THE PINES HEALTHCARE & REHAB CTRS MACHIAS CAMPUS

9822 ROUTE 16, MACHIAS, NY 14101 (716) 353-8516
Government - County 115 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
25/100
#465 of 594 in NY
Last Inspection: February 2025

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

Overview

The Pines Healthcare & Rehab Centers Machias Campus has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. They rank #465 out of 594 nursing homes in New York, placing them in the bottom half of facilities statewide, and #5 of 5 in Cattaraugus County, meaning there are no better local options available. The facility is worsening, with reported issues increasing from 3 in 2023 to 6 in 2025, raising red flags for prospective residents. Although staffing is a strength with a rating of 5/5 stars and a turnover rate of 35%, which is lower than the state average, the facility has been fined $125,453, a concerning amount that is higher than 96% of other facilities in New York. Additionally, there are troubling incidents, such as a resident being injured during a physical altercation with another resident and failures in reporting and preventing abuse, which highlight serious safety concerns.

Trust Score
F
25/100
In New York
#465/594
Bottom 22%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
3 → 6 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
35% turnover. Near New York's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
○ Average
$125,453 in fines. Higher than 63% of New York facilities. Some compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 31 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for New York. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
11 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★★★★★
5.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 3 issues
2025: 6 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
  • 4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (35%)

    13 points below New York average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Below New York average (3.1)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Staff Turnover: 35%

10pts below New York avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $125,453

Well above median ($33,413)

Significant penalties indicating serious issues

The Ugly 11 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Feb 2025 6 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during a Complaint investigation (#NY00359779, and #NY00363581) dur...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during a Complaint investigation (#NY00359779, and #NY00363581) during an Extended Standard survey completed on 2/3/2025, the facility failed to protect residents from abuse by other residents for three (3) (Resident #17, #71, and #75) of 12 residents reviewed. Specifically, on 11/4/2024, Resident #68 struck Resident #71 in the face with their walker, resulting in a laceration across the bridge of Resident #71's nose, and skin tears to their right cheek and chin. Additionally, on 12/5/2024, 12/10/2024, and 12/11/2024, physical altercations occurred between Residents #17 and #75, who were roommates and remained roommates until after the third altercation on 12/11/2024. This resulted in actual harm to Resident #71. The findings are: The policy titled Abuse/Neglect - Reporting Process, last revised 12/15, documented it is the policy of the facility to treat all residents with kindness, dignity, and consideration. They ensure all residents are free from verbal, sexual, physical, and mental abuse. The policy titled Abuse Preventing and Reporting, last revised 9/23, documented an abusive act is defined as any act of commission or omission that causes potential or actual physical or emotional harm or injury to a resident. Physical abuse is defined as any act or omission which may cause or causes physical pain, harm or injury to the resident or where it is reasonable to believe that pain, harm or injury would result. Physical abuse may include, but is not limited to slapping, pinching, kicking, pushing or rough handling, and/or failure to intervene in a resident altercation that results in physical harm to a resident. 1. Resident #68 had diagnoses that included unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbance, restlessness, and agitation. The Minimum Data Set (a resident assessment tool) dated 10/9/2024 documented Resident #68 was severely cognitively impaired, was usually understood, and usually understands. The [NAME] (a guide used by staff to provide care) dated 1/31/2025 documented Resident #68 was independent with ambulation on the unit, using a rolling walker. The facility could not provide a [NAME] for the time of the abuse 11/4/2024. The comprehensive care plan dated 6/18/2021 documented Resident #68 had a history of physical and verbal aggression, intolerance of noise and of others entering their room, related to dementia. Staff were to assess and anticipate resident's needs, intervene before agitation escalates, guide away from source of distress, and allow to share feelings. On 2/2/2024 a Velcro stop sign was added across entry doorway as needed and the door to their room was to be closed. Resident #71 had diagnoses that included chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (lung disease that blocks airflow and make it difficult to breath), unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbance, and depression. The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented Resident #71 was severely cognitively impaired, sometimes understands, was sometime understood, continuously had disorganized thinking and wandered occasionally. The [NAME] dated 1/31/2025 documented Resident #71 was independent with wheelchair mobility on the unit. The facility could not provide a [NAME] for the time of the abuse 11/4/2024. The comprehensive care plan identified as current, dated 6/12/2023, documented Resident #71 had impaired cognitive function related to dementia and to cue, reorient and supervise as needed. The comprehensive care plan documented Resident #71 had a communication problem related to a hearing deficit. Staff were to anticipate and meet needs and to be conscious of Resident #71's position when in groups, activities, and dining room to promote communication with others. The comprehensive care plan did not document that Resident #71 wandered into unsafe places or displayed behaviors directed towards others. Review of the resident-to-resident incident reports for Resident #71 and Resident #68 completed by Registered Nurse #1, and the facility's investigation report completed by the Director of Nursing dated 11/4/2024, revealed at 2:45 PM, Resident #71 was propelling their wheelchair down the hallway when they opened Resident #68's room door and started to enter. Resident #68 met Resident #71 in the doorway, lifted their walker to Resident #71's face, and began pushing them out of their room. Resident #71 began yelling, which alerted staff, who then immediately intervened and separated the two (2) residents. Resident #71 sustained a skin tear to their right cheek and chin and a laceration across the bridge of their nose with a moderate amount of bloody drainage. Bruising was also noted across their nose. Resident #71 was visibly upset and showed moderate signs of pain and discomfort. Tylenol was given, the wounds were cleansed, and steri-strips (thin, sticky bandages applied to skin to help cuts or wounds stay closed) were applied to their right cheek and nose, along with a dry clean dressing to their chin. X-rays were obtained and were negative for any fractures. Resident #68 became aggressive towards staff and was sent to the emergency room for evaluation. The reports documented Resident #68 had a history of aggression towards other residents and staff, had a private room for safety, and the door was kept shut. The resident-to-resident reports and the facility investigation report did not document the stop sign was in place across Resident #68's door at the time of the abuse on 11/4/2024. Interdisciplinary progress notes dated 11/4/2024 through 11/11/2024 documented staff monitored and treated Resident #71's facial injuries (bruising, swelling, laceration, scratches) and administered Tylenol as needed for visible signs of pain. The Medication Administration Record dated 11/1/2024 -11/30/2024 documented Resident #71 was administered Tylenol 500 milligrams nine (9) times for pain between 11/5/2024 and 11/10/2024 after they were struck in the face by Resident #68. Prior to 11/4/2024, Resident #71 had not been receiving pain medication. During observations on 1/27/2025 between 9:42 AM and 10:01 AM, both Residents #71 and #68 were in their rooms, directly across the hall from each other. Resident #68's door was closed and had a stop sign across their doorway. During an interview on 1/29/2025 at 11:44 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse #1 stated Resident #68 did not like people in their personal space and most incidents involving this resident on the unit involved other people entering their room. They stated that if someone got too close to Resident #68, they would become provoked and would attempt to hit the other person. Licensed Practical Nurse #1 stated they did not know if the stop sign was in place on Resident #68's door on 11/4/2024 at the time of the attack. Additionally, they stated Resident #71 had difficulty hearing, so other residents get frustrated when they tried to talk to them. During an interview on 1/29/2025 at 11:51 AM, Certified Nurse Aide #1 stated they were at the nurse's station on 11/4/2024 when they saw Resident #71 wheel down the hallway to Resident #68's room, open the door and enter. They then heard yelling and started to walk down the hallway when they saw Resident #68 push Resident #71 out of their room with their walker. Resident #68 had already closed the door and returned to their room when Certified Nurse Aide #1 arrived at the incident. They stated Resident #71 was bleeding from areas on their face that corresponded with where the walker had hit them. Certified Nurse Aide #1 stated they did not recall if the stop sign was across Resident #68's door on 11/4/2024. The unit had a lot of wanderers who would remove stop signs across doors, and staff did their best to redirect residents. During an observation on 1/30/2025 at 11:18 AM, Resident #68 was in their room, the door was closed and there was no stop sign across the entry way. Resident #71 was in their room across the hall watching television. During an interview on 1/30/2025 at 11:23 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse #1 stated Resident #71 had swelling, bruising to their face and showed signs of pain for days following the incident, requiring Tylenol to relieve the pain. Additionally, they stated they did not know why the stop sign was missing from Resident #68's doorway. They stated other residents frequently go around the unit and remove them, and staff have to look through rooms to find them. During an interview on 1/30/2025 at 11:30 AM, Social Worker #1 stated following the incident on 11/4/2024, Resident #71 was assessed, was holding their injuries and appeared to be in pain. Social Worker #1 stated Resident #68 was assessed and sent to the hospital for evaluation of their increased aggression, and upon their return was seen by the facility provider for their behaviors. Their mood fluctuates because of their dementia. They stated if Resident #68 was in a bad mood, they preferred to be alone and that was why they were care planned to have their door shut. Social Worker #1 stated they did not know if the stop sign was across Resident #68's door on 11/4/2024 at the time of the incident. During an interview on 1/30/2025 at 12:30 PM, Registered Nurse Head Nurse #2 stated there were stop signs across doorways on the memory care unit to deter residents from entering rooms that were not theirs, but residents removed them and hid them. Staff constantly had to check for stop signs and would replace them when they noticed they were missing. During an interview on 1/30/2025 at 1:10 PM, the Medical Director stated Resident #68 was evaluated following an incident that included them having aggressive, assaultive behaviors towards Resident #71. During a telephone interview on 1/30/2025 at 2:06 PM, Registered Nurse #1 stated on 11/4/2024 around 3:00 PM they were paged to the memory care unit. Staff stated they heard screaming and responded to find Resident #68 hitting Resident #71 in the face with their walker. Resident #68 picked the walker up and brought it down on Resident #71's face a couple times. The residents were separated. Resident #71 was assessed, neuro checks were initiated, and first aid was rendered to their facial injuries. Resident #71's Health Care Proxy was called, and they did not want them to be sent to the hospital. The Medical Director was updated and ordered an x-ray of Resident #71's nose and orbitals (eye socket). Registered Nurse #1 that Resident #68 was assessed and was aggressive towards staff, so they were sent to the hospital for an evaluation. Registered Nurse #1 stated that Resident #68 had worsening aggression, behaviors, and confusion in the weeks leading up to the incident. Registered Nurse #1 stated they had been concerned something bad was going to happen. They could just flip a switch. Resident #68 didn't like other people in their personal space and would push people towards the door with their walker if they entered their room. Registered Nurse #1 stated they arrived after the incident and did not know if the stop sign was in place prior to the incident. They stated they had brought their concerns to the Director of Nursing, Administration, and the Medical Director before 11/4/2024 because of Resident #68's history of aggression toward others. Resident #68 had recently been evaluated in the hospital for increased aggression because they were a safety issue to staff and other residents with no findings. Registered Nurse #1 stated Resident #71 was nonverbal, but after the 11/4/2024 incident you could see it on their face, they were worried when wheeling around the unit. During a telephone interview on 1/31/2025 at 8:32 AM, Resident #68's Health Care Proxy stated they were made aware of the incident on 11/4/2024. They were told there was a physical altercation between Resident #71 and another resident, resulting in a minor cut to Resident #71's cheek. They were not aware Resident #71 was hit in the face with a walker. Resident #71's Health Care Proxy stated that if Resident #71 was in their right mind they would have been very upset at the situation and would have been afraid of the person doing this to them. During a telephone interview on 2/3/2025 at 8:40 AM, Risk Management Investigator #1 stated they don't typically investigate resident-to-resident incidents. If it's a reportable incident with a major injury, they may work jointly on the investigation. Risk Management Investigator #1 stated they did not work on this case with the facility and would have expected to be notified. A resident striking another resident with a walker causing cuts and swelling to the face would be considered a major injury. During an interview on 2/3/2025 at 10:40 AM, the Director of Nursing stated they investigated the incident on 11/4/2024 involving Resident #68 and #71. Resident #68 had a history of aggressive behaviors directed towards others. The Director of Nursing stated that Resident #68 was aggressive about Resident #71 entering their room. During the interview, the Director of Nursing reviewed Resident #71's nursing progress notes and stated following the incident, Resident #71 displayed signs of discomfort, was visibly upset, and was medicated for pain. They stated Resident #68 caused harm to Resident #71 during the incident on 11/4/2024. During an interview on 2/3/2024 at 11:46 AM, the Administrator reviewed Resident #71's nursing progress notes and stated, It is safe to say Resident #71 was exhibiting signs of fear and pain following the incident on 11/4/2024 with Resident #68. 2. Resident #17 had diagnoses that included unspecified dementia with mood disturbance, depression, and anxiety. The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented Resident #17 was moderately cognitively impaired, was usually understood, and usually understands. The [NAME] dated 12/6/2024 documented Resident #17 required an assist of one for ambulation with a rolling walker, was independent for wheelchair mobility on the unit, and required 15-minute checks. Facility could not provide a [NAME] for the day of the altercation, 12/5/2024. The comprehensive care plan dated 9/30/2024 documented Resident #17 had impaired cognition and was dependent on staff for meeting emotional, intellectual, physical and social needs. The care plan documented on 10/23/2024, the resident physically grabbed and slapped another resident in the hallway. Approaches included to invite to scheduled activities and may need one-to-one visits. The care plan documented on 12/5/2024, the resident was hit by another resident due to going through their things; on 12/10/2024 the resident was slapped by another resident who thought resident had taken their walker. Approaches included to cue, reorient and supervise as needed. Additionally, the care plan documented Resident #17 was found crawling on the floor on 12/11/2024. The 15-minute checks were not documented on the comprehensive care plan. Resident #75 had diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease, Bell's palsy (temporary paralysis or weakness of the facial muscles on one side of the face), and dementia without behavioral disturbance. The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented Resident #75 was severely cognitively impaired, sometimes understands, was sometimes understood, and had fluctuating disorganized thinking. The [NAME] dated 12/6/2024 documented Resident #75 was independent with a rolling walker for ambulation on the unit. The [NAME] documented on 12/6/2024, 15-minute checks were initiated. The facility could not provide the [NAME] for the day of the altercation, 12/5/2024. The comprehensive care plan dated 6/21/2024 documented Resident #75 had a communication problem related to oral deformity, Bell's palsy, and hearing deficits. Resident #75 had impaired cognitive function related to dementia and could be possessive over other residents. On 9/13/2024, Resident #75 hit another resident. Staff were to anticipate the needs of the resident. Resident #75 wandered and had impaired safety awareness. The care plan documented on 12/5/2024, hit another resident for going through their things and the other resident hit back; on 12/10/2024, Resident #75 slapped another resident due to thinking they took their walker. Approaches included a Velcro stop sign across entry way and to cue, reorient and supervise as needed. Fifteen- minute checks were initiated on 12/5/2024 after the altercation but were not documented on the comprehensive care plan. Review of Resident #17's progress notes dated 12/2/2024 included Social Worker #1 documented a room change occurred on 12/2/2024. The nursing home facility investigative report, dated 12/5/2024 and completed by the Administrator, documented Resident #75 observed Resident #17 going through their belongings and slapped Resident #17 on the face. Resident #17 slapped Resident #75 back, also on the face. The incident was reported to Licensed Practical Nurse #1 by Resident #17, and while they were talking to Licensed Practical Nurse #1 about the incident, Resident #75 approached to tell their side of the story. Residents were new roommates, and both were able to ambulate independently. Resident #17 indicated they did not like their living arrangement. Both residents were placed on 15-minute checks to monitor their whereabouts and to avoid further altercations. The resident-to-resident incident report Resident to Resident Physical Contact for Resident #75 dated 12/10/2024, completed by Registered Nurse Head Nurse #4, documented Resident #75 came out to the dining room and accused Resident #17 of stealing their walker, attempted to take it back, and began hitting Resident #17 on their arms. The residents were separated; 15-minute checks were still in place at the time and continued. Review of Resident #17's nursing progress notes dated 12/10/2024 at 8:15 AM and 8:19 AM included Licensed Practical Nurse #1 documented they witnessed Resident #75 smack Resident #17 because they thought Resident #17 took their walker. They were separated and placed on opposite sides of the dining room. Resident #17 had a red mark on their left arm and was crying. One-to-one was provided to Resident #17 and 15-minute checks continued. The resident-to-resident incident report Resident to Resident Physical Contact for Resident #75 dated 12/11/2024, completed by the Assistant Director of Nursing, documented Certified Nurse Aide #10 saw Resident #75 walking towards their room and when they entered, heard Resident #17 say, It is my bathroom too. Certified Nurse Aide #10 heard a noise and went to check. They observed Resident #17 and Resident #75 crawling around on their bedroom floor. Resident #75 stated Resident #17 pulled them down. The incident report documented Resident #17 and #75, who were roommates, had been having difficulty getting along. To avoid further potential negative interaction, Resident #75 was moved to a private room on another unit. During an interview on 1/27/2025 at 9:51 AM, Resident #17 stated they tended to get upset when they were in group settings. Resident #17 stated they remembered slapping someone because they wouldn't leave them alone, so they had to push them away. Resident #17 appeared paranoid and anxious during the interview. During an interview on 1/29/2025 at 11:40 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse #1 stated Resident #17 and Resident #75 had been arguing for a couple days and had slapped each other. On 12/11/2024 Certified Nurse Aide #10 found them crawling on the floor in their bedroom after slapping each other. They stated Resident #17 seemed afraid of Resident #75. During an interview on 1/29/2025 at 10:29 AM, Certified Nurse Aide #1 stated Resident #17 and Resident #75 were not a good match for roommates because they each thought someone else was always stealing from them and could be very possessive over things. During a telephone interview on 1/30/2025 at 2:17 PM, Registered Nurse #1 stated the two residents became roommates because room changes needed to occur to accommodate male beds on the secure unit. Resident #75 also had room change in September because they had an altercation with their previous roommate. Resident #17 recently moved to the secure unit for safety related to their wandering. Registered Nurse #1 stated they were not surprised when the residents had issues after becoming roommates because they both had issues with other residents in the past. Registered Nurse #1 stated they brought up their concerns with them not being compatible roommates at their weekly interdisciplinary meetings with Administration, the Director or Nursing, therapy, dietician, unit managers, and staffing, but there was no other available bed on the secure unit. Resident #75 was eventually moved after the incident on 12/11/2024, and that had helped Resident #17 with their paranoia. A call was placed to Certified Nurse Aide #10 1/31/2025 at 12:23 PM without success. During an interview on 2/3/2025 at 10:29 AM, the Director of Nursing stated Resident #17 and Resident #75 were put on 15-minute checks following the incident on 12/5/2024 and remained roommates. There were no available beds on the secure unit, and they were attempting to keep both residents on the secure unit. They stated the incident that occurred on 12/10/2024 happened in the dining room, so it did not indicate a room change. The incident on 12/11/2024 was not witnessed, so they only had the residents' account. They eventually moved Resident #75 off the secure unit after the incident on 12/11/2024 to avoid further conflict. NYCRR 415.4(b)(1)(i)
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

