JENNIE B RICHMOND CHAFFEE NURSING HOME COMPANY INC

222 EAST MAIN STREET, SPRINGVILLE, NY 14141 (716) 592-2871
Non profit - Corporation 80 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
25/100
#292 of 594 in NY
Last Inspection: June 2025

Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.

Overview

Jennie B Richmond Chaffee Nursing Home in Springville, New York has a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the facility's quality of care. It ranks #292 out of 594 in the state, placing it in the top half, but its position in Erie County is #23 out of 35, suggesting that there are many local facilities that perform better. The facility is facing a worsening trend, with issues increasing from 4 in 2023 to 8 in 2025. Staffing is a relative strength with a 4 out of 5 rating and a turnover rate of 39%, slightly below the state average, indicating that staff members tend to stay. However, the facility has concerning fines totaling $105,525, which is higher than 97% of nursing homes in New York, suggesting ongoing compliance problems. Specific incidents noted include failure to protect residents from sexual abuse, where one resident exhibited inappropriate behavior towards a nonverbal resident, and there were delays in reporting these allegations to administration, which is alarming. Additionally, the facility did not implement necessary safety measures regarding a wander guard system, indicating lapses in oversight. While there are strengths in staffing and quality measures, these serious deficiencies raise significant concerns for families considering this nursing home.

Trust Score
F
25/100
In New York
#292/594
Top 49%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
4 → 8 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
39% turnover. Near New York's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
$105,525 in fines. Lower than most New York facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 50 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for New York. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
⚠ Watch
14 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 4 issues
2025: 8 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (39%)

    9 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: 39%

Near New York avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $105,525

Well above median ($33,413)

Significant penalties indicating serious issues

The Ugly 14 deficiencies on record

2 actual harm
Jun 2025 8 deficiencies 2 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 (Complaint #NY00355221) during the...

