returned to the facility on [DATE]. During an interview on 1/02/24 at 3:00 PM, the Administrator confirmed that nurses were expected to follow the facility policy and current standards of practice for medication administration. He stated that the facility investigation concluded that the cause of the incident was that LPN #1 had prepared medications for more than one resident at a time and taken both residents medications into the room at the same time and became distracted and administered the wrong medications to Resident #1. He confirmed that that the incident and investigation results were presented to the QAPI committee during the committee meeting on 12/18/24, which was attended by the facility Infection Preventionist and the Medical Director, during which the facility policy was reviewed with no revisions made. A record review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #1 on 8/1/24 with diagnoses including Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and Hypertension. A record review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 11/26/24 revealed Resident #1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11, which indicated the resident's cognition was moderately impaired. Based on the implementation of the facility's corrective actions on 12/18/2024, the deficient practice was determined to be past noncompliance, and the facility was found in compliance effective 12/19/2024. Validation: The SA (State Agency) validated on 1/2/2025, through interview and record review that all corrective actions had been implemented as of 12/18/24, and the facility was in compliance as of 12/19/24, prior to the SA's entrance on 1/2/2025.
Nov 2024 8 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to maintain and provide a clean, sanitary, and home-like environment for one (1) of twenty-six (26) re...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to maintain and provide a clean, sanitary, and home-like environment for one (1) of twenty-six (26) resident rooms on Unit 2. This affected Resident #2. Findings Include: A review of the facility's Environmental Policy (undated) revealed, .It is the policy of this facility to provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment .Special Information - A determination of 'comfortable and homelike' should include whenever possible, the resident's or a representative of the resident's opinion of the living environment .'Environment' refers to any environment in the facility that is frequented by residents, including resident rooms, bathrooms . On 11/05/24 at 11:06 AM, during an observation and interview with Resident #2, the resident reported that her bathroom was not cleaned appropriately. A thick white substance (dust) was observed on the ceramic tile in the resident's bathroom and on the back of her recliner. During an interview on 11/07/24 at 11:00 AM, the housekeeper confirmed that she had failed to clean the ceramic tile in Resident #2's bathroom and to wipe down the resident's recliner. The housekeeper stated that she occasionally forgets to clean some residents' furniture and ceramic tiles but would ensure this was done daily going forward. During an interview on 11/07/24 at 11:10 AM, the Housekeeping Supervisor confirmed the facility failed to clean the dust on the ceramic tile in Resident #2's bathroom and on the back of her recliner. The supervisor stated that he conducted in-service training with staff, emphasizing that the ceramic tile in resident bathrooms and the residents' furniture should be cleaned daily to promote a home-like environment. During an interview on 11/07/24 at 11:20 AM, the Administrator stated that he expects the housekeeping staff to dust the residents' bathrooms and furniture to keep the environment clean and sanitized. A record review of the admission Record for Resident #2 revealed an admission date of 06/05/17, with diagnoses including Type 2 Diabetes. A record review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 09/9/24 revealed Resident #2 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating that the resident was cognitively intact.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0604 (Tag F0604)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's right to be free from physical restraints by not identifying and documenting the...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's right to be free from physical restraints by not identifying and documenting the use of a seatbelt as a restraint for one (1) of 21 sampled residents. Resident #44. Findings Include: A review of the facility's Restraint Policy dated 09/18/14 revealed, .It is the policy of this facility that restraints will be used as follows: Physical restraints are defined as any manual method or physical or mechanical device, material, or equipment attached or adjacent to the resident's body that the individual cannot remove easily, which restricts freedom of movement or normal access to one's body . On 11/04/24 at 12:07 PM, during an observation, Resident #44 was sitting in a wheelchair in the day room with a seatbelt attached across the waistline. When asked if she could remove the seatbelt, Resident #44 was unable to understand the request. At 1:20 PM on 11/05/24, during an interview with Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #1, she reported that although Resident #44 understands some instructions, she is unable to remove the seatbelt independently, and staff have to remove it for her. She confirmed that the resident is dependent on staff for Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) and requires a full-body lift with transfers. On 11/06/24 at 9:30 AM, during an interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1, she stated that Resident #44 was a fall risk due to her diagnoses, but had not experienced recent falls. She added that Resident #44 is forgetful and sometimes displays behaviors in the evening with increased anxiety, attempting to get out of the chair to go home. During an additional interview at 2:10 PM on 11/06/24, LPN #1, explained that Resident #44 cannot always remove the seatbelt on demand, depending on her mood. She stated that in the evenings, the resident sometimes tries to release the seatbelt herself when she becomes intent on going home, which indicates her behavior changes. LPN #1 confirmed that if Resident #44 cannot remove the seatbelt on command, it should be considered a restraint, as it restricts her from getting out of the wheelchair. At 2:15 PM on 11/06/24, during an observation with LPN #1, Resident #44 was unable to remove the seatbelt when prompted by the nurse. Resident #44 attempted multiple times, saying, I can't do it, you do it, indicating she could not remove it independently. LPN #1 confirmed that Resident #44 could not remove the seatbelt at that time. On 11/06/24 at 2:50 PM, during an interview with Registered Nurse (RN) #1, she confirmed that Resident #44 cannot remove the seatbelt on command consistently. She noted that although Resident #44 had experienced previous falls, no falls had occurred in the past six (6) months, and she should have been re-evaluated for seatbelt use. RN #1 confirmed that if the resident cannot remove the seatbelt on command, it acts as a restraint, as it restricts her movement and ability to exit the wheelchair. She acknowledged that the facility had not considered the seatbelt a restraint, nor had an assessment or consent been completed for its use. At 4:00 PM on 11/06/24, during an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), she explained that Resident #44 had been using the seatbelt for an extended period. The DON confirmed that the resident has a low Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score and dementia, with variable memory. She also stated that while the resident occasionally removes the seatbelt for her sister or some staff members, she has not had falls in the past six (6) months but remains a fall risk. The DON admitted that staff only check the seatbelt once a week to ensure Resident #44 can remove it independently, and she had not been informed that the resident was unable to remove the seatbelt consistently. The DON confirmed that the seatbelt was not identified as a restraint and stated the facility aims to avoid restraints. At 4:40 PM on 11/06/24, during an interview with the Administrator, he reported awareness that Resident #44 could not remove the seatbelt on command consistently. He explained that the resident's ability to remove it varies depending on the day and who is asking. The Administrator emphasized that the facility tries to avoid restraints and expects staff to assess properly for restraints. A record review of the Order Summary Report revealed Resident #44 had a physician order, dated 8/1/24 to Ensure Resident Can Remove Self-Release Alarming Seatbelt On Que . A record review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #44 on 07/17/20 with diagnoses including Parkinson's Disease. A record review of the Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 09/10/24 revealed Resident #44 had a BIMS score of (4), indicating severely impaired cognition. Section GG indicated no range of motion limitations for upper or lower extremities, and the resident used a wheelchair. Section J showed no recent falls, and Section P indicated no trunk restraint was used in or out of bed. A record review of Resident #44's medical record revealed there were no assessments for a restraint or a consent for the seatbelt use.
CONCERN (D)

