WALTER B CROOK NURSING FACILITY

840 NORTH OAK AVENUE, RULEVILLE, MS 38771 (662) 756-2711
Government - County 60 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
60/100
#89 of 200 in MS
Last Inspection: February 2024

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

Overview

Walter B Crook Nursing Facility has a trust grade of C+, which means it is slightly above average in quality but not exceptional. It ranks #89 out of 200 facilities in Mississippi, placing it in the top half, and #2 out of 3 in Sunflower County, indicating that only one local option is better. Unfortunately, the facility's performance has worsened recently, with issues increasing from 3 in 2022 to 4 in 2024. Staffing is a strong point, rated 5 out of 5 stars, with a turnover rate of 42%, lower than the state average, indicating that staff are experienced and familiar with the residents. The facility has not incurred any fines, which is a positive sign, but there are concerns regarding quality measures, which scored only 1 out of 5. Specific incidents noted by inspectors include failures in hand hygiene during wound care, which resulted in residents suffering from pressure ulcers and infections. Additionally, the facility did not keep one resident free from physical restraints, posing a risk of injury. While the staffing levels and absence of fines are strengths, the increasing number of issues and specific care failures highlight significant areas that need improvement.

Trust Score
C+
60/100
In Mississippi
#89/200
Top 44%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Worse
3 → 4 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
42% turnover. Near Mississippi's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Mississippi facilities.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 42 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Mississippi. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
○ Average
9 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★★★★★
5.0
Staff Levels
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2022: 3 issues
2024: 4 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (42%)

    6 points below Mississippi average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.

The Bad

3-Star Overall Rating

Near Mississippi average (2.6)

Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities

Staff Turnover: 42%

Near Mississippi avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

The Ugly 9 deficiencies on record

2 actual harm
Feb 2024 4 deficiencies 2 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, record review and facility policy review the facility failed to promote the healing of ex...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, record review and facility policy review the facility failed to promote the healing of existing pressure injuries as evidenced by failure to perform hand hygiene during wound care. Resident #34 currently has a foul odor and purulent discharge to facility acquired pressure wounds of the right lower leg and right heel with a history of recent multiple pressure ulcer infections. Resident #42 has two (2) facility acquired pressure ulcers with a history of pressure ulcer infection. This is for two (2) of five (5) residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. (Resident #34 and Resident #42). Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Wound Care, revised October 2010, revealed, Purpose: The purpose of this procedure is to provide guidelines for the care of wounds to promote healing. Steps in procedure: 2.) Wash and dry hands thoroughly.4.) Put on exam gloves, loosen tape, and remove dressing.5.) Pull gloves over dressing and discard. Wash and dry hands thoroughly .6.) Put on gloves.23.) Wash and dry hands thoroughly. Review of the facility policy titled, Handwashing/Hand Hygiene, revised August 2019, revealed, Policy Statement: The facility considers hand hygiene the primary means to prevent the spread of infections.Policy Interpretation and Implementation: 7.) Use an alcohol-based hand rub containing at least 62% alcohol; or, alternatively, soap (antimicrobial or non-antimicrobial) and water for the following.) Before handling clean or soiled dressings, gauze pads, etc.h.) Before moving from a contaminated body site to a clean body site during resident care.i.) After contact with a resident's skin. j.) after contact with blood or bodily fluids.k.) After handling used dressings, contaminated objects. m.) After removing gloves. An observation and interview during the initial tour on 2/26/24 at 4:00 PM revealed a foul odor was coming from the room of Resident #34. An interview with the Registered Nurse (RN)-Wound Care Nurse that was in the resident's room revealed Resident #34 has pressure ulcers, some of them are having some malodorous drainage and she obtained an order to culture the wounds. Review of the physician's orders for Resident #34, revealed Right Lateral lower leg pressure ulcer stage 3: clean with NS (normal saline), apply Santyl to wound bed, cover with boarder dressing daily and prn (as needed).Right heel unstageable: cleanse with spray wound cleanser pat dry, apply Santyl ointment to wound bed then calcium alginate to slough, wrap with kerlix, and secure with paper tape daily and prn Unstageable wound to Dorsalis Pedis Right, cleanse with wound cleanser, pat dry with 4 x 4, apply Santyl ointment to wound bed, cover with ABD (abdominal gauze pad) then wrap with kerlix qd (every day) and prn. During an interview and record review of the treatment record for Resident #34 on 2/27/24 at 9:55 AM with the Registered Nurse (RN)- Wound Care Nurse, revealed that the wound to the right dorsalis pedis should read DTI (Deep Tissue Injury) not unstageable and she would do a clarification order. She stated that the right heel is now presenting as a stage 4 and would clarify that as well. An observation and interview during wound care for Resident #34 with the RN-Wound Care Nurse and Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 on 2/27/24 at 10:00 AM, revealed the RN-Wound Care Nurse sanitized hands applied gloves and verbalized during wound care she always cleans the peg (percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy) site, the Foley catheter site first and then takes care of the wounds. She then cleaned around the stoma of the peg tube site and applied a clean dressing around the site with the same gloves used to clean the peg stoma site . The RN-Wound Care Nurse then pulled down Resident #34s brief and cleaned around the Foley catheter with a wet washcloth with the same gloves used to perform peg site care with no hand hygiene before or after the catheter care. The RN-Wound Care Nurse then removed the glove off her right hand and applied a clean glove, left the dirty glove on her left hand, began to cut, and date tape with no hand hygiene performed. LPN #1 performed hand hygiene, removed dressings off the resident's right heel, right dorsalis pedis area (top of right foot), and right lateral leg then discarded them in a red bag. She then grabbed moistened gauze and patted the leg wound once and discarded the gauze, then patted the right heel wound bed once and discarded the gauze, and patted the right dorsalis pedis wound bed with a gauze pad and discarded it with no hand hygiene performed between wounds. LPN #1 then applied an ointment to the wound bed of each wound with the same gloves used to remove the soiled dressings and clean the wound beds, the RN- Wound Care nurse then handed LPN #1 clean dressings and dated tape to cover the wounds with the same contaminated gloves worn during catheter care. LPN #1 applied clean dressings and dated tape, removed her gloves, and performed hand hygiene. Record review of the Wound Assessment Details from the local hospital for the right lateral leg lower pressure ulcer assessments revealed initial onset 11/27/23. Further review of the Wound Assessment Report revealed last assessment dated [DATE] now a stage 3 measuring 5.50 cm (centimeters) length x (times) 1.30 cm width x 0.50 cm depth. This wound was facility acquired. Record review of the Wound Assessment Report for the right heel pressure ulcer assessments revealed initial 9/21/23 DTI (deep tissue injury) measuring 1.60 cm length x 1.00 cm width. Further review revealed last assessment dated [DATE] now worsened to a stage 4, measuring 7.00 cm length x 6.00 cm width x 0.20 cm depth. This wound was facility acquired. Record review of an Infection Report-Basic for Resident #34 dated 12/3/23, revealed a culture of the right heel pressure ulcer with growth of Proteus mirabilis- Intervention: Ceftriaxone 1 (one) gram IV (intravenous) daily times 10 days ordered related to right heel wound infection. Infection source: It is likely infection developed in the facility. Review of an Infection Report-Basic for Resident #34 dated 12/22/23 culture of right heel pressure ulcer related to purulent/malodorous drainage with growth of multiple organisms Bacteroides fragilis, Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus faecalis, Finegoldia [NAME], [NAME] morganii, and Proteus mirabilis. Treated with Invanz 1-gram IV daily times 10 days and Tygacil 50 mg (milligrams) IV every 12 hours times 10 days. Record review of the Wound Assessment Report for the right dorsalis pedis revealed initial onset of 2/14/24 as a DTI measuring 4.50 cm length x 4.50 cm width x 0.25 cm depth. Further review of the Wound Assessment Report dated 2/21/24 revealed the DTI measuring 5.00 cm length x 5.00 cm width x 0.25 cm depth. This