PLEASANT HILLS COM LIV CENTER

1600 RAYMOND RD, JACKSON, MS 39204 (601) 371-1700
For profit - Corporation 100 Beds COMMUNITY ELDERCARE SERVICES Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
8/100
#135 of 200 in MS
Last Inspection: December 2024

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

Overview

Pleasant Hills Community Living Center in Jackson, Mississippi has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. It ranks #135 out of 200 nursing homes in the state, placing it in the bottom half, and #6 out of 11 facilities in Hinds County, meaning only five local options are better. While the facility is improving, with the number of issues decreasing from 10 in 2024 to 9 in 2025, the staffing rating is low at 2 out of 5 stars, and turnover is at 55%, which is average compared to other facilities in the state. The facility has incurred $68,630 in fines, which is concerning and indicates compliance problems. Specific incidents reported include a critical failure to supervise a vulnerable resident who exited the facility unnoticed for several hours, raising serious safety concerns, and a serious incident of resident-to-resident aggression that resulted in injury requiring pain medication. Additionally, there were concerns about insufficient staff during night shifts, which hindered proper care for residents. Overall, while there are some improvements in the facility's operations, these significant weaknesses raise important questions for families considering this nursing home for their loved ones.

Trust Score
F
8/100
In Mississippi
#135/200
Bottom 33%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
10 → 9 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
55% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
$68,630 in fines. Lower than most Mississippi facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 28 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Mississippi. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
22 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 10 issues
2025: 9 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Below Mississippi average (2.6)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Staff Turnover: 55%

