Wayne Health Care

100 Sunset Drive, Newark, NY 14513 (315) 332-2700
Non profit - Corporation 182 Beds ROCHESTER REGIONAL HEALTH Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
58/100
#368 of 594 in NY
Last Inspection: September 2024

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

Overview

Wayne Health Care has a Trust Grade of C, which means it is average and ranks in the middle of the pack for nursing homes. It is ranked #368 out of 594 facilities in New York, placing it in the bottom half, but it is #3 out of 4 in Wayne County, indicating only one other local option is better. The facility is improving, as it went from two issues in 2022 to one in 2024. Staffing is a strength here, with a 4 out of 5 star rating and a turnover rate of 36%, which is below the state average. However, there are some concerns, such as a critical finding where a resident was not adequately supervised, resulting in burns from smoking, and a recent incident where a resident at risk of wandering was found outside without their safety bracelet, suggesting a need for better supervision and investigation protocols. Overall, while there are strengths in staffing and improvement trends, families should be aware of the facility's past issues with resident safety and care.

Trust Score
C
58/100
In New York
#368/594
Bottom 39%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
2 → 1 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
36% turnover. Near New York's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most New York facilities.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 38 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for New York. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
○ Average
6 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2022: 2 issues
2024: 1 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average 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 (36%)

    12 points below New York average of 48%

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

The Bad

3-Star Overall Rating

Near New York average (3.1)

Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities

Staff Turnover: 36%

Near New York avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Chain: ROCHESTER REGIONAL HEALTH