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 Complaint investigation (#NY00341814) during an extended S...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during a Complaint investigation (#NY00341814) during an extended Standard survey completed on 2/3/25, the facility did not ensure that each resident was treated with respect and dignity and care for each resident in a manner and in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life, recognizing each resident's individuality for one (1) (Resident #161) of one (1) reviewed for dignity. Specifically, the certified nurse aide provided care despite the resident's refusal and resulted in Resident #161 feeling ashamed and humiliated. The finding is: The policy and procedure titled Resident Choice and Rights last revised 1/2023 documented it is the policy of this facility to provide and encourage resident choices in all aspects of their care and daily routines to maintain their dignity, individualism and customary routines. Your Rights as A Nursing Home Resident in New York State dated 2022 documented as a resident in this facility, you have rights guaranteed to you by state and federal laws. This facility is required to protect and promote your rights. Your rights strongly emphasize individual dignity and self-determination, promoting your independence and enhancing your quality of life. You have a right to be valued as an individual, to be treated with consideration, dignity and respect in full recognition of your self-worth. You have the right to accept or refuse care and treatment. Resident #161 had diagnoses including anxiety, fractured right humorous (upper arm), and diabetes. The Minimum Data Set (a resident assessment tool) dated 5/10/24 documented that Resident #161 was cognitively intact, was understood and understands. The comprehensive care plan dated 5/3/24 documented Resident #161 had bladder incontinence related to impaired mobility. The care plan included incontinence checks as needed. The [NAME] Report (guide used by staff to provide care) dated 5/9/24 documented Resident #161 required the assistance of two staff members for toileting and did not reflect incontinence care. The Risk Management Investigation dated 7/1/24 documented at approximately 3:00 AM on 7/1/24, Certified Nurse Aide #4 touched Resident #161 in the genital area without announcing their presence. When Resident #161 told Certified Nurse Aide #4 to remove their hand, Certified Nurse Aide #4 continued touching Resident #161 and stated to Resident #161 they were checking their brief to ensure they were dry. Later that morning at approximately 5:30 AM, Certified Nurse Aide #4 provided personal hygiene care to Resident #161, despite Resident #161 wanting to complete their own care. While washing Resident #161's genital area, Certified Nurse Aide #4 told Resident #161 they were checking for disease. Resident #161 told Registered Nurse #6 they were sleeping and startled by Certified Nurse Aide #4's grabbing and tugging at their brief at 3:00 AM and told Certified Nurse Aide #4 to get their hand out of there. Certified Nurse Aide #4 continued to move their hand around on their private area. Later that same morning at approximately 5:30 AM, Certified Nurse Aide #4 assisted Resident #161 with morning care and stated Certified Nurse Aide #4 was insistent in trying to get Resident #161's clothing off. Resident #161 repeatedly told Certified Nurse Aide #4 that I do that myself, please stop, but Certified Nurse Aide #4 kept insisting. Certified Nurse Aide #4 then spread Resident #161's legs apart and told them that they were looking for disease and looked at Resident #161's peri area. Registered Nurse #6 reported Resident #161 was crying, was very embarrassed. Resident #161 required assistance for transferring but preferred to be independent for most things and will ring the bell when they required assistance to use the toilet. During an interview on 1/31/25 at 11:43 AM, Certified Nurse Aide #7 stated Licensed Practical Nurse # 5 requested they go and check on Resident #161 on the morning of 7/1/24. Resident #161 was sobbing and felt offended that Certified Nurse Aide #4 would treat them like that. It was Resident #161's right to refuse care. Certified Nurse Aide #7 stated the resident felt disrespected, ashamed and expressed that Certified Nurse Aide #4's treatment towards Resident #161 was undignified. During a telephone interview on 1/31/25 at 12:19 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #5 stated providing care when they don't want the care was demeaning. Resident #161 had the right to refuse care. During a telephone interview on 1/31/25 at 1:57 PM, Registered Nurse #6 stated Certified Nurse Aide #4's actions on 7/1/24 were inappropriate and they should have stopped care on both occasions. During an interview on 2/3/25 at 8:52 AM, Social Worker #1 stated they would have expected that Certified Nurse Aide #4 to have stopped care right away, report to the nurse, and reapproach later. Certified Nurse Aide #4's violated Resident #161's choice not to have care and it was undignified. During an interview on 2/3/25 at 9:33 AM, the Director of Nursing stated placing your hands on someone inappropriately without talking to them even after they told you to stop was a dignity concern. Resident #161 felt reluctant to discuss the care they had received on the morning of 7/1/24. Certified Nurse Aide #4 violated Resident 161's rights to be treated with dignity and respect. During a telephone interview on 2/3/25 at 1:45 PM, Certified Nurse Aide #4 denied the allegations and stated they would not force care on a resident that didn't want it. Certified Nurse Aide #4 stated that would be disrespectful. 10NYCRR 415.3 (2)(f)(ii)
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, and record review conducted during a Complaint investigation (#NY00341814, #NY00354482, #NY003...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, and record review conducted during a Complaint investigation (#NY00341814, #NY00354482, #NY00363961) during an extended Standard survey completed on 2/3/25, the facility did not ensure that all residents care plans were implemented as planned, consistent with resident's rights and meet their preferences, goals and medical, physical, and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment for three (Residents # 30, 42, & 161) of three resident's reviewed. Specifically, care plan interventions were not followed by staff. Issues included: protective sleeves (#30), and shorts (#42) were not provided as planned, and a side rail was left in the up position when care was not being provided (#161) all breaks in implementation resulted in minor injuries. The findings are: The policy and procedure titled Comprehensive Care Plans last revised 10/23 documented it is the responsibility off all staff that are providing hands on care to consult and follow the Comprehensive Care Plan and [NAME]. All staff are trained upon orientation and annually that compliance with all directives on a resident's care plan/[NAME] are expected to be followed at all times. 1. Resident #30 had diagnoses including dementia, rheumatoid arthritis, and dermatitis. The Minimum Data Set (a resident assessment tool) dated 7/29/24 documented Resident #30 was moderately cognitive impaired, was sometimes understood and sometimes understands. They required partial/moderate assistance with upper body dressing. The comprehensive care plan dated 7/23/24 documented Resident #30 had fragile skin and had the potential for impaired skin integrity. The planned interventions included one assist for dressing and bilateral arm (protective sleeves) while out of bed. The [NAME] Report (a guide used by staff to provide care) with an as of date of 9/16/24 documented bilateral (both) arm (protective sleeves) on in the morning and off at bedtime. Review the facility accident and incident investigation dated 9/13/24 completed by Registered Nurse #4 documented at 10:00 AM, Resident #30 was not wearing the (protective sleeves) and sustained a skin tear to their right forearm while repositioning themselves in their wheelchair. Review of the nursing progress notes dated 9/13/24, Registered Nurse #4 documented at 10:29 AM Resident #30 rearranged themselves in their wheelchair, hit their right upper arm on the arm rest, and sustained a skin tear. Review of the Risk Management Nursing Home Investigation dated 9/16/24 documented Certified Nurse Aide #5 did not provide Resident #30's (protective sleeves) on 9/13/24. The care plan violation resulted in a skin tear to Resident #30's right upper arm. During an observation and interview on 1/28/25 at 9:50 AM, Resident #30 was wearing (protective sleeves) on both arms with long sleeves and stated the sleeves protected their skin so if they bumped into things, the skin protectors prevented their skin from splitting as their skin was frail. During an interview on 1/31/25 at 12:36 PM, Certified Nurse Aide #5 stated they were aware Resident #30's care plan reflected the (protective sleeves) to protect their skin from injury and checked the care plan prior to care for resident safety. They provided personal care on 9/13/24 for Resident #30. The (protective sleeves) were not in Resident #30's room, then got pulled to another unit during care and putting the (protective sleeves) on slipped my mind. During an interview on 2/3/25 at 12:19 PM, Registered Nurse #4 stated following the care plan prevented injuries to the residents. Certified Nurse Aide #5 should have informed the nurse the (protective sleeves) were missing. Having the (protective sleeves) on may have prevented the skin tear. All staff were responsible for following the care plan. 2. Resident #42 had diagnoses that included dementia, anxiety, and diabetes. The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented Resident #42 had severe cognitive impairments, was rarely understood and rarely understands. Resident #42 was dependent on staff assistance for dressing. The comprehensive care plan revised on 3/9/22 documented Resident #42 had an activity of daily living self-care deficit. Interventions included one staff assist for turning and repositioning, shorts on at all times and one staff assistance for lower body dressing. The [NAME] Report dated 12/6/24 documented Resident #42 was to have shorts on at all times, under both bed mobility and dressing categories. Review of the self-inflicted injury report dated 12/6/24, Registered Nurse Supervisor #1 documented there were three scratches to the Resident #42's left hip. The scratches were cleansed, and shorts were applied to protect the resident's skin from self-inflicting wounds. Resident #42 had a long history of scratching themselves and was care planned to wear shorts in bed for prevention; the shorts were not placed on Resident #42 during the shift prior. Review of the Risk Management Nursing Home Investigation with a received date of 12/6/24 documented that on 12/6/24 Resident #42 was found to have three linear self-inflicted scratches on their left hip, and they were not wearing their shorts at that time. Investigator #1 documented an interview with Certified Nurse Aide #4 on 12/10/24. Certified Nurse Aide #4 gave a statement they were not familiar with Resident #42, were overwhelmed, and did not review the care plan prior to providing nightly care. They did not place shorts on Resident #42. Investigator #1 documented Certified Nurse Aide #4 did not follow the care plan. During an observation on 1/29/25 at 3:44 PM, Resident #42 was sitting up in their chair. They were holding onto the bottom of their shirt in one hand and their sweatpants with the other hand. While holding their clothes, they were moving their fingers and feeling their clothing. During an observation and interview on 1/30/25 at 9:10 AM, Certified Nurse Aide #8 provided incontinent care to Resident #42. They placed shorts back on Resident #42 after completion. They stated the care plan included that Resident #42 should always wear shorts and Resident #42 wears the shorts because they had a tendency of scratching themselves. During a telephone interview on 1/31/25 at 10:19 AM, Certified Nurse Aide #2 stated they were not familiar with Resident #42 but looked at the care plan that night (12/6/24) to see what type of assistance they needed. They noticed Resident #42 did not have their shorts on, but soon after both Licensed Practical Nurse #3 and Registered Nurse Supervisor #1 went to check on Resident #42. During a telephone interview on 1/31/25 at 1:24 PM, Registered Nurse Supervisor #1 stated they were supervising the night Resident #42 was found without their shorts on and scratch marks on their left hip (12/6/24). They stated Resident #42 had a history of scratching and digging at themselves and that was why they wore shorts at all times. When they arrived at the unit to assess Resident #42, they were digging at their left leg and that was where the scratch marks were. They were superficial marks, were cleansed, shorts were applied, and the administration were notified via electronic mail. During a telephone interview on 2/3/25 at 9:08 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse #3 stated Resident #42 was always moving their hands, grabbing, and scratching wherever they could reach. They stated on 12/6/24 they remembered going into the room with Registered Nurse Supervisor #1, Resident #42 did not have on their shorts like care planned and there were scratch marks on their left hip. They stated there was a break in the care plan at that point and the shift prior should have placed the shorts on Resident #42 for their safety. During a telephone interview on 2/3/25 at 9:16 AM, Certified Nurse Aide #3 stated they assisted Certified Nurse Aide #2 with their rounds, noticed Resident #42 did not have shorts on, had scratches to their hip, and then notified Licensed Practical Nurse #3 immediately after care. They stated the care plan showed that Resident #42 should have shorts on at all times and the shift prior must not have placed shorts on Resident #42. When they looked in Resident #42's drawer, there were plenty of shorts in the drawer. A telephone call and voicemail were left for Certified Nurse Aide #4 on 1/31/25 at 10:48 AM and on 2/3/25 at 8:19 AM with no return call. 3. Resident #161 had diagnoses including anxiety, fractured right humorous (upper arm), and diabetes mellitus. The Minimum Data dated 5/10/24 documented that Resident #161 was cognitively intact, was understood and understands. They required substantial/maximum assistance for bed mobility and bed rails were not used. The comprehensive care plan dated 5/3/24 documented Resident #161 had an activity of daily living self-deficit, and the left side rail may be left up during care. Resident #161 required assistance from two staff members for bed mobility. The comprehensive care plan further documented that Resident #161 had a skin tear on 5/9/24. The [NAME] Report dated 5/9/24 documented Resident #161 required the assistance of two staff members for bed mobility and the side rails up during care. Review the facility accident and incident investigation dated 5/9/24 Registered Nurse #7 documented at 1:14 AM, Resident #161 was sitting on the edge of their bed and blood was on the floor and siderail. Resident #161 stated to Registered Nurse #7 they hit their arm on the siderail which was only to be raised during care. Resident #161 sustained a skin tear to the left lateral forearm. There were no measurements of the skin tear documented on the accident and incident investigation. Message left for Registered Nurse #7 on 1/31/25 at 9:04 AM with no returned response. Review of the risk management nursing home investigation dated 5/9/24 documented at 1:14 AM that a skin tear was discovered to Resident #161 left lateral forearm from bumping their arm on the siderail of their bed, which was in the raised position. Resident #161's care plan instructed that the side rails of the bed should only be up during care. At the time of the injury Resident #161 was not receiving care and therefore the siderails should have been down. During intermittent observations from 1/27/25 through 1/31/25 between the hours of 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM and on 2/3/25 between the hours of 9:00 AM and 2:00 PM there were no care plan violations noted related to the use of siderails. During an interview on 1/31/25 at 10:33 AM, Certified Nurse Aide #7 stated they didn't recall the incident on 5/9/24. Care plans were checked at the start of the shift to properly care for the residents. When the care plan specified for the siderails to be up during care they should have been up during care. Otherwise, the siderails should be down. It was a long time ago. During an interview on 1/31/25 at 12:19 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #5 stated Certified Nurse Aide #7 should have reviewed the care plan and put the side rail down, then the skin tear could have been avoided. During an interview on 2/3/25 at 9:36 AM, the Director of Nursing stated their expectation was for all nursing staff including Certified Nurse Aides, Licensed Practical Nurses, and Registered Nurses to review the care plan prior to providing care and to follow the care plan. During an interview on 2/3/25 at 12:39 AM, Registered Nurse #3, former Inservice Coordinator stated following the care plan was covered in new employee orientation and reviewed annually with mandatory trainings. All staff were expected to review the resident care plan before touching a resident to ensure they provided the care they need to provide. During an interview on 2/3/25 at 1:00 PM, Registered Nurse #4 stated Resident #161 bumping their arm on the siderail was a care plan violation and Certified Nurse Aide #7 should have made sure the siderail was down upon leaving the room. During an interview on 2/3/25 at 1:32 PM, the Administrator stated not following the care plan could affect a resident wellbeing. 10 NYCRR 415.11 (c) (1)
CONCERN (F)

