Ontario Center for Rehabilitation and Healthcare

3062 County Complex Drive, Canandaigua, NY 14424 (585) 396-4345
For profit - Limited Liability company 98 Beds CENTERS HEALTH CARE Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
0/100
#546 of 594 in NY
Last Inspection: January 2025

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

Overview

Ontario Center for Rehabilitation and Healthcare has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns and a poor reputation. Ranking #546 out of 594 facilities in New York places them in the bottom half of all state nursing homes, and they are the lowest-ranked facility in Ontario County. The situation is worsening, with reported issues increasing from 4 in 2024 to 15 in 2025. Staffing is a particular weakness, with a troubling turnover rate of 77%, far exceeding the state average, which raises concerns about continuity of care. Additionally, the facility has incurred $117,878 in fines, higher than 97% of New York facilities, reflecting ongoing compliance problems. Specific incidents highlight serious care deficiencies, including a resident waiting over 21 hours for incontinence care and multiple residents going weeks without showers or timely assistance. Also, residents were not treated with dignity, with some experiencing spillage from their urinals due to lack of timely help. While there is an average level of RN coverage, the overall trend points to increasing issues that families should carefully consider when researching this facility.

Trust Score
F
0/100
In New York
#546/594
Bottom 9%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
4 → 15 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
77% turnover. Very high, 29 points above average. Constant new faces learning your loved one's needs.
Penalties
○ Average
$117,878 in fines. Higher than 61% of New York facilities. Some compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 31 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for New York. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
36 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 4 issues
2025: 15 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below New York average (3.0)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 77%

31pts above New York avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $117,878

Well above median ($33,413)

Significant penalties indicating serious issues

Chain: CENTERS HEALTH CARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is very high (77%)

29 points above New York average of 48%

The Ugly 36 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening 2 actual harm
Jan 2025 15 deficiencies 1 IJ (1 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL (K) 📢 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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record reviews conducted during the extended Recertification Survey and complaint investig...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record reviews conducted during the extended Recertification Survey and complaint investigations (#NY00349354, #NY00357725, #NY00362904) from 01/21/2025 to 01/31/2025, the facility failed to ensure residents' right to be free from abuse, mistreatment or neglect for six (6)(Residents #8, #48, #65, #73, #76 and #350) of eight (8) residents reviewed for abuse and neglect. Specifically, Resident #8 and Resident #48 did not receive timely incontinence care. Resident #65 did not receive wound care as ordered by the physician for multiple days and was not assisted with toileting or incontinence care for approximately six hours. Resident #73 was left sitting in their wheelchair in their room for approximately 14 hours without incontinence care despite multiple attempts to alert staff via call light and telephone calls to the nurse's station. Resident #76 waited approximately 21 hours for incontinence care to be provided and wet linens changed. Resident #350 did not receive wound care as ordered by the physician for multiple days. In addition, multiple grievances were filed by the residents related to these issues that were not followed up on by the Administration team. These issues resulted in the likelihood of serious injury, serious harm or death for all 95 residents in the facility, which resulted in Immediate Jeopardy. This is evidenced by the following: 1. Resident #350 had diagnoses that included diabetes (a chronic disease that affects how the body uses sugar for energy), peripheral vascular disease (a condition where arteries and/or veins become narrowed or blocked, reducing blood flow to the limbs), and chronic venous ulcers (wounds caused by reduced blood flow in the limbs). The Minimum Data Set Resident assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #350 was cognitively intact and had seven (7) venous and/or arterial ulcers (wounds). The Comprehensive Care Plan dated 01/08/2025 included Resident #350 had venous wounds to both legs and to apply treatments per physician orders. Review of the physician orders dated 01/09/2025 revealed 12 different wounds on the resident's left and right lower extremities that required daily dressing changes. The dressing changes included cleansing and drying the wounds and applying different wound treatments (including a wound treatment often used for heavily draining/infected wounds to two of the areas) and dressings to all wounds. During an observation on 01/21/2025 at 10:54 AM, Resident #350 had both legs wrapped in gauze dressings that were undated and heavily soiled with serosanguinous (clear blood-tinged fluid) drainage that had soaked through both dressings, the right sock, and the top and bottom sheets on the bed. In an immediate interview, Resident #350 stated they were supposed to receive dressing changes daily, but it had been several days since they were last changed. As a result of that, their rehabilitation sessions were cut short, and they were unable to attend due to too much drainage from the dressings. Resident #350 said they recently had to wait five hours after their shower with no dressings on any of the wounds because the nurse had been too busy to put the dressings on their legs. Review of Resident #350's Treatment Administration Records dated 01/09/2025 to 01/20/2024 revealed no documented evidence that the resident's dressing changes to both legs were completed on 01/10/2025, 01/12/2025, 01/14/2025, 01/18/2025, 01/19/2025 and 01/20/2025. During an interview on 01/24/2025 at 11:26 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse #2 stated wound dressings should be completed per physician orders, and if missed they should be passed on to the next shift. They stated there are not enough staff to ensure all ordered treatments are completed and they have told the Director of Nursing and Administrator that they are unable to complete all treatments as ordered. During an observation on 01/25/2025 at 1:22 PM Resident #350's dressings to the right and left legs were undated with dried serosanguinous drainage through the outside of the dressing. During an interview on 01/25/2025 at 1:58 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #2 stated they had not been able to change Resident #350's dressings that day because they were short staffed, and they did not have enough time. 2. Resident #65 had diagnoses that included a right femur fracture (break in the thigh bone on the right side of the body), Parkinson's disease (neurodegenerative disorder that affects movement, balance, and coordination), and malnutrition (lack of sufficient nutrients in the body). The Minimum Data Set Resident assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #65 was cognitively intact, incontinent of bladder and bowel, and required assistance from staff for transfers and toileting. The resident's Comprehensive Care Plan initiated 12/24/2024 documented Resident #65 had an active skin impairment to the right shin and right thigh and for staff to apply treatments as ordered. Resident #65's [NAME] dated 01/23/2024 documented to check (for incontinence) and change (as needed) every two (2) to four (4) hours and to assist the resident with toileting as needed. Review of physician orders dated 01/03/2025 revealed daily wound care to the right thigh that included cleansing, applying a prescribed wound treatment, and a cover dressing. Review of the resident's Treatment Administration Record dated 01/03/2025 to 01/20/2025 revealed no documented evidence that the right thigh dressing had been changed on 11 of 18 days reviewed with the last date signed off as completed being 01/15/2025 (six days prior). During an observation and interview on 01/21/2025 at 10:27 AM, Resident #65 had an adhesive foam dressing on the inner right thigh dated 1/15. In an immediate interview Resident #65 stated they do not know how often the dressing was supposed to be changed. During an observation on 01/25/2025 at 1:20 PM, Resident #65 was sitting in bed naked with a saturated brief hanging around their knees. There was a strong smell of urine in the room and the resident's thigh dressing was dated 1/23. During an interview on 01/25/2025 at 1:33 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant #4 stated that Resident #65 was on their assignment, and they had changed their incontinence brief last at 7:30 AM (approximately six (6) hours ago). Certified Nursing Assistant #4 stated Resident #65 told them they needed help to go to the bathroom around lunch (12:30 PM) but sometimes the resident took themselves, so they did not assist the resident. During an interview on 01/25/2025 at 1:58 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #2 stated that they were not sure if Resident #65 had wound treatments ordered, and they had not yet completed all ordered treatments on their assignment due to short staffing. 3. Resident #48 had diagnoses that included a stroke (blood flow to the brain is interrupted), hemiplegia (paralysis on one side of the body) and diabetes. The Minimum Data Set Resident assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #48 was cognitively intact, was always incontinent of urine and stool, and was dependent on staff for toileting. The Comprehensive Care Plan dated 01/14/2025 and the current [NAME] (care plan used by the Certified Nursing Assistant for daily care needs) dated 01/23/2025 included the resident required a check (for incontinence) and change (as needed) and/or toileting assist every two (2) to four (4) hours. During an observation and interview 01/23/2025 at 12:45 PM, Resident #48's family came to the nursing station and reported to nursing staff Resident #48 was soaking wet and had not received incontinence care for hours. In an immediate interview, Resident #48 stated no one had cleaned them up since breakfast (approximately five hours ago) and they were soaked through. Resident #48's brief was visibly saturated; their gown was wet with multiple dried brown stains on it and there was a strong smell of urine present. During an interview on 01/23/2025 at 12:57 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant #4 stated they had not provided incontinence care to Resident #48 since their first rounds (approximately five hours ago). Certified Nursing Assistant #4 stated residents should be checked and changed for incontinence every two hours. but Resident #48 can call when they need to be changed; they had not called, so Certified Nursing Assistant #4 did not go in their room to check. During an observation and interview on 01/24/2025 at 9:10 AM, Resident #48 stated they had not received incontinence care since last night at 8:00 PM (approximately 13 hours ago). They had put their call bell on this morning and the certified nursing assistant that answered turned the call bell off and had not come back to assist them. Resident #48's incontinence brief, gown, and incontinence pad were saturated and there was a strong odor of urine present. During an interview on 01/24/2025 at 9:13 AM, Certified Nursing Assistant #5 stated Resident #48 was soaked through their incontinence brief, pad, and gown with urine, but they had not changed the resident yet because they were short staffed. They stated nursing leadership and administration knew they needed more help. During an interview on 01/24/2025 at 11:26 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse #2 stated checking and changing for incontinence should happen every two to four hours and as needed if someone was wet. There are not enough staff on the floor to take care of all the residents and they have told the Director of Nursing and Administrator multiple times about their concerns that residents were not getting taken care of. During an interview on 01/24/2025 at 12:10 PM, Registered Nurse Manager #1 stated they were aware of concerns from residents that incontinence care was not being completed timely and wound care was not provided. Registered Nurse Manager #1 said their concerns have been shared with the Director of Nursing and the Administrator. 4. Resident #8 had diagnoses including morbid obesity, dementia, and a history of Extended Spectrum Beta Lactamase (ESBL) Resistance (infection resistant to antibiotics) in the urine. The Minimum Data Set Resident assessment dated [DATE] documented the resident had moderately impaired cognition and was frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder. Review of Resident #8's undated Comprehensive Care Plan revealed the resident was incontinent. Interventions included to check the resident every two (2) hours, assist with toileting as needed and to provide a bedpan/bedside commode. Review of Resident #8's current [NAME] revealed the resident required two staff assist for toileting, using a bed pan or urinal every two hours and offer to take the resident to the toilet at around the same time each day. During an observation and interview on 01/21/2025 at 11:51, AM Resident #8 was incontinent of stool and stated that they had been waiting since they woke up (approximately four hours prior) to be changed but had no response to their call light. At this time Resident #8's lunch tray was delivered and they requested to be changed before eating lunch. When checked Resident #8's call light was not working. In an interview on 01/23/2025 at 12:35 PM, Resident #8 stated staff never come to help, and they have to urinate on themselves sometimes when their urinal is full, or they have to dump it out the window. The resident's room had an overwhelming odor of urine. In a telephone call placed to the New York State Department of Health complaint line on 01/21/2025 at 5:01 PM, Resident #8 stated they had gone to the bathroom that morning and were still waiting to be cleaned up, as they were sitting there with stool all over them. Resident #8 reported sometimes they have to wait all night to get cleaned up and they are sick of it. They said they had to eat their lunch like this, and they (the facility) are not taking care of them and should know it is not nice to do this to a veteran. In an interview on 01/24/2025 at 12:24 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse Manager #1 stated Resident #8 can use a urinal, is sometimes incontinent of urine, and always incontinent of stool. Staff do the best they can, sometimes the Certified Nursing Assistants don't have time to empty urinals, and the nurses try to help. 5. Resident #73 had diagnoses that included a stroke with right-sided weakness, expressive aphasia (partial loss of the ability to speak), and left side below the knee amputation. The Minimum Data Set Resident Assessment, dated 10/14/2024, documented the resident had no behaviors, and was dependent on two (2) or more staff for transfers and toileting. A Social Work Assessment and Documentation Form dated 01/08/2025 documented the resident was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #73's current Comprehensive Care Plan revealed the resident required assistance with all activities of daily living for toileting, two (2) staff assistance with a mechanical lift for transfers, and frequent repositioning (initiated 10/31/2022). The care plan also included the resident was at risk for impaired skin integrity and pressure ulcer development with interventions to minimize extended exposure of skin to moisture by providing frequent incontinence care and prompt removal of wet/damp clothing and sheets; turn and reposition every two (2) to four (4) hours as needed (initiated 10/12/2022). During an observation and interview on 01/21/2025 at 3:12 PM, Resident #73 was sitting in their room in their wheelchair. There was no call light accessible. Resident #73 was unable to provide a full verbal interview but was able to nod yes and no when interviewed and was able to relay that when they do not have their call light nearby, they need their roommate to call for help for them. During an interview on 01/21/2025 at 3:24 PM, Resident #73's roommate (Resident #299), identified by the facility as alert and oriented, stated staff had gotten Resident #73 up at 10:00 AM on Sunday (two days prior) and they remained in their wheelchair until 1:00 AM Monday morning (15 hours later). Resident #299 stated they had used their call light and tried to reach the front desk multiple times to get help for Resident #73 but received no response. During an interview on 01/24/2025 at 3:06 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant #1 stated they put Resident #73 to bed on 01/20/2025 between 12:00 AM and 12:30 AM, due to short staffing. Certified Nursing Assistant #1 stated it is hard to check on residents every two (2) hours and to get help for a two-person assist when there are only two (2) or three (3) people on the whole floor (census 48). 