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 (Complaint #NY00355221) during the Standard survey completed on 6/27/2025, the facility failed to protect residents from resident-to-resident sexual abuse for one (1) (Resident #34) of four (4) residents reviewed for abuse. Specifically, Resident #28, who had a history of exhibiting inappropriate sexual behavior in front of other residents, was observed by Certified Nurse Aide #1 on 9/21/2024 self-gratifying with their genitalia exposed in front of Resident #34, who was nonverbal and lacked the capacity to consent. There was no documented evidence interventions were put into place, Resident #28 had continued access to Resident #34, and exhibited inappropriate sexual behavior in front of Resident #34 again on 9/22/2024. Using the reasonable person concept, as referenced in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Psychosocial Outcome Severity guide, it was determined psychosocial harm occurred that is not Immediate Jeopardy. The findings include:The policy titled Abuse Investigation, last revised 7/2016, documented reporting of resident abuse and mistreatment shall be properly and thoroughly investigated. Allegations of suspected abuse shall be immediately reported to the nurse manager who shall promptly notify the Director of Nursing. The Director of Nursing would speak with the individuals involved and interview every person on duty if possible. Residents would be protected from harm during the investigation. The Director of Nursing and Administrator would review all details of the investigation to determine if there was sufficient evidence to believe abuse occurred and appropriate authorities would be notified. State Operation Manual dated 03/10/2025 documented sexual abuse was defined at 42 CFR S483.5 as non-consensual sexual contact of any type with a resident and included but was not limited to: forced observation of masturbation.Resident #28 had diagnoses including obstructive and reflux uropathy (blockage in the urinary tract hindering the normal flow of urine), hypertension (high blood pressure), and alcohol abuse. The Minimum Data Set (a resident assessment tool) dated 08/27/2024 documented Resident #28 was cognitively intact, was understood, understands, and was independent for wheelchair mobility of at least 150 feet on the unit. There were no behaviors documented during the assessment period.The comprehensive care plan dated 08/20/2024 revealed Resident #28 had a history of urinary tract infections, with intervention to irrigate catheter every shift, change catheter monthly, and encourage fluids throughout the day. Resident #28 also had a history of alcohol abuse with interventions to monitor mood patterns and determine if problems were related to external causes.Resident #34 had diagnoses including dementia with behavioral disturbances, depression, and history of cerebral infarction without residual deficits (stroke). The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented Resident #34 was severely cognitively impaired, was sometimes understood, usually understands, and required a substantial/maximal assist of one staff member for transfers, was dependent on staff for wheelchair mobility, and was non-ambulatory. The comprehensive care plan dated 07/17/2024 documented Resident #34 had a communication problem related to expressive aphasia (difficulty speaking) and was unable to verbalize needs, staff to anticipate and meet all needs and ensure/provide a safe environment. There was no documented evidence interventions were put into place to protect Resident #34 from further abuse following the incident on 09/21/2024.Review of a nursing progress note dated 07/21/2024 at 4:01 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #1 documented that they observed Resident #28 touching themself in the hallway in front of an unidentified resident and was reminded that they need to be in the privacy of their room if they wished to do those things. There was no documented follow-up or investigation to this incident. Review of a nursing progress note dated 08/08/2024 at 5:45 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #1 documented while assisting Resident #28 into their wheelchair with a Certified Nurse Aide, Resident #28 grabbed Certified Nurse Aide's buttocks and would not let go when told to do so. Once Resident #28 was seated in the wheelchair, the Certified Nurse Aide was able to pull themselves away from the resident. There was no documented evidence Resident #28's care plan was updated following this incident.Review of a nursing progress note dated 09/21/2024 at 5:20 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #3 documented they were informed by Certified Nurse Aide #1 that Resident #28 was self-gratifying themselves in the hallway in front of Resident #34's room while staring into the room. Resident #28 was removed from the hallway. Resident #28 was educated that activities involving self-pleasure should only be done in their room and never in public. Review of the 24-hour report sheet dated 09/21/2024 documented Resident #28 had inappropriate behaviors; Resident #34's section was blank. There was no documented evidence that any interventions were put into place following inappropriate sexual behavior by Resident #28 towards Resident #34 on 09/21/2024. Review of a nursing progress note dated 09/22/2024 at 3:36 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #4 documented Resident #28 was observed sitting in front of Resident #34's room with their right hand in their shorts moving up and down in a fast motion. When approached, they removed their hand. When asked what they were doing, Resident #28 stated they were just watching Resident #34. Resident #28 was removed from the hallway and educated on doing their personal duty in their room and not in front of Resident #34 because it made them uncomfortable. Review of the 24-hour report sheet dated 09/22/2024 documented Resident #34's room was changed to a room closer to the nurse's station. Resident #28 was placed on 15-minute checks after a fall at 11:30 PM and multiple attempts to get up.There was no documented evidence relating to Resident #28's inappropriate sexual behaviors towards Resident #34 or that any interventions were put into place. Review of a nursing progress note dated 09/22/2024 at 6:23 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #5 documented Resident #34 appeared red in the face, was in a decreased mood with sad expressions. Review of facility Incident Investigation dated 90/23/2024, indicates, Registered Nurse #4 (the former Director of Nursing) documented it was reported by nursing staff that on 09/21/2024 Resident #28 was noted to be sitting outside of Resident #34's room touching themselves inside of their shorts while Resident #34 was looking at them through the open door. Resident #28 was alert, oriented, and aware of their actions. Resident #34 was non-verbal and unable to express themselves or move from the area. There was no physical contact, but staff felt that Resident #34 may have been saddened by witnessing Resident #28's behavior. The reporting nurses were interviewed and Licensed Practical Nurse #3 stated it was reported to them that Resident #28 was inappropriately touching themself in front of Resident #34. When they approached Resident #28, they were not exposed but were aggressively stroking their hand up and down in their shorts. Licensed Practical Nurse #3 removed Resident #28 from Resident #34's view and counseled them not to engage in that behavior outside of their private space. The following afternoon (09/22/2024), Licensed Practical Nurse #4 observed Resident #28 with their hand in their pants looking into Resident #34's room but could not say for certain if they were acting in a sexual manner. Resident #28 was interviewed and denied any sexual behavior, and stated they were just itching. Resident #28 also stated they remembered Resident #34 from a prior admission when they could communicate, and they were trying to get a verbal response from Resident #34, they were curious if they had helped Resident #34 in their gains with their interactions with them. Resident #34 was non-verbal with little expression, but staff noted they seemed more down yesterday (09/22/2024) following the incident.Review of a signed witness statement dated 09/24/2024, Certified Nurse Aide #1 documented on 09/21/2024 they were walking towards another resident's room when they observed Resident #28 exposing their genitalia to another resident (Resident #34), they ran and got a nurse (Licensed Practical Nurse #3) and told them about the situation. Review of a physician progress note dated 10/04/2024, revealed the Medical Director documented Resident #34 was not feeding themself well and their weight had gradually declined over the last few weeks by a few pounds. The Medical Director documented Resident #34 had an extremely flat affect and was nonverbal, but they believed Resident #34 was able to comprehend more than they were able to express.During an observation and interview on 06/23/2025 at 1:16 PM, Resident #34 was seated in their high back wheelchair and was nonverbal. Resident #34's Health Care Proxy stated Resident #34 would not have welcomed another person exposing their genitalia to them and/or self-gratifying, it would have made them very uncomfortable, and they felt that this was sexual abuse towards Resident #34. During an observation and interview on 06/25/2025 at 9:06 AM, Resident #28 was laying in their bed and stated they had no recollection of the incidents on 07/21/2024 or 09/21/2024 and 09/22/2024 involving Resident #34 and had never exposed themselves to any another resident. Resident #28 stated they had rashes in their groin occasionally and that could have been a time where a rash was active, and they were itching.During a telephone interview on 06/25/2025 at 9:47 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse #4 stated on 9/22/2024, they observed Resident #28 from behind, making a fast up and down motion with their right hand/arm, it looked like they were attempting to self-gratify while staring into Resident #34's room, who was seated in their recliner facing the doorway. Licensed Practical Nurse #4 stated that when they approached Resident #28, they pulled their hand out of their shorts and looked surprised that someone caught them; they removed Resident #28 from the area and educated them on doing their private duty in their own room. Licensed Practical Nurse #4 stated they were often Resident #28's nurse, and they did not have an active rash in their groin at the time and did not mention anything about being itchy or itching down there when asked what they were doing. Licensed Practical Nurse #4 stated they were not aware Resident #28 had been observed doing a similar behavior in front of Resident #34 the day prior, but they were aware of Resident #28 having a history of making sexually inappropriate comments to staff and self-gratifying behaviors in their room. Licensed Practical Nurse #4 stated it appeared to them that Resident #28 was self-gratifying themself in the hallway in front of Resident #34 on 09/22/2024, and when they thought about it throughout the night, they felt what Resident #28 did was abuse. During a telephone interview on 06/25/2025 at 10:05 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse #3 stated that on 09/21/2024, they were informed by Certified Nurse Aide #1 that Resident #28 was exhibiting sexually inappropriate behavior in front of Resident #34. They approached Resident #28 and saw their hand in their pants making a jerking motion up and down aggressively and did not see any genitalia exposed. Licensed Practical Nurse #3 stated Resident #28 stated they were waiting for their roommate and was adamant on staying where they were but eventually agreed to come down the hallway away from Resident #34's room. Licensed Practical Nurse #3 stated following the incident they told staff to increase their monitoring of Resident #28 and #34 for the rest of the shift, documented on the 24-hour report sheet that Resident #28 had inappropriate behavior, and educated Resident #28 on self-gratifying only in their private space, but they did not put any other interventions into place. Licensed Practical Nurse #3 stated Resident #34 did not have capacity to consent, was nonverbal and relied on staff to anticipate all needs. Licensed Practical Nurse #3 stated they were unaware of the abuse policy, so they did not report anything to anyone, but they felt this was abuse after being reeducated on abuse and abuse reporting. During an interview on 06/25/2025 at 12:20 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #1 reviewed their progress note from 07/21/2024 and stated they did not recall the incident specifically or who the other resident involved was, but felt that Resident #28 was being sexually inappropriate in front of another resident, which they felt was sexual abuse and reported it to the Unit Manager at the time (current Director of Nursing #1). Licensed Practical Nurse #1 stated they educated Resident #28 right away and there were no further instances until 09/21/2024, but Resident #28 did have a history of being sexually inappropriate towards staff. During an interview on 06/25/2025 at 12:44 PM, Director of Nursing #1 (who was the Unit Manager at the time of the incidents on 07/21/2024, 09/21/2024 and 09/22/2024) reviewed the progress note from 07/21/2024 and stated they were never made aware of that incident and should have been so that an investigation could have been initiated. Director of Nursing #1 stated if they were made aware of the 07/21/2024 incident then the incidents on 09/21/2024 and 09/22/2024 could have possibly been prevented because they would have been more aware of Resident #28's sexually inappropriate behaviors and could have put interventions into place sooner. During a telephone interview on 06/25/2025 at 1:12 PM, Certified Nurse Aide #1 stated that on 09/21/2024 they were walking out of another resident's room after finishing care when they observed Resident #28 sitting in their wheelchair, half in the hallway and half in the doorway looking into Resident #34's room, with their genitalia exposed self-gratifying, aggressively. Certified Nurse Aide #1 stated Resident #34 was seated in their recliner approximately 10 feet away, facing the doorway, unable to speak or move and staring directly at Resident #28. Certified Nurse Aide #1 stated they were in shock and their first reaction was to run and alert Licensed Practical Nurse #3, who was at the nurse's station. Licensed Practical Nurse #3 arrived within one (1) minute and Resident #28 was removed from the area. Certified Nurse Aide #1 stated they felt as though the incident they witnessed was sexual abuse so that is why they reported it right away. They stated a reasonable person would not be okay with something like that (self-gratifying) happening in front of them, it was sexual abuse, and it should not be happening.During an interview on 06/25/2025 at 2:49 PM, Director of Nursing #1 and the Administrator reviewed the facility investigation and witness statements. Both stated they were unaware of the documented exposure incident on 09/21/2024. Both stated they agreed that this was sexual abuse and using the reasonable person concept, there was a potential for psychosocial harm to have occurred to Resident #34 from the sexually inappropriate behavior from Resident #28 on 09/21/2024 and 09/22/2024. Director of Nursing #1 and the Administrator stated the incidents on 09/21/2024 and 09/22/2024 should have been reported so that interventions could have been put into place immediately to prevent any further incidents. Director of Nursing #1 stated Resident #28 had continued access to Resident #34, and it was important to keep all residents safe. During an interview on 06/26/2025 at 9:36 AM, Director of Social Work stated they evaluated both Resident #28 and Resident #34 following the incidents on 09/21/2024 and 09/22/2024. Resident #28 denied any sexually inappropriate behavior and stated they were just itching themselves. Director of Social Work stated using the reasonable person concept, there was the potential for Resident #34 to have suffered from psychosocial harm during the incidents with Resident #28 and interventions should have been put into place following the first incident on 09/21/2024 and it should have been reported to administration. During an interview on 06/26/2025 at 9:46 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse #5 stated on 09/22/2024 Resident #34 was sitting in the hallway near the nurse's station in the late afternoon after the incident with Resident #28, and just looked off. They could not say for certain what was going on with Resident #34 because they were nonverbal, but they did not appear themselves.During a telephone interview on 06/26/2025 at 9:54 AM, Registered Nurse #4 (the former Director of Nursing) stated they were made aware on 09/23/2024 that Resident #28 exhibited inappropriate sexual behavior in front of Resident #34 on 09/21/2024 and 09/22/2024 and they initiated an investigation. They were made aware Resident #28 exposed themselves to Resident #34 and was self-gratifying, but when they spoke with Resident #28, Resident #28 denied the act and stated they were itching their groin. Registered Nurse #4 stated they were unaware Resident #28 had a previous incident where they were exhibiting inappropriate sexual behavior on 07/21/2024, and that should have been reported to them. Registered Nurse #4 stated they were aware of the alleged exposure of genitalia by Resident #28 in front of Resident #34 but could not say for certain that it occurred because they did not interview the witness. Registered Nurse #4 stated that the plan put into place following the 09/22/2024 incident was successful, so they did not feel it was abuse.During an interview on 06/26/2025 at 10:20 AM, the Medical Director stated they were not aware that Resident #28 had exposed their genitalia to Resident #34 on 09/21/2024. They were under the impression Resident #28 only had their hand in their shorts and was engaging in inappropriate sexual behavior on 09/21/2024 and 09/22/2024. Medical Director stated Resident #34 was nonverbal, had moments of clarity and some level of awareness, but did not have capacity to consent. Resident #28 had capacity and was capable of making decisions and they had enough cognition to know what they were doing but just may not have been aware of the social inappropriateness of it. The Medical Director stated Resident #34 would probably not be accepting of the interaction, it would not have been welcomed and using the reasonable person concept, there was a potential for Resident #34 to have suffered psychosocial harm from the sexual behavior exhibited by Resident #28 on 09/21/2024 and again on 09/22/2024. Interventions should have been put into place and facility administration should have been made aware immediately after the incident on 09/21/2024. The Medical Director stated they were aware Resident #28 had a history of being sexually inappropriate towards staff on occasion, but they were not aware of Resident #28 having a history of being sexually inappropriate in public areas in front of other residents and should have been made aware. 10 NYCRR 415.3(d)(1)(vii)