Near Mississippi avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

Federal Fines: $68,630

Well above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

Chain: COMMUNITY ELDERCARE SERVICES

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 22 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening 1 actual harm
Jun 2025 9 deficiencies 1 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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #1's right...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #1's right to be free from abuse when the facility failed to prevent repeated resident-to-resident physical aggression between Resident #1 and Resident #2.This resulted in Resident #1 sustaining periorbital edema and redness to the left eye, causing Resident #1 pain that required analgesic (pain) medication for two (2) of (30) sampled residents. Resident #1 and Resident #2. Findings included: Record review of the facility policy Resident Abuse or Neglect Prevention Plan dated March 15, 2004, revealed, The resident has the right to be free from verbal, sexual, physical, and mental abuse, corporal punishment, and involuntary seclusion .Guideline: Theses requirements specify the right of each resident to be free from abuse .and the facility's responsibilities to prevent not only abuse, but also those practices .that if left unchecked, lead to abuse. Residents must not be subjected to abuse by anyone, including, but not limited to, facility staff, other residents Record review of the Facility Investigation dated 6/20/25 with an attached statement by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 revealed On June 9, 2025, nurse reported to writer that resident 4918 punched resident 4864 in face at drink machine. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) witnessed incident take place. Administrator notified. On 6/18/25 at 7:35 PM, during a telephone interview LPN #1 revealed that she was made aware of an allegation of abuse of Resident #2 by Resident #1 on 6/09/25. She said CNA #5 reported to her that she witnessed Resident #1 punch Resident #2 in the face. She said she couldn't recall if an incident report was completed. She confirmed that the two residents professed to be in a relationship, but staff had discouraged the relationship due to on-going abusive behavior by both residents toward each other and the two residents sought each other out regardless of room assignments. She stated that hourly monitoring/supervision had not proven successful as incidents happened so suddenly. On 6/19/25 at 2:50 PM, during an interview the Social Services Director, (SSD) confirmed she was the official Grievance Officer of the facility and stated that she made the Administrator aware of all credible allegations and all allegations of abuse and neglect. She stated her role in any allegation of abuse would be to offer counseling and support and send in referral to in-facility contracted psychiatric services (including psychosocial therapist and psychiatric Nurse Practitioner) to any victim and perpetrator in the case of resident-on-resident incidents. She said the contracted psych services visits weekly. She confirmed she had been made aware of several allegations of resident-on-resident abuse between Resident #1 and Resident #2 and had referred both to in-facility contracted services and outpatient and inpatient services as a result. She stated that Resident #1 was transported by the facility to outpatient services and she was awaiting response for referral for Resident #2 for inpatient services following an incident witnessed earlier in the day in which Resident #2 slapped Resident in the face with her hand and hit his left eye with a cellular telephone. She confirmed that there was an incident on or around 3/04/25, another on or around 5/30/25, another on 6/09/25, and another on 6/19/25. The SSD confirmed that discharge planning was underway for Resident #1 with referrals pending to more independent living facilities, and the process included obtaining a birth certificate for identification purposes for approval by the other facilities. She said she was awaiting postal delivery of his birth certificate to move to the next step. She said Resident #1 had recently been diagnosed with cancer and the facility was involved in providing services related to the diagnoses that included transportation to appointments. On 6/19/25 at 4:10 PM, during an interview Registered Nurse (RN) #3 reported that on 6/09/25 she exited the facility through the Business Office Entryway and was getting into her vehicle at approximately 11:49 PM after clocking out and CNA #5 was seated in a chair outside of the door. She stated that CNA #5 stood up to open the door and immediately turned and told her Resident #1 hit Resident #2. RN #3 said she instructed CNA #5 to go in and immediately notify the nurse and RN #3 called LPN#4 from her cell phone and reported the incident to LPN #4. On 6/19/25 at 5:30 PM, an interview with CNA #5 revealed that on 6/09/25 she had worked 3-11 shift and at approximately 11:40 PM she was going inside the Business office entrance and observed through the door window Resident #1 strike Resident #2. She said she reported immediately to RN #3, who was off duty, removed Resident #2 to the South Unit. CNA #5 said that Resident #2 was on hourly visual checks to ensure her whereabouts and safety due to previous allegations of her abuse by Resident #1. On 6/20/25 at 2:30 PM, during an interview CNA#4 revealed he had worked 7-3 on 6/19/25 and after lunch he was leaving room [ROOM NUMBER]B and observed Resident #2 slapping Resident #1 multiple times. He stated that he immediately went to get between the two and separate them and Resident #2 stood from her wheelchair and struck Resident #1's left eye with her cellular telephone (right hand). CNA #4 reported that Resident #2 continued fighting to get to Resident #1 and it took three (3) staff to calm the residents. He stated he had observed Resident #2 acting in an aggressive manner towards others, both staff and residents, prior to 6/19/25. He said that he had been made aware of acts of aggression between the two (2) residents when Resident #2 was transferred from North Unit to South Unit. Record review of the Progress Notes for Resident #1 revealed that 3/4/2025 11:59 (AM) Behavior Note Note Text: res (resident) informed writer that he and (Resident #2) had and alteration over a bag a candy. the bag remained in the res possession and after not returning it, she was upset. she started hitting me and was warned to stop, res continued and (Resident #1) hit other res in face. both res were informed to stop causing issues with one another and agreed to do so. And 5/30/2025 20:35 (8:35 PM) Behavior Note Note Text: Resident 1 was accused of physical assault on Resident 2 in bedroom of Resident 1. Resident 2 was visibly shaken and in distress when brought to nurses station. Resident 1 was asked about the incident that supposedly took place he denied physically assaulting but yelling at her in a threatening manner. Resident stated he was going to have a talk with her. Resident was advised not contact resident 2, resident 1 appeared to be agitated and dismissive. Writer will continue to monitor resident 1 for remainder of the shift. Writer consoled resident 2 and reassured her safety for remainder of shift. Administrator notified immediately currently awaiting further instructions. There was no documentation of allegation against Resident #1 of the abuse of Resident #2 on 6/09/25. Progress Notes review revealed 6/19/2025 19:13 (7:13 PM) Incident Note Note Text: REPORTED BY ADMINISTRATOR THAT AT APPROXIMATELY 1330PM RESIDENT #4864 (Resident #2) HIT RESIDENT #1697 (Resident #1) WITH A CELL PHONE ON THE LEFT SIDE OF HEAD NEAR EYE AND ALSO HIT RESIDENT WITH HAND ON RIGHT SIDE OF HEAD NEAR EYE. NO DISCOLORATIONS, OPEN AREA OR ABRASIONS NOTED. REDNESS TO SCLERA NOTED TO OUTSIDE CORNER OF LEFT EYE. NO C/O HEADACHE OR BLURRY VISION. RESIDENT REPORTS AREA SORE .RESIDENT PLACED ON EVERY HOUR LOCATION MONITORING and 6/19/2025 18:01 (6:01 PM) Social Services Note Text: Resident reports that his face is hurting because his lady friend hit him with her cell phone. Incident reported to admin. On 6/20/25 at 11:45 AM, observation and interview revealed Resident #1's left eye had noticeable periorbital edema (swelling around eye) and redness of the sclera (white part of the eyeball). Resident #1 stated that on the afternoon of 6/19/25, Resident #2 slapped him on the right side of his face and hit him with a cellular telephone at the outer corner of his left eye. He stated it hurt at the time and into the evening and he had pain medication administered which controlled the pain. He said he did not know why she struck him, that they had been sitting near each other talking, he stated, she does that, she just all of the sudden starts hitting me. On 6/20/25 at 5:20 PM, during an interview with Resident #2 in her room revealed she was in a relationship with Resident #1 and confirmed she hit him and described hitting him as playing with him. She said that Resident #1 had not hit her. Her demeanor was giddy and friendly. The State Agency (SA) was unable to determine if Resident #2 had adequate memory to recall past events or only recent events. On 6/24/25 at 4:15 PM, during an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed the facility was aware of the on-going incidents of aggression and combativeness by and between Resident #1 and Resident #2. She said SSD was working with Resident #1 to find more independent living placement and Resident #2 was currently at an inpatient psychiatric care facility. She stated she had not considered one-on-one supervision of either resident to ensure residents' safety. She said Resident #2 had been transferred to different rooms twice, but the residents continued to seek each other out for interaction and the facility's position was that they had the right to visit with each other if they chose. On 6/24/25 at 6:25 PM, during an interview with the Administrator she stated she was aware of the on-going incidents of aggression and combativeness between Resident #1 and Resident #2. She confirmed the SSD was working with Resident #1 to find more independent living placement and Resident #2 was currently at an inpatient psychiatric care facility. She stated she had not considered one-on-one supervision of either resident to ensure residents' safety. She confirmed Resident #2 had been transferred to different rooms twice, and the residents continued to seek each other out for interaction and the facility's position was that they had the right to visit each other if they chose. She confirmed that the facility policy provided for provision of a safe environment, free from abuse. Record review of the admission Record for Resident #1 revealed the facility admitted the resident on 11/04/24 with diagnoses that included Hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction (stroke) and Diabetes. Record review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 5/08/25 for Resident #1 revealed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicated no cognitive impairment. Record review of the admission Record for Resident #2, revealed the facility admitted the resident on 1/19/24 with diagnoses that included Chronic kidney disease and Heart failure. Record review of the Annual MDS with an ARD of 6/19/25 for Resident #2 revealed she had a BIMS score of 14, which indicated no cognitive impairment. The MDS review revealed the resident displayed physical symptoms directed towards others (e.g., hitting, kicking, pushing, scratching, grabbing) behavior and verbal behavior symptoms directed towards others (e.g., threatening others, screaming at others, cursing at others) 1 to 3 days during assessment period which put the resident at significant risk for physical illness or injury and Put others at significant risk of physical injury.
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 F0557 (Tag F0557)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the resident's right to respectful, dignified care when they failed to apply the indwelling uri...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the resident's right to respectful, dignified care when they failed to apply the indwelling urine catheter collection bag cover, leaving the bag and its contents visible from the hallway for one (1) of three (3) residents with indwelling catheters (Resident #3). Findings include: A record review of the facility's policy titled, Urinary Catheter Care, dated March 14, 2008, revealed, .A privacy bag should be placed over the drainage bag when the resident is to be out in public. This preserves the resident ' s dignity . A record review of the admission Record for Resident #3 revealed the facility admitted the resident on 12/28/2023 with diagnoses including Hemiplegia and Hemiparesis following Cerebral Infarction and Neuromuscular Dysfunction of Bladder. A record review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with Assessment Reference Date (ARD) 5/20/2025 for Resident #3 revealed the resident had no Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score due to her inability to participate. The MDS documented memory problems and severe cognitive impairment in daily decision-making. On 6/23/2025 at 1:30 PM, during an observation in Resident #3's room, she was seen resting in bed with a catheter urine collection bag (catheter bag) attached to the bed frame. The bag was visible from the open door, displaying approximately three hundred milliliters (300 ml) of clear, yellow liquid. A blue snap-on catheter bag cover was observed hanging unsnapped, failing to conceal the bag or its contents. On 6/23/2025 at 4:30 PM, during an observation and interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) in Resident #3's room, the DON confirmed the catheter cover had not been applied properly and acknowledged that it did not cover the bag or its contents. The DON left the room to locate a catheter bag cover that would provide adequate privacy to uphold Resident #3's dignity.
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 F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preferences by discontinuing the use of disp...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preferences by discontinuing the use of disposable premoistened cleansing cloths for four (4) of thirty (30) sampled residents. (Residents #8, # 9, #14, and #20). Residents and staff were informed that the premoistened disposable cloths could be provided for incontinent residents with wounds, due to their softer texture being less irritating to fragile, damaged, or healing skin. However, the facility failed to make the premoistened disposable cloths available. Findings included: Record review of the facility policy Resident Rights revised and implemented on Nov. 28, 2016 revealed .The resident has a right to be treated with respect and dignity, including .(3) The right to reside and receive services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preferences except when to do so would endanger the health or safety of the resident or other residents On 6/17/25 at 12:20 PM, during an interview and observation of the facility supply room revealed Registered Nurse (RN) #1 stated We don't use wet wipes (disposable premoistened cleansing wipes). Observation revealed there were no disposable premoistened cleansing wipes in the supply room. On 6/18/25 at 2:10 PM, during an observation and an interview Resident #8 revealed her family purchased disposable premoistened cleansing cloths for her care. She confirmed that she had a wound on her leg for which she was receiving treatment. Regarding the dry disposable cloths, Resident #8 stated those little towels don't work. On 6/18/25 at 4:30 PM, during an interview Resident #14 stated she did not like it that the facility had stopped providing disposable premoistened cleansing wipes. She stated that the facility had replaced the disposable premoistened cleansing wipes with disposable dry wipes which were not soft, were not durable and left lint on her. Resident #14 described the dry disposable cleansing cloths as useless. Resident #14 stated I use those clothes at dialysis to wipe my nose. They are like Kleenex, thin and tear apart too easy. She confirmed she was the Resident Council President and said discontinuation of disposable premoistened cleansing cloths had been discussed at the 6/10/25 meet and greet for the new Director of Nursing (DON). She stated that she had a wound and fragile skin and preferred the disposable premoistened cleansing cloths because their texture was softer than the washable cloths. She stated that the facility had not had an adequate supply of linens since discontinuation of the disposable premoistened cleansing cloths which she said resulted in postponement and interruption of resident care. On 6/20/25 at 12:00 PM, during an interview with the facility Ombudsman on North Unit revealed he stated that he had received complaints from multiple residents regarding lack of clean linen and lack of staff resulting in postponement of resident care. He said he had also had multiple complaints regarding the discontinued provision of disposable premoistened cleansing cloths. On 6/23/25 at 12:53 PM, during an interview with the family of Resident #20 revealed she visited weekly, and family provided needed supplies for the resident's care, including disposable premoistened cleansing cloths since the facility no longer supplied them. She confirmed that Resident #20 had a wound on his right leg. On 6/23/25 at 2:00 PM, during an interview Resident #9 revealed that he was aware that the facility was not required to supply disposable cleansing cloths but was told that if residents with wounds requested them, they would be provided. He said he had told multiple staff that he preferred the disposable wipes for incontinence care due to the rough texture of the washable washcloths and the fragility of his skin, but none had been provided for him. He said he had never seen any Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) flush premoistened disposable cleansing cloths. He stated that they always threw them in a trash bag. On 6/23/25 at 4:15 PM, during an interview the DON stated she was aware that the residents had concerns regarding the facilities discontinuation of disposable premoistened cleansing cloths for resident care. She confirmed the disposable cloths' texture was less rough, therefore less irritating to fragile, damaged or healing skin. She confirmed the facility discontinued the use of disposable premoistened cleansing cloths for resident care. The residents and staff were informed that the cloths could be provided for incontinent residents with wounds due to the disposable cloths' texture being less rough, therefore less irritating to fragile, damaged or healing skin. On 6/24/25 at 3:30 PM during an interview the facility's Regional Director of Operations (RDO) confirmed that corporation-wide the supply and use of disposable premoistened cleansing cloths had been suspended. She stated that the facility was not required to provide disposable premoistened cleansing cloths. She stated that if any resident had wounds they would be accommodated with