revealed an increase in size of the wound and this wound was facility acquired. A review of a physician's order for Resident #34 dated 2/25/24 revealed an order to obtain wound culture on 2/26/24 related to foul odor and purulent discharge to wounds right lower leg and right heel. An interview with the RN-Wound Care Nurse on 2/27/24 at 2:30 PM, confirmed she had noticed an increase in the number of wound infections that Resident #34 has had and confirmed there was worsening to all her wounds. She then confirmed she did not perform hand hygiene between any of the treatments for Resident #34 and stated it did not occur to her to wash her hands after cleaning the peg tube, catheter care, and wound care revealing she normally sanitizes her hands before she starts the treatments of a resident and when she finishes doing all the treatments for the resident. She revealed that not performing hand hygiene between the treatments could lead to cross contamination and could have resulted in increased risk for infections and may cause wounds to worsen or cause a systemic infection. An interview with the Infection Control (IC) nurse on 2/27/24 at 3:00 PM, revealed she has watched the RN-Wound Care Nurse do treatments in the past and she did break infection control barriers and was educated. She revealed she had noticed the increase in the number of wound infections and had done three one on one check offs with the RN-Wound Care Nurse related to wound care but did not document the check offs. She revealed she had reported to the Administrator and the Director of Nurses (DON) on Friday 2/23/24 of her concerns with the RN-Wound Care Nurse but was unaware of the finding of what they did. She verbalized that these residents are vulnerable and more susceptible to infection and confirmed failing to perform hand hygiene during treatments and between different treatments increased the risk for infections and could have been a factor in the increase in wound infections. An interview with the Administrator and the DON on 2/27/24 at 4:00 PM, revealed that they were aware that the RN-Wound Care Nurse was having problems with time management but was unaware of her having any infection control issues. The Administrator also revealed they have met with the RN-Wound Care Nurse on several occasions about her understanding of her role and time management and had reached out to HR (Human Resource) on Monday 2/26/24 about beginning a 30-day performance program of action to see improvement. The DON confirmed that failing to perform hand hygiene between treatments and during wound care places the residents at risk for increased infection and worsening wounds. An interview with LPN #1 on 2/28/24 at 8:49 AM, confirmed she did not perform hand hygiene while doing wound care to Resident #34's wounds. She revealed that she was unaware that she should have performed one treatment at a time and performed hand hygiene in between cleaning the wounds and applying the clean wound supplies but confirmed that she can see where that would be cross contamination and lead to increased risk for infection. A phone interview with the Medical Director on 2/28/24 at 9:34 AM, confirmed that poor infection control practices could lead to wound infections and worsening of wounds. Record review of Resident #34's Face Sheet revealed that the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with medical diagnoses that included Atherosclerotic heart disease of native coronary artery. Record review of Resident #34's Minimum Data Set (MDS) Section M with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 12/04/23 revealed M0210 was coded as yes resident has one or more unhealed pressure ulcers/injuries. Resident #42 Record review of Resident #42's Wound Assessment Report revealed the resident currently has three pressure wounds revealing the following: -Wound to the Sacrum -Stage 3-Identified on 11/18/19 after readmission from the hospital with measurements of 9.00 centimeters (cm) (length) x 11.00 cm (width) x 0.20 cm (depth) and a current measurement on 2/22/24 of 7.50 cm x 7.90 cm x 0.40 cm with a wound status of Improved. -Wound to the Right Buttock; lower-Stage 2-Identified on 2/9/23-facility acquired-with measurements of 1.50 cm x 2.00 cm x 0.10 cm and a current measurement on 2/22/24 of 1.90 cm x 1.30 cm x 0.30 cm Stage 3 with a wound status of Improved. -Wound to the Right Lateral Shin; right medial leg lower-Stage 3-Identified on 1/30/24-facility acquired-with measurements of 2.20 cm x 1.20 cm x 0.20 m and a current measurement on 2/22/24 of 1.70 cm x 0.60 cm x 0.01 cm with a wound status of Improved. An observation on 2/27/24 at 1:26 PM revealed RN-Wound Care Nurse, LPN #2 and Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) #1 with Resident #42 for wound care. RN-Wound Care Nurse washed her hands, applied gloves, and cleaned the supra pubic catheter. She removed those gloves, did not perform hand hygiene, applied new gloves, pulled the residents draw sheet that revealed bowel movement on the bed pad draw sheet and up the residents back above the brief and on the legs below the brief. She removed the residents brief which revealed the resident's buttocks were covered in bowel movement, removed the coccyx wound dressing and the lower buttock wound dressing which revealed there was bowel movement under the dressings and in the wounds. She cleaned the bowel movement up with a washcloth and warm water, no soap, removed gloves, did not perform hand hygiene, applied new gloves, and cleaned the coccyx wound with normal saline. She then removed her gloves, did not perform hand hygiene, applied new gloves, applied silver cell to the coccyx wound, covered it with a 4x4 pad, and covered that with an ABD pad. She then rolled the dirty brief under the wound and held the pad in place while LPN #2 took her gloves off, washed her hands and handed RN-Wound Care Nurse the tape for the dressing. She then taped down the dressing, removed the dirty brief and put it in a biohazard bag, applied two more pieces of tape to the coccyx wound dressing, removed gloves, picked up new gloves then laid them back inside the box with multiple clean gloves. She washed her hands then applied those same gloves that she had picked up and laid down. She cleaned the lower left buttock wound removed gloves, did not perform hand hygiene, put on new gloves, and helped apply a new brief. An interview on 2/27/24 at 2:50 PM with LPN #2 confirmed that RN-Wound Care Nurse did not wash her hands when she changed her gloves and should have. She confirmed that was a break in infection control and could lead to the spread of infections. An interview with RN-Wound Care Nurse on 2/27/24 at 3:40 PM confirmed that she broke infection control when she was doing wound care on Resident #42 by not washing her hands after changing gloves from a dirty procedure, which could cause a spread of infection or cross contamination leading to a wound infection. Record review of Resident #42's Final Report for the residents wound culture from the Coccyx wound with a final result date of 11/17/23. This culture revealed a result of Acinetobacter baumannli, Bacteroides fragilis, Escherichia coli, Morganella morganii, Proteus mirabilli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Clostridium perfringens, Enterococcus faecalis with an order to start Levaquin 500 milligram (mg) 1 tab via PEG tube daily for 14 days (Start 11/27-Stop 12/10) Record review of Resident #42's Infection Report-Basic dated 11/27/23 revealed the resident had a wound infection that indicated Infection Source: It is likely infection developed in the facility. Record review of Resident #42's Face Sheet revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with medical diagnoses that included Unspecified Sequelae of Cerebral Infarction. Record review of Resident #42's MDS with an ARD of 1/22/24 revealed in Section C a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) with no score, which indicates the resident is severely cognitively impaired and in Section M that the resident had one or more unhealed pressure ulcers at Stage 1 or higher.