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review conducted during a Complaint investigation (#NY00355221) during the Standard survey complet...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review conducted during a Complaint investigation (#NY00355221) during the Standard survey completed on 06/27/2025, the facility did not ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse are reported immediately, but not later than two (2) hours after the allegation is made if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse, to the administrator and to other state officials (including to the State Survey Agency) for two (2) (Residents #28 and #34) of four (4) residents reviewed. Specifically, there were three (3) documented incidents in which staff observed Resident #28 exhibiting inappropriate sexual behaviors in front of two (2) different residents which were not reported to Administration. On 07/21/2024, Resident #28 was observed touching themselves in front of an unknown resident, on 09/21/2024 and 09/22/2024 Resident #28 was observed self-gratifying themselves in front of Resident #34 who was nonverbal and lacked capacity to consent. These incidents were not reported to Administration until 09/23/2024. Additionally, there was a delay in reporting the alleged abuse allegations to the New York State Department of Health. This resulted in, or had the likelihood for, psychosocial harm that is not Immediate Jeopardy for Resident #34.The findings are:The policy titled Abuse Investigation, last revised 07/2016, documented reporting of resident abuse and mistreatment shall be properly and thoroughly investigated. Allegations of suspected abuse shall be immediately reported to the nurse manager who shall promptly notify the Director of Nursing. The Director of Nursing would promptly initiate an investigation. Resident would be protected from harm during the course of the investigation. The Director of Nursing or Administrator would notify the State Health Department as soon as possible, not to exceed 24 hours after the discovery of the incident. For any instances resulting in serious bodily injury, reporting must be done within two (2) hours. 1. Resident #28 had diagnoses including obstructive and reflux uropathy (blockage in the urinary tract hindering the normal flow of urine), hypertension (high blood pressure), and alcohol abuse. The Minimum Data Set (a resident assessment tool) dated 08/27/2024 documented Resident #28 was cognitively intact and independent for wheelchair mobility of at least 150 feet on the unit.The comprehensive care plan dated 08/20/2024 revealed Resident #28 had a history of urinary tract infections, with intervention to irrigate catheter every shift, change catheter monthly, and encourage fluids throughout the day. Resident #28 also had a history of alcohol abuse with interventions to monitor mood patterns and determine if problems were related to external causes.Review of a nursing progress note dated 07/21/2024 at 4:01 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #1 documented staff observed Resident #28 touching themself in the hallway with an unidentified resident present and was reminded they needed to be in the privacy of their room if they wished to do those things. There was no documented evidence this was reported to the Nurse Manager, Director of Nursing or the Administrator. Review of the 24-hour report sheet dated 07/21/2024 revealed no documentation regarding the sexually inappropriate behavior exhibited by Resident #28 or that Administration was notified. The facility could not provide any additional documented evidence the sexually inappropriate behavior exhibited by Resident #28 on 07/21/2024 was reported to the Administrator or Director of Nursing.During an interview on 06/25/2025 at 12:20 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #1 reviewed their progress note from 7/21/2024 and stated they did not recall the incident specifically or who the other resident involved was, but felt that Resident #28 was being sexually inappropriate in front of another resident, which they felt was sexual abuse and reported it to the Unit Manager at the time (current Director of Nursing #1). Licensed Practical Nurse #1 stated any suspected allegation of abuse should be reported right away to Administration. 2. Resident #34 had diagnoses including dementia with behavioral disturbances, depression, and history of cerebral infarction without residual deficits (stroke). The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented Resident #34 was severely cognitively impaired, was sometimes understood, usually understands, and required a substantial/maximal assist of one (1) staff member for transfers, was dependent on staff for wheelchair mobility, and was non-ambulatory. The comprehensive care plan dated 07/17/2024 documented Resident #34 had a communication problem related to expressive aphasia (difficulty speaking) and was unable to verbalize needs, staff to anticipate and meet all needs and ensure/provide a safe environment. There was no additional documentation related to the incidents.Review of nursing progress notes revealed the following:-On 09/21/2024 at 5:20 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #3 documented they were informed by Certified Nurse Aide #1 that Resident #28 was self-gratifying in front of Resident #34, Resident #28 was educated and removed from the area. -On 09/22/2024 at 3:36 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #4 documented Resident #28 was observed self-gratifying in front of Resident #34, Resident #28 was educated and removed from the area. There was no documented evidence the inappropriate sexual behavior incidents were reported to the Director of Nursing or Administrator. Review of 24-hour report sheets revealed the following:-On 09/21/2024 during the 7:00 AM - 7:00 PM shift, Resident #28 had inappropriate behaviors; Resident #34's section was blank. -On 09/22/2024 during the 7:00 AM - 7:00 PM shift, Resident #34's room was changed to a room closer to the nurse's station. Resident #28 was placed on 15-minute checks after a fall at 11:30 PM and attempts to get up multiple times. There was no documented evidence the inappropriate sexual behavior incidents were reported to the Director of Nursing or Administrator. Review of the New York State Department of Health Complaint Tracking System Complaint/Incident Investigation Report revealed the date/time of the alleged incident was 09/21/2024 at 3:00 PM. The date/time the Administrator was first made aware of the incident was 09/23/2024 at 9:30 AM. It was submitted by the facility on 09/23/2024 at 12:22 PM.Review of facility Incident Investigation dated 09/23/2024 at 8:00 AM, Registered Nurse #4 (the former Director of Nursing) documented it was reported by nursing staff that on 09/21/2024 at 3:00 PM Resident #28 was noted to be engaging in inappropriate sexual behavior while Resident #34 was looking at them through the open door. Resident #28 was alert, oriented, and aware of their actions. Resident #34 was non-verbal and unable to express themselves or move from the area, but staff felt that Resident #34 may have been saddened by witnessing Resident #28's behavior. The following afternoon (09/22/2024 at 3:30 PM) Licensed Practical Nurse #4 observed Resident #28 with their hand in their pants looking into Resident #34s room. Resident #34 was non-verbal with little expression, but staff noted they seemed more down yesterday (09/22/2024) following the incident. Both incidents were reported to Registered Nurse #4 on 09/23/2024 at 8:00 AM. During a telephone interview on 06/25/2025 at 9:47 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse #4 stated that on 09/22/2024 they observed Resident #28 from behind, making a fast up and down motion with their right hand/arm, looked like they were attempting to self-gratify while staring into Resident #34s room; they removed Resident #28 from the area and educated them on doing their private duty in their own room. Licensed Practical Nurse #4 stated they were not aware Resident #28 had been observed doing a similar behavior in front of Resident #34 the day prior and they did not report anything to Administration because they did not want to accuse Resident #28 of doing something they might not have been doing. Licensed Practical Nurse #4 stated it appeared to them that Resident #28 was self-gratifying themself in the hallway in front of Resident #34 on 09/22/2024, and when they thought about it throughout the night, they felt what Resident #28 did was abuse and reported it to the Director of Nursing on 09/23/2024.During a telephone interview on 06/25/2025 at 10:05 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse #3 stated that on 09/21/2024 they were informed by Certified Nurse Aide #1 that Resident #28 was exhibiting sexually inappropriate behavior in front of Resident #34. They approached Resident #28 and saw their hand in their pants making a jerking motion up and down aggressively and did not see any genitalia exposed. Licensed Practical Nurse #3 stated they did not report the incident to the Administrator or Director of Nursing because they were unaware of the abuse policy; they should have reported the incident right away to Administration. During an interview on 06/25/2025 at 12:44 PM, Director of Nursing #1 (who was the Unit Manager at the time of the incidents on 07/21/2024, 09/21/2024 and 09/22/2024) reviewed Licensed Practical Nurse #1's progress note from 07/21/2024 regarding Resident #28's sexually inappropriate behavior in front of another resident and stated they were never made aware of that incident, and should have been so that an investigation could have been initiated. Director of Nursing #1 stated if they were made aware of the 07/21/2024 incident then the incidents on 09/21/2024 and 09/22/2024 could have possibly been prevented because they would have been more aware of Resident #28's sexually inappropriate behaviors. Director of Nursing #1 stated in order to ensure all residents safety, all suspected allegations of abuse should be reported to administration immediately so that an investigation can be initiated. Director of Nursing #1 stated all suspected allegations of abuse should be reported to the Department of Health within two (2) hours. During a telephone interview on 06/25/2025 at 1:12 PM, Certified Nurse Aide #1 stated that on 09/21/2024, they observed Resident #28 sitting in their wheelchair, half in the hallway and half in the doorway looking into Resident #34's room, with their genitalia exposed self-gratifying themself aggressively, while Resident #34 was seated in their recliner, facing the doorway, unable to speak or move and staring directly at Resident #28. Certified Nurse Aide #1 stated they were in shock and their first reaction was to run and alert Licensed Practical Nurse #3, who was at the nurse's station. Licensed Practical Nurse #3 arrived within one (1) minute and Resident #28 was removed from the area. During an interview on 06/25/2025 at 2:49 PM, Director of Nursing #1 and the Administrator stated the incidents on 07/21/2024, 09/21/2024, and 09/22/2024 should have been reported right away to Administration so that interventions could have been put into place to prevent any further incidents. Director of Nursing #1 and the Administrator stated all suspected allegations of sexual abuse should be reported within two (2) hours to the Department of Health. These incidents were considered sexual abuse, they should have been reported immediately so that Administration could have reported in the required time frame. Director of Nursing #1 stated Resident #28 had continued access to Resident #34, and it was important to keep all residents safe. During an interview on 06/26/2025 at 9:36 AM, the Director of Social Work stated any allegations of abuse should be reported to Administration right away so that they could be reported to the appropriate authorities within two (2) hours. They stated the incident involving Resident #28 and Resident #34 on 09/21/2024 should have been reported immediately to Administration so that an investigation could have been initiated. They stated the incident on 07/21/2024 should have been reported to Administration so that it could have been investigated.During a telephone interview on 06/26/2025 at 9:54 AM, Registered Nurse #4 (the former Director of Nursing) stated they were made aware on 09/23/2024 of Resident #28 exhibiting inappropriate sexual behavior in front of Resident #34 on 09/21/2024 and 09/22/2024 and should have been made aware immediately following the incidents. Registered Nurse #4 stated they were unaware Resident #28 had a previous incident where they were exhibiting inappropriate sexual behavior on 07/21/2024 and that should have been reported to them. During an interview on 06/26/2025 at 10:20 AM, the Medical Director stated all suspected allegations of abuse should be reported to administration immediately so that an investigation can be initiated. The Medical Director stated all suspected allegations of abuse should be reported to the Department of Health within two (2) hours. 10 NYCRR 415.4(b)(2)
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 conducted during a Complaint investigation (Complaint #NY00355221) during the Standard survey completed on 6/27/25, the facility did not ensure their abuse reporti...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review conducted during a Complaint investigation (Complaint #NY00355221) during the Standard survey completed on 6/27/25, the facility did not ensure their abuse reporting policy and procedure was updated to include current regulations and guidance. Specifically, the facility did not ensure their policy for abuse reporting was current. This affected two (2) (Residents #28 and #34) of four (4) residents reviewed. The finding is: REFER TO: F 609 - Reporting of Alleged Violations Review of the policy and procedure titled Abuse Investigation Policy and Procedure revision date 7/16/16 with review dated 5/24 documented reporting of resident abuse, neglect, mistreatment, involuntary seclusion, misappropriation of resident property, and injuries of unknown source shall be properly and thoroughly investigated. Allegation of suspected abuse shall be immediately reported to the Nurse Manager who will promptly notify the Director of Nursing. The Director of Nursing will promptly initiate an investigation. The policy documented reporting to appropriate local/state/federal agencies: the Director of Nursing and Administrator will review all details of the investigation. If there was reasonable cause, the appropriate authorities will be notified. The Director of Nursing or Administrator will notify the State Health Department, Office of Health Systems Management, as soon as possible, not to exceed 24 hours after the discovery of the incident. For any instances resulting in serious bodily injury, reporting must be done within two hours. Review of the State Operational Manual issued 4/25/25 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. Report the results of all investigations to the administrator or his/her designated representative and to other officials in accordance with State law, including to the State Survey Agency, within 5 working days of the incident and if the alleged violation is verified appropriate corrective action must be taken. During an interview on 6/25/25 at 12:44 PM, the Director of Nursing stated all suspected allegations of abuse should be reported immediately to administration, by anyone/whoever sees or hears the situation occur. They stated the Administration must report the allegation to the Department of Health within 2 hours and an investigation would be started. They stated the importance of reporting and investigating an allegation of abuse was to ensure residents safety and to be able to monitor all residents and their behaviors. During a further interview on 6/27/25 at 12:54 PM, the Director of Nursing stated they could not provide further facility policies than what was provided. During an interview on 6/27/25 at 9:32 AM, the Administrator stated the facility had no specific reporting of abuse policy. They stated the reporting of any allegations of abuse would be included in the Abuse Investigation Policy and Procedure revision date 7/16/16 with review dated 5/2024 that was already provided. The Administrator stated they also would refer to the Nursing Home Incident Reporting Manual dated August 2016. During a Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) interview on 6/27/25 at 12:25 PM, the Administrator along with the Director of Nursing stated that policy review was part of the Quality Assurance (QA) process. They stated that facility policies were reviewed annually, and review was also an on ongoing process. The Administrator stated the Medical Director was involved and changes made to any polices were reviewed with the Medical Director. During an interview on 6/27/25 at 1:38 PM, the Administrator stated that any allegation of abuse was to be reported to them immediately, and then to the Department of Health within two hours of notification of the allegation of abuse. The Administrator reviewed the facility's abuse policy and stated the facility policy did not include that any allegation of abuse needed to be reported to the Department of Health within two hours. They stated that the abuse policy does not speak about abuse specifically in the reporting portion and it should be. The Administrator stated the facility policy also did not address the new regulation of a 5-day investigation needing to be sent to the Department of Health. The Administrator stated the facility's abuse policy dated 7/16/16 with review date 5/24 was not up to date with the current regulations and it should have been revised with the current regulations. 10 NYCRR 415.4(b)