disposable premoistened cleansing cloths because the washable cloths could be a rougher texture. On 6/24/25 at 6:25 PM, during an interview, the Administrator confirmed that she was aware of resident complaints by residents and staff regarding the discontinuation of supply of the premoistened disposable cleansing cloths. She said that on 6/10/25 during a meet and greet meeting with residents and the DON several residents mentioned their displeasure and voiced concerns regarding use of only washable cloths. Resident #8 Record review of the admission Record for Resident #8 revealed that the facility admitted the resident on 5/14/25 and the resident had diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Diabetes and morbid obesity, atrial fibrillation, GERD, heart failure. Record review of the 5 Day MDS with ARD 5/21/25 for Resident #8 revealed she had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicated no cognitive impairment. The MDS review revealed the facility assessed the resident dependent for shower/ bath activity. Record review of the Order Summary Report with active orders as of 6/20/25 for Resident #8 included Neopsorin Plus Pain Relief MS External Cream 3/5-10000-10 (Neomycin-Polymyxin w/Pramoxine) Apply to Buttock and groin topically one time a day. Resident #9 Record review of the admission Record for Resident #9 revealed the facility admitted the resident on 5/20/25 with an initial admission dated listed as 9/09/08 with diagnoses that included paraplegia and diabetes. Record review of the admission MDS with ARD 5/27/25 for Resident #9 revealed he had a BIMs score of 15 which indicated no cognitive impairment. The MDS review revealed the facility assessed the resident dependent for toilet hygiene and personal hygiene. Record review of the Order Summary Report with active orders as of 6/24/25 for Resident #9 included Clean coccyx with wound cleanser, pat dry, apply calcium alginate and cover with bordered gauze one time a day of wound care with start date 5/31/25 and Clean sacral with wound cleanser, pat dry, apply hydrogel and cover with bordered gauze one time a day for wound care with start date 6/12/25. Resident #14 Record review of the admission Record for Resident #14 revealed the facility admitted the resident on 10/05/23 and the resident had diagnoses of end stage renal disease, diabetes, morbid obesity, hypertension, and dependence on renal dialysis. Record review of the Quarterly MDS for Resident #14 with ARD 4/14/25 revealed the residents had BIMS score of 15, which indicated no cognitive impairment. MDS review revealed the resident required dependence on wheelchair for mobility, and total dependence for toileting hygiene, shower/bathing activities. Record review of the Order Summary Report with active orders as of 6/24/25 for Resident #14 included Apply Nystatin Powder to rash under both breast daily until resolved one time a day with start date 2/05/25 Clean sacral with wound cleanser, pat dry, apply collagen and cover with ordered gauze one time a day for wound care with start date 6/13/25 and Give pain med 30 mins-hour (thirty minutes to an hour) prior to wound care every day shift with start date 7/10/21 and Nystatin External Powder 100000 Unit/GM (units per gram) (Nystatin(Topical)) Apply to abdominal folds and groin topically every 12 hours as needed for chaffing with start date 3/08/25. and Zinc Oxide Ointment 20% Apply to right inner thigh topically every shift for skin condition apply zinc oxide to buttock and right inner thigh with start date 12/27/24. Resident #20 Record review of the admission Record for Resident #20 revealed the facility admitted the resident on 9/07/23 and the resident had diagnoses of diabetes insipidus and cerebral infarction (stroke). Record review of the Quarterly MDS for Resident #20 with ARD 5/13/25 revealed the resident had no BIMS and included documentation of inability to participate in BIMS, memory problem and severe impairment of cognitive skills for daily decision making. Record review of the Order Summary Report revealed an order dated 6/26/25 Clean right medial lower leg with wound cleanser, pat dry, apply collagen and cover with bordered gauze.
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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, interviews, record review and facility policy review the facility failed to provide a safe and comfortable environment for residents dependent on wheelchairs for mobility (Resid...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, record review and facility policy review the facility failed to provide a safe and comfortable environment for residents dependent on wheelchairs for mobility (Resident #28 and Resident #8) and failed to provide adequate clean linens for (Resident #9 and Resident #20) for four (4) of (30) sampled residents. Findings included: Record review of the facility policy Resident Rights revised and implemented on Nov. 28, 2016, revealed The resident has a right to .A safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment .Housekeeping and maintenance services necessary to maintain a sanitary, orderly, and comfortable interior; clean bed and bath linens that are in good condition . Resident #28 On 6/17/25 at 1:00 PM, during an observation and interview with Resident #28 revealed both armrests on the wheelchair of Resident #28 were torn with cover material tattered with all the cushion missing from both armrests. The resident stated that the condition of the armrest aggravated him and described them as uncomfortable. On 6/17/25 at 1:10 PM, during an observation of Resident #28's wheelchair and interview with Registered Nurse (RN)#1 revealed RN #1 confirmed the condition of the armrest and stated, That's going to have to be replaced. Record review of the admission Record for Resident #28 revealed the facility admitted the resident on 1/17/25 and the resident had diagnoses of Paraplegia and Muscle weakness. Record review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 3/31/25 for Resident #28 revealed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicated no cognitive impairment. Resident #8 On 6/18/25 at 2:10 PM, during an observation and an interview with Resident #8 revealed the left arm rest was broken off of her personalized mechanical wheelchair and laying in the seat of the chair. Resident #8 stated it was broken during a transfer using the mechanical lift approximately two weeks prior and said Certified Nurses Aide (CNA) #1 was assisting in the transfer. She said it was an accident, but she did not know why it had not been repaired. She confirmed that the facility staff was aware that it was broken and that a therapist and a man from the wheelchair company had visited her room and inspected the chair. On 6/19/25 at 1:50 PM, during an interview with CNA #1, she confirmed that the left armrest of the personalized mechanical wheelchair of Resident #8 was broken during chair-to-bed transfer using full mechanical lift. She stated that she reported this to the resident's nurse. She said she was not sure if the resident had been transferred into the chair since. On 6/20/25 at 11:00 AM, during an interview the Occupational Therapist Assistant (OTA)# 1 confirmed that he had been made aware that Resident #8's wheelchair arm had been broken, he couldn't recall dates but said he had inspected it and notified the company that serviced the mechanical wheelchairs who had visited and said he could fix it. He said the wheelchair was relatively new and he was not sure if the resident's insurance would pay for the repair, so he had not requested the chair be repaired. He stated that he was not aware that Resident #28's wheelchair arms were in disrepair. Record review of the admission Record for Resident #8 revealed that the facility admitted the resident on 5/14/25 and the resident had diagnoses of Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and Heart failure. Record review of the 5 Day MDS with an ARD of 5/21/25 for Resident #8 revealed she had a BIMS score of 15, which indicated no cognitive impairment. On 6/24/25 at 4:15 PM, an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed she was not sure how many days Resident #8 was scheduled to get up in her wheelchair or that the resident's chair had been broken, but said that it was repaired on or after 5/20/25 and the resident had been up in her chair on 5/24/25. She stated she was not aware of damages to the armrests of the wheelchair of Resident #28. On 6/24/25 at 6:25 PM, an interview with the Administrator revealed she was not sure how long the wheelchair arm had been broken. She stated she had not been aware of the damaged condition of the wheelchair armrests of Resident #28. She confirmed that the residents had the right to a safe, clean, comfortable environment. Lack of clean linens On 6/17/25 at 11:45 AM, during an interview with a direct care staff member revealed that when she arrived at work for the 7:00 AM through 3:00 PM (7-3) shift on 6/15/25 there was dirty linen piled up and no clean towels or facecloth's on the hall for resident care. She reported that the CNAs went to the clean laundry room, found a large plastic tote with clean unfolded linen and divided the contents up for resident care. She stated that a housekeeper came and started washing laundry mid-morning and the first load of clean linens were not dry until after lunch. She explained that CNAs made rounds to provide incontinent care and other direct care for residents every two (2) hours throughout the day. She confirmed that not all residents received personal hygiene, such as bed bath and other care was interrupted or postponed due to lack of linens. She said that the nurses on duty were aware of the lack of linens, and she thought the nurses attempted to telephone management. She stated that she was not sure who, if anyone at the facility on 6/15/25 had a key to the Housekeeping Supervisor's office. On 6/17/25 at 12:35 PM observation in the supply room and an interview with RN #1 revealed she stated the facility no longer supplied disposable premoistened cleansing cloths and used washable cloth facecloth's and towels for all resident care, supplemented by disposable dry washcloths and body cleanser and body wash. She confirmed the facility had a census of 81 residents and supply of 850 ten by thirteen (10X13) inch disposable (dry) washcloths and (47) - (8) ounce and (31) four (4) ounce bottles of body wash and two (2) gallon bottles of cleanser for hair and skin. On 6/17/25 at 2:55 PM, interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #5 revealed she stated she worked 7-3 shift on 6/15/25 and there was not adequate clean linen available to make resident's beds or give bed baths to all the residents who required assistance with personal hygiene/bathing activities. She stated that when she started to make last rounds for the shift between 1:00 PM and 2:00 PM there were no clean linens available. She stated there were no disposable premoistened cleansing cloths and described the disposable dry cloths as flimsy and easily torn. She stated the staff made do and did what they could but confirmed that resident care was interrupted and or postponed due to lack of clean linens. She stated that when she reported the need for linen she was told by nurses and housekeeping staff, We don't have it. On 6/17/25 at 4:50 PM, during an interview with CNA#6 and CNA#7 revealed CNA #6 reported she had worked 6/15/25 and that lack of adequate linens was a problem which caused postponement and interruption of resident care, including bathing/showering activities. Both stated that the facility only having one sit-to-stand lift, and one full-body lift caused postponement and interruption of resident care, including bathing/showering and surface-to-surface transfers. They explained that so many residents on North Unit preferred to get washed up and get up into their wheelchairs, requiring a mechanical lift before 7:00 AM, and that so many of the residents were very large and/or totally dependent and required two person assistance for bed mobility, incontinence care, bathing activities and transfers there was no way to accommodate preferences. They both stated that dialysis patients had priority to make sure they were prepared and up for transfer to dialysis appointments. Both reported that it was physically impossible for either lift to be employed by the South Unit staff for resident transfers and North Unit transfers, which resulted in some residents' care being postponed or interrupted while staff waited for a lift to become available. On 6/19/25 at 4:10 PM, during an interview Registered Nurse (RN)# 3 reported that she was on duty on the 7:00 AM through 3:00 PM (7-3) shift and there were not adequate towels or facecloth's for residents' care available. She confirmed that the lack of adequate quantity of towels and facecloth's cause an interruption and postponement of resident care throughout the shift. She confirmed she texted the housekeeping supervisor at approximately 9:18 AM on 6/15/25 and notified her of a lack of linens for resident care. She confirmed that an on-duty housekeeper responded mid-morning and began washing dirty linens. On 6/20/25 at 11:05 AM, during an observation and an interview with the Housekeeping Supervisor revealed that she explained that the door diagonally across from the North Unit Nurses' Station designated with a Clean Linen sign on the door was not the clean linen storage. She explained that clean linen storage had been moved to the laundry room mid-way between North and South Units. She was not able to explain why all nursing staff had indicated the room with the Clean Linen sign as the clean linen storage room for two (2) days. She said the clean linen closets were being changed to storage rooms. She then took a piece of plain white paper and wrote Supply Room on it and taped it over the Clean Linen sign. She stated the facility always had plenty of clean linen. The Housekeeping Supervisor stated that the situation that occurred on 6/15/25 was a result of miscommunication between her and Laundry Aide #1, who had notified her on the evening of Saturday, 6/14/25 that she was calling in for Sunday, 6/15/25. She said she thought Laundry Aide #1 meant Monday, 6/16/25. She stated that she had received a text from RN #3 at 9:18 AM on 6/15/25 that said the facility needed clean linen. She stated that she notified a housekeeper that she needed her to go to the laundry immediately and that the housekeeper went to the laundry at 10:30 AM. She confirmed that she was aware that the residents needed clean linens, specifically washcloths and towels for incontinence care, bathing/shower activities, personal hygiene during AM care prior to 10:30 AM and throughout the morning and day. On 6/20/25 at 11:30 AM, during an observation and interview Resident #8 confirmed that she had been told by staff that care was postponed due to lack of clean linens. She stated that she had not been assisted to get up for at least two weeks and could not recall the last date she was assisted into her wheelchair. She stated that staff routinely told her she would have to wait for care, including showers and surface-to-surface transfers. She stated, If there are three people working and it takes two to get me up, I have to wait if two of them are with someone else. Resident #9 On 6/23/25 at 2:00 PM, during an interview Resident #9 confirmed that he had voiced complaints regarding postponement and lack of care on 6/15/25 because he did not receive a bed bath or what he considered sufficient incontinence care and was told by the CNA (could not recall name) that the reason was that there were no clean linens. He said that he could not get sufficient incontinence care because of lack of linens and no disposable wipes. He said he was aware that the facility was not required to supply disposable cleansing cloths but was told that if residents with wounds requested them, they would be provided. He said he had told multiple staff that he preferred the disposable wipes for incontinence care due to the rough texture of the washable washcloths and the fragility of his skin, but none had been provided for him. He said that he did not get care in a timely manner on 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM (3-11) shift or the 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM (11-7) shifts and had to wait for bed baths, showers and to get out of bed routinely and was told that he had to wait because there were only two (2) CNAs scheduled and he required at least two (2) staff for bed mobility (to turn/reposition while in bed) and for bed/chair-to-chair transfers with mechanical lift. He said that sometimes he was told that he had to wait because the lift was not available because it was being used on the South Unit. He stated that it seemed to him that the facility had stopped being for the residents and was being run for the convenience of the staff. He said he did not understand why the facility could not provide disposable cleansing cloths or enough lifts for the staff to provide adequate care for the residents. He described the dry disposable wipes as a joke, not good for nothing; too flimsy. Record review of the admission Record for Resident #9 revealed the facility admitted the resident on 5/20/25 with an initial admission dated listed as 9/09/08 with diagnoses that included paraplegia and diabetes. Record review of the admission MDS with an ARD 5/27/25 for Resident #9 revealed he had a BIMS score of 15 which indicated no cognitive impairment. The MDS review revealed the facility assessed the resident dependent for toilet hygiene and personal hygiene. Resident #20 On 6/23/25 at 9:08 PM, during an interview, Contact #1 for Resident #20 revealed the family had been supplying disposable premoistened cleansing cloths for the care of Resident #20 because his lack of mobility contributed to skin issues and the washable cloths (face cloths and towels) had a rougher texture. She stated that her only complaint was that the facility had stopped providing disposable premoistened cleansing cloths for the care of Resident #20. Record review of the admission Record for Resident #20 revealed the facility admitted the resident on 9/07/23 and the resident had diagnoses of Diabetes insipidus and Cerebral infarction (stroke). Record review of the Quarterly MDS for Resident #20 with ARD 5/13/25 revealed the resident had no BIMS and included documentation of inability to participate in BIMS, memory problem and severe impairment of cognitive skills for daily decision making.