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, record review and facility policy review the facility failed to perform hand hygiene duri...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, record review and facility policy review the facility failed to perform hand hygiene during wound care, Foley and suprapubic catheter care, and Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) tube care (Resident's #34 and #42) Resident #34 currently has a foul odor and purulent discharge from facility acquired pressure wounds of the right lower leg and right heel with a history of recent multiple pressure ulcer infections. Resident #42 has two (2) facility acquired pressure ulcers with a history of pressure ulcer infection. This is for two (2) of 10 residents observed during direct patient care. Resident's #34 and 42 Cross reference F686 Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Standard Precautions, effective 01/01/2020, revealed, Policy: Standard Precautions are designed for care of all patients in facilities, regardless of diagnosis or presumed infection status, to reduce the risk of transmission from both recognized and unrecognized sources of infection.Standard Precautions include Gloves: To be worn when touching blood, body fluids, secretions, mucous membranes, non-intact skin, and other contaminated items .Gloves do not take the place of hand hygiene .Hands are to be washed after removing gloves .Gloves should be changed between tasks and procedures on the same patient after contact with material that may contain a high concentration of microorganisms. Review of the facility policy titled, Handwashing/Hand Hygiene, revised August 2019, revealed, Policy Statement: The facility considers hand hygiene the primary means to prevent the spread of infections .Policy Interpretation and Implementation: 7.) Use an alcohol-based hand rub containing at least 62% alcohol; or, alternatively, soap (antimicrobial or non-antimicrobial) and water for the following. Before handling clean or soiled dressings, gauze pads, etc.h.) Before moving from a contaminated body site to a clean body site during resident care.i.) After contact with a resident's skin. j.) after contact with blood or bodily fluids.k.) After handling used dressings, contaminated objects. m.) After removing gloves . Review of the facility policy titled, Catheter Care, revised September 2014, revealed, Purpose: The purpose of this procedure is to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infections .Infection Control: 1.) Use standard precautions when handling or manipulating the drainage system . Review of the facility policy titled, Gastrostomy/Jejunostomy Site Care, revised October 2011, revealed, Purpose: The purpose of this procedure is to promote cleanliness and to protect the gastrostomy or jejunostomy site from irritation, breakdown and infection Steps in the procedure: 2.) Wash hands and dry thoroughly.2.) Wear clean gloves.14. Remove gloves and discard. 15.) Wash your hands . Review of the facility policy titled, Wound Care, revised October 2010, revealed, Purpose: The purpose of this procedure is to provide guidelines for the care of wounds to promote healing .Steps in procedure: 2.) Wash and dry hands thoroughly .4.) Put on exam gloves, loosen tape, and remove dressing .5.) Pull gloves over dressing and discard. Wash and dry hands thoroughly .6.) Put on gloves.23.) Wash and dry hands thoroughly . Observation of wound care for Resident #34's wound care with the (Registered Nurse) RN-Wound Care Nurse and Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 on 2/27/24 at 10:00 AM revealed, the RN-Wound Care Nurse sanitized hands applied gloves and verbalized during wound care she always cleans the PEG tube site, and the Foley catheter site first and then takes care of the wounds. She then cleaned around the stoma of the PEG tube site and applied a clean dressing around the stoma site with the same gloves used to clean the PEG stoma site. The RN-Wound Care Nurse then pulled down Resident #34's brief and performed catheter with the same contaminated gloves used to perform PEG site care. There was no observation of hand hygiene before or after the Foley catheter care. The RN-Wound Care Nurse then removed the glove off of her right hand and applied a clean glove, began to cut, and date tape, with no observation of hand hygiene and no observation of removing the soiled glove from the left hand. LPN #1 performed hand hygiene, removed dressings off of the residents right heel, right dorsalis pedis area (top of right foot), and right lateral leg and discarded them in a red bag. She then grabbed moistened gauze and patted the leg wound once and discarded the gauze, then patted the right heel wound bed once and discarded the gauze ,and patted the right dorsalis pedis wound bed with a gauze pad and discarded it with no observation of hand hygiene between cleaning each wound. LPN #1 then applied an ointment to the wound bed of each wound with the same gloves used to remove the soiled dressings and clean the wound beds. The RN-Wound Care Nurse then handed LPN #1 clean dressings and dated tape to cover the wounds with the same contaminated gloves worn during PEG site and catheter care. LPN #1 applied clean dressings and dated tape, removed her gloves she applied at the beginning of wound care, and performed hand hygiene. Record review of an Infection Report - Basic for Resident #34 dated 12/3/23, revealed an order for a culture of right heel pressure ulcer for foul and purulent drainage with growth of Proteus mirabilis- Ceftriaxone 1(one) gram IV (intravenous) daily times 10 days ordered related to right heel wound infection. Record review of an Infection Report - Basic for Resident #34 dated 12/22/23 culture of right heel pressure ulcer related to purulent/malodorous drainage with growth of Bacteroides fragilis, Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus faecalis, Finegoldia [NAME], [NAME] morganii, and Proteus mirabilis. Treated with Invanz 1-gram IV daily times 10 days and Tygacil 50 mg (milligrams) IV every 12 hours times 10 days. A record review of a physician's order for Resident #34 dated 2/25/24 revealed an order to obtain wound culture on 2/26/24 related to foul odor and purulent discharge to wounds. Record review of the facility infection log for dates 9/27/23-2/27/24, revealed there were 11 wound infections. During