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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review conducted during an a Complaint investigation (#NY00330289, #NY00331807, #NY00341814, #NY00354482, #NY00357719, #NY00359779, #NY00363581, and #NY00363961) during t...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review conducted during an a Complaint investigation (#NY00330289, #NY00331807, #NY00341814, #NY00354482, #NY00357719, #NY00359779, #NY00363581, and #NY00363961) during the extended Standard survey completed on 2/3/25, the facility did not implement written policies and procedures for screening employees, that would prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, and exploitation of residents and misappropriation of resident property. In addition the facility did not ensure their abuse reporting policy and procedures were updated to include current regulations and guidance. Specifically, the facility did not ensure their policy for abuse reporting was current. This affected 10 (Residents #17, 30, 42, 47, 68, 71, 72, 75, 95, and #161) of 12 residents reviewed. Additionally, one (Employee #4, agency Licensed Practical Nurse) of seven employees that worked in the facility and were subject to the New York State Nurse Aide Registry Verification, was not reviewed through the New York State Nurse Aide Registry prior to their employment as required. This resulted in no actual harm with the potential for more than minimal harm with the likelihood to affect all residents and is substandard quality of care. The findings are: REFER TO: F 609 - Reporting of Alleged Violations Review of the policy and procedure titled Abuse/Neglect - Reporting Process dated 12/2015 documented at any time when a visitor or staff member witnesses or is made aware of possible resident abuse or neglect, the following procedure must be implements: The employee will report the incident to the Registered Nurse Nursing Supervisor immediately and will initiate an Incident/Accident Report. The Nursing Supervisor will notify the Administrator and Nursing Director. The Administrator and/or Nursing Director will take responsibility for notifying the State Health Department within five working days that resident abuse/neglect has occurred. Review of the policy and procedure titled Abuse Prevention and Reporting dated 9/2023 documented, all facility applicants will be screened by the hiring manager or their designee for abuse by checking the on-line New York Nurse Aide Registry Prometric.com and printing a copy of the report for submission with all new hire paperwork prior to the first day of employment. All non-licensed staff will be finger-printed per New York State Department of Health regulations via the Criminal History Check module of the New York State Health Commerce System (HCS). The policy did not include a timeline of when the New York State Department of Health was to be notified. 1. Review of the State Operational Manuals issued 11/22/2017 and 8/8/2024 documented to Ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property, are reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury, to the administrator of the facility and to other officials (including to the State Survey Agency and adult protective services where state law provides for jurisdiction in long-term care facilities) in accordance with State law through established procedures. During an interview on 1/30/25 at 10:21 AM, the Director of Nursing stated the most recent Abuse/Neglect - Reporting Process policy and procedure was last revised in December 2015. They stated the policies were reviewed at the facility. During an interview on 2/3/25 at 9:36 AM, the Director of Nursing stated they rely on the Risk Management Team to do the investigation and rule out abuse or neglect when staff were involved. They stated policies were reviewed a couple time of month during a meeting that included the Director of Nursing, Administrator, Medical Records, Inservice Coordinator/Infection Preventionist and sometimes the Assistant Director of Nursing. Policies were reviewed and updated based on Quality Assurance projects. They stated they were unaware of the updated regulations for reporting allegations of suspected abuse/neglect and expected a big email or a Dear Administrator Letter would have been sent to the Administrator or themselves. During an interview on 2/3/25 at 1:31 PM, the Administrator stated they would usually get updated on new and changes in regulations through letters posted in the secure online system that allows New York State health department, providers, and facilities to share health information and there were a lot of changes between 2020 and 2024. They believed the change in the regulation for reporting was in 2022 and they must have missed that specific letter. Their policy was last reviewed in 2015 and should have been updated by the Policy and Procedure Team. The Policy and Procedure Team were responsible for updating policies and procedures included the Administrator and Director of Nursing. They stated the policy should have been updated so the facility could stay within compliance of state guidelines. 2. Review of the employee file for Employee #4's (agency Licensed Practical Nurse) revealed the employee was hired on 12/15/24. Review of the timesheets provided by the facility revealed Employee #4 had worked in the facility on: - 12/15/24 from 1:30 PM to 10:45 PM. - 12/21/24 from 1:45 PM to 10:30 PM. - 12/22/24 from 2:00 PM to 10:30 PM. - 12/25/24 from 2:00 PM to 10:30 PM. - 12/28/24 from 2:00 PM to 10:30 PM. - 12/29/24 from 2:00 PM to 10:30 PM. - 1/1/25 from 2:00 PM to 10:30 PM. - 1/4/25 from 2:00 PM to 10:30 PM. - 1/5/25 from 2:00 PM to 10:30 PM. - 1/11/25 from 2:00 PM to 10:30 PM. - 1/12/25 from 2:00 PM to 10:30 PM. - 1/18/25 from 2:00 PM to 10:30 PM. - 1/19/25 from 2:00 PM to 10:30 PM. - 1/25/25 from 2:00 PM to 11:15 PM. During an interview on 1/29/24 at 2:20 PM, the Administrator (Authorized Person for Criminal History record Check) and the Infection Control/ In-Service Coordinator (Authorized Person for Criminal History record Check) stated employee #4 was hired to work at the facility as a Licensed Practical Nurse. The New York State Department of Health will be notified by the Nursing Director and/or Administrator when there is reasonable cause to believe that abuse has occurred. During an interview on 1/30/25 at 9:16 AM the Administrator stated the facility had no documentation that a New York State Nurse Aide Registry Verification report had been completed for Employee #4 prior to their employment at the facility. 10 NYCRR 415.4(b)
CONCERN (F)

