GLEN ARDEN INC

46 HARRIMAN DRIVE, GOSHEN, NY 10924 (845) 291-7800
Non profit - Corporation 40 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
30/100
#406 of 594 in NY
Last Inspection: July 2024

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

Overview

Glen Arden Inc in Goshen, New York, has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the facility's quality and care. Ranked #406 out of 594 in New York, they fall in the bottom half of facilities statewide, and #5 out of 10 in Orange County means there are only four local options that perform better. The situation is worsening, with issues increasing from 3 in 2022 to 12 in 2024, which is alarming for prospective residents. While staffing is a strong point, with a perfect 5 out of 5 rating and more RN coverage than 84% of facilities, the overall environment suffers due to high turnover at 57% and concerning fines totaling $108,046, which is higher than 99% of New York facilities. Specific incidents include a failure to monitor residents appropriately, resulting in falls that caused serious injuries like fractures, and a lack of attention to maintaining a safe and clean environment, evidenced by leaks and damaged flooring.

Trust Score
F
30/100
In New York
#406/594
Bottom 32%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
3 → 12 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
57% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$108,046 in fines. Higher than 90% of New York facilities. Major compliance failures.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 70 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of New York nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
Violations
⚠ Watch
20 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★★★★★
5.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2022: 3 issues
2024: 12 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Below New York average (3.1)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Staff Turnover: 57%

11pts above New York avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $108,046

Well above median ($33,413)

Significant penalties indicating serious issues

Staff turnover is elevated (57%)