6. Resident #76 had diagnoses that included bilateral below-the-knee amputations, history of deep vein thrombosis (blood clot), and anxiety. The Minimum Data Set Resident Assessment, dated 12/10/2024, documented the resident was cognitively intact and required moderate assistance with toileting . Review of Resident #76's current Comprehensive Care Plan, initiated 09/06/2023, revealed the resident required assistance of staff with all activities of daily living, and was at risk for pressure ulcers. Interventions included to minimize extended exposure of skin to moisture by providing frequent incontinence care and prompt removal of wet/damp clothing and sheets as needed; turn and reposition every two (2) to four (4) hours as needed. Review of Resident #76's [NAME] dated 01/30/2025 revealed to check the resident every two (2) to four (4) hours as tolerated during waking hours and assist with toileting as needed. During an interview on 01/21/2025 at 12:10 PM, Resident #76 stated they were concerned with not being changed on 01/19/2025 from 8:30 AM until 01/20/2025 at 5:30 AM (21 hours). The resident said they had been so soaked- their sheets were soiled and wet and they had put their call light on numerous times, but it was turned off by staff who stated they knew the resident needed assistance, but they were short staffed. Resident #76 stated they had to urinate and defecate several times in their brief; this was not the first time they had to wait long hours to be changed when soiled and they felt very neglected. During an interview on 01/24/2025 at 10:36 AM, Certified Nursing Assistant #3 stated that when they arrived to work on 01/20/2025 at 6:00 AM, Resident #76 was very soiled, and the resident and their roommate had stated they had not been changed at all during the night. Certified Nursing Assistant #3 stated sometimes there were only two (2) Certified Nursing Assistants on the third floor (census 48) for the 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM shift and it was hard to provide care timely, especially when residents required the assistance of two (2) staff. The facility was very understaffed and many of the residents required two staff for assistance. During an interview on 01/27/2025 at 11:05 AM, the Director of Nursing stated the assigned nurse is responsible for completing wound care as ordered. The nurse manager is responsible for completing audits to ensure treatments are being completed and following up with staff when they are not documented as complete. The Director of Nursing stated nurses should notify their Nurse Manager, the Assistant Director of Nursing, or Director of Nursing if wound care cannot be completed. The Director of Nursing said residents should be toileted or checked and changed per their care plan. They have received grievances related to lack of wound care, assistance with toileting, and incontinence care not being completed due to short staffing. The Director of Nursing said they and their Assistant Director of Nursing have assisted on the units to help when staff call in. They have terminated some staff and attempted to re-educate staff regarding these ongoing issues. During an interview on 01/27/2025 at 1:47 PM, the Administrator stated they had received grievances related to wound care, toileting assistance, and incontinence care not being provided. They stated the Director of Nursing should be following up on these concerns but was unsure if they had. During an interview on 01/31/2025 at 11:25 AM, the Medical Director stated not getting incontinence care, not answering call bells, and not helping with activities of daily living could be considered neglect. This could cause feelings of anxiousness, frustration, or being upset that could then affect residents mentally and psychologically and have a negative impact on their physical health. On 01/28/2025, the New York State Department of Health survey team identified and declared Immediate Jeopardy. The facility Administrator was notified at 4:56 PM. On 01/29/2025 at 4:30 PM, the New York State Department of Health survey team declared the Immediate Jeopardy was removed based on the following corrective actions taken by the facility: -A QAPI meeting was held on 1/28/2025 at 5:30 PM with all members present, to discuss Immediate Jeopardy issues. -100% of staff working the previous three (3) shifts, including staff on-site at the time of Immediate Jeopardy removal, received education on Abuse, Neglect, Mistreatment; Call Bells; Activities of Daily Living Care and Support; Grievances; Skin and Pressure Injury Prevention; and a newly implemented shift-to-shift report. -Interviews completed with multiple staff, including direct care staff and licensed nursing staff on two (2) of two (2) resident care units, revealed appropriate knowledge of the Abuse, Neglect and Mistreatment; call light response and accessibility; incontinence care; wound prevention and wound care; shift-to-shift report; and grievance process. -Observations of random call bells on two (2) of two (2) units revealed call bells in working order. Two (2) resident call bells on Unit 3 were not in reach of the resident. Observations of the two (2) rooms were made with Administration present. Both residents will be evaluated by therapy for ability to use call bell and call bell placement. -Approximately 30/40 total active nursing staff, including licensed nurses and Certified Nursing Assistants, were educated on Abuse, Neglect, and Mistreatment; call light response; Activities of Daily Living Care and Support; Grievances; Skin and Pressure Injury Prevention; and a newly implemented shift-to-shift report. -Five (5) per diem staff members and four (4) staff members who are on vacation and/or sick leave have been notified and will be educated prior to their next scheduled shift. -Four (4) of four (4) leadership staff, including Administrator, Director of Nursing, Assistant Director of Nursing and Director of Social Work, were educated on the grievance process. -A weekly on-call rotation for clinical leadership was implemented. -A full house skin sweep audit was completed, newly identified wounds had treatments ordered and were scheduled for wound rounds to be completed 01/29/2025. -Full house treatment completion audit conducted with no wound care treatments identified as missing or incomplete. -Full house call bell audit completed with three (3) call bells replaced. -Full house incontinence rounding completed with incontinence care provided as needed. -Audits to be continued each shift for wound treatment completion, call light accessibility and function, and incontinence care. 10 NYCRR 415.4 (b)(1)(i)
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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during the Extended Recertification Survey and complaint investig...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during the Extended Recertification Survey and complaint investigation (#NY00349354) from 01/21/2025 to 01/31/2025, for four (4) (Resident #8, #28, #48, and #350) of seven (7) residents reviewed, the facility failed to ensure residents were treated with respect, dignity, and care in a manner and in an environment that promoted maintenance or enhancement of quality of life. Specifically, Residents #8 and #350 did not receive timely emptying of their urinal (a device used to urinate in) resulting in spillage on the resident or having to empty the urinal out a window in order to use it. Resident #28 did not receive timely incontinence care and had not received a shower for four (4) weeks. Resident #48 was observed on multiple occasions with urine soaked through their incontinence brief, incontinence pad, and bed linens. This resulted in psychosocial harm to Resident #8, #28, and #48 that is not Immediate Jeopardy and no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not Immediate Jeopardy for Resident #350. This is evidenced by the following: 1. Resident #48 had diagnoses that included stroke (blood flow to the brain is interrupted), right sided hemiplegia (paralysis or weakness on one side of the body), and diabetes (too much sugar in the blood). The Minimum Data Set Resident Assessment (assessment tool) dated 10/30/2024 documented Resident #48 was cognitively intact, was always incontinent of urine and stool, and was dependent on staff for toileting. The Comprehensive Care Plan dated 01/14/2025 and the current [NAME] (care plan used by the Certified Nursing Assistant for daily care needs) documented the resident required a check (for incontinence) and change (change as needed) for incontinence and/or toileting assist every two (2) to four (4) hours. During an observation and interview 01/23/2025 at 12:45 PM Resident #48's family reported to nursing staff that Resident #48 was soaking wet and had not received incontinence care for hours. In an immediate interview Resident #48 stated no one had cleaned them up since breakfast (approximately five (5) hours ago) and they were soaked through. Resident #48's brief was saturated through; their gown was wet with multiple dried brown stains on it and there was a strong smell of urine present. Resident #48 stated it was dehumanizing to be left soiled for so long and it made them feel forgotten and unimportant. During an interview on 01/24/2025 at 12:10 PM Registered Nurse Manager #1 stated incontinence care and toileting should be provided every two (2) to four (4) hours, as needed, and upon request. Registered Nurse Manager #1 stated Resident #48 often complains about not getting incontinence care, but they are unsure if the complaints are valid or not. During a follow-up observation and interview on 01/27/2025 at 10:00 AM Resident #48 stated they had put their call bell on several times for assistance and staff turned it off without assisting them. Resident #48's gown, incontinence brief, incontinence pad, and linens were again visibly wet. In an immediate interview with Certified Nursing Assistant #6, they stated Resident #48 appeared to be soaked through and had gone a lot longer than two (2) hours without being changed. 2. Resident #28 had diagnoses including stroke, major depressive disorder, and diabetes. The Minimum Data Set Resident assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #28 was cognitively intact, required assistance from staff with showering, was dependent on staff for toileting hygiene, and was always incontinent of urine and stool. Review of the resident's Comprehensive Care Plan and Certified Nursing Assistant [NAME] both dated 04/23/2024 included to check and change for incontinence every two (2) to four (4) hours. During an observation and interview on 01/21/2025 at 11:08 AM Resident #28 stated they had been waiting approximately five (5) hours for incontinence care and that they had not received a shower or had their hair washed in four weeks. Resident #28 was itching their head during the interview and their hair appeared unwashed. During a follow up interview at 1:58 PM Resident #28 stated they received incontinence care at 12:30 PM (approximately six and a half hours after waking up) and had to eat lunch while soiled. During an observation and interview on 01/24/2025 at 11:37 AM, Resident #28's incontinence brief was visibly saturated with urine. During an immediate interview, Certified Nursing Assistant #9 stated Resident #28 was so soiled that they looked like they had been incontinent multiple times. Certified Nursing Assistant #9 stated Resident #28's shower day was Tuesday (three (3) days prior); however, showers were often not completed due to short staffing. During an interview on 01/30/2025 at 1:02 PM, Resident #28 stated they felt embarrassed to be soiled and to have to wait so long for someone to finally help them. 3. Resident #8 had diagnoses including morbid obesity, dementia, and a history of Extended Spectrum Beta Lactamase (ESBL) Resistance (infection resistant to antibiotics) in the urine. The Minimum Data Set Resident assessment dated [DATE] documented the resident had moderately impaired cognition and was frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder. Review of Resident #8's current [NAME] revealed the resident required two (2) staff assist for toileting, use of a bed pan or urinal every two (2) hours, and to offer to take the resident to the toilet at around same time each day. During an observation and interview on 01/21/25 11:51 AM, Resident #8 was incontinent of stool and stated that they had been waiting since they woke up (approximately four (4) hours prior) to be changed but had no response to their call light. In a telephone call to the New York State Department of Health complaint line on 01/21/2025 at 5:01 PM, Resident #8 stated they had gone to the bathroom (in their brief) that morning and were still waiting to be cleaned up, so they were sitting there with stool all over them. Resident #8 reported sometimes they have to wait all night to get cleaned up and they are sick of it. They said they had to eat their lunch like this (soiled) and they (the facility) are not taking care of them and should know it is not nice to do this to a veteran. In an interview on 01/23/25 at 12:35 PM, Resident #8 stated staff never come to help, and they sometimes have to urinate on themselves when their urinal is full or dump it out the window. The resident's room had an overwhelming odor of urine. In an interview on 01/24/2025 at 12:24 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse Manager #1 stated Resident #8 can use the urinal but is sometimes incontinent. Licensed Practical Nurse Manager #1 stated sometimes Certified Nursing Assistants do not have time to empty urinals. 4. Resident #350 had diagnoses that included diabetes, peripheral vascular disease (a condition where arteries and/or veins become narrowed or blocked, reducing blood flow to the limbs), and chronic venous ulcers (wounds caused by reduced blood flow in the limbs). The Minimum Data Set Resident assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #350 was cognitively intact, required assistance from staff for toileting and was frequently incontinent of urine. The Comprehensive Care Plan dated 01/08/2025 and Certified Nursing Assistant [NAME], effective as of 01/24/2025, included check resident every two (2) to four (4) hours for incontinence and assist with toileting as needed. During an interview on 01/21/2025 at 10:54 AM, Resident #350 stated their urinal is often not emptied and they cannot use it because it is full, or it spills on them. During an observation at this time, Resident #350's urinal was on the bedside table three quarters full. During an interview on 01/25/2025 at 1:22 PM, Resident #350 stated no one had emptied their urinal since this morning (approximately six (6) hours ago) and the urinal was getting too full to use without spilling. During an interview on 01/25/2025 at 1:33 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant #4 stated they emptied Resident #350's urinal at 7:30 AM, saw that it had urine in it around 9:00 AM and did not empty it at that time, but should have. Certified Nursing Assistant #4 stated urinals should be emptied during rounds every two (2) to four (4) hours. During an interview on 01/27/2025 at 11:19 AM, the Director of Nursing stated emptying urinals and performing incontinence care should be completed every two (2) to four (4) hours, as needed, and per request. If residents are not receiving timely incontinence care and are left soiled for extended periods or not getting their urinals emptied (which subsequently spill on them), it could have a negative psychological effect on the resident making them feel bad or dehumanized. During an interview on 01/31/2025 at 11:25 AM, the Medical Director stated not getting incontinence care, not answering call bells, and not helping with activities of daily living (emptying urinals) could be considered neglect. This could cause feeling of anxiousness, frustration, or being upset, which could affect them mentally and psychologically and negatively impact their physical health and delay recovery. 10 NYCRR 415.5 (a)
SERIOUS (H)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0725 (Tag F0725)

