JONES CO REST HOME

683 COUNTY HOME ROAD, ELLISVILLE, MS 39437 (601) 477-3334
Government - City/county 122 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
43/100
#120 of 200 in MS
Last Inspection: March 2025

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

Overview

Jones Co Rest Home in Ellisville, Mississippi has a Trust Grade of D, which indicates it falls below average with several concerns. It ranks #120 out of 200 facilities in the state, placing it in the bottom half, and #3 out of 4 in Jones County, meaning only one local option is better. The facility is showing improvement in its issues, decreasing from 7 concerns in 2023 to 6 in 2025. Staffing is a strength here with a 4 out of 5-star rating and a turnover rate of 44%, which is better than the state average. However, the facility has faced serious issues, including failing to create appropriate care plans for residents with behavioral issues and discontinuing necessary behavioral health services, which contributed to ongoing aggression from a resident. Additionally, there are concerns about food safety practices, with improper storage and labeling of food items.

Trust Score
D
43/100
In Mississippi
#120/200
Bottom 40%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Better
7 → 6 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
44% turnover. Near Mississippi's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$12,735 in fines. Higher than 85% of Mississippi facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 32 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Mississippi. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
17 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
2023: 7 issues
2025: 6 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (44%)

    4 points below Mississippi average of 48%

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: 44%

Near Mississippi avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $12,735

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

The Ugly 17 deficiencies on record

2 actual harm
Mar 2025 6 deficiencies 2 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive, person-centered care plan and individualized interventions, as evidenced by ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive, person-centered care plan and individualized interventions, as evidenced by not addressing ongoing behavioral symptoms and providing individualized comfort care interventions, despite a known history of psychotic and aggressive behaviors, which resulted in Resident #10 having frequent behavioral episodes, refusal of medications and food, and frequent combative interactions with staff.for one (1) of twenty-three (23) residents reviewed for care planning. Resident #10 Findings include: A review of the facility's policy titled, MDS (Minimum Data Set), CAA (Care Area Assessments), and Care Plan Documentation Policy, with a reviewed date of 01/24/24, revealed, . It is the purpose of this facility to provide documentation in the medical record for MDS, CAA, and care plan purposes . Discussion: . 6. The care plan will be updated on an ongoing basis with significant changes in interventions . A record review of Resident #10's Comprehensive Care Plan revealed Resident #10 had a MOOD care plan with interventions in place. The interventions, however were not all inclusive and aligned with all the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) documentation interventions indicated in the Behavior Monitoring Interventions for Resident #10. A record review of Resident #10's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 10/01/21 with diagnoses that included Bipolar Disorder, Psychotic Disorder with Hallucinations Due to Known Physiological Conditions, Psychotic Disorder with Delusions, and other cognitive disorders. A record review of the Behavior Monitoring and Interventions documentation for March 2025 revealed Resident #10 exhibited frequent and escalating behavioral symptoms, including physical aggression, verbal outbursts, and refusal of care. Behavioral episodes were documented on multiple dates across all shifts, including but not limited to 03/11, 03/13, 03/14, 03/15, 03/16, 03/17, 03/21, and 03/22, often involving grabbing, hitting, pushing, scratching, screaming, cursing, and threatening staff. The most frequently used interventions included redirecting the resident, providing food/drink, re-approach, and offering comfort measures such as massage or repositioning. However, the documented outcomes were consistently noted as either same (unchanged) or worsened. In addition, the intervention choices for the CNA documentation were not specific to Resident #10 and did not align with comprehensive care plan interventions. During an interview, on 03/17/25 at 1:25 PM, CNA #3 stated that Resident #10 is always confused and has daily behaviors. She explained that the resident is noncompliant with care and becomes aggressive during care. She confirmed the behaviors have been ongoing for many months. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 03/18/25 at 1:00 PM, he explained that the facility provides psychiatric services. However, once a resident is placed on palliative or comfort care, psychiatric services are no longer offered. During an interview on 03/18/25 at 3:00 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3 explained that Resident #10 had been in a prolonged state of psychosis since her Depakote was discontinued. The family requested the resident be kept on comfort measures only. She stated the only behavioral intervention in place is administration of anxiety medication. On 03/19/25 at 3:20 PM, during an interview with LPN #2, she explained that care plans are updated daily and used by staff to guide resident care. She reported that staff are expected to follow the care plan to meet residents' needs. On 03/20/25 at 9:00 AM, during an interview with the DON and Assistant DON, the DON acknowledged facility does not have a contract hospice agency and instead provides comfort measures following their own internal palliative care protocol, which includes administration of Ativan as needed. On 03/20/25 at 12:20 PM, during an interview with LPN #5, she reviewed Resident #10's care plan and confirmed it lacked detailed comfort care interventions. She noted the care plan did not outline specific interventions related to behavioral management or psychotropic medications. On 03/20/25 at 1:00 PM, during an interview with the Administrator, she acknowledged Resident #10's clinical decline and stated that she expects staff to complete care plans accurately and in a timely manner. She reported that all regulations regarding care planning should be followed.
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0740 (Tag F0740)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the ongoing provision of behavioral health services for a cognitively impaired resident with severe, escalating behavi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the ongoing provision of behavioral health services for a cognitively impaired resident with severe, escalating behaviors following discharge from a behavioral health unit and despite continued aggression, delusions, and medication refusal, the facility discontinued behavioral health services without a documented rationale, contributing to ongoing physical aggression toward staff and others for one (1) of 23 sampled residents. Resident #10 Findings include: On 03/17/25 at 1:16 PM, during an observation and interview, Resident #10 pleasantly confused, verbalizing that she needed to go home. A record review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #10 on 10/01/21 with diagnoses including Bipolar Disorder, Unspecified, Psychotic Disorder with Hallucinations Due to Known Physiological Conditions, Psychotic Disorder with Delusions, and Other Symptoms and Sign Involving Cognitive Function and Awareness. A record review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 01/09/25 revealed Resident #10 required a Staff Assessment for Mental Status, which indicated a memory problem for short term memory, memory okay for long term memory, and moderately impaired for cognitive skills for daily decision making. A review of Section E revealed Resident #10 delusions, physical, verbal, and other behavior symptoms directed towards others during the (7) day look back. The behavior of Rejection of Care occurred daily. A record review of the Behavior Monitoring and Interventions documentation, completed by Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs), for March 2025 revealed Resident #10 exhibited frequent behavioral symptoms, including physical aggression, verbal outbursts, and refusal of care. Behavioral episodes were documented on multiple dates across all shifts, including 03/01, 03/04, 03/09, 03/10, 03/11, 03/12, 03/13, 03/14, 03/15, 03/16, 03/17, 03/18, 03/19, and 03/20, often involving grabbing, hitting, screaming, cursing, and threatening staff. The interventions included redirecting the resident, providing food/drink, re-approach, and offering comfort measures such as massage or repositioning. However, the documented outcomes were consistently noted as either same (unchanged) or worsened. There was no documentation the CNA notified the nurse of the resident's behaviors or that the behaviors were unchanged or had worsened after attempting the documented interventions. A record review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for March 2025 revealed that Resident #10 refused medications except for Morphine and Lorazepam. Resident #10 received Lorazepam 03/01, 03/02, 03/03, 03/05, 03/06, 03/09 (twice), 03/10, 03/11, and 03/13 (three times), 03/14, 03/15, 03/16 (twice), 03/17, 03/18 (twice), and 03/19 (twice). Resident #10 received Morphine on 03/01, 03/02, 03/05, 03/06, 03/09, 03/10, 03/13 (three times), 03/14, 03/15, 03/16 (twice), 03/18 (twice), and 