an interview with the RN-Wound Care Nurse on 2/27/24 at 2:30 PM confirmed she had noticed an increase in the number of wound infections that Resident #34 has had and confirmed there was worsening to all her wounds. She then confirmed she did not perform hand hygiene between any of the treatments for Resident #34 and stated it did not occur to her to wash her hands after cleaning the PEG tube, catheter care, and wound care revealing she normally sanitizes her hands before she starts the treatments of a resident and when she finishes doing all the treatments for the resident. She then confirmed that not performing hand hygiene between the treatments could lead to cross contamination and could have resulted in increased risk for infections and may cause wounds to worsen or cause a systemic infection. During an interview with the Infection Control (IC) nurse on 2/27/24 at 3:00 PM, revealed she has watched the RN treatment nurse do treatments in the past and she did break infection control barriers and was educated. She revealed she had noticed the increase in the number of wound infections and had done three one on one check offs with the treatment nurse related to wound care but did not have documentation and revealed she had reported to the Administrator and DON on Friday of her concerns with the treatment nurse but was unaware of the finding of what they did. She verbalized that these residents are vulnerable and more susceptible to infection and confirmed failing to perform hand hygiene during treatments and between different treatments increased the risk for infections and could have been a factor in the increase in wound infections. On 2/27/24 at 4:00 PM an interview with the Administrator and Director of Nurse (DON) revealed that they were aware that the treatment nurse was having problems with time management but was unaware of her having any infection control issues. The Administrator also revealed they have met with the RN treatment nurse on several occasions about her understanding of her role and time management and had reached out to HR (Human Resource) on Monday 2/26/24 about beginning a 30-day performance program of action to see improvement. The DON confirmed that failing to perform hand hygiene between treatments and during wound care places the residents at risk for increased infection. During an interview with LPN #1 on 2/28/24 at 8:49 AM, revealed that she was unaware that she should have performed one treatment at a time and performed hand hygiene in between cleaning the wounds and applying the clean wound supplies but confirmed she can see where that would be cross contamination and lead to increased risk for infection. She confirmed she did not perform hand hygiene while doing wound care to Resident #34's wounds. During a phone interview with the Medical Director on 2/28/24 at 9:34 AM confirmed that poor infection control practices could lead to wound infections. Record review of the Face Sheet revealed that the facility admitted Resident #34 to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of Atherosclerotic heart disease of native coronary artery. Resident #42 During an observation on 2/27/24 at 1:26 PM revealed Registered Nurse (RN)-Wound Care Nurse, LPN) #2 and Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) #1 with Resident #42 for wound care. The RN-Wound Care Nurse removed the Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) tube dressing that revealed a yellow drainage around the site. She then cleaned the area, removed her gloves, and did not perform hand hygiene. She applied a new PEG dressing and did not perform hand hygiene before or after applying the new dressing. She then applied new gloves and cleaned the supra pubic catheter. RN-Wound Care Nurse then pulled the residents draw sheet back that revealed bowel movement (BM) on the bed pad, draw sheet, and up the residents back and legs. She removed the residents brief which revealed the resident's buttocks were covered in BM. The RN -Wound Care Nurse removed the coccyx wound dressing and the lower buttock wound dressing which revealed there was BM under the dressings and in the wounds. She cleaned the BM with a washcloth and warm water. She did not use any soap to clean the BM. She removed her gloves but did not perform hand hygiene. After applying new gloves, she cleaned the coccyx wound and changed her gloves did not perform hand hygiene and proceeded to apply the dressing to the coccyx wound. She then rolled the BM soiled brief under the wound and held the pad in place while LPN #2 handed RN-Wound Care Nurse the tape for the dressing. She then taped down the dressing, removed the soiled brief and put it in a biohazard bag, and applied two more pieces of tape to the coccyx wound dressing all while wearing the same gloves. She removed her gloves and did not perform hand hygiene. She then picked up new gloves then laid them back inside the box with multiple clean gloves. She washed her hands then applied those same gloves that she had previously picked up and laid down prior to washing her hands. She cleaned the lower left buttock wound and removed her gloves but did not perform hand hygiene and helped apply a new brief. She then applied new gloves and cleaned the right shin pressure wound. She removed her gloves, washed her hands, picked up a 4x4 off the top of the protected barrier table with wound treatment supplies and dried her hands with it. During an interview on 2/27/24 at 2:50 PM with LPN #2 confirmed that RN-Wound Care Nurse did not wash her hands when she changed her gloves and should have. She confirmed that was a break in infection control and could have led to the spread of infections. During an interview with RN-Wound Care Nurse on 2/27/24 at 3:40 PM confirmed that she did not follow infection control when she was providing wound care for Resident #42 because she did not wash her hands after changing gloves from a dirty procedure, which could cause a spread of infection or cross contamination leading to a wound infection. Record review of Resident #42's Final Report for the residents wound culture from the Coccyx wound with a final result date of 11/17/23. This culture revealed a result of Acinetobacter baumannli, Bacteroides fragilis, Escherichia coli, Morganella morganii, Proteus mirabilli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Clostridium perfringens, Enterococcus faecalis with an order to start Levaquin 500 mg 1 tab via PEG tube daily for 14 days (Start 11/27-Stop 12/10) Record review of Resident #42's Infection Report-Basic dated 11/27/23 revealed the resident had a wound infection that indicated Infection Source: It is likely infection developed in the facility. Record review of Resident #42's Face Sheet revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with medical diagnoses that included Unspecified Sequelae of Cerebral Infarction. Record review of Resident #42's Minimum Data Set with an Assessment Reference Date of 1/22/24 revealed in Section C a Brief Interview for Mental Status with no score, which indicates the resident is severely cognitively impaired and in Section M that the resident had one or more unhealed pressure ulcers at Stage 1 or higher.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