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 6 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening
Sept 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during a Recertification Survey from 09/09/2024 to 09/13/2024, for one (Resident #154) of six residents reviewed for behaviors, the facil...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during a Recertification Survey from 09/09/2024 to 09/13/2024, for one (Resident #154) of six residents reviewed for behaviors, the facility could not provide evidence that a thorough investigation was completed to ensure the resident's safety following a potential elopement incident. Specifically, Resident #154, who was identified as at risk for elopement and wore a wander guard bracelet (a wander management system which uses bracelets, sensors, and technology to alert staff when a resident tries to leave a safe area), was found outside without their wander guard bracelet on. Additionally, several days prior, Resident #154 was found without their wander guard bracelet on, stating it had fallen off. The facility could not provide evidence that thorough investigations were conducted to determine how the resident's wander guard came off in both instances. This is evidenced by the following: The facility policy Event Accident Investigation Reporting Guidelines, dated reviewed April 2023, included that all events, accidents, unusual occurrences, and near-misses that occurred would be investigated in a timely manner and residents would receive prompt and adequate treatment. Every effort would be made to determine the cause of each accident and/or event and measures would be put into place to prevent reoccurrence. Resident #154 has diagnoses that included stroke, seizures, and dementia. The Minimum Data Set Resident Assessment, dated 08/28/2024, revealed Resident #154 was cognitively intact. Review of the Comprehensive Care Plan revealed Resident #154 was at risk for wandering. Interventions included monitoring the resident's attempts to leave the unit or facility, and a wander guard bracelet provided to alert the facility of wandering and/or elopement. Review of Resident #154's Care Card (care plan used for Certified Nursing Assistants for daily care) included the resident was independent with ambulation, an elopement risk, and wore a wander guard bracelet on the ankle. Review of Resident #154's electronic medical record revealed the following: a. In a nursing progress note, dated 08/25/2024, Licensed Practical Nurse #1 documented that the wander guard (system) was activated while maintenance was taking out the garbage. While checking all residents to ensure their wander guard bracelets were on (the residents), Resident #154 was not wearing their wander guard bracelet. Resident #154 said it had fallen off and a new wander guard was placed to Resident #154's left ankle. b. In a nursing progress note, dated 08/31/2024 at 9:31 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #2 documented that Resident #154 was found sitting outside in front of the building (no wander guard alert had been activated). The resident said they had taken their wander guard bracelet off with a pen. A new wander guard bracelet was placed. The facility could not provide documented evidence that any investigation had been conducted to determine how Resident #154's wander guard bracelet had been removed on either instance. During an interview on 09/09/2024 at 10:17 AM, Resident #154 stated that they had recently removed their bracelet (wander guard) because they wanted to go outside. During an observation and interview on 09/12/2024 at 4:09 PM, Resident #154 was wearing a wander guard bracelet. When asked how they had previously removed their wander guard bracelet, Resident #154 said they took a pair of scissors from behind the nurses' desk and cut it off. On 09/12/2024, the facility identified that a second resident had removed their wander guard twice with a pair of scissors found in their room. The incident remained under investigation by the facility. During an interview on 09/13/2024 at 10:24 AM, Registered Nurse Clinical Leader #3 said wander guards may be applied to residents who are identified to be at high risk for elopement, if they have tried to leave the facility, or if they have made statements about leaving. Registered Nurse Clinical Leader #3 stated the nurses check every shift that the wander guard is on the resident and document it in the resident's electronic medical record. If a resident was found to not have their wander guard on, staff should try to figure out where it was and put on a new one if not found. Registered Nurse Clinical Leader #3 said finding a resident without their wander guard on should prompt an investigation to determine how it got off. During an interview on 09/13/2024 at 10:44 AM, Registered Nurse Manager #2 said if a resident were found not wearing their wander guard bracelet, and they were still on the unit, they would probably not initiate an incident report, but they would ask staff how the resident got it off. Registered Nurse Manager #2 stated residents should not be able to get the wander guard bracelet off. Registered Nurse Manager #2 said an investigation was not conducted to determine how the resident's wander guard bracelet came off when discovered on 08/25/2024 or 08/31/2024 because the resident said they took it off with a pen. Registered Nurse Manager #2 said the 08/31/2024 event was an incident that required increased monitoring and interventions. During an interview on 09/13/2024 at 11:21 AM, the Director of Nursing said if a resident was found without their wander guard bracelet on, staff should determine how it came off and reapply the wander guard if appropriate. The Director of Nursing stated there are no instances in which a resident's wander guard should be off without staff's knowledge. The Director of Nursing said they would have expected an investigation conducted to determine how Resident #154's wander guard bracelet was removed on 08/25/2024 and 08/31/2024 (to prevent reoccurance). 10 NYCRR 415.12(h)(2)