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review conducted during a Complaint investigations (#NY00330289, #NY00359779, #NY00363581, #NY003...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review conducted during a Complaint investigations (#NY00330289, #NY00359779, #NY00363581, #NY00341814, #NY00354482, #NY00331807, #NY00357719, #NY00363961) completed during an extended Standard survey on 2/3/25, the facility did not ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source are reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury, to administrator of the facility and to other officials (including to the State Survey Agency) for 10 (#17, #30, #42, #47, #68, #71, #72, #75, #95 and #161) of 12 residents reviewed. Specifically, allegations of resident abuse (#47, #68, #71, #17, #75, #72, and #161) and injuries of unknown origin (# 95) were not reported within 2 hours to State Agency. Additionally, resident neglect (#30, #42 and #161) was not reported within 24 hours to the State Agency. This resulted in no actual harm with the potential to affect all residents that is substandard quality of care. The findings are: The policy and procedures titled Abuse/Neglect - Reporting Process dated 12/2015, documented it is the policy of the facility to comply with all State and Federal regulations with regards to abuse and neglect. The New York State Department of Health will be notified of any resident abuse or neglect, whether suspected or confirmed. The Nursing Supervisor will notify the Administrator and Nursing Director. The Administrator will notify the Social Worker. The Administrator and/or Nursing Director will take responsibility for notifying the State Health Department within five working days that abuse/neglect has occurred. a. Resident #47 had diagnoses including morbid obesity, depression, and heart failure. The Minimum Data Set (a resident assessment tool) dated 10/17/24 documented Resident #47 was cognitively intact. The nursing home facility investigation report submitted successfully to the State Agency competed by the Administrator documented that Resident #47 reported to Social Worker #1 that Certified Nurse Aide #9 had touched them inappropriately during incontinent care a couple days prior. The incident was documented to have occurred on 10/15/24 at 2:00 PM, staff was first made aware on 10/17/24 at 3:00 PM, the Administrator was first made aware on 10/17/24 at 3:00 PM and reported the allegation to the State Agency on 10/18/24 at 1:46 PM. During a telephone interview on 2/3/25 at 8:26 AM, Investigator #1 stated they were notified of Resident #47's allegation on 10/17/24. They considered this allegation to be one of sexual abuse and should have been reported to the State Agency within two hours. During an interview on 2/3/25 at 9:33 AM, the Director of Nursing stated being inappropriately touched was considered sexual abuse. They stated the facility investigative report documented the incident was submitted to the State Agency on 10/18/24 at 1:46 PM and it should have been reported sooner because it was a potential abuse allegation. b. Resident #68 had diagnoses including dementia with behavioral disturbance, restlessness, and agitation. The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented Resident #68 was severely cognitively impaired Resident #71 had diagnoses that included chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (lung disease that blocks airflow and make it difficult to breath), dementia without behavioral disturbance, and depression. The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented Resident #71 was severely cognitively impaired. Review of the resident-to-resident incident reports for Resident #71 and Resident #68 completed by Registered Nurse #1, and the facility's investigation report completed by the Director of Nursing dated 11/4/2024, revealed at 2:45 PM Resident #71 was propelling their wheelchair down the hallway when they opened Resident #68's room door and started to enter. Resident #68 met Resident #71 in the doorway, lifted their walker to Resident #71's face, and began pushing them out of their room. Resident #71 began yelling, which alerted staff, who then immediately intervened and separated the two (2) residents. Resident #71 sustained a skin tear to their right cheek and chin and a laceration across the bridge of their nose with a moderate amount of bloody drainage. Bruising was also noted across their nose. Resident #71 was visibly upset and showed moderate signs of pain and discomfort. Tylenol was given, the wounds were cleansed, and steri-strips (thin, sticky bandages applied to skin to help cuts or wounds stay closed) were applied to their right cheek and nose, along with a dry clean dressing to their chin. X-rays were obtained and were negative for any fractures. Resident #68 became aggressive towards staff and was sent to the emergency room for evaluation. The reports documented Resident #68 had a history of aggression towards other residents and staff, had a private room for safety, and the door was kept shut. The resident-to-resident reports and the facility investigation report did not document the stop sign was in place across Resident #68's door at the time of the abuse on 11/4/2024. The nursing home facility investigation report was submitted successfully to the State Agency on 11/6/24 at 3:18 PM by the Director of Nursing. During an interview on 1/29/25 at 1:56 PM, the Director of Nursing stated the facility had 48 hours to submit a report so that is why this incident was reported and submitted on 11/6/24. c. Resident #95 had diagnoses of dementia, muscle weakness, and a fracture of right wrist. The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented Resident #95 was severely cognitively impaired. Review of a facility report titled, Incident-by-Incident Type, dated 12/20/23 at 12:21 PM submitted by the Director of Nursing documented Resident #95 had an injury of unknown source (acute fracture of fourth finger right hand) identified on 12/19/23 at 11:29 AM. The nursing home facility investigation report submitted successfully to the State Agency on Wednesday 12/20/2023 at 2:31 PM by the Director of Nursing for allegations of injury of unknown source (acute fracture of fourth finger right hand). The report documented the incident occurred was on Tuesday 12/19/23 at 11:29 AM. The Administrator was first made aware of the incident on Wednesday 12/20/23 at 12:13 PM. d. Resident #17 had diagnoses include including dementia with mood disturbance, depression, and anxiety. The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented Resident #17 was moderately cognitively impaired. Resident #75 had diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease, Bell's Palsy (weakness in the muscles in one side of the face). The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented Resident #75 was severely cognitively impaired. The nursing home facility investigation report submitted successfully to the State Agency dated 12/5/24, completed by Administrator, documented Resident #75 observed Resident #17 going through their belongings and slapped Resident #17 on the face. Resident #17 slapped Resident #75 back, also on the face. The incident was reported to Licensed Practical Nurse #1 by Resident #17, and while they were talking to Licensed Practical Nurse #1 about the incident, Resident #75 approached to tell their side of the story. Residents are new roommates, and both are able to ambulate independently. Resident #17 indicated they did not like their living arrangement. Both residents were placed on 15-minute checks to monitor their whereabouts and avoid further altercations. During an interview on 2/3/25 at 10:29 AM, the Director of Nursing stated the incident between Resident #17 and Resident #75 occurred on 12/5/24 at 7:45 AM, they were made aware at 8:30 AM. They stated they reported the incident to the State Agency on 12/6/24 at 2:06 PM, over 48 hours from when the incident occurred. They stated the incident should have been reported within 24 hours. Review of resident-to-resident incident report Resident to Resident Physical Contact for Resident #75 dated 12/10/24, completed by Registered Nurse Head Nurse #4, documented Resident #75 came out to the dining room and accused Resident #17 of stealing their walker, attempted to take it and began hitting Resident #17 on their arms. Residents were separated, 15-minute checks were still in place at the time and continued. Review of resident-to-resident incident report for Resident #75 dated 12/11/24, completed by Assistant Director of Nursing, documented Certified Nurse Aide #10 saw Resident #75 walking towards their room and when they entered, heard Resident #17 say it is my bathroom too, heard a noise and went to check on it. They observed Resident #17 and Resident #75 crawling around on their bedroom floor. Resident #75 stated Resident #17 pulled them down. The incident report documented Resident #17 and #75 had been having difficulty getting along, and they were roommates. To avoid further potential negative interaction, Resident #75 was moved to a private room on another unit. Review of State Agency computerized reporting/tracking system data base on 2/3/25 revealed there were no further facility reported incidents involving Resident #17 and Resident #75. During an interview on 1/29/25 at 3:45 PM, the Director of Nursing stated the documents provided to survey team were the extent of what the facility had regarding the incidents on 12/10/24 and 12/11/24 between Resident's #75 and #17. e. Resident #72 had diagnoses including congestive heart failure, atrial fibrillation (an irregular contracting of the upper chambers that can cause the blood to pool) and peripheral vascular disease (poor circulation in the lower extremities.) The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented Resident #72 was cognitively intact The nursing home facility investigation report submitted successfully to the State Agency documented on 1/18/24 at 8:30 AM Resident #72 reported to Registered Nurse Supervisor #4 an incident of alleged verbal and mental abuse by a staff member that occurred on 1/8/24 at 11:00 PM. The report documented the Administrator submitted the report on 1/18/24 at 2:43 PM to the State Agency. f. Resident #42 had diagnoses including dementia, anxiety, and diabetes. The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented Resident #42 had severe cognitive impairment. The undated nursing home facility investigative report completed by the Director of Nursing documented that Resident #42 was found not to be wearing their shorts per their care plan and had three scratch marks to their left hip. The incident was documented to have occurred on 12/6/24 at 2:08 AM, staff were first made aware of the incident at 12/6/24 at 2:08 AM, the Administrator was first made aware on 12/6/24 at 2:31 AM. The incident was reported to the State Agency on 12/9/24 at 3:06 PM. During a telephone interview on 2/3/25 at 8:33 AM, Investigator #1 stated they were not responsible for notifying the State Agency but thought care plan violations needed to be reported within 24 hours. During an interview on 2/3/25 at 9:36 AM, the Director of Nursing stated on 12/6/24 staff did not follow a resident's care plan; there was an injury which made the incident reportable. They stated the facility investigative report documented administration was notified on 12/6/24 at 2:31 AM. The Director of Nursing stated this type of incident needed to be reported to the State Agency within 48 hours because it was a care plan violation. The Director of Nursing stated they used the 2016 Nursing Home Incident Reporting Manual to decide what was reported and when. g. Resident #30 had diagnoses including dementia, rheumatoid arthritis, and dermatitis. The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented Resident #30 was moderately cognitive impaired. The facility accident and incident investigation dated 9/13/24 at 10:00 AM documented that while Resident #30 was repositioning themselves in their wheelchair they hit their arm on the armrest and sustained a skin tear to the right forearm at. The facility accident and incident investigation documented that Resident #30 did not have on their protective arm sleeves. Review of the Risk Management Nursing Home Investigation dated 9/16/24 documented a skin tear occurred on 9/13/24 at 10:00 AM. The Director of Nursing was not made aware until they received a counseling slip for Certified Nurse Aide #5 on 9/16/24 in their mailbox. The Director of Nursing reported the injury related to the care plan violation to the State agency on 9/16/24. Review of the State Agency computerized reporting/tracking system data base report submitted on 9/16/24 at 3:00 PM, revealed Resident #30 sustained a skin tear on 9/13/24 at 10:00 AM due to not having their protective sleeves on per their plan of care. During a telephone interview on 1/31/25 at 1:29 PM, Investigator #2 stated they were notified on 9/16/24 by the Director of Nursing about the care plan violation. The incident occurred on 9/13/24 at 10:00 AM and was determined to be neglect. Investigator #2 does not advise the facility to report or not to report incidents and was the facility's responsibility. During an interview on 2/3/25 at 10:09 AM, the Director of Nursing stated care plan violations that did not involve serious bodily injury needed to be reported within forty-eight hours to the State Agency. This incident was not reported until 9/16/24. h. Resident #161 had diagnoses including anxiety, fractured right humorous (upper arm), and diabetes mellitus. The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented Resident #161 was cognitively intact. a. The accident and incident investigation dated 5/9/24 documented at 1:14 PM Resident #161 was sitting on the edge of their bed, bumped their left lateral forearm on the siderail which was in the up position and sustained a skin tear. Per the investigation it was revealed the side rail should have been down when care was not being provided. Certified Nurse Aide #12 left the siderail up after care which resulted in the injury. Review of the State Agency computerized reporting/tracking system data base revealed the incident was submitted to the Department of Health on 5/10/24 at 2:17 PM by the nursing home Administrator. The undated Nursing Home Facility Incident Report documented the incident was submitted to the Department of Health on 5/10/24 at 2:17 PM by the Administrator. The allegation type specified other, and the incident was the result of a care plan violation. The incident occurred on 5/9/24 at 1:14 PM and the Administrator was made aware on 5/9/24 at 8:00PM. The facility risk management team was notified to begin a formal investigation. The Risk Management Nursing Home Investigation with a received date of 5/9/24 documented that Resident #161 had sustained a skin tear after bumping their arm on the siderail which was in the raised position. The care plan reflected the siderail be in up position during care only. At the time of the injury no care was being provided and the skin tear was the result of the care plan violation. b. The undated Nursing Home Facility Incident Report documented the incident was submitted to the Department of Health on 7/1/24 at 9:44 PM by the Director of Nursing. The allegation type was listed as sexual abuse. The incident date was 7/1/24 and occurred at 2:30 AM. The staff were made aware of the allegation on 7/1/24 at 6:00 AM. The Administrator was made aware on 7/1/24 at 8:25 PM. The report concluded that Certified Nurse Aide #4 continued providing Resident #161 care despite Resident #161 refusal of incontinence care and unwanted touching. The risk management team was notified and would conduct a full investigation. Review of the State Agency computerized Complaint/Incident Investigation Report revealed an alleged allegation of sexual abuse occurred on 7/1/24 at 2:30 AM. Staff were made aware of the incident at 6:00 AM and the Administrator was notified on 7/1/24 at 9:44 PM and reported the incident to the State Agency at 9:45 PM. During a telephone interview on 1/31/25 at 1:23 PM, Investigator #1 stated the alleged sexual abuse allegation should have been reported by the facility to the State Agency within two hours. During an interview on 2/3/25 at 9:30 AM, the Director of Nursing stated they ruled the care plan violations as unintentional for both Resident #30 on 9/13/24 and #161 on 5/9/24, and thought they had forty-eight hours to report them to the State Agency. The Director of Nursing stated not following the care plan would be neglect. The sexual abuse allegation on 7/1/24 for Resident #161 should have been reported to the State Agency no later than 4:30 AM and was not. During an interview on 2/3/25 at 1:31 PM, the Administrator stated abuse was any allegation of mistreatment including sexual, financial, physical, verbal; anything that potentially could cause harm whether physical or psychosocial. The Administrator, Director of Nursing and Assistant Director of Nursing were responsible to initiate the initial report of abuse or neglect to the State Agency. They stated they were following guidance from 2015/2016 for reporting and were not aware of the current regulation and guidance. During an interview on 2/3/25 at 1:32 PM, the Administrator stated their reporting policy had not been updated since 2015 and it should have been to ensure they were compliance with current regulations. 10NYCRR 415.4 (b)(1)
CONCERN (F)