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 interview and record review conducted during a Complaint investigation (Complaint #NY00365405) during a Standard survey completed on 6/27/25, the facility did not ensure that each resident re...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review conducted during a Complaint investigation (Complaint #NY00365405) during a Standard survey completed on 6/27/25, the facility did not ensure that each resident receives adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent accidents for one (1) (Resident #31) of five (5) residents reviewed for accidents. Specifically, staff did not ensure fall prevention interventions (floor mat) were in place for Resident #31 as care planned and the resident fell out of bed on the floor and sustained abrasions to their left knee, left elbow and left nares (nostril). The finding is: The facility policy and procedure titled Accident and Incident Reporting dated 5/2024 documented the purpose of accident and incident reporting is to provide a systematic procedure for thorough investigation of all accidents/incidents; ensure that all responsible conditions for the event are properly identified; and ensure that all necessary actions are implemented to eliminate/minimize further occurrences. The facility policy and procedure titled Comprehensive Care plans dated 8/2024 documented care plan interventions are designed after careful consideration of the relationship between the resident's problem areas and their causes. When possible, interventions address the underlying sources of the problem areas, rather than addressing only symptoms or triggers. Staff in the facility are required to follow any intervention included in the comprehensive care plan. Resident #31 had diagnoses that included dementia with agitation, anxiety, and delusional disorders. The Minimum Data Set (a resident assessment tool) dated 12/2/24 documented Resident #31 was cognitively intact, exhibited behavioral symptoms, and required supervision or touching assistance (staff provide verbal cues and/or touching/steadying and/or contact guard assistance) for bed mobility and transfers. The comprehensive care plan initiated on 10/24/24 documented that Resident #31 was a high risk for falls related to confusion and deconditioning and interventions included to anticipate and meet resident's needs, low bed, and floor mat next to bed. The Visual/Bedside Kardex Report (a guide used by staff to provide care) dated 12/18/24 documented safety interventions for Resident #31 included to have their call light in reach, a floor mat next to their bed, and a low bed. The Accident/Incident Report dated 12/18/24 at 7:00 PM completed by Registered Nurse #1, documented Resident #31 was found next to the bed on their back, bed was in low position and call bell was in reach. They documented abrasions were noted to Resident #31's left knee, left elbow, and left nares (nostril) and a floor mat was placed on the left side of bed to prevent further injury. Review of the Facility Investigation dated 12/20/24 at 12:21PM completed by Director of Nursing #1, documented that the incident on 12/18/24 was a care plan violation. Resident #31 was noted on the floor next to their bed, the bed was in a low position, and the floor mat was not in place as care planned. Resident #31 had sustained abrasions to their left knee, left elbow, and left nares (nostril). The investigation documented that Certified Nurse Aide #3 was assigned to Resident #31 and did not place the floor mat next to their bed after they assisted them into bed and were not aware they should have had a floor mat. During a telephone interview on 6/25/25 at 2:45 PM, Certified Nurse Aide #3 stated they were familiar with Resident #31 and was assigned to them on the day the incident occurred. They stated they had assisted Resident #31 into bed after dinner and made sure their bed was in low position but did not place a floor mat down before leaving their room. Certified Nurse Aide #3 stated they did not remember seeing a floor mat listed on Resident #31's care plan and did not see one in their room. They stated at the time of the incident they were not aware Resident #31 was to have a floor mat in place when in bed and they would have made sure one was in place if they were aware. Certified Nurse Aide #3 stated floor mats were utilized for resident safety. During a telephone interview on 6/26/25 at 10:13 AM, Registered Nurse #1 stated they had just started their shift when staff informed them that Resident #31 was on the floor in their room. They stated there was no floor mat present and was not aware at the time of the incident that Resident #31 was care planned to have a floor mat in place. They stated they could not recall the specific injuries Resident #31 sustained from the fall, but did not believe them to be severe. They stated they applied a floor mat after the fall as an intervention and did not realize it should have been present prior to the fall. Registered Nurse #1 stated safety interventions were listed on the care plan and should be reviewed prior to resident care. They stated it was important to ensure safety interventions were in place to prevent injury, that was the purpose of initiating an intervention. During an interview on 6/26/25 at 3:23 PM, the Director of Nursing #1 stated they had completed the investigation for Resident #31's incident on 12/18/24 and determined staff did not follow the residents care plan. They stated the floor mat was listed as a safety intervention on Resident #31's care plan at the time of the incident on 12/18/24 and should have been in place. They did not know why the floor mat was not in place and stated it could have prevented Resident #31's injuries. Director of Nursing #1 stated nurses, unit managers and themselves were responsible to ensure certified nurse aides were following the care plan. Director of Nursing #1 stated they expected all staff to follow the resident's care plan and ensure safety interventions were in place to avoid any injury. During an interview on 6/27/25 at 9:59 AM, the Administrator stated they expected staff to ensure safety interventions were in place as care planned to protect residents from injury, repeated falls and to keep residents safe. 10 NYCRR 415.12 (h)(2)
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during a Standard survey completed on 6/27/25, the facility did not ensure the residents who had an indwelling (foley) catheter (tube inser...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during a Standard survey completed on 6/27/25, the facility did not ensure the residents who had an indwelling (foley) catheter (tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine) received the appropriate care and services to manage catheters for one (1) (Resident #3) of two (2) residents reviewed. Specifically, staff did not perform hand hygiene or glove change after incontinent care prior to emptying of the resident's indwelling catheter drainage bag and staff did not cleanse the spigot of the indwelling catheter drainage bag prior to or after emptying. The finding is: The policy titled Incontinent/Perineal Care Procedure review dated 6/2024 documented to wash, rinse and dry rectal area using a clean section of the cloth with each wipe moving from front to back. Apply protective ointment to perianal area if indicated. The policy documented to remove under pad, gloves and wash hands. The policy titled Indwelling Catheter Care dated March 2024 documented the purpose of indwelling catheter care was to help prevent catheter associated urinary tract infection from indwelling catheters. The policy documented that after perineal care was completed remove the dirty gloves and perform hand hygiene. Secure the drainage bag in a privacy bag, reposition the resident as needed, clean the bedside table and perform hand hygiene. Resident #3 had diagnoses including obstructive uropathy (blockage in the urinary system), retention of urine and encounter for palliative care. The Minimum Data Set (a resident assessment tool) dated 5/2/24 documented Resident #3 was cognitively intact, was understood and understands. The assessment tool documented Resident #3 had an indwelling catheter and was receiving hospice care. The comprehensive care plan dated 4/24/24 documented Resident #3 had an indwelling catheter related to a terminal condition. Interventions included to monitor and documented intake and output, monitor for pain/discomfort due to catheter and monitor/record/report to medical provider any signs and symptoms of a urinary tract infection. Interventions included that resident had an indwelling catheter; provide resident and family with education; and support and encourage resident to participation in daily activities. The Kardex (a resident's guide to care) dated 6/27/25 documented to monitor Resident #3 for pain or discomfort due to the catheter. Review of the Order Recap Report dated 6/27/25 documented Resident #3 had a medical provider order dated: -4/24/25 Maintain Foley catheter (16 French 10 cubic centimeters balloon) to gravity drainage every day and night shift of uropathy. Must maintain drainage. During an incontinent care/foley catheter care observation at 6/25/25 at 11:03 AM, Resident #3 was in bed and their indwelling catheter drainage bag was hanging off of the bed frame inside of a privacy bag. The tubing appeared to be cloudy and the urine inside of the bag was a dark amber color. Certified Nurse Aide #5, with the rolling assistance from Certified Nurse Aide #4 provided incontinent care to Resident #3. Prior to care, both staff members performed hand hygiene and donned (put on) clean gloves and a gown. Resident #3's brief was opened and as Resident #3 was rolled on to their side it was observed the resident was incontinent of stool. Certified Nurse Aide #5 washed, rinsed and dried Resident #3 rectum and buttocks area, changed their brief and incontinent pad. Certified Nurse Aide #5 did not doff (take of) their gloves or perform hand hygiene. After Resident #3 was repositioned, Certified Nurse Aide #5 then placed a clean barrier on the floor, removed the spigot from the resident's catheter bag, emptied the resident's urine into a cylinder, replaced the spigot and disposed of the urine into the toilet. Certified Nurse Aide #5 did not cleanse the spigot prior to or after emptying the urine. Certified Nurse Aide #5 then proceeded to touch Resident #3's tray table to place it closer to the resident and moved the resident plastic cup still wearing the same gloves. Certified Nurse Aide #5 never changed their gloves nor performed hand hygiene during to entire observation until all of the above actions were completed. An interview was conducted with Certified Nurse Aide #4 and Certified Nurse Aide #5 on 6/25/25 at 11:15 AM after care was completed. Certified Nurse Aide #5 stated that Resident #3 was incontinent of a small amount of stool when they provided care. They stated after care was completed, they were to doff gloves and perform hand hygiene. Certified Nurse Aide #5 stated they should have removed their gloves and washed their hands prior to emptying of Resident #3 catheter bag but they just forgot. Certified Nurse Aide #5 stated they did not cleanse the spigot of the catheter bag with alcohol nor change their gloves or wash their hands after emptying of Resident #5 foley bag prior to toughing Resident #3 table and cup. They stated hand washing and glove changes were important for infection control and to prevent germs from entering Resident #3 bladder that could cause a urinary tract infection. Certified Nurse Aide #4 stated agreement with Certified Nurse Aide #5's interview. During an interview on 6/27/25 at 8:33 AM, the Infection Preventionist stated they would expect staff to change gloves and wash their hands in between different processes, such as going from incontinent care to emptying an indwelling catheter bag. They stated Certified Nurse Aide #5 could have introduced an infection to Resident #3 when they did not change their gloves between peri care and foley catheter care. The Infection Preventionist stated they were usure if the nursing staff needed to clean the foley catheter spigot prior to and after emptying the foley bag but stated that it wouldn't hurt anything if they did. During an interview on 6/27/25 at 10:35 AM, the Medical Director stated they facility should have had protocol for indwelling catheter care, and they should have followed it for Resident #3. During an interview on 6/27/25 at 11:41 AM, Registered Nurse #2, Unit Manager, stated they expected staff to change their gloves and wash their hands after incontinent care was completed and prior to emptying of a foley bag. Registered Nurse #2 stated by Certified Nurse Aide #5 not changing their gloves nor performing hand hygiene they could have possibly introduced feces to everything they touched, including Resident #3. Registered Nurse #2 stated that they would have expected Certified Nurse Aide #5 to clean Resident #3 spigot with an alcohol pad prior to and after they emptied, they foley bag for infection purposes. During an interview on 6/27/25 at 12:54 PM, the Director of Nursing #1 stated Certified Nurse Aide #5 should have changed their gloves after providing incontinent care to Resident #3 prior to emptying the residents indwelling catheter bag so they were not spreading any germs or filth everywhere, such as to the resident's catheter tubing, table and cups. The Director of Nursing #1 stated their expectation would be staff in the facility should have cleansed the spigot of the foley catheter bag with an alcohol pad prior to and after emptying of the bag to make sure it was not dirty. They Director of Nursing #1 stated they did not have any facility policies for emptying an indwelling catheter bag nor monthly indwelling catheter care, such as changing of the catheter. 10NYCRR 415.12(d)(1)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during a Standard Survey completed on 6/27/25, the facility did not provide separately locked, permanently affixed compartments for the sto...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during a Standard Survey completed on 6/27/25, the facility did not provide separately locked, permanently affixed compartments for the storage of controlled drugs for one (1) of one (1) medication rooms observed. Specifically, controlled drugs (medications that have an accepted medical use that have a potential for abuse) were stored in a double locked metal box located inside a small refrigerator that was not permanently affixed. This involved Resident #3. The finding is: The policy titled Controlled Medications, revised on 3/15/23, documented the Director of Nursing and the Consultant Pharmacist maintained the facility's compliance with the federal and state laws and regulations in the handling of controlled substances. All controlled substances would be stored in a double locked cabinet affixed to a wall in the medication room or at the nurse's station. There was nothing specific in the policy regarding refrigerators housing narcotics in the facility. During an interview and observation of the medication room on 6/25/25 at 8:03 AM, a small black medication refrigerator was sitting on the counter, it was not secured to the counter or the wall. Licensed Practical Nurse #1 opened the medication refrigerator and inside was a metal lock box that was permanently affixed to the glass shelf inside of the refrigerator. Licensed Practical Nurse #1 was able to freely move the refrigerator on the countertop and stated they were unaware if the refrigerator was supposed to be permanently affixed. Licensed Practical Nurse #1 stated the metal lock box inside of the refrigerator required two keys to open it, and Registered Nurse #3 had the keys for the metal lock box, so they were unsure if there were any medications or narcotics in the metal lock box at that time. During an observation and interview on 6/25/25 at 8:55 AM, Registered Nurse #3 stated they had the keys for the metal lock box located inside the refrigerator in the medication room and there was liquid Lorazepam (a controlled substance and antianxiety/anti-seizure medication) for Resident #3 in the metal lock box. Registered Nurse #3 opened the metal lock box inside the refrigerator in the medication room with two separate keys and removed a box containing one opened 30 milliliter bottle of liquid Lorazepam for Resident #3. Registered Nurse #3 was able to freely move the refrigerator and stated the metal lock box in the refrigerator was affixed to the shelf, but the refrigerator was not permanently affixed to any countertop or wall and was unsure if it was supposed to be. During an interview on 6/25/25 at 11:20 AM, Skilled Maintenance Worker #1 stated the proper protocol for the refrigerator in a medication room that stored narcotics was that it should have two locks and be permanently affixed to the countertop. Skilled Maintenance Worker #1 stated they had not been in the medication room really ever so they were unaware the refrigerator was not permanently affixed to the countertop and no one had ever told them or requested to have it be affixed. During an interview on 6/25/25 at 11:21 AM, Director of Nursing #1 stated there were two locks on the metal lock box located inside the narcotic refrigerator, but they were unaware that the refrigerator was not permanently affixed to the countertop or that it should be. Director of Nursing #1 stated the refrigerator was purchased in April of last year, so it must not have been affixed when it was put in the medication room. Director of Nursing #1 stated it was important to ensure it was permanently affixed to avoid diversions. During a telephone interview on 6/27/25 at 9:02 AM, the Pharmacy Consultant stated they came into the facility once a month and performed storage audits which were then presented at the facility's monthly QAPI (quality assurance and improvement) meeting. The Pharmacy Consultant stated the regulation was that the narcotic refrigerator was to be permanently affixed to the wall or tethered to the countertop and they performed an audit of the medication room in April of 2025 and did not look to see if the refrigerator was permanently affixed to any surface. Pharmacy Consultant stated maintenance could affix the refrigerator, and could not say what could happen if the refrigerator was not permanently affixed. During an interview on 6/27/25 at 11:10 AM, the Administrator stated the regulation was that the refrigerator that housed narcotics should be double locked and permanently affixed to a countertop. The Administrator stated they were unaware the refrigerator was not permanently affixed to the counter when it was replaced in April of 2024, but it should have been. The Administrator stated the Pharmacy Consultant did audits of the medication room, and the refrigerator being affixed would be something they look for, and they would have expected them to notice and report it to someone because that was a high risk for diversion. 10NYCRR 415.18 (e)(2)