9 points above New York average of 48%

The Ugly 20 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Jul 2024 12 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation and interview conducted during a recertification survey the facility failed to ensure that a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation and interview conducted during a recertification survey the facility failed to ensure that adequate supervision and effective use of the facility's monitoring program to prevent falls and injuries were provided for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for accidents (Resident #10 and #12). Specifically, (1) Resident #10 was care planned to be on 30-minute monitoring after a 4/12/24 fall. Resident #10 had a second fall on 4/14/24 which resulted in a nondisplaced transverse fracture of the distal malleolus (a break in the small prominent bone on either side of the ankle) and the facility did not implement care plan changes to address recurrent falls and (2) Resident #12 had 6 falls between 9/16/23 and 5/3/24 and the facility did not implement new interventions, including toileting schedules and monitoring, as recommended on the Accident/Incident reports. This resulted in multiple hospitalizations and the resident sustained fractured ribs from the falls on 9/16/23 and 5/3/24. This resulted in actual harm that is not immediate jeopardy. Findings include: The January 2023 Fall Risk Assessment and Prevention policy and procedure documented it was the policy that all residents be free of falls, and free of injuries associated with falls. Implement common sense interventions to aide in the prevention of falls. There was no standard approach to planning preventative care. Each resident must have an individual plan considering risk factors, functional status, cognitive status and how the plan of care will affect the quality of life. 1) Resident #10 was admitted with diagnoses including but not limited to rheumatoid arthritis, anemia (low levels of healthy red blood cells), and hypertension (high blood pressure). The 10/10/23 care plan titled At Risk for Falls, documented actual fall/s 11/14/23, 11/29/23, 3/21/24, 4/12/24, 4/14/24 and 5/18/24. Interventions included but were not limited to place call bell within reach. The care plan documented the following undated intervention reminders to use the call bell, 30-minute monitoring, and toileting schedule. The 3/7/24 Quarterly Minimum Data Set Assessment (a resident assessment tool) documented Resident #10 had severe cognitive impairment, no rejection of care, received partial/moderate assistance for chair to bed transfers, toilet transfers and ambulation up to 50 feet, was frequently incontinent of bladder and continent of bowel, was not on a toileting program, had 1 fall with no injury since admission or prior assessment and did not receive therapy. The 3/27/24 Fall Risk Assessment score is 10 (a score of 4 or more was considered at risk). The 4/12/24 Accident and Incident Report documented Resident #10 had an unwitnessed fall and was observed lying on the floor of their room on their left side at 6:00 PM. Contributing factor was dementia. The resident had COVID and was weak and more confused than normal. The resident was alert/confused. The resident was unable to state what happened. The resident was able to ambulate without obvious injury. The care plan was updated to reflect 30-minute monitoring. The 4/14/24 Accident and Incident Report documented Resident #10 had an unwitnessed fall and was observed at 3:00 PM on the floor at the foot of their bed near the bathroom door. The resident was last seen at 2:00 PM. The resident had COVID and was weak, had cognitive deficit and poor safety awareness. The resident was able to get around, when not sick, using a walker. The resident still felt they could use a walker. Slight bruising to the right ankle. There was no documented evidence in the electronic medical record to indicate 30-minute monitoring was put in place or that Resident #10 was on a toileting schedule as per care plan after the 4/12/24 fall and before the 4/14/24 fall. The 4/14/24 nursing progress note documented they were called to the room at 3:00 PM and the resident was sitting on the ground beside the bed. The bed was in the low position. The call bell was not ringing. The resident was unable to say what happened. The resident was able to move all extremities without complaint of pain. The extremities were equal in length, a slight bruise was noted to the right ankle, and continue to monitor. The 4/14/24 nursing progress note documented the resident's right ankle was noted with a hematoma and swelling. The resident was able to move the ankle with some pain noted. The resident was non weight bearing to extremities. Unable to keep the extremity elevated and the resident continued to move the leg off of the pillow. The medical doctor was made aware, and an order was received for an x ray of the right ankle. X Ray called and will be done tomorrow. The 4/17/24 X-Ray Report documented an unhealed non-displaced transverse fracture of the distal malleolus. No overlying soft tissue swelling. Correlate clinically for recent trauma. No significant arthritic changes. Mild soft tissue swelling over the lateral malleolus. Osteoporosis. During observation on 6/25/24 at 11:10 AM Resident # 10 was observed attempting to get out of bed without assistance and stated they had to go the bathroom. Resident #10 had one sock on the right foot, and no sock on the left foot. Both sneakers were on the floor next to the chair. The call bell was wrapped around the right upper siderail and dangling down to the floor. The call bell was not within the resident reach. At 11:13 AM facility staff was made aware Resident #10 was attempting to get up out of bed without assistance. During observation on 6/26/24 at 9:03 AM Resident #10 was observed in bed. Resident #10 had one sock on the right foot and no sock on the left foot. The call bell was on the chair next to the bed, and not within reach. During observation on 6/27/24 at 1:07 PM Resident #10 was in the main lobby and requested to go back to their room. Certified Nurse Assistant #2 returned the resident to their room placed them in bed with a blanket covering and left the room. The call bell was wrapped around the right upper siderail and dangling to the floor. The call bell was not within the resident's reach. Certified Nurse Assistant #2 did not ask Resident #10 if they needed to be toileted prior to placing the resident back to bed. During observation on 6/27/24 at 4:54 PM Resident #10 was observed sitting up at the edge of the bed on the right side attempting to get up unassisted as they stated help me, help me, please take me to the bathroom. The call bell was wrapped around the right upper siderail and not within the resident's reach. During an interview on 6/27/24 at 4:42 PM when asked where they documented safety monitoring and the toileting schedule for Resident #10, Certified Nurse Assistant # 1 stated Resident #10 had never been on a toileting and/or safety monitoring schedule. Certified Nurse Assistant #1 stated that most days Resident #10 preferred to stay in their bed and they checked on them maybe 3 times during their shift. Certified Nurse Assistant #1 stated they often found Resident #10's call bell on the siderail and dangling to the floor on either side of the bed and not within the resident's reach when starting their shift. During an interview on 6/27/24 at 5:00 PM Registered Nurse #1 stated Resident #10 would yell out when they had to go to the bathroom, but they were not sure if the resident was incontinent or on a toilet schedule. Registered Nurse #1 stated they did not know if Resident #10 had falls in the past, but due to the resident's current state they would assume Resident #10 was high risk for falls. Registered Nurse #1 stated if a resident were high risk for falls, they should have the call bell within reach at all times and be frequently supervised. Registered Nurse #1 stated the care plan would direct toileting and fall risk needs, but they did not have access to the care plans. When asked how certified nurse assistants received information regarding resident care needs, Registered Nurse #1 stated they only provided the certified nurse assistants with report if something was going on with the resident otherwise the certified nurse assistants reported to each other. During an interview 6/28/24 at 11:17 AM Certified Nurse Assistant #2 stated they were not certain if Resident #10 had falls in the past, or if they had ever been on 30-minute monitoring. Certified Nurse Assistant #2 stated they would not know how to document resident monitoring. Certified Nurse Assistant #2 stated Resident # 10 loved to sleep in bed, so they put the resident back to bed after breakfast. Certified Nurse Assistant #2 stated Resident #10 was not currently on a documented toileting or monitoring schedule and they checked on the resident every 2 hours when they were in bed. During an interview on 6/28/24 at 11:50 AM the Medical Director stated everybody in the nursing home was a high risk for falls. The physician stated when a resident had a fall, they were educated on the use of the call bell. The physician stated they were part of the QAPI (Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement) and that they reviewed falls, performance and improvement plans. During an interview on 7/1/24 at 11:22 AM the Director of Nursing stated they believed the fall care plan had been updated after the 4/12/24 fall to reflect 30-minute monitoring. The Director of Nursing stated they had also discussed the resident being placed on a toilet schedule during the fall meetings and that a toilet schedule should have been put in place but was not. The Director of Nursing stated they were responsible for ensuring monitoring of residents for fall prevention and documentation for such monitoring was done. The Director of Nursing stated they were not able to locate documentation to support that monitoring for Resident #10 occurred or remained ongoing as per care plan intervention. The Director of Nursing stated they were responsible for ensuring that care plan interventions were developed and effective. The Director of Nursing stated they were responsible for supervising staff during the week and supervisors were responsible during the weekends. The Director of Nursing stated whenever they noticed Resident #10's call bell was not within reach they put it within the residents reach. The Director of Nursing stated they had not educated staff regarding the call bell not being kept within the resident's reach. During an interview on 7/1/24 at 12:45 PM the Administrator stated they had been the Administrator onsite since October 2023 and had not identified any concerns with how the facility operated. The Administrator stated they approved Accident and Incident reports submitted by the Director of Nursing. The Administrator stated that during fall meetings they discussed what transpired and what was put in place for each resident to prevent future reoccurrence. The Administrator stated they did not recall being made aware of any resident being seriously injured related to falls. 2) Resident #12 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses and conditions including Congestive Heart Failure (heart pumps inadequately causing fluid overload), Diabetes (uncontrolled blood sugar), and Depression (sadness). The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS; a comprehensive resident assessment tool) dated 4/17/23, documented Resident #12's cognition was intact. The resident was always incontinent of bladder and frequently incontinent of bowel. Resident #12 required extensive assist of 1 person for toileting, bed mobility, transfer, walking in room and locomotion on and off the unit. Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Plan dated 4/10/23 documented Resident #12 was at risk for falls. Interventions dated 7/10/23 included ensuring the call bell was within reach at all times and was answered in a timely manner; encourage to call for assistance; regularly orient to environment; and provide family/resident education on falls prevention. An Accident/Incident Report dated 9/16/23 documented on 9/16/23 at 11:20 PM the nurse was called to the resident's bathroom, observed resident on floor on their back, resident complained of low back pain and able to move legs. Resident #12's color was pale and had seizure like activity for short period, head fell back, and eyes were wide open. The recommendation was for medical workup and was sent to the hospital. The Accident/Incident report also recommended to monitor resident every 2 hours. The nursing progress note dated 9/17/23 at 6:40 AM, documented the resident was admitted to the hospital for syncope(losing consciousness)/fall. The Hospital Visit Summary dated 9/20/23, documented the resident's discharge diagnoses included pacemaker, fall, and closed fracture multiple ribs of right side. The nursing progress note dated 9/20/23, documented the resident was readmitted to the facility. There was no documented evidence to include 2-hour monitoring as recommended on the Accident/Incident report dated 9/16/23. An Accident/Incident Report dated 9/21/23 documented at 2:00 PM the resident was assisted to bathroom by the Certified Nurse Assistant. The Certified Nurse Assistant left the resident alone and resident fell off the toilet to floor. The resident was sent to Emergency Department for evaluation. The recommendation was for 1 hour monitoring when in room and not to be left alone on toilet. Hospital records dated 9/21/23 to 9/28/23 documented the resident passed out after having a bowel movement while getting up from the toilet. The diagnosis was defecation syncope. The resident also needed a change for his pacemaker and was transferred to another hospital for the procedure. The nursing progress note dated 9/28/23 for 3-11 PM, documented the resident returned to the facility with a pacemaker replacement due to syncope. Review of the resident record revealed no documented evidence the recommendation for 1 hour monitoring when in room and not to be left alone on toilet was put in place. The new admission rehabilitation evaluation and recommendation dated 9/29/23, documented the resident was non-ambulatory with nursing staff, may only ambulate during therapy as appropriate. Do not leave resident unattended in the toilet. Keep resident in supervised area during working hours. There was no documented evidence of the care plan being revised with the recommendations from the Rehabilitation Department. A nursing note dated 10/5/23 at 3:11 PM, documented Resident #12 was observed lying on the floor in the bathroom, reported hitting the side of their forehead, and complained of nausea and right hip pain, pupils reacting to light able to move upper extremities. The family member was made aware, and the resident was transferred to the hospital. There was no documented evidence of an investigation being completed or an Accident/Incident report for 10/5/23. During an interview on 7/01/24 at 3:28 PM, the Director of Nursing stated an Accident/Incident report was not done for 10/5/23 as they were not told about the incident. A Physical Therapy note dated 10/11/23 at 12:40 PM, documented the resident required extensive assist of 1 for transfers. The resident was non ambulatory with nursing staff and could ambulate only with rehabilitation staff at this time. The resident required supervision at all times especially in the toilet due to history of multiple falls. A Physical Therapy note dated 10/17/23 at 9:38 AM, documented nursing staff could ambulate the resident to and from the bathroom using rollator with 1 assist for safety. Do not leave the resident unsupervised while at the bathroom due to history of multiple falls. A new care plan intervention dated 10/20/23 documented the following: Bed in lowest position; Proper footwear/nonskid footwear with rubber soles; Evaluate for orthostatic hypotension; Rehabilitation screen to assess need for therapy/positioning--assistive devices as indicated; Use diversional activities and encourage participation in activities. The Accident/Incident Report dated 11/4/23 documented they were called to the resident's room and the resident was observed on their left side on the floor, resident stated they attempted to get out of bed without calling for assistance. Educated to ask for assistance able to move all extremities. The Care plan was updated in resident chart for a floor mat left side. The Accident /Incident Report recommended floor mat and 15-minute monitoring. There was no documented monitoring and no documented instructions for the Certified Nurse Assistant to do 15-minute monitoring. Review of the resident's care plan documented a fall on 11/11/23; however, no other documentation including an Accident/Incident report was found for this fall. The Accident/Incident Report dated 12/27/23 documented at 7:44 AM, the resident fell was observed lying on the floor on their back, knees