May 2022 2 deficiencies 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record review conducted during a Recertification Survey and complaint investigation (NY002...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record review conducted during a Recertification Survey and complaint investigation (NY00293405), completed 5/23/22, the facility failed to ensure the environment remained as free of accident hazards as possible and that each resident received adequate supervision to prevent accidents for two (Residents #150 and #152) of eight residents reviewed for accidents. Specifically, Resident # 150 was identified as a smoker when admitted [DATE]. Resident has a BIMS (Brief Interview of Mental Status) of 15 (out of 15). The Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP), dated 3/18/21, included the resident was non-compliant with facility smoking policy, had a history of declining smoking blanket and gloves as recommended by therapy and was supposed to sign out at nurse's station to go off property when smoking and smoking materials to be kept in the medication room. Incident/Accident (I/A) Report 1/27/22, identified burns on resident's fingers related to smoking and Occupational Therapy (OT) assessment at this time revealed the Resident was observed holding the cigarette too close to the blanket and clothing and suggested an ash tray for the cup holder on chair. The 3/30/22 OT assessment recommended use of a fire blanket due to hot ashes falling into resident lap creating holes. OT deemed no therapy needed at this time. (No new interventions were recommended). Both Smoking Assessments, dated 1/27/22 and 3/23/22 included risk scores of zero. An I/A report documented that on 4/6/22 the resident was noted to have three blisters to the right hand that resident reported were burns from their cigarettes. On 4/19/22 the resident was seen in the emergency department (ED) and documented significant burns to both hands from smoking and was started on antibiotics. Resident #150 was observed on 5/19/22 at 8:20 am exiting the facility via the front door in a motorized wheelchair, proceeded down the driveway, around a corner to a paved area (approximately 40 yards from building) and was observed smoking. Resident had a grey blanket and mesh glove to the right hand. Glove noted to have holes in web area of index and middle finger and a burn hole was noted on the lap blanket. The resident stated he/she had burned the blanket to see if it was fire retardant. When ask where they disposed of the cigarette butts, the resident stated he/she had their own ash tray in the cup holder of the chair. The resident stated they empty the ash tray in the garbage can by the front door and/or in their room trash bin, none of which are observed to be fire retardant receptacles. Resident #152 reported they were unable to extinguish their cigarettes, allowing them to burn out in the ashtray and disposed of them in the trash can in their room. This resulted in immediate jeopardy with the likelihood for serious harm to Resident health and safety and is Substandard Quality of Care. This is evidenced by the following: The facility policy Smoke Free Work Environment, dated 5/1/19, included smoking or tobacco use is prohibited on the grounds within 15 feet of respective property line. Current nursing home residents who smoke will be able to continue smoking in a designated area 30 feet from the building. New residents must abide by our smoke-free policy. The policy did not include information related to storage of residents smoking materials or requirement for residents to sign out of the facility to smoke. 1.Resident #150 was admitted [DATE] with diagnoses that included diabetes, end stage renal disease with hemodialysis and was a chronic smoker. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 5/6/22, revealed the resident was cognitively intact. A Smoking Policy Acknowledgement, dated 3/18/21, signed by Resident #150 and approved by Occupational Therapy (OT), documented that Resident #150 smoked and would comply with the facility policy or agree to transfer to another facility that allows smoking. The current CCP and Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) Care Card included that Resident #150 was independent in a motorized wheelchair outside on facility property and was noncompliant with the facility smoking policy. The CCP included the resident was at risk for burns related to smoking and that staff should encourage Resident #150 in use of a smoking apron, a burn blanket, fire- proof glove and a cigarette holder when going outside to smoke. Interventions also included to sign out at the nurses' station when going off property to smoke and that their smoking materials should be kept in the medication room or in a locked drawer in their room. A nursing progress note and an I/A Report both dated 1/27/22, documented that Resident #150 had 3 small brown circular areas on their right middle finger. Resident #150 had reported they were burns from their cigarette. The medical provider and Director of Nursing (DON) were notified, and an OT referral ordered to evaluate the resident's smoking ability. There was no documented evidence in Resident #150's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) that the resident was assessed by a medical provider following the 1/27/22 incident. An OT evaluation, dated 2/1/22, documented that Resident #150 had burned their hands and clothing while smoking due to difficulties with fine motor coordination that was needed to safely hold a cigarette. Resident #150 agreed to trial safety equipment (cigarette holder) to assist in increasing safety with smoking. OT treatment documentation from 2/1/22 to 2/14/22 documented that Resident #150 had difficulties managing a cigarette holder, continued to forget to hold burning cigarettes away from blanket and clothes and brought cigarette butts into the facility on the blanket in their lap or in their pants pocket. The OT discharge note dated 2/14/22, documented that Resident #150 did consistently use an ashtray in a cup holder and had no new burn marks noted on the blanket or gloves. Tobacco Screen and Safety assessments dated 1/27/22 and 3/23/22, documented a risk score for Resident #150 as zero. The assessments did not include a history of noncompliance with facility smoking policy or a history of burns from smoking. An OT note dated 3/30/22, documented that a referral was again made by nursing due to decreased safety with smoking. The OT note documented that therapy was not necessary at that time and that Resident #150 had agreed to use the fire blanket due to hot ashes falling on their blanket and burning small holes. A nursing progress note and I/A Report both dated 4/6/22, documented a large hole was observed in Resident #150's lap blanket. The resident stated that the hole was from their cigarette. Three blisters were observed on the resident's right index finger and one blister on the right second finger. Resident #150 was re-offered a smoking apron which was accepted, and a new blanket was ordered. The I/A Report documented that the resident's CCP and CNA Care Card were updated, and the medical provider was made aware. There was no documented evidence in Resident #150's EMR that the resident was assessed by a medical provider following the 4/6/22 incident until 4/18/22. In a medical progress