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted a Standard survey completed on 6/27/25, the facility did not conduc...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted a Standard survey completed on 6/27/25, the facility did not conduct an annual review of or maintain an infection prevention and control program to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for two (2) (Residents #3 and #4) of two (2) residents reviewed for enhanced barrier precautions (interventions designed to reduce transmission of multi-drug-resistant organisms including gown and glove use during high contact resident care activities) and one (1) of one (1) facility legionella program. Specifically, staff did not wear appropriate personal protective equipment during wound care (Resident #4) and Resident #3 did not have enhanced barrier precaution signage posted on their door when they had an indwelling catheter (tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine). Additionally, the Legionella Water Management Plan, Legionella Risk Assessment, and Legionella policy and procedure were not reviewed or revised annually. The findings are: The policy titled Guidelines for Enhanced Barrier Precautions dated 4/24 documented all employees must follow the enhanced barrier precautions during high contact care activities for residents with chronic wounds or indwelling medical devices. The purpose was to reduce transmission of multidrug resistant organisms to other residents, staff, community and the environment. The policy documented that each resident room that was on enhanced barrier precautions would have personal protective equipment readily available and appropriate discreet signage outside their door. Review of the Enhanced Barrier Precaution signage (a sign used by the facility that was posted outside a resident's door to indicate they required enhanced barrier precautions) documented that providers and staff must wear gloves and a gown for the following high-contact resident care activities: device care or use: central line, urinary catheter, feeding tube, tracheostomy, and wound care (any skin opening requiring a dressing). 1. Resident #4 had diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; breathing disorder), neuropathy (nerve pain), and peripheral vascular disease (narrow blood vessels cause restricted blood flow). The Minimum Data Set (a resident assessment tool) dated 4/27/25 documented Resident #4 was cognitively intact, required a substantial/ maximal assist of one staff member for bed mobility, and had one (1) venous/arterial ulcer that required the application of ointments/medications and nonsurgical dressings. The comprehensive care plan dated 7/4/24 documented Resident #4 had non pressure ulcers in scar tissue with a history of MRSA (methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus; bacterial infection) and osteomyelitis (bone infection) with interventions including to administer treatments as ordered and maintain universal precautions when providing resident care. Review of the Kardex (a resident's guide to care) dated 6/26/25 documented Resident #4 required enhanced barrier precautions for wounds. Review of a wound evaluation dated 6/25/25 at 10:25 AM, Registered Nurse #2 Unit Manager documented Resident #4 had a wound to the right trochanter (hip) measuring 6.2 centimeters by 1.8 centimeters with slough (dead tissue) present and a moderate amount of serosanguineous (fluid that contains blood and serum) drainage. Review of medication review report dated 6/26/25 revealed an active physician order to cleanse Resident #4's right hip wound with wound cleanser, pat dry, apply a nickel thick layer of Santyl (debriding medicated ointment), cover with Aquacel dressing (creates moist wound healing environment and provides antimicrobial activity), cover with a dressing every day shift (6:00 AM - 2:00 PM) on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. During an observation on 6/25/25 at 8:51 AM, an Enhanced Barrier Precaution sign was posted on the door to Resident #4s room. The sign instructed staff to wash their hands and wear gloves and a gown during high-contact resident care including but not limited to wound care: any skin opening requiring a dressing. A bin with personal protective equipment next to Resident #4s room door included gloves and gowns. During an observation on 6/25/25 at 10:57 AM, Registered Nurse #3 entered Resident #4s room with supplies in hand, set them down on a clean barrier next to the resident's bed. They performed hand hygiene then applied gloves. Registered Nurse #3 cleansed Resident #4s right hip wound, patted dry with clean gauze, applied a nickel thick amount of Santyl to the wound bed, then a small amount of Aquacel, then covered the wound with an adhesive dressing. Registered Nurse #3 did not wear a gown during the direct hands-on care. During an interview on 6/25/25 at 11:03 AM, Registered Nurse #3 stated they were unsure of what exactly enhanced barrier precautions entailed. They walked over to Resident #4s room and reviewed the enhanced barrier precaution signage on the door and then stated they should have been wearing a gown while completing the treatment to Resident #4s right hip, it was important to ensure infections were not spread. During an interview on 6/25/25 at 11:18 AM, Director of Nursing #1 stated Registered Nurse #3 should have worn a gown and gloves while completing the treatment to Resident #4s wound, they should have been applied prior to entering the room and removed prior to leaving the room. Director of Nursing #1 stated it was important that all staff wore appropriate personal protective equipment when caring for residents on enhanced barrier, and all different precautions. During an interview on 6/26/25 at 1:21 PM, Registered Nurse #2 Unit Manager stated when they removed the dressing from Resident #4s right hip prior to their shower on 6/25/25, the dressing had a moderate amount of serosanguineous drainage on it. Registered Nurse #2 stated Resident #4 was on enhanced barrier precautions, and they expected all staff to wear a gown and gloves when providing any hands on care, including wound dressing changes; they stated Registered Nurse #3 should have worn a gown and gloves when they completed Resident #4s treatment, it was important for infection control, did not want to spread any bacteria to and from other people. During an interview on 6/27/25 at 8:50 AM, the Infection Preventionist stated they expected staff to wash their hands, then apply a gown and gloves prior to entering a resident's room that was on enhanced barrier precautions if they planned on providing hands on care. Infection Preventionist stated Registered Nurse #3 should have applied a gown and gloves prior to providing the wound treatment to Resident #4, to protect the resident. 2. Resident #3 had diagnoses including obstructive uropathy (blockage of the urinary system), retention of urine and encounter for palliative care. The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented Resident #3 was cognitively intact, understood and understand. The assessment tool documented Resident #3 had an indwelling catheter and was receiving hospice care. The comprehensive care plan dated 4/24/24 documented Resident #3 had an indwelling catheter related to terminal condition. Resident #3 required enhanced barrier precautions per the Center for Disease Control and Prevention/New York State Department of Health. Interventions included that resident had an indwelling catheter; provide resident and family with education. The Kardex dated 6/27/25 documented Resident #3 was on enhanced barrier precautions for an indwelling catheter. Review of the Order Recap Report dated 6/27/25 documented Resident #3 had a medical provider order dated 4/25/25 for enhance barrier precautions-Catheter every day and night shift and monitor continued compliance. During intermittent observation on 6/23/25 from 9:39 AM-11:14 AM, 6/24/25 at 8:47 AM-1:03 PM, and 6/25/25 8:44 AM-11:03 AM Resident #3 was in bed with their foley catheter in a privacy bag hanging from the bed frame. There was no enhanced barrier precaution signage on or near the resident's door or doorway. During an interview on 6/27/25 at 8:33 AM, the Infection Preventionist stated any nursing staff can initiate a resident on enhance barrier precautions. They stated staff were aware of a resident being on enhanced barrier precautions by getting morning report and there would be signage on the resident's door. The Infection Preventionist stated Resident #3 had a foley catheter which required them to be on enhance barrier precautions. They stated they were unaware that Resident #3 did not have enhanced barrier precautions signage on their door, but they should have. The Infection Preventionist stated the reason a resident needed to be on enhanced barrier precautions was to protect the resident from us. During an interview on 6/26/25 at 9:25 AM, the Certified Nurse Aide #4 stated the purpose of enhance barrier precautions were to attempt to hinder the spread of infection. They stated they would know if a resident was on enhanced barrier precautions because there would be a sign on the resident's door with personal protective equipment bins. They stated they could not recall if Resident #3 had signage on their door, but they knew they needed to wear a gown and gloves when providing care because the resident had a foley catheter. During an interview on 6/27/25 at 11:41 AM, Registered Nurse #2, Unit Manager stated staff knew how to identify if a resident was on enhanced barrier precautions by signage on the resident's door. They stated any staff member can initiate enhance barrier precautions on a resident. Registered Nurse #2 stated Resident #3 was to be on enhanced barrier precautions because they had a foley catheter. They stated they placed signage and a personal protective equipment holder on Resident #3s door on 6/25/25. Registered Nurse #2 stated they were unsure why Resident #3 did not have signage on their door prior to 6/23/25 but should have. During an interview on 6/27/25 at 12:54 PM, the Director of Nursing stated that Resident #3 should have had an enhance barrier precaution signage on their door and it was an oversight that Resident #3 did not have one. 3.Review of the facility's collection of Legionella documents revealed it contained the following documents: -Document titled Table of Reviews and Revisions, with the most recent entry dated 8/22/23 by the former Maintenance Manager -Facility policy and procedure titled Legionella Policy, reviewed/ revised 1/23, initiated by the Director of Support Services and approved by the Chief Executive Officer -Document titled Legionnaires Disease Manual, reviewed/ revised by the former Maintenance Manager 8/22/23 -Form DOH (Department of Health)-5222, Environmental Assessment of Water Systems in Healthcare Settings, dated 3/17/23, completed by the former Maintenance Manager -Document titled Sampling and Management Plan for Healthcare Facilities: Guidance and Template, effective date 4/1/18, completed by the former Administrator and the former Maintenance Manager During an interview on 6/25/25 at 3:03 PM, Skilled Maintenance Worker #1 stated the Maintenance Manager had been on leave since March 2025 and they had been doing most of the Maintenance Manager's tasks since then. Skilled Maintenance Worker #1 stated they ensured that the annual Legionella water testing was completed, but they were not told to perform an annual review the facility's Legionella documents. During an interview on 6/25/25 at 3:45 PM, the Director of Support Services stated the Maintenance Manager had a role in reviewing Legionella documents annually, but currently, the facility was in a state of transition with the Maintenance Manager position. The Director of Support Services also stated they personally oversaw the maintenance department, and they were responsible to do the annual review along with the Administrator and the Environmental Facilities Coordinator. 10NYCRR 415.19 (a)(2) NYCRR Title 10 4-2 4-2.3(b) 4-2.4(c)
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0582 (Tag F0582)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review conducted during the Standard survey completed on 6/27/25, the facility did not provide the...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review conducted during the Standard survey completed on 6/27/25, the facility did not provide the liability and appeal notices to Medicare beneficiaries at the termination of Medicare coverage in the appropriate time frame for two (2) (Residents #30 and #94) of six (6) residents reviewed. Specifically, the facility did not provide a Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) to the residents who were being discharge from the facility two days prior to their last covered Medicare day.The findings are:The facility policy titled Medicare Non-Coverage Letters revised on May 2018, documented the purpose of the letter was to inform any resident with Medicare coverage that coverage days will be ending or not utilized due to determination of non-coverage, discharge from the facility or exhaustion of benefits. In the case the beneficiary was discharged with Medicare days remaining they would be provided with the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC CMS-10123). The policy documented the notice would be issued no later than two days prior to discharge or termination of services, unless discharge was by patient request. 1.Resident #30 was admitted to the facility under Medicare Part A services with diagnoses including surgical after care, complication of internal left hip prosthesis and hypertension. The Minimum Data Set (resident assessment tool) dated 5/9/25 documented Resident #30 had a planned discharge.Review of the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC-10123) letter documented Resident #30's current Medicare skilled nursing services would end 5/8/25. In the additional information section on the letter the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator documented they spoke with Resident #30 regarding their Medicare coverage for skilled services ending on 5/8/25 due to the resident was being discharged from the facility on 5/9/25. Resident #30 signed the letter on 5/7/25. This would only be one day prior to the end of the last covered Medicare day. 2. Resident #94 was admitted to the facility under Medicare Part A services with diagnoses including cholecystitis (inflammation of the gallbladder), diabetes mellites type 2 and hypertension. The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented Resident #94 had a planned discharge.Review of the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC-10123) letter documented Resident #94's current Medicare skilled nursing services would end 5/29/25. In the additional information section on the letter the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator documented they spoke with Resident #94 regarding their Medicare coverage for skilled services ending on 5/29/25 due to the resident was being discharged from the facility on 5/30/25. Resident #94 signed the letter on 5/28/25. This would only be one day prior to the end of the last covered Medicare day. During an interview on 6/24/25 at 10:59 AM, the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator stated the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) letters needed to be given to the resident/resident representative two days prior to a resident's last covered Medicare day. They stated this was so the resident had time to appeal the ending of coverage if they chose to. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator stated if the resident was going home, they would always give the resident the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) letter two days prior to the discharge date . The Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator stated they gave Resident #30 the letter on 5/7/25 and the resident was discharged on 5/9/25. They stated they gave Resident #94 the letter on 5/28/25 and they were discharged from the facility on 5/30/25. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator stated the facility did not bill the day of discharge and then stated Resident #30 and Resident #94 Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) letters were not given in the proper time frame. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator stated technically Resident #30, and Resident #94 were given the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) only one day prior to the end of Medicare coverage. They stated they were unsure why they used a different time frame from residents that remained in the building and historically that was the way it always done.During an interview on 6/27/25 at 1:38 PM, the Administrator stated the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator was responsible to issue the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC). The Administrator stated they would expect letters of Medicare Non-coverage would be given to the residents two days prior to the Medicare last covered date. The Administrator stated there was a misunderstanding with the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) letters and the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator was giving them to the resident who were to be discharge from the facility a day too late. 10NYCRR 415.3(h)(2)(iv)
Dec 2023 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during a Complaint investigation (#NY00305814) during the Standard ...