03/19 (twice). There is no documentation on the MAR indicating resident-specific behaviors, interventions, and effectiveness of interventions. A record review of the Social Services Quarterly Note dated 01/09/25 revealed Resident #10 had was irritable, agitated, refused meds, and resistant of care during brief changes and bath. It was noted that every day the resident exhibited restlessness and annoyance/short temper and had refused to eat. The note indicated Resident #10 has had a Change in status in her cognitive status, social interaction, mood status, behavioral status, and rejection of care/resident choices. The document also indicated that psychological/psychiatric services were currently indicated for the resident with documentation including Resident is seen by Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner (NP) (10/11 and 12/13/2024) for follow-up/medication review/support. A record review of the Physician's Order Sheet revealed Resident #10 had a Physician's Order, dated 08/29/2024 to send the resident to an emergency room for evaluation of increased behaviors, and another physician's order, dated 11/14/2024, to send the resident to a Behavioral Health Unit (BHU) for further evaluation. A record review of the BHU documentation Discharge Instructions, dated 9/10/24, and 11/23/24, revealed Resident #10 received treatment from an inpatient BHU. A record review of the Psychiatric NP visit documentation, dated 12/13/24, for Resident #10 revealed . Anxiety not controlled, Psychosis not controlled . often refuses medications due to paranoid ideations, believing meds have been poisoned . On 03/17/25 at 1:25 PM, during an interview with CNA #3, she stated that Resident #10 is consistently confused and exhibits daily behavioral symptoms. She explained that the resident is often noncompliant with care and becomes physically aggressive during care. CNA #3 added that these behaviors have been ongoing for several months. On 03/18/2025 at 11:15 AM, during an interview with CNA #3, she stated that Resident #10's behaviors include kicking, spitting, hitting, and smearing anything she can get her hands on, including food and feces. On the morning of 3/18/2025, Resident #10 threw a full tray on her during breakfast. On 03/18/2025 at 1:00 PM, during an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), he stated the facility offers psychiatric services, but once the resident was on palliative or comfort care, those services were discontinued. He reported that Resident #10 had previously seen psych services but was removed from the caseload after transitioning to Comfort Measures Only. He stated that Resident #10 continues to experience behavioral outbursts, hallucinations, and delusions, and was sent to the BHU twice. He explained that after one of the BHU visits, medications including Depakote were discontinued due to high lab levels. Since that time, the resident experienced a significant decline, refusing medications and eating very little. On 03/18/2025 at 3:00 PM, during an interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3, she explained that Resident #10 had exhibited ongoing behavioral symptoms for several months and had remained in a prolonged state of psychosis following the discontinuation of Depakote. She reported that the resident had not consistently taken any oral medications for months; however, earlier that day, she was able to administer oral Morphine and Ativan. LPN #3 stated that while attempting to provide wound care to a skin tear on the resident's right forearm, Resident #10 became physically aggressive, striking her on the arm and using profane language. She reported that this type of behavior occurs regularly, and that facility management is aware. According to LPN #3, the Resident #10 often refuses oral medications, believing them to be poisoned and had knocked the medications out of her hand earlier that day. The physician had considered discontinuing all oral medications, but the resident's daughter requested that they be continued in case the resident became willing to take them in the future. LPN #3 further explained that Resident #10 routinely throws items at staff, including food, trash, and bodily fluids. That morning, the resident reportedly threw an entire breakfast tray at a CNA. LPN #3 stated that the family had requested the resident remain at the facility under Comfort Measures Only. On 03/18/2025 at 4:10 PM, during an interview with CNA #5, she explained that Resident #10 had consistently exhibited behavioral concerns, with some evenings being more challenging than others. She stated that providing care always requires at least two staff members due to the resident's behaviors. Even with the assistance of two CNAs, the resident often remains combative, frequently kicking, scratching, and pinching during care. CNA #5 added that while the resident can occasionally be distracted, these moments are brief, and the resident is generally not easily redirected. On 03/19/2025 at 10:05 AM, during an interview with LPN #4, she explained that Resident #10 exhibited ongoing behavioral symptoms, including scratching herself and staff, hitting, cursing, and throwing food and bodily waste at staff on a daily basis. She stated that earlier that morning, the resident refused all oral medications and became physically aggressive toward the CNA during breakfast assistance. LPN #4 reported that she was able to administer the resident's anxiety and pain medications using an oral syringe, which resulted in the resident calming somewhat afterward. On 03/19/25 at 12:15 PM, during an interview and observation of incontinence care for Resident #10, CNA #4 and CNA #6 reported that the resident has behaviors that occur on a near daily basis. Resident #10 was observed to be resisting care and fighting the CNAs. On 03/19/25 at 2:25 PM, during a follow up interview with the DON, he confirmed that Resident #10 had been transferred to a BHU on two occasions-once in September 2024 and again in November 2024-due to escalating behavioral concerns, refusal to take medications, and decreased oral intake. Following the last BHU admission, the resident's family elected to initiate comfort measures only, and the facility honored that decision. The DON stated that despite the transition to comfort-focused care, Resident #10 continued to exhibit frequent behavioral disturbances and remained noncompliant with oral medications and nutrition. He acknowledged that there had been no improvement in the resident's behaviors since returning from the BHU. The DON could not recall the specific recommendations provided at the time of discharge from the BHU but noted the facility opted to manage her symptoms through its Comfort Measures protocol using anxiety and pain medications. On 03/20/25 at 9:00 AM, during an interview with the DON and the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the DON explained Resident #10 had become increasingly combative with all aspects of care. The DON also clarified that the facility does not contract with an external hospice agency; instead, they provide in-house palliative care under a comfort measures protocol, which includes the use of Ativan as needed. On 03/20/25 at 10:40 AM, during a phone interview with Resident #10's granddaughter, she stated that both she and her mother are nurses and have been actively involved in the resident's care. She explained that over the past six (6) months to a year, there had been a noticeable decline in her grandmother's mental status. The resident had a longstanding history of mental health issues, including behavioral disturbances and dementia. She confirmed that Resident #10 had recently been admitted to a geriatric psychiatric facility on two (2) occasions. Following the most recent discharge, the resident initially showed slight improvement but quickly returned to her prior state. Based on the resident's continued decline and stated wishes, the family collectively agreed to place her on comfort measures only. The granddaughter shared that the resident continues to exhibit significant behavioral symptoms, including delusions, hallucinations, and verbal aggression. Due to the severity of these behaviors, family visits are often brief. She acknowledged that her grandmother consistently refuses medications and has poor nutritional intake but believes alternative behavioral medications or formulations could be explored. She confirmed awareness of the resident's significant weight loss but stated that the family made the decision not to pursue feeding tube placement. On 03/20/25 at 12:25 PM, during an interview with Social Services #1, she stated that she is part of the interdisciplinary team responsible for referring residents to behavioral health services. She acknowledged that Resident #10 had ongoing behavioral issues but reported that behavioral services were discontinued when the resident was placed on comfort measures. On 03/20/25 at 01:40 PM, during a phone interview with the Psychiatric NP, she explained that her services for Resident #10 were discontinued once the resident was placed on comfort measures. She stated that during her visits, Resident #10 often became upset and agitated by her presence, frequently refusing to participate in care. The NP shared that Resident #10 would regularly display aggressive behavior, including calling her derogatory names and exhibiting paranoid ideations. She noted that Resident #10 had been noncompliant with both care and medications for several months prior to the initiation of comfort measures and had experienced a noticeable decline in behavior. The NP consulted with colleagues due to the resident's worsening symptoms and it was eventually determined that her ammonia levels were elevated, prompting the discontinuation of Depakote. Although alternative medications were trialed, the resident continued to exhibit paranoid delusions and hallucinations. The NP confirmed that she was aware the resident was not taking prescribed medications, which contributed to the decision to begin comfort care. She stated that during her final visit in December 2024, Resident #10 was still experiencing uncontrolled anxiety and psychosis. She clarified that under the facility's palliative care approach, comfort measures are limited to managing symptoms without further psychiatric intervention.