note dated 4/18/22, Physician Assistant (PA) #1 documented that the mobile surgical team was consulted for management of burns to Resident #150's right hand. A description of the burn wounds included multiple burns of various stages to the second and third fingers on the right hand in various stages of healing with pus and serous (clear or slightly yellow plasma) drainage with burn tissue noted. The treatment plan included cleansing the wounds, applying Silvadene cream (a sulfa antibiotic used to prevent and treat infections with burns), a non-stick dressing cover and wrapping with gauze. Additionally, oral antibiotics were ordered for 10 days. The PA documented a concern that if Resident #150 continued to smoke and a cigarette dropped that the gauze wrap would catch on fire. The PA documented that staff were aware of the concerns and were working with the resident on safer practices and smoking cessation. There was no documented evidence in the resident's EMR that smoking cessation products had been attempted. In a medical progress note dated 4/19/22, Nurse Practitioner (NP) #1 documented that Resident #150 had new onset upper extremity unpredictable tremors, lethargy, and had missed a dialysis treatment. NP #1 recommended transfer to the hospital to evaluate for sepsis (serious infection of the blood stream). An ED visit note, dated 4/19/22, documented that Resident #150 had significant burns on both hands secondary to burns from smoking and cellulitis (an infection in the tissues). Sepsis was ruled out and recommendations were to continue antibiotics and wound treatments. OT daily treatment notes dated 5/1/22 to 5/7/22, documented that Resident #150 complained the fire gloves were too tight and the Occupational Therapist cut web space on gloves. Resident #150 stated at the time that they were going to test the gloves to see if they burn. The note documented that the therapist informed the resident they would be deemed unsafe to smoke if they continued to purposely burn items. On 5/3/22 OT documented that that there were scorch marks noted on the resident's gloves over their bandaged fingers and on 5/5/22 new gloves were provided. During an observation on 5/19/22 at 8:20 a.m., Resident #150 exited the facility via the main entrance in a motorized wheelchair, proceeded down a driveway and around the corner to a paved area approximately 60 feet from the facility building and was then observed smoking a cigarette. Resident #150 was wearing a gray blanket (noted to have a burn hole in it) over the lap and a mesh glove (also noted with holes in it) on their right hand. During an immediate interview, Resident #150 stated that they had burned the blanket to see if it was fire retardant. The resident stated they would not wear the blanket when it was 90 degrees out and when asked where they disposed of cigarette butts, Resident #150 stated they had their own ash tray in the cup holder which they emptied in the garbage can by the main entrance or in their room. Observations of the main entrance garbage can on 5/19/22 at approximately 8:20 a.m. and Resident #150's room garbage can on 5/19/22 at 10:10 a.m., revealed neither garbage cans were fire retardant receptacles. 2.Resident #152 was admitted to the facility 12/31/20 with diagnoses that included depression and osteoarthritis. The MDS assessment dated [DATE], documented the resident was cognitively intact. The current CCP and CNA Care Card documented that Resident #152 was noncompliant with the facility smoking policy. Interventions included smoking assessments completed, that the resident may go outside with family/friends to smoke, must wear a smoking blanket/apron, use a bean bag ash tray and that the resident may keep their own smoking materials. During an interview on 5/18/22 at 3:12 p.m. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 stated there were several residents on the unit, including Resident #150 and #152 (roommates) who smoked. LPN#1 stated the residents typically let them know when they were leaving the unit and any protective equipment should be on their care plans which staff should ensure the residents utilizes. LPN #1 stated that residents must ask for smoking materials which are kept in the medication room. When interviewed on 5/18/22 at 3:17 p.m. The Registered Nurse (RN)/Clinical Lead stated Residents #150 and #152 were alert and oriented and had smoking assessments completed quarterly or if any changes. The RN/Clinical Lead stated some residents are allowed to keep their own smoking materials and go out to smoke independently but are supposed to sign out. The RN/Clinical Lead stated Resident #150 had a noncompliant care plan and all they can do was encourage the use of safety equipment. The RN also stated Resident #150 and #152 both had locked drawers in their room for their smoking materials. During an observation on 5/19/22 at 10:28 a.m. Resident #152 entered the resident unit in a motorized wheelchair. The resident had a smoking blanket across their lap and bean bag ash tray sitting on it that contained multiple cigarette butts burned to the filters and one with fresh ashes on it. During an immediate interview, Resident #152 stated that they were unable to extinguish their cigarettes without burning their fingers. The resident stated they have staff empty the ash tray in the garbage can in their room. Resident #152 stated they use to turn in their smoking materials to staff but then found out that other residents were allowed to keep their smoking materials, so they informed staff they were now keeping theirs. In an observation on 5/19/22 at 10:10 a.m., of Resident #150 and #152's room, no locked drawers were present. During an interview on 5/18/22 at 3:33 p.