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

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on staff, Resident Representative (RR) interview and record review, the facility failed to provide written notification to the resident or RR of a transfer to an acute care hospital for one (1) ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff, Resident Representative (RR) interview and record review, the facility failed to provide written notification to the resident or RR of a transfer to an acute care hospital for one (1) of (21) residents sampled. (Resident #7) Findings Include: A record review of the Discharge Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 08/06/24 indicated Resident #7 was discharged to an acute hospital and it was anticipated she would return to the facility. On 11/06/24 at 8:38 AM, during an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), she acknowledged that the facility did not provide written documentation to Resident #7's Representative (RR) to inform them of the resident's transfer to the hospital or the reason for the transfer. The DON confirmed that the facility calls the resident's RR by phone to inform them that the resident has been sent to the hospital. On 11/06/24 at 8:45 AM, during an interview with the RR, she stated that facility staff spoke with her in person regarding the resident being sent to the hospital and the reason for the hospitalization. The RR confirmed she did not receive written documentation related to the hospitalization. On 11/06/24 at 9:02 AM, during an interview with the Administrator, he acknowledged that the facility failed to notify Resident #7's RR in writing regarding the reason for her hospitalization. A record review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #7 on 03/16/10 with diagnoses including Anoxic Brain Damage.
CONCERN (D)