A resident was harmed · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during the Extended Recertification Survey from 01/21/2025 to 01/31/2025, for two (Second Floor and Third Floor) of two resident units, t...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during the Extended Recertification Survey from 01/21/2025 to 01/31/2025, for two (Second Floor and Third Floor) of two resident units, the facility did not ensure sufficient staffing to provide nursing services to attain or maintain the highest practical physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for residents in the facility. Specifically, there were multiple observations of residents incontinent of bladder or bowel for extended periods of time, several residents who reported going weeks without showers and observed unkept with unclean hair. This resulted in psychosocial harm to Residents' #8, #28, #65, #73 and #76 that is not Immediate Jeopardy and is evidenced by the following: For additional information see the Centers for Medicare/Medicaid Services Form 2567: F600 Free from Abuse and Neglect, F677 Activities of Daily Care Provided for Dependent Residents, F585 Grievances, F550 Resident Rights/Exercise of Rights, F684 Quality of Life, and F686 Treatment/Services to Prevent/Heal Pressure Ulcers. Review of the Facility Assessment, revised 01/03/2025, revealed the facility was licensed for 98 beds with an average daily census of 94 residents. Resident care and services included, but were not limited to, assistance with daily living, bowel and bladder care, and monitoring of skin integrity. The facility's minimum staffing pattern listed five Certified Nursing Assistants total for day shift, four for evening shift and two for night shift. The minimum staffing pattern listed two Licensed Nurses (Registered Nurse and/or Licensed Practical Nurse) for day shift, one and a half for evening shift and one for night shift. The facility's staffing plan did not list a direct care staff (Certified Nursing Assistant) to resident ratio. During entrance conference on 01/21/2025 at 9:23 AM, with the Facility Administrator and Corporate Administrator, it was reported that the facility census was 95 residents. Observations and interviews on 01/21/2025 on the second-floor resident unit (census of 46) included: -At 9:18 AM, Registered Nurse Manager #1 said there were only two Certified Nursing Assistants on the unit because the facility had nine call ins for the shift. -At 10:25 AM, Resident #65 was in bed with several days of beard growth and stringy, greasy hair. Resident #65 stated showers were hit or miss and they had gone two to three weeks without a shower. Resident #65 stated no one had been in to help them yet that morning and they had last received care at 5:00 AM. Resident #65's brief was saturated and a strong odor of urine present. Resident #65 stated they knew when they needed to go to the bathroom but could not get help to the bathroom so they wore an incontinence brief and would have to wait to get cleaned up. -At 11:16 AM, Resident #350 said neither a nurse nor a Certified Nursing Assistant had come in to help them yet today, and therapy said they could not go to therapy because they were not ready. Resident #350 said there was not enough staff to help, and they have had to wait hours for care (assistance with incontinence care, dressing changes to their wounds and help with emptying their urinal). -At 12:04 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant #3 said when their day started there were only two Certified Nursing Assistants (on the unit), and they had not gotten to all residents yet (to provide care). -At 1:50 PM, Resident #88 said the facility was short-staffed all the time and there was a day shift last month where there was one Certified Nursing Assistant for the entire unit and on one day a few months ago they were unable to get out of bed all day due to not enough staff. Observations and interviews on 01/21/2025 on the third-floor resident unit (census of 49) included: -At 9:09 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse Manager #1 said there were three Certified Nursing Assistants for the day shift (due to call-ins). -At 11:01 AM, Resident #28 said they were last changed (provided incontinence care) at 4:00 AM and day staff had not been in yet to help the resident get up or provide incontinence care. Resident #28 said they were incontinent of both bowel and bladder. Resident #28 said there had been only one Certified Nursing Assistant on the night shift. Resident #28 said they were told there was not enough staff to give them a shower, and it had been four weeks since they had received one or had their hair washed. -At 11:51 AM, Resident #8 was visibly incontinent of stool and stated they had been waiting since they woke up (approximately four hours ago) to be changed but had no response to their call light. -At 3:12 PM, Resident #73 was sitting in their wheelchair and was unable to provide an interview. The resident's roommate (Resident #299) who was alert and oriented stated staff got Resident #73 up at 10:00 AM on Sunday (two days prior) and they remained in their wheelchair until 1:00 AM (15 hours later). When interviewed, Certified Nursing Assistant #1 stated they did put Resident #73 to bed Monday morning at approximately 12:00 AM and 12:30 AM and it was due to short staffing. During an interview on 01/22/2025 at 1:24 PM, Resident #76 stated they were concerned with not being changed on Sunday (01/19/2025) from 8:30 AM until Monday (01/20/2025) at 8:30 AM. Resident #76 stated they were so soaked their sheets were soiled and wet, and they had put their call light on numerous times, but it was turned off by staff, who stated they knew the resident needed assistance but they were short staffed. During an interview on 01/24/2025 at 10:36 AM, Certified Nursing Assistant #3 stated when they arrived to work on 01/20/2025 at 6:00 AM, five to six residents including Resident #76 were very soiled, and Resident #76 and their roommate (Resident #74) stated they had not been changed at all during the night. During a special Resident Council meeting on 01/22/2025 at 1:31 PM with five residents present, one resident said their grievances about poor staffing and long wait times for assistance had been ongoing for months. Review of the monthly Resident Council meeting minutes from July 2024 to December 2024 revealed residents voiced concerns related to long wait times (including call bells) during four of six meetings. Review of scheduled nurse staffing sheets for the two units for the past six months revealed multiple night shifts where there were two nurses (Registered Nurse and/or Licensed Practical Nurse and two Certified Nursing Assistants for the entire facility (average census of 94). Review of a staffing spreadsheet for the past three weeks revealed the following nurse staffing levels with an average daily census of 94: -On 01/05/2025, there was one Licensed Practical Nurse in the entire facility from 10:00 PM to 6:00 AM. The facility provided separate documentation that included the Director of Nursing worked on 01/05/2025, but did not include the hours worked. -On 01/10/2025, there was three Certified Nursing Assistants for the entire facility from 10:00 PM to 6:00 AM. -On 01/19/2020 evening shift there was two Licensed Practical Nurses and three Certified Nursing Assistants for the whole facility. -On 01/19/2025 and 01/20/2025 night shift there was one Licensed Practical Nurse and three Certified Nursing Assistants for the whole facility. -On 01/24/2025, there were four Certified Nursing Assistants documented as having worked on the second floor from 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM but the facility could not provide documented evidence (via timecards or punches) that two of the four Certified Nursing Assistants had worked from 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM. During an interview on 01/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, the Director of Human Resources stated when nursing staff call in (unable to work), they try to call more staff in, and notify the administrative team (Administrator, the Director of Nursing and the Assistant Director of Nursing) of call ins. The Director of Human Resources said it was a record call in day (01/21/2025) with two nurses and seven certified nursing assistants that called in (for the day shift). During an interview on 01/24/2025 at 9:59 AM, Certified Nursing Assistant #4 said normal staffing should be five or six Certified Nursing Assistants (each unit), but they usually had four or even two or three (today). Certified Nursing Assistant #4 said when they only had two to three Certified Nursing Assistants, it would take longer to get to all the residents, showers were not done, and they could only round (provide cares) on residents one or two times during the shift (when they should be rounding every two hours). Certified Nursing Assistant #4 stated residents told them they were not getting changed at night at all. Certified Nursing Assistant #4 said they have told their nurse and/or nurse manager that residents were not getting changed or showered and rounds not being done. During an interview on 01/24/2025 at 11:26 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse #2 said there was not enough staff and not enough help to ensure the residents got the care they needed. Licensed Practical Nurse #2 stated there was usually only two Certified Nursing Assistants on the floor to take care of almost 50 residents, and they cannot get everything done. Licensed Practical Nurse #2 said often wound dressings did not get done because there was only one nurse. Licensed Practical Nurse #2 stated they have spoked to Registered Nurse Manager #1, the Director of Nursing, and the Administrator about the issues but they did not feel they were being addressed and were told they (leadership) were working on it. During an interview on 01/24/2025 at 12:10 pm, Registered Nurse Manager #1 said there were ongoing issues with staffing, which included a lot of staff call-ins, staff just not showing up and newly hired staff not staying. Registered Nurse Manager #1 stated at times they only had one Licensed Practical Nurse on the unit or only two Certified Nursing Assistants for the unit on day shift causing less time spent on each resident's care. During an interview on 01/28/2025 at 3:26 PM, the Director of Human Resources stated when there are call-ins, they send group messages to all staff (not on the schedule that day), the Administrator, the Director of Nursing, the Assistant Director of Nursing, unit managers, and nursing supervisors. The Director of Human Resources stated the minimum nurse staffing levels were four Licensed Nurses and eight Certified Nursing Assistants for the building for day and evening shift and two Licensed Nurses and four Certified Nursing Assistants for night shift. The Director of Human Resources said they do use agency nursing staff that were hired as in-house employees by the corporation but were unsure if there were any other agencies in use. During an interview with the Administrator and the Corporate Administrator on 01/30/2025 at 5:44 PM, the Administrator said minimum nurse staffing levels were based on clinical acuity, which was determined by the Regional Director of Nursing, who would see what the residents' needs were in the building and adjust accordingly. The Administrator stated the minimum nurse staffing levels for the entire building (average census 95) consisted of two Licensed Nurses and five Certified Nursing Assistants for the day shift, one and a one-half Licensed Nurses and four Certified Nursing Assistants for the evening shift, and one Licensed Nurse and two Certified Nursing Assistants for the night shift. The Administrator said they like to have one Registered Nurse for at least eight hours daily and one always on call. During an interview on 01/31/2025 at 10:04 AM the Director of Nursing said they did not have enough staff and have asked the Administrator for more staff. In a follow-up interview at 1:19 PM, the Director of Nursing said five to six Certified Nursing Assistants and two to three Licensed Nurses during the day shift would be needed to provide resident care. The Director of Nursing stated they thought 90% of Certified Nursing Assistants and 65% of Licensed Nurses were employed by an agency affiliated with the organization. The Director of Nursing said they were not privy to if the facility used third party agencies for staffing. During a telephone interview on 01/31/2025 at 11:24 AM, the Medical Director stated they were notified by Administration two to three weeks prior that there was a shift where medications had not been given or were not given on time due to staffing. 10 NYCRR 415.13 (a)(1)(i-iii)
CONCERN (D)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during the Extended Recertification Survey from 01/21/2025 to 01/...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during the Extended Recertification Survey from 01/21/2025 to 01/31/2025 for one (Resident #65) of four residents reviewed, the facility did not ensure residents received the necessary care, treatment and services consistent with professional standards of practice to promote the healing of a pressure ulcer, prevent infection, and prevent new ulcers from developing (unless the individual's clinical condition demonstrates they were unavoidable). Specifically, Resident #65 who preferred to spend most of their time in bed, was not assisted with toileting, and was left incontinent of urine for multiple hours. Resident #65 developed a pressure ulcer to their right buttock and had not received treatments to the area for several days. This is evidenced by the following: The facility policy, Skin and Pressure Injury Prevention, dated 06/27/2024 included staff are to inspect the skin when performing or assisting with personal care or activities of daily living. Risk factors increasing a resident's susceptibility to develop or prevent pressure injury healing include, but are not limited to, exposure of skin to urinary and fecal incontinence, impaired or decreased functional ability, and nutrition or hydration concerns. Prevention measures included to change position frequently based on residents' individual needs, provide personal hygiene, and address causes of moisture if possible (incontinence). The facility policy, Wound Identification and Wound Rounds, dated 11/06/2023 included upon discovery of a newly identified skin impairment, the Registered Nurse should complete a skin assessment, including documentation of size, depth, stage if applicable and appearance of the skin impairment. The licensed nurse will notify the medical provider and obtain a treatment order. Resident #65 had diagnoses that included right leg fracture, Parkinson's disease, and malnutrition. The Minimum Data Set Resident assessment dated [DATE] included Resident #65 was cognitively intact, was incontinent of urine, required assistance from staff for transfers and toileting, was at risk for pressure ulcers, and had no pressure ulcers present. Review of the Comprehensive Care Plan, dated 01/25/2025, included Resident #65 was at risk for pressure ulcers related to immobility and incontinence and required assistance with toilet transfers and toileting hygiene. Interventions included to check for and assist with incontinence care every two to four hours, minimize extended skin exposure to moisture by providing frequent incontinence care, and to monitor, document, and report to the medical provider any changes in skin status. The current (undated) [NAME] (a daily care plan used by the certified nursing assistants to provide daily care) included Resident #65 had bladder incontinence, required the assistance of one staff for transfers and toileting, and to assist with toileting or incontinence care every two to four hours. Review of a Braden Scale Assessment (used to determine risk for pressure ulcers) dated 12/25/2024, revealed Resident #65 was at moderate risk for developing pressure ulcers. During an observation and interview on 01/25/2025 at 1:20 PM, Resident #65 was sitting in bed naked with a saturated brief around their knee and there was a strong smell of urine present. Resident #65 stated no one had assisted them with care today. During an interview and observation on 01/25/2025 at 1:33 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant #4 stated Resident #65 was on their assignment, and they had changed their incontinence brief last at 7:30 AM (approximately 6 hours ago). Certified Nursing Assistant #4 stated Resident #65 told them they needed help to go to the bathroom around lunch time (12:30 PM) but sometimes the resident took themselves, so they did not assist the resident. They stated they had not turned or repositioned the resident since assisting them with care earlier that morning. During an observation of incontinence care at this time, Certified Nursing Assistant #4 removed a foam dressing fromt the resident's buttocks area dated 01/23/2025 and was saturated with urine. The surrounding area was reddened and had an open wound measuring approximately one quarter inch by one quarter inch. During an interview on 01/25/2025 at 1:58 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #2 stated they did not know if the open wound on Resident #65 was new. Review of Resident #65's electronic health record from 01/01/2025 to 01/27/2025 revealed no documentation of a skin impairment or pressure ulcer to the right buttock and no wound treatment orders were in place. During an observation and interview on 01/28/2025 at 8:22 AM, the Assistant Director of Nursing assessed Resident #65. The incontinence brief was removed and there was no dressing covering the open wound on Resident #65's buttock. The surrounding area remained reddened wotj the wound edges macerated (the softening and breaking down of skin due to prolonged exposure to moisture). The wound was not measured. When interviewed at that time, the Assistant Director of Nursing stated the open wound looked like a stage two pressure ulcer and there was no documentation of the wound in Resident #65's medical record. The staff should have reported the new skin impairment, and the nurse should have documented a note in the electronic health record when it was discovered. The Assistant Director of Nursing stated Resident #65 was at high risk for pressure ulcers and being left in bed and not assisted with incontinence care or toileting needs could potentially cause a pressure ulcer to develop. During an interview on 01/31/2025 at 1:20 PM, the Director of Nursing stated any new skin impairment should be reported immediately to the registered nurse, assistant director of nursing, director of nursing, and medical provider so an assessment could be completed and wound treatment orders placed. Resident #65 was at high risk for pressure ulcer development and the pressure ulcer could have been prevented by timely addressing their incontinence and toileting needs. 10 NYCRR 415.12 (c)(1)
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during the Extended Recertification Survey from 01/21/2025 to 01/...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during the Extended Recertification Survey from 01/21/2025 to 01/31/2025, for two (Residents #20 and #351) of two residents reviewed, the facility did not provide appropriate treatment and care, based upon current standards of practice and the residents' comprehensive assessment and care plan to prevent urinary tract infections to the extent possible. Specifically, Resident #20 had a history of urinary tract infections and was observed with their indwelling urinary catheter drainage bag (including the drainage port and catheter tubing) lying uncovered (no barrier) on a soiled chair and above the level of the bladder. Resident #351's indwelling urinary catheter drainage bag was observed on the ground without a barrier and above the level of the bladder on multiple occasions. Additionally Resident #20 had a physician order for a urinalysis that was not obtained timely. This is evidenced by the following: The facility policy Catheter Guidelines; Urinary, revised 09/11/2023, included the following guidelines for indwelling urinary catheter management, infection prevention and control: urinary catheter use will adhere to the principles of dignity to include discrete use and privacy (for example, covering urinary catheter drainage bags), position urinary drainage bags below the level of the bladder and secure to avoid kinks and tubing obstruction, do not position catheter drainage bag touching the floor, and empty the urinary drainage bag as regularly and as frequently as necessary to avoid excess pulling on the catheter tubing. 1. Resident #20 had diagnoses that included urinary retention (unable to fully empty the bladder), benign prostatic hyperplasia (enlargement of the prostate), and chronic kidney disease. The Minimum Data Set Resident Assessment, dated 11/25/24, documented the resident had moderately impaired cognition, was dependent on staff for toileting hygiene, and had an indwelling catheter. Review of the current Comprehensive Care Plan and [NAME] (care plan used by the Certified Nursing Assistants for daily care) revealed Resident #20 had a suprapubic urinary catheter (catheter inserted directly into the bladder via the abdomen to drain urine-initiated 08/23/2023). Interventions included catheter care, maintain privacy bag, maintain urine collection bag below the level of the bladder, and report to medical signs and symptoms of urinary tract infection. In a medical progress note dated 12/26/2024 the Medical Director documented Resident #20 was seen for a follow up visit after a recent hospitalization for a urinary tract infection and had completed the antibiotics on 12/27/2024. Review of current physician orders included suprapubic catheter care every shift (ordered on 06/23/2024) and a urinalysis (test of the urine to rule out an infection) dated 01/27/2025. During observations on 01/21/2025 at 9:43 AM Resident #20's urinary collection bag was lying uncovered directly on a heavily soiled reclining chair and above the level of the bladder. At 11:57 AM the drainage bag remained above the level of the bladder and was full of urine to the maximum filled line as indicated on the bag. Review of Resident #20's electronic health record on 01/30/2025 revealed no results of the urinalysis (ordered 3 days prior). During an interview on 01/30/2025 at 11:21 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse Manger #1 stated they were unable to find the urinalysis results in the computer and would call the hospital. At 12:19 PM Licensed Practical Nurse Manager #1 stated the hospital had not received the urine sample for testing and at 1:15 PM Licensed Practical Nurse Manger #1 stated the test would have to be reordered. Licensed Practical Nurse Manger #1 stated an indwelling urinary catheter's drainage bag should be placed below the bladder and covered. During an interview on 01/31/2025 at 10:51 AM, Nurse Practitioner #2 stated a urinalysis should be completed within 24 hours and if not, there could be a delay in treatment. Nurse Practitioner #2 stated Resident #20's urinalysis order had never been collected and that Resident #20 had history of urine infections and they wanted the urinalysis because they felt the resident had an infection brewing. During an interview on 01/31/2025 at 11:01 AM, the Registered Nurse Manger #1 stated that orders pending confirmation could be removed by any nurse including a urinalysis order, all nurses should be checking to see what orders were pending and nurse mangers were responsible to check for pending orders before they left for the day. If a urinalysis was ordered, the expected turnaround time should be within 24 hours (confirmed and obtained). If the order was not confirmed and the urinalysis not obtained, it could cause a potential infection to get worse and lead to a delay in treatment. 2.Resident #351 had diagnoses that included neurogenic bladder (impaired bladder function due to damaged nerves), a leg fracture and depression. The Minimum Data Set Resident assessment dated [DATE] included Resident #351 had severe cognitive impairment, had an indwelling urinary catheter, and had a urinary tract infection in the last 30 days. Review of Resident #351's Comprehensive Care Plan dated 01/22/2025 and the Certified Nursing Assistant [NAME] dated 01/04/2025 revealed instructions to maintain the urine drainage bag below the level of the bladder. During an observation on 01/23/2025 at 11:40 AM and 3:55 PM the urine drainage bag was in bed next to the resident at the level of the bladder. During an immediate interview Resident #65 stated the drainage bag was placed there by staff. During an observation on 01/25/2025 at 1:26 PM the urine drainage bag was hanging at the head of bed and above the level of the bladder. During an observation and interview on 01/25/2025 at 1:58 PM Licensed Practical Nurse #2 removed the urine drainage bag from the head of the bed, placed it on the floor without a barrier and emptied it. In an immediate interview Licensed Practical Nurse #2 stated urinary catheter drainage bags should be kept below the level of the bladder, but they find the drainage bags above the bladder a lot. Licensed Practical Nurse #2 stated they should not have placed the drainage bag on the ground without a barrier as it could lead to infection. During an interview on 01/30/2025 at 10:22 AM Certified Nursing Assistant #2 stated they are responsible for providing catheter care, cleaning and emptying the urine drainage bag, and making sure the bag is off the floor and below the level of the bladder. During an interview on 01/30/2025 at 1:20 PM the Director of Nursing stated urinary catheter drainage bags should be off the floor and below the level of the bladder to prevent back flow and potential infection that could cause a urinary tract infection. 10 NYCRR 415.12(d)(1)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during the Extended Recertification Survey from 01/21/2025 to 01/31/2025, the facility did not ensure all drugs and biologicals were prop...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during the Extended Recertification Survey from 01/21/2025 to 01/31/2025, the facility did not ensure all drugs and biologicals were properly stored in accordance with State and Federal Laws for one (second-floor north medication cart) of two medication carts and one (third-floor medication room) of two medication rooms reviewed. Specifically, the second-floor north medication cart contained controlled medications (medications such as narcotics and opioids that have the potential for abuse and addiction) that were not in a permanently affixed compartment per the regulations and the third-floor medication room contained multiple undated/unlabeled medications. This is evidenced by the following: The facility policy Controlled Substance Management dated August 2022, included the proper storage of controlled drugs was in a double door, double locked, double keyed, steel, wall mounted drug cabinet during non-med pass times and in locked controlled drug compartment of medication cart during med pass times. During an observation on 01/22/2025 at 10:32 AM the third-floor medication room had a narcotic cabinet that was empty except for a pill box that contained approximately 80 undated/unlabeled pills. During an interview on 01/22/2025 at 10:42 AM Licensed Practical Nurse Manager #1 stated they did not have any residents on the floor who used a pill box and did not know whose it was but that any resident pill boxes should be labeled with resident identifiers. During an interview on 01/22/2025 at 11:20 AM Registered Nurse Manager #1 stated controlled substances are stored in the medication carts (two carts on the unit) and removed when a resident is discharged . During an observation on 01/23/2025 at 10:39 AM the second-floor north medication cart contained 25 blister packs of controlled medications for multiple residents including psychotropic (medications used to treat mental health conditions), antianxiety, antidepressant, and opioid medications that were stored in the medication cart. The medications were not stored in a permanently fixed compartment per the regulations. When interviewed at this time Licensed Practical Nurse #2 stated all controlled medications are stored in the medication cart and they do not use the double locked cabinet in the medication room. Licensed Practical Nurse #2 stated the medication carts are not affixed to the wall and the carts have wheels that you can unlock and roll the cart around. There was no chain or lock that could be used to affix the medication cart to the wall. Multiple observations on 01/23/2025 on the second floor resident unit hallways during the day shift revealed the medication carts were left in the hallways not affixed to anything and with no nurse in sight. During an interview on 01/30/2025 at 1:20 PM the Director of Nursing stated controlled medications should always be stored behind two locks in the secured double door cabinet in the medication room, unless they are being used during the shift and then only the medications being used should be kept in the medication cart. If the controlled medications are being kept in the medication carts all the time, there is an increased risk for diversion (theft). 10 NYCRR 415.18(e)(1-4)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review conducted during the Extended Recertification Survey from 01/21/2025 to 01/31/2025, the fa...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review conducted during the Extended Recertification Survey from 01/21/2025 to 01/31/2025, the facility did not ensure each resident was educated and offered the influenza and/or the pneumococcal immunizations (vaccine) for three (Resident #12, #53, #351) of five residents reviewed. Specifically, the facility was unable to provide evidence the residents or their representatives had been provided educational material and offered, received or declined the pneumococcal and/or influenza immunizations. The facility policies Infection Control-Influenza Vaccine dated 08/22/2024 and the Pneumococcal Vaccine dated 11/27/2024 included all residents and/or their resident representative will be offered and provided the influenza and pneumococcal vaccines. Residents have the opportunity to refuse the vaccine(s). A resident's refusal of the vaccine(s) shall be documented on the informed consent for influenza vaccine and pneumococcal vaccine and placed in the resident's medical record and will include the resident or resident's representative was provided education regarding the benefits and potential side effects of the vaccine. 1.Resident #12 had diagnoses that included dementia, delusional disorders, and blindness. The Minimum Data Set Resident Assessment, dated 12/12/2024, included Resident #12 had impaired cognition and listed their daughter as their Health Care Proxy. Review of Resident #12 electronic health record revealed no documented evidence any educational material regarding the benefits and potential side effects of the influenza or pneumococcal vaccines had been provided to the resident's Health Care Proxy or if the vaccines had been offered, received or declined with a signed declination form. 2.Resident #53 had diagnosis that included dementia, hypertension, and a stroke. The Minimum Data Set Resident Assessment, dated 12/11/2024, included Resident #53 was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #53 electronic health record revealed they last received the pneumococcal vaccine on 11/11/2015 and they were due for an update. 3.Resident #351 had diagnoses that included neurogenic bladder (impaired bladder function due to damaged nerves), a leg fracture (broken bone), and depression. The Minimum Data Set Resident assessment dated [DATE] included Resident #351 had severe cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #351 electronic health record revealed their last pneumococcal vaccine was received on 11/5/2014. There was no documentation that Resident #351 had received the influenza vaccine or their Health Care Proxy educated regarding the risks, benefits and side effects of both the influenza and updated pneumococcal vaccines or had declined. In an interview on 01/30/2025 at 1:27 PM the Assistant Director of Nursing (newly hired Infection Preventionist) stated the facility was unaware that Resident #53 was in need of an updated pneumococcal vaccine and they were unable to provide any written documentation that any of the residents or representatives had been educated, received or declined the vaccinations. In an interview on 01/31/2025 at 2:25 PM the Administrator stated the facility offers the residents immunizations and they and the Quality Assurance Committee were aware of gaps in resident vaccination documentation. 10 NYCRR 415.19(a)(3)
CONCERN (E) 📢 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