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Administrator and again on 5/23/22 at 8:04 a.m., with the DON, the DON stated that all staff are responsible for ensuring that resident's CCPs are followed. Regarding Resident #150, the DON stated that the resident has had smoking assessments completed by nursing and therapy and had been educated on the risk. Resident #150 was deemed competent and aware of the risks and staff encourage the resident to follow the recommendations (cigarette holder, apron, blanket, gloves). The DON stated that if a resident passed a smoking assessment, they were allowed to keep their own smoking materials and added that they did not have a policy related to the smoking assessment. The Administrator stated that the facility has taken many measures to ensure resident safety and is unsure what more could be done without violating the resident's rights. During an interview on 5/19/22 at 8:33 a.m., with the Administrator, [NAME] President (VP) of Operations, and the Medical Director, the VP of Operations stated that the facility encourages residents to sign out and provide supervision as possible however residents make some decisions on their own. The VP of Operations stated the facility is a nonsmoking facility, but they do provide containers outside for used smoking materials. The VP of Operations stated the residents are reminded and encouraged to follow their plan of care however they have a right to refuse. The VP stated residents have a right to keep personal property including smoking materials. The Administer, the VP of Operations and the Medical Director stated they were all unaware of where residents disposed of cigarette butts/ashes. The Medical Director stated if a resident can understand the risks and are competent it is their right to smoke and refuse treatment. On 5/19/22 at 6:30p.m. the survey team declared that the IJ was removed based on the following corrective actions taken by the facility: a. Beginning 5/19/22, the facility will provide staff supervision for all residents who smoke. The facility provided buckets of sand outdoors for cigarette butt disposal and the social work department educated staff and all the residents who smoke regarding the use of the buckets. b. The policy and procedure for smoking assessments will be reviewed and revised and staff provided education. 10NYCRR 415.12(h)(1)(2)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews conducted during a Recertification Survey completed on 5/23/22, it was det...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews conducted during a Recertification Survey completed on 5/23/22, it was determined that for one (Resident #121) of three residents reviewed the facility did not ensure that each resident was provided with sufficient fluid intake to maintain proper hydration and health. Specifically, Resident #121 did not receive free water flushes (FWF) via their feeding tube (a tube inserted directly into the stomach in order to receive nutrients and fluids) as ordered by the physician. Additionally, there was no documented evidence that the resident's twenty-four-hour intake of FWF was being consistently monitored or documented to ensure appropriate amounts of fluids were administered. The findings are: The February 2019 facility policy Enteral Feeding - Care and Maintenance, included that the nurse will record amount of nutrient and water given in the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) every shift. The nurse will verify per provider order which should state the type of feeding, the rate infused, the amount of water flush and water given with the medications. At the end of each shift, the nurse will verify via the pump that amounts infused match provider order. In addition, the nurse will calculate water infused plus feeding infused and enter on the Intake and Output (I&O) flowsheet in the EMR. The policy also included that the Clinical Nurse Leader (CNL) would evaluate intake over twenty-four-hour periods and notify the provider if intake is out of parameters. Resident #121 had diagnoses that included adult failure to thrive and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing) and had a chronic feeding tube. The Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE], revealed the resident was moderately impaired cognitively and received 51% or more of all calories and fluids via a feeding tube. The current Comprehensive Care Plan included to consult with dietary regarding tube feeds and administration of tube feeding as ordered by the medical provider. Physician orders dated 2/22/22, included that Resident #121 was NPO (nothing by mouth), Diabetisource (nutrients) tube feeding at 60 milliliters (mls)/hour (hr.) with 140 mls of FWF every 4 hours (hrs.) (or 840 mls per day). During observations on 5/19/22 at 10:51 a.m., and 5/20/22 at 10:05 a.m., Resident #121's Diabetisource tube feed was infusing via a tube feeding pump as ordered and the FWF was infusing at 120 mls/4 hrs. (versus 140 mls/4 hrs. ordered). When observed on 5/19/22 at 10:51 a.m., the FWF bag of fluid was dated as hung 5/19/22 at 12:00 a.m., with 140 mls/4 hrs handwritten on the label. Review of the Intake/Output (I/O) flowsheet from 5/12/22 through 5/19/22 revealed that the FWF were documented at different times throughout each day from one to three times daily with amounts ranging from 320 mls to 1320 mls daily. In an interview on 5/20/22 at 11:01 a.m., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 stated that at the end of each shift, the nurse is supposed to document the total amount of tube feed and FWF infused by the tube feed pump over the course of the shift and then the totals are cleared from the pump. LPN#1 reviewed the current physician orders for 140 mls of FWF/4 hrs. and stated that they were not sure why or how long the tube feed pump was programmed to administer 120 mls/4 hrs. instead of the ordered 140 mls/4 hrs. but that they would fix it. In an interview on 5/20/22 at 1:28 p.m. and again at 2:48 p.m., the Registered Dietician (RD) stated that Resident #121 should be receiving 140 mls/4hrs. The RD stated that nursing is expected to review and clear the feeding tube pump every shift. When asked about monitoring the 24 hr. totals, the RD stated that they do a quarterly assessment and that it is difficult to find the 24 hr. totals in the EMR. The RD stated they did not know if nursing was monitoring them or not. When interviewed on 5/20/22 at 2:54 p.m., the Registered Nurse (RN)/CNL stated the nurses are supposed to check the tube feed pump when hanging a new tube feed bag and are expected to clear the totals infused at the end of every shift. The RN/CNL did not think that anyone was performing 24 hr. intake checks. In an interview on 5/23/22 at 10:30 a.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) stated that whoever hangs the tube feed bag programs the tube feed settings into the pump. The DON stated that the FWF are administered as they are programmed into the pump and that the total volume is supposed to be checked at the end of each shift and documented on the I&O flowsheet. The DON stated that when administering medications, flushes of a specifically ordered volume are given before and after the administration of each medication, and the volumes are documented on the I/O flowsheet. The DON stated that if the nurse reviews the total intake amounts at the end of the shift and identifies that the resident didn't receive the required amount, the nurse is supposed to notify the off-shift director. 10NYCRR 415.12(j)