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 observation, interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to honor resident food dislikes by placing food items on meal trays that were identified as dislikes f...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to honor resident food dislikes by placing food items on meal trays that were identified as dislikes for one (1) of four (4) days of observation. Resident #58. Findings included: A review of the facility's Resident Rights Policy, revised 12/4/2016, revealed, . Responsibilities .The facility must support the resident in the exercise of his or her rights . Procedure . 6. Resident Rights. The resident has the right to a dignified existence, self-determination . A review of the facility's booklet titled A Matter of Rights: A Guide to Your Rights and Responsibilities as a Resident with a copyright date of 2017 revealed, . Freedom of Choice - You are entitled to make decisions, whenever possible, for yourself based on your interests and preferences . On 03/17/2025 at 12:27 PM, during an interview and observation, Resident #58 was observed eating lunch independently. The lunch tray included lasagna and mashed potatoes with gravy. Resident #58 stated that she has told kitchen staff repeatedly not to serve certain items, yet they continue to send her food she requested not to receive. She explained the staff ask her multiple times what she wants but still brings her the wrong meal. An observation of the resident's tray card revealed lasagna was listed as a dislike. Resident #58 stated she now relies on her own food because she is tired of telling staff to bring something else. On 03/17/2025 at 12:40 PM, during an interview, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #1 confirmed that lasagna was listed as a dislike on Resident #58's meal ticket, yet she received it for lunch. On 03/19/2025 at 8:25 AM, during an interview, the Dietary Manager (DM) stated she could not recall whether she completed Resident #58's likes and dislikes documentation. She explained that likes and dislikes documentation should be completed for all new admissions and updated as needed. She stated that CNAs or nurses should notify the kitchen when residents are not eating or when changes to the meal ticket are required. She confirmed the [NAME] is responsible for reading meal tray tickets and honoring preferences during tray line setup. The DM was not aware Resident #58 received lasagna on 03/17/2025 and stated that this was an error by the cook. She confirmed her expectation that all residents' likes and dislikes are honored. On 03/20/2025 at 1:00 PM, during an interview, the Administrator stated that all staff are expected to honor residents' rights and choices at all times to ensure high-quality care. A record review of Resident #58's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 01/13/2025 with diagnoses including Limb-Girdle Muscular Dystrophy. A record review of Resident #58's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 01/21/2025 revealed she had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicated she was cognitively intact. A record review of Resident #58's meal tickets dated 03/17/2025 and 03/18/2025 revealed lasagna listed as a dislike.
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 interview and record review the facility failed to provide a reason for a resident transfer for one (1) of 23 residents sampled. Resident #5 Findings Include: A review of the facility's Noti...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to provide a reason for a resident transfer for one (1) of 23 residents sampled. Resident #5 Findings Include: A review of the facility's Notice of Transfer or Discharge dated 09/02/24 revealed there was no explanation for the resident's discharge to the hospital. A review of the facility's Notice of Transfer or Discharge dated 12/14/24 revealed there was no explanation for the resident's discharge to the hospital. A record review of the facility's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 5/20/16 with diagnoses including Heart Failure. On 3/20/25 at 8:05 AM, an interview with the Social Services Director revealed the Charge Nurse is responsible for filling in the Notice of Resident Transfer or Discharge form and the Business Office Coordinator mails the form to the Resident Representative (RR). On 03/20/25 at 9:50 AM, an interview with Registered Nurse (RN) #1 Charge Nurse revealed she has never filled in the Notice of Resident Transfer or Discharge at the time a resident is sent to the hospital. RN #1 stated she fills out the Functional Abilities and Goals: Discharge form on the computer. RN #1 stated there is no place on the form for a reason for the hospitalization. RN #1 stated she notates the reason for the hospitalization in the progress note. On 03/20/25 at 10:13 AM, an interview with RN #2 Charge Nurse revealed she does not fill in the Notice of Resident Transfer or Discharge at the time of a resident being sent from the facility to the hospital. RN #2 stated she fills out the Functional Abilities and Goals: Discharge form on the computer. RN#2 stated she will then write a progress not regarding the hospitalization. On 03/20/25 at 10:30 AM, an interview with the Business Office Coordinator (BOC), acknowledged that it is her responsibility to mail the Notification of Resident Transfer or Discharge to the Resident Representative. The BOC stated she receives a notification from the Electronic Medical Record that lets her know that the Notification of Resident Transfer or Discharge has been saved to the system. The BOC stated she will print the form and mail it to the Resident Representative. On 03/20/25 at 11:12 AM, an interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) revealed it is the responsibility of the Charge Nurse to fill in the Notification of Resident Transfer or Discharge at the time a resident is being sent to the hospital. The ADON acknowledged that Notification of Resident Transfer or Discharge forms dated 9/2/24 and 12/14/2024 did not list information detailing the reason for the hospitalization. The ADON stated going forward she expects the facility's staff to adequately inform the resident and the RR in writing of the reason for hospitalization. On 03/20/25 at 11:20 AM, during an interview the Director of Nursing (DON) acknowledged the Notification of Resident Transfer or Discharge forms dated 9/2/24 and 12/14/24 did not list information detailing the reason for the hospitalization. The DON stated it is the responsibility of the Charge Nurse to fill in the form. The DON acknowledged that the RR would benefit from having clear written communication regarding the residents' hospitalizations. The DON stated that going forward they will make the forms instructions clearer to provide more information.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0637 (Tag F0637)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to complete a Significant Change in Status Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment after a resident experienced two (2) or...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to complete a Significant Change in Status Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment after a resident experienced two (2) or more declines in activities of daily living and an increase in behavioral symptoms for one (1) of twenty-three (23) sampled residents. Resident #10. Findings included: A review of the facility's MDS (Minimum Data Set), CAA (Care Area Assessments), and Care Plan Documentation Policy, revised 11/14/2023, . It is the purpose of this facility to provide documentation in the medical record for MDS, CAA, and care plan purposes . Discussion: 1. The staff completing each portion of the MDS is responsible for ensuring that documentation is found in the medical record to support the coding they perform . A review of the Long Term Care Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) User's Manual Version 1.19.1 dated October 2024 revealed, . A 'significant change' is a major decline or improvement in a resident's status that: 1. Will not normally resolve itself without intervention by staff or by implementing standard disease-related clinical interventions, the decline is not considered 'self-limiting'; 2. Impacts more than one area of the resident's health status; and 3. Requires interdisciplinary review and/or revision of the care plan . A record review of Resident #10's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 10/01/2021 with diagnoses including Bipolar Disorder, Unspecified, Psychotic Disorder with Hallucinations Due to Known Physiological Conditions, Psychotic Disorder with Delusions, and Other Symptoms and Sign Involving Cognitive Function and Awareness. A record review of Resident #10's MDS Care Profile revealed no Significant Change MDS had been completed since admission. The most recent Quarterly MDS was completed on 01/09/2025. A record review of the Order Summary Report with active orders as of 03/19/2025, revealed Resident #10 had a physician's order, dated 11/26/2024, Do Not Resuscitate (DNR), Do Not Transfer, Comfort Measures Only, dated 11/26/2024, with no diagnosis or clinical rational for comfort measures indicated. A record review of the Physician's Order Sheet revealed Resident #10 had a Physician's Order, dated 08/29/2024 to send the resident to an emergency room for evaluation of increased behaviors, and another Physician's Order, dated 