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 (#NY00305814) during the Standard survey completed on 12/13/2023, the facility did not ensure that each resident receives adequate supervision for one (Resident #42) of one resident reviewed for elopement. Specifically, Resident #42 who was a risk for elopement, eloped from the facility without staff's knowledge and was found outside the facility by an unidentified individual in the back parking lot attempting to open car doors and was brought to the emergency room on [DATE]. The finding is: The policy and procedure titled Missing Resident revised 6/22/2020, documented the purpose was to assure the safety and security of all residents, and to train and maintain staff awareness of the importance of resident safety and security. The policy and procedure titled Elopement revised 6/22/2020, documented a safe environment is to be provided for residents who are at risk to wander and have potential for elopement. The policy and procedure titled Wanderguard System Policy and Procedure revised 10/13/2023, If the resident removes or will not tolerate bracelet, as a last resort the wander guard device may be applied to their wheelchair. The policy documented, wander guard device will be placed on residents that trigger as high risk for elopement and/or exhibit exit seeking behaviors and to ensure the safety and whereabouts of residents who are high risk for elopement. 1. Resident #42 had diagnoses including unspecified dementia, essential hypertension (high blood pressure), and occlusion and stenosis of left carotid artery (narrowing of the artery in neck). The Minimum Data Set (a resident assessment tool) dated 9/7/22 documented Resident #42 was severely cognitively impaired was ambulatory and exhibited no wandering behaviors. The comprehensive care plan revised 3/23/22 documented Resident #42 was an elopement risk/wanderer related history of attempts to leave facility. Interventions included: assess for fall risk, distract resident from wandering by offering pleasant diversions, structured activities, food, conversation, television, book. Provide structured activities: toileting, walking inside, reorientation strategies including signs, pictures, and memory boxes. Wander alert: left ankle device #08118. The progress notes dated 11/20/22 at 8:16 PM, documented a call was received from a Physician's Assistant from the emergency room department (Hospital based nursing home) at approximately 8:00 PM, that Resident # 42 was brought to emergency room by someone whom they found wandering around back parking lot attempting to get into people's cars. Review of the facility investigations staff statement, titled Resident Elopement 11/21/22 revealed that Maintenance Manager #1 documented they traced it back to the wander guard system. Upon checking the system, it was found that above the ceiling tile a sensor was unplugged from the control unit. The service area wander guard was not operational at that time. Review of the facility investigations staff statement dated 11/20/22 revealed Certified Nurse Aide #1 documented they were in the television room at 5:30 PM, Resident #42 was there eating, and they did not see the resident after that. Review of the facility investigations staff statement dated 11/20/22 revealed Certified Nurse Aide #2 documented Resident #42 was in television room for supper, then put in stationary chair by the desk (nurses' station) at 6:15 PM. Review of accuweather.com on 12/11/23 at 10:00 AM the temperature for 11/20/23 was a high temperature was 21 degrees, and the lowest temperature was 16 degrees. During an interview on 12/11/23 at 10:17 AM, Chief Nursing Officer #1 stated they were the Supervising Administrator from dates 11/14/22 to 3/20/23 over the Interim Administrator for those dates. They stated that they submitted the report for the elopement of Resident #42. Chief Nursing Officer #1 stated they recalled Resident #42 was found outside the facility in the back parking lot. Someone found the resident and took them to the emergency room. They stated the alarm system on a door was not working. Chief Nursing Officer #1 stated they expected that all alarm doors were checked and functioning. During interview on 12/11/23 at 12:32 PM, Chief Nursing Officer #1 stated Resident #42 left out the back hallway. They and the Director of Support Services #1 investigated the back hallway the next morning on 11/21/22, and noticed the light was out on the wander guard keypad on the wall. Chief Nursing officer #1 stated the Maintenance Manager #1 traced the wander guard system and climbed up through ceiling and found the cord unplugged, and therefore the alarm system was not functioning. Review of the manufacturer's manual titled Roam Alert wander Prevention (installation and user guide) documented the access keypad would have a solid yellow light to indicate system was on. During an interview on 12/11/23 at 12:39 PM, Maintenance Manager #1 stated the wander guard alarm system did not sound. The alarm should have sounded once the wander guard device passed through service door. During an observation at this time revealed the hallway beyond the service door that Resident #42 walked through was 72 feet long, and another eight feet down and four stairs to outside door. During an interview on 12/11/23 at 12:45 PM, Chief Financial Officer #1 (Supervising Administrator at the time of the elopement) stated they did not have the video recording from 11/20/22, as it was not saved. During an interview on 12/11/23 at 1:22 PM, Maintenance Manager #1 stated the wander guards were to be checked for functionality nightly by nursing. If a resident gets past the doors, the system alarms, but the doors do not lock down. During a telephone interview on 12/11/23 at 1:49 PM, Director of Nursing #2 stated they were notified that evening when Resident #42 was found outside of the facility in the parking lot and brought to the emergency room. They stated they did not view the [NAME] footage. Director of Nursing #2 stated if Resident #42 was known to be missing the staff should have checked all the doors, checked outside, checked the wander guard devices and checked the camaras. They stated they were not sure if nursing checked the alarms on the doors, and there was no documentation of the doors being checked. During a telephone interview on 12/11/23 at 2:54 PM, Administrator #2 (Administrator at the time of the elopment) stated Resident #42 eloped through back door and was found by an unidentified person and was taken to the emergency room. They stated they watched the video footage from 11/20/22 on 11/21/22 in the morning and stated the observed Resident #42 outside for five to eight minutes were wearing what looked like pajamas. During a telephone interview on 12/12/23 at 8:10 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse #1 stated they worked night shift, and they checked the watchmate wander guard device on all residents to the pocket tag reader. They stated they do not check the wander guard system on the doors with the device and was never instructed to. During an interview on 12/12/23 at 10:14 AM, Administrator #1 (current) stated they expected the wander guard alarm system to function appropriately at all times. 10NYCRR 415.2 (h)(1)(2)
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, record review, and interview conducted during Complaint investigation (Complaint #NY00305814) during the Standard survey completed on 12/13/23, the facility did not ensure that t...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview conducted during Complaint investigation (Complaint #NY00305814) during the Standard survey completed on 12/13/23, the facility did not ensure that the Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) Committee developed and implemented appropriate plans of action to correct identified quality deficiencies and regularly reviewed, analyzed, and acted on available data to make improvements. Specifically, the Quality Assessment and Assurance Committee identified an issue with the wander guard door alarm system on 11/21/22 related to a residents elopement on 11/20/22. The facility's corrective action plan to complete weekly audits for 6 months, and then monthly to ensure the functioning of the wander guard alarms on all facility doors was not initiated and completed as planned. The findings are: Refer to F 689 -Free of Accident Hazards/Supervision/Devices. The policy and procedure titled; Quality Assurance Performance Improvement dated 3/2017 documented, the facility's purpose is to provide excellent quality resident care and services that meet or exceed the needs, expectations and requirements of the residents. The facility has a Performance Improvement Program which systematically monitors, analyzes and improves its performance to improve resident outcomes. The Quality Assurance Performance Improvement plan includes the policies and procedures used to identify and use data to monitor our performances, establish goals and thresholds for our performance measurements, identify and prioritize problems and opportunities for improvement, systematically analyze underlying causes of systemic problems and adverse events and develop corrective action or performance improvement activities. The Quality Assurance Performance Improvement Committee monitors the process to ensure that interventions or actions are implemented and effective in making and sustaining improvements. Review of a facility submitted Complaint #NY00305814 summary completed by the Director of Nursing Registered Nurse #2 documented that Resident #42 was evaluated at the emergency room for exposure after being located in the parking lot on 11/20/22 at 7:30 PM. Facility staff watched the video camera footage on 11/21/22 at 7:00 AM, and Resident #42 was observed to exit through the service door entrance. The wander guard alarm at service door entrance was not functioning. The Maintenance Department was called and fixed the issue immediately. A meeting was held with Maintenance and the Administrator. QA (Quality Assurance) to be completed weekly for 6 months and then monthly to ensure functioning of the wander guard alarms on all facility doors. Review of the Quality Assurance - Minutes provided by the Administrator dated 12/23/2022 documented: Reportable Incidents 11/21/22 - Elopement. There was no documented evidence of a discussion, plan or recommendations related to the failed wander guard door alarm system as identified by the facility and contributed to Resident #42 elopement on 11/20/22. Review of facility monthly Quality Assurance - Minutes provided by the Administrator dated January 2023 through October 2023 revealed there was no documented evidence of a discussion, plan or recommendations related to the failed wander guard door alarm system identified by the facility and contributed to Resident #42 elopement on 11/20/22. During an interview on 12/11/23 at 1:19 PM, Maintenance Manager #1 stated there were wander guard alarm systems on the front lobby door, service entrance door and exit door near the family room on the first floor. Maintenance Manager #1 stated they identified the wander guard system was unplugged and failed to sound the alarm when Resident #42 walked through the service entrance door, down the hall and out of the building. Maintenance Manager #1 stated they were not aware the Quality Assurance correction plan was to have the wander guard door alarms at the exit doors audited, and if audits were to be done, they believed the nursing department would have been responsible to check the functioning of the doors. During an interview on 12/11/23 at 1:50 PM, Registered Nurse (RN #2) stated they were the Director of Nursing from 10/30/22 to 1/1/23 when Resident #42 eloped. The Director of Nursing (RN #2) stated they believed that they had informed maintenance personnel to audit the wander guard door alarm system after the elopement incident on 11/20/22 at which time they identified the alarm system was not functioning. Director of Nursing (RN #2) stated they do not know whom they had spoken too and does not have any documented evidence the plan was provided to the maintenance personnel. During an interview on 12/12/23 at 9:09 AM, Registered Nurse Unit Manager #1 stated nursing personnel do not audit the wander guard door alarms and believed the maintenance department would be responsible for the functioning and monitoring. During an interview on 12/12/23 at 1:17 PM, Inservice Educator Licensed Practical Nurse #2 stated they usually attend QA (Quality Assurance) meetings but was absent from the December 2022 and January 2023 meetings. Licensed Practical Nurse #2 stated they were not aware of a recommendation for the wander guard door alarms to be audited. Inservice Educator Licensed Practical Nurse #2 stated they had not educated any staff member on testing or auditing the wander guard door alarms. During an interview on 12/13/23 at 9:33 AM, Chief Finance Officer (CFO) #1 stated they were the Supervising Administrator 11/14/22 through 3/19/23 and recalled the Quality Assurance Committee determined the maintenance department would complete audits on the wander guard door alarms to ensure they were functioning. Chief Finance Officer #1 stated they do not have any evidence the audits were completed and expected Administrator #2 to have ensured the audits were done, and the Quality Assurance Committee to have identified the audits were not being completed. During an interview on 12/13/23 at 11:53 AM, The Environmental/Facility Coordinator #1 stated they were not aware the maintenance department was to audit the wander guard door alarms and expected to have been informed if the maintenance department were to complete the audits. Additionally, they stated they attended Quality Assurance Meetings and had not provided any information concerning wander guard door alarms to the committee. During an interview on 12/13/23 at 12:02 PM, Administrator #2 stated they were the Interim Administrator 11/14/22 through 3/19/23 and 9/23/23 through 11/7/23. Administrator #2 stated they recalled a meeting with the Director of Nursing (Registered Nurse #2) and the Environmental/Facility Coordinator #1, and believed they discussed the maintenance department were to complete audits weekly for 6 months and then monthly to ensure the wander guard door alarms were functioning. Administrator #2 stated they had not followed up with maintenance to ensure the audits were being completed and that the wander guard door alarms were functioning appropriately. Administrator #2 stated they were ultimately responsible to ensure the audits were completed and appropriate follow-up was done. During an interview on 12/13/23 at 12:58 PM, Director of Nursing (current) #1 stated the nursing department did not completed audits on the wander guard door alarms and was unaware of the Quality Assurance recommendations from 11/21/22. Director of Nursing #1 stated they attended the Quality Assurance meetings and was not aware of any Quality Assurance activity, analysis or action plan concerning the wander guard door alarms since their start of employment 1/30/23. During an interview on 12/13/23 at 1:05 PM, Administrator (current) #1 stated they were unaware of the Quality Assurance recommendations from 11/21/22 and would have expected the Quality Assurance recommendations to have been followed and the Quality Assurance Committee to have had discussion about the wander guard system. Administrator #1 stated they had no evidence the recommendations were followed or the committee reviewed the activity, analyzed, and completed an action plan for the identified concern regarding the failed wander guard door alarm to ensure the safety of the residents. 415.27 (a,c)(3)(iv,v)(c)(4)
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the Standard survey completed on 12/13/23, the facility did not post on a daily basis the staff total number and the actual hours wo...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the Standard survey completed on 12/13/23, the facility did not post on a daily basis the staff total number and the actual hours worked by the following categories of licensed and unlicensed nursing staff directly responsible for resident care per shift. Specifically, the facility's posted Report of Nursing Staff Directly Responsible for Resident Care form did not include the total number of licensed and unlicensed nursing staff directly responsible for resident care for each shift. The finding is: During observations on 12/7/23 at 3:15 PM, and 12/12/23 at 1:33 PM, the Report of Nursing Staff Directly Responsible for Resident Care form posted by the facility documented the total hours worked by Certified Nurse Aides (CNA), Licensed Practical Nurses (LPN), and Registered Nurses (RN) for each shift. The total number for staff for each category and shift were not documented on the form. During an interview on 12/12/23 at 2:55 PM, the Administrative Assistant stated they were responsible for completing the daily posted staffing form. The Administrative Assistant stated the form was posted so people know how much staff was in the building. The Administrative Assistant stated the form never included the total number of staff that were in the building, since they started completing the form years ago. The Administrative Assistant stated they only filled in the hours for CNAs, LPNs, and RNs per shift, because that was how they were taught to complete the form by a prior Director of Nursing and Administrator. During an interview on 12/12/23 at 3:40 PM, the Administrator stated they expected the daily posted staffing form to include the total number of certified nursing assistants (CNAs), Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs), and Registered Nurses (RNs), not just the hours of each category. The Administrator stated a new form was needed at the facility. The Administrator stated it would be easier for visitors and family members to know how many of each staff were in the building if the total number was listed on the form. During an interview on 12/13/23 at 12:53 PM, the Administrator stated they were unable to find a policy and procedure for the daily posted staffing and they were in the process of updating the form. 10NYCRR 415.13
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0836 (Tag F0836)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review during the Standard survey completed on 12/13/23, the facility did not operate and provide services in compliance with all applicable Federal, State,...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review during the Standard survey completed on 12/13/23, the facility did not operate and provide services in compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and codes. Specifically, the facility was not in compliance with Section 915 of the 2020 Fire Code of New York State, which requires carbon monoxide detection in all rooms and sleeping areas with fuel-burning appliances, and on-going preventative maintenance of carbon monoxide detectors. This affected one (First floor) of one resident use floor and one of one Basement. The findings are: According to the 2020 Fire Code of New York State, patient rooms in nursing homes are defined as sleeping units. In residential and commercial buildings that contain a fuel burning appliance, carbon monoxide detection shall be installed in all rooms, occupiable space, dwelling units, sleeping areas, and sleeping units that contain a fuel-burning appliance. Additionally, the 2020 Fire Code of New York State stated carbon monoxide detectors shall be maintained in good working order in accordance with Section 915 of this code, National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 720 (Standard for the Installation of Carbon Monoxide Detection and Warning Equipment), and the manufacturer's instructions/recommendations. The Carbon Monoxide Alarm User Guide documented to keep your alarm in good working order, you must follow these steps: Test the alarm once a week by pressing the Test/Reset button. Vacuum the alarm cover once a month to remove accumulated dust. Observations on 12/7/23 between 9:10 AM and 1:45 PM revealed plug-in style carbon monoxide alarms with battery back-up were installed on the First floor on the East and [NAME] Units and in the Basement. Observation on the [NAME] Unit on 12/7/23 at 9:28 AM revealed a plug-in style carbon monoxide alarm with battery back-up was plugged into an electrical outlet in the corridor across from the television lounge. During an interview on 12/7/23 at 9:28 AM, the Maintenance Manager stated the carbon monoxide alarms located on the First floor and the Basement were plug-in style carbon monoxide alarms with battery back-up and all carbon monoxide alarms were the same brand. During an interview on 12/8/23 at 11:48 AM, the Maintenance Manager stated the carbon monoxide alarms located on the First floor and in the Basement were tested monthly and the alarms should be vacuumed monthly. Review of Carbon Monoxide Check Sheet revealed the carbon monoxide alarms on the First floor and the Basement had been checked monthly from 1/2023 through 11/2023. Further review of the check sheets revealed the last time the carbon monoxide alarms had been checked was on 11/24/23. Continue review of the checklist revealed the flowing was documented on the check sheets: light checked on detector and monthly test. The review of the check sheets also revealed they contained no documentation for monthly vacuuming of the carbon monoxide alarms. 42 CFR 483.70(b) 10NYCRR: 415.29(a)(2), 711.2(a)(1) 2020 Fire Code of New York State, Section 915: 915.3.1, 915.6
Apr 2022 2 deficiencies
