Westfield Rehabilitation and Health Center

3100 Tramway Road, Sanford, NC 27330 (919) 775-5404
For profit - Corporation 83 Beds LIBERTY SENIOR LIVING Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
70/100
#137 of 417 in NC
Last Inspection: August 2025

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

Overview

Westfield Rehabilitation and Health Center in Sanford, North Carolina, has a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good choice for families looking for care. With a state rank of #137 out of 417, they are in the top half of North Carolina facilities, and they hold the top position among the three nursing homes in Lee County. The facility is improving, as the number of reported issues decreased from 2 in 2024 to 1 in 2025. However, staffing is a concern, with a rating of 2 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 55%, which is higher than the state average. There have been no fines, which is a positive sign, but there are some notable incidents: a resident suffered a serious skin tear during a transfer that required emergency care, and two residents had documentation errors regarding their care plans that could lead to potential harm. Overall, while there are strengths in areas like RN coverage and no fines, families should be aware of the staffing challenges and the specific incidents that raise concerns about care quality.

Trust Score
B
70/100
In North Carolina
#137/417
Top 32%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Better
2 → 1 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
55% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most North Carolina facilities.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 23 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for North Carolina. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
12 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★☆
4.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 2 issues
2025: 1 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 55%

Near North Carolina avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Chain: LIBERTY SENIOR LIVING

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is elevated (55%)