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

PASARR Coordination (Tag F0644)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to obtain a Level II Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) for a resident receiving psychotropic medic...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to obtain a Level II Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) for a resident receiving psychotropic medications and diagnosed with a new mental health diagnosis for one (1) of one (1) resident reviewed for PASARR. (Resident #69) Findings Include: Record review of the Resident Assessment-Coordination with PASARR Program, undated, revealed Policy: This facility coordinates assessment with the preadmission screening and resident review (PASARR) under Medicaid to ensure that individual with a mental disorder, intellectual disability or related condition receives care and services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs .9.Any resident who exhibits a newly evident or possible serious mental disorder, intellectual disability, or a related condition will be referred promptly to the state mental health or intellectual disability authority for a level II resident review . A record review of Resident #69's Pre-admission Screening (PAS), dated 03/25/22 revealed the Level II Referral Criteria had negative responses to all questions regarding the need for a Level II evaluation, indicating there was no history of mental illness or the use of psychotropic medications. A record review of Resident #69's Physician Orders List revealed Resident #69 started Seroquel on 08/07/23 for increased psychotic behaviors and hallucinations. A record review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #69 on 03/29/22 with diagnoses including Unspecified Psychosis Not Due to a Substance or Known Physiological Condition and Unspecified Hallucinations, both with an onset date of 08/07/23. A record review of the Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 09/27/24 revealed Resident #69 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14, indicating the resident was cognitively intact. Section I noted diagnoses of Anxiety Disorder, Depression, and a Psychotic Disorder (other than Schizophrenia). Section N indicated the resident had taken antipsychotic, antianxiety, and antidepressant medications during the look-back period. On 11/06/24 at 4:15 PM, during an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), she explained the staff member who completed Resident #69's initial PAS was no longer employed at the facility, and the completion date was prior to her tenure as the DON. After reviewing the resident's medical record, she confirmed that only the PAS screening from the resident's admission was available, which did not indicate the need for a Level II evaluation. The DON acknowledged that Resident #69 experienced a change in mental health status with a new diagnosis after her admission to the facility and was prescribed a psychotropic medication, including Seroquel. She was unaware that a new diagnosis or initiation of psychotropic medication would necessitate another screening to determine if a Level II evaluation was indicated. At 4:40 PM on 11/06/24, during an interview with the Administrator, he confirmed his awareness that a Level II PASARR is required if a resident undergoes a significant change, including a new diagnosis or medication. He stated he expects his staff to adhere to these regulations.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0919 (Tag F0919)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interviews, the facility failed to maintain an audible call light system for one (1) of (16) rooms obse...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interviews, the facility failed to maintain an audible call light system for one (1) of (16) rooms observed on Unit 4 hall. room [ROOM NUMBER] Findings Include: On 11/04/24 at 11:12 AM, during an observation, the call light in room [ROOM NUMBER] was noted to be hanging from the outlet. The resident in the room activated the call light, but it did not illuminate above the door or sound. During an interview and observation on 11/04/24 at 11:15 AM, Housekeeper #3 attempted to activate the call light unsuccessfully and stated this was the first time she noticed the light not working, despite Resident #76 frequently using the call light for assistance. During an interview and observation on 11/04/24 at 11:20 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3 also attempted to activate the call light in room [ROOM NUMBER] and confirmed it was not working properly. She stated she was unaware that the call light was not functioning. She explained that both residents in the room typically used the call light when assistance was needed. She noted that, had she known the light was out, she would have notified maintenance, as they maintain a log at the nurse's station to record broken items. During an interview on 11/04/24 at 11:25 AM with both residents in room [ROOM NUMBER], both reported being unaware of how long the call light had been nonfunctional. They stated that if staff did not respond when they pressed the button, they would yell for assistance, and staff would come into the room. During an interview on 11/04/24 at 11:30 AM, the Maintenance Director confirmed the call light was not working and explained that the call light box needed replacement. He stated that he planned to obtain a new box and complete the replacement as soon as possible, adding that he had been unaware of the malfunction prior to this incident.