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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to report an allegation of resident-on-resident physical abuse to the State Agency (SA) within the required timeframe...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to report an allegation of resident-on-resident physical abuse to the State Agency (SA) within the required timeframe for one (1) of four (4) reviewed allegations of abuse. Resident #1. Specifically, an allegation made on 6/09/25 that Resident #1 physically abused Resident #2 and was witnessed and reported by Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #5. This was investigated internally by the facility but not reported to the SA as required by federal regulations. Findings Included: Record review of the facility policy titled, Reporting Alleged Abuse or Neglect to State Agencies dated November, 1, 2004, revealed, It is the policy of this facility that persons employed in facilities owned or managed by this facility with knowledge of or a reasonable cause to believe that any patient or resident has been the victim of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment must report or cause a report to be made to the appropriate state agencies as prescribed by the laws of that state . On 6/18/25 at 1:13 PM, during an interview with Resident #1 in his room he confirmed there was an altercation between himself and Resident #2 near the vending machines on the evening of 6/09/25. Resident #1 stated that Resident #2 was slapping at his face and he caught her arm mid-swing and threw it back, hitting her face. On 6/18/25 at 7:35 PM, during a telephone interview Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 revealed that she was made aware of an allegation of abuse of Resident #2 by Resident #1 on 6/09/25. She said Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)#5 reported to her that she witnessed Resident #1 punch Resident #2 in the face. She said she couldn't recall if an incident report was completed. On 6/19/25 at 2:50 PM, an interview with the Social Services Director, (SSD) confirmed she was the official Grievance Officer of the facility and stated that she made the Administrator aware of all credible allegations and all allegations of abuse and neglect. She confirmed that on or around 6/10/25 she was made aware of an allegation that occurred on 6/09/25. This was an incident of physical abuse of Resident #2 by Resident #1 in which CNA #5 reported that Resident #1 punched Resident #2 in the face. She confirmed that she had received the report that Resident #1 had said he took Resident #2's hand and made her hit herself in the face. On 6/19/25 at 4:10 PM, during an interview Registered Nurse (RN) #3 reported that on 6/09/25 she exited the facility through the Business Office Entryway and was getting into her vehicle at approximately 11:49 PM after clocking out and CNA #5 was seated in a chair outside of the door. She stated that CNA #5 stood up to open the door and immediately turned and told her that Resident #1 had hit Resident #2. RN #3 said she instructed CNA #5 to go in and immediately notify the nurse. RN #3 called LPN #4 from her cell phone and reported the information to LPN #4. On 6/19/25 at 5:25 PM, the SA attempted to contact the Resident Representative (RR) for Resident #2 without success. There was not an option to leave a message. On 6/19/25 at 5:30 PM, during an interview CNA #5 revealed that on 6/09/25 she had worked 3-11 shift and at approximately 11:40 PM she was going inside the Business Office entrance and observed through the door window Resident #1 strike Resident #2. She said she reported immediately to RN #3, who was off duty, removed Resident #2 to the South Unit and reported to LPN #4. She said that Resident #2 had been crying and had said on the evening of 6/09/25 that Resident #1 hit her. Record review of the Progress Notes for Resident #1 revealed that there was no documentation of any allegations against Resident #1 of the abuse of Resident #2 on 6/09/25. A progress note was dated with an effective date of 6/20/25 at 5:51 PM that addressed the incident that occurred on 6/9/25. Record review of Facility Investigation with Date of incident documented as 6/09/25 revealed the facility conducted interviews and investigation beginning 6/09/25 into an incident described as Resident on Resident (abuse). On 6/20/25 at 5:20 PM, an interview with Resident #2 in her room revealed she stated she was in a relationship with Resident #1 and confirmed she hit him and described hitting him as playing with him. She said that Resident #1 had not hit her. Her demeanor was giddy and friendly. The SA was unable to determine if Resident #2 had adequate memory to recall past events or only recent events. On 6/24/25 at 4:15 PM, during an interview the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed the facility was aware of the on-going incidents of aggression and combativeness by and between Resident #1 and Resident #2. She said the SSD was working with Resident #1 to find more independent living placement and Resident #2 was currently at an inpatient psychiatric care facility. She stated she had not considered one-on-one supervision of either resident to ensure residents' safety. She said Resident #2 had been transferred to different rooms twice, but the residents continued to seek each other out for interaction and the facility's position was that they had the right to visit with each other if they chose. On 6/24/25 at 6:25 PM, during an interview the Administrator revealed that on 6/10/25 she was made aware of an allegation of physical abuse of Resident #2 by Resident #1 on 6/09/25. She stated that she had not reported the allegation because of the ongoing incidents between the two residents and because during interview Resident #2 denied being struck by Resident #1. She confirmed that staff had reported Resident #1 crying following an interaction with Resident #1 near the vending machines on the evening of 6/09/25. Record review of the admission Record for Resident #1 revealed the facility admitted the resident on 11/04/24 and the resident had diagnoses of Hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction (stroke) and Diabetes. Record review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 5/08/25 for Resident #1 revealed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicated no cognitive impairment. Record review of the admission Record for Resident #2 revealed the facility admitted the resident on 1/19/24 and the resident had diagnoses of Chronic kidney disease and Heart failure. Record review of the Annual MDS with an ARD of 6/19/25 for Resident #2 revealed she had a BIMS score of 14, which indicated no cognitive impairment. Record review of the Quarterly MDS for Resident #2 with an ARD 3/19/25 revealed the resident had a BIMS score of 9, which indicated moderate cognitive impairment.
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 F0676 (Tag F0676)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide personal hygiene, specifically fingernail and toenail care during Activities of Daily Living ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide personal hygiene, specifically fingernail and toenail care during Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care for two (2) of (29) residents reviewed: Resident #18 and Resident #28. Findings included: A review of the facility's policy, A.M. Care, with a revision date of August 25, 2014, revealed, RESPONSIBILITY: Licensed Nurse, Certified Nursing Assistant .PURPOSE .2. To provide cleanliness, comfort and neatness .4. To assess the resident's condition. 5. To assess the resident's needs .EQUIPMENT .Care of nails . Resident #18 On 6/17/2025 at 12:50 PM, during an observation in the North Unit Day Room/Dining Room, Resident #18 was seated in his wheelchair with ten (10) long fingernails with a black substance under each nail. All fingernails extended past the ends of his fingers three-sixteenths (3/16) of an inch (comparable to three stacked dimes) to one-third (1/3) of an inch (comparable to four stacked dimes). Resident #18 stated that he wished they would cut them. Resident #18 then removed his right shoe and indicated that he wished to have his toenails trimmed also. The second and third (middle) toe on his right foot both measured approximately one-third (1/3) of an inch past his toes. A record review of the admission Record for Resident #18 revealed the facility admitted the resident on 4/25/2023. The resident had diagnoses of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Alzheimer's Disease. A record review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with Assessment Reference Date (ARD) 6/17/2025 revealed Resident #18 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of five (5), which indicated severe cognitive impairment. Resident #28 On 6/17/2025 at 12:50 PM, during an observation in the same room, Resident #28 was seated in the back left corner. He raised his hand and stated that he needed his fingernails cut. Observation revealed Resident #28 had ten (10) long fingernails with a black substance under each nail. All fingernails extended past the ends of his fingers three-sixteenths (3/16) of an inch (comparable to three stacked dimes) to one-third (1/3) of an inch (comparable to four stacked dimes). A record review of the admission Record for Resident #28 revealed the facility admitted the resident on 1/17/2025 with diagnoses that included Paraplegia and Muscle Weakness. A record review of the Quarterly MDS with ARD 3/31/2025 for Resident #28 revealed the resident had a BIMS score of fifteen (15), which indicated no cognitive impairment. On 6/17/2025 at 1:00 PM, during an observation and an interview with Registered Nurse (RN) #1, she confirmed that both residents' fingernails and toenails were observed during weekly body audits and that any licensed nursing personnel could trim fingernails or toenails. She stated that a list was maintained for residents who needed toenail care, which was provided by the contracted podiatrist who visited the facility routinely. Observation revealed the facility had adequate supplies for fingernail and toenail care in the supply closet on the North Unit. On 6/24/2025 at 4:15 PM, during an interview the Director of Nursing (DON), confirmed that nail care was included in ADL care and that any licensed nursing staff could trim fingernails or toenails for residents.
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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review, interviews and facility policy review, the facility failed to evaluate and analyze hazards and risks and failed to assess a resident following a documented fall for one (1) of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, interviews and facility policy review, the facility failed to evaluate and analyze hazards and risks and failed to assess a resident following a documented fall for one (1) of three (3) residents with documented falls: Resident #27. Findings included: A review of the facility's policy, Falls, with a revision date of September 28, 2012, revealed, .If a fall occurs: 1. Incident and Accident report is to be filled out at the time of the fall and reviewed in standup/morning meeting and addressed on the 24 hour report. 2. Documentation is initiated at the time of the fall and continues, at a minimum, of every shift for three (3) days or until the condition stabilizes. 3. Fall investigation and Supervisor Report is to be completed. 4. Resident history of falls is an ongoing document (do not start one each month). This is to be completed with each fall and kept in a notebook. 5. Care plan and ADL(activities of daily living) Care Plan need to be updated with each fall. 6. All these forms need to be compiled at the end of the three days of documentation and kept together and the fall recorded on the event log. a) I/A (incident and accident) report. b) Fall Investigation/Supervisor. C.) Report Any statements . Record review of Progress Notes *NEW* dated 5/12/2025 revealed Note Text: Nurse went to check on resident after being informed of fall in bathroom by aides while his nurse was absent. Resident was conscience and was in no danger at the time. Reported to staffing coordinator. On 6/18/2025 at 7:35 PM, during a telephone interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1, she stated that she did not remember a fall by Resident #27 on 5/12/2025. She explained that there were times when disagreements occurred among staff regarding who was responsible for documenting incidents involving residents. On 6/20/2025 at 1:00 PM, during an interview with the Staffing Coordinator, she stated she was responsible for facility staffing and occasionally filled in as a direct care nurse. She reported that she did not recall a fall by Resident #27 being reported to her on 5/12/2025. On 6/24/2025 at 4:15 PM, during an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), she explained that in the event of a fall, the resident's nurse or licensed nursing staff should be notified to assess the resident prior to transferring them from the floor. If the nurse determined the resident was unharmed, staff should assist the resident off the floor. A body audit should be performed by a licensed nurse, and the resident's primary healthcare provider and Responsible Party (RP) should be notified. An incident report should be completed with ongoing documented assessment for the following seventy-two (72) hours, including vital signs each shift. The DON stated that completing the incident report was important to help determine the cause of the fall, prevent future falls, and identify any changes in the resident's condition. She noted that she was conducting in-service training to ensure all staff were aware of the protocol and stated she was unaware of any falls prior to her employment in June 2025. She was not able to provide documentation of an incident report or follow-up monitoring related to Resident #27's 5/12/2025 fall. On 6/24/2025 at 6:25 PM, during an interview with the Administrator and a review of the medical record for Resident #27, the Administrator was not able to locate or provide documentation of an incident report related to the fall that occurred on 5/12/2025, which had been documented in the Progress Notes. She confirmed that she expected licensed nursing staff to provide and document an adequate assessment for residents following a fall. A record review of the admission Record for Resident #27, revealed the facility admitted the resident on 5/10/2024. The resident had diagnoses of Paranoid Schizophrenia, Muscle Weakness, Altered Mental Status, and a need for assistance with personal care. A record review of the Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) with Assessment Reference Date (ARD) 4/24/2025 revealed Resident #27 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13 indicating the resident was cognitively intact
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 F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, interviews and facility policy review, the facility failed to safely and securely store medications for one (1) of thirty (30) sampled residents: Resident #8. Find...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, interviews and facility policy review, the facility failed to safely and securely store medications for one (1) of thirty (30) sampled residents: Resident #8. Findings included: A review of the facility's policy, Medication Storage in the Facility, with a revision date of December 27, 2006, revealed, Storage of Medications Policy: Medications and biologicals are stored safely, securely, and properly, following manufacturers' recommendations or those of the supplier. The medication supply is accessible only to licensed nursing personnel, pharmacy personnel, or staff members lawfully authorized to administer medications . 4. Bedside Storage of Medications: Bedside medications storage is permitted for residents who are able to self-administer medications, upon the written order of the prescriber . On 6/20/2025 at 11:30 AM, during an observation and interview with Resident #8, two (2) vials of Albuterol Sulfate Inhalation Solution 0.5-2.5 (3) MG/3ML(milligrams/milliliter), (Ipratropium-Albuterol) were observed on the resident's overbed table. One vial was opened and one vial was unopened. The resident stated that the nurses brought them to her and left them. She added that she thought there were more somewhere, but was unable to locate them. Observation revealed there was no individual medication storage cabinet inside the resident's room. On 6/20/2025 at 4:15 PM, during an interview the Director of Nursing (DON), stated that she was not aware that Resident #8 had medications stored unsecured in her room. On 6/24/2025 at 6:25 PM, during an interview with the Administrator, she confirmed that all medications were expected to be stored safely and securely in locked medication rooms or locked medication carts. A record review of the admission Record for Resident #8 revealed the facility admitted the resident on 5/14/2025. with diagnoses that included Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Diabetes, and Heart Failure. A record review of the Five-Day Minimum Data Set (MDS) with Assessment Reference Date (ARD) 5/21/2025 revealed Resident #8 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of fifteen (15), which indicated no cognitive impairment. A record review of the Order Summary Report with active orders as of 6/20/25 revealed a physician order dated 1/22/2025 Ipratropium-Albuterol Inhalation Solution 0.5-2.5 (3) MG/3ML, 3 ml inhale orally every four (4) hours related to Acute Respiratory Failure with Hypoxia (J96.01). Please give the 0000 dose at 2300. Document breath sounds, duration, sputum, toleration in nebulizer assessment. There was no physician order for the storage of medications in the resident's room.
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 F0838 (Tag F0838)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to assess the resident population and identify resources needed to provide necessary day-to-day care and ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to assess the resident population and identify resources needed to provide necessary day-to-day care and services for residents. The facility failed to evaluate the overall number of facility staff and mechanical lifts needed to ensure sufficient staff and equipment were available to meet residents' needs based on residents' assessments for (30) of (30) sampled residents with the potential to affect all residents. Findings included: A review of the facility's policy, Facility Assessment, with a review date of January 2023, revealed, A facility assessment is conducted annually to determine and update our capacity to meet the needs of and competently care for our residents during day-to-day operations .1. Once a year, and as needed, a designated team conducts a facility-wide assessment to ensure that the resources are available to meet the specific needs of our residents . 3. The facility assessment includes a detailed review of the resources available to meet the needs of the resident population. This part of the assessment includes . 4.b. Equipment and supplies (medical and non-medical) . 4.e. All personnel .6. The facility assessment is intended to help our facility plan for and respond to changes in the needs of our resident population and helps to determine budget, staffing, training, equipment and supplies needed . A review of the facility's policy, Staffing, with a review date of October 2022, revealed, Our facility provides sufficient numbers of staff with the skills and competency necessary to provide care and services for all residents in accordance with resident care plans and the facility assessment . A review of the facility assessment revealed the assessment did not include any information regarding the number of staff needed or the number of mechanical lifts required to meet the needs of residents. On 6/20/2025 at 1:00 PM, during an interview with the Staff Development Coordinator (SDC), she stated that she was responsible for facility staffing and occasionally filled in as a direct care nurse. She explained that she did not utilize the facility assessment for scheduling staff and was not sure what it was. She stated she scheduled staff using PPD (per patient day) and had not assessed the two units separately for resident acuity or daily care needs. She acknowledged that the North Unit was heavier, meaning it had more dependent residents and more residents with diagnoses of Morbid Obesity, which she confirmed required additional staff to assist with bed mobility, incontinence care, and bathing/showering activities. On 6/24/2025 at 5:00 PM, during an observation and interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) and Administrator, it was revealed that the facility had one (1) functional full-body lift and one (1) functional sit-to-stand lift. On 6/24/2025 at 6:25 PM, during an interview with the Administrator, she confirmed that if the direct care staff were using a lift on either unit, residents on the other unit would have to wait to get into or out of bed or to receive transfers. This could delay care such as showers or incontinence care. She confirmed that the number of lifts needed to provide timely resident care was not addressed in the facility assessment. She also confirmed that staffing levels necessary to meet resident care needs in a timely manner were not addressed in the facility assessment.