Aug 2019 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, interviews and record reviews conducted during the Recertification Survey, it was determined that for one (Neuro-Behavioral Unit) of three medication storage rooms reviewed, the...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews and record reviews conducted during the Recertification Survey, it was determined that for one (Neuro-Behavioral Unit) of three medication storage rooms reviewed, the facility did not provide pharmaceutical services to meet each resident's needs which includes: acquiring, receiving, dispensing, accurately administering or disposing of medications. The issues involved the improper disposal of a controlled substance and inconsistent documentation of narcotic reconciliation. This is evidenced by the following: Review of a facility policy, Medication Administration Controlled Substances, dated December 2016, directs that single unit doses or partial doses remaining after the administration or attempted administration of a controlled substance may be destroyed on the unit. The actual disposal must be witnessed by a second medication qualified nurse, a pharmacist or a prescriber at the time of the disposal. A complete count of all controlled substances available on the nursing unit is done at each shift change. No nurse will leave the unit at the end of a shift until the narcotic count is complete and accurate. One nurse from the outgoing shift and one nurse from the incoming shift conduct the count and after completing the count both nurses will sign the inventory sheet. Observations and interviews conducted on 8/5/19 included the following: a. At 11:19 a.m., on the Neuro-Behavioral Unit, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 was asked by the surveyor to open the narcotic box. LPN #1 opened the narcotic box and a clear medication cup containing a small volume of clear liquid was on the shelf. LPN #1 said that the medication was Roxanol (Morphine, used to treat severe acute or chronic pain). LPN #1 said the medication had to be locked in the narcotic box until someone could waste (dispose) it. LPN #1 said she watched another nurse prepare the medication and put the excess in the narcotic box. LPN #1 said because she had observed that, it was okay for her to waste the drug and she then poured it down the sink drain. When asked, LPN #1 said that two nurses should observe the wasting. Additionally, a review of the Narcotic Count and Key Log Sheet for 8/5/19, revealed there were no signatures for the morning shift count. When interviewed at that time, LPN #1 said she did not sign at the time of the count but would sign at that time. When asked, she said incoming and outgoing staff are to sign the sheet at the time of the count. b. At 11:28 a.m., the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) reviewed the Narcotic Count and Key Log Sheets, dated 8/1/19 through 8/5/19 and 7/1/19 through 7/31/19, and said there were multiple missing signatures (five for August 2019 and 28 for July 2019). The ADON said when counting narcotics, both the incoming and outgoing nurse must sign the sheet at the time of the count. She said two nurses must witness the disposal of a narcotic and then sign off. [10 NYCRR 415.18]
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews conducted during the Recertification Survey, it was determined that for tw...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews conducted during the Recertification Survey, it was determined that for two (Residents #50 and #18) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications, the facility did not ensure that each resident's drug regime was free of unnecessary medications. The issues included the lack of a gradual dose reduction for psychotropic medications or documentation of clinical contraindication and behaviors. This is evidenced by the following: Review of the facility policy and procedure Psychotropic Medication, dated November 2017, revealed that residents who use psychotropic drugs receive Gradual Dose Reductions (GDR) and behavioral interventions, unless clinically contraindicated. The documentation of the federally-mandated visit will include the rational for continued use or any changes in all psychotropic medications prescribed for the resident. 1. Resident #50 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including vascular dementia with behavioral disturbance, Parkinson's disease with gait instability, and depression. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 5/26/19, revealed the resident had moderately impaired cognition, no behaviors in the look back period, and received an antipsychotic medication. The Psychopharmacologic Drug Worksheet for Comprehensive Care, dated 3/18/19, included Zoloft (antidepressant)100 milligrams (mg) daily. The target behavior was depression and it was written in the comment section no taper. Seroquel 25 mg in the morning and 50 mg at bedtime. The target behaviors was dementia with behavior, and it was written in the comment section no GDR. The form does not include the date of the last GDR. The Neurological Nurse Practitioner Progress Notes, dated 7/18/19, revealed the resident has a primary diagnosis of dementia without behavioral disturbance and Parkinson's disease. The Consultant Pharmacist review, dated 7/18/19, includes the resident was last seen by psych in May 2018 and no GDR was recommended. There has been no reference in the notes about his psychotropics except to say continue. Please consider documenting more concisely in the chart why a GDR was still not warranted. The Physician Progress Note, dated 7/25/19, included in the assessment and plan that the resident has vascular dementia with behavioral disturbance. The resident was stable on current regimen, and to continue Seroquel 25 mg each night. The resident does not tolerate tapering. The resident's depression was stable, continue Zoloft 100 mg daily. Review of the current Scheduled Medication Report, printed 8/1/19, included Seroquel 25 mg every morning and 50 mg at bedtime and Zoloft 100 mg daily. The current Comprehensive Care Plan revealed that the resident received psychotropic medications for depression and dementia with behavioral disturbance. Interventions included to monitor the medication and side effects, and if necessary, please initiate a behavior management program. There were no behaviors or non-pharmalogical approaches documented. Review of the progress notes, from 1/1/19 through 8/6/19, did not include documentation related to behaviors. There were multiple falls documented. During an observation and interview with the resident on 8/1/19 at 10:59 a.m., the resident was alert, pleasant, and walking in his room using the rolling walker. When asked if he knew what medications he was taking, the resident responded, No, but I can find out. When interviewed on 7/31/19 at 11:12 a.m., the