Grievances (Tag F0585)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews conducted during the Extended Recertification Survey and complaint investigations (NY00370...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews conducted during the Extended Recertification Survey and complaint investigations (NY00370078, NY00362904 and NY00349354) from 01/21/2025 to 01/31/2025, the facility did not ensure that thorough and prompt efforts were made to resolve grievances for two (Residents #88 and #350) of 27 residents reviewed. Specially, Resident #88's grievances were not thoroughly investigated and there was no follow-up when the resident voiced dissatisfaction with the facility's resolution to one of their grievances. For Resident #350, there was no evidence a thorough investigation was completed to determine if abuse, neglect, or mistreatment had been ruled out, and the facility did not follow-up with the residents regarding grievance resolution. This is evidenced by the following: The facility policy Grievances, dated 07/02/2024, included a resident and/or representative may file a grievance concerning their treatment, medical care, the behavior of other resident(s) or staff members(s), missing property, theft of property, or violation of their right(s) without fear of discrimination, threat or reprisal in any form. Upon receipt of a grievance, the applicable department would complete and document the investigation of the grievance within seven business days. Grievances related to care concerns would be referred to the Director of Nursing or Nursing Supervisor on duty for immediate review and determination of appropriate follow-up and investigation. The Grievance Officer would oversee timely investigation and resolution by the applicable department(s). The Administrator/designee would review the investigation and resolution of the grievance to validate a thorough investigation, and appropriate resolution was conducted and completed. The facility would immediately report all alleged incidents of neglect or abuse, including injuries of unknown source, and/or misappropriation of resident property, to the Administrator, Director of Nursing or designee and as mandated by state law or federal, whichever is more stringent. 1.Resident #88 had diagnoses including bipolar disorder, diabetes, and anxiety. The Minimum Data Set Resident assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #88 was cognitively intact and frequently incontinent of bladder and bowel. The Comprehensive Care Plan dated 01/24/2025 included to check Resident #88 and assist with toileting every two to four hours as tolerated. During an interview on 01/23/2025 at 1:09 PM, Resident #88 said they had filed three grievances, and there were three overnight shifts where they had not been changed (assisted with incontinence care) at all. Review of a grievance filed by Resident #88 dated 10/31/2024, revealed the resident had not been changed (provided incontinence care) during the previous two-night shifts. The facility's investigation included they would review (nursing staff) schedules and assignments and would interview residents and staff. Review of the facility's investigation did not include documented evidence staff interviews had been conducted or staff statements had been obtained. A Grievance Form, signed by the Administrator on 11/06/2024, included Resident #88 had been notified of the actions taken, they were not satisfied with the actions taken, and the resident stated there was no change and it was the same problem every night. There was no documented evidence any further actions were taken to address Resident #88's dissatisfaction. Review of a grievance filed by Resident #88 dated 11/13/2024, revealed the certified nursing assistant assigned to their care on the day shift had not provided cares and had not handled a sore area with enough gentleness. The facility's investigation included they would review staff schedules and assignments, interview the resident and staff, and determine if appropriate education was needed. Review of the facility's investigation revealed no documented evidence staff interviews had been conducted or staff statements had been obtained. Review of two grievances filed by Resident #88 on 12/16/2024, revealed concerns they were not changed during the overnight shifts (10:00 PM to 6:00 PM) on 12/13/2024 and 12/14/2024. An Accident/Incident Statement form dated 12/17/2024, included the Director of Social Work had interviewed several residents about the overnight events on 12/13/2024, with one resident stating they thought they waited over two hours for someone to answer their call bell, another resident could not recall the date but said it was common to wait hours for the call light to be answered during overnight shift, and a third resident stated they had their call light on but fell asleep before anyone came in. Review of the facility's investigation revealed no documented evidence that staff interviews had been conducted or that staff statements had been obtained. The facility investigation did not include action(s) taken in response to the grievance, if evidence of abuse or neglect had been identified, or a follow-up conducted with the resident and/or representative. 2. Resident #350 had diagnoses that included diabetes, peripheral vascular disease (a condition where arteries or veins become narrowed or blocked, reducing blood flow to the limbs), and chronic venous ulcers (wounds caused by reduced blood flow to the limbs). The Minimum Data Set Resident assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #350 was cognitively intact and had seven venous and/or arterial ulcers (wounds). Review of a grievance filed by Resident #350 dated 01/09/2025 revealed they had reported they did not have their wound dressing changed on 01/08/2025. The Grievance form, completed by the Director of Social Work, did not include if abuse, neglect, mistreatment had been ruled out and did not include if the resident was notified of any actions taken. The undated facility form, Investigation/Follow-Up to Complaint/Grievance, included to see tracker for Director of Nursing summary. The facility was unable to provide the Director of Nursing's summary of the investigation and actions taken to address the grievance. The facility form, Grievance - Resident Notification Summary, referenced the grievance filed on 01/09/2025, but did not include a description of the grievance, who addressed the grievance, a summary of actions taken, or a signature by the resident or their representative to indicate they had been informed of the facility's response to the grievance. During a special Resident Council meeting held on 01/22/2025 at 1:31 PM with five Resident Council members in attendance, one resident stated some grievances and recommendations had been ongoing for months (including staffing). Sometimes updates were provided, but the residents were always given the same response and there was not a final resolution. During an interview on 01/24/2025 at 11:52 AM, the Director of Social Work stated grievances were any concern a resident had that should be looked in to and they were the facility's designated Grievance Officer. The Director of Social Work stated their involvement with grievances included obtaining a statement from the individual (filing the grievance), documentation of the grievance, and informing the Administrator and Director of Nursing to determine next steps. The Director of Social Work stated a completed grievance form describing the concerns, was provided to the department heads to document a summary of their investigation findings and actions taken. Any grievances that could be potential abuse or neglect would go to the Director of Nursing and any care related grievances would go the Director of Nursing or the Assistant Director of Nursing. The Director of Social Work stated follow-up was then provided to the resident or representative by the appropriate facility staff, depending on the situation. During a telephone interview on 01/27/2025 at 11:07 AM, the Director of Nursing stated when a grievance was received, depending on the concern, it would be given to the appropriate department head for investigation to determine the etiology and a resolution. The Director of Nursing stated an investigation would include obtaining statements, interviewing other residents and staff, and reviewing relevant documentation. They had received a few grievances about residents not receiving assistance with activities of daily living (showers, incontinence care) and as a result, staffing levels were looked at due to staff call ins. The Director of Nursing stated a grievance follow-up would include education provided to the staff or if disciplinary action occurred. The Director of Nursing stated upon investigation of concerns related to wound care, there was no indication why dressing changes were not being done and investigations of any grievances related to incontinence or wound care should include if abuse or neglect had been ruled in or out. During an interview on 01/27/2025 at 12:55 PM, the Regional Director of Clinical Services stated care related grievances (not getting showers, incontinence care not done or done timely, or dressing changes not being done) could potentially be resident neglect and ruling out abuse or neglect would be part of the investigation for every grievance. The Regional Director of Clinical Services stated if a resident (or representative) did not agree with the grievance resolution, they would ask them for input on an agreeable resolution. Upon review of Resident #88's grievance dated 10/31/2024, the Regional Director of Clinical Services stated it was not a complete and thorough investigation and there should have been further follow-up based on the resident statement that things had not changed, and it was the same problem every night. Upon review of Resident #88's grievance dated 11/13/2024, the Regional Director of Clinical Services stated there were no staff statements obtained, including from the involved Certified Nursing Assistant, therefore the investigation was not complete. Upon review of Resident #88's grievances dated 12/13/2024 and 12/14/2024, the Regional Director of Clinical Services stated it was not a complete and thorough investigation since there were other residents with similar concerns that should have been addressed, there were no statements obtained from the involved staff, and it did not look as though the problem was fixed. During an interview with the Administrator and the Corporate Administrator on 01/27/2025 at 1:47 PM, the Administrator stated they have reviewed grievances to make sure they were done correctly and signed off properly. The Administrator stated they would expect staff statements to be obtained and documentation that abuse or neglect was ruled out (or in) for all grievances. The Administrator stated they were aware of grievances related to timeliness of incontinence care and residents not getting showers, and to address the concerns, some staff had been let go and customer service education (timeliness of answering call lights and appropriate attitudes when providing care) had been provided. The Administrator stated the care issues had been brought to the facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement committee and there was discussion about monitoring the concerns and performing call bell audits, but they had not seen any follow up yet. The Corporate Administrator stated, about a week or two prior, Corporate had identified issues with resident grievances at the facility and a Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement meeting was held with the interdisciplinary team, which included discussions related to the grievance policy and what grievances looked like. The Corporate Administrator stated they set up a weekly call to ensure grievances were identified and the process completed from start to finish but had not yet checked if recommendations had been implemented. 10 NYCRR 415.3(d)(1)(ii)
CONCERN (E) 📢 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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during the Extended Recertification Survey and complaint investig...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during the Extended Recertification Survey and complaint investigations (#NY00357725, #NY00349354) from 01/21/2025 to 01/31/2025, for three (Residents #28, #48, #65) of nine residents reviewed, the facility did not ensure that residents who were dependent on staff for assistance received the necessary services to maintain grooming and personal hygiene. Specifically Resident #28 did not receive incontinence care timely and did not receive showers and hair washing for an extended period of time. Resident #48 did not receive incontinence care timely. Resident #65 was not assisted to the bathroom by staff for an extended period resulting in being incontinent. This is evidenced by the following: Review of the facility policy Activities of Daily Living Care and Support dated 03/13/2024 included that Activities of Daily Living Care will be provided for residents who are unable to carry them out independently, with the consent of the resident and in accordance with the resident's assessed needs, personal preferences, and individualized plan of care. Activities of Daily Living Care includes but is not limited to supervision and assistance with hygiene (bathing, dressing, grooming), elimination (toileting) and incontinence care. Residents' baths or showers will be scheduled as per the resident preference and assessed needs at a minimum of weekly. Toileting/incontinence care will be provided as needed. 1.Resident #28 had diagnoses including morbid obesity, diabetes and heart failure. The Minimum Data Set Resident assessment dated [DATE] documented the resident was cognitively intact. Resident #28's Comprehensive Care Plan dated 04/23/2024 and current [NAME] (care plan used by the Certified Nursing Assistants for daily care) included to check the resident every two to four hours during waking hours and assist with toileting as needed. Shower/bath on Tuesday and Friday day shift with the assist of one staff. During an interview on 01/21/025 at 11:08 AM Resident #28 stated they are incontinent of urine and have been waiting since they woke up several hours ago (approximately four to five hours) to be changed. Resident #28 stated they do not know when they are scheduled for a shower, but it has been 4 weeks since they had one or had their hair washed. Resident #28's hair was greasy looking. Review of the resident's electronic health record revealed no documented evidence that the resident had received a shower for the past four weeks. During an observation and interview on 01/24/2025 (Friday) at 11:37 AM Certified Nursing Assistant #9 provided care (bed bath) to Resident #28 who was heavily incontinent of urine. Certified Nursing Assistant #9 stated that Resident #28 was so saturated with urine they had probably urinated several times. Certified Nursing Assistant #9 stated they were unable to complete all the resident care tasks including showers when they have 17 residents on their assignment today. In an interview on 01/24/2025 at 12:00 PM Licensed Practical Nurse Manager #1 stated the Certified Nursing Assistants are unable to get all the tasks done and that it is discussed daily in morning meetings with the Director of Nursing. 2. Resident #48 had diagnoses that included a stroke, hemiplegia (paralysis on one side of the body) and diabetes. The Minimum Data Set Resident assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #48 was cognitively intact, was always incontinent of urine and stool, and was dependent on staff for toileting hygiene. The Comprehensive Care Plan dated 01/14/2025 and Certified Nursing Assistant [NAME] effective as of 01/24/2025 included the resident required a check and change and/or toileting assist every two to four hours. During an observation and interview 01/23/2025 at 12:45 PM Resident #48's family came out to the nursing station and reported to nursing staff Resident #48 was soaking wet and had not received incontinence care for hours. In an immediate interview Resident #48 stated no one had cleaned them up since breakfast (approximately five hours ago) and they were soaked through. Resident #48's brief was visibly saturated through; their gown was wet and there was a strong smell of urine present. During an interview on 01/23/2025 at 12:57 PM Certified Nursing Assistant #4 stated they had not provided incontinence care to Resident #48 since their first rounds (approximately five hours ago). Certified Nursing Assistant #4 stated residents should be checked and changed when incontinent every two hours but Resident #48 can call when they need to be changed and had not called, so they did not go in their room to check on them. During an observation and interview on 01/24/2025 at 9:10 AM Resident #48 stated they had not received incontinence care since last night at 8:00 PM (approximately 13 hours ago), had put their call bell on this morning but the certified nursing assistant that answered the bell turned it off and had not come back. Resident #48's incontinence brief and incontinence pad were visibly saturated, and their gown was wet. There was a strong odor of urine present. During an interview on 01/24/2025 at 9:13 AM Certified Nursing Assistant #5 stated Resident #48 was soaked through the incontinence brief, pad and gown with urine, but they had not changed the resident yet because they were short staffed. During an interview on 01/24/2025 at 12:10 PM Registered Nurse Manager #1 stated incontinence care should be completed every two to four hours and as needed and they were aware of concerns from residents that this was not being done. 3. Resident #65 had diagnoses that included a right leg fracture, Parkinson's disease, and malnutrition. The Minimum Data Set Resident assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #65 was cognitively intact, incontinent of bladder and bowel, and required assistance from staff for transfers and toileting. Resident #65's Comprehensive Care Plan dated 12/24/2024 and the Certified Nursing Assistant [NAME] dated 01/23/2025 included to check the resident every two to four hours during waking hours and assist with toileting as needed with the assist of one staff member. During an observation and interview on 01/21/2025 at 10:25 AM Resident #65 had been incontinent and their brief was visibly wet. In an immediate interview Resident #65 stated they had not received any assistance yet this morning from the nursing staff and was currently wet. Resident #65 stated they were able to walk to the bathroom with help, but when nursing staff do not help, they have to urinate in their brief. During an observation on 01/25/2025 at 1:20 PM Resident #65 was in bed naked with a saturated brief hanging around their knees. There was a strong smell of urine present in the room. During an interview on 01/25/2025 at 1:33 PM Certified Nursing Assistant #4 stated Resident #65 was on their assignment, and they had changed their incontinence brief last at 7:30 AM (approximately 6 hours ago). Certified Nursing Assistant #4 stated Resident #65 told them they needed help to go to the bathroom around lunch (12:30 PM) but sometimes the resident went by themselves, so they did not assist the resident. During an interview on 01/27/2025 at 11:05 AM the Director of Nursing stated residents who can use the bathroom should be toileted and not left to be incontinent. 10 NYCRR 415.12(a)(3)
CONCERN (E) 📢 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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during the Extended Recertification Survey and complaint investig...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during the Extended Recertification Survey and complaint investigation (NY00363528) from 01/21/2025 to 01/31/2025, the facility did not ensure that residents received care in accordance with professional standards of practice for two (Residents #12 and #350) of 27 residents reviewed. Specifically, Resident #350 did not receive wound care treatments per physician orders on multiple occasions and Resident #12's ordered x-ray was not performed until 15 days after it was ordered. This is evidenced by the following: 1. Resident #350 had diagnoses that included diabetes, peripheral vascular disease (a condition where arteries and/or veins become narrowed or blocked, reducing blood flow to the limbs), and chronic venous ulcers (wounds caused by reduced blood flow in the limbs). The Minimum Data Set Resident assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #350 was cognitively intact. Review of the physician orders as of 01/09/2025 revealed 12 different wounds on the residents left and right lower extremities that required daily dressing changes. The dressing changes included cleansing and drying the wounds, applying different wound treatments (including a wound treatment often used for heavily draining/infected wounds to two of the areas) and cover dressings to all wounds. During an observation on 01/21/2025 at 10:54 AM, Resident #350 had both legs wrapped in gauze dressings that were undated and heavily soiled with serosanguinous (clear blood-tinged fluid) drainage that had soaked through both dressings, the right sock, and the top and bottom sheets on the bed. In an immediate interview, Resident #350 stated they were supposed to receive dressing changes daily, but it had been several days since they were last changed. Resident #350 said they waited five hours after their shower recently with no dressings on any of the wounds because the nurse was too busy to put the dressings on their legs. Review of Resident #350's Treatment Administration Records dated 01/09/2025 to 01/20/2024 revealed none of the 12 wounds had been signed off as completed since 01/17/2025 (four days prior). Additionally, on 6 of the 12 days reviewed resident's wound treatments were not signed off as completed. During an interview on 01/24/2025 at 12:10 PM, Registered Nurse Manager #1 stated nurses should complete wound care and document in the Treatment Administration Record. A blank box in the Treatment Administration Record means the treatment would be considered not done. During an observation on 01/25/2025 at 1:22 PM, Resident #350's dressings to the right and left legs were again undated with dried serosanguinous drainage through the outside of the dressing. During an interview on 01/25/2025 at 1:58 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #2 stated they had not been able to change Resident #350's dressings that day because they were short staffed, and they did not have enough time. During an interview on 01/27/2025 at 11:05 AM, the Director of Nursing stated wound care should be completed as ordered by the assigned nurse. Wound care that could not be completed should be passed to the next shift (to be completed). Wounds should not go multiple days without being changed because it can cause them to get worse or infected. 2. Resident #12 had diagnoses including low back pain, osteopenia (low bone density making them weak) and dementia. The Minimum Data Set Resident assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #12 was moderately impaired cognitively. In a medical progress note dated 01/09/2025 at 4:44 PM Physician #1 documented Resident #12 complained of pain and pointed to both sides of their lower back and they were awaiting results of a urine study. Review of the physician order at 4:56 PM revealed a lumbosacral spine x-ray was ordered. During an interview on 01/21/2025 at 11:51 AM, Resident #12 said they have had constant back pain for a long time and a doctor had said two to three weeks prior that they would get an x-ray, but nothing had been done yet. In a medical progress note dated 01/23/2025 Physiatry (a medical specialty that helps residents regain function and quality of life after injury or illness) Nurse Practitioner #1 documented that Resident #12 was picked up by therapy for rehabilitation due to generalized weakness, poor endurance, functional decline and low back pain. Physiatry Nurse Practitioner #1 documented that Resident #12 was pending a lumbosacral spine x-ray which appeared to have not been done yet, and the primary care provider and Director of Nursing were made aware. Review of Resident #12's Radiology Results Report dated 01/24/2025, revealed the x-ray was obtained on 01/24/2025 at 2:20 PM, and the findings included a compression fracture of the lower spine that was not identified on a previous study 11/16/2021. The report included no further follow-up necessary at this time. During an interview on 01/31/2025 at 9:55 AM, Registered Nurse #1 said a new order for a diagnostic test (x-ray) would go into the computer system (electronic health record) and they should be told in report if an x-ray needed to be done. Registered Nurse #1 said it the Assistant Director of Nursing, the Director of Nursing or the Physician are responsible to ensure the x-ray was done. Registered Nurse #1 stated they did not recall Resident #12 having an x-ray ordered on 01/09/2025. During an interview on 01/31/2025 at approximately 10:30 AM, Registered Nurse Manager #1 said there was a certain format to follow when entering x-ray orders and both nurses and medical providers are able to enter the x-ray orders. Registered Nurse Unit Manager #1 stated x-rays are not always completed on the day shift, and if not, it should be passed on to the next shift or call to find out why it had not been done. Registered Nurse Unit Manager #1 stated they were not aware Resident #12 had an x-ray ordered. Registered Nurse Manager #1 stated the delay could have been because the ordering provider did not know how to put the order in the computer, and they do not always inform nursing staff know when an order is entered. 10 NYCRR 415.12
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews and record review conducted during the Extended Recertification Survey from 01/21/2025-01/31/20...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews and record review conducted during the Extended Recertification Survey from 01/21/2025-01/31/2025, the facility did not ensure an Infection Control Program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections was maintained for 3 (Residents' #65, #350 and #351) of 24 residents reviewed. Specifically, appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) was not worn by nursing staff in residents' room that were identified by the facility as requiring Enhanced Barrier Precautions while preforming high contact care to residents. Additionally, observations of multiple facility staff who had declined the influenza vaccine were not wearing face masks while in resident care areas during the current influenza season as determined by the Department of Health. The facility policy Enhanced Barrier Precautions dated 05/30/2024, documented Enhanced Barrier Precautions would be initiated and implemented for residents as applicable in accordance with federal and/or state regulations and/or in accordance with Centers for Disease Control guidance to reduce the risks of transmission of Multiple Drug-Resistant Organisms. Enhanced Barrier Precautions is applicable for resident with any of the following: a. Infection or colonization with a Multiple Drug-Resistant Organisms. b. Wounds (e.g. any type of wound requiring a dressing) c. Indwelling medical devises (e.g., central line, urinary catheter, feeding tube, tracheostomy/ ventilator, etc.) Issue 1 1. Resident #350 had diagnoses that included diabetes (high blood sugars), peripheral vascular disease (arteries and/or veins become narrowed or blocked reducing blood flow to the limbs), and chronic venous ulcers (wounds caused by reduced blood flow in the limbs). The Minimum Data Set Resident assessment dated [DATE] included Resident #350 was cognitively intact and had seven venous and/or arterial ulcers (wounds). The Comprehensive Care Plan dated 01/08/2025 included Resident #350 had venous wounds to both legs and was on Enhanced Barrier Precautions. During an observation of wound care on 01/21/2025 at 10:54 AM Resident #350 had an Enhanced Barrier Precautions sign posted outside their door which included for staff to wear a gown and gloves with hands on care. Nurse Practitioner #1 wearing gloves, but no gown, removed Resident #350's wound dressings on both legs. During an observation of wound care on 01/27/2025 at 10:53 AM Registered Nurse #1 wearing gloves, but no gown, provided wound care to Resident #350's multiple leg wounds. Wound care orders included cleansing each wound, drying, applying Aquacell AG (medicated dressing material) to the wound bed and cover with a dressing. During an immediate interview Registered Nurse #1 stated they did not believe Resident #350 was on precautions, and that the Enhanced Barrier Precaution sign was for the roommate. Registered Nurse #1 stated they did not recall receiving education on Enhanced Barrier Precautions at this facility. During a follow up interview on 01/30/2025 at 10:59 AM Registered Nurse #1 stated Enhanced Barrier Precautions signs were posted outside of the doors to residents' room and when providing hands on care (wound care, catheter care, incontinence care) for those residents' staff should wear appropriate personal protective equipment, including gowns and gloves, to prevent cross contamination. 2.Resident #65 had diagnoses that included a right leg fracture (broken bone), Parkinson's disease (a progressive movement disorder), and malnutrition. The Minimum Data Set Resident assessment dated [DATE] included Resident #65 was cognitively intact, incontinent of bladder and bowel, and required assistance from staff for transfers and toileting hygiene. The Comprehensive Care Plan initiated 12/24/2024 included Resident #65 had an actual skin impairment to the right shin and right thigh and was on Enhanced Barrier Precautions. During an observation of wound care on 01/25/2025 at 1:58 PM Resident #65 had an Enhanced Barrier Precaution sign posted outside their door. Licensed Practical Nurse #2 wearing gloves, but no gown, removed the resident's wound dressings and applied two new wound dressings. During an interview on 01/31/2025 at 9:52 AM Licensed Practical Nurse #2 stated precautions are posted outside the resident's door and include the type of precautions. Enhanced Barrier Precautions should be used with residents who had wounds. Licensed Practical Nurse #2 stated they did not wear a gown while providing wound care and should have. 3.Resident #351 had diagnoses that included neurogenic bladder (impaired bladder function due to damaged nerves), a leg fracture, and depression. The Minimum Data Set Resident assessment dated [DATE] included Resident #351 had severe cognitive impairment and had an indwelling urinary catheter. During an observation on 01/25/2025 at 1:58 PM Resident #351 had a sign for Enhanced Barrier Precautions posted outside their door. Licensed Practical Nurse #2, wearing gloves, but no gown, unhooked the resident's urinary catheter drainage bag, emptied the drainage bag of urine into a urinal and emptied the urinal into the toilet. During an interview on 01/31/2025 at 9:52 AM Licensed Practical Nurse #2 stated Enhanced Barrier Precautions were used with residents who had indwelling medical devices such as urinary catheters. Licensed Practical Nurse #2 stated they should have worn a gown while providing care to the resident's urinary catheter drainage bag. During an interview on 01/30/2025 at 11:17 AM with the Assistant Director of Nursing (newly hired Infection Preventionist) and the Registered Nurse/Regional Director of Clinical Services and covering Infection Preventionist stated residents on Enhanced Barrier Precautions are those with open wounds, catheters and residents who have positive multidrug resistant organism cultures. Any staff providing direct hands-on care should be wearing appropriate personal protective equipment of gowns, gloves, goggles (if appropriate) and masks (if appropriate) and all staff received education at orientation and annual in-servicing. Issue 2 The facility policy Influenza Vaccine dated 08/22/2024, documented that staff will provide consent or declination for the influenza (flu) vaccine each year. Individuals refusing the vaccination may be required to wear a standard face mask in resident care areas throughout flu season, as defined and required by the state Department of Health. During an interview on 01/31/2025 at 10:37 AM the Corporate Licensed Practical Nurse stated staff that received the flu vaccine this year have a purple sticker on their ID badges. If staff do not have the purple sticker on their badge this would reflect not receiving the flu vaccine and should be wearing a surgical mask in resident care areas. During an observation and interview on 01/31/2025 at 10:45 AM Licensed Practical Nurse #6 was on the 2nd floor residential unit preparing and administering medications and was not wearing a mask. Licensed Practical Nurse #6 stated they did not receive the flu vaccine this year, did not have a purple sticker on their ID badge, and should be wearing a mask. During an interview and observation on 01/31/2025 at 10:50 AM on the 2nd floor the Director of Maintenance was standing at nurses' station not wearing a mask. The Director of Maintenance stated they did not receive the flu vaccine this year and should be wearing one. During an interview on 01/31/2025 at 2:25 PM the Administrator stated they were aware that facility staff who had not received the current flu season vaccination were not appropriately masking as defined and required by the state Department of Health. 10 NYCRR 415.19(a)(b)(1-3)
CONCERN (F)