bent, feet facing bathroom door. The resident attempted to get up and did not ring bell. The documented recommendation was to set up the resident on the night get up schedule (the overnight shift gets the resident up for morning care), and toileting schedule 6:00 -7:00 AM. There was no documented evidence on Certified Nurse Assistant instructions of a toileting schedule for Resident #12. The Accident/Incident Report dated 5/3/24 documented at 3:04 AM the resident fell and had a skin tear. Resident #12 got up to go to the bathroom and did not use the call bell. It further documented the resident had poor safety awareness, cognitive deficits and was self-directed. Resident #12 was sent to the hospital due to seizure like activity. The documented recommendation was for resident to be put on a toileting schedule. Nursing note dated 5/10/24 documented the resident was readmitted to facility from the hospital on 5/9/24 and had sustained rib fractures from their fall on 5/3/24. Review of Resident #12's medical record revealed no documented evidence the resident was ever put on 2-hour, 1 hour, or 15-minute monitoring as planned on the Accident/Incident reports dated 9/16/23 to 5/3/24. There was no documented evidence on the Certified Nurse Assistant instructions for the recommended toileting schedule for Resident #12. On 6/26/24 at 4:00 PM, as the surveyor was approaching Residents #12's room, the Certified Nurse Assistant was observed walking toward the room and stated they were toileting the resident. The resident had been left in the bathroom unattended. There was a sign on the bathroom door that read Do not leave wheelchair in bathroom if left unattended. Please do not leave resident unsupervised in bathroom. On 6/27/24 at 10:29 AM, Resident #12 was observed lying in bed. The bathroom door was open and an alarm on door trim upper left side was observed. Resident #12 was interviewed and stated the alarm was used to notify nursing they were using the bathroom. They stated it was put in place when they were having a lot of falls. Stated they did not use it much now. They stated the device needed to be turned on and bathroom door kept closed, and then when the door to bathroom was opened, the alarm would sound. On 6/27/2024 at 11:24 AM, a family member of Resident #12 stated Resident #12 had a history of falls prior to admission to the facility and after Resident #12 was admitted they began falling in the facility. Resident #12 and family were offered an alarm on resident's bathroom door as an intervention to prevent further falls around September or October of 2023. The resident's family agreed to have alarm placed on the door. On 6/28/24 at 9:17 AM, Resident #12 stated the last fall they had was bad and they were still recovering. They stated they were still waiting to see if the swelling of the hematoma goes down and they might need surgery. On 6/28/24 at 10:25 AM, Certified Nurse Assistant #4 stated Resident #12 was alert and oriented and supposed to ring bell when they needed assistance. On 5/3/24, during the overnight shift, the resident used the urinal then started to be sick and was unable to really tell you what happened. Certified Nurse Assistant #4 stated usually when they worked the overnight shift, they did not get residents up, they just changed them. Certified Nurse Assistant #4 stated there were no new interventions in place for toileting Resident #12. On 6/28/24 at 10:26 AM, Certified Nurse Assistant #8 stated they were assigned to Resident #12 and had been working at the facility since February 2024. Certified Nurse Assistant #8 stated Resident #12 could not be in their wheelchair in their room alone because they would use the bathroom unassisted. Certified Nurse Assistant #8 stated because the resident was mobile, for safety precaution, Resident #12 should be out in the common areas where they could be supervised. Certified Nurse Assistant #8 stated there was not a toileting schedule for Resident #12 and they were unaware of any planned monitoring schedule. Certified Nurse Assistant #8 stated during report after the resident's last fall, the nurse told them verbally that the resident could not be left alone in their room, but it was not on the care instructions. On 06/28/24 at 10:28 AM, the Resident #12 was observed in his room alone, sitting in his recliner chair with a wheelchair nearby. On 6/28/24 at 10:43 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse #3 stated they were notified at change of shift of residents who were at risk for falls and those residents needed to be brought to the common area. Licensed Practical Nurse #3 stated Resident #12 was supposed to be in the common area and that basically every resident went to the common area for lunch and stayed there after lunch. Licensed Practical Nurse #3 stated they did not know how the facility identified residents at risk for falling and was unaware of any documented monitoring for residents at risk for falls. They stated they just kept an eye on those at risk. Licensed Practical Nurse #3 stated Resident #12 used their call bell and sometimes it took a long time to answer call bells especially if they had no help to do cares, treatments, and when there was a shortage of Certified Nurse Assistants. On 6/28/24 at 10:38 AM, Certified Nurse Assistant #5 stated they were usually assigned to Resident #12 on the overnight shift. Certified Nurse Assistant #5 stated they were off the night of the most recent fall but when they returned to work nothing was changed, there were no new interventions. Certified Nurse Assistant #5 stated the alarm on the bathroom door was there the whole time they have worked with the resident. Certified Nurse Assistant #5 stated there was no toileting schedule put in place. Certified Nurse Assistant #5 stated they did frequently monitor all residents but was not told to do 15-minute monitoring for Resident #12 and had not documented any type of monitoring. On 06/28/24 at 11:15 AM, the resident was observed on the toilet with the wheelchair in front of him and Licensed Practical Nurse #3 was standing outside of the room in the corridor. Licensed Practical Nurse #3 stated that resident rang the bell to use the bathroom and they were outside of the room to give the resident privacy because they were having a bowel movement. Licensed Practical Nurse #3 stated there was no documented 15-minute checks. Licensed Practical Nurse #3 stated they were not aware of the motion sensor on resident's bathroom door. On 06/28/24 at 11:50 AM, Medical Director and primary physician for residents at the facility stated everybody in the nursing home was at high risk for falls. Medical Director stated Resident #12 had a fall and was hospitalized with a pneumothorax (collapsed lung), hematoma and rib fractures. The Medical Director stated the interventions in place prior to hospitalization were to do a rehabilitation referral, educate resident and in-service staff. On 6/28/24 12:24 PM, Physical Therapist #1 stated the resident was moderate to high risk for falls and had multiple falls at the facility. Physical Therapist #1 stated their recommendation was to keep the resident supervised and not leave the resident unattended while in the bathroom. Physical Therapist #1 stated when they wrote their notes with recommendations for changes, it was the responsibility of the charge nurse or Director of Nursing to read their notes. On 7/01/24 at 10:35 AM, Resident #12 was observed in the recliner chair alone. Resident #12 stated they liked to go the common area but most of the time the staff did not bring them there. On 7/01/24 at 2:34 PM, the Director of Nursing stated the staff were aware of the toileting schedule and they were not sure why it was not implemented. They stated the care plan might not have been updated, but the staff were made aware. The alarm on the bathroom door was supposed to be turned on all the time and the resident would get annoyed and would turn it off with their reacher (device used to assist in grabbing items that the resident cannot reach). The Director of Nursing stated the staff should still be using the alarm. The Director of Nursing stated when toileting the resident the Certified Nurse Assistant must stay in the room or right outside of the bathroom to give them privacy but should not be down the hall. The Director of Nursing stated Resident #12 sustained a hematoma and fractured ribs with the fall in May 2024, and did not remember the time the resident fractured ribs in September 2023. The Director of Nursing stated when Resident #12 was in the recliner the staff checked on them but there was not documentation of that monitoring. The Director of Nursing stated the staff should be checking on Resident #12 often but would not specify how often. 415.12(h)(2)
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the recertification survey from 6/25/2024 to 7/2/2024, the facility did not ensure each resident was treated with respect and dignit...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the recertification survey from 6/25/2024 to 7/2/2024, the facility did not ensure each resident was treated with respect and dignity. This was evident for 2 (Resident #13 and Resident #37) of 18 sampled residents during dining observation. Specifically, Resident #37 and Resident #13 were not served lunch at the same time as their tablemates. The findings are: The facility policy titled Open Dining dated 2/16/2007 documented residents participating in open-style dining will be able to dine at their preferred time and are served their meal according to the dining program. On 6/25/2024 at 12:05 PM, Resident #37 and Resident #10 were observed in the dining room seated at the same table. Resident #10 received their meal tray and began eating their lunch. Resident #37 watched their tablemate eat lunch and asked a staff member for a lunch tray. Resident #37 was served their lunch tray at 12:14 PM. On 06/27/2024 at 12:35 PM, Resident #13, #8, #36, and #10 were observed in the dining room seated at the same table. Resident #8, #36, and #10 were served their meal trays and began eating lunch. Resident #13 watched their tablemates eat while other residents in the dining room were served. Resident #13 commented they had not received their lunch and had no food to eat yet. At 12:43 PM, Resident #13 was served their lunch tray. Residents #37 and #13 were not served lunch in a dignified manner to ensure they could begin eating at the same time as their tablemates. On 07/02/2024 at 10:02 AM, the Food Service Director was interviewed and stated the nursing staff were responsible for seating the residents in the dining room in accordance with resident choice and ability to socialize. The [NAME] or nursing staff arrange the meal tickets on the trays according to the posted seating chart to ensure residents were served consistent with their tablemates. The consistency of meal tray service was affected when agency or temporary nursing staff in the dining room were unfamiliar with the residents. On 07/02/2024 at 10:36 AM, the Director of Nursing was interviewed and stated they devised the dining room table seating chart along with the Director of Activities. The seating chart was revised a few months prior and changed when the facility received new admissions or a resident's tablemate preference changed. Nursing staff were aware of seating changes and, therefore, was responsible for setting up the tray tickets in preparation for meal service. The nursing staff usually know the residents and where they sit. It is difficult to serve Resident #13 and their tablemates simultaneously because some of the residents have physical therapy sessions and arrive to the dining room later. The Director of Nursing was not aware of inconsistencies with meal tray service amongst residents and their tablemates. The nursing staff direct the dietary staff to ensure residents and their tablemates were served simultaneously. 10 NYCRR 415.3(d)(1)(i)
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review, observation and interview conducted during a recertification survey, the facility did not develop and implement a person-centered care plan with measurable objectives and time ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, observation and interview conducted during a recertification survey, the facility did not develop and implement a person-centered care plan with measurable objectives and time frames in accordance with comprehensive assessments for one of one resident reviewed for Communication-Sensory and Incontinence and one of three residents reviewed for Positioning / Mobility (R #10). Specifically, for Resident #10 comprehensive care plans were not developed and/or implemented to address hearing impairment to allow for clear communication between facility staff and Resident #10, bladder and bowel incontinence, and to address bilateral hand joint stiffness related to rheumatoid arthritis. The findings are: Resident #10 was admitted with diagnoses including Rheumatoid Arthritis, Hypertension and Hyperlipidemia. The 5/30/24 Quarterly Minimum Data Set (a resident assessment and screening tool) documented Resident #10 had severe cognitive impairment, had highly impaired hearing, did not use a hearing aide, and usually understood but missed some part/intent of message, was occasionally incontinent bladder and bowel incontinence, was not on a toileting program, had no functional limitation in range of motion to the upper and lower extremities and received one day of physical therapy during the last 7 days. During observation on 06/25/24 at 11:11 AM: Resident #10 was in bed stating talk louder. I can't hear you. Resident #10 was unable to respond appropriately to questions being asked and stated come closer. Resident #10 was requesting to be toileted and had noticeable joint stiffness of the bilateral hands. There was no documented evidence in the electronic medical record that person-centered care plans with measurable objectives, time frames and appropriate interventions were developed to address hearing impairment, toileting and/or incontinence, and position/mobility/or range of motion prior to 6/26/24. During interview on 06/27/24 at 11:42 AM. Resident #10's son stated Resident #10 had hearing aids for many years in the past. Hearing aids on admission were not functioning due to the age of devices and needed to be replaced. Family did not wish to pursue offsite audiology visit. Son sent a pair of hearing devices about 2 years ago, but they did not work out. Son stated the staff made efforts to communicate effectively with the resident. Resident #10's son stated the resident had severe rheumatoid arthritis of the hands for many years. The resident was right -handed and tended to focus on the right side. Resident# 10's son stated they had to locate staff during visits to assist Resident #10 with toileting needs. During an interview on 7/1/24 at 11:28 AM the Director of Nursing stated they were responsible for ensuring care plans were developed and that interventions were effective. The Director of Nursing stated they were not always able to keep up. 10NYCRR 415.11(c)(1)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews conducted during the Recertification Survey, it was determined that for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #12) reviewed for accidents, the facility did n...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews conducted during the Recertification Survey, it was determined that for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #12) reviewed for accidents, the facility did not ensure that a resident's care plan was revised with new interventions following a fall. Specifically Resident #12 had 7 falls from 9/16/23 to 5/3/24 and care plans were not revised to reflect the recommendations made on accident reports or rehab recommendations. The findings are: The Accident Incident Policy last revised 11/2017 documented it is the policy of the facility to ensure that the environment, the people and systems are such that promotion of resident safety and security of accidents/incidents is vigilantly sustained. To this end the Accident/Incident Report serves as the basis for formally reporting and recording residents' accidents/incidents, and for statistical gathering, tracking and analyzing pertinent data to highlight trends, patterns and factors which may warrant an investigation and or risk management factors. As applicable per NYS Department of Health reporting guidelines, the Director of Nursing or designee with report to Department of Health via HCS. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS; a comprehensive resident assessment tool) dated 4/17/23, documented Resident #12's cognition was intact. The resident was always incontinent of bladder and frequently incontinent of bowel. Resident #12 required extensive assist of 1 person for toileting, bed mobility, transfer, walking in room and locomotion on and off the unit. Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Plan created 4/10/23 documented Resident #12 was at risk for falls: Interventions dated 7/10/23 documented the following: Ensure that call bell is within reach at all times and is answered in a timely manner; Encourage to call for assistance; Regularly orient to environment; Provide family/resident education on falls prevention. Accident Incident Report dated 9/16/23 documented resident had a fall and recommendation to monitor resident every 2 hours. Accident Incident Report dated 9/21/23 documented resident had a fall and recommendation to monitor resident every hour. The Rehab recommendation dated 9/29/23 documented to post at station until care card created. The recommendation documented resident is extensive assist of 2 for toileting. Handwritten note at bottom of recommendation documented (Do not leave patient unattended in the toilet. Keep patient supervised during waking hours.) The Self Care Deficit Care Plan dated 4/2023 was blank with no instruction on Activities of Daily Living care to reflect the need of extensive assistance of 2 people for toileting Resident #12. A new care plan was created 10/10/23 titled at risk for falls related to: Resident had actual fall 11/11/23, Related to having COVID and poor safety awareness, Actual fall 11/4/23 due to self-transfer, and fall 12/27/23 due to poor safety awareness. The following were the interventions: footwear will fit properly; Keep areas free of obstructions to reduce the risk of falls or injury; place call bell within reach, when in recliner or wheelchair do 15-minute rounds for safety checks; provide reminders to use ambulation and transfer assist devices. Resident re-educated on safety and continuous call bell use; remind resident to call for assistance before moving from bed to chair and from chair to bed; respond promptly to calls for assist to the toilet. Toilet between 6 AM and 7AM; use alarm to monitor attempts to rise. Has an alarm on bathroom door, resident turns off. All interventions on this care plan were dated 10/10/23. A new intervention dated 10/20/23 documented the following: Bed in lowest position; Proper footwear/nonskid footwear with rubber soles; Evaluate for orthostatic hypotension; Rehab screen to assess need for therapy/positioning--assistive devices as indicated; Use diversional activities and encourage participation in activities. Accident Incident Report dated 11/4/23 documented resident had a fall and recommendation for floor mat and 15-minute monitoring. No documented evidence care plans were revised to include floor mats. On 7/1/24 at 2:34 PM Director of Nursing stated they were responsible for the care plans. Director of Nursing stated they may not have updated the care plan but the staff were made aware of any interventions that were made from any recommendations made. [10 NYCRR 415.11(c)(2)(iii)]
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #22 was admitted with diagnoses including acute pyelonephritis, diabetes, and end date renal disease. The Quarterly ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #22 was admitted with diagnoses including acute pyelonephritis, diabetes, and end date renal disease. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented Resident #22 had moderately impaired cognition, was independent with eating, and required total assistance with bed mobility, toileting, and transfers. The Skin Care Plan dated 12/20/23 documented Resident #22 was at risk for skin breakdown related to history of acute kidney disease, and nephrostomy tube in right kidney with interventions including monitoring for any skin breakdown and report to the medical doctor or nurse practitioner. On 06/25/24 at 10:22 AM, Resident #22 was observed in their room sitting on their bed and was aggressively scratching their back. There were multiple scratches observed on both legs. Resident #22 stated that their back was itching. On 06/25/24 at 10:53 AM, Resident #22 was observed in their room scratching all over their body. There were multiple scratches observed on both upper and lower arms and legs. Resident #22 stated that their back itched very bad and that they had not received any cream for the itching. On 06/26/24 at 09:40 AM, Resident #22 was observed in their room scratching their back aggressively. Resident #22 stated that their back itched and did not know why and that their body had been itching for a long time. There were multiple scratches observed on back and both upper and lower arms. On 06/27/24 at 11:25 AM, Resident #22 stated that staff was aware that they were itching and had not done anything about it. During an interview on 06/27/24 at 11:27 AM, Certified Nurse Aide #6 stated that Resident #22 had been complaining about itchiness and scratching. Certified Nurse Aide #6 stated that approximately three days prior they observed that Resident #22 had scratches on their body and that they notified Licensed Practical Nurse #2. Certified Nurse Aide #6 stated that the nurse did not assess the resident, they just said that Resident #22 was scratching due to kidney disease and to apply lotion and petroleum jelly to their body. During an interview on 06/27/24 at 11:34 AM, Registered Nurse #1 stated that they were not aware that Resident #22 had been scratching and they had not done a body audit to see any breaks in Resident #22 skin. During an interview on 06/27/24 at 12:54 PM, Registered Nurse #2 stated that they worked at the facility three days prior and that the Certified Nurse Aide alerted them about Resident #22 scratching their skin and that Resident #22 always had dry skin, and that the Certified Nurse Aides should put lotion on dry skin as a part of the daily routine. During an interview on 06/27/24 at 03:52 PM, the Medical Director stated that they were recently at the facility and was not notified that Resident #22 was itching and scratching their skin causing excoriations and did not receive any correspondences from nursing staff prior to or after their recent visit to the facility. The Medical Director stated that Resident #22 has end stage renal disease which causes dry and itchy skin, and that regular lotion would not relieve the symptoms and they would prescribe a moisturizing cream for staff to apply to Resident #22's skin. Furthermore, the Medical Director stated that Resident #22 should have had moisturizing cream prescribed to be given as needed. 10 NYCRR 415.11(c)(2)(ii) Based on record review observation and interview conducted during the recertification survey it was determined for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for quality of care (Resident #10 and #2), the facility did not ensure residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of quality. Specifically, 1. Resident #10 had a fall on 4/14/24 which resulted in a nondisplaced transverse fracture of the distal malleolus and the facility did not ensure that a CAM boot (orthopedic device that limits foot movement and protects the area during recovery) and/or physical therapy were provided in a timely manner as per orthopedic recommendation and 2. Resident #22 with diagnoses including end stage renal disease had pruiritis(itchy skin) which resulted in visible excoriation/s (breaks in the skin) and the physician was not notified resulting in a delay of treatment. Findings include: 1. The 3/7/24 Quarterly Minimum Data Set Assessment documented Resident #10 had severe cognitive impairment, no functional limitation of the upper and lower extremities, walked up to 150 feet with partial/moderate assist using a walker, received partial/moderate assist of 1 staff for transfers, and did not receive therapy. The 4/14/24 Accident and Incident Report documented Resident #10 had a fall at 3:00 PM in their room and was able to move all extremities without complaint of pain. Extremities equal in length, slight bruising to the right ankle. No swelling noted. 9:30 PM note documented right ankle swelling with hematoma. Medical Doctor made aware and ordered an X-ray. The 4/15/24 Therapy Screening Tool documented recommend orthopedic consult, resident currently on isolation precautions. The therapy screen was updated on 4/17/24 and documented X-ray revealed unhealed nondisplaced transverse fracture of the right distal malleolus *Note received X-ray results from nursing on Resident had orthopedic appointment scheduled for 5/10/24. Therapy will wait for orthopedic recommendations. The 5/10/24 orthopedic consult note documented weight bear as tolerated, CAM boot when ambulating, physical and occupational therapies, check skin daily to access for skin injury, and follow up in 4 weeks. The therapy screen was updated on 5/14/24 and documented this writer gave information to the Director of Nursing and secretary to place the CAM boot order. Therapy will wait for the CAM boot to be delivered to assess the resident. The 5/20/24 Therapy Screening Tool Note documented skilled physical therapy is not indicated at this time until CAM boot recommended by orthopedics for ambulation arrives. Continue to follow toileting schedule established by nursing. Perform frequent room checks. Increase supervision in caring circle. Resident is non-ambulatory at this time. Use wheelchair for transfers. The 5/29/24 physician order documented physical therapy evaluation and treatment as indicated. The 5/29/24 physical therapy evaluation and treatment assessment summary documented resident presents possible fracture on the right ankle and required skilled physical therapy interventions for gait training with CAM boot to preserve the residents ability to ambulate safely to decrease the risk of complications related to decreased mobility such as falls and decreased participation in functional daily activity. The 5/30/24 Quarterly Minimum Data Set documented Resident #10 had severe cognitive impairment. received partial assist with toileting and transfer, walked 10 feet with supervision or touching assistance, had 2 falls with no injury, 1 fall with injury, 0 falls with major injury since admission or most recent assessment and received one day of physical therapy in the last 7 days. The 6/7/24 orthopedic follow up documented assessment plan CAM boot weight bear as tolerated, physical and occupational therapies, ween off CAM boot, skin checks daily, follow up in 6-8 weeks. The 6/7/24 physician order documented right ankle CAM boot must be worn while out of bed. wean off the CAM boot. Check skin integrity every shift for any impairment. There was no documented evidence in the electronic medical record for the use of the CAM boot prior to 6/7/24. The 6/20/24 physician note documented unable to ambulate status post right ankle nondisplaced fracture. Confused. Yelling out at times. Seen by orthopedist. status post right ankle nondisplaced fracture, wheelchair bound, follow up with orthopedist. During an interview on 7/1/24 at 11:45 AM Licensed Practical Nurse #1 stated they did not recall Resident #10 wearing a CAM boot in the past. Licensed Practical Nurse #1 stated they had not signed off in the treatment administration record for the application and/or removal of a CAM boot. During an interview on 7/1/24 at 3:17 PM Certified Nurse Assistant #2 stated Resident # 10 did not wear a CAM boot at any time during the last 6-8 weeks. During an interview on 7/1/24 at 3:29 PM the Director of Nursing stated Resident #10 fell and the soonest orthopedist appointment they could get was 5/10/24. The Director of Nursing stated that a CAM boot was not available at the facility for the residents use. The nursing staff had never ordered orthopedic devices and they thought therapy would order the device. The Director of Nursing stated the facility did not have a policy/ procedure to address ordering devices. Therapy told nursing which CAM boot to order and the Director of Nursing reached out to supply staff at one of the other facilities. At the time of interview email correspondence was reviewed and it was determined that the request for a CAM boot was sent by the facility on 5/14/24 and had an estimated delivery date of 5/17/24. The Director of Nursing stated they were not sure when the CAM boot was actually received. The Director of Nursing stated they had given the CAM boot to therapy and told them to let nursing know what directives should be put in place. When asked if the physician order for the CAM boot was put in place on 6/7/24 the Director of Nursing stated that could be how long it took for the CAM boot to arrive. The Director of Nursing stated they had not updated the physician and/or the administrator regarding the delay in obtaining the orthopedist recommended CAM boot and/or physical therapy assessment. During an interview on 7/1/24 at 4:45 PM the Physical Therapy Director stated the CAM boot should be worn for weight bearing due to lower extremity injury. When asked who was responsible for ordering the CAM boot the Physical Therapy Director stated at this facility the ordering is very tricky because everything ordered by therapy required a cash on delivery/ check cut and sent to the supplier before delivery. The Physical Therapy Director stated they did not have a policy regarding device orders at this facility. The Physical Therapy Director stated they would expect nursing to put in a consult order, communicate with therapy and it would be rehabilitation responsibility to order the needed device. Therapy would have to educate staff regarding the use of the CAM boot. Therapy was also responsible for putting in the order for the use of the CAM boot. The Physical Therapy Director stated they remembered that Resident #10 was not evaluated until 5/31/24 and it was documented that the CAM boot was in place. The Physical Therapy Director stated they could not provide more feed back. but stated intervention/s should have been put in place in a much better time frame. This scenario was not ideal. During interview on 7/1/24 at 4:30 PM Central Supply staff stated they received an email request on 5/14/24 requesting a CAM boot for Resident #10. The boot was ordered on that date and had a delivery date of 5/17/24. Central Supply staff stated they had confirmation that the CAM boot was delivered to the facility on 5/20/24. Central Supply staff stated they did not normally get these types of orders and they were not sure why this order came their way.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interviews conducted during the recertification survey from 6/25/2024 to 7/2/2024, the f...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interviews conducted during the recertification survey from 6/25/2024 to 7/2/2024, the facility did not ensure that all drugs and biologicals were stored in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications and professional standard of practice. Specifically, the medication storage room was observed with expired medical equipment that was used to administer medications. Findings include: The facility's policy titled Medication Storage in the Facility dated 8/22/2014 documented that outdated, contaminated, or deteriorated medications and those in containers that are cracked, soiled, or without secure closures are immediately removed from stock, disposed of according to procedures for medication destruction, and reordered from the pharmacy, if applicable. On 07/01/24 at 10:40 AM, the medication storage room was observed with three expired 20 gauge needles with an expiration date of 2/29/23, five-43 inch 9 millimeter Medtronic quick sets with an expiration date of 3/1/23, and one intravenous dressing change kit with [NAME] prep swabs with an expiration date on 3/31/24. During an interview on 07/01/24 at 10:43 AM, the Director of Nursing stated that the expired equipment was not supposed to be in the medication storage room and that they would discard them. The Director of Nursing stated that they were in possession of the key to the storage room and that they were responsible for going through the things that were kept in there, especially for expired medications. The Director of Nursing stated that nothing should be expired in the med room whether it was being used or not, and stated they would get rid of the expired items and go through the rest of the storage room to see if anything else was expired and needed to be discarded. 10NYCRR 483.45 (g)(h)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review during the recertification survey, the facility did not provide food and drink that was at a safe and appetizing temperature for 3 of 5 food items (s...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review during the recertification survey, the facility did not provide food and drink that was at a safe and appetizing temperature for 3 of 5 food items (shrimp salad, cucumber salad, baked chicken/fish was the alternate, and apricots) being served from a steam table during the dining experience. Specifically, the baked chicken, shrimp salad and apricots were registered temperatures ranges in the danger zone (temperatures above 41 degrees Fahrenheit (F) and below 135 degrees (F), and that allow the rapid growth of pathogenic microorganisms that can cause foodborne illness. The findings are: During an interview with Resident #141 on 6/25/24 at 11:08 AM, they stated the food was constantly cold at dinner time. Resident #141 stated they could not recall the exact date but about 2 weeks ago they plated food, and it took 30 minutes to deliver trays. During an observation on 6/27/24 at 12:11 PM, while servers were prepping food for tray distribution from steam table, temperatures were taken on the shrimp salad, cucumber salad, baked chicken, fish and apricots. The Food Service Director put the thermometer in the shrimp salad and the temperature was taken and read 50 degrees Fahrenheit, the baked chicken was 127.5 degrees Fahrenheit, and the apricots were 46 degrees Fahrenheit. When interviewed on 7/02/24 at 10:02 AM, the Food Service Director stated the hot/cold station steam table just started being used about 6 months ago. Food Service Director stated the steam table station did keep the temperatures at an acceptable level. Food Service Director stated the hot food should be over 140 degrees (F) and the cold food should be under 40 degrees (F). 10NYCRR 415.14(d)(1)(2)