Registered Nurse Manager (RNM) said the resident did not done well when a GDR was attempted. The RNM said she was unable to determine when the last GDR was done for the resident and why it failed. She said behaviors should be documented on the behavior documentation sheet or in the progress notes. The RNM and surveyor reviewed the behavior documentation sheet and medical record and were unable to find any behaviors documented. During an interview on 8/1/19 at 10:09 a.m., the Clinical Pharmacist said the physician should be documenting why a GDR was contraindicated. She said she could not find any documented behaviors. When interviewed on 8/2/19 at 10:01 a.m., the Primary Physician said the resident was on psychoactive medications because he has Parkinson's and dementia. He said the Nurse Practitioner that follows the resident did not recommend a GDR. The physician said he could not find any information as to when the last GDR was done, or any other reason for the medication other than dementia. He said the resident's behavior was wandering and falling at night. The physician said Seroquel would not be appropriate for wandering or falling and it could contribute to the falls. He said maybe a GDR could be considered. 2. Resident #18 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and has diagnoses including dementia with behavioral disturbance, anxiety, and depression. The MDS Assessment, dated 5/3/19, revealed the resident had severely impaired cognition and no behaviors in the look back period. The MDS Assessments, dated 12/12/18 and 1/23/19, revealed no behaviors, delirium, or mental status changes in the look back period. The Comprehensive Care Plan, dated February 2019, revealed that the resident received psychotropic drugs related to dementia with behavioral disturbances and depression. Interventions included to observe for behaviors, refocus attention to activities, and psychiatric evaluation as needed. If no symptoms ask if the medication can be reduced. The initial physician order, dated 4/17/18, and physician orders from January 2019 through July 2019, included Haldol (an antipsychotic medication) twice daily. The order does not include a specific condition or signs and symptoms the resident was experiencing. The psychiatric Registered Nurse (RN) note, dated 1/15/19, revealed the resident was pleasant, polite, and had a bright affect. The resident had decreased sleep at night due to pain and received Haldol twice daily. The 1/29/19 Psychiatric RN note revealed the resident was readmitted to the facility following amputation of the right leg. She was calm but complained of pain and received Haldol twice daily. A 3/1/19 psychiatric RN note revealed the resident had increased behavioral concerns and paranoia. She was missing her family and believed she had been at the nursing home for only eight weeks. The Nurse Practitioner note, dated 5/17/19, includes that the resident was complaining of painful sinuses and became weepy. Under psych/behavioral it was documented positive for agitation, depression, hallucinations, sleep disturbance, nervous, anxious, and irritability. Review of the nursing progress notes, from 4/1/19 through 8/2/19, did not include any documentation related to behaviors. The Pharmacy Monthly Medication Regimen Review, dated 5/1/19, questioned a GDR of the Haldol; however, staff were unable to find any recommendation to the physician. The physician note, dated 7/25/19, revealed that the resident's mood appears anxious and she was stable on Haldol twice daily. Intermittent observations, from 7/29/19 through 8/2/19 revealed that the resident was calm, sitting in her wheelchair in the common area, and watching TV. When interviewed on 7/29/19 at 10:25 a.m., the resident's family member said when the resident was first admitted to the facility, she was on another unit that was mainly for residents with behaviors. She said at that time the resident had already had one leg amputated and she was having such pain in her other leg that she was out of her mind. The family member said that her pain was terrible. She said after the second leg was amputated, her pain went away, and she was mentally clear on most days now. During an interview on 8/1/19 at 1:38 p.m., the primary day Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) said the resident's mental state varies. She said some days the resident thinks that she is at work or the children are coming home soon. She said she has never witnessed the resident hallucinating, and she had never been combative. She said the resident does sometimes cuss you out in Spanish. The CNA said most of the resident's behaviors center around going to the bathroom. She said the resident does cry and when she does, she asks her questions about her children or does a little dance for her, and then the resident laughs and stops crying. She said it helps to get the resident out of that mood. Interviews conducted on 8/2/19 included the following: a. At 10:16 a.m., the Physician said the specific condition/signs/symptoms for the prescribing of Haldol for the resident was dementia. He said the reason the resident was put on the medication was because at that time she had an infection, poor circulation, amputation, some behavior problems, and needed the medication. He said she was on the Haldol now and doing well. The physician said he did not see any adverse effects from the medication and would consider weaning her off the medication now. b. At 10:56 a.m., RNM #2 said she did not see any other behavioral progress notes for the resident. She said the resident's behaviors include yelling in English and Spanish and are usually centered around the bathroom or her children not visiting. RNM #2 said that she saw where the GDR was mentioned but it was never done. c. At 2:33 p.m., the primary evening CNA said the resident likes to sleep in a lounge chair in the common area because she does not like to be alone and wants to be able to answer the door if someone comes. She said the resident has some yelling behaviors that are centered around going to the bathroom. She said when that happens, she asks the resident to calm down so she can understand her need. [10 NYCRR 415.12(1)(2)(ii)]