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

Administration (Tag F0835)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and interviews conducted during the Extended Recertification Survey and complaints investi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and interviews conducted during the Extended Recertification Survey and complaints investigations 01/21/2025 to 01/31/2025, facility did not ensure it was administered in a manner that enabled it to use it's resources effectively and efficiently to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. The facility must operate and provide services in compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and codes, and with accepted professional standards and principles that apply to professionals providing services in such a facility. The facility must have a governing body, or designated persons functioning as a governing body, that is legally responsible for establishing and implementing policies regarding the management and operation of the facility; and the governing body is responsible and accountable for the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement program. Specifically, the administration did not ensure residents were free from neglect, there was sufficient nurse staffing to provide nursing services based on residents' assessments, residents were treated with respect and dignity, the nurse call bell system functioned as intended, and that grievances were thoroughly investigated and a follow-up provided to the resident and/or their representative. The is evidenced by the following: The facility's 2025 Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Plan included that the facility shall develop, implement, and maintain an ongoing, facility-wide Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Plan designed to monitor and evaluate the quality and safety of resident care, pursue methods to improve care quality, and resolve identified problems. The Administrator was responsible for assuring that the facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Program complied with federal, state, and local regulatory agency requirements. The Administrator was the chairperson of the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Committee, and the role of the Administrator consisted of (but not limited to): -Planning, developing, organizing, implementing, coordinating and directing the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Program, in accordance with current rules, regulations, and guidelines that govern the facility. -Helping to identify quality areas that are appropriate for performance improvement projects. -Implementing recommendations from the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Committee as they relate to the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Program. The Facility assessment dated [DATE], included (but not limited to) services provided by the facility were skilled nursing, subacute services, physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech therapy. The average daily census was 94 residents. Care and services offered by the facility based on resident's needs included activities of daily living, bowel/bladder care, skin integrity, mental health, medications, infection prevention and control, and other special care needs. Free from Abuse and Neglect - Refer to citation F600. Resident #8 and Resident #48 did not receive timely incontinence care. Resident #65 did not receive wound care as ordered by the physician for multiple days and was not assisted with toileting or provided incontinence care for approximately six hours. Resident #73 was left sitting in their wheelchair for approximately 14 hours without care. Resident #76 waited approximately 21 hours for incontinence care. Resident #350 did not receive wound care as ordered by the physician for multiple days. In addition, multiple grievances were filed by the residents related to the issues which were not followed up by the Administration team. These issues resulted in the likelihood of serious injury, serious harm or death for all of the residents in the facility (current census 95), which resulted in Immediate Jeopardy. Resident Rights - Refer to citation F550. Residents #8 and #350 did not receive timely emptying of their urinal (container used to urinate in) causing urine to spill on the resident or having to empty the contents out a window in order to urinate. Resident #28 did not receive timely incontinence care and had not received a shower in four weeks. Resident #48 was observed on multiple occasions soaked through their incontinence brief, pad, and sheets. This resulted in psychosocial harm to Resident #8, #28, and #48 that is not Immediate Jeopardy. Sufficient Nursing Staffing - Refer to citation F725. There were multiple observations of residents incontinent of bladder or bowel for extended periods of time, several residents who reported going weeks without showers and were observed unkept with unclean hair. Interviews with multiple staff including the Director of Nursing stated they did not have enough staff to provide timely incontinence care, showers, or treatments and that they have asked the Administrator for more staff. Activities of Daily Living Care Provided for Dependent Residents - Refer to citation F677. Residents #28 and #48 did not receive incontinence care for extended periods of time (up to 13 hours) and Resident #65 was not assisted to the bathroom for hours causing the resident to be left incontinent for an extended period of time. Grievances - Refer to citation F585. Residents #88 and #350 did not have thorough investigations of their grievances and in some cases no follow up was provided. There was no evidence that the facility ruled out abuse or neglect. Resident Call System - Refer to citation text under F919 For three of three residential floors, the facility did not properly maintain the nurse call system. Specifically, central nurse call system panels were not present or functioning properly, the audible component for the call system was not working properly, and there was no documented testing of nurse call devices on the first floor. During an interview on 01/22/2025 at 3:30 PM with the Administrator and the Corporate Administrator, the Corporate Administrator stated the call bell system was installed in 2018 and that the overhead lights should light up and audibly tone. The Corporate Administrator said staff should be trained during orientation on the call bell system, and they saw no issue with the panels not being in place as the system still functioned. During an interview on 01/27/2025 at 1:47 PM the Administrator stated they had received grievances related to wound care, toileting assist, and incontinence care not being provided and the Director of Nursing should be following up on these concerns. The Corporate Administrator stated approximately one to two weeks ago they had identified issues with residents' grievances at the facility and a Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement meeting was held with the interdisciplinary team. Discussions were conducted related to the grievance policy and what grievances entailed. The Corporate Administrator said they set up a weekly call to make sure grievances were identified and everything completed but had not yet had the ability to check if the suggestions/recommendations had been done. During an interview on 01/31/2025 at 2:25 PM, the Administrator stated the facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement committee were aware of concerns related to care not being provided (incontinence care, showers, and grooming), dressing changes not being done, and sufficient staffing. 10 NYCRR 415.26
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0919 (Tag F0919)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during the Extended Recertification Survey from 01/22/2025 to 01/...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during the Extended Recertification Survey from 01/22/2025 to 01/31/2025, for three (first, second, and third floors) of three resident use floors the facility did not properly maintain the nurse call system. Specifically, central nurse call system panels were not present or functioning properly, the audible component for the call system was not working properly, and there was no documented testing of nurse call devices on the first floor. The findings are: The facility electrical equipment policy dated 12/18/2024, documented: 1. Patient Care Related Electrical Equipment (PCREE) shall be tested before being put into service for the first time and after any repair or modification that might have compromised electrical safety. 3. Testing and maintenance of the PCREE will be based on the manufacturer's service manual recommendations but tested annually at a minimum. 4. Documentation including a record of PCREE tests, repairs and modifications, whether performed by facility staff or an outside vendor, will be maintained at the facility. When observed on 01/21/2025 at 9:43 AM, the nurse call panel/station was unplugged and not operational in the corner of the third-floor nurse station desk. Overhead lights were observed outside of all resident rooms and one for each hallway. Call lights were lit up outside resident rooms, but no audible tones were heard and there was no panel available to see exact locations where pull stations were activated. During an interview at this time the Director of Facilities stated the call system tablet gets unplugged and does not work at times, and they were not sure why the panel was off or how long it had been that way. The Director of Facilities also stated the system was old and they could not get parts anymore, and there was no panel on the second floor as it was no longer fixable and removed 5-months ago. The Director of Facilities also stated they were not sure what the different colored lights on the overhead call lights meant and were not sure why the system did not have an audible tone. When observed on 01/21/2025 at 10:00 AM, the nurse call button was tested at the bedside of resident room [ROOM NUMBER] and there was one initial tone heard and then stopped. The overhead light in the corridor outside room [ROOM NUMBER] came on and when the activation was cancelled, the overhead light stayed on. When observed on 01/21/2025 at 10:10 AM, the nurse call button was tested at bedside in resident room [ROOM NUMBER] and the corridor overhead light lit up and no audible tone was noted. Additionally, there was no nurse call system panel at the nurse station on the second floor. During an interview at this time the Director of Facilities stated the second-floor tablet had not been in use for about 5 months but there was the installation hardware in the communication room that was for use with the vendor to see what call bells have gone off. During an observation and interview on 01/21/2025 at 11:40 AM, Resident #90 stated they could not reach their tray table. Resident #90 pressed their call light button, which did not light up outside the resident's room and it did not make a sound. Certified Nursing Assistant #7 was in the hallway and came into the room of Resident #90 (after Surveyor intervention). Certified Nursing Assistant #7 pressed Resident #90's call light and observed that it did not light up or make a sound. Certified Nursing Assistant #7 stated the call light should make a noise, and they would tell someone. During an observation and interview on 01/21/2025 at 11:52 AM, the nurse call light in resident room [ROOM NUMBER] was pressed and did not activate an audible or visual signal. When notified by the surveyor at this time, Licensed Practical Nurse Manager #1 stated they would call maintenance to come fix it. During an interview on 01/22/2025 at 10:46 AM, Certified Nursing Assistant #8 stated they would know if a resident pressed their call button because they would look down the hall and see a light on over the resident's door. Certified Nursing Assistant #8 also stated the call button would only make a noise if the resident pressed it repeatedly. When observed on 01/22/2025 at 9:07 AM, the nurse call was activated for rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] and the overhead corridor lights outside the rooms came on but no audible tone was noted. When observed on 01/22/2025 at 9:17 AM, the nurse call was activated in the bathroom of resident room [ROOM NUMBER] and the corridor overhead light came on outside the room, one audible tone was noted the nothing further. Additionally, there was no panel operational or plugged in at the nurse station desk. When interviewed on 01/22/2025 at 3:30 PM, the Administrator and Corporate Administrator stated they found out the call bell system was installed in 2018 and there was only one call system for the building. The Corporate Administrator stated the overhead lights should light up and audibly tone, and the overhead light would go red if activated at the bathroom and green when cleared. The Administrator stated staff should be trained during orientation on the call bell system, and they saw no issue with the panels not being in place as the system still functioned. The Corporate Administrator stated that staff can look down the hallways to see if there are call lights on when they do not have a panel to look at and staff should note any issues with call bells not working. Record review on 01/23/2025 at 11:00 AM, revealed quarterly nurse call system logs for 2024 documented the call stations in resident rooms on the second and third floors were tested, only. The logs did not specify whether call stations were tested at the bed sides or at the resident room toilets. Additionally, the logs did not document testing/inspection of any areas on the first floor common bathrooms and shower areas on the second and third floors. Nurse call system annunciator panels were also not listed as tested or identified to need repairs in these logs. Record review of the nurse call system manufacturers specification manual on 01/23/2025 at 11:30 AM, revealed the intended use section listed: 'Use this product only for the purpose it was designed for.' The general purposes section listed: 'This document describes the implementation, programming and testing of the call station and auxiliary nurse station. The stations are a combination of hardware and software, a touchscreen PC with software that gives an overview of pending nurse calls.' Record review on 01/23/2025 at 11:45 AM revealed the hardware installation manual for the nurse call system listed the following: under the type of calls section, the chart listed the color lights for each light to correspond to the activation type/location. Call at bed would be a red light, call at toilet would be a white light, assistance toilet would be a green light, emergency would be a flashing red light, code blue would be a flashing blue light, and technical alarm would be a yellow light. The mounting instructions section for the tablet listed annunciators and visual display calls from the stations in the system, and the auxiliary PC (tablet) is a wall mounted staff console. The manual also listed that the tablet needs to have a power and network connection to operate. During an interview on 01/23/2025 at 12:49 PM, Registered Nurse #1 stated they would know if a resident pressed their call button because they are constantly looking and could see the red light and pointed to the light above a resident's room. Registered Nurse #1 stated they think there is a different alarm if a call button in the bathroom is pressed. Registered Nurse #1 stated they did not have a monitor (nurse call system central monitor) on the second floor, but the third floor did have something. 10NYCRR: 415.29, 415.29(b); 415.29(j)(1), 10NYCRR: 713-1.3(b), 713-3.25(g)
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0568 (Tag F0568)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on interviews and record reviews conducted during the Extended Recertification Survey from 01/21/2025 to 01/31/2025 for one (Resident #10) of two residents reviewed, the facility did not ensure ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews and record reviews conducted during the Extended Recertification Survey from 01/21/2025 to 01/31/2025 for one (Resident #10) of two residents reviewed, the facility did not ensure that individual financial records were provided to the residents through quarterly statements. Specifically, neither Resident #10 nor their identified resident representative were provided with any quarterly personal fund statements over an extended period of time. This is evidenced by the following: The facility policy Resident Funds Account last reviewed August 2020 included the facility will provide on request, and at least quarterly to the resident or the resident's designated or legal representative, a statement showing the account balance including funds deposited and withdrawn and interest accrued. 1. Resident #10 had diagnoses that included paranoid schizophrenia, high blood pressure, and diabetes. The Minimum Data Set Resident Assessment completed 12/17/2024 documented the resident was cognitively intact. During an interview on 01/22/2025 at 9:11 AM Resident #10 stated they did not receive quarterly statements from the facility, were not given any money to buy things like pizza and did not know if or how much money they had in their account. Review of a Resident Statement Landscape form dated 01/30/2025 revealed Resident #10 had a personal funds account with a balance of $9,800.12. Review of Resident Fund Statements from 03/29/2024 to present revealed all quarterly statements had been signed by the facility as rep payee (the facility manages the resident's Social Security benefits if they are unable to). When requested, the facility was unable to provide evidence that Resident #10 or their representative were provided with any statements of Resident #10's personal fund account. During an interview on 01/30/2025 at 4:15 PM the Business Office Manager stated Resident #10 had fluctuating levels of cognition, the facility was the rep payee, and statements are not sent to residents who are not cognitively intact. The Business Office Manager stated copies of the quarterly Resident Fund Statements for personal funds accounts should be sent the resident representatives if they had one,but was unsure if Resident #10 had a representative. During an interview on 01/30/2025 at 5:11 PM with the Administrator and the Corporate Administrator, the Corporate Administrator stated cognitively intact residents, resident representatives of cognitively impaired residents, and both representatives and residents with fluctuating cognition should receive quarterly statements for personal funds accounts. Review of Resident #10's medical record revealed the resident's brother was their Health Care Proxy (resident representative). 10 NYCRR 415.26(h)(5)(iii)
MINOR (B) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on, interviews, and record review conducted during the Extended Recertification Survey from 01/21/2025 to 01/31/2025 for t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on, interviews, and record review conducted during the Extended Recertification Survey from 01/21/2025 to 01/31/2025 for three (Residents #20, #76, and #248) of three residents reviewed the facility did not ensure that a copy of resident's transfer and/or discharge notices were sent to a representative of the Office of the State Long Term Care Ombudsman. This is evidenced by the following: Resident #20 had diagnoses that included urinary retention (unable to empty the bladder), benign prostatic hyperplasia (enlargement of the prostate), and chronic kidney disease. A review of the electronic health record revealed Resident #20 was transferred to the hospital on [DATE], 11/14/2024, 12/02/2024, 12/19/2024, and 12/24/2024. Resident #76 had diagnoses that included bilateral below the knee amputations, history of deep vein thrombosis (blood clot), and anxiety. A review of the electronic health record revealed Resident #76 was transferred to the hospital on [DATE]. Resident #248 had diagnoses including cerebral vascular accident (stroke), diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. A review of the electronic health record revealed that Resident #248 was transferred to the hospital on [DATE]. During an interview on 01/22/205 at 10:21 AM the Ombudsman from the Office of the State Long Term Care Ombudsman Program stated that they had not received the facility's notices of transfers and discharges from the facility for the past year. During an interview on 01/30/2025 at 11:41 AM the Director of Social Work stated residents' discharge/transfer notices were not currently being sent to the Ombudsman though it was the responsibility of the Social Worker to send them. The Director of Social Work stated the last notification sent was in October 2024. During an interview on 01/31/2025 at 2:25 PM the Administrator stated they were not aware the facility was not sending copies of the notice of resident discharges/transfers to the Long-Term Care Ombudsman program, The facility was unable to provide any documentation that the Office of the State Long Term Care Ombudsman office had been notified of residents' transfers and discharges per the regulations. 10 NYCRR 415.3(i)(1)(iii)(a-c)
Nov 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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during an Abbreviated Survey (NY00342658), for one (Resident #12) of two residents reviewed for drugs and medication, the facility did no...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during an Abbreviated Survey (NY00342658), for one (Resident #12) of two residents reviewed for drugs and medication, the facility did not provide services to meet professional standards of quality. Specifically, nursing staff did not ensure medications were consumed by the resident and were left unattended with the resident in a common area. This was evidenced by the following. Review of the facility policy Medication Administration Review, dated August 2019, documented that Licensed Nurses must ensure that all medications are administered and documented. Resident #12 had diagnoses that included multiple sclerosis (a disease that affects the central nervous system), epilepsy (a brain condition that causes seizures), and hypertension (high blood pressure). The Minimum Data Set Resident Assessment, dated 10/13/2024, documented the resident had moderately impaired cognition and had impaired vision and trouble concentrating. Review of Resident #12 current Comprehensive Care Plan did not include that the resident's had been assessed to safely self-administer medications. Physician's orders, dated 10/31/2024, included Effexor XR (a medication for depression), amlodipine (a medication for high blood pressure), calcium-vitamin D tablet (supplement), divalproex sodium (a medication for epilepsy), levetiracetam (a medication for seizures), oxybutynin (a medication for overactive bladder), and fiber (supplement) that was scheduled to be given at 8:00 AM. The orders did not include that Resident #12's medications could be left unattended with the resident. Review of Resident #12's October 2024 Medication Administration Record revealed that the above medications were signed off as administered on 10/31/2024 at 8:00 AM (give or take an hour). Review of Resident #12 electronic medical record did not reveal any evidence that the resident had been assessed for self-administration of medication. During observations on 10/31/2024 at 10:07 AM, Resident #12 was sitting in the dining room with approximately 13 other residents in the dining room. A medication cup containing six pills was on the table. Resident #12 spilled the pills while reaching for the medication cup. At 10:10 AM, Certified Nurse Aide #1 picked up the pills and gave them to Unit Clerk #1. At 10:14 AM, Unit Clerk #1 stated they would give the pills to the nurse. At 10:18 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse #1 stated they were not assigned to Resident #12, but Licensed Practical Nurse Manager #2 was. During an interview on at 10:21 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse Manager #2 stated the pills may belong to Resident #12 and they did not think that Resident #12 was care planned for leaving medications with them to take unobserved. Licensed Practical Nurse Manger #2 also stated they gave Resident #12 the pills sometime after 9:00 AM and watched the resident put the pills in their mouth, but did not see the resident swallow the pills, and should have confirmed that the medications had been taken. During an interview on 10/31/2024 at 11:26 AM, the Director of Nursing stated the nurse should stay with the resident until the medications are swallowed, and medication should not have been left unattended with Resident #12. 10 NYCRR: 415.11(c)(3)(i)
Jul 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

Deficiency F0625 (Tag F0625)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review conducted during an Abbreviated Survey (NY00320939), for three (Residents #1, #2 and #3) o...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review conducted during an Abbreviated Survey (NY00320939), for three (Residents #1, #2 and #3) of three residents reviewed the facility did not ensure a written notice of the facility's bed hold policy was provided to the residents or their representatives at the time of transfer to the hospital, or for emergency transfers, within 24 hours. Specifically, the facility could not provide evidence that any of the residents or their representatives were given written information regarding their bed hold policy in allowing the residents to return to the facility following a hospital discharge at the time of their transfer. This was evidenced by the following: 1. Resident #2 had diagnoses that included bacteremia, major depressive disorder, and anemia. The Minimum Data Set Resident Assessment, dated 5/21/24, revealed the resident was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #2's electronic medical record revealed the resident was transferred to the hospital several few weeks ago. The facility was unable to provide documented evidence the resident or their representative had been notified in writing of the facility's bed hold policy. The resident did not return to the facility. 2. Resident #3 had diagnoses that included a below the knee amputation and benign prostrate hyperplasia (enlargement). The Minimum Data Set Resident assessment dated [DATE] documented the resident was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #3's electronic medical record revealed the resident was transferred to the hospital twice in the past several months. There was no evidence the resident or their representative had been notified in writing of the facility's bed hold policy for either facility discharge and hospital admission. 3. Resident #1 had diagnoses that included acute cystitis, acute pancreatitis, and anxiety. The Minimum Data Set Resident Assessment, dated 8/29/23, documented the resident was moderately impaired of cognition function. Review of Resident #1's electronic medical record revealed the resident was transferred to the hospital several months ago and admitted for approximately nine days. There was no documented evidence that the resident or their representative had been notified in writing of the facility's bed hold policy. During an interview on 6/27/24 at 10:48 AM, the Business Office Manager stated that they had been in their position for the past two years and did not have a clear understanding of the bed hold process and was not aware of any communication that should happen when a resident is transferred to the hospital. The Business Office Manager stated they were only aware that a bed hold policy form was signed when all residents were admitted to the facility, and not when they were transferred to the hospital. During an interview on 6/27/24 at 12:03 PM, the Administrator stated that all clinicians were responsible for providing the bed hold form to the residents or their representatives upon admission to the facility and at the time of transfer to the hospital. During an interview on 6/27/24 at 1:30 PM, the Unit Manager stated that since they started working at the facility (March 2023) they had never been involved with giving residents or families any bed hold forms when they were transferred to the hospital and did not know who was responsible for that. 10 NYCRR 415.3(i)(3)(i)(a)
Apr 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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews conducted during an Abbreviated Survey (Complaint #NY00314833), for two (R...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews conducted during an Abbreviated Survey (Complaint #NY00314833), for two (Resident #11 and Resident #12) of three residents reviewed for Activities of Daily Living, the facility did not ensure that a resident who was unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain good grooming and personal hygiene. Specifically, Resident #11 did not receive assistance with shaving and washing their hair. Resident #12 did not receive assistance with shaving and nail care. This is evidenced by the following: Review of the facility policy Activities of Daily Living Care and Support, dated 3/13/24, documented that the facility would provide residents with activities of daily living care and support in accordance with current standards of practice, State and Federal regulations, and were based on the resident's assessed needs, personal preferences, and goals of care. Additionally, nail care should be provided as needed, and facial hair should be groomed and hair care provided to the resident per their preference and/or assessed needs. 1.Resident #11 had diagnoses that included rheumatoid arthritis (a chronic inflammatory disorder), diabetes, and depression. The Minimum Data Set Resident assessment dated [DATE] documented that a bath or shower was very important to the resident. Review of a progress note dated on 3/1/24 and documented by Social Work #1, revealed that Resident #11 had moderately impaired cognition. Review of a progress note dated on 4/3/24 and documented by Registered Nurse #1, revealed Resident #11 had contractures to both upper extremities and the resident required assistance with activities of daily living. Review of the current Comprehensive Care Plan and the [NAME] (care plan used by Certified Nursing Assistants for daily care) revealed Resident #11 required the assistance of one staff member for personal hygiene. During an observation on 4/2/24 at 12:40 PM, Resident #11's hair appeared unwashed, and they had thick, dark facial hair under their nose, down both sides of their face and across their neck. When interviewed at that time, Resident #11 stated they were unable to care for their hair and facial hair on their own and it bothered them. During an observation on 4/3/24 at 9:45 AM, Resident #11 continued to be unshaven with hair unwashed. Review of the facility's shower schedule revealed Resident #11 was scheduled for a shower on the evening shift of 4/3/24. During an observation and interview on 4/4/24 at 9:45 AM with Registered Nurse Manager #1, Resident #11 continued to be unshaven and their hair unwashed. When interviewed at that time, Registered Nurse Manager #1 stated that Resident #11 should not look like that if they had received a shower. Shaving and hair washing should be completed on the shower day either with the shower or bed bath. Review of Resident #11's Certified Nursing Assistant tasks documented in their electronic medical record revealed that Resident #11 had received a shower on 4/3/24 at 9:21 PM. 2.Resident #12 had diagnoses including hemiplegia (paralysis on one side of the body) and hemiparesis (weakness on one side of the body) following cerebral infarction (stroke). The Minimum Data Set Resident assessment dated [DATE] documented the resident had moderately impaired cognition, had impairments to one arm and one leg affecting daily function, and required assistance with personal hygiene. Review of the current Comprehensive Care Plan and [NAME] revealed that Resident #12 required assistance from one staff member for personal hygiene and was dependent on staff for bathing. During observations on 4/2/24 at 2:00 PM and 4/3/24 at 10:10 AM, Resident #12 had long facial hair on their chin measuring approximately four to five centimeters long and the fingernails on both hands had dark, brown debris underneath multiple nails. During an interview on 4/3/24 at 10:17 AM, Certified Nursing Assistant #1 stated that shaving and nail care were provided as needed and during showers. They stated they had given Resident #12 a shower at the start of the shift around 7:00 AM and did not notice at that time that Resident #12 had facial hair or dirty nails. When observed at that time, Certified Nursing Assistant #1 stated that Resident #12 had facial hair that needed to be shaved and had dirty nails that needed to be cleaned. During an interview on 4/4/24 at 12:06 PM, the Director of Nursing stated grooming and hygiene should be completed as needed, during showers, and per resident preference. Additionally, the Director of Nursing stated that they had been aware recently that activities of daily living were not always being completed as they should be. During an interview on 4/4/24 at 12:39 PM, the Administrator stated they had spoken with residents who reported not getting showers and concerns with activities of daily living had been raised at resident council meetings and these concerns would go to nursing. 10 NYCRR 415.12(a)(3)
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