Dec 2024 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents' rights were followed related to respect and dignity when a Certified Nurse Aide (C...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents' rights were followed related to respect and dignity when a Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) attempted to check a resident for incontinence in the hallway and against his wishes (Resident #7) and failed to have a privacy cover on a urinary drainage bag (Resident #79) for two (2) of 19 sampled residents. Findings included: A review of the facility's Resident Rights policy, dated 07/24/2023, revealed, Employees shall treat all residents with kindness, respect, and dignity. Policy Interpretation and Implementation .1 .These rights include the right resident's right to .b. be treated with respect, kindness, and dignity . Resident #7 On 12/09/2024 at 10:10 AM, during an interview, Resident #7 reported that while he was listening to a church service on 10/27/2024 around 10:00 AM, CNA #1 approached him in the hallway and attempted to check for incontinence. The resident stated that the CNA began pushing his wheelchair down the hall, prompting him to lock the wheels to stop her. He claimed that she then attempted to look inside his pants, leading him to hold his pants and tell her, Leave me alone. He further stated that CNA #1 left, stating she would get another staff member as a witness, and he returned to the church service. There were no other interactions with the CNA. On 12/11/2024 at 10:10 AM, during an interview, CNA #1 acknowledged the incident and stated she recognized after the fact that her actions, including attempting to check the resident's brief against his wishes, were inappropriate. She stated it was close to the end of her shift, and she was trying to make sure all her residents were taken care of before shift change. She further stated it was not her intention to upset the resident, she was just trying to take care of him. On 12/12/2024 at 8:10 AM, during an interview, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3 confirmed that on 10/27/24, Resident #7 was outside the dining room window listening to the church service. She stated that CNA #1 attempted to assist the resident but that he declined care, stating he preferred to wait until 2:30 PM. On 12/12/2024 at 10:25 AM, during an interview, the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) corroborated that CNA #1 attempted to assist Resident #7 on 10/27/24, who had requested to delay care until later. A record review of the admission Record revealed the facility originally admitted Resident #7 on 6/18/2024 and he had a current diagnosis of Paraplegia. A record review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 9/16/2024 revealed Resident #79 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicated he was cognitively intact. A record review of a Behavior Note, dated 10/27/24 at 2:32 PM, revealed the CNA was attempting to check the resident for incontinence and the resident told her to Go on now. A record review of a Grievance/Concern Decision Report, dated 11/4/24, revealed Resident #7 filed a grievance against the CNA and alleged the CNA was attempting to check him for incontinence in the hallway and he told her to go on and he would return to his room for care at 2:30 PM. Corrective action included that CNA will no longer be assigned to the resident and the District Ombudsman was contacted. Resident #79 On 12/10/2024 at 11:40 AM, during an observation and interview with Resident #79, he was in his wheelchair in the hallway, a urinary catheter drainage bag was visible hanging from the side of the wheelchair and was not covered, leaving the urine visible. He went into his room and stated he was unsure how long he had a catheter or the reason for it. He stated, They usually keep it in a bag when I am out of my room, and noted that it should be in a privacy bag. On 12/10/2024 at 11:45 AM, during an interview, LPN #4 stated the catheter drainage bag should always be in a privacy bag. She explained that the purpose of privacy is to ensure the urine is not openly visible. On 12/11/2024 at 11:40 AM, during an interview, the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed that urine drainage bags should be kept in a privacy bag so that other residents and visitors are not able to see the resident's urine. A record review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #79 8/1/24 and he had a current diagnosis of Neuromuscular Dysfunction of the Bladder. A record review of the Order Summary Report, revealed Resident #79 had an order, dated 12/3/24, for an suprapubic catheter. A record review of the Comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 8/07/2024 revealed Resident #79 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicated he was cognitively intact.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications were secured when ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications were secured when a medication cart and treatment cart were left unlocked and unattended and failed to ensure medications were not left at a resident's bedside for two (2) of three (3) days of the survey. Findings included: A review of the facility's policy, Medication Labeling and Storage, revised February 2023, revealed, The facility stores all medications and biologicals in locked compartments under proper temperature, humidity and light controls. Only authorized personnel have access to keys .Medication Storage .4. Compartments (including .carts .)containing medications and biologicals are locked when not in use, and .carts used to transport such items are not left unattended if open or otherwise potentially available to others . A review of the facility's Medication Administration - General Guidelines, dated 08/25/2014, revealed, .Procedure .2. Administration .d. Medications are administered at the time they are prepared . Medication Cart: On 12/10/2024 at 11:37 AM, during an observation of the North Unit, a medication cart was noted to be unlocked and unattended in the hallway at the nurse's station until 11:41 AM. During this time, ten (10) residents were observed walking past the cart, but none attempted to open it. On 12/10/2024 at 11:43 AM, during an interview and observation of the medication cart, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 confirmed that the cart was unlocked and stated, It was an accident. I got distracted while giving medications. She noted that residents on the hall were ambulatory but stated she had not witnessed any rummaging behaviors, or anyone attempting to go through the medication cart. She acknowledged that a lot could happen if residents were to get into the medication cart, including taking other residents' medications. There were numerous medications for different residents observed on the cart, including liquid valproic acid for seizures and over-the-counter medications such as Tylenol, vitamins, and aspirin. On 12/10/2024 at 2:14 PM, during an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), she revealed her expectation was that nurses should lock their carts when stepping away. She stated that not locking the cart could result in residents ingesting medications not intended for them. Treatment Cart: On 12/11/2024 at 1:49 PM, during an observation and interview, the treatment cart in the hallway located near room [ROOM NUMBER] was noted to be unlocked while the wound care nurse was in the resident's room performing wound care. LPN #2 walked through the hall and locked the cart. She verified the cart had been left unlocked and confirmed there were things on the cart that could be poisonous to residents if ingested. On 12/11/2024 at 1:53 PM, during an observation, Registered Nurse (RN) #1 (Wound Care Nurse) retrieved supplies from the cart, including two (2) Kerlix wraps, but did not lock the cart before returning to the resident's room. At 1:55 PM, RN #1 exited the room, locked the cart, turned it toward the wall, and returned to complete wound care. On 12/11/2024 at 2:00 PM, during an interview with RN #1, she verified the cart had been left unlocked and unattended. The cart contained scissors, antimicrobial solutions, Dakin's solution (diluted bleach), and multiple ointments. The wound care nurse confirmed residents should not have access to these items. Medications at bedside: On 12/11/2024 at 8:08 AM, during an observation, Resident #71 was finishing breakfast. A clear medication dispensing cup with multiple tablets and capsules was observed sitting on the bedside table. The resident stated that the facility staff sometimes left his medications on the bedside table for him to take. On 12/11/2024 at 8:10 AM, during an interview, LPN #5 confirmed that she left medications the residents morning medications unattended at the bedside. She stated she was not supposed to leave medications at the bedside and acknowledged she would not know if the resident had taken the medication or not. On 12/11/2024 at 8:13 AM, during an observation and interview with Resident #71 and LPN #5, the medication dispensing cup was observed to be empty. Resident #71 stated he had already taken the medications. On 12/11/2024 at 8:22 AM, during an interview, the DON confirmed that it was not proper procedure for medications to be left unattended at the bedside. She explained that the nurse would not know if the resident took the medication and emphasized that medications should never be left at the bedside. A record review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #71 on 10/12/2023 with diagnoses including Cerebral Infarction. A record review of Comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 09/17/2024 revealed Resident #71 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of fifteen (15), which indicated he was cognitively intact. A record view of the electronic Medication Administration Record (MAR) for December 2024, revealed Resident #71's morning medications administered on 12/11/2024 consisted of: Allopurinol 100 milligrams (mg), Amlodipine 10 mg, Ascorbic Acid 500 mg, Aspirin 81 mg, Flomax 0.4 mg, Hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg, Multivitamin, Plavix 75 mg, Amantadine 100 mg, Baclofen 10 mg, Coreg 6.25 mg, Docusate Sodium 100 mg, Metformin 500 mg, Methenamine Hippurate 1 gram (gm), and Gabapentin 400 mg.
Jul 2024 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on staff interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to revise a comprehensive care plan intervention when an order changed related to accuchecks for one (1) of 20 ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to revise a comprehensive care plan intervention when an order changed related to accuchecks for one (1) of 20 sampled residents. (Resident #62) Findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered, reviewed 10/2022, revealed, .A comprehensive person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial and functional needs is developed and implemented for each resident .Policy Interpretation and Implementation .11. Assessments of residents are ongoing and care plans are revised as information about the residents and the residents' conditions change . Record review of the comprehensive care plan with an intervention target date of 08/18/2024 revealed Focus I have a DX (Diagnosis) of Diabetes Mellitus .Intervention .HumaLOG KwikPen Subcutaneous Solution . sliding scale . This was a Physician's Order that had been discontinued. There was no intervention for the current physician's order related to accuchecks weekly. Record review of the Order Summary Report, with active orders as of 7/11/24, revealed Resident #62 had a current physician's order, dated 6/16/24, Accuchecks weekly one time a day every Sun (Sunday) .BSG (Blood Sugar Glucose) . Record review of the discontinued physician's orders revealed Resident #62 had a Physician Order for HumaLog KwikPen with sliding scale (ss) coverage that was discontinued on 6/12/24. On 7/11/24 at 8:49 AM, in an interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) # 2/Minimum Data Set (MDS) nurse, she stated the care plan nurse was responsible for revising care plans and the care plan nurse was currently on vacation. She explained the care plan nurse ran a report daily of all new orders written for the previous 24 hours and updated/revised the care plan according to those orders. She confirmed the care plan had not been revised when the physician's order changed from accuchecks with ss coverage to accuchecks weekly without ss coverage. On 7/11/24 at 9:51 AM, in an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), she stated she expected the care plans to be revised when physician orders change because conflicting interventions could cause confusion when caring for the residents. Record review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #62 on 4/27/23 with current diagnoses including Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to conduct a safety smoking assessment for a resident to safeguard against the potential hazards for burns and/or fi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to conduct a safety smoking assessment for a resident to safeguard against the potential hazards for burns and/or fires. This concern was identified for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for accidents and hazards. Resident #1 Findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Smoking, undated, revealed, .It is the policy of this facility to provide a safe environment for residents who smoke .Additional precautions may apply to some residents due to safety awareness concerns or medical conditions .Procedure for Resident safety during smoking 1) Residents with known history of smoking .will be evaluated on admission, quarterly, and as needed for safety awareness and any physical limitations related to smoking safety . On 7/9/24 at 9:55 AM, in an interview with Resident # 1, she explained she smoked at the designated times and had always smoked since she was admitted to the facility several years ago. Record review of the medical record revealed a Smoking and Tobacco Evaluation, dated 7/6/2021. Resident #1 did not have a current smoking safety evaluation completed. A record review of the admission Record revealed the facility initially admitted Resident #1 on 9/10/2013 and she had current diagnoses including End Stage Renal Disease. A record review of the Comprehensive Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 5/29/23 revealed Resident #1 currently used tobacco. On 7/11/24 9:21 AM, in an interview with the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #2/MDS nurse, she confirmed Resident #1 had not been assessed for smoking since 2021. She stated Resident #1 had been a resident at the facility for a long time and had always smoked. She explained that smoking assessments are completed for residents quarterly and not assessing residents for safe smoking could put them at risk for burns. LPN #2 explained it was the responsibility of the nursing supervisors to complete the assessment form per the facility's policy. On 7/11/24 at 10:21 AM, in an interview with the Director of Nurses (DON), she confirmed that not having a smoking assessment puts residents at risk for burns. The DON stated the staff should use information from the smoking assessment to ensure a safe smoking environment for Resident #1. She revealed the smoking evaluation form should be completed by the nursing supervisors and Resident #1's must have gotten missed. A record review of the Quarterly MDS with an ARD of 5/7/24 revealed Resident #1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 15, which indicated she was cognitively intact.
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure indwelling catheter tubing was secured to prevent complications for one (1) of one (1) reside...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure indwelling catheter tubing was secured to prevent complications for one (1) of one (1) resident reviewed with an indwelling catheter. Resident # 3 Findings include: A review of the facility's policy Catheter Care, Urinary dated 8/25/14, revealed, .The purpose of this procedure is to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infections . 17. Secure catheter utilizing a leg band . On 7/11/24 at 8:30 AM, during an interview and observation of catheter care with Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #1 and Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 revealed Resident #3 had an indwelling catheter but there was no leg strap to secure the tubing. CNA #1 and LPN #1 confirmed the resident did not have a leg strap in place. LPN #1 stated she would get one for the resident and explained a leg strap was used to secure the catheter tubing to prevent the tubing from pulling or becoming dislodged. Record review of the Order Summary Report with active orders as of 7/12/24 revealed Resident # 3 had a Physician's Order, dated 1/19/24, to Check urinary catheter leg strap every shift and replace as needed . On 7/11/24 at 10:30 AM, during an interview with the Administrator and the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON explained that all residents with an indwelling catheter should have a leg strap to secure the tubing. The Administrator reported that she expected the staff to provide quality care to the residents. A record review of the admission Record revealed the admitted Resident # 3 on 12/28/23 with current diagnoses including Neuromuscular Dysfunction of Bladder. A record review of Section H of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 6/18/24, revealed Resident # 3 was coded for an indwelling catheter.
CONCERN (E)