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 observation, interview, and record review conducted during the Standard survey completed 4/20/22 through 4/26/22, the f...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the Standard survey completed 4/20/22 through 4/26/22, the facility did not ensure that a resident with pressure ulcers received necessary treatment and services for one (Resident #46) of three residents reviewed. Specifically, there was a lack of a pressure ulcer/skin assessment by a qualified individual upon the resident's admission, resulting in a 6-day delay in the initiation of treatments for the pressure ulcers. In addition, the Minimum Data Set (MDS- a resident assessment tool) did not reflect the resident had pressure ulcers. The finding is: The untitled facility policy and procedure (P&P) dated 10/04 documented to prevent skin breakdown: skin inspections were to be completed on all new admissions, readmissions, residents with change in condition and residents with a red or open skin area. The P&P titled RN Assessment dated 4/19 documented the facility will ensure all residents receive a Registered Nurse (RN) assessment upon admission. The RN must perform a head-to-toe assessment and document, or counter sign the admission Evaluation form in the electronic medical record- EMR. Any skin issues and need for immediate intervention need to be documented, and the MD notified immediately. 1. Resident #46 had diagnoses which included anemia, depression, and urinary tract infection (UTI). The Minimum Data Set (MDS- a resident assessment tool) dated 3/31/22 documented Resident #46 was severely cognitively impaired, understood and usually understands. Section M Skin Conditions documented Resident #46 was at risk for the development of pressure ulcers and had no pressure ulcers present on admission. The Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) dated 3/24/22 documented Resident #46 had the potential for decreased skin integrity and included the use of a foam cushion. The hospital History and Physical (H&P) dated 3/22/22 documented diagnoses that included weakness, inability to stand and a sacral decubitus (localized injury to the skin because of pressure). The Admit/Readmit Screener form documented Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 completed the Nursing admission on [DATE]. The form was not co-signed by an RN until the Director of Nurses (DON) signed Section C (skin integrity) of the form on 4/1/22. The DON documented Resident #46 had a stage III pressure ulcer (full thickness skin loss potentially extending into the subcutaneous tissue layer) to the right buttock that measured 5.4 cm (centimeter) x 2.8 cm and an unstageable pressure ulcer (full thickness tissue loss in which the base of the ulcer is covered by slough (soft tan moist dead tissue) and/or eschar (brown or black dead tissue) in the wound bed) on the left buttock that measured 4.8 cm x 3.3 cm. Nursing Progress Notes dated 3/23/22 at 7:09 PM, LPN #1 documented an admission Summary, which revealed Resident #46 had constant pain in the buttock area. The East Unit 24 Hour Reports from 3/23/22 through 3/30/22 documented Resident #46 had open areas to the left and right buttocks, there were no physicians order in place, and that Resident #46 needed an RN assessment. Review of Nursing Progress Notes from 3/23/22 through 3/30/22 revealed there was no documented evidence that a skin assessment was completed by a qualified individual to include type of injury, stage (extent of tissue injury), description of pressure ulcer characteristics, and measurements. Review of the facility's Order Summary Report revealed there were no treatments ordered by the physician to address the pressure ulcers until 3/30/22. Review of the Medication/Treatment Administration Record dated 3/23/22 through 3/30/22 revealed there were no treatments ordered for the pressure ulcers until 3/30/22. The RN weekly wound assessments on 3/30/22 completed by RN #3 Wound Nurse documented that Resident #46 was admitted to the facility with a stage II pressure (partial thickness loss of dermis presenting as a shallow open ulcer without slough) ulcer on the left buttock measuring 1.8 cm x 1.2 cm and a current stage II on the right buttock which measured 0.4 cm x 0.3 cm. During an interview on 4/20/22 at 12:30 PM, Resident #46's spouse stated that Resident #46 developed pressure ulcers on the buttocks prior to coming to the facility and was unaware of the current treatment. During an observation on 4/25/22 at 10:33 AM, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) applied nystatin cream (antifungal cream) mixed with A&D (protective barrier) ointment to the pressure ulcers on Resident #46's left and right buttocks. During an interview on 4/25/22 at 11:00 AM, the ADON stated Resident #46 was admitted to the facility with pressure ulcers, the pressure ulcers were not assessed by an RN, and there were no treatments put into place until 6 days later. LPN #1 should have notified the physician on admission, a treatment should have been ordered and initiated on 3/23/22. During a telephone interview on 4/25/22 at 2:24 PM, LPN #1 stated LPN # 4 completed the skin assessment for Resident #46 on 3/23/22 while they (#1) did the paperwork. LPN #1 stated LPN #4 should have notified them (#1) of any skin issues, so they (#1) could have notified the physician for a treatment order. During a telephone interview on 4/25/22 at 2:42 PM, LPN #4 stated they never completed the skin assessment for Resident #46 on 3/23/22. LPN #4 stated any nurse can look and observe the skin. RNs measured and assessed the wounds. The procedure included calling the hospital RN Supervisor (SNF attached to the hospital) to assess wounds when an RN wasn't available in the facility. During an interview on 4/25/22 at 2:55 PM, LPN #3 Unit Manager stated LPN #1 was the Team Leader and the Admit/Screener Nurse on 3/23/22. LPN #1 was responsible for the admission process which included a head- to- toe assessment, notifying the physician and ensuring treatments were in place. LPN #3 stated there were no treatments ordered or initiated until 3/30/22. During an interview on 4/26/22 at 11:22 AM, RN #3 (Wound Nurse) stated they were responsible for skin rounds on Wednesdays, which included a weekly assessment of wounds. RN #3 stated they were notified on 3/30/22 that Resident #46 required an assessment. LPN #1 was responsible to ensure the skin assessment was completed upon Resident's #46's admission. LPN #1 should have notified the physician for a treatment order instead of waiting 6 days. During an interview on 4/26/22 at 1:29 PM, RN #4 MDS Coordinator stated they reviewed information throughout Resident #46's electronic medical record and completed the MDS dated [DATE]. The medical record had no documentation that reflected Resident #46 had any pressure ulcers. Therefore, they did not code pressure ulcers on the MDS. During an interview on 4/26/22 at 2:20 PM, the DON stated LPN #1 should have assessed Resident #46's skin, informed the ADON the following day, notified the physician, and ensured a treatment was in place. If the wound documentation was timely in the nursing admission and progress notes, then I would expect the MDS coordinator document pressure ulcers on the MDS. 415.12(c)(2)
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0604 (Tag F0604)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the Standard survey completed 4/20/22 through 4/26/22, the f...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the Standard survey completed 4/20/22 through 4/26/22, the facility did not ensure that the resident is free from physical restraints imposed for purposes of discipline or convenience, that are not required to treat the resident's medical symptoms, and when the use of restraints is indicated, the facility must use the least restrictive alternative for the least amount of time and document ongoing re-evaluation of the need for restraints. Specifically, four (Residents #3, 7, 10, and 46) of four residents reviewed had no documented evidence of assessments, initiation or ongoing re-evaluation of continued use of bed and chair alarms (position change alarms). The findings are but not limited to: The facility policy and procedure (P&P) titled Bed or Seat Alarms Policy/Procedure Wanderguard System with a revised date of 7/17/2020 documented that bed or chair alarms are deemed for a resident who is unsafe and used as a last resort. The facility P&P titled Fall Prevention with a revised date of 2/22/21 documented that the nurse will complete a Morse Fall Score (an instrument used to assess the fall risk of a resident - 0 to 24 is low risk; 25 to 44 is moderate risk; 45 or higher is a high risk for falls) assessment upon admission to the facility. The P&P documented that a resident with a high fall risk would be placed in the Busy Bee program with a bee sign on the resident's room which indicates to staff that this resident has an increased risk for falls. The State Operational Manual issued 11/28/17 defines position change alarms as alerting devices intended to monitor a resident's movements and omits an audible signal when a resident moves in certain ways. Additionally, a position alarm may limit a resident's movement when the resident is afraid to move to avoid setting off the alarm. Review of the current seat and bed alarm list provided by the facility on 4/25/22 revealed 27 out of 52 residents had position change alarms. 1. Resident #10 was admitted with diagnoses including Parkinson's, dementia, and depression. The The Minimum Data Set (MDS - a resident assessment tool) dated 2/4/22 documented Resident #10 was cognitively intact. The MDS documented Resident #10 was not steady when moving from a seated to standing position, had not had any falls since the prior assessment, and bed and chair alarms were used daily. The [NAME] (guide used by staff to provide care), with a print date of 4/26/22, documented under Safety, bed alarm/chair alarm and busy bee. The Morse Fall Scale dated 4/8/22 documented a score of 90 indicating Resident #10 was at high risk for falls. Review of the Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) documented the following: Initiated 2/12/19-Potential for falls/injury with intervention: Transfer; Date initiated 12/23/21- Transfer 1A (one staff assist) with gait belt/rolling walker (RW) and ambulate (AMB) every day (QD) with RW 25' or tolerance with 1A and belt. Initiated 6/3/21-Actual fall with (no injury) related to (r/t) poor balance, unsteady gait with Intervention: Date initiated 6/3/21- Busy Bee; Date initiated 6/23/21-Bed sensor alarm; Date initiated 7/23/21-Seat sensor alarm. Date initiated 10/12/21-Bed alarm/Chair alarm. Review of accident/incident (A/I) reports for Resident #10 documented the following: -5/31/21 at 12:31 PM Resident found sitting on floor after attempting to make up the bed. Documented under Immediate Action Taken Bed alarm put in place. Under Notes documented resident prone to falls due to diagnosis (dx) Parkinson's. Team agreed at this point to add a bed and seat alarm to care plan. -10/7/21 at 8:33 PM Alarm sounding, resident found sitting on floor with legs extending in front of them. Documented under Notes resident's ability to make safe choices and mobility impaired by Parkinson's and fluctuating cognition. Team recommended a busy bee to alert staff. -11/13/21 at 11:09 PM Resident found sitting on floor with back towards recliner, legs extended in front of them. Notes documented resident prone to falls with team recommendation to attempt to keep resident in halls, activities to provide closer observation. Nursing Progress Notes dated 5/22/21 through 4/22/22 intermittently documented the following: -multiple entrys from 5/22/21 through 4/22/22 documented Resident #10 independently transferring and ambulating, reminders to use call bell for assist; Alarm sounding resident independently turning off; Self transfers, setting off alarms despite reminders to call for assist; set off alarms frequently; wheelchair (w/c), recliner, bed alarm in place; resident shutting off safety alarms; self -transferring, shutting off safety alarms. -6/15/21 at 3:58 PM Resident slid out of bed with bed alarm not going off, as resident right arm remained propped up on bed during fall. Did not alert for help other than calling out. -6/26/21 2:49 PM Resident turned off alarm and went into bathroom. Reminded to call for help. -7/13/21 12:32 AM Resident continues to self-transfer and bed, w/c and recliner alarms go off sometimes all three at the same time and resident becomes anxious due to all the noise and attempts to shut them off. -7/15/21 3:23 AM Easily agitated shutting alarms off independently. Placed out of sight but resident just follows cord until finding alarm. -8/9/21 1:25 AM Continues to self- transfer and shut off alarms to bed, recliner, or w/c and did remove chair alarm and the resident stated, that way I don't have to hear it go beep, beep, beep. There was no documented evidence position change alarms were used as a last resort, re-evaluated for appropriateness and effectiveness. Intermittent observations of Resident #10 from 4/20/22 through 4/26/22 between 8:08 AM and 3:08 PM revealed Resident #10 always had functioning position change alarms on their wheelchair and bed. During an interview on 4/20/22 at 12:05 PM Resident #10 stated, apparently, I don't behave because those are alarms that go off when I get up. They do bother me, who wants to have that? At 3:08 PM on 4/20/22 Resident #10 demonstrated how when they stand up from the chair, the alarm sounded and then they turned the alarm off. Resident #10 stated, I don't have a choice. It would be too bad even if I did. On 4/21/22 at 8:08 AM the Certified Occupational Therapist (COTA) #1 was wheeling Resident #10 out of their room for breakfast and asked Resident #10 where is your alarm? Resident stated to COTA #1, why do I have to have that on? COTA #1 stated because you are care planned to have it. During an interview on 4/22/22 at 10:33 AM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #3 stated residents earn a chair alarm after their first fall in the facility. After second fall they earn a low bed and fall mat. Resident #10 knows how to turn it off so quickly. We also have the busy bee on resident's door frames to alert staff that the resident is busy and moving a lot. The bee means they shouldn't be left alone in the bathroom and that they have alarms. During interview on 4/25/22 at 3:00 PM, COTA #2 stated positioning alarms were used for residents at an increased risk for falls. COTA #2 stated nursing was responsible for initiation and termination of alarms. During interview on 4/25/22 at 12:51 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #2 Unit Manager stated the IDT (interdisciplinary team) discusses resident alarms at the morning meeting and quarterly at care plan meetings. It should be documented in the progress notes, the IDT notes. LPN #2 stated Resident #10 can turn the alarms off independently and was not sure how effective the alarms were. 2. Resident #46 had diagnoses which included anemia, depression, and urinary tract infection (UTI). The MDS dated [DATE] documented Resident #46 was severely cognitively impaired, understood and usually understands. The MDS documented Resident #46 was not steady when moving from a seated to standing position and had not had any falls since admission. In addition, there were no positioning alarms used. An undated Visual/Bedside [NAME] report documented under Safety seat and bed alarms. The Morse Fall Scale dated 3/23/22 documented a score of 60 indicating Resident #46 was at high risk for falls. The CCP revised 4/8/22 documented Resident #46 was at risk for falls due to immobility and reduced cognition. The CCP documented Resident #46 doesn't always ring for assistance and was restless at times and placed feet out of the bed. The plan included: Remind the resident to ring bell, wait for assist, and seat and bed alarms. The Nursing Progress Notes from 3/23/22 through 4/20/22 revealed there were no falls since admission with three episodes on 4/8/22 during the night shift where Resident #46 attempted to get out of bed. Staff provided redirection, 1:1 provided, and issued a seat and bed alarm. There was no documented evidence position change alarms were used as a last resort, re-evaluated for appropriateness and effectiveness. During intermittent observations of Resident #46 between 8:30 AM to 4:00 PM from 4/20/22 through 4/26/22 revealed Resident #46 had functioning position change alarms on their wheelchair and bed. During an interview on 4/22/22 at 10:02 AM, Resident #46 stated they were unsure why they had it, hated the loud noise it made, and stated the device would Go off for no reason and startled them. During an interview on 4/26/22 at 11:00 AM, CNA #4 stated seat and chair positioning devices prevented falls and kept resident's safe. CNA #4 stated Resident #46 used the call light for assistance and had no falls. CNA #4 stated some residents have complained to them about the alarms because the noise was annoying, and they did not understand why they had them. During a telephone interview on 4/26/22 at 2:03 PM, LPN #3 Unit Manager stated alarms were issued to Resident #46 due to restlessness and fell prior to admission. LPN #3 stated there was no process in place to reduce alarms. During interview on 4/26/22 at 2:07 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated positioning alarms did not stop residents from falling but alerted the staff in the hope to prevent falls from occurring. The interdisciplinary team discusses alarms at morning meeting and care plan meetings, but there was no plan in place to reduce the use of positioning alarms. The DON stated, I don't really like the alarms, it's undignified. 3. Resident #3 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of pneumonia and dementia. The MDS dated [DATE] documented Resident #3 was cognitively impaired, usually understands, and was sometimes understood. The MDS documented Resident did not have a bed or chair alarm upon admission to the facility. The Admit/Readmit Screen dated 1/4/22 documented Resident #3 required the use of a rolling walker and had an unsteady gait. Resident's #3's Morse Fall Scale dated 1/4/22 documented that the resident was a high fall risk with a score of 40. Resident #3's CCP dated 1/5/22 documented that the resident was care planned for having a potential for falls or to be injured by a fall. Further review of the CCP documented that the resident had a chair alarm, a bed alarm and staff were to maintain the alarm. Additionally, the CCP documented that the resident cannot communicate their preferences or routines due to dementia. A review of the resident's incident reports related to falls dated 1/18/22 documented that the resident had a fall while trying to self-transfer to bed. The incident report documented that the interdisciplinary team recommended a bed and chair alarm for the resident. The resident had incident reports for falls dated 1/25/22, 1/26/22, 2/1/22, 2/13/22, 3/8/22, 3/16/22, 3/31/22, 4/2/22, 4/9/22, and 4/19/22. A review of the resident's nursing and therapy Progress Notes dated from 1/18/22 to 4/19/22 revealed there was no documented evidence of a re-assessment for the use of alarms after the resident's falls. There was no documented evidence position change alarms were used as a last resort, re-evaluated for appropriateness and effectiveness. Intermittent observations of Resident #3 from April 22, 2022, to April 26, 2022, between 9:00 AM and 12:56 PM revealed the resident had functioning bed and chair alarms. During the observations the resident either sat quietly or was sleeping in bed. During an interview on 4/26/22 at 9:00 AM, CNA #2 stated they were not in-serviced on how the alarms functioned on the chair or the bed. During an interview on 4/26/22 at 9:25 AM, Registered Nurse (RN) #2 stated that if Resident #3 had a change of condition or became weak, the alarms would be discontinued. RN #2 stated the RN who completed the admission assessment would do the fall assessment and any on-going assessment would be completed by the unit manager. During an interview on 4/26/22 at 9:57 AM, RN #1 Inservice Coordinator stated that if a resident scored moderate to high on the Morse Fall Scale, the RN who did the assessment was supposed to do a risk versus benefit evaluation to determine if the resident needs a bed or chair alarm. RN #1 stated they expected the nurses to document in the resident's progress notes or on the Morse Fall assessment the risk versus benefits evaluation. During an interview on 4/26/22 at 11:37 AM, the (DON) stated there was nothing official and it's an informal process for resident safety alarms regarding risk versus benefits. During an interview on 4/26/22 at 1:02 PM, LPN #2 Unit Manager stated that Resident #3's alarms were not as effective as they were when they were first initiated, and the resident still had falls. 415.3(d)(1)(vii) 415.4(a)(2)(iii)
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
  • • 39% turnover. Below New York's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: Federal abuse finding, 2 harm violation(s), $105,525 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 14 deficiencies on record, including 2 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • $105,525 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 Jennie B Richmond Chaffee Company Inc's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns JENNIE B RICHMOND CHAFFEE NURSING HOME COMPANY INC 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 Jennie B Richmond Chaffee Company Inc Staffed?