11/14/2024, to send the resident to a Behavioral Health Unit (BHU) for further evaluation. A record review of the Social Services Quarterly Note dated 01/09/25 revealed Resident #10 has had a Change in status in her cognitive status, social interaction, mood status, behavioral status, and rejection of care/resident choices. On 03/19/2025 at 2:25 PM, during an interview, the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed Resident #10 had been sent to a BHU twice. Resident #10 was sent out once on 08/2024 and again on 11/14/2024. The resident had demonstrated increased behaviors, ceased taking oral medications, and was eating very little. Following the last BHU visit (11/14/24), the resident's family elected to place her on comfort measures only. The DON acknowledged that Resident #10 continued to refuse medications and food. On 03/19/2025 at 3:20 PM, during an interview, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #2/MDS Nurse, she explained that a Significant Change MDS should be completed when a resident experiences two (2) or more significant changes in health status. LPN #2 confirmed that Resident #10 had not had a Significant Change MDS in the past year despite having been to the BHU twice, refusing oral medications, eating inconsistently, experiencing significant weight loss, and being placed on comfort measures. She stated that a Significant Change Assessment should have been completed. On 03/20/2025 at 12:45 PM, during an interview, Registered Nurse (RN) #3, who serves as the Reimbursement Coordinator and completes Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR), stated that she was aware of Resident #10's recent health status changes. She confirmed the resident had been to a BHU twice, placed on comfort measures, refused oral medications, and lost significant weight-all of which met criteria for a Significant Change in Status Assessment. She acknowledged that the assessment had not been completed and stated, It was just missed. On 03/20/2025 at 1:00 PM, during an interview, the Administrator stated that she was aware of the decline in Resident #10's condition and expects all staff to perform their job duties correctly, including ensuring assessments are completed accurately and on time.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0646 (Tag F0646)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to notify the state mental health authority following a significant change in status for one (1) of two (2) resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to notify the state mental health authority following a significant change in status for one (1) of two (2) residents reviewed for Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) Level II. Resident #10 Findings included: A review of the facility's policy titled PASRR Screening with a review date of 11/19/2023 revealed, . This facility coordinates assessments with the preadmission screening and resident review (PASRR) program under Medicaid to ensure that individuals with a mental disorder, intellectual disability, or a related condition receives care and services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs . Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: . 7. Any Level II resident who experiences a significant change in status will be referred promptly to the state mental health or intellectual disability authority for additional review. 8. 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. Examples include: . c. A resident transferred, admitted , or readmitted to the facility following an inpatient psychiatric stay or equally intensive treatment . A record review of Resident #10's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 10/01/2021 with diagnoses including Bipolar Disorder, Unspecified, Psychotic Disorder with Hallucinations Due to Known Physiological Conditions, Psychotic Disorder with Delusions, and Other Symptoms and Sign Involving Cognitive Function and Awareness. A record review of Resident #10's Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) dated 08/24/2020 revealed no diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease but noted that the resident had a recent history of mental illness and takes or has a history of taking psychotropic medications. A record review of Resident #10's PASRR Level II dated 09/08/2020 revealed the resident was exempt from PASRR at that time. The documentation also stated, If there is a change in symptoms, behaviors, or a new diagnosis, the nursing facility should submit a status change. A record review of the Physician's Order Sheet revealed Resident #10 had a Physician's Order, dated 08/29/2024 to send the resident to an emergency room for evaluation of increased behaviors, and another physician's order, dated 11/14/2024, to send the resident to a Behavioral Health Unit (BHU) for further evaluation. On 03/18/2025 at 1:00 PM, during an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), he explained that the facility does offer psychiatric services, but once a resident is on palliative or comfort care, those services are discontinued. The DON stated that Resident #10 had previously received psych services, but since being placed on comfort measures only, she is no longer followed. The DON acknowledged that Resident #10 continues to experience good and bad days with behaviors, hallucinations, and delusions. The resident had been sent to the hospital and subsequently admitted to a Behavioral Health Unit (BHU) twice. The family later elected comfort measures only. The DON confirmed that the facility did not submit a change in status referral for a PASRR Level II after either BHU admission. He stated that the PAS (Pre-admission Screening) and PASRR on file were the only screenings completed and acknowledged he was not aware that being sent to a BHU or an increase in behaviors required a new referral. On 03/20/2025 at 12:45 PM, during an interview with Registered Nurse (RN) #3, she explained that she is the Reimbursement Coordinator and Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator and completes the PASRR process. She confirmed that she was aware Resident #10 had been to the BHU twice recently. She stated she was not aware that a resident with a Level II, or a resident transferred and admitted to an inpatient psychiatric stay, required a status change referral to the state mental health authority. On 03/20/2025 at 1:00 PM, during an interview with the Administrator, she explained that she was aware of the decline in Resident #10's health status, increased behaviors, and that the resident had been admitted to an inpatient BHU twice. She stated that she expects all staff to perform their duties correctly and for assessments to be completed accurately and on time. The Administrator acknowledged she was not aware that an inpatient psychiatric stay triggered a requirement for a PASRR status change referral. She believed that if the resident's behaviors were ongoing, a new referral was not required.
Oct 2023 6 deficiencies
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 interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide written notification of transfer to the resident and the Resident's Representative (RR), for a resident t...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide written notification of transfer to the resident and the Resident's Representative (RR), for a resident transferred to the hospital for one (1) of two (2) resident records reviewed for hospitalizations. Resident #65 Findings include: Record Review of the facility's policy, Resident Transfer and Discharge Policy, with a revision date of 3/11/22, revealed, . 7. Emergency Transfers/Discharges initiated by the facility for medical reasons e. Complete and send the following forms at the time of transfer: i. Notice of Bed Hold for the resident representative ii. Notice of transfer for the resident representative . At 12:35 PM on 10/23/23, in an interview with Resident #65, she revealed she had been admitted to the hospital several times due to tremors and pneumonia. She stated she was not given anything in writing from the facility at the time of her transfers to the hospital. A record review of the Physician Order Sheet, for Resident #65, revealed there was an order dated 9/18/23, to send the resident to the ER (Emergency Room) related to respiratory distress. There was another physician order dated 9/28/23, to send the resident to the ER for SOB (shortness of breath). The Licensed Social Worker (LSW) revealed on 10/23/23 at 3:29 PM, in an interview, when a resident is sent to the hospital, the nurse fills out the transfer letter. She stated once the nurse fills out the letter, it is given to her, she calls the family, and gives the letter to the Administrator Assistant (AA) or Business Office Coordinator (BOC) to mail. The LSW added that they mail the original letters and keep a copy for their records. The LSW stated this is done every time a resident is sent out to a hospital. The LSW reported on 10/24/23 at 11:39 AM, in an interview, that she looked for hospital transfer letters for September. However, she stated she could not find them. She stated once she forwards the letters to the AA or BOC, she usually makes a copy and documents to whom she gave the letters to mail. She revealed that without a copy of the letters and a notation regarding their disposition, she could not remember who or when she gave them to and cannot recall if she did that for the September letters at all. In an interview on 10/24/23 at 11:40 AM, with the BOC, she revealed if she was given the original copies, she would have mailed the original to the RR and placed a copy in a binder. However, she stated she could not recall the letters being given to her to be mailed. She stated the LSW is supposed to give the letters to her or the AA to be mailed to the RR, however, she confirmed there were no copies of letters for September in the binder. During an interview on 10/24/23 at 12:05 PM, in an interview with the AA, she revealed the facility keeps a copy of the original letters in a binder. She stated there are no letters in the binder for September, she does not have the letters, and no one gave her letters for September. In an interview on 10/25/23 at 2:35 PM, the Administrator revealed she was made aware of the letters not being done. She stated she expects staff to follow the facility's policy related to resident transfers. Record review of Resident #65's Transfer/Discharge Report, revealed a readmit date of 7/19/23, with diagnoses of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Acute and Chronic Respiratory Failure, and Essential Tremors. Record review of Resident #65's Discharge Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 9/13/2023, as well as the Discharge MDS with an ARD of 9/28/23, revealed the resident was discharged to an acute care hospital. Record review of Annual MDS with ARD 6/19/23 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Record review of Progress Notes revealed Resident #65 was transferred to an acute care hospital on 9/13/23, related to low O2 Sats (oxygen saturation) levels ranging from 56%-84%. Progress Notes, dated 9/28/23, revealed Resident #65 was again transferred to an acute care hospital related to cyanosis (bluish discoloration) and inability to respond to commands.