7 points above North Carolina average of 48%

The Ugly 12 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Aug 2025 1 deficiency 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and resident interview and staff interviews, the facility failed to perform a transfer fro...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and resident interview and staff interviews, the facility failed to perform a transfer from the bed to wheelchair in a safe manner for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for accidents (Resident #26). Resident #26 had pain and sustained a skin tear (laceration) to midline shin (the front of the leg below the knee) with significant depth to left lower leg which required a visit to the emergency department and sutures. Findings included: Resident #26 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses that included hypertension, hyperlipidemia, polyneuropathy and anemia. The admission Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed that Resident #26 was coded as cognitively intact, required wheelchair for mobility, required partial/moderate assistance for a chair-to-bed transfer. On the same assessment, she was also coded as requiring supervision or touching assistance with personal hygiene. Documentation on Resident #26's care plan initiated on 8/6/2025 revealed a focus area of Activities of Daily Living (ADL) self-care performance deficit due to impaired, limited mobility, limited Range of Motion (ROM), musculoskeletal impaired and pain. The care plan revealed Resident #26 required the intervention of 2-person assistance with transfers. Review of undated Kardex (a quick- reference tool that provides a concise summary of a patient's essential information and daily care needs for handoff between nursing shifts) report revealed Resident #26 require 2-person assistance with transfers. Review of the transfer status form for Resident #26 dated 08/08/2025 revealed her transfer status was maximum assistance with 2-person assist due to limited shoulder pain. Review of the August 2025 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed Resident #26 was not prescribed an anticoagulant medication. Review of the incident report dated 08/08/2025 documented Resident #26 sustained skin tear during transfer from bed to wheelchair. Resident #26 stated she told Nurse Aide (NA) #1 to stop when being transferred because she was hurting her and that she required assist of 2 however NA #1 continued to transfer her. It documented Resident # 26 was transferred to the emergency department for further evaluation. NA #1 was immediately suspended pending investigation. Review of NA #1's statement dated 08/08/2025 revealed she was getting the patient up out of bed, the resident was able to turn and sit on the side of bed, and the resident stated sometimes it took two people to get her up. NA #1 told the resident that she was able to do it alone. During a phone interview on 08/19/2025 at 11:55AM, NA #1 stated another staff told her several times to get Resident #26 up so she could go to therapy. NA #1 stated she proceeded to get the resident up without asking for assistance from another staff member. She stated during the transfer of the resident her lower leg bumped on the wheelchair, and the leg started bleeding. NA #1 stated she did not review the Kardex which indicated the resident needed 2-person assistance for transfer. She added that she realized the resident required 2-person assistance after the skin tear accident. NA #1 stated the resident appeared very fragile and she felt that she could transfer her without assistance from another staff member from bed to her wheelchair. Review of skin tear assessment for Resident #26 dated 08/08/2025 revealed the site of left lower leg (front). It documented skin tear laceration, heavy bleeding and pressure applied. Exact measurements could not be obtained. Resident #26 wound was dressed and cleansed for transport to emergency room (ER) per Medical Doctor's (MD) order for further evaluation. The review of the assessment revealed the resident was given Acetaminophen (pain medication) 325 milligrams (mg) 2 tablets for pain. During an interview on 08/19/2025 at 1:28PM, Nurse #2 stated she was notified about Resident #26's skin tear on 08/08/2025. She stated she observed the resident was bleeding with a deep cut. She added she applied pressure on the deep cut to stop bleeding. She reported the bleeding was heavy, the provider was notified, and he ordered the resident to be sent to the Emergency Department. Review of the Emergency Department (ED) note dated 08/08/2025 documented the chief complaint was the resident was taken to ED after getting small laceration to left shin due to hitting it on a wheelchair. The resident was given (pain medication) enroute to the ED. The note documented a skin tear- about 6 centimeters (cm) to left lower leg which was bleeding, had controlled distal pulses (a pulse felt in an artery located further away from heart) capillary refill and had no neurovascular (the interconnected of nerves and blood vessels) deficits. ED note also documented the medical decision described the resident as coming to the ED with skin tear and laceration to left lower leg, which was repaired using sutures, irrigated and dressed by the provider. Review of the Health Status note dated 08/11/2025 by Nurse #2 documented procedural notes post ED visit for laceration management obtained. Three sutures internal placement will dissolve. (Bandage) placed. Light amount serosanguinous drainage noted. Physician Assistant (PA) ordered dressing changes daily. During an interview on 08/19/2025 at 10:07 AM, Resident #26 stated that she informed NA #1 to transfer