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews conducted during an Abbreviated Survey (Complaint # NY00314833) it was det...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews conducted during an Abbreviated Survey (Complaint # NY00314833) it was determined that for one (Resident #12), of three residents reviewed for accidents the facility did not ensure that each resident received the appropriate assistance devices to prevent accidents. Specifically, Resident #12 required the use of a Hoyer lift ( a mechanical lift device) for safe transfers. During an observation two staff members transferred the resident without using a mechanical lift. This is evidenced by the following: The facility policy Activities of Daily Living Care and Support revised on 3/13/24, documented that the facility shall provide residents with Activity of Daily Living care and support in accordance with current standards of practice, State and Federal regulations, and are based on the resident's assessed needs, personal preference, and goals of care. Review of the facility policy Care Plans - Comprehensive, dated October 2019 revealed the care plans are used to describe the services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Resident #12 had diagnosis including hemiplegia (paralysis on one side of the body) following cerebral infarction (stroke), osteoarthritis, and heart failure. The Minimum Data Set Resident assessment dated , 1/14/24 documented the resident had moderately impaired cognition, had impairments in range of motion that affected daily functions on one side of the body of both upper and lower extremities and was dependent on staff for transfers. Review of Resident #12's current Comprehensive Care Plan and [NAME] (care plan used by the Certified Nursing Assistants for daily care) revealed Resident #12 required two staff assistance using a Hoyer lift when transferring from the chair to the bed or the bed to the chair. During an observation and interview on 4/3/24 at 10:30 AM, Certified Nursing Assistant #1 and Certified Nursing Assistant #3 assisted Resident #12 to stand up from their wheelchair and assisted the resident to sit on their bed without the use of a walker or mechanical lift. Certified nursing assistant #1 stated they could not find a Hoyer lift sling, so they transferred the resident by a stand and pivot transfer. Additionally, the Certified Nursing Assistant #1 stated that the resident was also transferred out of bed to their wheelchair earlier that morning without the mechanical lift due to not having any lift slings available. During an observation and interview on 4/3/24 at 2:21 PM, the Laundry Supervisor stated on 2/24/24 they started completing Hoyer lift sling audits as staff were saying they did not have any slings on the units. The Laundry Supervisor said that there were not any lift slings in the laundry that day (4/3/24) and there were no slings observed in the laundry room. In an interview on 4/3/24 at 2:30 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant #2 stated they had approximately 14 residents on their unit that required a Hoyer lift transfer and that they never have enough lift slings, so they often must leave the residents in bed or use a shower pad to lift them. Additionally, Certified Nursing Assistant #2 stated the Nurse Managers and the Director of Nursing have not listened to the staff concerns regarding mechanical lift slings. During observations on 4/4/24 at 11:00 AM and 11:15 AM, there were no clean mechanical lift slings in either of the resident unit clean linen rooms. During an interview on 4/4/24 at 12:06 PM, the Director of Nursing stated Physical Therapy was responsible for deciding a resident's transfer status. Registered Nurses can increase transfer assistance as needed, however no staff should ever use less assistance than what is care planned for. If a resident requires a Hoyer lift device there is not another option for transferring that resident. The Director of Nursing stated that each resident should have their own sling and that they were not aware that there were not enough mechanical Hoyer lift slings for all residents. During an interview on 4/4/24 at 12:39 PM, the Administrator stated the Unit Managers and the Director of Nursing had brought it to their attention approximately four or five times since January 2024 that there were not enough mechanical lift slings, they had ordered more and were hoping they came in soon. The Administrator stated the facility did not do an assessment or follow-up to determine why there were not enough mechanical lift slings available. 10 NYCRR 415.12(h)(1)
Jan 2023 10 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

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 record review and interviews conducted during the Recertification Survey completed on 1/11/23, it was determined for on...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews conducted during the Recertification Survey completed on 1/11/23, it was determined for one (Resident #54) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications, the facility did not ensure a person-centered Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) was developed for each resident that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet the resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs. Specifically, a CCP was not developed for use of psychotropic medications that included targeted symptoms, measurable goals, and person-centered nonpharmacological interventions. The finding is: Resident #54 had diagnoses that included anxiety disorder, depression and recent hip fracture. The Minimum Data Set (MDS)assessment dated [DATE] documented the resident was moderately impaired of cognitive function and had received anti-anxiety and anti-depressant medications on 6-7 days respectfully in the look back period. The PHQ-9 test (a screening done by health care staff to assess for potential signs of depression) documented that Resident #54 had signs and symptoms of depression including but not limited to: feeling down, depressed or hopeless, little interest in doing things, tired and having little energy, and trouble concentrating on at least one day of the 7-day look back period for each symptom. A physician order dated 12/7/22, documented trazodone (antidepressant medication) at bedtime for insomnia and lorazepam (anti-anxiety medication) once daily for anxiety. Both medications are in a class considered psychotropic medications (a class of drugs that affect a person's mental state). The Visual Bedside [NAME] Report (care plan used by the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) to drive daily care), dated 12/7/22 under Behavior and Mood was blank. The [NAME] did not include which behaviors or mood the resident exhibited or any person-centered interventions for staff to utilize. The current CCP did not include what signs and symptoms were being exhibited by the resident or that the resident was on multiple psychotropic medications. Additionally, the CCP did not include monitoring for side effects of psychotropic medications or interventions for staff to utilize. During an interview on 1/10/23 at 1:41p.m. the interim Director of Nursing (DON) stated everyone was responsible for developing CCPs, some are standard such as COVID-19, falls, and activities of daily living, and everything else should be based on the resident's diagnoses. The interim DON stated if psychotropic medications were triggered from the MDS Assessment in order to develop a care plan then it should be addressed in the residents' CCP by nursing or social services. The interim DON said that if a resident is on antianxiety and antidepressant medications the CCP should include goals, to monitor for side effects of the medications, and include non-pharmacologic methods. 10NYCRR 415.11(c)(1)
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 F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, and record reviews conducted during the Recertification Survey, completed on 1/11/23, it was determined tha...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, and record reviews conducted during the Recertification Survey, completed on 1/11/23, it was determined that for one (Resident #1) of five residents reviewed for Unnecessary Medications, the facility did not ensure the services provided or arranged by the facility as outlined in the resident's Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) met professional standards of quality. Specifically, Resident #1 had two orders for the same medication, dosage, and frequency both active at the same time. This is evidenced by the following: Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses of left tibia fracture, fibromyalgia (widespread muscle pain), and anxiety. The Minimum Data Set Assessment, dated 11/1/22, included that Resident #1 was cognitively intact, and had received an antianxiety medication in the previous seven days. Review of the Comprehensive Care Plan revealed that Resident #1 was on psychotropic medications (a group of medications used to treat a person's mental state) for diagnoses of anxiety and depression, with interventions including to give the medications as ordered by a physician and monitor the side effects and effectiveness. Review of active physician orders in the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed the following: 1. alprazolam (anti-anxiety medication) 0.25 milligrams (mg) tablet, give one tablet by mouth every 12 hours as needed for anxiety. The order was placed in the resident's EMR 10/26/22 by Licensed Practical Nurse Manager (LPNM) #1 and was electronically signed by the physician on 10/27/22. The order was discontinued on 1/8/23 due to a discharge to the hospital. 2. alprazolam 0.25 mg tablet, give one tablet by mouth every 12 hours as needed for anxiety. The order was transcribed 12/29/22 by Registered Nurse (RN) #2 and was electronically signed by the Nurse Practitioner (NP) on 12/29/21. The order was discontinued on 1/8/23 at due to a discharge to the hospital. Review of the January 2023 Medication Administration Record revealed that both orders were active in the resident's EMR, and both were being used by nursing to sign off on the administration of the alprazolam. The resident did not receive the alprazolam more than every 12 hours as ordered. During an interview on 1/10/22 at 1:37 p.m., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #2 stated that the nurses enter narcotic medication orders into the EMR in order to refill the medications. LPN #2 stated that when they enter the order, they are supposed to discontinue the previous one and after the new order is entered, medical must sign off on it before the pharmacy sends the medication. During an interview on 1/11/23 at 12:14 p.m., RN #2 reviewed Resident #1's medication orders and confirmed that they entered the alprazolam order dated 12/29/22. RN #2 stated that if they identify that a medication will be running out, they should notify the LPNM, who will normally reorder the medication. RN #2 could not recall why they entered the order and stated it may have been because there were few pills left. RN #2 stated that they would not discontinue the old order if there was one pill left, in case they had to give the medication to the resident. During an interview on 1/11/23 at 12:26 p.m., the LPNM stated that there are no refills on narcotics without a new script from the physician or NP. The LPNM stated a new script would have to obtained before the pharmacy sent the medication. The LPNM stated that previous process was for the nurses to enter the order, but it was identified a few months ago that they were not discontinuing the previous orders (thus creating duplicate orders) so the process was changed with only the LPNM putting in the new orders instead of the nurses. The LPNM stated that they had noticed in the past few weeks that the nurses were entering the orders again and should not be. During an interview on 1/11/23 at 12:55 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) stated that if the refill of a narcotic medication was needed, a new order must be obtained from the physician who determines the need to continue with the medication. The DON stated that RN #2 should have discontinued the old order when the new order was entered (to avoid duplicate orders and/or administration). 10 NYCRR 415.11 (c)(3)(i)
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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during the Recertification Survey completed on 1/11/23, it was de...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during the Recertification Survey completed on 1/11/23, it was determined that for one (Resident #15) of nine residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADLs), the facility did not ensure that ADL care was provided for dependent residents. Specifically, Resident #15's facial hair was not shaved. This is evidenced by the following: Resident #15 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses of end-stage renal disease (requiring hemodialysis), gout, and diabetes. The Minimum Data Set Assessment, dated 11/27/22, included that the resident was cognitively intact and required set-up help and supervision of one-staff member with bathing. Review of the Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) initiated 12/28/22, and the current [NAME] (care plan used by the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) for daily care) revealed that Resident #15 required set-up help and/or supervision with bathing, and staff assistance with providing cleaning products, towels and adjusting the water temperature for the resident. During an observation and interview on 1/5/23 at 9:10 a.m., Resident #15 had several days growth of facial hair (approximately one and a half centimeters long). Resident #15 stated that they were not growing out their beard intentionally but that a Rehabilitation staff member was supposed to shave them during the week, but the staff member was sick. Resident #15 stated that the CNAs had not asked if they wanted to be shaved, but if they had, they would have agreed. During an observation on 1/6/23 at 8:57 a.m., Resident #15 was observed ambulating in the hallway, their beard length unchanged. During an observation on 1/9/23 at 9:38 a.m., Resident #15's facial hair remained unshaven. During an interview on 1/10/23 at 12:11 p.m., Resident #15 stated that the Rehabilitation aide nor the hairdresser were present in the facility to shave them. Resident #15 stated that if they had a razor, they would shave. At 12:21 p.m., Resident #15 asked if the facility had an electric razor. CNA #1 stated that they had straight razors and would get the resident some to shave their beard. During an interview on 1/11/23 at 10:48 a.m., LPN #3 stated that the CNAs and nurses can shave residents and that they would assume residents are asked daily. During an interview on 1/11/23 at 11:05 a.m., CNA #2 stated that residents can be shaved every day if needed. CNA #2 stated that they look at a resident's face to determine if shaving is needed. During a follow-up interview at 12:25 p.m., CNA #2 stated that they ask residents every day if they want to shave but do not document if a resident refuses. CNA #2 stated that they thought Resident #15 liked their beard. During an interview on 1/11/23 at 11:16 a.m., the Administrator (ADM) stated that the CNAs should offer to shave residents and that a Rehab aide does a barbershop two times a week. During an interview on 1/11/23 at 12:26 p.m., the Licensed Practical Nurse Manager (LPNM) stated that any nursing staff member can ask a resident if they would like to be shaved. The LPNM stated that the facility has an in-house barber (Rehabilitation aide), who is usually available on Tuesday and Fridays. The LPNM stated that if a staff noticed a resident with long facial hair, the expectation would be that staff ask if the resident would like to be shaved. The LPNM stated that Resident #15 had not voiced wanting to be shaved. 10NYCRR 415.12 (a)(3)
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 F0692 (Tag F0692)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record reviews conducting during the Recertification Survey, completed on 1/11/23, it was ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record reviews conducting during the Recertification Survey, completed on 1/11/23, it was determined that for one (Resident #15) of six residents reviewed for nutrition, the facility did not ensure that the resident's daily fluid intake was monitored to ensure their needs as ordered by the physician were met. Specifically, the physician ordered fluid restriction was not being consistently documented or monitored. This is evidenced by the following: The facility policy, Fluid Restrictions, dated last revised in December 2019, included that the physician order should include the number of milliliters (mLs) of fluids permitted for each day, and nursing fluids are divided into medications passes and the individual's daily routine. The policy stated that nursing is responsible for recording the intake and output of fluids for each shift. The policy included that the Registered Dietician (RD) would calculate and distribute the fluid pattern for the total fluid allowance to be given each day, and that the RD would monitor the individual's status and make recommendations for changes in fluid restriction as appropriate. Resident #15 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses of end-stage renal disease (requiring dialysis), gout, and diabetes. The Minimum Data Set Assessment, dated 11/27/22, included that the resident was cognitively intact and received a therapeutic diet. The physician orders, dated 12/2/22, included a fluid restriction of 1800 mLs daily (commonly seen for residents on dialysis to minimize fluid overload). The fluid restriction order specified how much dietary fluid could be provided on each meal tray, and how much fluid could be given by nursing staff during each shift. Review of the Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) and [NAME] (care plan used by Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) for daily care) revealed Resident #15 was on a 1800 mLs daily fluid restriction with specific allotted amounts for each shift and meals. The CCP also included to monitor the resident's intake and output. Review of the fluid intake documentation provided by the facility on 1/9/23 revealed that the entry for fluid intake during meals in the 'dining task' of the electronic medical record (EMR) was entered as a range, not the actual amount the resident drank. Review of the December 2022 Medication Administration Record (MAR) intakes, (the amount of fluids ingested during medication pass) and the Documentation Survey Report (amount of fluids drank during meals) revealed that total fluid intake documented on 12/2/22 was between 1253-1869 mLs and on 12/3/23 was between 2,094 and 2,160 mLs (versus the 1800 mLs ordered). Review of Meals/Solids Intake report in the EMR (fluids takes per shift not including dining) and Documentation Survey Report for December 2022 revealed four days (12/9, 12/11, 12/16 and 12/31) where no fluid intake was documented at all. The facility was unable to provide any documentations that 24-hour total fluid intakes were being consistently documented and monitored to ensure the resident's hydration needs were being met. During an interview on 1/5/23 at 9:10 a.m., Resident #15 verbalized that they were on a fluid restriction. During an observation and interview on 1/10/23 at 12:11 p.m., Resident #15 was in their room when the lunch tray arrived. Apple juice was listed on the lunch ticket but was not on the tray. There was a cup of coffee and four empty plastic cups on the tray. A bottle of cranberry juice was sitting on Resident #15's windowsill, approximately three quarters full and Resident #15 stated that someone had brought it in from outside the facility. During an interview on 1/9/23 at 2:50 p.m., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 stated that the nurses document the amount of fluids that a resident receives with medications and the CNAs document the amount of fluids the residents drink with meals. During an interview on 1/10/23 at 1:16 p.m., the Registered Dietician (RD) stated that the physician's order for a daily fluid restriction would include the ordered volume, how much fluids are allowed for meals and how much could be given by nursing (for medication pass). The RD stated that the food tray ticket should include if the resident was on a fluid restriction, and that nursing should document how much fluid the resident received per shift and during meals. The RD stated that the DON ran 24-hour summaries which included 24-hour fluid intakes. The RD stated that they would check a resident's fluid intake when they do their dietary assessments, which is either monthly or quarterly but not every 24 hours for residents on fluid restrictions. During an interview on 1/10/23 at 1:37 p.m., LPN #2 stated that the resident's MAR would tell the nurse how much fluids a resident can get during medication pass if they are on a fluid restriction. LPN #2 stated that they did not know who checked the 24-hour daily fluid intake for a resident on a fluid restriction to make sure they did not go over. During an interview on 1/11/23 at 10:48 a.m., LPN #3 stated that the nurses are responsible for monitoring the 24-hour fluid intake totals for residents on fluid restrictions and that the EMR program provided alerts if a resident went over or under their fluid restriction. LPN #3 stated that they rely on the alerts to let them know if a resident went over. During an interview on 1/11/23 at 12:26 p.m., the LPN/Nurse Manager (NM) stated that the nurses are responsible for monitoring the fluid intakes during their shift for residents on a fluid restriction. The LPN/NM stated that they did not believe there was a specific person reviewing the 24-hour fluid intakes for residents on a fluid restriction. The LPN/NM stated that the nurses should make sure they see what fluids are on a resident's food tray and should be reviewing the EMR alerts at the beginning and end of the shift. The LPN/NM stated that fluid restrictions are discussed during the morning clinical meeting, which is attended by the RD, who will discuss if there are any issues. During an interview on 1/11/23 at 12:55 p.m., and again at 2:10 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) stated that the nurses are responsible for monitoring the 24-hour fluid intake for residents on a fluid restriction and that the RD should be looking at the 24-hour intake but that there was not a clear process for this. 10 NYCRR 415.12(i)(1)
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 observations and interviews conducted during the Recertification Survey completed on 1/11/23, it was determined that for one (2 North hallway) of two medication carts reviewed, the facility d...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and interviews conducted during the Recertification Survey completed on 1/11/23, it was determined that for one (2 North hallway) of two medication carts reviewed, the facility did not ensure that all drugs and biologicals were properly labeled and stored in accordance with State and Federal laws. Specifically, multiple medications were found pre-poured, unlabeled and undated for future medication administration. Additionally, a large bottle of Tylenol was on top of a medication cart and unsupervised for an extended length of time. This is evidenced by the following: The facility policy Medication Administration, dated December 2019, documented that medications may not be prepared in advance and must be administered within one hour their prescribed time, unless otherwise specified. The facility policy Medication Storage, dated January 2019, documented that medication should be stored in their original, labeled containers as received from the pharmacy. 1. During an observation on 1/9/23 at 2:41 p.m., on 2nd floor resident unit there were multiple pre-poured medications in individual clear bags and medication cups in the top drawer of the North Hall medication cart. Each bag contained multiple medications that were undated and unlabled as to what the medications were. When interviewed at this time Registered Nurse (RN) #2 stated that they had pre-prepared the medications and labeled the containers with the residents' names. In a follow up observation at 3:37 p.m. there remained six medication cups, labeled with resident's last names, and each containing multiple pills. The medication cups were uncovered and did not include dates, times or names of medications. RN #2 stated that they always set up their medications prior to the medication pass if they have time. In an interview at this time the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)/Nurse Manager stated that medications should not be prepared ahead of time. During an interview on 1/10/23 at 1:37 p.m., (LPN) #2 stated that residents' medications should not be pre-poured ahead of medication administration. LPN #2 stated that some medications may require a blood pressure to be checked first and the nurse would need to know the resident's blood pressure prior to pouring the medication. During an interview on 1/11/23 at 12:55 p.m., the Director of Nursing stated that the nurses should not pre-pour medications prior to medication pass. 2.During an observation on 1/6/23 at 8:58 a.m., a bottle of Tylenol, labeled 100 500 milligram tablets, was sitting on top of the unsupervised 2 East medication cart. The bottle was more than half full. The cart was left unsupervised for approximately 24 minutes. Interviewed at this time RN #1 stated that they didn't realize the bottle of Tyenol was on top of the medication cart. [10 NYCRR 415.18(d)]
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 F0836 (Tag F0836)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations and interview conducted during the Recertification Survey completed on 1/11/23, it was determined that the facility did not ensure compliance with all applicable State codes. Spe...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and interview conducted during the Recertification Survey completed on 1/11/23, it was determined that the facility did not ensure compliance with all applicable State codes. Specifically, the facility was not in compliance with section 915 of the 2015 edition of the International Fire Code as adopted by New York State, which requires the use of carbon monoxide detection in a building that has fuel-burning appliances. The findings are: 1. Observations on 1/5/23 at 1:42 p.m. included three natural gas-powered dryers located in the first-floor laundry room, and there were no carbon monoxide detectors within or in the vicinity of the laundry area. 2. In an interview on 1/5/23 at 2:06 p.m. the Director of Maintenance stated there was a carbon monoxide detector in the laundry room behind the washers but that it was taken out about a week ago as the batteries needed to be replaced. 3. On 1/5/23 at 2:34 p.m. it was observed that a carbon monoxide detector was plugged into an outlet next to the meat slicer in the kitchen and was marked with an install date of 11/3/20. Further observation included that on the back of the carbon monoxide detector the manufacturer had printed instructions to test weekly. No documentation was provided to show that this carbon monoxide detector, or any of the other carbon monoxide detectors in the facility were being tested. The 2015 edition of the International Fire Code (IFC), requires 1) carbon monoxide detection to be provided in an approved location between the fuel burning appliance and the dwelling unit, sleeping unit, or classroom; or on the ceiling of the room containing the fuel-burning appliance 2) carbon monoxide alarms shall be maintained in accordance with NFPA 720. The 2012 Edition of NFPA 720, Standard for the Installation of Carbon Monoxide Detection and Warning Equipment, requires that single-station carbon monoxide alarms shall be inspected and tested in accordance with the manufacturer's published instructions at least monthly. 10NYCRR: 415.29(a)(2), 711.2(a)(1); 42 CFR: 483.70(b), 2015 IFC: Section 915, 915.1, 915.1.4, 915.6, Section 1103.9 2012 NFPA 720: 8.7.1
CONCERN (E) 📢 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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, interviews and record review conducted during the Recertification Survey completed on 1/11/23, it was determined that for two (2nd floor and 3rd floor) of two units reviewed for...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews and record review conducted during the Recertification Survey completed on 1/11/23, it was determined that for two (2nd floor and 3rd floor) of two units reviewed for medication storage, the facility did not have a consistent system to account for the receipt, usage, disposition, and reconciliation of all controlled medications (narcotics). Specifically, the controlled medications count sheets and the signatures of staff members for each shift-to-shift count were not consistently completed to validate the correct controlled substance count was done and was accurate. This is evidenced by the following: The facility policy Narcotic Count, dated August 2018, documented that the oncoming and outgoing nurses assigned to the medication cart are responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the controlled drug count. The policy also included that two nurses would count the number of individual controlled drugs by looking at each medication and verify that the number of individual controlled drugs matched the number on inventory. The policy also included that the outgoing and oncoming nurses need to review all medications and once the nurse has accepted the count, signed off on the controlled medication count acknowledgement page, and accepts the keys, it is the nurse's responsibility if the count is not correct at the next shift change. The policy also included that in the event of the need to change the nurse assigned to the narcotics during times other than at routine shift, two nurses will count using the above process. Observations of medication storage on the 2nd floor resident care unit for both hallways (2-East and 2-North) on 1/6/23 at 10:36 a.m., included a review of the Narcotic Books (books used to reconcile the correct number of narcotics in storage) dated 11/29/22 to 1/6/23 at 6:00 a.m. The narcotic sheets were missing dates, times, signatures, and documentation to verify that the counts were done and were accurate for multiple days and shifts. During an interview on 1/6/23 at 10:36 a.m., Registered Nurse (RN) #1 stated that narcotic medications are counted by the outgoing and oncoming nurses at the beginning and the end of each shift, and that the nurses sign the book after they verify the counts are correct. Review of the 2-East Narcotic Count book with RN #1 at this time revealed an empty signature box for the prior day 1/5/23. RN #1 stated that the missing signature was theirs and that they had gotten busy. Observations of medication storage on the 3rd floor resident care unit for both hallways (3-East and 3-North) on 1/6/23 at 11:10 a.m., included a review of the Narcotic Books dated 11/28/22 to 1/6/23 at 6:00 a.m. The narcotic sheets were missing dates, times, signatures, and documentation to verify that the counts had been done and were correct on multiple days and shifts. During an interview on 1/6/23 at 11:10 a.m., the Registered Nurse Manager (RNM) stated that the expectation is that two nurses count narcotic medications at the same time and that there are two signatures. The RNM stated that they have noticed that there are some missing nurse signatures. During an interview on 1/6/23 at 2:50 p.m., the LPN/Nurse Manager (NM) from 2nd floor stated that the expectation for the narcotic count process is that the outgoing and oncoming nurses count the medications together and both sign the narcotic book. The LPNM stated that they were not aware that there were missing signatures, dates, and times on the narcotic count sheets. During an observation on 1/9/23 at 2:41 p.m., the 2-North Narcotic Book had one nurse signature (outgoing nurse) at 2:07 p.m., that the count had been done but no oncoming nurse signature to verify the counts had been completed by two nurses and were correct for the 1/9/23 day to evening shift. During an interview on 1/11/23 at 12:55 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) stated that the expectation for narcotic counts is that two (outgoing and oncoming) nurses count the narcotics together to verify that the count is correct. The DON also stated that if the count is correct, then both nurses sign the Narcotic Count book, and the medication cart keys are handed over to the oncoming nurse. The DON then stated that they have seen narcotic count sheets with blank boxes and missing signatures. NYCRR 415.18(b)(1)(2)(3)
CONCERN (E) 📢 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