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0625 (Tag F0625)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interviews, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide the Resident and the Resident Representative (RR) with written notification of the bed hold policy at the ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide the Resident and the Resident Representative (RR) with written notification of the bed hold policy at the time of transfer to the hospital for one (1) of two (2) residents reviewed for hospitalizations. Resident #65 Findings include: Record Review of the facility's policy, Notice of Bed Hold and Return Policy, with a revision date of 1/9/20, revealed, It is the policy of this facility to provide written information to the resident and/or the resident representative regarding bed hold policies prior to and upon transferring a resident to the hospital . On 10/23/23 at 12:35 PM, in an interview with Resident #65, she revealed she had been admitted to the local hospital several times due to tremors and pneumonia. She stated at the time of her hospitalizations, she had not received anything in writing from the facility regarding their bed hold policy. A record review of the Physician Order Sheet, for Resident #65, revealed there an order dated 9/18/23, to send the resident to the ER (Emergency Room) related to respiratory distress. On 9/28/23, there was another physician order to send the resident to the ER for SOB (shortness of breath). On 10/23/23 at 3:29 PM, in an interview the License Social Worker (LSW) revealed when a resident is sent to the hospital, the nurse fills out the bed hold letter and gives it to her. She then calls the family and gives the letters to the Administrator Assistant (AA) or Business Office Coordinator (BOC) to mail. She stated the original letters are kept in a binder in the front office. She further commented, this is done every time a resident transferred to an acute care hospital. On 10/24/23 at 11:39 AM, in an interview with the LSW, she revealed she had looked for the bed hold letters for September and could not find them. She stated she usually keeps a copy, with a notation of who she had given the letters to mail. However, she could not find letters for the month of September, and she could not recall if she did that for the month of September. On 10/24/23 at 11:40 AM in an interview with BOC, she revealed if she had been given the bed hold letters for the month of September, she would have mailed the original to the Resident Representative (RR) and kept a copy to place in the binder in the front office. The BOC confirmed there were no bed hold letters in the binder for the month of September. On 10/24/23 at 12:05 PM, in an interview with the AA, she revealed after bed hold letters are mailed, they put a copy of the original in the binder. She confirmed there are no bed hold letters in the binder for the month of September. She stated no one gave her the letters. On 10/25/23 at 2:35 PM, in an interview with the Administrator, she acknowledged she was made aware of the letters not being done. She stated she expects staff to follow the facility's policy related to transfers and discharges regarding bed holds. Record review of Transfer/Discharge Report for Resident #65 revealed a readmit date of 07/19/23 with diagnoses of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Acute and Chronic Respiratory Failure, and Essential Tremors. Record review of Resident #65's Discharge Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 9/13/2023, as well as the Discharge MDS, with an ARD date of 9/28/23, revealed the resident was discharged to an acute care hospital. Record review of Annual MDS with ARD 6/19/23 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicated resident was cognitively intact. Record review of the facility's Progress Notes revealed Resident #65 was transferred to an acute care hospital on 9/13/23, related to low O2 Sats (oxygen saturation) levels ranging from 56%-84%. Progress Notes dated 9/28/23, revealed Resident #65 was again transferred to an acute hospital, related to cyanosis (bluish discoloration) and inability to respond to commands.
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 related to dietary services were resolved for ten (10) of 24 sampled residents. (Resident #1, #1...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure grievances related to dietary services were resolved for ten (10) of 24 sampled residents. (Resident #1, #18, #22, #42, #58, #61, #67, #94, #96 and #104) Findings include: Review of the facility's, Grievance Policy revised 06/23/23 revealed, .To ensure the resident, our resident representatives right, to voice grievances to the facility or other agency or entity that hears grievances without discrimination or reprisal and without the fear of discrimination or reprisal .Responsibilities .The facility will review grievances in a timely manner and must make prompt efforts to resolve grievances .Procedure .4. Grievances may be voiced orally to the department manager, to the Grievance Official, during resident council .8. Any immediate action needed to prevent further violations of any residents' rights will be taken .10. The grievance official will take steps to resolve the grievance and record information about the grievance and those actions on the grievance form. 11. Steps to resolve the grievance may involve discussion with the appropriate department manager for follow up . A record review of the Resident Council Meeting, dated 4/25/23 revealed a representative of the food service company was in attendance and food seasoning was discussed. A record review of the Resident Council Meeting, dated 5/30/23 revealed a resident concern regarding green beans tastes as if they are out of the can. A record review of the Resident Council Meeting, dated 6/27/23 revealed that the DM was not in attendance, but residents verbalized a food concern that peanuts were not cooked long enough. Record review of the Resident Council Meeting, dated 7/25/23, 8/29/23, and 9/26/23, revealed the Dietary Manager (DM) was in attendance. Residents voiced multiple food concerns. During a meeting with the Resident council members on 10/24/23 at 03:00 PM, the residents complained the food was cold and had not tasted good since the new dietary company had taken over for the facility. The residents said they had invited the Dietary Manager (DM) to attend their meetings each month to discuss their dietary concerns, but nothing had changed regarding the taste of the food, because the food was bland and had no flavor. During an interview on 10/25/23 at 12:50 PM, with the DM, she explained that the dietary staff could not add seasonings to the food recipe. She confirmed she had been invited to attend resident council meetings every month and tried to assist with the resident's requests, but the Registered Dietician (RD) made the decisions regarding seasoning changes for the recipes and would not allow the DM to alter the recipes. She stated that the facility had residents that had orders for bland diets and that the residents could add salt or pepper from the packets on their meal trays. During an interview on 10/25/23 at 1:00 PM, with the Social Worker (SW), she reported that she records the minutes of the Resident Council meetings. She confirmed that the residents had complained about the taste and temperature of the food. The SW confirmed she failed to document the food complaints on the council meeting minutes if the DM was present for the meeting and discussed the concerns with the residents. The SW also stated that the residents' food concerns had been discussed in daily stand-up (communication) meetings during the past several months. During an interview on 10/25/23 at 1:20 PM, with the Director of Nursing (DON), he confirmed the residents have complained for several months of the food being cold and not having a good taste. The DON confirmed that the DM was attending monthly resident council meetings and he thought she was working to correct the residents' concerns. The DON confirmed that the food concerns had been discussed in stand-up meetings. During an interview on 10/26/23 at 09:00 AM, with the Administrator, she confirmed the residents had complained about the food being served cold and did not taste good, since the new company had began at the facility. The Administrator explained that the new company had been at the facility for one year and she was giving them