MDS Data Transmission (Tag F0640)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview, record review and facility policy review the facility failed to complete and submit a Discharge Minimu...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview, record review and facility policy review the facility failed to complete and submit a Discharge Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment timely in accordance with the current federal and state submission timeframes for one (1) of 18 resident's MDS assessments reviewed. Resident #28 Findings include: Record review of the facility policy Resident Assessments, revised [DATE], revealed, Policy Interpretation and Implementation, 1. The resident assessment coordinator is responsible for ensuring that the interdisciplinary team conducts timely and appropriate resident assessment and reviews according to the following requirements . (5) Discharge Assessment-Conducted when a resident is discharged from the facility. Record review of Resident # 28's Face Sheet revealed the facility admitted the resident on [DATE], with a diagnosis of Benign prostatic hyperplasia. Resident #28 was discharged on [DATE] due to death in the facility. During an interview with the MDS nurse on [DATE] at 8:40 AM, she revealed that she is responsible for scheduling all assessments. She verified that she was aware that Resident #28 died in the facility on [DATE] and his assessment was on her schedule. She verified that no discharge tracking MDS was completed for Resident #28 and did not know why she missed it. The MDS Nurse agreed the importance of completing the discharge tracking assessment was to report residents' status. In an interview with Administrator on [DATE] at 8:47 AM, she verified that it was her expectation that the discharge tracking MDS would be completed in a timely manner.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on staff interview, record review, and facility policy review the facility failed ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) accurately reflects the resident's status when the Discharge MDS was inaccurat...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interview, record review, and facility policy review the facility failed ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) accurately reflects the resident's status when the Discharge MDS was inaccurately coded for (1) one of 18 MDS assessments reviewed. (Resident #62) Findings include: Record review of the facility policy Resident Assessments, revised November 2019, revealed Policy Interpretation and Implementation, 1. The resident assessment coordinator is responsible for ensuring that the interdisciplinary team conducts timely and appropriate resident assessments . A review of the Departmental notes for Resident #62 dated 12/21/23 revealed the resident was discharged home at her request. Review of Resident #62's Discharge MDS with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) date of 12/21/23 revealed Section A Item A2105 Discharge status was coded as the resident was discharged to a short term general hospital. An interview with Registered Nurse (RN) MDS Nurse on 02/28/24 at 11:14 AM, she revealed that Resident #62 was discharged home not to the hospital and confirmed the Discharge MDS was inaccurately coded and stated the purpose of the accurate coding is to identify where the resident is and for billing purposes. Review of Resident #62's Face sheet revealed the facility admitted the resident on 8/02/24 with medical diagnoses that included Cerebral Infarction and discharged the resident on 12/21/23.
Dec 2022 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0604 (Tag F0604)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, staff and resident interviews, facility policy review and record review, the facility failed to keep resi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, staff and resident interviews, facility policy review and record review, the facility failed to keep residents free from physical restraints for one (1) of 20 residents reviewed during the survey. Resident #2 Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Restraints - Definitions, dated 12/1/14, revealed: 1. Physical restraints Any manual method or physical or mechanical device material or equipment attached or adjacent to the resident's body that the resident cannot remove easily which restricts freedom of movement for normal access to one's body. 2. Side Rails a. Side rail use is addressed in the same manner as any other restraint. b. side rails used as an enabler must be supported by documentation. c. The use of side rails as restraints is prohibited unless they are necessary to treat a resident's medical symptoms. d. Residents who attempt to exit a bed through between over or around side rails are at risk of injury or death. e. The potential for serious injury is more likely from a fall from a bed with raised side rails than from a fall from a bed where side rails are not used. f. If the resident is immobile and cannot voluntarily get out of bed due to a physical limitation, the bed rails do not meet the definition of a restraint. g. The same device may have the effect of restraining one individual but not another, depending on the individual resident's condition and circumstances. For example, partial rails may assist one resident to enter and exit the bed independently while acting as a restraint for another. h. Full side rails may be one or more rails along both sides of the residence bed that block 3/4 to the whole length of the mattress from top to bottom including: beds with one side placed against the wall (prohibiting the resident from entering and exiting on that side) and the other side blocked by a full rail (one or more rails) j. Side Rails Used a Positioning Devices - if the side rail has the effect of restraining the resident and makes the definition of a physical restraint for that individual, the facility is responsible to assess the appropriateness of that restraint. k. Side Rails Used with Residents Who Are Immobile i. if the resident is immobile and cannot voluntarily get out of bed due to physical limitation and not due to a restraining device or because proper assistive devices were not present, the bed rails do not make the definition of a restraint. ii. For residents who have no voluntary movement, the staff needs to determine if there is any appropriate use of bed rail. An observation, on 12/05/22 at 03:42 PM and 12/07/22 at 10:15 AM revealed Resident #2 in bed with two (2) full length rails up on each side of the bed. An observation and interview, on 12/07/22 on 12:20 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON) concerning Resident #2, revealed that the 2 full length side rails should be considered a restraint. An interview on 12/8/22 at 11:20 AM, with Resident #2 revealed that she was glad the rails were off (the side rails were removed after the surveyor brought the side rails to the attention of the administration). She stated they took up all her room in the bed and she would bump her legs on them sometimes. Resident #2 stated that now she could sit up by herself. Review of the physician orders dated 1/20/22 revealed Resident #2 may use side rails for mobility and to aid in turning and repositioning. The order did not give instructions to how many side rails, or if they should be full length or half length. Record review of the side rail assessment dated [DATE] revealed the reason side rails are being utilized is to increase bed mobility and allow Resident #2 to shift his/her weight. The number of rails indicated for use is 2. The length of side rails did not indicate if the side rails should be full length or half and they were not documented as a restraint. Record review of Resident #2's Face Sheet revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that include Chronic Congestive Heart Failure, Rheumatoid Arthritis, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. Record review of Resident #2's Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 11/14/22 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12 which indicated Resident #2 was moderately impaired. An interview, on 12/7/22 at 3:00 PM with the Director of Nurse (DON) revealed she did not realize they had so many beds with full rails up. She stated that they are working now on getting rails changed throughout the facility. An interview with the Administrator on 12/8/22 at 9:15 AM revealed that he understands the regulation but, in his mind they had considered the side rails as safety for the residents. He stated there had been no injuries related to side rail use. An interview, on 12/8/22 at 10:50 AM with the Care Plan Coordinator revealed she does side rail assessments on residents and did not document the side rails as restraint. She stated that she goes to the room and does a complete assessment. She stated that she did not feel like she had seen a resident who did not not need their side rail, full or otherwise.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0638 (Tag F0638)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to complete a Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, within 120 days, for 1 of 20 residents reviewed in ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to complete a Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, within 120 days, for 1 of 20 residents reviewed in the sample for MDS Assessments. Resident #38 FACILITY Resident Assessment Review of the facility policy titled, Resident Assessments, revised November 2019, revealed Policy Statement, A comprehensive assessment of every resident's needs is made at intervals designated by OBRA and PPS requirements. 2. Quarterly Assessment - Conducted not less frequently than three (3) months following the most recent OBRA assessment of any type. An interview on 12/07/22 at 01:30 PM with the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Nurse revealed she neglected to open the Quarterly MDS Assessment for the Assessment Reference Date (ARD) 10/18/22 for Resident #38. She revealed she had Resident #38's name written in on the MDS calendar, on 10/18/22, to remind her to open the Quarterly MDS Assessment for completion. She also revealed there was documentation entered in the Departmental Notes in the electronic health record (EHR), by facility staff members, for the Quarterly MDS Assessment for 10/18/22, and it was discussed in the care plan meeting. She noted it was her fault the Quarterly MDS Assessment for Resident #38 was not submitted, in the 120 day time frame, and the Quarterly MDS Assessment should have been completed. She revealed no other staff had knowledge of how to open a MDS Assessment. An interview on 12/7/22 at 01:40 PM with the Administrator confirmed the Quarterly MDS Assessment should have been completed for Resident #38, that it was missed by the MDS Nurse, and other staff did not report they had not completed their section, of the Quarterly MDS Assessment, because it was not opened. He revealed the Quarterly MDS Assessment should have been completed and submitted, for Resident #38, to ensure monitoring was being done of care indicators, to assist in monitoring for possible status changes, and to report the care being provided to Resident #38 at the nursing facility. He also revealed the Quarterly Assessment not being completed indicated the nursing facility was not following the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 (OBRA) Assessment Schedule. An interview on 12/7/22 at 02:05 PM with the Social Worker revealed he was not aware that the Quarterly MDS Assessment, with an ARD of 10/18/22, had not been opened by the MDS Nurse. He confirmed he had documented in the Departmental Notes on 10/19/22, but could not recall that he had not completed his sections of the Quarterly MDS Assessment for the ARD of 10/18/22. An interview on 12/7/22 at 02:15 PM with MDS Nurse revealed she did not look for the MDS Quarterly Assessments, with an ARD of 10/18/22, to conduct her care plan meeting, but she did confirm she had the care plan meeting, on 10/21/22, for the quarterly review relevant to the Quarterly MDS Assessment ARD of 10/18/22. Record review of the MDS Calendar revealed Resident #38's name written in on 10/18/22 to indicate her ARD, and a Q was written behind her name to indicate the assessment due was a quarterly assessment. Record review of the care plan Quarterly Review Dates sign-in sheet revealed a care plan meeting was conducted relevant to the Quarterly MDS Assessment with an ARD of 10/18/22, for Resident #38.