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during the recertification survey from 6/25/24-7/02/2024 the facil...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during the recertification survey from 6/25/24-7/02/2024 the facility did not ensure an infection prevention and control program was designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 2 (Residents #19 and #22) of 4 residents reviewed. Specifically, Resident #19 had a urostomy tube and Resident #22 had a nephrostomy tube, and enhanced barrier precautions were not implemented. Findings include: The facility's policy titled Transmission Based Precautions/Enhanced Barrier Precautions dated 12/15/2022 documented that enhanced barrier precautions are meant to prevent the spread of multi drug resistant organisms. They are used with all residents with indwelling medical devices. The principles of Enhanced Barrier precautions are that staff will use a gown and gloves during high contact resident care activities only and is intended to be used for resident's entire length of stay; or while they have indwelling devices/wounds. 1) Resident #22 was admitted with diagnoses including acute pyelonephritis, diabetes, and end date renal disease. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented Resident #22 had moderately impaired cognition, was independent with eating, and required total assistance with bed mobility, toileting, and transfers. Physician orders dated 5/17/24 documented Resident #22 was on enhanced precautions due to Nephrostomy tube. Review of the Care Plans revealed that there was no Enhanced Barrier Precautions care plan. On 06/25/24 at 10:22 AM, Resident #22 was observed in their room sitting on bed while Staff #6(certified nurse's aide) was observed in room providing care to resident and assisting them out of bed. There was a dressing with a white tube observed on the resident's right lower back. Resident #22 stated that they had a nephrostomy tube. Staff #6 was observed not wearing any personal protective equipment while giving care. There was no signage on the door indicating Resident #22 was on Enhanced Barrier Precaution, and there was not a personal protective equipment cart in sight. On 06/25/24 at 10:53 AM, Resident #22 was observed in their room and there were no enhanced barrier precautions signage observed on the resident's door or a personal protective equipment cart in sight. On 06/26/24 at 09:40 AM, Resident #22 was observed in their room and there were no Enhanced Barrier Precautions signage observed on the door and no personal protective equipment carts in sight. On 06/27/24 at 11:38 AM, there were no Enhanced Barrier Precautions signage or personal protective carts outside of the resident's room. During an interview on 06/27/24 at 11:27 AM, Staff #6(certified nurse's aide) stated that Resident #22 had a nephrostomy tube and that they required extensive assistance with activities of a daily living. During an interview on 06/27/24 at 11:34 AM, Staff #1(registered nurse) stated that they were not aware that Resident #22 was on Enhanced Barrier Precautions and had not seen staff gown up when providing cares to the resident. During an interview on 06/27/24 at 11:46 AM, Staff #3(certified nurse's aide) stated they were not aware that Resident #22 was on Enhanced Barrier Precautions and had not seen any precautions signs or carts outside of the resident's room since the pandemic. Staff #3(certified nurse's aide) stated that they did not wear a gown when they provided care to the resident. During an interview on 06/27/24 at 11:47 AM, Staff #6(certified nurse's aide) stated that they never had to gown up while providing cares to Resident #22 and did not remember being educated on enhanced barrier precaution, they only remembered a paper going around to sign. During an interview on 06/27/24 at 12:02 PM, the Infection Control Preventionist stated that if a resident had a nephrostomy or urostomy tube, they should have had a sign and a personal protective equipment cart outside of their door. During an interview on 06/27/24 at 12:06 PM, the Director of Nursing stated that Resident #22 should have been on Enhanced Barrier Precautions and there should have been a sign on the door with instructions and a personal protective equipment cart outside of the room. 2) Resident #19 was admitted with diagnoses including acute kidney failure, metabolic encephalopathy, and ostomy in place to right lower middle abdomen. The admission Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented Resident #19 had intact cognition, was independent with eating, and required moderate assistance with bed mobility, toileting, and transfers, and had an ostomy. Review of the physicians' orders and the care plans revealed that there were no Enhanced Barrier Precautions in place. On 6/27/24 at 12:43 PM, Resident #19 was observed in their room and stated that they had a urostomy tube. Resident #19 stated that although they did not require assistance with routine activities of a daily living, they did require assistance with showering and staff did not wear gowns when giving them shower. There was no Enhanced Barrier Precautions signage observed on the door or any personal protective equipment observed near their room. 10 NYCRR 415.19(a)(2)
CONCERN (E)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the recertification survey from 6/25/2024 to 7/2/2024, the f...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the recertification survey from 6/25/2024 to 7/2/2024, the facility did not ensure residents' right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment. This was evident during environmental observation of resident Unit 1 and Unit 2. Specifically, 1) Unit 1 was observed with a ceiling leak, stained and uneven carpeting, and stained ceiling tiles, and 2) Unit 2 was observed with broken bathroom floor tiles, stained, frayed, and uneven carpeting, and a broken desk in the nourishment station. The findings are: The facility policy titled Safety Committee Policy dated 4/21/2024 documented the Safety Committee was responsible for identifying issues pertaining to the environment and managing safety, and hazardous materials and wastes. 1) On 06/25/2024 from 9:47 AM to 11:00 AM, 6/26/2024 from 9:30 AM to 5:00 PM, and 6/27/2024 from 9:30 AM to 5:00 PM, Unit 1 was observed with the following: - hallway carpeting with large brown stains and rippled buckling areas causing uneven flooring throughout the unit, - water leaking from the ceiling in the hallway near the dayroom, - stained ceiling tiles in the dayroom. 2) On 6/25/2024 from 9:23 AM to 11:25 AM, 6/26/2024 from 9:30 AM to 5:00 PM, and 6/27/2024 from 9:30 AM to 5:00 PM, Unit 2 was observed with the following: - the nourishment area contained a metal office desk with the handle missing from 1 of 3 drawers on the left side and packing tape wrapped around the broken bottom drawer on the right side, - room [ROOM NUMBER] had 2 holes, measuring 1 and 2 inches respectively, in the bathroom wall directly behind the door, - unit bathroom near room [ROOM NUMBER] with a large linear black stain (approximately 2 feet across) on the floor and cracked, bubbled pieces of linoleum flooring, - large circular black and brown stained and frayed carpeting with several rippled and buckling areas causing uneven flooring throughout the unit On 6/27/2024 at 4:00 PM, the Director of Environmental Services was interviewed and stated the leak in the Unit 1 hallway was caused by a rainstorm from approximately 3 days ago. A roof repair company was retained by the facility to repair the leak. The Director of Environmental Services stated they were planning on repairing and replacing the stained ceiling tiles. The carpeting throughout the facility was installed in 1995 when the facility building was originally constructed. This contributed to the carpet stains and rippling/buckling effect. On 07/02/2024 at 10:45 AM, the Administrator was interviewed and stated ongoing negotiations for another nonprofit owner to acquire the facility has caused renovation and repair delays. The carpeting was shampooed but replacement of the carpeting has not been approved by the current facility owners. The bathroom floors were included in plans to renovate the entire building. The Unit 1 ceiling leak occurred sporadically after rainstorms. The facility hired a roof repair company. The Administrator was unaware of the metal office desk in the nourishment area with broken drawers. The Maintenance Department had a log book where staff documented their requests for repairs. The Environmental Services Director checked the logbook daily. The Administrator stated they also conducted environmental rounds of the facility when on site and communicated any observation concerns to the Director of Environmental Services. 10 NYCRR 415.29
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0841 (Tag F0841)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the post-survey revisit from 9/3/2024 to 9/5/2024, the facility did not ensure the medical director was responsible for implementati...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the post-survey revisit from 9/3/2024 to 9/5/2024, the facility did not ensure the medical director was responsible for implementation of resident care policies and the coordination of medical care in the facility. Specifically, the new Medical Director hired on 8/1/2024 was unaware of their responsibilities as a medical director and had no previous nursing home experience, was not a part of the quality assurance committee, and did not assess residents until 12 days after hire date. The findings are: The facility Medical Director Agreement dated 7/29/2024 documented the Medical Director shall be responsible for assuring each resident's responsible physician attends to the resident's medical needs, participates in care planning, follows the schedule of visits in accordance with 10 NYCRR 415.15(b), and complies with the facility policies, rules, regulations, and medical staff by-laws. Please refer to F689. On 9/5/2024 at 3:54 PM, the Medical Director was interviewed and stated they were the only physician on staff at the facility. The facility did not employ a Nurse Practitioner or Physician Assistant. The Medical Director stated they did not confer with the former Medical Director of the facility before starting their position on 8/1/2024, did not come to the facility to see residents until 8/12/2024, did not document their notes in the medical record upon assessing or visiting with residents, did not know the regulations related to Medical Director responsibilities in the State Operations Manual, and was not part of the facility Quality Assurance Committee upon being hired. The Medical Director did not take part in any staff meetings, did not take part in any Quality Assurance Committee meetings, and was not introduced to staff since being hired. The Medical Director stated they have never worked in a skilled nursing facility prior to being hired by the facility and was not familiar with working with a geriatric population. On 9/4/2024 at 2:05 PM and 3:31 PM and 9/5/2024 at 6:56 PM, the Administrator was interviewed and stated they were hired by the facility on 8/19/2024 and forgot the name of the new Medical Director that was hired by the facility on 8/1/2024. The Administrator stated they just met the new Medical Director on 9/4/2024 for the first time. The Administrator stated the facility did not meet with residents or family members to introduce the new Medical Director. The Administrator was unable to provide information related to Medical Director visits to the facility, hours at the facility, or billing for resident visits since their hire date. On 9/5/2024 at 7:01 PM, the Assistant Administrator was interviewed and stated the former Administrator was responsible for interviewing the new Medical Director prior to their start with the facility on 8/1/2024. The Assistant Administrator provided the Medical Director with the contact information for the former Medical Director and encouraged them to communicate to ensure the new Medical Director was acclimated to the facility and continuity of resident care between physicians. The Assistant Administrator stated they did not confirm whether the former Medical Director and the new Medical Director communicated with each other. The Assistant Administrator stated they met with the new Medical Director prior to their hire date but was unsure who was responsible for approving the hiring of the new Medical Director to work at the facility. 10 NYCRR 415.26(e)(1)(i-iv)
CONCERN (E)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the recertification survey from 6/25/2024 to 7/2/2024, the facility did not ensure a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable env...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the recertification survey from 6/25/2024 to 7/2/2024, the facility did not ensure a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents, staff and the public was provided. This was evident during environmental observation of the kitchen, staff lounge, housekeeping closet, and ancillary services room. Specifically, a sheet of ice was observed covering the kitchen freezer floor, the staff lounge and housekeeping closet had stained ceiling tiles, and the ancillary services room had several items stored on the floor. The findings are: The facility policy titled Safety Committee Policy dated 4/21/2024 documented the Safety Committee was responsible for identifying issues pertaining to the environment and managing safety, and hazardous materials and wastes. On 06/25/24 at 10:01 AM, 6/26/2024 from 9:30 AM to 5:00 PM, and 6/27/2024 from 9:30 AM to 5:00 PM, the facility was observed with the following: - staff lounge locker room and bathroom with stained ceiling tiles, - the ancillary services room had boxed supplies containing gauze sponges, Hoyer lifter pads, Sani-cloths, and razors stored directly on the floor, - the kitchen freezer had a sheet of ice approximately a 1/2 inch thick covering the floor. On 6/27/2024 at 4:00 PM, the Director of Environmental Services was interviewed and stated the facility planned to replace the stained ceiling tiles throughout the facility once they stopped a leak on Unit 1 and repaired the roof. After observing the ancillary services room, the Director of Environmental Services stated they would ensure all items were removed from the floor and stored appropriately. The kitchen freezer floor was cleaned daily by housekeeping staff at the end of each shift. On 07/02/2024 at 10:02 AM, the Food Service Director was interviewed and stated the kitchen freezer accumulated ice on the floor due to condensation. As the freezer door opens, the hot air from the kitchen causes condensation in the freezer that drips and then freezes on the freezer floor. The freezer did not have a drain. A new dietary worker was recently hired and was in the process of being trained on their responsibility to mop and clean the freezer floor regularly to prevent ice from forming. The dietary staff were responsible for reporting concerns related to icy freezer floors to the Food Service Director but have not reported any concerns. The Food Service Director stated they conducted daily rounds of the kitchen and provided oversight of the dietary staff to ensure they performed their job duties. On 07/02/2024 at 10:45 AM, the Administrator was interviewed and stated ongoing negotiations for another nonprofit owner to acquire the facility has caused renovation and repair delays. The Unit 1 ceiling leak occurred sporadically after rainstorms. The facility hired a roof repair company. The Maintenance Department had a logbook where staff documented their requests for repairs. The Environmental Services Director checked the logbook daily. The Administrator stated they also conducted environmental rounds of the facility when on site and communicated any observation concerns to the Director of Environmental Services. 10 NYCRR 415.29
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