time to correct the residents' concerns. She confirmed the concerns had been discussed in stand-up meetings and with the DM, RD and corporate team. During an interview on 10/26/23 at 10:10 AM, with the RD, he confirmed that the resident had complained about the taste of the food and that the food was served cold. He explained that he was allowing the dietary service to work out the residents' concerns and he had encouraged the DM to use salt or other spices to make the food savory. The RD reported that there was only one (1) resident who received a bland diet. Resident #1 A record Review of the Transfer/Discharge Report revealed the facility admitted Resident #1 on 03/07/23 with a diagnosis of Cerebral Palsy. A record review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 9/1/23 revealed Resident #1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicated she was cognitively Intact. Resident #18 A record Review of the Transfer/Discharge Report revealed the facility admitted Resident #18 on 09/03/23 with a diagnosis of Cerebral Infarction. A record review of the Quarterly MDS with an ARD of 9/6/23 revealed Resident #18 had a BIMS score of 15, which indicated she was cognitively intact. Resident #22 A record Review of the Transfer/Discharge Report revealed the facility admitted Resident #22 on 08/6/23 with a diagnosis of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). A record review of the Quarterly MDS with an ARD of 8/24/23 revealed Resident #22 had a BIMS score of 15, which indicated Resident #22 was cognitively intact. Resident #42 A record Review of the Transfer/Discharge Report revealed the facility admitted Resident #42 on 01/11/22 with a diagnosis of Hypertension. A record review of the Quarterly MDS with an ARD of 9/4/23 revealed Resident #42 had a BIMS score of 15, which indicated she was cognitively intact. Resident #58 A record Review of the Transfer/Discharge Report revealed the facility admitted Resident #58 on 04/14/23 with a diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder. A record review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an ARD of 10/17/23 revealed Resident #58 had a BIMS score of 15, which indicated she was cognitively Intact. Resident #61 A record Review of the Transfer/Discharge Report revealed the facility admitted Resident #61 on 02/10/23 with a diagnosis of COPD. A record review of the Quarterly MDS with an ARD of 8/3/23 revealed Resident #61 had BIMS score of 15, which indicated she was cognitively intact. Resident #67 A record Review of the Transfer/Discharge Report revealed the facility admitted Resident #67 on 09/05/23 with a diagnosis of Diabetes Mellitus. A record review of the Quarterly MDS with an ARD of 9/20/2023 revealed Resident #67 had a BIMS score of 14, which indicated she was cognitively Intact. Resident #94 A record Review of the Transfer/Discharge Report revealed the facility admitted Resident #94 on 03/18/23 with a diagnosis of COPD. A record review of the MDS with an ARD of 10/10/23 revealed Resident #94 had BIMS score of 12, which indicated her cognition was moderately impaired. Resident #96 A record Review of the Transfer/Discharge Report revealed the facility admitted Resident #96 on 05/29/23 with a diagnosis of Aneurysm. A record review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with Assessment Reference Date (ARD) 9/26/23 revealed Resident #96 had a BIMS score of 15, which indicates resident is cognitively Intact. Resident #104 A record Review of the Transfer/Discharge Report revealed the facility admitted Resident #104 on 05/08/23 with a diagnosis of Chronic Kidney Disease. A record review of the Quarterly MDS with an ARD of 9/21/23 revealed Resident #104 had a BIMS score of 13, which indicated she was cognitively intact.
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 interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff washed or sanitized hands during Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) site c...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff washed or sanitized hands during Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) site care for one (1) of two (2) residents reviewed with PEG tubes. Resident # 38 Findings Include: Review of the facility's policy, Infection Prevention and Control Program Policy, revised 8/22/2019, revealed, Purpose: To establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections . During PEG site care, on 10/24/23 at 10:20 AM, for Resident # 38, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 did not wash or sanitize her hands or change her gloves after removing the soiled dressing from the PEG site. She used the same gloves to clean the site. LPN #1 also did not wash or sanitize her hands before she donned a clean pair of gloves and applied the treatment to the PEG site. On 10/25/23 at 02:38 PM, in an interview with LPN #1, she confirmed that she should have discarded her gloves after she had removed the soiled dressing from the PEG site. She stated she should have washed or sanitized her hands before and applied clean gloves prior to cleaning the PEG site and before she applied a clean dressing. She explained that her actions could have led to the resident acquiring an infection. Record review of the Transfer and Discharge Report revealed the facility admitted Resident #38 on 6/15/23 with diagnosis of Adult Failure to Thrive and Dysphagia. Record review of the Order Listing Report revealed Resident #38 had a Physician's Order with an order date of 01/23/2023 to Clean peg site with normal saline, pat dry, apply hydrophilic foam under peg bumper daily . On 10/26/23 at 09:45 AM, in an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), he stated that LPN #1 should have performed hand hygiene after removing the soiled dressing, applied clean gloves, and then cleaned the PEG site. She should have performed hand hygiene after touching the dressing and between gloves changes. She should have changed gloves after touching the bed remote. The DON stated there is a good possibility that her actions could cause the resident to get an infection. On 10/26/23 at 10:07 AM, in an interview with Registered Nurse #1 (RN)/Infection Preventionist, she confirmed LPN #1 should have performed hand hygiene between glove changes and should have discarded her gloves after removing and discarding the soiled dressing because of infection control issues.
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, staff interviews and facility policy review, the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety related to food items not dated w...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interviews and facility policy review, the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety related to food items not dated with a use-by date, food items not discarded by the use-by date, spoiled foods not discarded, food items without an identifying label, food items improperly stored, and food items opened and not sealed for one (1) of three (3) kitchen observations and had the potential to affect all residents who receive food items from the kitchen. Findings Include: A review of the facility's policy, Food and Supply Storage, revised 1/22, revealed, . All food .shall be stored in such a manner as to prevent contamination .Procedures .Cover, label and date unused portions and open packages .Discard food past the use-by or expiration date .Dry Storage .Foods that must be opened must be store in .approved containers that have tight-fitting lids .Hang scoop. Scoops may be stored in bins on a scoop holder .Refrigerated Stored .sort produce daily to remove spoiled pieces . On 10/23/23 at 11:45 AM, during an observation and interview of the kitchen with the Chef revealed the following: 1. An observation of the dry storage bins revealed a scoop that was not stored in the designated holder and was lying on top of the sugar. 2. An observation of the contents of Refrigerator #1 revealed one (1) opened carton of prune juice that had a date opened label of 10/4/23 and indicated the juice was good through 10/7/23. There were two (2) opened cartons of thickened orange juice and one (1) opened carton of thickened dairy beverage with no label indicating the use-by date. 3. An observation of Refrigerator #2 revealed one (1) unopened ham with no label indicating the use-by date or a manufacturer's expiration date. There were two (2) containers of strawberries covered with white biological growth. There were three (3) 10-pound packages of meat with no identifying label and no use-by date. The Chef stated the meat was ground beef. There was one (1) sheet pan of rolls with no use-by date. 4. An observation of the Freezer revealed one (1) opened bag of French fries with no use-by date on the package. 5. An observation of the dry food storage area revealed one (1) opened bottle of lemon juice with a manufacturer's label that indicated refrigerate after opening. There was one (1) opened plastic bag of corn starch, which was unsealed, and the product was visible. There was one (1) box of quick creamy wheat, the top flap of the box was opened, unsealed, and the product was visible. The Chef stated in an interview during the tour that he would discard the expired, opened, undated, unlabeled items and any expired foods. On 10/25/23, at 10:12 AM, an interview with the Dietary Manager (DM), revealed her expectation is that expired foods be discarded, the dry food storage items be securely sealed and properly stored. The DM acknowledged that the food items could cause the residents to get sick. The DM stated the scoop being left on top of the sugar and the strawberries covered in white biological growth were unacceptable. On 10/26/23 at 09:34 AM, in an interview with the Administrator, she confirmed that her expectation was that food should be labeled and monitored daily for expiration dates.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