CMS rates JENNIE B RICHMOND CHAFFEE NURSING HOME COMPANY INC's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 39%, compared to the New York average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Jennie B Richmond Chaffee Company Inc?

State health inspectors documented 14 deficiencies at JENNIE B RICHMOND CHAFFEE NURSING HOME COMPANY INC during 2022 to 2025. These included: 2 that caused actual resident harm, 9 with potential for harm, and 3 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Jennie B Richmond Chaffee Company Inc?

JENNIE B RICHMOND CHAFFEE NURSING HOME COMPANY INC is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 80 certified beds and approximately 41 residents (about 51% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in SPRINGVILLE, New York.

How Does Jennie B Richmond Chaffee Company Inc Compare to Other New York Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in New York, JENNIE B RICHMOND CHAFFEE NURSING HOME COMPANY INC's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (39%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Jennie B Richmond Chaffee Company Inc?

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 Jennie B Richmond Chaffee Company Inc Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, JENNIE B RICHMOND CHAFFEE NURSING HOME COMPANY INC 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 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 Jennie B Richmond Chaffee Company Inc Stick Around?

JENNIE B RICHMOND CHAFFEE NURSING HOME COMPANY INC has a staff turnover rate of 39%, 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 Jennie B Richmond Chaffee Company Inc Ever Fined?

JENNIE B RICHMOND CHAFFEE NURSING HOME COMPANY INC has been fined $105,525 across 1 penalty action. This is 3.1x the New York average of $34,134. 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 Jennie B Richmond Chaffee Company Inc on Any Federal Watch List?

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