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

Administration (Tag F0835)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review conducted during an extended Standard survey completed on 2/3/2025, the facility was not administered in a manner that enables it to use its resources effectively ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review conducted during an extended Standard survey completed on 2/3/2025, the facility was not administered in a manner that enables it to use its resources effectively and efficiently to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. The facility must operate and provide services in compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and codes, and with accepted professional standards and principles that apply to professionals providing services in such a facility. The facility must have a governing body, or designated persons functioning as a governing body, that is legally responsible for establishing and implementing policies regarding the management and operation of the facility; and the governing body is responsible and accountable for the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement program. Specifically, the administration did not ensure abuse and neglect reporting policies and procedures were updated and consistently implemented. This has the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility. The findings are: REFER TO: F 600 - Free from Abuse and Neglect F 607 - Develop/Implement Abuse/Neglect Polices F 609 - Reporting Alleged Violations Review of the policy and procedure titled Abuse/Neglect - Reporting Process dated 12/2015 documented at any time when a visitor or staff member witnesses or is made aware of possible resident abuse or neglect, the following procedure must be implements: The employee will report the incident to the Nursing Supervisor immediately and will initiate an Incident/Accident Report. The Nursing Supervisor will notify the Administrator and Nursing Director. The Administrator and/or Nursing Director will take responsibility for notifying the State Health Department within five working days that resident abuse/neglect has occurred. During an interview on 1/30/25 at 10:21 AM, the Director of Nursing stated the most recent Abuse/Neglect - Reporting Process policy and procedure was last revised in December 2015. During an interview on 2/3/25 at 9:36 AM, the Director of Nursing stated they rely on the Risk Management Team to do the investigation and rule out abuse or neglect when staff were involved. They stated policies were reviewed a couple time of month during a meeting that included the Director of Nursing, Administrator, Medical Records, Inservice Coordinator/Infection Preventionist and sometimes the Assistant Director of Nursing. Policies were reviewed and updated based on Quality Assurance projects. They stated they were unaware of the updated regulations for reporting allegations of suspected abuse/neglect and expected a big email or a Dear Administrator Letter would have been sent to the Administrator or themselves During an interview on 2/3/25 at 1:31 PM, the Administrator stated they would usually get updated on new and changes in regulations through letters posted in the secure online system that allows New York State health department, providers, and facilities to share health information and there were a lot of changes between 2020 and 2024. They believed the change in the regulation for reporting was in 2022 and they must have missed that specific letter. Their policy was last reviewed in 2015 and should have been updated by the Policy and Procedure Team. The Policy and Procedure Team were responsible for updating policies and procedures included the Administrator and Director of Nursing. They stated the policy should have been updated so the facility could stay within compliance of state guidelines. During an interview on 2/3/25 at 3:28 PM, County Legislature #1 stated they were part of the governing board that oversees the facility. They stated they believed the Administrator was updating their policies and procedures, as expected. County Legislature #1 stated it was expected all policies and procedure were reviewed and updated because they should be up to date with the current regulations. 10 NYCRR 415.26
Jan 2023 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