CONCERN (E)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, record reviews, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to treat residents in a dignified manner by posting clinical data in a resident room (Resident #85) an...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record reviews, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to treat residents in a dignified manner by posting clinical data in a resident room (Resident #85) and failing to knock before entering a resident's room (Resident #69) for two (2) of 21 sampled residents. Findings Include: A review of the facility's Dignity Policy, undated, revealed, .It is the policy of this facility to promote care for the residents .in a manner and environment that maintains or enhances each resident's dignity, with respect in full recognition of his or her individuality .Special Concerns .Respecting the resident's private space and property, knocking on doors and requesting permission to enter . Resident #69 On 11/5/23 at 12:10 PM, during an observation and interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #2, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #2 entered Resident #69's room without knocking on the door, addressing the resident, or introducing herself and did not explain the purpose for her visit. CNA #2 placed the resident's meal tray on the bedside table, set it up for eating, and left the room. LPN #2 remarked that CNA #2's behavior did not align with proper protocol, noting that she should have knocked on the resident's door, waited for a response, entered the room, introduced herself, and explained the purpose for the visit. On 11/5/24 at 12:25 PM, in an interview with CNA #2, she admitted that she failed to knock on Resident #69's door before entering the room while the resident was receiving medication. She explained that her familiarity with the resident made her feel comfortable enough to skip this step, believing it would not offend the resident. However, she acknowledged her awareness of the facility's policy, which requires knocking, waiting for a response, and then entering the room with an introduction. CNA #2 confirmed that this protocol was included in her training program as well as during her orientation at the facility. On 11/6/24 at 9:00 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed that CNA #2 should have knocked on Resident #6's door before entering the room. The DON emphasized that the facility's policy supports residents' rights to a home-like environment and personal dignity. She explained that knocking and acknowledging residents before entering their room is essential for maintaining privacy and dignity, as well as demonstrating common courtesy. A record review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #69 on 03/29/22 with diagnoses including Hemiplegia and Hemiparesis Following Cerebral Infarction. A record review of the Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 09/27/24 revealed Resident #69 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14, indicating that the resident was cognitively intact. Resident #85 During an observation on 11/04/24 at 11:17 AM, there was clinical documentation (Resident Baseline Care Plan) containing Resident #85's name and care details posted on a wall at the head of the bed. During an interview on 11/06/24 at 10:18 AM, Resident #85's family member explained that the documentation was meant to assist CNAs and staff in providing specific care for his grandfather, such as showing the direction and timing for turning the resident to prevent pressure sores. During an interview on 11/06/24 at 3:45 PM,LPN #2 stated that information on the resident's board was intended to make staff aware of specific care needs. LPN #2 acknowledged that the documents included the resident's name, which could be considered a dignity issue, and confirmed that this information was also available in the Electronic Medical Record (EMR). During an interview on 11/07/24 at 10:18 AM, the DON stated that the information on the resident's board was intended to guide staff who may be unfamiliar with the resident's care needs. She acknowledged that the same information was accessible in the EMR. A record review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #85 on 04/19/24 with diagnoses including Adult Failure to Thrive. A record review of the Quarterly MDS with an ARD of 10/14/24 revealed Resident #85 had a BIMS score of 3, which indicated his cognition was severely impaired.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0565 (Tag F0565)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure grievances raised by resident council members were consistently resolved for six (6) of (12) months. Find...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure grievances raised by resident council members were consistently resolved for six (6) of (12) months. Findings Include: A review of the facility's Grievance/Complaint Policy (undated) revealed It is the policy of this facility that a resident/responsible party/legal representative has the right to voice a grievance .All grievances should be directed/reported to Social Services . A review of the facility's Resident Council Policy (undated) revealed, It is the policy of this facility that residents have the right to form a Resident Council group to elect a governing body made up of fellow residents who preside over the resident council, conduct regularly scheduled meetings .Purpose .to identify problems within the nursing home, to help resolve the problems that have been identified . A record review of the resident council minutes revealed from 5/22/24 through 10/16/24, residents had recurring complaints regarding issues such as staff noise on the unit, staff clearing meal trays before residents finished eating, and the malfunctioning lift on the facility bus, which prevented outings. The minutes documented unresolved concerns regarding these issues over six (6) consecutive months. On 11/05/24 at 9:30 AM, during the resident council meeting, members expressed dissatisfaction with the facility's failure to resolve grievances, leading to the resignation of the council's president and vice president. The council decided to reconvene the meeting on 11/06/24 to invite department heads to discuss these unresolved issues. On 11/06/24 at 1:00 PM, the resident council met with the Dietitian, Dietary Manager, Social Worker, Activity Director, Director of Nursing (DON), and Administrator. During this meeting, residents reiterated concerns about staff noise, including talking loudly, yelling down the hall, and playing music at night. They also complained that staff frequently removed meal trays before residents could finish eating, leading some residents to hide food in napkins to ensure they had time to eat. Additionally, the residents reported that the lift on the facility bus had been broken for an extended period, preventing outings. The resident