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, record review, and interviews conducted during the Recertification Survey and complaint investigations (#NY00297231 and #NY00307562), completed on 1/11/23, it was determined tha...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review, and interviews conducted during the Recertification Survey and complaint investigations (#NY00297231 and #NY00307562), completed on 1/11/23, it was determined that the facility did not follow the meal menus to ensure the nutritional needs of the residents. Specifically, residents did not receive menu items as listed on their meal tickets. The findings are: During an interview on 1/5/23 at 9:17 a.m., Resident #15 stated that when they received their meals, the food on their plate did not always match the food ticket. Resident #15 had a copy of the facility's meal menu and stated this was the first time they had gotten one since they were admitted (11/10/22) to the facility. While reviewing the menu, Resident #15 stated that for breakfast, they received boiled eggs instead of scrambled eggs and a donut instead of a muffin. Resident #15 stated that when they told staff that they did not have everything on their plate, the staff member said they will get something but did not come back. Observation of tray line for the lunch meal on 1/6/23 from 11:09 a.m. to 12:35 p.m. included, but was not limited to, the following: a) Review of Resident #68's meal ticket included that they were to receive bottled water and observation of Resident #68's completed meal tray did not include bottled water. In an interview at this time, Dietary Aide #1 stated that there is regular water that can be given on the unit, and they do not have bottled water. b) Review of Resident #71's meal ticket included that they were to receive a mighty shake (a nutritional supplement) and observation of Resident #71's completed meal tray did not include a mighty shake. After the surveyor asked about the lack of mighty shake, one was provided for the meal tray. c) Review of Resident #25's meal ticket included that they were to receive tomato juice and observation of Resident #25's completed meal tray did not include tomato juice. In an interview at this time, Dietary Aide #1 stated they were out of tomato juice. d) Review of Resident #45's meal ticket included that they were to receive a strawberry mighty shake and observation of Resident #45's completed meal tray did not include a strawberry mighty shake and instead included a chocolate mighty shake. In an interview at this time, Dietary Aide #1 stated that they might have strawberry mighty shakes in the freezer, but were not sure. e) Review of Resident #83's meal ticket included that they were to receive apple juice and observation of Resident #83's completed meal tray did not include apple juice and instead included cranberry juice. f) Review of Resident #15's meal ticket included that they were to receive apple juice and observation of Resident #15's completed meal tray did not include apple juice and instead included cranberry juice. The meal ticket was not altered by the kitchen staff to show the resident that the substitution had been made. During an interview on 1/6/23 at approximately 12:15 p.m., Dietary Aide #1 stated that the kitchen has apple juice in stock but that it is frozen right now. During an interview on 1/6/23 at 3:00 p.m., the Registered Dietician stated that if a meal ticket calls for apple juice, it could be because the resident does not like cranberry juice or that Resident #68 might just prefer bottled water. During an interview on 1/6/23 at 3:27 p.m., the Food Service Director (FSD) stated that there is apple juice in stock today so it should have been given on meal tickets that called for apple juice. During an observation on 1/10/23, Resident #15's lunch tray arrived to their room. Observed on the resident's plate was a biscuit or roll, cooked zucchini, a noodle, meat, peas medley, applesauce, a cup of coffee, a salt packet, a pepper packet, two creamer packets, and four empty plastic cups. Review of the meal ticket listed two, six ounces (oz) of turkey noodle casserole, a half cup of zucchini, a half cup of cinnamon applesauce, four fluid ounces (fl. oz) of apple juice, six fl. oz. of coffee, one salt packet, one pepper packet, and two sugar substitute packets. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #1 entered the resident's room at 12:21 p.m. and observed that the lunch tray was missing apple juice and that a biscuit/roll was present on the plate. On 1/11/23 at 9:01 a.m., the facility's Menu Substitution Policy (last revised April 2019) was provided by the Administrator via email and reviewed. The policy included that the Food Services Shift Supervisor on duty will make substitutions only when unavoidable and that residents' likes, and dislikes will be considered when making substitutions. During an interview on 1/10/23 at 11:26 a.m., the Administrator stated that it is their expectation that residents receive the food and items as listed on their meal tickets. The Administrator further stated that they are aware of food complaints and are working on meal ticket accuracy. The Administrator also stated that the tickets may not be entered correctly and then kitchen staff is following the ticket from there. During a telephone interview on 1/11/23 at 1:02 p.m., the FSD stated that they tell the nurses upstairs if they are going to substitute a full menu item, but do not tell them if it is something like a juice substituted. 10NYCRR 415.14(c)(1-3)
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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observations, record review, and interview conducted during the Recertification Survey completed 1/11/23, it was determined that for three (first, second and third floors) of three resident u...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review, and interview conducted during the Recertification Survey completed 1/11/23, it was determined that for three (first, second and third floors) of three resident use floors, the facility did not provide a safe, functional, and sanitary environment for residents, staff, and the public. Specifically, unapproved chemical treatment of the domestic hot water system was occurring without approval of the New York State Department of Health. The findings are: Record review on 1/5/23 at 11:50 a.m. revealed a facility document titled 'environmental assessment of water systems in health care settings' dated 1/25/22 included supplemental disinfection using a 50/50 chlorine sodium hypochlorite solution in the domestic hot water supply. Observations during the initial tour of the facility on 1/4/23 included hot water was provided throughout the facility on all three floors including the main kitchen, at sinks, and in shower rooms. Observations on 1/6/23 at 9:35 a.m. included a 15-gallon container with a label that read: Stainex laundry brightener. Further observations included a metering pump connected to plastic tubing extending from inside the container and into a pipe for the domestic hot water supply and connected to a hot water holding tank. During an interview at this time, the Director of Maintenance stated that the chemical comes from their laundry vendor, has been used for the past three years, and was probably installed by the previous director. The Director of Maintenance also stated that they do not measure chlorine residual levels in the water system and do not have a chlorine residual test kit. Further review of a product specification sheet provided by the Maintenance Director for the Stainex chemical did not include that it was NSF (National Sanitation Foundation) approved, or that it was approved for use in potable water systems. 10NYCRR: 415.29(f)(2)
MINOR (B) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0568 (Tag F0568)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews during the Recertification Survey completed on 1/11/23, it was determined the facility di...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews during the Recertification Survey completed on 1/11/23, it was determined the facility did not provide one (Resident #29) of one resident reviewed for personal funds, with their individual financial record through quarterly statements. Specifically, Resident #29 was not provided with their personal fund statement on a quarterly basis per their preference or on request. Findings include: The facility policy, Resident Account Funds, dated 8/20/20 documented that each resident or the resident's designated or legal representative will be provided upon request, and at least quarterly a statement of their personal funds. The statement should include the account balance, funds deposited and withdrawn and interest accrued. Resident #29 was admitted on [DATE] and had diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), failure to thrive, and major depressive disorder. The 1/8/23 Minimum Data Set Assessment documented the resident was cognitively intact. Resident #29's Patient Allowance Exchange ([NAME]) document, dated October 2022 documented an ending balance of $450.00. The document did not include that the resident had been provided with a copy of the statement. When interviewed on 1/4/23 at 9:47 p.m., Resident #29 stated the facility had not informed them of how much was in their account recently and could not recall when they were given a statement in the past. When interviewed on 1/6/23 at 3:00 p.m., the Business Office (BO) Manager stated the [NAME] documents, also referred to as the personal account statements, were supposed to be sent quarterly to residents or their designee. The BO Manager stated the last statements should have been provided to the residents in October 2022 but that they just started at their position in August 2022 and did not know that they were due. The BO Manager stated they did not send any [NAME] documents to either the residents or the resident designees but believed that the Regional Business Director would send them. During an interview on 1/9/23 at 11:35 a.m., the Administrator stated that they were not aware that the [NAME] Documents were not delivered to either the residents or mailed out to the addresses on file but that it was the responsibility of the BO to ensure that this task was completed. The Administrator said that the BO Manager was trained by the Regional Business Director on this task. They stated if for some reason [NAME]'s are not sent to residents or designees, the administrator is to be notified. During an interview on 1/9/2023 at 1:56 PM , the Regional Business Director stated that on 10/26/22 that received an e- mail from the facility BO Manager that they would hand deliver statements to the residents who resided in the facility and mailing out the statements to addresses on file. They said that their expectation would be that this task had been completed and that the facility BO Manager will be re-trained. 10NYCRR 415.26(h)(5)(ii)(a-c)
Jun 2021 7 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0561 (Tag F0561)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews conducted during the Recertification Survey, completed on 6/9/21, for one ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews conducted during the Recertification Survey, completed on 6/9/21, for one (Resident #56) of two residents reviewed, the facility did not allow the resident to make choices about aspects of their life that were significant to them. Specifically, the resident did not receive showers as per their stated preferences. This is evidenced by the following: Resident #56 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including amputation of the left leg, morbid obesity, and a recent urinary tract infection. The Minimum Data Set Assessment, dated 5/4/21, revealed that the resident had moderately impaired cognition, required extensive assistance to total dependence of two staff members for personal hygiene and bathing and had stated that being able to choose their bathing routine was very important to them. The February 2020 facility policy, Resident Rights, directs staff to ensure that residents are guaranteed basic rights that include self-determination. The current Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) [NAME] for bathing revealed Resident #56 was totally dependent on two staff for showers on Tuesdays and Fridays every week. During an interview on 6/7/21 at 12:21 a.m., Resident #56 said they preferred showers but had only received one shower since their re-admission (approximately six weeks ago) and wished they could have one. On 6/8/21 at 2:00 p.m. the resident said they were washed at the bedside and did not have a shower that day (their scheduled day). When interviewed on 6/8/21 at 1:47 p.m., CNA #1 said she has cared for Resident #56 since admission and was not aware of the resident getting any showers. When interviewed on 6/8/21 at 2:13 p.m., CNA#2 said the resident is supposed to have a shower every Tuesday and Friday but because the resident is difficult to shower due to their amputation and requires two staff to assist, they instead give a full bed bath. He said this happens mostly because they don't have enough staff. When interviewed on 6/8/21 at 10:50 a.m., the Licensed Practical Nurse Manager said the staff are supposed to shower residents on their assigned day and then document the task in the electronic medical record under 'plan of care' (POC). She said, after looking at the POC for Resident #56, that she could did not find documentation that the resident had a shower. When interviewed on 6/8/21 at 4:51 p.m., the Administrator and Director of Nursing said they were not aware that some residents were not receiving their showers as requested. [10 NYCRR 415.5(b)(1)(3)]
CONCERN (D)