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record reviews conducted during the Recertification Survey, it was determined that for one...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record reviews conducted during the Recertification Survey, it was determined that for one ([NAME] Place) of five residential dining rooms and for one (Resident #119) of four residents reviewed for positioning and mobility, the facility did not maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Specifically, staff were not using an effective disinfectant product on the surfaces of, including but not limited to, dining tables and counter tops in the resident dining room and staff did not clean and repair the resident's electric wheelchair appropriately. This is evidenced by the following: 1. Observations and interviews on 7/31/19 in the [NAME] Place dining room, were as follows: a. At 10:30 a.m., Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #1 said to clean tables, he uses a sanitizer and pointed to a dispenser, fastened to the wall by the sink, labelled Oasis 146 (product to sanitize hard, non-porous food contact surfaces such as tables, counter and food processing equipment). He said he wets a dishcloth with the product and wipes the tabletops. CNA #1 said he did not know who was responsible to restock the product or check the sanitizing level. He said the tube dispensing the sanitizer was black and dirty. CNA #1 looked at the container of sanitizer concentrate and said it was empty. He said he did not know who was responsible to get a new one or who to contact. b. At 10:49 a.m., CNA #2 said she uses Oasis 146 or the green detergent to clean and sanitize. CNA #2 picked up the detergent and the label read Green Works, 98 percent naturally derived manual pot and pan detergent commercial solution. At about 10:51 a.m., a Registered Nurse Manager (RNM) looked at the tubing coming from the Oasis dispenser and said it was black and there were clumps of debris inside of it. The RNM said she did not know what product should be used to sanitize tabletops but she would text the Director of Food Service (DFS) to find out. c. At 11:04 a.m., CNA #2 said the DFS told the RNM that nursing staff should be using Dispatch (cleaner disinfectant towels with bleach). CNA #2 had a canister in her hands and put it on the counter for use. CNA #2 said that staff use the wipes in resident rooms, but she has never seen it used in the dining room. d. At 11:16 a.m., the Senior Manager/Food Services said that the nursing staff was responsible to clean surfaces in the dining rooms. She said the staff are supposed to use Dispatch wipes for sanitizing. She said that Green Works was not a sanitizer and that the Oasis 146 dispenser should have been removed from service. 2. Resident #119 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including quadriplegia with contractures, neuromuscular dysfunction, and anxiety. The 7/1/19 Minimum Data Set Assessment included the resident was cognitively intact. During an observation and interview on 8/1/19 at 11:36 a.m., the resident said he could not remember if his chair had ever been cleaned. The electric wheelchair, equipped with a mouth piece to work the joy stick used for mobility, had buildup of dried food on it and dirt and debris on the base. The left armrest had exposed metal. Two yellow sponges were taped to the armrest that the resident said were applied by his friend as a cushion. The resident said he needed to have his chair fixed but he did not want to have it taken away because that is the only way he can get around. In an observation and interview on 8/1/19 at 12:01 p.m., when shown the chair, the RNM said yes, the chair needed cleaning. She said they are cleaned weekly but when she saw the dried built up dirt she said she did not know when it was last cleaned. The RNM stated that covering the armrest with two sponges was not appropriate and that they were trying to get him a new chair. When asked if the armrest was fixable, she said yes. When shown the dirty table strapped to chair and the mouth piece, she said it needed to be cleaned. The RNM said that the resident leaves the unit all day (making it difficult to clean). When asked if his leaving would have any impact on cleaning the chair at night, she said no. She said the resident sustained a skin tear on the chair but was not sure where. The RNM said she did not have a procedure that is followed for any maintenance of the chair. When interviewed on 8/2/19 at 2:13 p.m., the Occupational Therapist said staff had not let her know the chair required fixing and would have to call [NAME] to fix the arm as it would be unsafe. She said she had evaluated the residents for positioning, but evaluation of the chair and its condition had not been done. In an interview on 8/6/19 at 10:06 a.m., the Administrator said that the wheelchair had been added as part of the grooming audit and was cleaned by the Director of Nursing and a staff member (after surveyor intervention) and is now on a routine schedule for cleaning. [10 NYCRR 415.19]
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most New York facilities.
  • • 36% turnover. Below New York's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 6 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • Grade C (58/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 58/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Wayne Health Care's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns Wayne Health Care an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within New York, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.

How is Wayne Health Care Staffed?

CMS rates Wayne Health Care's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 36%, compared to the New York average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Wayne Health Care?

State health inspectors documented 6 deficiencies at Wayne Health Care during 2019 to 2024. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 5 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Wayne Health Care?

Wayne Health Care is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by ROCHESTER REGIONAL HEALTH, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 182 certified beds and approximately 175 residents (about 96% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in Newark, New York.

How Does Wayne Health Care Compare to Other New York Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in New York, Wayne Health Care's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (36%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Wayne Health Care?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations.

Is Wayne Health Care Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Wayne Health Care has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 3-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 Wayne Health Care Stick Around?

Wayne Health Care has a staff turnover rate of 36%, 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 Wayne Health Care Ever Fined?

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

Is Wayne Health Care on Any Federal Watch List?

Wayne Health Care 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.