MDS Data Transmission (Tag F0640)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on staff interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to transmit a discharge Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment for one (1) of 24 residents reviewed for MDS assessme...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to transmit a discharge Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment for one (1) of 24 residents reviewed for MDS assessments. (Resident #78) Findings Include: Review of facility's, MDS (Minimum Data Set), CAA (Care Area Assessment), and Care Plan Documentation Policy, revised 10/18/2019, revealed, .It is the policy of this facility to provide documentation in the medical record for MDS, CAA, and care plan purposes . Record review of the Transfer/Discharge Report revealed the facility admitted Resident #78 on 6/5/23 with a diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease. Record review of the Progress Notes revealed a Discharge Summary note, dated 7/2/23 at 12:30 (PM), for Resident #78 for .1230 (12:30 PM) Coroner called to pronounce death . Review of the medical record revealed Resident #78 had a Death in Facility MDS with an ARD of 7/2/23 completed and signed on 7/3/23. Review of the MDS submission report revealed the Submission Date/Time was 10/25/23 at 16:24 (4:24 PM) and the Discharge MDS for Resident #78 that was completed on 7/3/23 was not transmitted until 10/25/23, which was more than 14 days. During an interview on 10/25/23 at 03:11 PM, with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #2, she acknowledged that she failed to submit the MDS for the death in the facility for Resident #78 in a timely manner. LPN #2 stated that she checked the wrong box when completing the MDS and chose do not submit in error. She confirmed that the MDS was completed but was not transmitted. During an interview on 10/25/23 at 03:54 PM, with the Director of Nursing (DON), he stated that he had not reviewed the MDS, but he expected the nurses to submit the MDS in a timely manner.
May 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, record review, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure implementation of additional precautions intended to mitigate the transmission and spread of...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure 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 for one (1) of four (4) kitchen observations. Findings include: Record review of the facility policy titled Novel Coronavirus Prevention and Response, with revision date 10/12/22, revealed, Purpose: To provide facility guidelines to identify, treat, respond to, and prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 infections .Source Control: Masks are required where the facility is experiencing an outbreak of COVID-19. Staff who are Unvaccinated or Not Fully Vaccinated will wear a surgical mask at all times Record review of the CDC document, included with the facility infection control policies, titled SEQUENCE FOR PUTTING ON PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT (PPE), undated, revealed, .2. MASK . Fit flexible band to nose bridge. Fit snug to face and below chin . On 5/11/23 at 9:30 AM, an observation revealed the facility had a printed notice posted on the front entrance door which stated that the facility was in a COVID-19 Outbreak. On 5/11/23 at 9:47 AM, an observation through a window in the hallway into the kitchen revealed the [NAME] was wearing her face mask inappropriately, pulled down below her nose. On 5/11/23 at 9:50 AM, in an interview with the Infection Preventionist (IP), she confirmed that the facility was in a COVID-19 outbreak and that the [NAME] should have her face mask secured over the bridge of her nose and was not wearing her face mask correctly. On 5/11/23 at 11:40 AM an interview with the 'interim' Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) revealed all dietary staff working in the facility were required to follow the infection control and Novel Coronavirus Prevention and Response policies and procedures in place at the facility. She confirmed the policies included unvaccinated workers wearing face masks at all times, while in the facility. She confirmed that wearing a face mask pulled down below the nose was not acceptable and did not follow infection control guidelines. On 5/11/23 at 2:10 PM in an interview with the [NAME] she stated, I had just got finished serving and was going to wash dishes. I was still in the kitchen and my mask should have been over my nose. She confirmed that she was aware that the facility was currently in an outbreak of COVID-19 and that all staff were required to wear face masks correctly. She also confirmed that she was not vaccinated against COVID-19 and when the facility accepted her non-medical exemption, she was instructed that she would need to wear a face mask at all times while in the facility. She confirmed that she knew the correct way to wear a face mask was to have it fitted on (or over) the bridge of the nose. On 5/11/23 at 3:52 PM, in an interview the IP, she confirmed that the [NAME] had requested and received a non-medical exemption from COVID-19 vaccination and was required to always wear a face mask appropriately when in the facility as a mitigation technique.
Dec 2022 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0661 (Tag F0661)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to reconcile a resident's pre-discharge medications with the post-discharge medications for one (1) of three (3) dis...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to reconcile a resident's pre-discharge medications with the post-discharge medications for one (1) of three (3) discharged residents reviewed. Resident #2. Findings include: A record review of a statement dated 12/28/22 and signed by the Administrator revealed the facility does not currently have a policy related to medication reconciliation during the discharge process. A record review of the Face Sheet revealed Resident #2 was admitted by the facility on 09/09/2022 and discharged on 10/14/2022 with a diagnosis of Hypertensive urgency. A record review of the Receipt for Resident's Medications for Resident #2 dated 10/14/22 revealed, .Amount: 30 .Medication and Strength: Celexa 20 mg (milligrams) . The form was signed by Registered Nurse (RN) #1, and specified that .All medication must be picked up at (Proper Name of Facility) upon discharge . A record review of the Discharge Summary for Resident #2, revealed Celexa was not listed in the Medication Orders. A record review of the Departmental Notes dated 10/14/22 at 1:49 PM, revealed a MDS Note/ADL Documentation signed by RN #1 for .All med (medications) left from stay were given and signed for . On 12/19/22 at 3:15 PM, during an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), he stated that when Resident #2 was discharged from the facility, RN #1 received the resident's medications from the nurse and completed the Receipt for Resident's Medications form using the actual medication cards. She did not compare the medication cards with the resident's discharge orders to perform a medication reconciliation. She also did not realize the medication nurse had given her another resident's medication card for Celexa 20 mg, which she added to the form and gave to the Resident Representative (RR). On 12/19/22 at 3:50 PM, in an interview with RN #1, she stated that she received Resident #2's medication cards from the medication nurse and completed the Receipt for Resident's Medication using the medication cards. RN #1 confirmed that she did not review the resident's name on the medication card and added another resident's medication, Celexa, with Resident #2's medication. RN #1 confirmed that she did not reconcile the medications for Resident #2 with the Physician's Discharge Orders.
Mar 2021 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, staff interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to maintain a medication error rate of less than five percent (5%) for one of six (6) medication...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to maintain a medication error rate of less than five percent (5%) for one of six (6) medication administration observations. The medication error rate was seven (7) percent. Resident #66. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Administration and Charting of Medications Policy, dated April 2019, revealed: It is the policy of this facility to administer medications per physician's order. All medications shall be administered and charted under the supervision of licensed personnel in accordance with laws and regulations governing such acts. Administer the medications and ensure that the resident swallows medications administered via oral route. On 03/03/21, at 08:45 AM, upon entrance into Resident # 66's room, with LPN #2, a medication cup was observed on the bedside table with two (2) pills in the cup. On 03/03/21, at 8:50 AM, interview with LPN #2 revealed the medication looks like her evening medication was not given on 3/2/21 by the medication nurse. LPN #2 compared the medication in the cup to Resident #66's medication and stated the medication is a Lasix 20 Milligrams (MG) and a Coreg 25 MG. LPN #2 revealed the nurse should have given her medication as ordered and it was not to be left on the bedside table unsupervised. LPN #2 revealed leaving medication unsupervised could cause problems for Resident #66 if she did not receive her medication, such as swelling or hypertension. On 03/02/21, at 11:00 AM, interview with the Director of Nurses (DON) revealed if a medication is prescribed the nurse should give it and should never leave medication at the bedside. This is not the standards of practice we perform at the facility. On 03/04/21, at 1:47 PM, an interview with LPN #3 revealed, I was in the process of giving medication to Resident #66 but when I heard my name in the hall, I thought there was in emergency left the room and forgot to go back and give (Resident #66) her medication. LPN #3 stated that If Resident #66 did not receive her medication she could have an increase in swelling and hypertension. Record review of the Face Sheet revealed the facility admitted Resident #66 on 09/28/20, with the diagnoses of Edema, Hypertension, and Bradycardia. A review of physician orders revealed an order dated 9/28/20, for Lasix 20 milligrams (MG) one tablet by mouth two (2) times a day for edema and Coreg 25 milligrams (MG) one tablet by mouth two (2) times a day for Hypertension. A record review of a Nurses' Note dated 03/03/21 at 10:36 AM revealed no edema in upper or lower extremities and Blood Pressure (B/P) 111/56. A review of the Comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) for Resident #66, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 12/28/20, revealed the MDS was coded in Section C0500, Brief Interview Mental for Mental Status (BIMS), Section C0600- revealed a score of 08, indicating moderately impaired cognition.