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to implement care plans for the use of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to implement care plans for the use of side rails for one (1) of six (6) residents reviewed for side rails. Resident #17 Findings include: Review of the facility care plan policy with a revision date of December 2016, titled, Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered 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. The care plan interventions are derived from a thorough analysis of the information gathered as part of the comprehensive assessment. The comprehensive, person-centered care plan will reflect currently recognized standards of practice for problem areas and conditions. An observation, on 12/05/22 at 02:47 PM revealed Resident #17 in bed with all four side rails up. An observation, on 12/06/22 at 02:30 PM revealed Resident #17 in bed with all four side rails up. An observation, on 12/07/22 at 8:06 AM revealed Resident #17 in bed with all four (4) rails up. An interview, on 12/7/22 at 11:35 AM with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #1 revealed to her knowledge Resident #17 has always had four rails up. CNA #1 stated that they have care plans for the residents in a binder at the nurses desk and thinks Resident #17's plan is for four side rails. Record review of the comprehansive care plan for Resident #17 revealed a problem with an onset date of 4/25/17 related to the total assistance with all of the activities of daily living (ADL) due to severe impaired cognition as evidenced by a low brief interview for mental satus score and impaired mobility due to diagnosis of Left sided Hemiplegia following a Cerebrovascular Accident. Approaches that include: padded siderails x two (2) for secure self injury precautions and may have side rails to define perimeters per responsible party. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 11/7/22 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 00 which indicated Resident #17 had severe cognitive impairment. Review of the Face Sheet revealed Resident #17 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which include Hemiplegia following unspecified cerebrovascular disease, Aphasia, Major depressive disorder, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder. An interview, with the Administrator (ADM) on 12/8/22 at 10:00 AM revealed if the care plan called for two side rails and four side rails where up, obviously they were not following the care plan. On 12/08/22 at 10:15 AM, an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed care plans were not being followed for residents with four side rails up . On 12/8/22 at 10:50 AM an interview with the Care Plan Coordinator revealed she does side rail assessments on all residents. The care plan is developed based on the physician orders and every resident has an order for side rails. She stated that she did not feel like she had seen a resident who did not not need their side rail, full or otherwise.
Jun 2019 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, staff interview, facility policy review, and record review, the facility failed to implement the care plan related to providing a gauze roll into the resident's hand to help prev...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, facility policy review, and record review, the facility failed to implement the care plan related to providing a gauze roll into the resident's hand to help prevent contractures for one (1) of 18 resident care plans reviewed, Resident #20. Findings include: Review of the facility's Comprehensive Care Plan policy, dated 9/2/15, revealed: Care, treatment and services shall be planned to ensure that they are individualized to the resident's needs. Record review of Resident #20's comprehensive care plan with a problem dated 1/19/17, revealed a risk for further skin breakdown, due to history of pressure ulcers to right hip, left hip, coccyx, and to right hand. An intervention listed for nursing treatment revealed to apply rolled guaze to the right hand daily for preventative measures. On 06/17/19 at 10:56 AM, an observation of Resident #20, sitting in his wheelchair in his room, revealed the resident with bilateral hand contractures with no hand rolls. On 06/17/19 at 02:45 PM, an observation of Resident #20, sitting in his wheelchair at the nurses station, revealed no hand rolls in either hand. On 06/18/19 at 10:33 AM, an observation of Resident #20, up in his wheelchair at the nurses station, revealed no hand rolls in the right or left hand. On 06/18/19 at 04:06 PM, an observation of Resident #20, in his room in his bed, revealed no hand roll in the right or left hand. On 06/18/19 at 04:04 PM, an interview with the Occupational Therapist (OT) revealed she understood that nursing was placing a gauze roll in the hands of Resident #20 bilateral to prevent further contractures. On 06/18/19 at 04:12 PM, an interview with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #1 revealed she was assigned to Resident #20 and she had not seen anything in Resident #20's hand on that day. CNA #1 revealed she thinks Therapy may be working with Resident #20. On 06/18/19 at 04:25 PM, an interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 revealed she was the medication nurse for Resident #20 and had worked in this position for eight (8) months. LPN #1 stated I can't say that I have ever seen a gauze roll in (Resident #20's) hand. On 06/18/19 at 04:35 PM, an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed an order for Resident #20, which instructed nursing to apply a gauze roll to the right hand daily for preventive measures, and the gauze should have been in Resident #20's right hand. The DON confirmed the gauze roll was not in Resident #20's right hand. On 06/19/19 at 11:45 PM, an interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #2 revealed she is the Treatment Nurse and responsible for placing the gauze in Resident #20's right hand. LPN #2 revealed she did not know why the gauze roll was not in Resident #20's hand unless it just fell out. LPN #2 revealed she does not check during the day to see if the gauze has fallen out. On 06/19/19 at 01:45 PM, an interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)/Minimum Data Set Nurse revealed she was responsible for developing the comprehensive care plans related to nursing problems and their interventions. The MDS/LPN confirmed the care plan for Resident #20 included an intervention to apply rolled gauze to right hand daily for preventative measures and should have been followed by nursing.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0688 (Tag F0688)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, staff interview, facility policy, and record review, the facility failed to provide services and care of splinting, with a hand roll, to maintain or prevent the resident's declin...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, facility policy, and record review, the facility failed to provide services and care of splinting, with a hand roll, to maintain or prevent the resident's decline in range of motion for one (1) of two (2) residents investigated for range of motion, Resident #2. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Splinting, not dated, revealed splinting is used to protect joints and surrounding soft tissues. This can be accomplished by maintaining joints at position of rest, preventing positions that contribute to contracture and/or deformity, protecting the system of arches within the hands and feet and increasing or maintaining range of motion (ROM) in the joint. Review of Resident #20's June 2019 orders revealed an order dated 12/17/18, to apply rolled gauze to the right hand daily for preventive measures. Observations on 06/17/19 at 10:56 AM and 2:45 PM, 6/18/19 at 10:33 AM and 4:06 PM revealed Resident #20 without any type of hand roll in his hands, which had bilateral contractures. During an interview on 06/18/19 at 4:04 PM, the Occupational Therapist (OT) revealed she understood nursing was placing a gauze roll in the hands of Resident #20 bilateral to prevent further contractures. An interview on 06/18/19 at 04:12 PM, with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #1 revealed she was assigned to Resident #20 and gauze had not been in his hands. CNA #1 stated she thinks Therapy may be working with Resident #20. An interview on 06/18/19 at 4:25 PM, with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 revealed she was the Medication Nurse for Resident #20 and had worked in this position for eight (8) months. LPN #1 stated she couldn't say she'd ever seen a gauze roll in Resident #20's hand. An interview and observation on 06/18/19 at 4:35 PM, with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed an order for Resident #20, which instructed nursing to apply a gauze roll to the right hand daily for preventive measures and the gauze should have been in Resident #20's right hand. The DON confirmed the gauze roll was not the in Resident #20's right hand. An interview on 06/19/19 at 11:45 PM, with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #2 revealed she is the Treatment Nurse and responsible for placing the gauze in Resident #20's right hand. LPN #2 revealed she did not know why the gauze was not in Resident #20's hand on 6/17/19 and 6/18/19 unless it fell out. LPN #2 revealed she does not check during the day to see if the gauze has fallen out. Record review of Occupational Therapy quarterly screen notes, dated 4/4/19, revealed, under section of equipment comments, that nursing is providing the patient with rolled gauze in bilateral hands to decrease risk of further contracture and skin breakdown.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Mississippi facilities.
  • • 42% turnover. Below Mississippi's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • 9 deficiencies on record, including 2 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 60/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Walter B Crook Nursing Facility's CMS Rating?