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

Tube Feeding (Tag F0693)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to label and date enteral feeding bags for thr...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to label and date enteral feeding bags for three (3) of four (4) observations for a resident with enteral feedings. Resident # 24 Findings include: Review of the facility's policy Enteral Feeding Via Continuous Pump, dated 8/25/2014, revealed, The purpose of this procedure is to provide nourishment to the resident who is unable to obtain nourishment orally .Steps in the Procedure .Initiate Feeding .5. On the formula label document initials, date and time the formula was hung/administered, and initial that the label was checked against the order . During an observation on 7/8/24 at 11:42 AM, Resident #24 had a feeding tube bag hanging from a pole in her room. The bag was not labeled to indicate the name of the formula or the date and time of when the bag was hung. During an observation, on 7/9/24 at 8:44 AM, Resident #24's tube feeding bag was not labeled and dated to indicate the time the bag was hung, or the name of the substance in the bag. During an observation, on 7/10/24 at 9:46 AM, Resident # 24's tube feeding bag was not labeled to indicate the type of formula and there was no date to indicate the time the bag was hung. During an interview and observation, on 7/10/24 11:23 AM, with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1, she confirmed the feeding bag was not labeled with the type of feeding or the date it was hung. She stated she checked the residents' rooms every morning to verify the rate on the feeding pumps were accurate because the previous shift was responsible for changing and labeling the tube feeding bag, the tubing, and the feedings. She explained she did not notice the feeding tube bag was not labeled. During an interview on 7/10/24 at 2:43 PM, with the Director of Nursing (DON), she explained it was the night nurses' responsibility to label the feeding tube bags with the type of feeding, date, time and initial the time the feeding was hung or administered. A record review of the Medication Administration Record for 7/1/24 through 7/31/24 revealed Resident #24 had a Physician's Order, with a start date of 3/12/24, for .Isosource 1.5- 40 ml/hr (milliliters per hour) x (times) 22 hrs . A record review of the Clinical record revealed the facility admitted Resident #24 on 9/20/23. A record review of the of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed Resident # 24 received nutrition via a feeding tube.
Apr 2024 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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on facility policy review, record review and interviews the facility failed to ensure that residents were treated and spoken to in a dignified and respectful manner for two (2) of four (4) sampl...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on facility policy review, record review and interviews the facility failed to ensure that residents were treated and spoken to in a dignified and respectful manner for two (2) of four (4) sampled residents. Resident #1 and Resident #2. Findings include: Review of facility policy titled, Behavior of Employees, revised 12/13/17, revealed, Policy It is the policy of the Company that certain rules and regulations regarding employee behavior are necessary . Appropriate employee conduct includes: a. Treating all residents, visitors, and coworkers in a courteous manner; b. Refraining from behavior or conduct that is offensive . Record review of facility document titled, Resident Rights, revised and implemented on 11/28/16, revealed, (a) Residents Rights. The resident has a right to a dignified existence . (1) A facility must treat each resident with respect and dignity and care for each resident in a manner and in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life . On 4/04/24 at 9:03 AM, during a telephone interview with the facility Ombudsman, she confirmed that she visited the facility at least monthly and visited with residents. The Ombudsman revealed that she had received complaints from residents related to the way Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 had treated at spoken to them. The Ombudsman stated that residents had reported to her that LPN #1 routinely spoke to them in a loud, rude, and aggressive manner. On 4/04/24 at 11:00 AM, an interview with a Resident, who requested to remain anonymous, revealed LPN #1 was rude and had spoken to her disrespectfully. The resident stated that she had also witnessed LPN #1 speak disrespectfully to other residents. The resident explained that she had witnessed LPN #1 yell at residents to go to bed, go back to your room. The resident stated LPN #1 told the residents what she was going to do and not going to do. She said that she had also witnessed LPN #1 fuss at residents and tell them that she was not going to come back to answer their call light again, so they better tell her everything they wanted or leave the call light alone. On 4/04/24 at 11:55 AM, during an interview Resident #2 reported that LPN #1, that was rude and disrespectful to her and that she had witnessed LPN #1 being disrespectful to other residents. Resident #2 stated, LPN #1 is always hollering at residents. Resident #2 reported that she had witnessed LPN #1 yelling at residents to go to bed. She stated LPN #1 would tell residents to Get in your room. Go to sleep. The resident described LPN #1 as loud and aggressive. On 4/04/24 at 12:10 AM, an interview with a family member of Resident #2, she reported that she visited the facility frequently during different shifts and had witnessed LPN #1 yelling at residents. The family member stated that she felt it was more than speaking loudly to be heard because LPN #1 was yelling orders at the residents. She provided examples of things she had heard LPN #1 yelling at residents, like telling them to get in their rooms and go to bed. she added, some of these residents didn't even seem to be able to understand. On 4/04/24 at 1:50 PM, in an interview with Resident # 1, the previous Resident Council President, she revealed that the behavior of LPN #1 had been discussed in the Resident Council meetings. The resident stated the Activity Director had taken notes for the meetings, but she was not sure if concerns related to LPN #1 were recorded or not. The resident complained that LPN #1 was rude and disrespectful to residents, especially if she was assigned to their care and they requested anything. Resident #1 commented that it was reported that during a recent incident, when a resident requested something for their cold/allergy symptoms, LPN #1 told the resident No, you can't have that and walked out. On 4/04/24 at 5:00 PM, an interview with the Social Services Director (SSD) revealed that any staff member could document a grievance and that the grievances were turned in to her, and she directed them to the appropriate department head to be addressed. The SSD confirmed that she had received a grievance today from the Staffing Coordinator about a report she had received regarding the loud, rude, and aggressive behavior of LPN #1. On 4/05/24 at 1:58 PM, during an interview with the Staffing Coordinator, she confirmed Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #1 reported to her that LPN #1 needed to learn how to talk to people. CNA #1 had stated that LPN #1 was loud and that there had been complaints from residents that they did not like LPN #1's tone or volume and felt she was not speaking to them in a respectful manner. On 4/05/24 at 2:10 PM, an interview with the Assistant Director of Nurse (ADON), revealed the facility provided routine in-service training related to Resident Rights and treating residents with respect. She stated that the facility also provided routine in-service training related to Resident Abuse and Neglect Prevention and Reporting. The ADON commented that she had not witnessed or heard any allegations involving LPN #1 which rose to the level of verbal abuse, but had received a report of an allegation that LPN #1 had spoken to a resident in a rude, disrespectful manner and the allegation was currently being investigated and could result in the termination of the employment of LPN #1 from the facility because LPN #1 had already received multiple coaching and verbal warnings regarding therapeutic communication. Record review of the Record of Corrective Coaching and Witness Statement dated 3/13/24 and signed by the Director of Nurses (DON) revealed that on 3/13/24, LPN #1 received a verbal warning regarding behaviors and attitude and received an additional in-service on conduct of behavior for employee and therapeutic communication. Record review of the admission Record for Resident #1 revealed the facility admitted the resident on 9/10/13, with diagnoses that included End stage renal disease and Type 2 diabetes. Record review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 2/12/24, for Resident #1, revealed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Record review of the admission Record for Resident #2 revealed the facility admitted the resident on 8/16/22, with diagnoses that included Chronic respiratory failure and Neuralgia. Record review of the 5-Day MDS, with ARD 3/08/24, for Resident #2, revealed the resident had a BIMS score of 12, which indicated no cognitive impairment.
Mar 2024 1 deficiency 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