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 Standard survey completed on [DATE], the facility did not ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during a Standard survey completed on [DATE], the facility did not ensure the system developed for advanced directives was implemented in a manner that was consistent with resident's wishes for one (Resident #33) of three residents reviewed for advanced directives. Specifically, the facility did not ensure all resident advanced directives identifiers were consistent with the resident's wishes. The finding is: 1. Resident #33 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included delusional disorders, anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder. The Minimum Data Set (MDS - a resident assessment tool) dated [DATE] documented the resident was cognitively intact. A facility policy and procedure titled Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) dated 3/19 documented a blue bracelet/badge is worn by residents who desire CPR, and a white bracelet/badge is worn by residents who do not wish to be resuscitated (DNR). Residents not wishing to wear bracelets will wear the badges. Residents not wishing to wear either a bracelet or a name badge, or residents found unresponsive without a bracelet or badge will have their electronic medical orders in the EMR (electronic medical record) consulted for code status. The Nurse transcribing a physician's order which changes DNR status is responsible to change the wrist band. ID (identification) bracelet/badge will be checked for presence and accuracy every shift by Medication Nurse and documented on EMAR. (Blue = CPR, [NAME] - DNR). If a resident wears an ID badge to identify CPR status, care plan will reflect this choice. If a resident is not wearing ID badge while sleeping, the ID badge will be placed at the bedside. Staff will identify CPR status via EMR or [NAME] in the resident's closet. During intermittent observations on [DATE] at 11:59 AM and 3:12 PM, [DATE] at 8:16 AM and 1:19 PM, [DATE] at 8:33 AM and 1:12 PM and [DATE] at 8:39 AM Resident #33 had a blue identification (ID bracelet) band on the right side of their wheelchair (w/c). The resident had no additional wrist bands/badges on. Resident #33's MOLST (Medical Orders with Life Sustaining Treatment) dated [DATE] documented the resident's responsible party completed the MOLST, requested a DNR order and a Do not intubate (DNI) order. The physician reviewed and signed the form on [DATE]. The Order Recap Report (physician orders) for Resident #33 dated [DATE] through [DATE] documented the order for was CPR discontinued on [DATE], and a new order for DNR/ DNI was written on the same day. The comprehensive care plan identified as current by the Director of Nursing (DON) documented, Resident #33 had a MOLST with a DNR/ DNI order dated [DATE]. Interventions included to honor resident wishes for DNR. Resident 33's Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated [DATE] through [DATE] documented to check for presence and accuracy of code status via ID bracelet/badge every shift-Blue = CPR, [NAME] = DNR. Nurses initialed the MAR, indicating the bracelet was verified for accuracy. During an interview on [DATE] at 8:27 AM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #2 stated the resident's arm band was on the w/c because some residents preferred not to have it on their wrist. The color of the arm band indicates the resident's code status, blue for full code or white for DNR. CNA #2 stated the resident was a full code, therefore CPR would be performed by the nurses. During an interview on [DATE] at 8:49 AM, Unit Clerk (UC) #1 stated to determine code stats the staff look at a resident's bracelet (arm band), which was located either on the resident's arm or on their w/c. A white arm band was an indication of a DNR order, and a blue band an indication of a full code order and CPR would be performed. During an interview on [DATE] at 8:40 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #4 stated advanced directives were listed on the MAR and color of bracelet (arm band) indicates their code status, white for DNR and blue for CPR. The arm band was either on the resident or on the resident's w/c. LPN #4 stated if they were notified a resident was unresponsive, they would look at the color of the bracelet, check their vital signs and if no pulse and/or respirations they would send a staff member to page a Code Blue and start CPR. LPN #4 stated the arm band should be accurate because it is checked every shift as indicated on the MAR by a nurse. During an interview on [DATE] at 8:50 AM, Head Nurse (HN) Registered Nurse (RN) #4 stated a resident's arm band should be accurate to their wishes of advanced directives. A white arm band indicates a DNR order, and blue arm band indicates a CPR order. HN RN #4 stated if a resident was found without vital signs, and they had a blue arm band on they would initiate CPR while another staff member looked at the medical record (MR) for the orders. HN RN #4 stated the accuracy of the arm bands color were to be checked every shift by a nurse. They would look at the current orders and compare the orders with the color of the arm band to ensure the accuracy of the code status. HN RN #4 stated they were ultimately responsible to ensure the advanced directives and arm band color was accurate. During an interview on [DATE] at 9:21 AM, LPN #5 stated they would initiate CPR based on the color of the arm band, because the arm band was to be checked for accuracy every shift by a nurse. Therefore, it should be accurate at all times. The nurse was look at the electronic medical record (EMR) orders and to ensure the color of the band was correct. [NAME] was for a DNR orders, and blue band was for full code, meaning to initiate CPR. During an interview on [DATE] at 9:28 AM, LPN #4 stated they check status of the arm band accuracy by comparing the orders in the ERM with the color of the arm band to ensure the code status is accurate. LPN #4 reviewed Resident #33's EMR and stated the resident has orders for a DNR. LPN #4 reviewed the MAR and stated accuracy was verified 17 times this month. During an observation and interview on [DATE] at 9:35 AM, LPN #4 stated Resident #33's arm band was on right side of the resident's w/c and the color of the band was blue. Therefore, the residents code status was identified as a full code and CPR would have been performed if needed. LPN #4 stated they should have noticed the arm band was the wrong color and they should have informed the Unit Clerk to provide the correct color arm band to maintain accuracy of their code status. During an interview and observation on [DATE] at 9:39 AM HN RN #4 stated Resident #33's MOLST was completed on [DATE] indicating their wishes for a DNR order. The Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) should have had the arm band changed on [DATE] when the order was written. HN RN #4 observed Resident #33's arm band on the right side of the w/c and stated the color was blue indicating the resident was a full code and CPR would have been initiated. HN RN #4 stated the nurses should have caught that the band was wrong while checking for accuracy. During an interview on [DATE] at 9:50 AM, the ADON stated they had assumed the color arm band was changed on [DATE] when the MOLST was completed. The ADON also stated the arm band color should always be accurate because it is checked by the nurses every shift for accuracy of the color compared to the EMR orders. Therefore, they would have expected the resident's arm band to be white indicting DNR per their wishes. During an interview on [DATE] at 10:46 AM, the DON stated they would have expected the color of the arm band to be accurate to the resident's wishes because they have a process in place that the nurses are checking the accuracy of the arm band color with the EMR orders every shift and the process was ineffective since Resident #33 had the wrong color arm band on their w/c. The DON also stated they would expect the nurses to check the EMR orders prior to initiating CPR and stated they were concerned if nurses would initiate CPR based on the color of the arm band as their interviews stated. 10 NYCRR 415.3(f)(2)(iii)
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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during a Complaint investigation (#NY00288007) during the Standard survey completed on 1/27/2023, the facility did not ensure that all alle...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during a Complaint investigation (#NY00288007) during the Standard survey completed on 1/27/2023, the facility did not ensure that all alleged violations of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment are thoroughly investigated for one (Resident #26) of two resident reviewed. Specifically, the facility did not complete an investigation into an injury (left hand swelling with bruising middle finger) of unknown origin. The finding is: The facility policy and procedure titled, Abuse Prevention and Reporting dated 10/21 documented an abusive act is defined as any act of commission or omission that causes potential or actual physical or emotional harm or injury to a resident. The Director of Nursing or his/her designee will notify the attending physician immediately if the resident requires medical attention. A comprehensive incident report will be completed immediately by the Registered Nurse (RN) Supervisor which will include the names of all witnesses, a description of the event, the extent of the resident's injury and / or indication of apprehension. The facility policy and procedure titled, Accident and Incident (A/I) Reports- Resident dated 1/19 documented that an Accident was any event resulting in serious bodily harm, such as a fracture, a laceration which requires closure, a second- or third-degree burn, or an injury requiring admission to a hospital. An incident was defined as any happening which is not consistent with the routine operation of the facility or the routine care of a resident. The procedure documented an accident/incident report is to be completed within the Electronic Medical Record (EMR). Details must contain the direct, accurate details of the occurrence, the nurse's description, the resident's description (if able) and the description of the action taken. Document the injury observed at the time of the incident, predisposing factors that may have contributed to the incident. Upon notification of the A/I and for the following 2 shifts, the Supervisor or Head Nurse will examine the resident, interview the staff who may have witnessed or have knowledge of how an incident may have occurred, and record the appropriate information in the Notes section of the incident report. During the next three consecutive shifts, the supervisor will compete a follow-up of the incident by examining the resident and documenting a progress note in the Incident Report. The Interdisciplinary team will review each incident at morning report for completeness, appropriateness of interventions and to determine if further interventions is necessary. 1. Resident #26 was admitted with diagnoses which included Alzheimer's Disease, peripheral vascular disease (PVD -a circulatory condition in which narrowed blood vessels reduce blood flow to the limbs) and diabetes type 2. The Minimum Data Set (MDS - a resident assessment tool) dated 9/17/21 documented Resident #26 was severely cognitively impaired and required extensive assistance with dressing and bed mobility. The Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) identified as current by the Director of Nursing (DON) documented Resident #26 had limited physical mobility related to contractures of both shoulders, both elbows, both wrists, both hips, both knees and both ankles initiated on 2/20/17 and revised on 4/1/22. Interventions included to provide gentle range of motion (ROM) as tolerated with daily care, passive range of motion (PROM) both upper extremities (UE) with AM (morning) care; PROM left wrist/fingers with PM (afternoon) care, left comfy splint with finger separator on at all times, off for hygiene and ROM as tolerated; initiated on 2/20/18 and revised 9/28/22. Review of Occupational Therapy Notes dated 12/7/21 through 2/3/22 revealed the following: -Dated 12/7/21 documented, Reason for referral: It is reported during clinical grand rounds that resident will benefit from Occupational Therapy services for left ROM and wrist application to reduce risk of contracture and skin breakdown. Goal: AROM (active range of motion) Left Wrist Flexion to 0 degrees in order to tolerate left hand brace use for reduced risk of contractures and skin breakdown. -Dated 12/8/21 documented, Pain assessment, resident grimaces during left 3rd finger PROM, does not limit resident's functional activities. -Dated 12/13/21 Occupational Therapist (OT) #1 documented, left 3rd finger noted with edema and nursing staff notified and this writer requested use of ice. Unit nurse and family member (daughter) asked therapist about left finger edema stating that resident has significant pain. Resident, family member, and nurse aware of resident's left digit edema and complaints of discomfort when touched. -Dated 12/15/21 documented, resident found to be with facial expression of pain but unable to report discomfort or pain and does not answer yes or no when asked. Communication between nursing staff and therapist regarding skin integrity of resident's left index and middle finger. -Dated 12/17/21 documented, left middle finger remains slightly swollen with index finger pressing into middle. -Dated 12/20/21 document, Resident left 3rd finger with decreased discomfort and remains slightly swollen. -Dated 12/21/21 documented, left middle finger with decreased edema to little or none. -Dated 12/23/21 documented, left-hand ROM, no complaints of pain in left hand. Review of Progress Notes dated 11/22/21 through 10/24/22 revealed the following: -Dated 11/22/21 through 12/12/21 revealed no evidence of left-hand swelling. -Dated 12/13/21 at 1:28 PM Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #2 documented; resident seen by Occupational Therapy (OT) this morning. Left hand noted to be swollen, complaints of tender to touch, routine Tylenol as ordered. -Dated 12/13/21 at 5:37 PM Registered Nurse (RN) #2 documented; family asked to speak to supervisor as they were concerned about resident's left hand. Left middle finger bruised and swollen and straight, tender to touch. When asked if their hand hurt the resident nodded yes. Family states the left hand has been contracted and wanted to know who extended the hand. Writer referred them to Head Nurse (HN) and OT for further information. Medical Doctor (MD) notified per family request and Ultram 50 milligrams (mg) by mouth every 6 hours as needed for severe pain for 24 hours. X-ray results pending at this time. -Dated 12/13/21 at 7:34 PM Registered Nurse (RN) #2 documented; resident's left-hand x-ray came back no acute bone abnormalities. MD and daughter notified of results. Ice applied to area and Ultram given with positive effect. -Dated 12/14/21 at 3:52 AM LPN #3 documented left hand 3rd and 4th digits swollen with signs and symptoms of tenderness to the touch, facial grimacing when placing left hand on a washcloth, routine Tylenol given. -Progress notes reviewed 12/5/21 through 1/1/22 documented left hand remained swollen on December 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 of 2021. Review of Provider Visit - MD V3 form documented by the Medical Director (MD) #1 revealed the following: -Dated 12/14/21 documented the resident was noted to have some pain and swelling without erythema (redness) in the fingers on the left hand. Resident has been working with OT for the last two days to relieve contractures, which appear to be mostly straightened at this point in time. Fingers of left hand are tender to palpation or minimal movement. Plain film (x-ray) of the left hand, three views, no acute bony abnormalities with mild to moderate degenerative joint disease and osteopenia. Impressions: Musculoskeletal pain of the fingers of the left hand. Continue around the clock Tylenol and Ultram for several days until the area of inflammation settles down. -Dated 12/24/21 documented the resident was noted to have swelling of the left hand. No history of trauma, interval x-rays were negative, and the selling has since resolved. On 1/23/23 at 9:58 AM observation of Resident #26's left hand revealed index finger contracted, and 3rd finger left hand was straight. There were no signs of discomfort, redness, bruising or discolorations. During an interview on 1/23/23 at 9:58 AM, a family member stated they do not believe the facility thoroughly investigated the injury when their mother was noted to have a swollen 3rd finger with a bruise. They stated they were aware the facility completed a hand x-ray which determined it was negative for fracture, and believed the facility tried to blame a certified nursing assistant (CNA) but believes the injury occurred during ROM possibly during therapy and doesn't believe the facility investigated the injury. During an interview on 1/26/23 at 1:31 PM, CNA #1 stated, they recalled Resident #26 had a bruise to their left-hand 3rd finger and reported it but doesn't recall who they reported it too. CNA #1 also stated they recall the swelling had increased throughout that week when the bruise was noted. CNA #1 stated they recall the therapist speaking to them to try to determine reason for the swelling and bruise but doesn't recall writing a statement or nursing department personnel investigating the reason for the injury. During an interview on 1/26/23 at 1:01 PM, RN #3 stated they were familiar with Resident #26 and recall the resident had an injury of unknown origin of their left hand. RN #3 stated an A/I should have been completed by RN #2 because they were the Nursing Supervisor. An investigation should have been completed to determine the reason for the injury and to rule out abuse. During an interview on 1/26/23 at 1:53 PM, RN # 2 stated they recall Resident #26 having a bruise and swollen finger on the left hand, evaluating the resident and documented their assessment in the progress notes and referred the incident to the Head Nurse. RN # 2 stated they believed there was an A/I completed, but if there wasn't then there should have been an A/I and investigation completed to determine the cause of the unknown injury and rule out abuse. During an interview on 1/27/23 at 10:17 AM, OT #1 stated they recall Resident #26 having a swollen left hand and immediately informed a nurse and the daughter. OT #1 stated they recall the resident's left hand 3rd finger was contracted one day and then the next day it wasn't and believed something must have happened. OT #1 stated with PROM there may be a slow improvement (decrease in contracture) but not to the extent that was noted with the finger straightened. Therefore, they believed an incident may have occurred which caused the swelling and change in the contracture. OT #1 stated they believed an investigation should have been completed to determine the reason for the bruise and swelling of the left hand. During an interview on 1/27/23 at 10:52 AM, the DON stated the facility doesn't have an A/I or investigation related to the unknown injury of Resident #26 left hand middle finger that was noted 12/13/21. Upon further review of the medical record the DON stated because the resident had a bruise and sudden swelling of the left-hand a thorough investigation should have been completed to determine the cause of the injury of unknown origin. 10 NYCRR 415.4 (b)(3)