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

How is Walter B Crook Nursing Facility Staffed?

CMS rates WALTER B CROOK NURSING FACILITY's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 42%, compared to the Mississippi average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Walter B Crook Nursing Facility?

State health inspectors documented 9 deficiencies at WALTER B CROOK NURSING FACILITY during 2019 to 2024. These included: 2 that caused actual resident harm, 5 with potential for harm, and 2 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Walter B Crook Nursing Facility?

WALTER B CROOK NURSING FACILITY is owned by a government entity. Government-operated facilities are typically run by state, county, or municipal agencies. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 60 certified beds and approximately 53 residents (about 88% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in RULEVILLE, Mississippi.

How Does Walter B Crook Nursing Facility Compare to Other Mississippi Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Mississippi, WALTER B CROOK NURSING FACILITY's overall rating (3 stars) is above the state average of 2.6, staff turnover (42%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Walter B Crook Nursing Facility?

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

Is Walter B Crook Nursing Facility Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, WALTER B CROOK NURSING FACILITY has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 3-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Mississippi. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at Walter B Crook Nursing Facility Stick Around?

WALTER B CROOK NURSING FACILITY has a staff turnover rate of 42%, which is about average for Mississippi nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Walter B Crook Nursing Facility Ever Fined?

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

Is Walter B Crook Nursing Facility on Any Federal Watch List?

WALTER B CROOK NURSING FACILITY 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.