Based on interviews, record review, facility policy review, and facility investigation review, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent Resident #1, who was a vulnerable resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews, record review, facility policy review, and facility investigation review, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent Resident #1, who was a vulnerable resident, from exiting the facility unnoticed and unsupervised for one (1) of four (4) residents reviewed. Resident #1 Resident #1 kicked open an entrance door and exited the facility. He was last observed by facility staff to be in his room in bed at 1:15 AM on 3/9/2024. The facility staff were unaware of Resident #1's absence until 3:15 AM when a staff member entered his room and noted he was not in bed. Resident #1 was located in a neighboring town by the police department at 9:09 AM, approximately 12 miles from the facility. Resident #1 had been off the facility grounds and unsupervised for approximately six (6) to eight (8) hours. The facility's failure to provide supervision and ensure the entrance door was secure, put Resident #1 and all other vulnerable residents at risk for the likelihood of serious injury, serious harm, serious impairment, or death. The situation was determined to be an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) and Substandard Quality of Care (SQC), which began on 3/9/24. The State Agency (SA) notified the Administrator of the IJ on 3/15/24 at 12:40 PM and provided an IJ Template. Based on the facility's implementation of corrective actions on 3/9/24, the SA determined the IJ and SQC to be Past Non-Compliance (PNC) and the IJ was removed on 3/10/24, prior to the SA's entrance on 3/14/24. Findings include: Record review of the facility policy, Emergency Procedure - Missing Resident, undated, revealed, .Resident elopement resulting in a missing resident is considered a facility emergency . Record review of the facility investigation, dated 3/09/24, revealed Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #1 identified Resident #1 was not in his room at approximately 3:15 AM on 3/09/24. CNA #1 reported to Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 and after searching the building and perimeter it was determined that the resident had left the facility without notifying staff. Missing resident procedures were initiated. Resident #1 was located at approximately 8:50 AM by Police Officer #2 from a neighboring town, which was 12 miles from the facility. On 3/14/24 at 1:55 PM, an interview with the Director of Nurses (DON) revealed she was notified by LPN #1 that Resident #1 was missing at 4:10 AM on 3/09/24. She reported the resident was located approximately 11 miles from the facility by Police Officer #2 at or around 8:50 AM and taken to the Police Department (PD) in a nearby town. She stated that she and other staff went to the PD at approximately 9:20 AM on 3/09/24, where she immediately assessed the resident, who had no obvious injury. She reported the resident was wearing a clean burgundy T-shirt, blue jeans and black tennis shoes when located and was carrying three plastic shopping bags which contained some clothing. She described the weather as cool, mild, and dry. The DON stated Resident #1 reported that he had left the facility by kicking open the side door and he was trying to get to a city which was approximately 90 miles from the facility to be with family. On 3/14/24 at 10:54 PM, in a telephone interview with CNA #1, she recalled she and CNA#2 observed Resident #1 in his room at approximately 1:15 AM on 3/09/24 and when she made rounds at approximately 3:15 AM on 3/09/24, she did not see him in the bed. She reported that after quickly checking the surrounding rooms and areas, she advised LPN #1 that she was unable to locate Resident #1. Record review of the Police Department's Offense/Incident Report, dated 3/9/24, revealed Resident #1 was located by Police Officer #2 at 8:55 PM eleven (11) miles from the facility sitting outside on the curb near Hwy (highway) and transported to the officer's police department. The report included a statement by Police Officer #2 that he observed the resident sitting on the curb with a sign in his hand. The statement revealed the officer ran a local check on the information provided by the resident and discovered that he was listed as a missing person from a neighboring city. Record review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 12/13/23 revealed Resident #1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13, which indicated he was cognitively intact. Section E revealed he was not at risk for wandering or elopement. Record review of the .Quarterly Evaluation Bundle, dated 12/14/23, revealed Resident #1 was not a wanderer or elopement risk. Record review of the Weather Underground website (www.weatherunderground.com) temperatures between 3:15 AM and 8:55 AM on 3/09/24 were 59 to 60 degrees Fahrenheit with zero (0) precipitation and winds between 5 and 10 miles per hour. The facility submitted the following list of corrective measures: 1. 3/9/2024 at 3:15 AM the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) observed the residents' room and noted he was not present. She immediately notified the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) on duty. All staff on the unit began a search for the resident throughout the north unit and then moved to the south unit; at this time, all staff were directed by the LPN to conduct a search of all areas of the building and the perimeter. 2. 3/9/2024 at 4:14 AM, the LPN notified the Administrator in Training (AIT) that the staff searched the building and perimeter and could not locate the resident. The AIT notified the Administrator and Director of Nursing (DON) immediately after speaking with the nurse. The Administrator gave instructions to contact the Maintenance Supervisor and the Police Department. The LPN attempted to contact the resident's next of kin and the number was disconnected. 3. 3/9/2024 at 4:35 AM the Maintenance Supervisor arrived at the facility. He checked all exit doors for proper functioning and noted all doors were secure. He began a search of the perimeter including outside buildings and checked all windows noting all windows were secure. 4. 3/9/2024 at 5:00 AM a complete headcount was conducted by the nursing staff and all other residents were located. 5. 3/9/2024 at 5:00 AM a search team was assembled by the DON-and Maintenance-Supervisor-to search surrounding buildings, including churches, convenience stores, local bus stations and all open businesses. The LPN began making calls to all surrounding police stations. The Administrator contacted all local hospitals. 6. 3/9/2024 at 5:30 AM the Officer assigned to the case arrived at the facility and completed a missing person's report. 7. 3/9/2024 at 8:00 AM the Administrator notified the resident's physician to update the missing resident's status. 8. 3/9/2024 at 9:09 AM the Police Department confirmed with the Administrator that the resident was safe and secure at the Police Station. 9. 3/9/2024 at 9:18 AM the Director of Nursing and Social Service Director went to the Police Station, assessed the resident, found no issues or psychosocial harm then transferred the resident to the emergency room because he refused transport by ambulance. The resident was calm and expressed confidence in his purpose for leaving the facility. He stated he kicked the door, left the facility, walked to the corner of the road, caught a ride with two white ladies that helped him make a sign so he could get to (name of city) to see his family. 10. 3/9/2024 at 10:12 AM the DON arrived at the hospital, gave history of incident and medical information to the Physician along with current medications and morning medications that he had not received at this time. The DON remained with the resident while the nurse obtained vital signs including a blood glucose level and body audit. No issues were noted with skin assessments, all vital signs were within normal limits and the resident stated he felt fine, but his legs were sore. The Physician ordered labs and stated they would complete medical clearance for admittance. 11. 3/9/2024 at 12 PM a Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee meeting was held regarding the incident involving Resident # 1. In attendance were the Administrator, the DON, the AIT, the Care Plan Nurse, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON)/Infection Preventionist (IP), the Business Office Manager, the Maintenance Supervisor, the Wound Care Nurse, Medical-Director, the Regional Nurse Consultant, the Regional Director of Operations, and the Social Services Director (SSD). -QAPI minutes included: 3/9/2024 the QAPI committee reviewed the incident, actions taken, and the policy was reviewed with no recommendations for change. 3/9/2024 all facility staff were 100% in-serviced regarding elopement/missing resident policies and procedures prior to returning to work by the AIT and the DON. 3/9/2024 On hundred percent (100%) of all residents were assessed for elopement risk by the Wound Care Nurse and DON. 3/9/2024 Care Plan Nurse performed a 100% audit of all resident's care plans for those identified as an elopement risk. 3/9/2024 DON completed a 100% audit of all residents that were identified as an elopement risk to include visual monitoring, wander guard bracelets and testing. 3/9/2024 100% audit of the elopement book was performed by the Social Services Director and to ensure that all pictures were current. 3/9/2024 Maintenance Supervisor performed elopement drills on all shifts, this will continue for four (4) weeks and monthly thereafter and brought before the QAPI committee each month for review and recommendations. Any issues will be addressed immediately by the Administrator and DON. 3/9/2024 Maintenance Supervisor changed all door codes in the facility. 3/9/2024 AIT ordered keypad covers for all door keypads in the building. 3/9/2024 Maintenance Supervisor placed door alarms on all doors in the facility. The alarms will be monitored daily, and any issues will be addressed immediately by the Administrator and brought before the QAPI committee monthly for review and recommendations. 3/9/2024 Maintenance Supervisor contacted the alarm company to schedule testing of all doors in the building. 3/9/2024 State Department of Health (SA) was notified of the incident. 3/9/2024 the Attorney General's office (AGO) was notified of the incident. A follow up QAPI meeting was held on 3/11/2024 to discuss the incident; all actions taken were reviewed and determined to be 100% complete on 3/9/2024. The attending staff were the Administrator, the DON, the AIT, the Care Plan Nurse, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON)/infection Preventionist (IP), the Business Office Manager, the Maintenance Supervisor, the Wound Care Nurse, the Medical Director, the Regional Nurse Consultant, the Regional Director of Operations, and the Social Services Director. Pleasant Hills Community Living Center alleged that all interventions necessary to remove the immediacy of the incident were accomplished on 3/09/24. On 3/14/24, the SA validated the corrective actions taken by the facility: The SA validated through record review and interview that the staff identified that the resident was not in his room at approximately 3:15 AM and after searching the building and perimeter it was determined that the resident had left the facility without notifying staff. Missing resident procedures were initiated and the resident was located at approximately 8:50 AM in a neighboring community approximately twelve (12) miles from the facility by the local police department. The SA validated through interview that all notifications were made to facility management and the local police regarding Resident #1's elopement. The SA validated through record review and interview that the facility conducted a headcount of all residents, the Maintenance Supervisor came to the facility and checked all exit doors for proper functioning and ensured all windows were secure. The SA validated through interview that at approximately 5:00 AM a search team was assembled by the DON and Maintenance Supervisor to conduct a search of surrounding buildings to include churches, convenience stores, local bus stations and all open businesses and LPN #1 began making calls to all surrounding police stations; the and all local hospitals, until the time the resident was located. The SA validated through interview and record review Police Officer #1 completed a missing person's report. The SA validated through interview that the Administrator notified the resident's physician of an update on the status of the missing resident. The SA validated through record review and interview that at 9:09 AM the local Police Department confirmed that the resident was safe and secure at the Police Station of a neighboring city, 12 miles away from the facility. The SA validated through interview and record review that at 9:18 AM on 3/09/24, the DON and Social Services Director went to the Police Station and transported Resident #1 to the emergency room for evaluation as ordered by the Physician, because the resident had refused to go by ambulance; also that the DON and SSD assessed the resident and found no signs of physical or psychosocial harm. They both reported that the resident was calm and expressed confidence in his purpose for leaving the facility, and that he stated he kicked the door, left the facility, walked to the corner of the road, and caught a ride with two ladies who helped him make a sign so he could get to a city ninety (90) miles away to see his family. The SA validated through interview that at 10:12 AM, the DON arrived at the hospital with the resident, gave history of incident and medical information to the Physician along with current medications and morning medications that had not been received. The DON remained with the Resident while the nurse obtained vital signs including a blood glucose level and body audit with no issues noted and all vital signs were within normal limits and the Resident stated he felt fine, except his legs were sore. The Physician ordered labs and stated the hospital would complete medical clearance and admit the resident for a psychological evaluation. The SA validated through record review that all staff on duty were interviewed by the DON, AIT and/or Administrator and CNA #1 was the last person to see Resident #1 lying in bed at approximately 1:15 AM while making rounds. The SA validated on 3/15/24 at 9:40 AM through interview and record review and observation of the Business Office Entrance door that the door was locked and secure and LPN #1 indicated she heard the door as staff was going in and out for lunch but never heard a loud noise such as the resident kicking the door. Interview revealed the Maintenance Director checked the door, no damage was noted to the door, and it was functioning properly. The SA validated through interview that the Regional Director of Operations and Regional Nurse Consultant conducted a review of the medical record for Resident #1 The SA validated through interview when the resident was located, he was wearing appropriate clothing/footwear, and the outside temperature was 56 degrees. The SA validated through record review and interview that the facility held a QAPI meeting at 12:00 PM on 3/9/24, and those in attendance included the Administrator, AIT, DON, Care Plan Nurse, ADON/Infection Preventionist (IP), Business Office Manager, Maintenance Supervisor, Social Service Director, Wound Care Nurse, Regional Director of Operations, Regional Nurse Consultant and Medical Director. The committee reviewed the Elopement Incident, actions taken, and policy reviewed with no recommendations by the committee to change the policy. The SA validated through record review and interview the facility staff were in-serviced by the AIT and DON regarding elopement/missing resident policies and procedures prior to returning to work. The SA validated through interview with the DON and record review that all residents were reassessed for elopement risk by the DON. The SA validated through interview and record review that the Care Plan Nurse audited all resident care plans for those identified as elopement risk. The SA validated through interview and record review the DON audited records of all residents identified as elopement risk for visual monitoring, wander guard bracelets and testing. The SA validated through observation, record review, and interview there were Elopement Books at each nurse's station and the SSD audited the elopement books and ensured all residents identified had current pictures. The SA validated through record review and interview that elopement drills were conducted on all shifts on 3/09/24 and 3/11/24, with drills scheduled weekly for 4 weeks and monthly thereafter. The SA validated through interview that door codes were changed for all doors. The SA validated through interview the alarm company was consulted for additional options for door alarms. The SA validated through record review and interview that keypad covers were ordered for all exit doors. The SA validated through record review and interview that the Administrator notified the SA of the incident. The SA validated through record review and interview that the Administrator notified the Attorney General's Office of the incident. The SA validated through interview that the SSD located the Resident's family and notified them of the resident's elopement and hospitalization. The SA validated through record review that the facility held a QAPI Committee meeting on 3/11/2024 and discussed the outcome of the incident and that the QAPI Committee determined that before the incident, Resident #1 was not identified as a risk for elopement, was properly dressed, packed some belongings and was trying to get to see their family. The SA validated the Social Service Director spoke to the family and was working closely with Resident #1 to initiate discharge planning at the request of Resident #1.
Feb 2024 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to treat residents with dignity and respect by failing to consistently ensure call lights were answered in a timely manner for three (3) of 3...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to treat residents with dignity and respect by failing to consistently ensure call lights were answered in a timely manner for three (3) of 31 sampled residents (Residents #1, 32, and 45) and one (1) unsampled resident (Resident #80). Findings include: Resident #32 On 02/11/24 at 12:30 PM, in an interview with Resident #32, he stated it takes staff over two (2) hours to answer call lights, leaving the resident wet and sometimes soiled waiting for assistance. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS, with Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 01/16/24, revealed Resident #32 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Resident #1 On 02/11/24 at 01:01 PM, an interview with Resident #1 revealed there was a problem with call lights being answered timely. The resident stated she had to lay in urine and bowel movement for over an hour and had complained to the Ombudsman about their concerns. A record review of the MDS, with ARD 11/20/23, revealed Resident #1 had a BIMS score of 15, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Resident #45 On 02/13/24 at 12:54 PM, in an interview, Resident #45 complained about the staff not answering the call lights timely. A record review of Resident #45's MDS with ARD of 01/08/24, revealed a BIMS score of 15, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Resident #80 A record review of the facility's October grievance log revealed an unsampled resident's wife (Resident #80) had filed a grievance in reference to call lights not being answered timely. An interview with the Ombudsman on 2/12/24 at 10:00 AM, revealed she had gotten recent complaints regarding staff not answering lights in a timely manner. The Ombudsmen stated she was at the facility last Tuesday, because of the complaints and had spoken with the Assistant Administrator (AA), Social Service Director (SSD) and Activity Director (AD) along with resident council members. On 02/14/24 at 06:38 PM, in an interview with the Director of Nurses (DON), she confirmed she was made aware of the complaints about call lights not being answered timely by the activity's coordinator. The DON stated in response to the complaints the staff were in serviced on importance of answering call bell in a timely manner and staff on all shifts were in serviced. On 2/14/24 PM at 6:40 PM, in an interview with the AD, she confirmed a grievance was made in October in relation to call lights not being answered timely. She stated she reported the grievance to the Director of Nursing and notified the Administrator. She stated DON provided an in-service with staff as part of their plan to solve the problem. On 2/14/24 at 7:13 PM, in an interview with the SSD, she confirmed during resident council in the month of October there was a complaint about the call light not being answered. She stated the DON was notified and staff were in-serviced. She stated she had not had any more complaints on that topic from the residents since that time. On 02/14/24 at 07:16 PM, an interview with the Administrator confirmed residents complained in resident council about the staff not answering the call lights. The Administrator stated she had completed an in-service with the staff explaining the importance of answering the call lights and customer service. The Administrator also confirmed after that in-service, she completed one on-one in-services with staff because there was still a problem with answering call lights in a timely manner. She stated the last in-service on the topic of answering call lights in a timely manner was in December of 2023.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0700 (Tag F0700)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, and facility's policy review, the facility failed to obtain an informed consent for the use of bed rails for seven (7) of eighteen residents reviewed for bedrails....