MDS Data Transmission (Tag F0640)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview conducted during a recertification survey, the facility did not electronically transmit enc...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview conducted during a recertification survey, the facility did not electronically transmit encoded and completed Minimum Data Set; a federally-mandated process for clinical assessment of all residents in Medicare or Medicaid-certified nursing homes) to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services system information within 14 days of the final Minimum Data Set Assessment completion date as required for payment information and quality measure purposes. This was evident for 2 of 2 residents (#16 and #18) reviewed for resident assessment. The findings are: Review of the facility's MDS assessment data completion and submission activities revealed that the following Minimum Data Set records exceeded 120 days from the date of completion and had not been submitted to the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services System Information until - Resident # 16: Discharge Minimum Data Set Assessment assessment dated [DATE] was rejected on 3/31/24 and had not been resubmitted until 6/25/24. -Resident # 18: Discharge Minimum Data Set Assessment assessment dated [DATE] was rejected on 3/31/24 and had not been resubmitted until 6/25/24. During interview on 7/1/24 at 4:45 PM the Registered Nurse Minimum Data Set Specialist stated they usually ran reports to ensure all Minimum Data Set Assessments were accepted by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, but had not run the report for the above Minimum Data Set Assessments until 6/25/24. The Registered Nurse Minimum Data Set Specialist stated when the report was run they noted that the 2 assessments had been rejected due to information in section A. NY [NAME] 415.11
Nov 2022 3 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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview conducted during the Recertification Survey and Abbreviated Survey NY00271654...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview conducted during the Recertification Survey and Abbreviated Survey NY00271654) from 11/8/2022-11/14/2022 for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #17) reviewed for elopement, the facility did not ensure all residents received adequate supervision and devices to prevent accidents. Specifically, the wanderguard system did not operate as designed to prevent Resident #17 with exit seeking behaviors from exiting the building during an ice storm. Findings are: The policy and procedure titled elopement dated 11/26/13 (no revision date) documented the facilities have written a program concerning missing residents' elopement prevention and elopement policy. Annual training of staff on code [NAME], as well as initial and ongoing assessment of residents concerning risk for wandering behavior and elopement. Resident #17 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Unspecified Dementia without Behavioral Disturbance, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, and Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation. The 12/24/2020 Minimum Data Set (MDS a resident assessment tool) assessment documented the resident's cognition was severely impaired Brief Interview of Mental Status score (BIMS) of 5, Bed mobility limited assist and one-person physical assist. Transfer supervision and set up help only. Medical Doctor orders documented 2/16/2020 Wander guard bracelet to reduce risk of elopement, and check bracelet every shift for proper placement. Review of the incident report dated 2/15/2021 At 5PM Resident #17 was seen by Registered Nurse (RN#1) sleeping in the green recliner in the caring circle. 5:07PM trays came up from the dining room. Staff began giving out dinner trays and when they returned to the caring circle at 5:17PM the resident was out of the chair. The staff went to the resident room, and the resident was not there. RN#1 called a code [NAME] an immediate search of the entire floor was done unit 1 and unit 2 as well as the treatment room nursing station and physical therapy. During the search at 5:30PM the charge nurse was notified by the front desk in Independent Living that Resident #17 was with them. A 2/16/21 statement written by Maintenance staff documented at 11:30 AM on 2/15/21 they were made aware there was a problem with the end Health Care doors on unit 2. They went upstairs and noticed water leaking in through the maglock wanderguard. They tried to fix it but could not get it to work properly. They made sure the secondary alarm was working. They documented they went back a few times to continue to fix the maglock and at 3:30PM it was still not working. They documented they informed staff at both times that day, the maglock wanderguard was not working, but that the secondary alarm was working. The 10/2/2019 Care plan titled Wandering behavior Elopement Risk documented the following interventions heightened awareness during seasonal change, late afternoon hours and when visitors exit the facility, Apply Wander guard bracelet to wrist ankle and check for function and placement per policy, Door alarms Wander guard system on exit door and checked per policy. Review of the Certified Nursing Assistant care card dated 10/19 revised 11/03/2021 mental status oriented but confused at times, behavior type: exit seeking, monitor in caring circle, wanders: monitor doors in caring circle and end of hallway for alarms going off. Precautions maintain awareness of residents where about. Nursing Progress note dated 2/15/2021 Per 7-3 reports she was agitated in AM and exit seeking. Approximate 5:15PM this writer could not locate resident on unit other staff members notified per protocol and code [NAME] (missing Resident) protocol was implemented search of all rooms and storage arears on unit search at common arears, search of all rooms and storage arears on unit it did not reveal resident. At 530 pm as search was ongoing this writer received call from the front desk that resident was at the front desk having walked in through the front desk resident stated. I need to go home where is my mother this not my home complains feeling cold provided sweater blanket and escorted to unit Director of Nursing (DON) and administrator and director of maintenance notified. Son notified and assured of resident safety no injuries noted. The facility was unable to provide documentation that they implemented measures to reduce hazard risks and or implemented interventions consistent with the residents needs to eliminate the risk if possible and if not reduce the risk of accident. The facility was unable to provide documentation that the maglock wanderguard system was checked between 2/12/21-2/15/21. Review of the statement written on 2/16/2021 by Maintenance Mechanic On 2/15/2021 around 11:30AM the front desk informed me that there was a problem with the end health care doors on unit 2. The Maintenance Mechanic stated they went upstairs and noticed water leaking in through the Maglock wander guard. Maintenance Mechanic stated they tried to fix it but could not get the Maglock to work properly, so they made sure the secondary alarm was working, replaced the battery and tape holding it onto the door. Maintenance Mechanic stated they informed the staff that the secondary alarm was working. During an Observation on 11/8/2022 at 10AM Resident #17 had an alarm on the door to their room, when the door was knocked, the alarm went off staff responded Resident #17 was sitting in an arm chair. Resident #17 was wearing a wander Guard to the right wrist. During an Observation on 11/9/2022 at 1:00PM Resident #17 was on the unit having lunch in the common area. Wander guard in place on the right wrist. During an interview with the son of Resident #17 on 11/11/2022 at 2:47PM they stated they are happy with care provided to their mom. They stated they think the facility staff are doing their best with the resources they have. The son stated their mom is a challenge to try to keep safe. During an interview on 11/11/2022 at10PM with Registered Nurse (RN #1) they stated they remember the incident. RN #1 stated the resident was in the dayroom and when they went looking for the resident to medicate them, they could not find them. RN #1 stated they did a facility search, and while they were looking for the resident the clerk from the independent living called and ask they were missing a resident, RN #1 stated upon the resident return they did vital signs and notified the MD the DON and resident was placed on 15 min checks. RN #1 stated and order was obtained to have the alarm fixed. RN # 1 stated when they checked the video, they saw the resident had gone out the back between rooms [ROOM NUMBERS]. RN #1 stated the alarm did not work. During an interview with the Maintenance Mechanic, they stated they vaguely remember the incident. Maintenance Mechanic stated if the staff called and reported an alarm not working they would check the alarm and try to fix it, if unable they would notify their supervisor. Maintenance Mechanic stated every morning they check all the doors. During an interview on 11/10/2022 at 1:45PM with the DON they stated they remember the incident the resident went out of the side door during an ice storm. The DON stated water was dripping down and the alarm was not working. The DON stated the resident was wearing a wander guard. DON further stated Maintenance did fix the alarm. During an interview on 11/14/2022 at 10:45AM with the Administrator they stated they were not at the facility during the incident, The Admin stated they are familiar with the wander guard system. The Administrator stated if they were made aware the wander guard alarm was not working, they would have increased observation on that resident 5-15min checks along with any other residents with wander guards, they would bring staff in to monitor the door until the alarm was fixed and would ensure all doors with wander guard alarms were checked. 415.12(h)(1)
CONCERN (D)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during a Recertification Survey conducted between 11/8/12 to 11/14/22, the facility did not ensure that food was stored, prepared, distribu...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during a Recertification Survey conducted between 11/8/12 to 11/14/22, the facility did not ensure that food was stored, prepared, distributed, and served in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Specifically, during the kitchen tour the facility's main kitchen was observed to have outdated condiments in the refrigerator, spices with no legible open date, and spices labeled with open dates that did not follow the recommended storage guidelines. The findings are: Review of the Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled Food Storage-Perishable with a revision date of 11/2004 documented sanitary procedures will be followed in the handling of all perishable foods. The policy further documented the purpose of the policy is to ensure food is stored under safe and sanitary conditions to prevent injury and food borne illness. Review of the Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled Food Storage-Non-Perishable with a revision date of 11/2004 documented all containers will be properly labeled as to contents and items will be dated when removed from container. Review of Nutrition Management Services Company- Quick Reference Shelf-Life List dated 4/2018 documented for products without manufacturers expiration date, use the shelf-life guidelines listed on chart. Unopened dry spices have a storage shelf life of 2 to 4 years. The guideline further documented storage recommendation best used within 3 months. The initial tour kitchen observation on 11/8/22 at 9:17 AM and follow up tours on the same day at 11:43 AM and 2:15 PM revealed the following in the refrigerator: large container of horseradish noted with 7/21/22 receive date and use by 10/14/22 date. Large container of honey mustard with an undetermined receive date and use by 10/16/22 date. In addition, a reminder signage that read Any expired items are to be discarded' was observed on the refrigerator. The spice rack consisted of spices with open dates of at least 1 to 2 years (ground all spice, open date 2/2020, baking powder, open date 9/13/20, celery seeds, open date 11/30/20, caraway seeds, open date 3/11/20, taco seasoning, open date 8/5/20, cinnamon sticks, open date 8/19/21, thyme leaves, open date 12/20/21, and whole tarragon leaves, open date 3/11/20. Old bay seasoning, lemon pepper, and chipotle powder that were labeled with illegible dates making it difficult to determine open. The curry powder was noted with an open date of 10/2018. During an interview on 11/8/22 at 2:15 PM, the Kitchen Manager acknowledged the expired items in the refrigerator and discarded immediately. They were not certain when these items were last used. As per the kitchen manager, walk throughs are conducted a few times a week to ensure proper labeling of refrigerated items and expired items are discarded. The kitchen manager stated spices don't go bad and just lose its flavor overtime. The Kitchen Manager stated some of the seasonings such as the curry powder and turmeric are not used by the kitchen staff. Unused seasonings were noted on the same racks as used seasonings. During an interview on 11/8/22 at 2:19 PM, the FSD acknowledged they were unable to determine how long the old bay, lemon pepper, and chipotle powder seasonings have been sitting on shelf as the dates are illegible. 415.14 (h)
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0565 (Tag F0565)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during a Recertification Survey conducted from 11/8/22 to 11/14/22, the facility did not consider the views of the resident council and act...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during a Recertification Survey conducted from 11/8/22 to 11/14/22, the facility did not consider the views of the resident council and act promptly upon the grievances and recommendations of such groups concerning issues of resident care and life in the facility. Specifically, the facility did not ensure resident council meetings were held between 3/24/21 to 10/28/22. Members of resident council voiced concerns regarding meetings not being held or how often meetings are supposed to take place. Members were also not aware of the grievance process to address concerns. The findings are: Review of the Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled Resident Council Constitution by Laws with a revision date of 2/2003 documented the purpose of resident council is to resolve problems or grievances among residents and others at the facility and to enable residents to take active responsibility for their quality of life by providing residents an opportunity for independence. The policy further documented meetings are to be held monthly. Select topics such as resident rights/responsibilities are put on the resident council meeting agenda on monthly of yearly basis to be discussed at the meeting. Review of the Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled Interim Policy for Suspected or Confirmed COVID-19 Infection Control Manuel with a revision date of 9/15/22 documented communal activities may be facilitated for residents who have fully recovered from COVID-19 and for those not in isolation for observation, or with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 status, with social distancing among residents, appropriate hand hygiene, and use of a face covering. Review of the activities calendar from June 2022 to October 2022 documented regularly scheduled communal activities such as ball toss, exercise class, bingo, and movie nights occurred. Review of the facility resident council minutes revealed the most current resident council meeting was held on 10/28/22. The last meeting held prior to the 10/28/22 meeting was 3/24/21. Review of the facility Covid positive numbers from 11/1021 to 10/2022 provided by the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed COVID outbreak for January 2022. There were no COVID outbreaks documented from 2/2022 to 9/2022. During an interview on 11/14/22 at 10:21 AM, Social Worker (SW) stated the activities and social work departments are responsible for scheduling resident council meetings. SW stated they have been in their current position for 2 ½ weeks and had not been involved in scheduling meetings. During an interview on 11/14/22 at 11:08 AM, the SW consultant stated they started in their current position about one month ago and believed resident council meetings were not being held due to Covid restrictions. Usually, the activities director is responsible for scheduling the meeting and the meeting is co facilitated with the social worker. During an interview on 11/14/22 at 12:51 PM, the Activities Director (AD) stated they could not confirm if there were any COVID guidelines or restrictions in place related resident council meetings. The AD stated it could've been their personal level of comfort with facilitating meetings during COVID which is why meetings are not held communally. There were no documentation or activities notes of individual meetings with the residents and/or if meetings were held. The AD acknowledged not keeping track of these meetings although stated they met with residents individually. The AD stated they are responsible for scheduling the meeting and informing the social worker. Meetings should take place monthly and if the meetings cannot be held the meetings should be rescheduled. The AD stated grievances and resident rights are topics that are usually discussed with residents during resident council meetings. During an interview on 11/14/22 at 1:15 PM, the Administrator stated they were aware meetings were not being held regularly. The administrator stated although there were no outbreaks at the facility some months, the county was designated an orange zone area indicating high risk for COVID. The administrator stated they did not want to bring Covid into the building. If a general meeting cannot be held, staff should have made sure they met with each resident to check in and listen to concerns. 415.5(c)(6)
Sept 2020 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview conducted during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that each resident's...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview conducted during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that each resident's person-centered Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) was reviewed and revised to reflect the resident's current health status. This was evident for 1 of 3 residents (#129) reviewed for Pressure Ulcer/Injury. Specifically, Resident #129 was identified with a new deep tissue injury (DTI)/scab to the left 3rd toe and the risk for skin breakdown care plan was not reviewed and revised to address this change in skin status and new interventions to promote healing and protect from further breakdown. The findings are: Resident #129 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including but not limited to Parkinson's, Osteoporosis, and Encephalopathy. The most recent MDS (Minimum Data Set Assessment) dated 7/16/2020 documented that the resident required extensive to total assistance of one to two staff for all aspects of activities of daily living; was at risk for developing pressure ulcers; and had no unhealed pressure ulcer. The NP notes revealed that on 8/27/2020 new scabbed area to left 3rd toe measuring 1 cm x 1 cm was identified as a DTI (Deep Tissue Injury). The NP recommended DTI/scabs - skin prep, protect area from further breakdown. A second note documented that on 9/2/2020 it scabbed area to left 3rd toe. DTI/scabs - skin prep, protect area from further breakdown Subsequently, on 9/11/2020 an order was obtained for treatment of the of the left 3rd toe. A Care Plan dated 8/2/2019 revealed: Risk for skin breakdown related to limited mobility, circulatory/peripheral vascular disease, and cognitive impairment. Interventions included monitoring for and documentation of changes in skin integrity, and apply medicated ointment, cream, or powder to areas as ordered and monitor effect. On 9/11/2020 no revisions were found to address the new DTI/scab of the left 3rd toe. During an interview on 9/14/2020, RN#2 stated that the Director of Nursing is responsible for updating the CCP.
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 record review and interview conducted during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that care was provid...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview conducted during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that care was provided to promote healing of newly identified pressure area for 1 of 3 residents (#129) reviewed for pressure ulcers. Specifically, Recommendations made by The Nurse Practitioner (NP) to promote healing of a new deep tissue injury (DTI)/scab for the left 3rd toe were not implemented timely. The findings are: Resident #129 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including but not limited to Parkinson's, Osteoporosis, and Encephalopathy. The most receent MDS (Minimum Data Set Assessment) dated 7/16/2020 required extensive to total assistance of one to two staff for all aspects of activities of daily living; was at risk for developing pressure ulcers; and had no unhealed pressure ulcer. A Care Plan dated 8/2/2019 documented that the resident was atr risk for skin breakdown related to limited mobility, circulatory/peripheral vascular disease, and cognitive impairment. Interventions included monitoring for and documentation of changes in skin integrity, and apply medicated ointment, cream, or powder to areas as ordered and monitor effect. No revisions to the care plan were found to address the new DTI/scab of the left 3rd toe. The NP notes revealed that on 8/27/2020 new scabbed area to left 3rd toe measuring 1 cm x 1 cm was identified as a DTI (Deep Tissue Injury). The NP recommended DTI/scabs - skin prep, protect area from further breakdown. A second note documented that on 9/2/2020 it scabbed area to left 3rd toe. DTI/scabs - skin prep, protect area from further breakdown. MD order history revealed no new orders to address the NP wound recommendations for the left 3rd toe scabbed area on 8/27 and 9/2/2020. During an interview on 9/14/20, RN#2 stated that she reviewed theTreatment Administration Records (TAR) for August and September 2020. RN#2 stated that the NP recommendations were not put in as an order until 9/11/20. During an interview on 9/14/2020 at 11:22 AM with the NP. At that time, NP reviewed the orders and revealed she did not see any orders specific to the left 3rd toe treatment recommendations of 8/27 and 9/2/2020, and further reported that treatment to the left foot 3rd toe was ordered 9/11/2020. NP further reported that the nurse is responsible to review the wound evaluations and treatment recommendations and obtain any new orders. When asked what the possible outcome from not treating the 3rd left toe scab, NP reported the worse case scenario would be infection. 415.12 (c)(2)
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