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0836 (Tag F0836)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review during the Standard survey started on 1/23/23 and completed on 1/27/23, the facility did not operate and provide services in compliance with all appl...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review during the Standard survey started on 1/23/23 and completed on 1/27/23, the facility did not operate and provide services in compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and codes. Specifically, the facility did not develop policy and procedures regarding medical marijuana use. This involved Resident #58. The finding is: 1.Resident # 58 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included dorsalgia (back pain), polyneuropathy (a disease process involving a number of nerves), and anxiety. The Minimum Data Set (MDS- a resident assessment tool) dated 12/22/22 documented Resident #58 was cognitively intact, had frequent pain, received scheduled pain medications, prn (as needed) medications, and non-medication interventions. During an interview on 1/23/23 at 1:17 PM, Resident #58 stated they had seen a pain management specialist who recommended medical marijuana use due to chronic pain. The resident stated they had used the medical marijuana for over a year and that their facility physician knew they used it. The resident stated that after their most recent appointment with their pain management physician (last week) facility staff informed them they could not have it anymore. The resident stated they didn't understand why this was happening now, when they had been using medical marijuana for a while. The comprehensive care plan dated 2/22/22 documented Resident #58 had chronic back pain, neuropathy, and migraines. Interventions included to administer analgesic (pain medications) as ordered, evaluate the effectiveness of pain interventions. The CCP did not include the use of medical marijuana. Review of Resident #58's medical record revealed a document titled Official New York State Medical Cannabis Patient Certification dated 7/18/22 with an expiration date of 7/18/23. Review of Resident #58's outside consult visit dated 7/18/22, revealed the visit was for pain management and treatment included to start medical marijuana. Review of the Consultation Form dated 1/19/23, revealed the resident was to continue taking medical marijuana for management of chronic pain. Review of the Provider Visit dated 7/22/22 at 2:37 PM, written by the Medical Director (MD) #1 revealed Resident #58 had been seen recently by a consultant who had suggested medical cannabis; however, the provider did not have a license to prescribe it and the facility did not have a license to dispense it. This was discussed with the patient and alternate possible solutions were suggested. The patient was directed to address further questions with the Administrator. Review of the social work (SW) Progress Note dated 1/20/23 at 2:00 PM, written by SW #1, revealed they spoke with Resident #58 regarding marijuana use in the facility related to a neurological assessment that dictated to use the substance to control chronic pain. The resident was told they could not store any items containing marijuana in their room or within the facility due to the physician not being able to prescribe it and the facility not having a license. The SW explained that the resident's family could bring in the substance for them to take while they were there, but they could not leave substances in the facility. The resident shared that they understood the facility's policy and requested more information to better understand why they couldn't keep the substances in their room. Review of the nursing Progress Note dated 1/20/23 at 2:00 PM, written by Registered Nurse (RN) #1 documented the resident was notified the facility could not dispense, prescribe, or allow the resident to store marijuana products in their room. The resident was also told they could not vape in the facility and that family would be allowed to bring in one product for immediate oral consumption after notifying the nurse so the resident could be monitored for side effects per administration. The resident reported having edible gummies in bedside stand and denied that their family could come in to remove them to take them home, agreed to allow staff to dispose of them. They were removed by staff and immediately flushed down the toilet, witnessed by the SW and ADON (Assistant Director of Nursing). During an interview on 1/26/23 at 9:40 AM, the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 stated Resident #58 was able to self-administer eye drops and an inhaler and had an order to keep them at their bedside. During an interview on 1/26/23 at 12:17 PM, ADON stated Resident #58 had a recommendation for medical marijuana, but the facility didn't have a license to do that. The ADON stated they couldn't order or supply it and couldn't dispense it. The ADON stated the resident would be able to get it in the community if a doctor ordered it for them. The ADON stated the Administrator said they would look into this. During an interview on 1/26/23 at 2:15 PM, the MD #1 stated medical marijuana was all new territory for us and hadn't had the chance to verify everything that needed to be in place for a resident to use it. The MD stated their understanding was they needed a special license to prescribe medical marijuana and they told the resident that. The MD stated they also told the resident the nursing home didn't have a license to dispense and suggested to meet with Administration and family to work it out. The MD stated they don't have a policy for medical marijuana or a policy about if a family brings it in. The MD stated they discussed with the resident the regulatory issues and until they figured it out, family could get it for them, but to let staff know if they took any, so if the resident got lethargic, they would know why, and needed a safe place to store. The MD stated there was no medical reason why the resident couldn't have the medical marijuana and it was all a bureaucratic/regulatory issue at this point. The MD stated they hadn't looked into the process for obtaining medical marijuana for a resident of a nursing home. During an interview on 1/27/23 at 8:53 AM, the SW #1 stated Resident #58's most recent consult was brought up in morning report last week. They Administrator directed them to talk to the resident about it. They were told that if the resident's daughter was going to bring in gummies, the resident could have them as long as the staff knew about it but couldn't have them here because there was no safe way to store and distribute it. The SW stated they were in the process of looking into the regulations about it and they wanted to be able to provide it safely, because its legal in New York state and family would have to bring it in. The SW stated they were still developing a plan and they were not aware of the prior consult from July that recommended medical marijuana. During a telephone interview on 1/27/23 at 10:09 AM, RN #1 stated Resident #58 had a recent consult and they recommended to continue medical marijuana. The RN #1 stated their facility didn't have a license to dispense or store it. The RN #1 stated they talked to the resident with SW #1 present and the resident disclosed that they had some in their room and disposed of it with the resident's permission. RN #1 stated they didn't know if the facility had a policy, so they went right to administration with their questions and the Administrator directed what to do. RN #1 stated they asked the resident if they had been taking it and the resident said they took 1-2 per week and didn't know if any staff knew about it. During an interview on 1/27/23 at 11:03 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the facility had no policy for use of medical marijuana. The DON stated the July consultation was discussed with the MD, who was not and still is not qualified to write medical marijuana orders. The DON stated they did not contact the Department of Health (DOH) or the Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement (BNE) for any guidance. The DON stated they didn't know about the cannabis website. During an interview on 1/27/23 at 11:20 AM, the Administrator stated they recalled hearing about Resident #58's consult in July and didn't feel the facility was certified to jump into a medical marijuana program. The Administrator stated they did start reaching out to get more information but it kind of fell off their radar until the next consult came up last week. The Administrator stated they didn't know what the guidance was, and they didn't contact DOH or BNE. The Administrator stated they could have come up with a policy back when it was all over the media that medical marijuana was legal, but they didn't at the time think about looking into it for their facility. 10 NYCRR 400.2
Jan 2020 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review during the Standard survey completed on 1/15/20, the facility did not implement written policies and procedures for screening employees, that would prohibit and pr...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review during the Standard survey completed on 1/15/20, the facility did not implement written policies and procedures for screening employees, that would prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, and exploitation of residents and misappropriation of resident property. The facility did not provide documentation that verified one (Food Service Helper) of five employees that worked in the facility, during the last four months, and were subject to the New York State Nurse Aide Registry, had been screened through the New York State Nurse Aide Registry prior to their employment. The finding is: A review of the facility's policy for Abuse Prevention, revised 9/2016, revealed: All applicants, regardless of department, will be screened through the on-line New York State Nurse Aid Registry for record of abuse prior to hire. A New Hire form will be completed by the department head at the time of hire indicating via the checklist that this task has been completed. Observations on 1/13/20 between 8:15 AM and 11:09 AM revealed the Juniper Unit was a 32 -bed unit and 32 residents were residing on the unit. Further observation on the unit revealed the servery was located in the middle of the dining room. The servery was open to the dining room, and tables and chairs were on either side of the servery. During an interview on 1/14/20 at 11:09 AM the Administrator stated, Employee #4 was a Food Service Helper that worked on the Juniper Unit and the facility had check lists that showed screening had been done for new employees. The Administrator further the stated the Key Board Specialist 2 conducted the nurse aide registry checks for new employees, the Nutritional Program Director would not conduct nurse aide registry checks for new employees, and the facility did not have documentation that the employee had been screened through the New York State Nurse Aide Registry prior to their employment. During an interview on 1/14/20 at 11:08 AM the Key Board Specialist 2 stated she did not have documentation that Employee #4 had been screened through the New York State Nurse Aide Registry prior to their employment, she conducted nurse aid registry checks on all of the new employees, and she must have forgotten to conduct a nurse aid registry check for the Employee #4. Key Board Specialist 2 further stated she did not have a check list that showed certain tasks (including the New York State Nurse Aide Registry screening) had been completed for the employee and she did the nurse aid registry checks for new hires by memory. During an interview on 1/14/20 at 11:28 AM the Nutritional Program Director stated, Employee #4 was a Food Service Helper and the employee only worked on the Juniper Unit plating food and washing dishes in the servery. The Nutritional Program Director further stated she did not conduct nurse aide registry checks for employees. Review of facility staff employee files, for compliance with the New York State Nurse Aide Registry regulations on 1/14/20, revealed: Employee #4 (Food Service Helper) started working at the facility on 11/10/19 and the file contained no documentation that the employee had been screened through the New York State Nurse Aide Registry prior to their employment. On 1/14/2020, a review of a Time and Attendance Daily Hours Report for Employee #4 revealed: Employee #4 worked at the facility for 10 days, between 11/10/19 and 1/12/20. On 1/14/202, a review of the job description of a Food Service Helper revised 6/19/14 revealed: This is routine manual work performed under immediate supervision in connection with preparation of and serving food in a cafeteria and cleaning of kitchen equipment, silver, and dishes. Does related work as required. Typical work activities: sets tables, serves food from steam tables in cafeteria-type dining hall, clears tables of dirty dishes, cleans tables, chairs, serving tables, and other equipment. 415.4(b)(1)(ii)(a)(b)
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 interview and record review completed during the Standard survey completed on 1/15/2020, the facility did not ensure th...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review completed during the Standard survey completed on 1/15/2020, the facility did not ensure that a resident with pressure ulcers receives necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, prevent infection and prevent new ulcers from developing for one for one (Resident #9) of three residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. Specifically, the lack of weekly pressure ulcer assessments to include measurements. In addition, the lack of care plan development for the pressure ulcer on the left foot 3rd toe. The finding is: The facility policy and procedure titled Pressure Ulcer/Wound management and Treatment revised 7/2018 documented a Registered Nurse (RN) will accurately assess and reassess all wounds/pressure ulcers on a weekly basis/at least every seven days. Abide by the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory panel (NPUAP) publications, Pressure Ulcer Prevention and Treatment Clinical practice Guideline on staging pressure ulcers and measurement on wounds/pressure ulcers. Care plans will reflect treatment per physicians order in the approach/ interventions section of the comprehensive care plan (CCP). The RN assessment will be documented at least every 7 days via picture and Skin/ Wound assessment in the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) and will have ongoing monitoring via the treatment record. Take a picture of the wound with approved facility iPod (portable media player and multi-purpose pocket computer). Measurement of length/width is completed on the iPod, depth of wound is measured manually by the nurse and entered into the iPod in the corresponding area. 1. Resident #9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including quadriplegia (partial or complete paralysis of both the arms and legs), major depressive disorder, and diabetes mellitus type 2 (adult-onset diabetes, characterized by high blood sugar). The Minimum Data Set (MDS - a resident assessment tool) dated 10/8/19 documented the resident was cognitively intact and has one unhealed Stage 2 pressure ulcer (partial-thickness skin loss into but no deeper than the dermis) and one unstageable pressure ulcer (ulcer covered with slough or eschar). Review of the comprehensive care plan (CCP) with initiated date of 3/31/18 revealed the resident has actual skin impairment. The CCP documents a left heel pressure ulcer present on admission, and a right heel unstageable pressure area dated 9/20/19. Interventions included: assess/record/monitor wound healing of bilateral heels; measure length, width and depth where possible; assess and document status of wound perimeter, wound bed and healing progress. There was no documented evidence the left foot 3rd toe pressure ulcer is identified, care planned and has interventions in place. Review of the Physician Order Summary Report of active orders as of 1/15/20 revealed to apply small amount of A & D (vitamin A and vitamin D ointment) to tip of 3rd digit on left foot, cover with a band-aid every day and evening shift for pressure area with an order date of 12/1/19. A & D to left heel every day and evening for dry skin, pressure area, with an order date of 9/7/19. Santyl ointment 250 Unit/ Gram (GM) (collagenase) (a sterile enzymatic debriding ointment). Apply to right heel wound topically every day shift for ulcer, cover with 4 x 4 gauze, cover with heel Allevyn (a foam dressing) and wrap with Kling dressing (a gauze roll that gently sticks to itself, highly absorbent and conforms and moves with bodies motions), with an order date of 12/7/19. Review of the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) dated 1/1/20 through 1/31/20 revealed to apply small amount of A & D (vitamin A and vitamin D ointment) to tip of 3rd digit on left foot, cover with a band-aid every day and evening shift for pressure area, with a start date of 12/1/19. A & D to left heel every day and evening for dry skin, pressure area, with a start date of 9/7/19. Santyl ointment to right heel wound topically every day shift for ulcer, cover with 4 x 4 gauze, Allevyn and Kling with a start date of 12/8/19. Review of the Skin and Wound Evaluations dated December 1, 2019 through January 15, 2020 revealed the resident had a deep tissue injury (DTI) (persistent non-blanching deep red, maroon or purple discoloration) on the left foot 3rd digit, with no documented evidence the wound was measured weekly. The Wound Measurements length and width was blank on the following dates: December 1st, 3rd, 10th, 17th, 24th, 31st, 2019 and January 7th and 14th, 2020. Review of the Skin and Wound Evaluations dated May 7, 2019 through January 15, 2020 revealed the resident had a stage 2 pressure ulcer on the left heel, with no documented evidence the wound was measured weekly. The Wound Measurements length and width was blank on the following dates: May 7th, 14th, 21st, 28th; June 4th, 11th, 18th, 25th; July 9th, 16th, 30th; August 7th, 13th, 27th; September 3rd, 10th, 17th, 24th; October 1st, 8th, 22nd, 29th; November 12th, 19th, 26th; December 3rd, 10th, 17th, 24th, 31st 2019; and January 7th and 14th 2020. Review of the Skin and Wound Evaluations dated October 1, 2019 through January 15, 2020 revealed the resident had an unstageable pressure ulcer on the right heel, with no documented evidence the wound was measured weekly. The Wound Measurements length and width was blank on the following dates: October 1st, 8th; November 12th, 19th, 26th; December 3rd, 10th and 31st 2019. During an interview on 1/15/20 at 11:28 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 stated skin rounds are usually completed every Tuesday by the Registered Nurse (RN) and the RN was to complete the Skin and Wound Evaluations including measurements of the wounds weekly. LPN #1 searched the computer and stated there were no measurements documented of the left heel, right heel and left 3rd toe in the computer on the identified dates listed above. During an interview on 1/15/20 at 12:00 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated there should be measurements in the computer for each pressure ulcer area identified weekly. The measurements are generated from the pictures taken by the I-pod and the measurements should have been transferred to the Skin and Wound Evaluation Template in the computer system. The DON stated the Head Nurse (HN) was responsible to ensure the measurements are in the assessment documentation and in the absence of the Head Nurse the Nursing Supervisor was responsible. The DON stated the pressure ulcers identified on the right heel, left heel and left foot 3rd toe do not have weekly measurements (as identified above) on the Skin and Wound Evaluations or in the computer system next to the picture. The DON stated she was uncertain if this is a computer I-pod system error or user error, but each area should have weekly measurements and the Head Nurse should be reviewing the measurements weekly to assess and compare the measurements week to week. The DON stated the left foot 3rd toe pressure ulcer was identified as a DTI on 12/1/19 and there were no measurements in the medical record from the date initiated to present (1/15/20). During an interview on 1/15/20 at 1:10 PM, the DON stated there should have been a care plan initiated for the left foot 3rd toe pressure ulcer. During an interview on 1/15/20 at 1:43 PM, the HN RN #1 stated weekly assessments are completed via use of the I-pod but had inadvertently not completed the steps to transfer the measurements to the Skin and Wound Evaluation template. RN #1 stated she looks at the pictures to determine if the wound is improving or not. During an interview on 1/15/20 at 2:05 PM, the DON stated the I-pod doesn't have the capability to measure the depth of wounds, therefore the nurse should be manually measuring the depth of the wounds and the HN should have ensured the measurements were in the medical record weekly. 415.12(c)(2)
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "What safeguards are in place to prevent abuse and neglect?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • 35% turnover. Below New York's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: Federal abuse finding, 1 harm violation(s), $125,453 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 11 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • $125,453 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in New York. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (25/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: This facility has a substantiated abuse finding. Extreme caution advised. Explore alternatives.