her using 2-person assist but NA #1 stated she could transfer her by herself. She reported during the transfer; her leg bumped into the wheelchair, and she felt a sharp pain coming from her left leg. The resident stated that she noticed the blood coming from her leg. She further added a nurse came and dressed the deep skin tear and then she was sent out to the ED. During an interview on 08/19/2025 at 9:48AM the Physical Therapist (PT) stated when the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], the resident was assessed as needing 2-person assistance for transfer due to limited shoulder pain. The PT stated the MDS Coordinator was informed about the resident's need for 2-person assistance, and it was added to the resident's care plan. During an interview on 08/19/2025 at 1:48 PM the MDS Coordinator stated the common practice at the facility was that they had weekly meetings to discuss the newly admitted resident's needs. She reported the Physical Therapist notified her about Resident #26 requiring 2-person assistance and the requirement was added in the resident's Kardex and the care plan. During an interview on 08/20/2025 at 10:53PM the Director of Nursing (DON) stated Resident #26 required 2-person assist and NA #1 transferred the resident by herself from the bed to the wheelchair. DON stated the expectation was NA #1 to have reviewed the Kardex before assisting Resident #26. The DON indicated Resident #26's Kardex indicated she required 2-person assistance. The DON further stated NA #1 was an agency staff and was suspended. The DON added agency staff and facility staff were all in serviced in reference to reviewing and following the care guide before transferring the residents. During an interview on 08/20/2025 at 11:45 AM the Administrator stated NA #1 should have reviewed the Kardex before transferring the resident from bed to the wheelchair. She reported the resident should have been transferred using 2-person assist but the NA #1 used one person assist. She stated the agency NAs and the facility NAs were in serviced in reference to reviewing Kardex so they can be aware of how many persons were required to transfer the residents. The facility provided the following corrective action plan with a completion date of 08/12/2025 1. Address how corrective action will be accomplished for those residents found to have been affected by the deficient practice.On 8/8/2025 skin tear assessed by wound nurse and MD and pressure dressing applied. Head to toe assessment, wound assessment completed by the wound nurse.Resident was transferred to the emergency room (ER) for further evaluation.On 8/8/2025 the resident's wheelchair (w/c) was removed from service and inspected by the facility maintenance director.The results included: No concerns noted for wheelchair. 2. Address how the facility will identify other residents having the potential to be affected. On 8/8/2025 the DON identified residents that were potentially impacted by this practice by completing head to toe audits on all residents with a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) less than 13 (intact) and assessing for any skin integrity concerns to include skin tears/bruising or signs of potential injuries. The results included: No concerns identified.On 8/8/2025 all residents with a BIMS below 13 had a head-to-toe assessment completed by the assigned nurse with no concerns identified.On 8/8/2025 all w/c's were assessed by the facility maintenance director for any concerns to include areas that may be rough/cracked or malfunctioning. The results included: No concerns identified. On 8/08/2025 the DON/ Staff Development Coordinator (SDC) began direct observation of Nurses/NA's/Agency scheduled to work on that day (08/08/2025) and evening/night shift's ability to access the Kardex, to verbalize understanding of process of resident refusal/assuring resident safety and notification of the nurse of any refusal. The results included: 5 of 5 nursing staff/agency directly observed were able to access the Kardex prior to care, verbalize steps to take to assure resident rights/resident refusal were followed and understand the nurse notification process for any refusal of care/transfer etc.On 8/11/2025, residents with BIMS of 13 or above were interviewed by DON/Social Worker (SW) for any concerns related to care concerns/resident refusal concerns or transfer concerns. The results included: No concerns identified.On 8/ 11 /2025 the DON/ MDS nurse began auditing all resident care plans and transfer status to assure the transfer status was current and the care plan/Kardex were in compliance. The results included: All transfers current and in compliance. As of 8/11/2025 any above identified areas of concern were in compliance. 3. Address what measures will be put into place or systemic changes made to ensure that the deficient practice will not recur.On 08/8/2025, the DON/SDC began in-service of all nursing staff (including agency) on: Transfer Safety, Kardex Utilization, and for all staff and agency on Resident Rights/Refusal of Care/Treatment and Abuse/Neglect. To include Full Time(FT)/ Part Time (PT) and as needed (PRN) staff. Accessing the Kardex prior to care How to access the Kardex Using the correct transfer technique and always using 2 staff for all mechanical lift transfers. Assuring resident rights and refusal of care are honored by staff even if the resident is confused. Assuring resident rights are honored when a resident asks staff to stop a task. Assuring resident safety if a resident refuses care or is in the process of care or being transferred, Notification of the nurse of all resident refusals or requests you to stop care/transfer being provided. Reporting