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interviews, record reviews, and facility policy reviews the facility failed to prevent the possible ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interviews, record reviews, and facility policy reviews the facility failed to prevent the possible spread of infection as evidenced by the wound care nurse touching multiple surfaces with contaminated gloves for one (1) of four (4) wound care observations. Resident #74. Findings Include: The facility's policy, Clean Dressing Change, reviewed date 3/11/2020 revealed, To provide wound care in a manner to decrease potential for infection and/or cross-contamination. On 03/04/21, at 08:54 AM, an observation of wound care being done by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1/Wound Care Nurse. LPN #1/Wound Care Nurse applied clean gloves and closed the privacy curtain with right gloved hands. She picked up the bed control, adjusted the bed, and removed Resident #74's wound dressing without changing gloves. A record review of Resident #74's Face Sheet revealed resident was admitted on [DATE], with a primary diagnosis of unspecified Dementia Disturbance. A record review of the Physician order, dated 9/16/2020 revealed pressure ulcer of right buttock stage 4. A record review of the Physician Orders for March 2021, dated 3/3/21 revealed clean right ischial with Vashe (wound cleanser). Pat dry. Skin prep peri wound. Loosely pack wound with Aquacel AG et (and) cover with foam dressing. Change daily and prn (as needed) till healed. (Stage 4 Pressure Ulcer) A review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 2/17/20, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) was not done due to resident is rarely/ never understood. On 03/05/21, at 10:10 AM, in an interview with LPN#1/Wound Care Nurse stated I should have washed my hands and change gloves after I closed the curtain and let the bed up. She stated I could have caused cross contamination and could have contaminated the wound. She stated that she has completed computer training on Infection Control. On 3/5/21, at 10:33 AM, in an interview with the Director of Nurses (DON), stated LPN #1/Wound Care Nurse should have not used gloves to close the curtain and raise the bed or she should have removed her gloves, washed her hands, and put clean gloves on. She stated that the LPN #1/Wound Care Nurse's actions could have caused cross contamination. A record review of LPN #1/Wound Care Nurse's competency check off list revealed she passed check off's on 12/16/2020. A record review revealed LPN #1/Wound Care Nurse's certificate of computer completion was dated 12/16/20.
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, staff interviews, and facility policy reviews, the facility failed to properly sanitize the food processors for pureed diets which could affect 11 of 11 residents receiving puree...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interviews, and facility policy reviews, the facility failed to properly sanitize the food processors for pureed diets which could affect 11 of 11 residents receiving puree diets for one (1)of three (3) days survey. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Dietary Employee Hygiene and Personal Cleanliness, revealed, Purpose: To maintain a high level of sanitation during all activities in the food service area .Test solutions with test strips regularly to ensure that they are maintaining the proper strength of sanitizer for food contact surfaces .Concentration - not using enough sanitizing agent will result in an inadequate reduction of microorganisms. On 03/03/21, 11:02 AM, during an Observation of the kitchen three compartment sink revealed a dietary staff member #1 was washing a food processor. Dietary staff member #1 washed the food processor in the soapy water, rinsed it in the second sink and placed the food processor in the third sink of clear water. The dietary member took the food processor out of the water and was walking away when the State Agency (SA) ask the Dietary Staff Member #1 if she knew how to sanitize the equipment. Dietary Staff Member #1 placed the sanitizer strip in the water. The strip did not change color to indicate the recommended level of sanitizer necessary to sanitize items washed. The staff member placed the strip in the water again. The strip did not change colors. The dietary staff member turned on the sanitation machine and nothing came out. The dietary staff member looked under the sink and noticed the sanitation jug was empty. On 03/03/21, 11:10 AM, an interview with Dietary Staff Member #1 revealed she did not know there was no sanitization solution in the sink. The Dietary Staff Member said the Cooks are responsible for making sure the sanitization solution was changed. The Dietary Staff Member confirmed by not sanitizing the equipment could cause food borne illness. During an interview on 03/05/21, at 10:17 AM, with Dietary #2 revealed she was responsible for checking the sanitation of the three compartment sink on 3/3/21. Dietary #2 said she was busy and had not checked the sanitation at that time. Dietary #2 said she had not washed any pots and pans at that time. Dietary #2 said it is the responsibility of everybody in the kitchen to check the sanitation prior to washing equipment. The sanitation is checked every day along with temperatures and placed on the log. During an interview on 03/05/21, at 10:40 AM, the Dietary Manager confirmed Dietary #1 should have checked the sanitation prior to cleaning the food processor. Dietary #1 did not know to check the sanitation. The manager said the logs are done daily by the cook. The logs are checked daily by the assistant dietary manager. The dietary manager confirmed by not sanitizing the food processor could cause the residents to get sick. The dietary manager also said the facility has eleven residents with pureed diets. During an interview on 03/05/21, at 11:19 AM, the Administrator confirmed Dietary #1 should have checked the sanitation prior to washing the food processor. The Administrator said this could cause the residents to get sick. Record review of a Dietary Inservice conducted 11/24/20, which included the three compartment sink sanitization, revealed Dietary #1 and #2 signed as attended. Record review of a Dietary Inservice conducted 3/2/21, which included the three compartment sink, revealed Dietary #1 and #2 signed as attended.
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
  • • 44% turnover. Below Mississippi's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • 17 deficiencies on record, including 2 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • $12,735 in fines. Above average for Mississippi. Some compliance problems on record.
  • • Grade D (43/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 43/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Jones Co Rest Home's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns JONES CO REST HOME 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 Jones Co Rest Home Staffed?

CMS rates JONES CO REST HOME's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 44%, compared to the Mississippi average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Jones Co Rest Home?

State health inspectors documented 17 deficiencies at JONES CO REST HOME during 2021 to 2025. These included: 2 that caused actual resident harm, 14 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Jones Co Rest Home?

JONES CO REST HOME 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 122 certified beds and approximately 114 residents (about 93% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in ELLISVILLE, Mississippi.

How Does Jones Co Rest Home Compare to Other Mississippi Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Mississippi, JONES CO REST HOME's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 2.6, staff turnover (44%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Jones Co Rest Home?

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 Jones Co Rest Home Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, JONES CO REST HOME 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 Jones Co Rest Home Stick Around?

JONES CO REST HOME has a staff turnover rate of 44%, 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 Jones Co Rest Home Ever Fined?

JONES CO REST HOME has been fined $12,735 across 2 penalty actions. This is below the Mississippi average of $33,206. 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 Jones Co Rest Home on Any Federal Watch List?

JONES CO REST HOME 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.