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 conducted during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that d...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that drug regimens were free of unnecessary drugs for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #10) reviewed for unnecessary medications. Specifically, Resident # 10 antipsychotic medication Risperidone dose was increased without justification, despite absence of behavioral symptoms. The findings are: Resident #10 is a [AGE] year-old who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses Dementia, Hypertension, Depressive Disorders, and Psychotic Disorder. According to the 2/28/2020 Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS; an assessment tool), the resident had a Brief Mental Interview Status (BIMS; a test for memory recall) score of 7/15 which indicated impaired cognition, and required supervision in activities of daily living(ADLs) bed mobility, transfer, dressing, eating, toilet use, and personal hygiene. Medication Reconciliation Form dated 2/21/2019 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on Risperdal (Risperidone) 0.5mg oral daily. A 3/29/19 Psychiatric Consultation documented the resident had a history of cognitive decline and was on Risperidone 0.5mg at hours of sleep. The resident presented with episodes of anger, irritability, and paranoia. She attempted to barricade herself in her room, would hide her jewelry so that the staff would not steal them, and was accusatory towards others. The report further documented the resident attempted to elope from the facility. Her symptoms were exacerbated by hearing, and visual problems. The Psychiatrist recommended to add Risperidone 0.25mg in the morning and continue 0.5mg in the afternoon for Psychotic Disorder with Paranoia. The consult further documented the resident was seen in an emergency room and Risperidone was initiated as described above. There was no pattern of daytime sedation or psychotropic side effects. Psychiatric Consultation dated 1/16/2020 stated the resident no longer had gross behavioral problems or paranoia, such as barricading herself in her room. There was no gross clinical depression, hallucination, delusions, or suicidal aggressive ideas. Cognition was at baseline of impairment, and the resident was oriented to her surroundings. The consult further documented there was no sedation or psychotropic side effects. The resident was stable on the medication. Risperidone 0.5mg at hours of sleep and 0.25mg in the morning continued. Recommendations were to watch for escalation and consider gradual dose reduction (GDR) of Risperidone next visit. Multiple Weekly Behavior Notes 4/2020 to 9/2020 documented the resident was monitored for behaviors not limited to yelling, screaming, hitting, self-harm, delusion, and hallucination, and had no behavioral symptoms. Some of these notes documented the resident exhibited adverse medication effect such as increased lethargy (drowsiness) and was receiving Risperidone 0.25mg in AM and 0.5mg at hours of sleep. According to the 7/31/2020 Pharmacy recommendations, the resident was to be evaluated for GDR of Risperidone 0.25mg in AM and 1mg at hours of sleep for been on the dose since 4/5/2019. The physician's response included the resident was on 0.25mg in AM and 0.5mg at hours of sleep. The physician's signature line was signed on 9/3/2020 and a box with a check mark indicated agreement with the Pharmacist recommendations. The physician's response further indicated that the AM dose of 0.25mg Risperidone would be discontinued and the evening dose of 0.5mg would remain unchanged. An 8/26/2020 updated Anti-psychotic, and Anti-depressant Care Plans had goals that the resident would have no negative side effects from the medication, and medication would be decreased/tapered (GDR) as indicated. Interventions included to monitor and document resident's behavior, monitor side effects of anti-psychotics such as restlessness, drowsiness, and attempt GDR. 9/3/2020 Psychiatry Medication Review Note documented the resident may benefit from decreased dose of Risperidone related to sleepiness most of day and less active. The note further documented trial GDR of Risperidone discontinue AM dose and continue with PM dose. Physician Interim Orders dated 9/3/2020 had an order for Risperdal 0.5mg tablet oral twice a day for Psychotic Disorder. There was no justification for the increased dose. 9/1-30/2020 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed the resident received Risperdal 0.5mg oral twice a day from 9/3-9/2020, without justification, until it was discontinued on 9/10/2020. In an interview with the Nurse Practitioner (NP) on 9/14/2020 at 1:40PM she stated that the resident was on Risperdal 0.25mg in the morning and 0.5mg at night. The Risperdal morning dose 0.25mg was supposed to be discontinued on 9/3/2020, but she made and error and increased the order to 0.5mg twice a day instead of once a day. The resident was given 0.5mg twice a day instead of once a day, but the morning dose was discontinued recently. There was no side effect from the extra dose. The Medical Director (MD) who was present during the interview with the NP stated the resident was admitted on the Risperdal medication for Psychosis, Delusions, and Paranoia. The MD stated the increase in the Risperidone dose was an error. Currently, the resident had no Psychosis, Delusions, or Paranoia. In an interview with Registered Nurse (RN #1) on 9/14/20 at 4:09 PM she stated that there was a medication error where the resident's Risperdal medication should have been 0.5mg at hours of sleep, but the resident received 0.5mg twice a day. She stated that the resident exhibited lethargy over the past two months while receiving the 0.5mg dose twice a day. The Risperdal was just GDR related to no behavior and lethargy. There was no documented evidence that warranted an increase in the Risperidone dose. Review of the resident's clinical records MAR, MDS, Nursing Progress Notes, and Physician's Orders, as well as interviews revealed the resident had no behavior. The resident's Risperidone order was increased on 9/3/2020 to 0.5mg twice a day without justification for the increase in dose. Multiple Weekly Behavior Notes 4/2020 to 9/2020 documented the resident had behavioral no symptoms, but experienced lethargy. The 9/3/2020 Psychiatry Medication Review Note documented the resident had sleepiness during the day, was less active, and would benefit from Risperidone GDR, but the dose was increased instead of decreased. 415.12 (1) (1)
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that facility staff followed proper hand hygiene and gloving technique to prev...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that facility staff followed proper hand hygiene and gloving technique to prevent cross contamination, and the spread of infection. Specifically, (1) cross contamination of wound/wound care supplies was observed, during dressing change and hand hygiene after removal of used gloves was not observed during a wound care procedure for 1of 3 residents, (Resident #5) reviewed for pressure ulcer. One pair of gloves was used to open up the clean wound care supplies and the same glove was used to provide wound cleansing and apply new dressing. The findings are: Resident # 5 had diagnoses including Dementia, Hypertension and Pressure Ulcer. According to the 7/9/2020 Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS; an assessment instrument), the resident had a Brief Interview Mental Status (BIMS; a test for memory recall) score of 0/15 which indicated severe impaired cognition and required extensive staff assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs). The MDS coded the resident at risk for pressure ulcer (PU) with one unstageable PU that was not present on admission. Impaired Skin Integrity Care Plan updated 7/22/2020 documented the resident had an actual unstageable PU on right heel. Goals included area of impaired skin integrity would be resolved without complication. Interventions included to monitor for signs and symptoms of infection, administer treatment as ordered, and notify the wound care team of the need for reassessment and treatment. Physician Renewal Orders dated 9/9/2020 instructed to cleanse the right heel pressure ulcer with Normal Saline and the apply Santyl Ointment, abdominal (ABD) pad, and Kling wrap daily. During a wound care observation on 9/11/2020 at 3:33 PM performed on Resident #5 the following was observed: The Registered Nurse (RN #1) donned a pair of gloves then removed a pair of scissors from her right uniform blouse pocket. RN #1 did not place a protective barrier under the resident's right heel; the heel/wound was placed directly on the resident's reclining chair footrest. RN#1 used the scissors to cut the soiled Kling wrap dressing from the resident's right heel where the unstageable pressure ulcer was located. The ulcer was covered with yellowish slough material. RN #1 placed the scissor directly on the clean dressing field after use. The RN removed the gloves. The RN did not perform hand hygiene after removal of gloves. RN#1 then donned a new pair of gloves and opened supply package containing the 4x4 gauze sponges, ABD pad, a small bottle of Normal Saline, and a tube of Santyl Ointment, while touching the outside and inside of the items. RN #1 did not remove the gloves or practice hand hygiene after opening package. RN#1 used the same gloves to remove a 4x4 gauze sponge from the wrapper, held it next to the resident's right heel wound, and poured a small amount of Normal Saline over the wound. RN# then used the other gauzes to pat dry the wound. The wound which contained slough material was not adequately cleansed as slough still remained in the wound. Without removing the gloves, RN #1 applied the clean dressing, Santyl Ointment, 4x4 gauze sponge, ABD pad to the wound, then wrapped it with the Kling wrap. One pair of gloves was used to open the wound supplies, provide wound cleansing and apply the clean dressing to the wound, causing a potential for cross contamination of the wound and wound care supplies. Following completion of the wound care procedure, RN #1 used a packet of Skin Prep (a protective dressing) to clean the scissor, then returned it to the uniform blouse pocket. During an interview on 9/11/2020 immediately following the wound procedure. RN #1 acknowledged the infection control breaches during the wound care, but provided no further explanation as to why she did not follow standard protocol. 415.19 (a) (1-3)
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Bases upon observation, interview and record review conducted during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure monitoring and recording of meal service food temperatures and proper storage...