About This Facility

What is The Pines Healthcare & Rehab Ctrs Machias Campus's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns THE PINES HEALTHCARE & REHAB CTRS MACHIAS CAMPUS 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 The Pines Healthcare & Rehab Ctrs Machias Campus Staffed?

CMS rates THE PINES HEALTHCARE & REHAB CTRS MACHIAS CAMPUS's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 35%, compared to the New York average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at The Pines Healthcare & Rehab Ctrs Machias Campus?

State health inspectors documented 11 deficiencies at THE PINES HEALTHCARE & REHAB CTRS MACHIAS CAMPUS during 2020 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm, 9 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates The Pines Healthcare & Rehab Ctrs Machias Campus?

THE PINES HEALTHCARE & REHAB CTRS MACHIAS CAMPUS is owned by a government entity. Government-operated facilities are typically run by state, county, or municipal agencies. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 115 certified beds and approximately 103 residents (about 90% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in MACHIAS, New York.

How Does The Pines Healthcare & Rehab Ctrs Machias Campus Compare to Other New York Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in New York, THE PINES HEALTHCARE & REHAB CTRS MACHIAS CAMPUS's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (35%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting The Pines Healthcare & Rehab Ctrs Machias Campus?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What safeguards and monitoring systems are in place to protect residents from abuse or neglect?" "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 substantiated abuse finding on record.

Is The Pines Healthcare & Rehab Ctrs Machias Campus Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, THE PINES HEALTHCARE & REHAB CTRS MACHIAS CAMPUS has documented safety concerns. The facility has 1 substantiated abuse finding (meaning confirmed case of resident harm by staff or other residents). The facility has a 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in New York. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at The Pines Healthcare & Rehab Ctrs Machias Campus Stick Around?

THE PINES HEALTHCARE & REHAB CTRS MACHIAS CAMPUS has a staff turnover rate of 35%, which is about average for New York nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was The Pines Healthcare & Rehab Ctrs Machias Campus Ever Fined?

THE PINES HEALTHCARE & REHAB CTRS MACHIAS CAMPUS has been fined $125,453 across 1 penalty action. This is 3.7x the New York average of $34,333. 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 The Pines Healthcare & Rehab Ctrs Machias Campus on Any Federal Watch List?

THE PINES HEALTHCARE & REHAB CTRS MACHIAS CAMPUS 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.