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation ,interview and record review conducted the Recertification Survey and complaint investigations ( #NY00273585 and #NY00272080), completed on 6/9/21, it was determined that for two ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation ,interview and record review conducted the Recertification Survey and complaint investigations ( #NY00273585 and #NY00272080), completed on 6/9/21, it was determined that for two (Residents #56 and #58) of six residents reviewed, the facility did not thoroughly investigate alleged violations of potential abuse neglect or mistreatment. Specifically, bruises of unknown origin for Resident #56 and a grievance by Resident #58 regarding lack of care were not thoroughly investigated to rule out abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. This is evidenced by the following: The facility policy Abuse, dated February 2019, included allegations of suspected abuse, neglect, mistreatment, injury of unknown origin or misappropriation of property shall be promptly and thoroughly investigated by facility management. The summary must take into account an objective overview of the facts and a reason or basis for decision, to substantiate or not substantiate the allegation. The facility policy Resident Rights, dated February 2020 included employees shall treat all residents with kindness, respect, and dignity. 1. Resident # 56 has diagnoses including amputation of the left leg, atrial fibrillation (irregular heart rate) and morbid obesity. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment included the resident had moderately impaired cognition. During an observation and interview on 6/3/21 at 12:34 p.m., Resident #56 had bruises noted on the left and right upper arms. Resident #56 said that they did not know how the bruising occurred but did indicate they were on a blood thinner medication. When interviewed on 6/7/21 at 2:11 p.m. the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) said she reported the bruising to nursing on 6/4/21 but had not been asked any further information regarding the bruises. When interviewed 6/7/21 at 4:01 p.m., the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Manager said any skin issues should be reported to nursing, a folder should be started that includes the incident report and staff statements. She said her expectation would be to report the incident to the nurse who would then report it to the Assistant Director of Nursing and the Administrator. When interviewed 6/7/21 at 4:23 p.m., the Administrator said she learned about the bruising today and said the Director of Nursing (DON) would be responsible to investigate this. If an aide found this, they should have told the nurse and the nurse should report it on an incident report immediately. Then it is forwarded to the DON. 2. Resident # 58 had diagnosis including critical illness myopathy (muscle disease), diabetes, and respiratory failure. Review of the MDS Assessment, dated 5/10/21, included that the resident was cognitively intact and required extensive assistance of two staff for bathing, and limited assist of one for eating. The Comprehensive Care Plan included the resident required extensive assist for most activities of daily living. Review of a facility grievance form, dated 3/16/21, revealed that Resident #58 stated they were not happy with the care here, that the aides were horrible and do not offer them the bare minimum of care. Resident #58 said that the therapist changed their bed as the aides do not. The grievance summary/resolutions included that the DON provided her direct line to the resident for any future concerns and provided care and call bell education and the Social worker would monitor. Further review of the grievance form revealed there were no statements or interviews obtained from the staff to rule out abuse or neglect. The attached in-service record included the content of the education to staff was timing of call bell response and nothing else. During an interview on 6/4/21 at 9:12 a.m., Resident #58 said when the call bell was used no one answered so the resident called on the phone and an aide came in and yelled at her for calling. The resident said it was on the day shift but could not recall the name of the staff member or who they reported it to. When interviewed on 6/4/21 at 2:40 p.m., and on 6/8/21 at 10:29 a.m., the Director of Social Work (DSW) said complaints are given to the Administrator or the DON. She said they talk about care and resident issues in the morning report but there is no formal report or follow through. When asked who was completing the investigations, the DSW said the Administrator or nursing would. She was unable to provide any documented evidence that an investigation was completed. During an interview conducted on 6/7/21 at 4:33 p.m., with the Administrator and the Assistant DON (ADON), the Administrator said the DON spent a lot of time with Resident # 58 about their concerns but did not have any information about the conversation or what was discussed. The ADON said she did not know who investigated the allegations. The DON was not available during the survey for interview. [10NYCRR 415.4(b)(3)]
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review during the Recertification Survey and complaint investigation (#NY200273585), ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review during the Recertification Survey and complaint investigation (#NY200273585), completed on 6/9/21, the facility did not ensure that two of five residents reviewed received the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming and personal hygiene. Specifically, Resident #58 was not provided a meal tray and was not given showers as requested and Resident #67 lacked nail care. This is evidenced by the following: 1.Resident # 58 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including COVID-19, critical illness myopathy (muscle disease), and diabetes. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 5/10/21, included the resident was cognitively intact, required extensive assistance of two staff for bathing, assist of one staff for eating and received the majority of their calories via a feeding tube. The admission MDS Assessment, dated 3/17/21, included that choice of bathing was very important to the resident. The Comprehensive Care Plan included that Resident #58 required extensive assist for bathing and was supposed to get a tray for all meals in addition to their tube feeding. A dietary note, dated 5/18/21, included that Resident #58 received a puree diet with nectar thickened fluids in addition to their daily tube feeding. Observations and interviews on 6/4/21 included the following: a. At 9:19 a.m., Resident #58 said they have only had two showers since admission. The resident said they told this to the Director of Nursing (DON) and a request for two showers a week was made, but this has not happened. At 1:40 p.m., when asked how lunch was, the resident stated they did not get anything to eat for lunch. b. At 1:46 p.m., the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #1 said Resident #58 usually refuses breakfast and lunch. CNA# 1 offered to call the kitchen and ask for a tray, but CNA# 2 stated they did not have enough staff to go back and check who did or did not get a tray. c. At 1:54 p.m., the Speech Therapist said the tray should be offered at each meal and that Resident #58 had the right to refuse. d. At 2:05 p.m., the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Manager said she did not know the resident did not get a tray. e. At 2:21 p.m., the Assistant DON (ADON) said staff should offer every meal every day to the resident. f. At 3:42 p.m., Resident #58 said they still had not received lunch. Observations and interviews on 6/7/21 included the following: a) At 10:30 a.m., CNA#3 said the showers are not documented anywhere, if you want to know if a resident got a shower you must ask them. Review of the shower schedule revealed Resident #58 was scheduled for a bath and if refused, staff should offer again three times and report to the nurse. b) At 10:47 a.m., the LPN Manager said the showers are documented in the Electronic Medical Record (EMR). c) At 1:16 the Social Worker stated she was not aware of any grievances for this resident but if any, the DON would have them. d) At 1:41 p.m., Resident #58's primary LPN stated that the resident is not scheduled for showers only bed baths. e) At 1:56 p.m., CNA#3 (assigned CNA) said she had 15 residents that day and sometimes does not get to any scheduled showers but thought that Resident #58 received theirs on evening shift. f) At 4:34 p.m. with the Administrator and ADON, the Administrator stated that they were not aware that showers were not being done. g) The DON was not available for interview. In an interview on 6/8/21 at 12:35 p.m. Resident #58 stated that they still have not received a shower. 2.Resident #67 has diagnoses including diabetes, polyneuropathy (nerve damage), and cardiomyopathy (heart disease). The MDS Assessment, dated 5/20/21, revealed the resident was cognitively intact. The CNA [NAME] included for staff to assist with hand hygiene. In an observation on 6/4/21 at 2:06 p.m. Resident #67 had multiple nails filled with brown debris. In an observation on 6/7/21 at 11:15 a.m. the resident's nails remained filled with brown debris. At 12:10 p.m. the resident was observed eating lunch and picking at the food with their hands. In an observation on 6/8/21 at 9:37 a.m. Resident #67 continued to have fingernails filled with brown debris. In an interview on 6/8/21 at 11:11 a.m., the CNA stated that Resident #67 did not receive nail care and she did not notice the debris under the nails but that they should be clean and cut. In an Interview on 6/8/21 at 11:18 a.m., the LPN stated residents should receive nail care on shower or bath days. In an interview on 6/9/21 at 9:03 a.m. the ADON stated performing nail care is part of the resident's daily care. [10NYCRR 415.12(a)(3)]
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record review conducted during a Recertification Survey, completed on 6/9/21, it was deter...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record review conducted during a Recertification Survey, completed on 6/9/21, it was determined that for two of three residents reviewed the facility did not ensure that each resident received adequate supervision and assistance to prevent accidents. Specifically, Resident #27 did not receive supervision at meals related to aspiration precautions and Resident #70 did not receive assistance with ambulation and transfers to minimize risk for falls. This was evidenced by: Review of the facility policy Aspiration Precautions, dated February 2019, revealed staff were to sit the resident upright or as close as possible for any intake and must be supervised for all intake of liquid and solids. 1.Resident #27 had diagnoses that included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, and Alzheimer's disease. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 3/24/21, revealed the resident was moderately impaired cognitively, and required supervision with eating. In a dietary note, dated 12/18/21, the facility Registered Dietician (RD) documented that Resident #27 was seen by the Speech Language Pathologist (SLP) in the hospital who recommended easy to chew foods, thin liquids and maintaining aspiration precautions. The facility RD and SLP agreed to place the resident on a mechanical soft texture diet with aspiration precautions. The current Physician orders, Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) and Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) [NAME] included that Resident #27 was on aspiration precautions and required assistance with eating, small bites and sips at a slow rate, and needed to sit as upright as possible. Staff were to observe all eating and drinking for safety. During an observation 6/7/21 at 12:15 p.m., Resident #27 was in bed positioned on their left side with the head of bed slightly elevated. The over bed table was positioned on the right side of the bed behind the resident. CNA#1 entered the room and placed the resident's lunch tray on the overhead table, opened the drinks (adding a straw) and handed it to the resident who reached behind their back to accept the carton of milk. CNA #1 then left the room closing the door behind her (as requested by the resident). During an observation and interview on 6/7/21 at 12:34 p.m., the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Manager approached the resident's room with the closed door and stated the door should not be closed when a resident is eating. The LPN Manager stated Resident #27 was care planned to eat in bed and proceeded to move the lunch tray to the resident's left side where the resident was able to see and reach the tray. The LPN Manager stated staff do not sit in the resident's room at meals but that the team leader should circulate at mealtimes. After reviewing Resident #27's care plan, the LPN Manager said that the resident was on aspiration precautions and supervision for meals and added that staff were not following the care plan which was a safety concern. During an observation on 6/8/21 at 8:38 a.m., Resident #27 was in bed, lying on their side eating breakfast from the overbed table. There was no staff present in the room or outside the room supervising. During an interview on 6/8/21 at 1:52 p.m. CNA #2 stated Resident #27 could feed themselves. CNA #2 said that if a resident was on aspiration precautions it would be in the computer and they would be told this in report. She said they did not check the computer every day and probably should and added that aspiration precautions included that the head of the bed would be elevated, and the resident would be supervised with eating. CNA#2 stated there were no residents on this hall currently on aspiration precautions. When interviewed on 6/8/21 at 10:48 a.m. a Registered Nurse (RN) stated that Resident #27 was on aspiration precautions per their care plan which meant that the resident had difficulties swallowing and should be supervised at meals. She said supervision meant staff were present for the whole meal while the resident is eating. 2. Resident #70 had diagnoses including Parkinson's disease, a history of falls, and anxiety. The MDS Assessment, dated 5/14/21, revealed the resident was cognitively intact, required limited assistance of two staff for transfers, and ambulated with limited assistance of one. Review of the current CCP and CNA [NAME] revealed Resident #70 required the limited assist of one staff for ambulation and transfers. A Physical Therapy Discharge summary, dated [DATE], documented that the resident had modified independence with transfers and required stand by assistance for ambulation. Review of Incident/Accident Reports 2/1/21 through 6/7/21 revealed three incidents where Resident #70 was found on the floor of their room. A Falls Risk Assessment, dated 5/22/21, revealed Resident #70 was a low risk for falls. During an observation on 6/7/21 at 11:59 a.m., Resident #70 was ambulating independently in their room with a walker. No staff were present. When interviewed on 6/7/21 at 1:57 p.m., and again on 6/8/21 at 10:40 a.m., RN #1 stated that Resident #70 had washed up (including washing their hair) at the sink in their room independently. She said the resident can stand with the walker at the sink independently, change their brief and get dressed without staff assistance. RN#1 said that after a fall the medical team will assess the resident and determine if a therapy evaluation is needed and that the care plan is always updated. When interviewed on 6/8/21 at 11:13 a.m., CNA #1 stated that the resident is independent. In a nursing progress note, dated 6/8/21 at 5:40 p.m., RN #2 documented that Resident #70 was being seen following a fall sustaining a skin tear to the arm. The resident stated they had tripped. The note did not include any other details of the fall. In another progress note, dated 6/8/21 at 8:00 p.m., RN#2 wrote that she was alerted that Resident #70 had another fall stating they had slipped. No injuries were noted. Again, the note did not include any details of the fall. When interviewed on 6/09/21 at 11:48 a.m., RN #2 stated that before a resident's care plan is modified regarding assistance with transfers and ambulation, a therapy evaluation should be done to determine assistance needed. [NYCRR10 415.12(h)(2)]
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews during the Recertification Survey, completed on 6/9/21, it was determined ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews during the Recertification Survey, completed on 6/9/21, it was determined that for one (Resident #49) of one resident reviewed for bowel and bladder incontinence, the facility did not ensure that the resident received the treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the resident's comprehensive person-centered care plan and the resident's choice in order to maintain continence and restore bowel function to the extent possible. Specifically, the facility did not develop and implement a person-centered care plan with measurable goals and interventions to effectively restore and manage the resident's bowel function. This is evidenced by the following: Resident #49 has diagnoses including a femur fracture, heart failure, and hypertension. The Minimum Data Set Assessment, dated 4/28/21, included that the resident is cognitively intact, was incontinent of bowls frequently and required total dependance on staff for toileting Review of the Comprehensive Care Plan, dated 4/21/21, revealed no evidence of a plan of care to address Resident # 49's bowel management. The current Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) [NAME] included that the resident required total dependance on 2 staff for toileting and that the resident did not participate. In an observation and interview on 6/9/21 at 9:31 a.m., Resident #49 was sitting in a wheelchair and was wearing an incontinence brief. The resident stated at this time that when they have a bowel movement (BM) they do so in the brief and then call for assist but would prefer to go on a commode. Resident #49 said they were told they were bed bound, could not put pressure on the fractured leg therefore could not use the bathroom. The resident said they had not asked to use the bathroom because they did not think they could. In an interview on 6/8/21 at 1:42 p.m., CNA #1 said the resident does not get up to use the bathroom or use a commode because they require a Hoyer (mechanical) lift, but instead they go to the bathroom in their brief and then call for an aide when they needed to be changed. In an interview on 6/9/21 at 9:43 a.m., CNA#2 said they could use a Hoyer lift to get the resident out of bed to a commode if it was in the care plan. In an interview on 6/9/21 at 10:21 a.m., the Therapy Director said they communicate with the nursing department using the Therapy Assessment and will make recommendations for toileting and transferring. She said based on the assessment, Resident #49 is totally dependent but could be transferred to a commode. In an interview on 6/9/21 at 10:32 a.m., the Registered Nurse said the resident should have had a care plan for both bowel and bladder management because it triggered on the MDS Assessment but that Resident #49's care plan does not reflect their bowel needs . The care plan should include getting out of bed to a commode. [10 NYCRR 415.12]
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0698 (Tag F0698)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, interviews and record reviews conducted during the Recertification Survey, completed on 6/9/21, it was determined for one (Resident #76) of two residents reviewed, the facility...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews and record reviews conducted during the Recertification Survey, completed on 6/9/21, it was determined for one (Resident #76) of two residents reviewed, the facility did not ensure that dialysis services provided were consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' goals and preferences. Specifically, facility staff did not notify the medical team to initiate new dialysis orders regarding a new medication and a fluid restriction. Additionally, there was no Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP), including person centered goals, interventions, and preferences, for the resident's dialysis needs. This is evidenced by the following: Resident #76 had diagnoses including end stage renal disease requiring hemodialysis three times a week and an arteriovenous fistula (connection between an artery and a vein used for the dialysis treatments). A Minimum Data Set Assessment, dated 5/18/21, included the resident was cognitively intact and was on a therapeutic diet. Current physician orders included to monitor the resident's fistula every shift for the bruit (rumbling sound) and thrill (rumbling sensation) and to notify the physician if the bruit or thrill is absent, to monitor the fistula site for bleeding and to provide a renal diet. The CCP, under nutrition, initiated 5/14/21, included to provide a diet and consistency per physician orders but did not include a fluid restriction. There was no further care plan to include any goals and/or interventions related to Resident #76's dialysis needs. In a Dietary Comprehensive Nutrition Assessment, dated 5/14/21, the Registered Dietitian (RD) documented that they had communicated with Resident #76's RD at the dialysis unit who stated Resident #76 should be on a renal diet with a daily 1800 milliliters (mls) fluid restriction and should be taking Renvela (a medication used to lower high blood phosphorus levels for dialysis patients) with meals. The facility RD wrote that she had asked the Director of Nursing (DON), via email (email verified by surveyor) on 5/14/21, to notify the physician to review these orders. During an interview on 6/8/21 at 10:15 a.m., Resident #76 said they were not on any fluid restriction. In an interview on 6/8/21 at 11:09 p.m., a Regional RD (covering for the facility RD) said that any dietary restrictions would come from dialysis staff to the facility. In an interview on 6/8/21 at 11:56 a.m., and again on 6/9/21 at 11:37 a.m., the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Manager said there had not been any discussion with them regarding a fluid restriction or use of Renvela for Resident #76. If there had been, they would have entered the orders for physician review. While reviewing the CCP with the surveyor, the LPN Manager said there was no CCP for the care and monitoring of the resident's dialysis needs and there should be. The LPN Manager said the DON was responsible to initiate the CCP but had missed this. In an interview on 6/9/21 at 9:34 a.m., the Registered Nurse Manager at the dialysis unit said Resident #76 should be on a daily 1800 mls fluid restriction and on Renvela before meals. She said that this had been discussed between the dialysis unit RD and facility RD on 5/14/21. [10 NYCRR 415.12]
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record reviews conducted during a Recertification Survey, completed on 6/9/21, it was dete...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record reviews conducted during a Recertification Survey, completed on 6/9/21, it was determined that for nine (Residents #7, #14, #27, #63, #67, #70, #76, #82 and Resident A) of ten residents reviewed, the facility did not provide food and drink that was palatable, attractive and at a safe and appetizing temperature. Specifically, the issues involved food that was unpalatable, not served at preferable temperatures and was unattractive related to frequently being served meals in Styrofoam (disposable dishware). This is evidenced by, but not limited to, the following: 1.Resident A has diagnoses including hypertension, diabetes mellitus and arthritis. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 3/20/21, revealed the resident was cognitively intact. During an interview on 6/3/21 at 12:25 p.m., Resident A said they hate the Styrofoam plates that are used all the time and the food is always cold. 2.Resident #82 has diagnoses including anemia, heart failure and hypertension. The MDS Assessment, dated 5/24/21 revealed the resident was cognitively intact. During an interview on 6/3/21 at 10:13 a.m., the resident said food gets cold quickly because it is served in Styrofoam containers and tastes bad. The resident said Styrofoam is used because there are not enough kitchen staff to wash the dishes. 3.Resident #7 has diagnoses including hypertension, diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease. The MDS Assessment, dated 3/2/21, revealed the resident was cognitively intact. During an interview on 6/3/21 at 1:45 p.m., the resident said the food does not look good as it is thrown into Styrofoam dishware with a lid that does not fit. The resident stated they thought Styrofoam was being used because the dish machine is not working again. When interviewed on 6/4/21 at 3:33 p.m., both the Director of Food Service (DFS) and the acting Food Service Manager (FSM) said residents had not been notified about the use of Styrofoam, only nursing had been told. Both said that the use of Styrofoam is dignified if the situation warrants and in this instance, use was appropriate because the dish machine was down and staff could not get their work done if they had to compete with using the three compartment sink for pot washing versus washing dishware in the three compartment sink. The FSM said the dietitian makes meal rounds and performs a test tray daily Monday through Friday at the lunch meal. The dietician was not available for interview. In an observation on 6/8/21 at 9:40 a.m., a review of the Thermometer Calibration Log revealed four facility thermometers had been calibrated. The FSM and surveyor verified thermometer accuracy via the ice bath method. Three facility digital thermometers (Superior 9330861) read 30.5 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), 33.1°F and 35.6°F and surveyor ([NAME] 9842) read 32.1°F. The FSM discarded the two facility thermometers having a variance greater than plus/minus one °F from the surveyor's thermometer. In an observation and interview on 6/8/21 at 11:05 a.m., the lunch tray line was set up and operational. A review of the Food Temperature log, dated 6/8/21, revealed temperatures for: mashed potatoes 185°F, cold salads (lettuce salad) 37.6°F, dessert (strawberry shortcake) 37°F, milk 39.7°F and coffee 161°F. Temperatures were not documented for baked ziti (entrée) or the hot vegetable. The FSM said all foods being served are to have temperatures taken. In an observation and interview on 6/8/21 at 12:03 p.m., the food truck carrying the test tray arrived on unit two. At 12:29 p.m., the FSM and surveyor started to take temperatures of the test tray. There were no cold beverages sent on the tray to check the temperatures. Temperatures taken were as follows: Coffee: facility 136.5°F and surveyor 140.9°F; baked ziti: facility 122°F and surveyor 136.4°F; tossed salad: facility 65.5°F and surveyor 66.0°F; strawberry shortcake: facility 68.5°F and surveyor 69.5°F. The FSM said they expected the cold foods of tossed salad and strawberry shortcake to be served at 40°F or below and that they were too warm to be palatable. In an interview on 6/9/21 at 11:16 a.m., the DFS stated that he did not know why the facility thermometers had not calibrated with the surveyors thermometer at the time of the test tray. 10NYCRR 415.14(d)(1)(2)
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?"
  • "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: Federal abuse finding, 1 life-threatening violation(s), Special Focus Facility, 2 harm violation(s), $117,878 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 36 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $117,878 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in New York. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (0/100). 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 Ontario Center For Rehabilitation And Healthcare's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns Ontario Center for Rehabilitation and Healthcare an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within New York, 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 Ontario Center For Rehabilitation And Healthcare Staffed?

CMS rates Ontario Center for Rehabilitation and Healthcare's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 77%, which is 31 percentage points above the New York average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 74%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Ontario Center For Rehabilitation And Healthcare?

State health inspectors documented 36 deficiencies at Ontario Center for Rehabilitation and Healthcare during 2021 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 2 that caused actual resident harm, 30 with potential for harm, and 3 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Ontario Center For Rehabilitation And Healthcare?

Ontario Center for Rehabilitation and Healthcare 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 CENTERS HEALTH CARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 98 certified beds and approximately 92 residents (about 94% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in Canandaigua, New York.

How Does Ontario Center For Rehabilitation And Healthcare Compare to Other New York Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in New York, Ontario Center for Rehabilitation and Healthcare's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (77%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Ontario Center For Rehabilitation And Healthcare?

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?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the substantiated abuse finding on record, the facility's high staff turnover rate, and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Ontario Center For Rehabilitation And Healthcare Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Ontario Center for Rehabilitation and Healthcare 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 is currently on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes nationwide). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in New York. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Ontario Center For Rehabilitation And Healthcare Stick Around?

Staff turnover at Ontario Center for Rehabilitation and Healthcare is high. At 77%, the facility is 31 percentage points above the New York average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 74%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Ontario Center For Rehabilitation And Healthcare Ever Fined?

Ontario Center for Rehabilitation and Healthcare has been fined $117,878 across 1 penalty action. This is 3.4x the New York average of $34,258. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.

Is Ontario Center For Rehabilitation And Healthcare on Any Federal Watch List?

Ontario Center for Rehabilitation and Healthcare is currently an SFF Candidate, meaning CMS has identified it as potentially qualifying for the Special Focus Facility watch list. SFF Candidates have a history of serious deficiencies but haven't yet reached the threshold for full SFF designation. The facility is being monitored more closely — if problems continue, it may be added to the official watch list. Families should ask what the facility is doing to address the issues that led to this status.