council members included Resident #1, Resident #2, Resident #10, Resident #53, Resident #57, Resident #61, Resident #66, Resident #74, Resident #79, and Resident #87. During an interview on 11/06/24 at 2:30 PM, the Social Services Director confirmed that all department heads receive copies of the resident council minutes. She explained that it is the responsibility of each department head to address and resolve complaints documented in these minutes. During an interview on 11/07/24 at 11:45 AM, the Activity Director stated that residents had not been to local shops since she began working at the facility in December. She was unaware that the facility had a van for resident transportation and stated she would discuss this with the Administrator. During an interview on 11/07/24 at 11:50 AM, the Administrator confirmed that the bus had been out of commission for approximately six (6) months due to a malfunctioning lift and door. He indicated plans to take the bus to a repair shop and acknowledged that residents could be transported in smaller groups using a facility van, which accommodates two (2) wheelchairs at a time. During an interview on 11/07/24 at 12:12 PM, the DON stated that she expects staff to allow residents ample time to finish their meals. She reported that staff had previously been in-serviced regarding noise reduction and the timing of tray removal but acknowledged that the issues had resurfaced. She noted that she would instruct staff to wait at least thirty (30) minutes after serving meals before entering resident rooms to collect trays and indicated plans to make unannounced visits to monitor compliance.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, staff interview, record review and facility draft policy review, the facility failed to implement Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed a...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, record review and facility draft policy review, the facility failed to implement Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed as high risk for acquiring multi-drug-resistant organisms (MDROs) Resident #69 and had the potential to affect six (6) residents identified as high risk for MDROs. Findings Include: Record review of the facility policy Draft Enhanced Barrier Precautions Policy dated reviewed 9/28/24 revealed This policy aims to mitigate the risk of transmission of Multidrug-Resistant Organisms (MDROs) within our facility by implementing Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP). This policy seeks to prevent the spread of MDRO's among residents and staff members by expanding the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) during high contact resident care activities for certain residents .Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines .4. Examples of indwelling medical devices for EBP should include but are not limited to .feeding tube . On 11/05/24 at 12:10 PM, during an observation, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN #1) entered Resident # 69's room to administer medication via the residents Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) tube. LPN #1 did not put on a gown while accessing the PEG tube and administering the medication. During an interview with LPN #1 on 11/05/24 at 12:25 PM, she admitted that she had forgotten to wear a gown and noted that there was no signage or other indicators to alert the staff that Resident #69 resident required EBP, nor was PPE readily accessible. She acknowledged the importance of EBP in preventing the transmission of MDROs, particularly during high-contact activities with residents who have PEG tubes, catheters, or central lines. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 11/06/24 at 9:00 AM, she confirmed that the facility had developed a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) for EBP training, initiated in September 2024. She indicated that the facility's policies were being revised to enhance compliance with EBP guidelines. On 11/06/24 at 9:25 AM, an interview with Registered Nurse (RN) #1 revealed that the facility follows standard precautions and uses transmission-based precautions for contact, droplet, and airborne pathogens. RN #1 confirmed that EBP protocols require the use of gowns and gloves during high-contact care activities involving residents with PEG tubes, catheters, and central lines. She noted that the facility currently had no policies in place to incorporate enhanced barrier precautions but was updating their infection control policies to include EBP guidelines. During an interview on 11/7/24 at 10:45 AM, the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) disclosed that the facility was currently under a PIP for EBP training, which began in September 2024. He indicated that facility policies were being revised to improve compliance with EBP guidelines. The revised policy aims to reduce the transmission of MDROs within the facility by implementing enhanced barrier precautions, specifically through expanded use of PPE during high-contact care activities. The LNHA expressed that his expectation for nursing staff was to follow universal precautions consistently, along with any additional protective measures necessary to prevent resident exposure to potential pathogens. A record review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #69 on 03/29/22 with diagnoses including Benign Neoplasm of the Brain.