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and facility's policy review, the facility failed to obtain an informed consent for the use of bed rails for seven (7) of eighteen residents reviewed for bedrails. (Resident's #1, #14, #24, #31, #45, #81, and #142) Findings include: A review of the facility's policy titled, Bed Safety and Bed Rails, reviewed 8/2023, revealed, .Bed rails are properly installed and used according to the manufacturer's instructions, specifications and other pertinent safety guidance to ensure proper fit . Before using bed rails for any reason, the staff shall inform the resident or representative about the benefits and potential hazards associated with bed rails and obtain informed consent An observation on 2/11/24 at 1:01 PM, revealed Resident #1 had both quarter length bedrails up on the sides of her bed. Medical record review revealed that there was not a signed informed consent for the use of bedrails. An observation on 2/11/24 at 2:24 PM, revealed Resident #81 lying in bed with both bedrails up on the sides of his bed. A medical record review revealed that there was not a signed informed consent for the use of bedrails. An observation on 2/11/24 at 2:48 PM, revealed resident #142 had both quarter length bedrails up on the sides of his bed. A medical record review revealed there was not a signed informed consent for the use of bedrails. An observation on 2/13/24 at 9:54 AM, revealed Resident #24 had both quarter length bedrails up on the sides of her bed. A medical record review revealed there was not a signed informed consent for the use of bedrails. During an interview on 2/13/24 at 10:16 AM, with the Maintenance Director he stated he routinely does bed and bed rail quality checks. During an interview on 02/13/24 at 10:25 AM, with the Administrator revealed the facility has a policy in place that we assess each resident upon admission and as needed for bedrail safety, monitoring, and maintenance. The facility does not have a bedrail consent in place at this time. An observation on 2/13/24 at 11:14 AM revealed Resident #14 had both quarter length bedrails up on the sides of his bed. A medical record review revealed there was not a signed informed consent for the use of bedrails. An observation on 2/13/24 at 12:54 PM revealed Resident #45 had both quarter length bedrails up on the sides of his bed. A medical record review revealed there was not a signed informed consent for the use of bedrails. During an interview on 2/14/24 at 9:16 AM, with the Director of Nursing (DON), she stated that the facility does not currently have consent forms for bedrails signed and placed on the resident's chart. An observation on 2/14/24 at 4:35 PM, revealed Resident # 31 had both quarter length bedrails up on the sides of her bed. A medical record review revealed that there was not a signed informed consent for the use of bedrails.
Dec 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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interviews, record review, facility investigation, and facility policy review, the facility failed to treat a resident with respect and dignity during care for one (1) of four (4) residents r...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews, record review, facility investigation, and facility policy review, the facility failed to treat a resident with respect and dignity during care for one (1) of four (4) residents reviewed. Resident #1 Findings include: A review of the facility's policy, Resident Rights, dated November 23, 2016, revealed, .This facility will make every effort to assist the resident in exercising his/her rights and to assure that the resident is always treated with respect, kindness, and dignity . A review of the facility's policy Vulnerable Adults' Prevention Policy, undated, revealed, .A Vulnerable Adult is a person 18 years or older who is unable to protect his own rights, interests, and/or vital concerns and who cannot seek help without assistance because of physical, mental, or emotional impairment . Record review of the facility's investigation dated December 12, 2023, revealed at approximately 11:40 AM on 12/9/23, the facility Administrator was notified by the Director of Nursing that Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #1 was overheard by Resident #3's visitor and Resident #1's son that CNA #1 was overheard speaking to Resident #1 in an abrasive tone and language. CNA #1 was heard telling Resident #1 I don't care. During a phone conversation on 12/12/23, at 11:48 AM with the son of Resident #1, he revealed as he was walking into Resident #1's room, he overheard a staff member speaking to his father in a loud and rough voice, telling him to stop pushing back his leg. On 12/12/23 at 2:30 PM, in an interview with the Administrator, she stated that CNA #1 had admitted that while performing care, she had told Resident #1 that she didn't care. The Administrator confirmed that CNA #1 was disrespectful to the resident, however, was not threatening. She confirmed the facility provided in-services regarding resident rights and abuse/neglect following the incident. The Administrator stated they had an emergency Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) meeting to discuss the event and what measures would be implemented. On 12/12/23 at 2:45 PM, during an interview with the Director of Nurses (DON), she confirmed that CNA #1 was heard being disrespectful to Resident #1 by his son and a visitor. The DON stated it is not the policy of the facility to treat anyone in a disrespectful nature. Record review of a handwritten statement, dated 12/9/23 and signed by CNA #1 revealed, I went in to (Room # of Resident #1) to get him changed. I asked him to roll, he started fussing at me saying he don't care .he just keep on with the fussing and keep saying he don't care so I said 'I don't care'. On 12/12/23 at 4:15 PM, in an interview with CNA #1, she confirmed that while providing care for Resident #1, he told her he didn't care, and she responded by telling him she didn't care. Record review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #1 on 12/7/23, with diagnoses that included Cerebral Infarction and Hemiplegia, affecting his right dominant side. Record review of the BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) MDS (Minimum Data Set) 3.0 dated 12/8/23 revealed Resident #1's BIMS summary score was 9, indicating Resident #1 had moderate cognitive impairment. Record review of the personnel file for CNA #1 revealed she had received training on the Vulnerable Adults Act and Resident's Rights and signed an acknowledgment on 5/15/23. Based on the facility's implementation of corrective actions on 12/9/23, the State Agency (SA) determined the deficiency to be Past Non-Compliance (PNC), and the deficiency was corrected as of 12/10/23, before the SA's entrance on 12/12/23. Validation: On 12/12/23, the SA validated through staff interviews, record review, and facility policy review the facility began an immediate investigation when the incident occurred. A review of the emergency QAPI meeting minutes revealed the facility held a QAPI meeting on 12/9/23 at 1:30 PM. The SA verified through an interview with the DON that the facility policies related to resident rights were reviewed and no changes were needed. The QAPI meeting concluded that the Plan of Correction was to in-service all staff, suspend the employee, and interview all residents with Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) over 12 to determine if any other residents experienced any violation of their resident rights. The SA reviewed in-service sign-in sheets that began on 12/9/23, related to resident rights and abuse/neglect. The Administrator and DON conducted in-services in which they had every employee review and sign the policies on resident rights and abuse/neglect. The SA verified through record review the facility reported resident abuse to the SA and the Attorney General Office (AGO) on 12/9/23.
Sept 2023 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (F) 📢 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 F0725 (Tag F0725)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to have staff to provide care to meet the needs of the residents for two (2) of 19 sampled residents. Resident #8 an...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to have staff to provide care to meet the needs of the residents for two (2) of 19 sampled residents. Resident #8 and Resident #41. Findings Include: The State Agency (SA) received a complaint, MS #22934, which alleged the facility did not have enough staff on the night shift to provide incontinent care for the residents. Review of the facility's policy, Staffing, dated 10/2022, revealed, .Our facility provides sufficient numbers of staff .to provide care and services for all residents in accordance with resident care plans and the facility assessment . A record review of the Facility Assessment, undated, revealed .B.1. Acuity- Sufficiency Analysis Summary .uses national benchmarks provided by national associations, clinical organizations, federal and state provided databases to establish baselines for organizational practices and goal setting . Resident #8 During an interview with Resident #8 on 9/29/23 at 11:00 AM, he confirmed the facility had two (2) Certified Nurse Aides (CNAs) on the 11-7 shift last night, no staff came into his room during the night to provide care, and he had to wait until the day shift came in to get assistance. Resident #8 stated the nurses do not help with turning and repositioning. Record review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #8 on 5/09/2023 and he had diagnoses including Whipple's Disease, Paraplegia, and Neuromuscular Dysfunction of Bladder. Record review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 8/01/23 revealed Resident # 8 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicated he was cognitively intact. Section G revealed he required extensive assistance with hygiene, toileting, and bed mobility. Resident #41 During an interview on 9/29/23 at 10:30 AM, with Resident #41, he stated there were only two (2) CNAs on the North Hall to take care of 60 residents last night. He explained that he had to lay in his urine and bowel movement from 3:00 AM to 5:30 AM because there was not enough staff, and he was not able to clean himself. He stated that it was degrading to be laying in your own urine and feces. Record review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #41 on 5/26/23 with diagnoses including Hypertension and Diabetes Mellitus. Record review of the MDS, with an ARD of 8/30/23 revealed Resident #41 had a BIMS score of 15, which indicated he was cognitively intact. Section G revealed he required extensive assistance with hygiene and toileting. In an interview on 9/29/23 at 1:00 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #2 confirmed the facility had been attempting to bring in staff to meet the resident's needs and did not use contract CNAs. LPN #2 explained that it is difficult to retain staff because of the location of the facility. LPN #2 said that five (5) CNAs were scheduled and assigned to the North Hall the night of 9/28/23, but three (3) CNAs left because they were not happy with their assignments, which left two (2) CNA's working. LPN #2 confirmed the facility did not have a backup plan to replace the three CNA's that night. LPN #2 also confirmed several staff have worked 15 to 24 hour shifts to provide care for the residents and she did not think it was safe for the residents when the staff worked like that. In an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 9/29/23 at 1:30 PM, she confirmed the facility had attempted to hire staff through staffing agencies and by offering sign-on bonuses, but none of those measures had drawn staff to the facility. The DON said she thought the problem was the facility's location. The DON confirmed the facility had two (2) CNAs working on the 11-7 shift on 9/28/23 because three (3) CNAs had left because of their assignments. The DON explained that several staff members were picking up extra shifts and had worked 15 to 24 hour shifts,and that it was not safe for the residents. In an interview with the Administrator on 9/29/23 at 1:45 PM, he confirmed he was aware of the shortage of staff. He explained he was working with the DON and Staff Development Nurse to resolve the staffing problem by offering sign-on bonuses and utilizing contract staff. The Administrator said he was not aware that staff had been working 15 to 24 hour shifts.
CONCERN (F) 📢 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 F0727 (Tag F0727)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on staff interview, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to have a Registered Nurse (RN) for eight (8) consecutive hours a day for eight (8) of 60 days reviewed. 5/6/23,...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interview, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to have a Registered Nurse (RN) for eight (8) consecutive hours a day for eight (8) of 60 days reviewed. 5/6/23, 5/20/23, 5/21/23, 5/27/23, 5/28/23, 6/4/23, 6/10/23, 6/24/23, Findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Staffing, dated June 1, 2000, revealed, It is the policy for this facility to provide adequate staffing to meet the needs of the resident population .1. This facility furnishes information from payroll records setting forth the average numbers and types of personnel .on each shift as required . Review of the facility's Employee Time Cards revealed the following: On 5/6/23 (Sunday), the RN was clocked in for 7.37 hours. On 5/20/23 (Saturday), the RN clocked in for 3.18 hours. On 5/21/23 (Sunday), the RN was clocked in for 2.35 hours. On 5/27/23 (Saturday), the RN was clocked in 7.6 hours. On 5/28/23 (Sunday), the RN was clocked in for 7.28 hours. On 6/4/23 (Sunday), the RN was clocked in for 3.38 hours. On 6/10/23 (Saturday), the RN was clocked in for 7.75 hours. On 6/24/23 (Saturday), the RN was clocked in for 7.57 hours. In an interview on 9/28/23 at 09:30 AM, with the Director of Nurses (DON), she confirmed there were days in which RNs did not work for eight (8) consecutive hours. The DON said she did not know RNs had to work for eight (8) consecutive hours. The DON reported that she works on the days in which they are unable to find RN coverage, but she checked on staff and residents and did not stay for more than three (3) to four (4) hours at the facility. In an interview on 9/28/23 at 01:00 PM, with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #2, she confirmed there were several days identified that a RN did not work for eight (8) consecutive hours. She stated that she was unaware that RNs were required to work for 8 consecutive hours. LPN #2 reported that she notified the Director of Nursing (DON) and Assistant DON when she was unable to schedule an RN. In an interview on 9/29/23 at 10:00 AM, with the Administrator, he revealed he did not know RNs were not working for 8 consecutive hours. The Administrator said he needed to check with the DON to make sure she did not work those days.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
  • "What safeguards are in place to prevent abuse and neglect?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: Federal abuse finding, 1 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s), $68,630 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 22 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $68,630 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Mississippi. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (8/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: This facility has a substantiated abuse finding. Extreme caution advised. Explore alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Pleasant Hills Com Liv Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns PLEASANT HILLS COM LIV CENTER 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 Pleasant Hills Com Liv Center Staffed?

CMS rates PLEASANT HILLS COM LIV CENTER's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 55%, compared to the Mississippi average of 46%. RN turnover specifically is 56%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Pleasant Hills Com Liv Center?

State health inspectors documented 22 deficiencies at PLEASANT HILLS COM LIV CENTER during 2023 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, and 20 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Pleasant Hills Com Liv Center?

PLEASANT HILLS COM LIV CENTER is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by COMMUNITY ELDERCARE SERVICES, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 100 certified beds and approximately 79 residents (about 79% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in JACKSON, Mississippi.

How Does Pleasant Hills Com Liv Center Compare to Other Mississippi Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Mississippi, PLEASANT HILLS COM LIV CENTER's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 2.6, staff turnover (55%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Pleasant Hills Com Liv Center?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "What safeguards and monitoring systems are in place to protect residents from abuse or neglect?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the substantiated abuse finding on record, and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Pleasant Hills Com Liv Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, PLEASANT HILLS COM LIV CENTER has documented safety concerns. The facility has 1 substantiated abuse finding (meaning confirmed case of resident harm by staff or other residents). Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Mississippi. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Pleasant Hills Com Liv Center Stick Around?

PLEASANT HILLS COM LIV CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 55%, which is 9 percentage points above the Mississippi average of 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 Pleasant Hills Com Liv Center Ever Fined?

PLEASANT HILLS COM LIV CENTER has been fined $68,630 across 4 penalty actions. This is above the Mississippi average of $33,765. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.

Is Pleasant Hills Com Liv Center on Any Federal Watch List?

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