Read full inspector narrative →
Bases upon observation, interview and record review conducted during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure monitoring and recording of meal service food temperatures and proper storage of foods and utensils in accordance with professional standards for food safety. Specifically, 1. Food temperatures were not monitored and recorded for all meals on 4 days and for one meal on 2 days during the time frame from breakfast 9/1 to breakfast 9/8/2020; 2. unlabeled, undated, unwrapped, and/or expired foods were stored in one walk in refrigerated unit; and 3. Cleaned and sanitized utensils used for food preparation and service were stored in soiled containers. This was observed on the initial tour. The facility must store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Safe food handling for the prevention of foodborne illnesses begins when food is received from the vendor and continues throughout the facility's food handling processes. The findings are: The Initial tour of the kitchen was conducted on 9/8/2020 at approximately 10:00 AM to 11:00 AM. The tour of the kitchen was conducted with the production manager and food service director (FSD) present for parts of the tour. The following were observed: 1. Food temperatures for meals were not consistently monitored and recorded. Food temperature logs were requested for the breakfast meal and the dietary aide/cook responsible to check the breakfast meal food items reported that she did not check the breakfast temperatures as she was rushing this morning. The FSD (Food Service Director) was asked to produce the temperature logs for the month of September 2020. A review of the logs revealed that no food temperatures were recorded for the lunch and dinner meals on 9/2/2020. No food temperatures were recorded for the breakfast, lunch and dinner meals on 9/4, 9/5, 9/6, 9/7/2020 or for the breakfast meal on 9/8/2020. During an interview on 9/8/20 at approximately 10:00 AM, the food production manager (FPM) stated that the FPM was responsible to ensure the breakfast temperatures were taken on 9/8/2020, and did not do so due to being caught up in a lot of things and being short-staffed. The FPM further reported that the dietary aide responsible for recording the breakfast temperatures this morning (9/8/2020) was being trained. The FPM stated that the dietary aide had received some training, but had not yet been fully educated in all aspects of food service and had not yet been formally educated on food temperatures. TheFPM also stated that labeling and dating has been an issue. The FSD stated that she has asked for additional staffing. The FSD proceeded to discard the shredded cheddar cheese. 2. Storage of cleaned and sanitized utensils used for food preparation and service An observation revealed that between 20 to 40 cleaned and sanitized utensils were being stored in each of three (3) containers, one (1) plastic container and two (2) metal containers. The interiors of all three containers were observed to be soiled with loose, dried debris, and were dusty and sticky to the touch. The FPM was interviewed at that time and reported that the containers are to be cleaned twice weekly. The FSD was interviewed at that time and reported that there is no accountability checklist utilized to ensure that this task is completed and proceeded to remove all three utensil containers for cleaning. 3. Storage of unlabeled, undated, unwrapped, and/or expired foods A tour of the walk-in refrigerator was conducted and revealed the following: (A) An opened, partially used, 10-pound package of raw chicken breast containing approximately 3 pounds of chicken breast was unlabeled and undated. The FPM reported he would discard the raw chicken. (B) An opened, approximately half full, 5-pound bag of shredded cheddar cheese was not labeled with an opened date. (C) A piece of cooked roast beef weighing about 1 1/2 pounds was dated 9/1. The FPM was interviewed at that time and reported the roast beef should have been discarded after three days and stated he would discard the roast beef. Also, a piece of cooked corned beef weighing 2 pounds was unwrapped and undated, and the FPM reported he would discard the corned beef. NOTE: On 09/14/2020 copies of the September 2020 temperature and meal evaluation records were received by the survey team. The temperatures for the breakfast meal of 9/8/2020 had been filled in and no explanation for the entries was provided. During an interview on 9/8/20 at approximately10:00 AM, the FSD stated that hey have not been able to be on top of everything due to being short staffed. The FSD stated that multiple staff have left. The FSD indicated that the food service director, or the production manager, or the day manager are the people responsible to ensure that food temperatures are checked and recorded. 415.14(h)
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

  • "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: 1 harm violation(s), $108,046 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 20 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • $108,046 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in New York. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (30/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 30/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Glen Arden Inc's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns GLEN ARDEN INC an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered 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 Glen Arden Inc Staffed?

CMS rates GLEN ARDEN INC's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 57%, which is 11 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 57%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Glen Arden Inc?

State health inspectors documented 20 deficiencies at GLEN ARDEN INC during 2020 to 2024. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm, 17 with potential for harm, and 2 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Glen Arden Inc?

GLEN ARDEN INC is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 40 certified beds and approximately 34 residents (about 85% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in GOSHEN, New York.

How Does Glen Arden Inc Compare to Other New York Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in New York, GLEN ARDEN INC's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (57%) 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 Glen Arden Inc?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's high staff turnover rate.

Is Glen Arden Inc Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, GLEN ARDEN INC has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in New York. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at Glen Arden Inc Stick Around?

Staff turnover at GLEN ARDEN INC is high. At 57%, the facility is 11 percentage points above the New York average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 57%. 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 Glen Arden Inc Ever Fined?

GLEN ARDEN INC has been fined $108,046 across 1 penalty action. This is 3.2x the New York average of $34,159. 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 Glen Arden Inc on Any Federal Watch List?

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