Mar 2023 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0561 (Tag F0561)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to accommodate resident preferences by not allowing bedfast residents to receive showers as their preferred bathing ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to accommodate resident preferences by not allowing bedfast residents to receive showers as their preferred bathing method for two (2) of two (2) residents reviewed for preferences. (Resident #7 and Resident #41) This had the potential to affect (12) of (12) bedfast residents. Findings include: Record review of the facility's, Bed Bath Policy, undated, revealed, It is the policy of this facility that a bed bath will be given as follows: For any bed bound resident . Resident #7 During an interview on 3/22/23 at 4:25 PM, with Registered Nurse (RN) #1, she confirmed Resident #7 received bed baths. She explained the facility did not have the equipment for bed bound resident to receive showers, but they were given bed baths daily. During an interview on 3/22/23 at 4:30 PM, Resident #7's father complained that the resident only received a bed bath. He stated he was told by the facility that she could only get bed baths because she was bed bound and required a Hoyer (mechanical) lift. He explained that the facility did not have the equipment to provide a shower for his daughter. Record review of the Facesheet revealed Resident #7 was admitted by the facility on 3/16/10 with the diagnoses that included Anoxic Brain Damage and Hemiplegia. Record review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 03/07/23, revealed Resident #7 had severely impaired cognitive skills for daily decision making and she required total dependence on staff for transfers and bathing. Review of the facility's, Completed Care Tasks from 2/2/23 through 3/22/23, revealed Resident #7 received bed baths as the bathing method. Resident #41 During an interview on 03/21/23 at 1:17 PM, with Resident #41's husband, he expressed concern that his wife had not received a shower in two (2) years, and he wanted her to be able to receive showers. He said the facility stopped giving her a shower during the COVID-19 outbreaks and she became bed bound. He stated the facility used a (mechanical) lift to transfer her and that is why the facility did not provide the resident with a shower. During an interview on 03/22/23 at 01:28 PM, with Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #3, she confirmed that residents who are bedridden did not receive showers because it was hard to get them into the shower chair. During an interview on 03/22/23 at 01:36 PM, with RN #1, she confirmed Resident #41 received bed baths daily and explained that bed bound resident did not receive showers. Record review of the Facesheet revealed the facility admitted Resident #41 on 2/09/2020 and she had diagnoses that included Encephalopathy, Muscle Weakness, and Obesity. Record review of the Quarterly MDS with an ARD of 11/07/22 revealed Resident #41 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 03, which indicated she had severe cognitive impairment. Review of Section G revealed she required total dependence on staff for bathing. Review of the facility's, Completed Care Tasks from 2/2/23 through 3/22/23, revealed Resident #41 received bed baths as the bathing method. During an interview on 03/23/23 at 1:07 PM, with the Director of Nurses (DON), she confirmed the residents who are bed bound did not receive showers because those residents could not sit up in the facility's shower chairs. The DON explained that the facility did not have a shower bed or a reclining shower chair to safely provide showers to bed bound residents. During an interview on 03/23/23 at 01:42 PM, with the Administrator, he confirmed that he was aware that the facility did not have shower beds or reclining shower chairs, but he did not realize there was a problem with bed bound residents receiving showers.
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was dependent on staff for personal hygiene received services related to nail ca...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was dependent on staff for personal hygiene received services related to nail care for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADLs). Resident #7 Findings include: Record review of the facility's, Nail Care Policy, undated, revealed, It is the policy of this facility that nail care will be done as follows: On a daily basis as a part of the resident's personal grooming, Provided to all residents requiring assistance with nail care .Includes: Cleaning fingernails and toenails (done daily and PRN [as needed]), Regular trimming of the nails (trimmed Q [every] 2 weeks and PRN), Filing to maintain a smooth edge . Resident #7 During an observation on 03/21/23 at 11:49 AM, Resident # 7 was in a Geri chair. Her left hand was contracted and pressed tightly against her body in her chest area and her left thumb nail was one and one-half (1½) inches in thickness, jagged, and had a dark discoloration. During an interview on 3/22/23 at 4:15 PM, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #1 stated that she cleaned the resident's nails but did not cut her left thumb nail because it was thick and jagged. She explained that the nurse performs nail care for that type of nail. She confirmed that Resident #7's left hand was contracted and was pressed against her chest. During an interview on 3/22/23 at 4:25 PM, with Registered Nurse (RN) #1, the Nurse Practitioner (NP), and the Director of Nursing (DON), RN #1 stated Resident #7's thumb nail had been thick, discolored, and jagged for the five (5) years she has been at the facility. She explained that she had not provided any care for the nail herself. RN #1 confirmed that Resident #7 kept her left hand pressed against her body. The NP confirmed that she was aware that Resident #7 had a left thumb nail that was thick, long, and jagged. The DON explained that she was aware of the left thumb nail for Resident #7 and that it had been in that condition for a while. The DON confirmed the residents nail is long, thick, and jagged and that Resident #7 kept her left hand pressed against her body. During an interview with a family member on 3/22/23 at 4:30 PM, he confirmed that Resident #7 kept her left hand pressed against her body. He stated that the facility did not tell him about the condition of the nail and they should have noticed it during her bath. Record review of the Facesheet revealed Resident #7 was admitted by the facility on 3/16/10 with diagnoses that included Anoxic Brain Damage, Hemiplegia, and Contracture of Muscle, Multiple Sites. Record review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 03/07/23 revealed Resident#7 had severely impaired cognitive skills for daily decision making and she is totally dependent upon staff to perform personal hygiene. Record review of the Physician Orders for the month of March 2023 revealed Resident #7 had a Physician's Order dated 5/24/22 to Perform Finger/Toenail care with an Interval Code of Q14Day (Every 14 days).
CONCERN (E)

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

MDS Data Transmission (Tag F0640)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on staff interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to transmit Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessments by the target date, for seven (7) of 20 residents reviewed for...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to transmit Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessments by the target date, for seven (7) of 20 residents reviewed for MDS assessments. Resident #4, #12, #37, #40, #46, #49, and #59. Findings Include: Review of the Resident Assessment Instrument Policy (undated) revealed, It is the policy of this facility that the RAI (Resident Assessment Instrument) will be done as follows: According to the guideline specified by: State Department of Health, Division of Medicaid, Case Mix Trainers, Completed by Inter Disciplinary Team, Coordinated by the RN (Registered Nurse) . MDS Assessments will be submitted in timely manner within the 14 day timeframe . Record review of MDS Assessments revealed the following: 1. The yearly assessment for Resident #4 had a target date of 2/10/23 and was not transmitted until 3/17/23. 2. The quarterly assessment for Resident #12 had a target date of 1/30/23 and was not transmitted until 3/17/23. 3. The quarterly assessment for Resident #37 had a target date of 2/12/23 and was not transmitted until 3/17/23. 4. The quarterly assessment for Resident #40 had a target date of 1/14/23 and was not transmitted until 3/22/23. 5. The quarterly assessment for Resident #46 had a target date of 2/13/23 and was not transmitted until 3/17/23. 6. The quarterly assessment for Resident #49 had a target date of 2/13/23 and was not transmitted until 3/17/23. 7. The yearly assessment for Resident #59 had a target date of 2/11/23 and was not transmitted until 3/17/23. On 3/23/23 at 10:00 AM, during an interview with RN #3/MDS Coordinator, she confirmed that the assessments for Residents #4, #12, #37, #40, #46, #49, and #59 were completed but were submitted late. She explained they were late due to a COVID-19 outbreak and because of other responsibilities in the facility. She confirmed that she is responsible for transmitting MDS Assessments and she had notified the Director of Nursing (DON) that she was behind with her MDS responsibilities. On 3/23/23 12:00 PM, an interview with the DON, she stated that the MDS Coordinator had made her aware that MDS department was behind in their work. The DON revealed that she had not put anything in place to ensure the MDS staff were provided with the time that they needed to complete their responsibilities. She stated that MDS Assessments are used for things such as case mix and resident care. On 3/23/23 at 12:30 PM, in an interview with the Administrator, he stated the MDS staff had been behind in January and February. He stated the purpose of the MDS assessments is to determine the care needed for the residents and ensure payment.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to discard expired food and failed to serve food in a sanitary manner related to staff touching a resident's food item ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to discard expired food and failed to serve food in a sanitary manner related to staff touching a resident's food item for two (2) of five (5) kitchen and dining observations. Findings include: A review of the facility's policy Food Safety and Sanitation, undated, revealed . All local, state, and federal standards and regulations are followed in order to assure a safe and sanitary food service department. Procedure . 4. Food Storage . b . All leftovers are labeled, covered, and dated when stored. They are used within 72 hours (or discarded) . On 03/20/23 at 12:20 PM, during a kitchen observation, there were 24 hot dog buns and nine (9) hamburger buns wrapped in plastic wrap in a clear container. The buns had an open date of 3/07/23 and a use by date of 3/13/23. The buns were firm and hard when touched. On 03/20/23 at 12:45 PM, in an interview with the Dietary Manager, she stated food items are dated to ensure foods served are fresh and not expired because serving expired foods could cause the residents to become sick. She explained that all staff are responsible for discarding expired items. On 03/23/23 at 01:20 PM, in an interview with the Administrator, he stated that he was not aware that the kitchen staff had not discarded expired foods, and he expected the kitchen staff to meet the needs of the residents and follow regulations. A record review of the Foodservice Inservice Attendance Record:, dated 12/20/2022, revealed the DM provided education for dietary staff related to labeling, dating, and cross-contact. Dining Observation On 3/20/23 at 5:24 PM, during an observation of the resident dining, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #2 served a meal tray to an unsampled resident. She picked up a peanut butter and jelly sandwich that was wrapped in plastic wrap from the resident's meal tray. She removed the plastic wrap, touching the sandwich with her bare hands, and placed it on the resident's meal tray. She did not apply gloves before touching the sandwich and did not discard it once her bare hands contacted the food item. On 03/22/23 at 11:10 AM, during an interview with CNA #2, she explained she was not thinking when she pulled the sandwich out of the plastic wrap with her bare hands and she knew better. On 03/23/23 at 1:03 PM, during an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), she stated CNA #2 should have put on gloves on before touching the resident's food. On 03/23/23 at 1:13 PM, during an interview with RN #2/Infection Preventionist (IP), she explained CNA #2 knew better than to touch a resident's food with her bare hands and that the facility had provided training to the staff. She stated that CNA #2 should have put on gloves before touching the food item or discarded it once she touched it with her bare hands.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0888 (Tag F0888)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure policies and procedures addressed a process for ensuring the implementation of additional prec...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure policies and procedures addressed a process for ensuring the implementation of additional precautions intended to mitigate the transmission and spread of COVID-19 for all staff who are not fully vaccinated for COVID-19. This had the potential to affect 95 of 95 residents in the facility. Findings include: A review of the facility's policy, COVID-19 Vaccination Policy, revised 10/11/22, revealed there were no additional precautions implemented to mitigate the transmission and spread of COVID-19 for all staff who are not fully vaccinated. On 3/22/23 at 11:57 AM, in an interview with the Infection Preventionist, she stated that the staff who are not vaccinated and have been granted an exemption are not required to do anything different than vaccinated staff and that all staff are required to wear a surgical mask. On 3/22/23 at 1:01 PM, in an interview with the Office [NAME] Clerk, she confirmed that she was not vaccinated and that she had a medical exemption. She stated that previously she was required to test more often than the vaccinated staff, but now the staff are not required to be tested unless they are symptomatic. She was wearing a surgical mask and confirmed that there are no additional precautions required because of her unvaccinated status and that she does not do anything any different than staff who are vaccinated. On 3/22/23 at 1:25 PM, in an interview with the Administrator, he stated the facility's policy previously had been that unvaccinated staff had to be tested more often than vaccinated staff, but once the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommendations changed related to routine testing, it was removed from the policy. He confirmed that the facility's current policy does not address additional precautions for staff who are not fully vaccinated. He stated that effective today (3/22/23), all unvaccinated staff would be required to test weekly as an additional precaution.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Mississippi facilities.
Concerns
  • • 15 deficiencies on record, including 2 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • Grade D (45/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 45/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Jasper County Nh's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns JASPER COUNTY NH an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within Mississippi, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.

How is Jasper County Nh Staffed?

CMS rates JASPER COUNTY NH's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 46%, compared to the Mississippi average of 46%.

What Have Inspectors Found at Jasper County Nh?

State health inspectors documented 15 deficiencies at JASPER COUNTY NH during 2023 to 2025. These included: 2 that caused actual resident harm, 12 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 Jasper County Nh?

JASPER COUNTY NH is owned by a government entity. Government-operated facilities are typically run by state, county, or municipal agencies. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 110 certified beds and approximately 98 residents (about 89% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in BAY SPRINGS, Mississippi.

How Does Jasper County Nh Compare to Other Mississippi Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Mississippi, JASPER COUNTY NH's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 2.6, staff turnover (46%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Jasper County Nh?

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

Is Jasper County Nh Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, JASPER COUNTY NH 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 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Mississippi. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at Jasper County Nh Stick Around?

JASPER COUNTY NH has a staff turnover rate of 46%, which is about average for Mississippi nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Jasper County Nh Ever Fined?

JASPER COUNTY NH 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 Jasper County Nh on Any Federal Watch List?

JASPER COUNTY NH 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.