any incidents that occur while caring or transferring a resident to the assigned nurse. Abuse/Neglect- types, reporting and assuring resident safety.The Director of Nursing will ensure that any of the above identified staff who does not complete the in-service training by 8/11 /2025 will not be allowed to work until the training is completed. This in-service was incorporated into the new employee facility orientation for the above-mentioned staff.4. Indicate how the facility plans to monitor its performance to make sure that solutions are sustained. - Monitoring plan was initiated on 08/08/2025. The DON/designee will monitor Transfer/ Kardex utilization/ Resident Rights Process weekly for 2 weeks and monthly for 3 months for compliance with assuring resident requests are honored and that the Kardex and transfer process are followed to assure resident safety. Reports will be presented to the monthly Quality Assurance (QA) committee by the Administrator or Director of Nursing to ensure corrective action is initiated as appropriate. Compliance will be monitored and ongoing auditing program reviewed at the monthly QA Meeting. The monthly QA Meeting is attended by the Administrator, DON, MDS Coordinator, Therapy, Health Information Management (HIM), and the Dietary Manager. Date of Compliance: 8/12/2025Validation of the corrective action plan was completed on 08/20/2025 by the following. The Quality Assessment and Performance Improvement Plan was reviewed with corresponding documentation to support the actions taken by the facility. Interviews were conducted with a sample of nurses and nurse aides from all nursing shifts to verify education was provided for licensed nurses and certified nursing assistants regarding assuring the staff were reviewing the Kardex before performing a transfer. The documentation for in-service records was reviewed. Social Worker #1 was interviewed to confirm all alert and oriented residents were interviewed to verify no other inappropriate transfers had occurred. During the investigation, NA#2 was observed transferring Resident #26 according to her plan of care. The MDS nurse was interviewed to confirm the Kardex, and care plans were up to date indicating how many people each resident required for the transfer from bed to wheelchair. The audits were verified as well as the ongoing monitoring audits to ensure residents were being transferred with appropriate person assistance.The corrective action plan completion date of 8/12/2025 was validated.
Aug 2024 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, and staff and Medical Director (MD) interviews, the facility failed to notify the MD when a stage three ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, and staff and Medical Director (MD) interviews, the facility failed to notify the MD when a stage three pressure ulcer was identified for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for pressure ulcer (Resident #71). Findings Included: Resident #71 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] for fracture of right femur with a plan for discharge home after rehabilitation. Resident #71 was discharged from the hospital after surgery to repair a right femur fracture. Review of the Wound Care Nurse's assessment on admission on [DATE] revealed she noted redness to sacral area. On 08/23/24 at 12:31 pm a telephone interview with Nurse #1 revealed on 08/13/24 she was called to the resident's room by the (Nurse Aide) NA providing care to Resident #71. She reported the sacral pressure ulcer appeared to have slough, she measured it and left a message for the Wound Care Nurse to further assess. Wound Care Nurse's note dated 08/14/24 revealed that a sacral pressure ulcer was noted by the 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM shift nurse. This nurse reported that the resident had a stage 3 sacral ulcer. Description of the wound was 70% slough and 30% granulation tissue, unstageable and measured 2.7 cm (cm) in length and 2.5 cm in width. There was no documentation the Medical Director was notified. On 08/23/24 at 09:23 am an interview with Medical Director (MD) revealed that Resident #71 was admitted on [DATE] and he was first informed of the stage three pressure ulcer on 08/16/24. The MD stated the delay in his notification was acceptable if another clinician had been notified.
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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations, and staff and Medical Director (MD) interviews, the facility failed to do a weekly skin as...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations, and staff and Medical Director (MD) interviews, the facility failed to do a weekly skin assessment which resulted in the delay of identification of a stage three pressure ulcer for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for pressure ulcer (Resident #71). The findings included: Resident #71 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] for fracture of right femur with a plan for discharge home after rehabilitation. Resident #71 was discharged from the hospital after surgery to repair a right femur fracture. Review of the Wound Care Nurse's assessment on admission on [DATE] revealed she noted redness to sacral area. Further review of records revealed that on 08/02/24 a verbal order for zinc oxide external ointment 20% (topical), apply to sacrum topically two times a day was initiated and to do weekly skin checks. A care plan dated 08/05/24 revealed interventions of assistance with incontinence care and bed mobility to reduce the risk of pressure ulcer development. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed that Resident #71 was moderately cognitively impaired. Resident #71 was coded to have no pressure ulcer and was incontinent of bladder with substantial /maximal assistance for shower/bathing and for lower body dressing and was dependent on staff for toileting. There was no documentation of a weekly skin assessment in Resident #71's medical record. On 08/22/24 at 10:57 am, an interview with the Wound Care Nurse revealed that she was responsible for the completion of the admission skin assessment for Resident #71. Nurse stated that the sacral skin redness was blanchable and didn't indicate any pressure ulcer on admission. The Wound Care Nurse reported she put the order in place for the zinc oxide twice a day and weekly skin checks. The Wound Care Nurse reported that the nurses were responsible for the weekly skin checks. The interview further revealed that the weekly skin check scheduled on 08/09/24 was not done. On 08/23/24 at 12:31 pm a telephone interview with Nurse #1 revealed on 08/13/24 she was called to the resident's room by the (Nurse Aide) NA providing care to Resident #71. She reported the sacral pressure ulcer appeared to have slough, she measured it and left a message for the Wound Care Nurse to further assess. Wound Care Nurse's note dated 08/14/24 revealed that a sacral pressure ulcer was noted by the 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM shift nurse. This nurse reported that the resident had a stage 3 sacral ulcer. Description of the wound was 70% slough and 30% granulation tissue, unstageable and measured 2.7 cm (centimeters) in length and 2.5 cm in width. Review of records revealed that Resident # 71 was seen by Wound Care Doctor on 08/21/24 for a wound on sacrum, left buttock. The Wound Care Doctor documented the wound was unstageable (due to necrosis), had moderate serous exudate and measured 3.5 cm (length) x 3.5 cm (width) and no measurable depth. Further review of records revealed treatment for the necrosis (the death of most or all the cells in a tissue) required surgical excisional debridement (the removal of damaged tissue from a wound). The Wound Care Doctor's orders for treatment plan was for calcium alginate with silver (absorbs bacteria and fluid from the wound) to be applied once daily for 30 days. Santyl (removes dead tissue from wound) apply once daily for 30 days. May use medical grade honey if unable to use Santyl. Cover with a gauze island with a border. Apply once daily for 30 days. On 08/22/24 at 9:01 am an observation of wound care completed by Wound Care Nurse revealed treatment of sacral wound with Santyl, calcium alginate with silver, and silicone bordered dressing daily. Resident #71 was observed on an air mattress and required assistance with turning. Resident #71 was lying on her left side while wound care was being completed. Resident #71 expressed discomfort prior to treatment but was medicated by the assigned nurse prior to initiation of treatment. The wound bed was clean, and there was no drainage and no odor. Interview with Nurse Aide (NA) #1 on 08/22/24 at 10:22 am revealed that Resident #71 was incontinent and required assistance with turning. The interview further revealed Resident #71 gets a shower twice a week and any skin concerns were addressed with the nurse. NA #1 denied that resident was refusing showers and no abnormal skin issues reported. On 08/22/24 at 11:30 am, an interview with MDS Nurse revealed skin assessments were completed by the unit nurse but if the unit was busy, this was completed by the Wound Care Nurse or the support nurse. During the interview the MDS Nurse reported that she was unsure of any standardized risk assessment tool used on admission. On 08/22/24 at 03:25 pm, an interview with Dietitian (RD) revealed that her initial assessment for Resident #71 was completed on 08/13/2024 and all the resident had was a surgical wound. The interview further revealed that she did not visually see the resident but was told that resident completed 0-75% of meals, and nothing further needed to be done as the resident was already on Pro-stat. Mighty Shake (changed to Ensure due to resident preference) ordered as soon as wound was noticed to assist with nutritional intake. The Dietitian revealed that the process for reporting of wound was via email by the Wound Care Nurse. Interview of the Support Nurse on 08/22/24 at 03:45 pm revealed that she was assigned to the care of Resident #71 on admission. The Support Nurse reported that the expectation was that the nurse assigned to the resident would complete the skin assessment if the Wound Care Nurse was not around. The Support Nurse revealed Resident # 71's skin assessment was completed by the Wound Care Nurse on 08/02/24 and the order for skin checks were flagged automatically in the electronic chart. On 08/23/24 at 09:23 am an interview with Medical Director (MD) revealed that Resident #71 was admitted on [DATE] and he was first informed of the stage three pressure ulcer on 08/16/24. The MD stated the delay in his notification was acceptable if another clinician had been notified. Interview with Nurse Consultant on 08/23/24 at 11:31am revealed that it was possible for the wound to occur given the appropriate circumstances as Resident #71 fell at home prior to admission, and this may have affected her risk for skin breakdown. On 08/23/24 at 11:31 am an interview with the Administrator revealed a plan was set in place after Resident # 71's wound was found. She reported that these steps would be identifying the factors, refer to dietitian, refer to wound care physician, refer to PT for cushions and the need for air mattress. The interview further revealed it was not the expectation for the skin to go from blanchable to stage 3 ulcer. The facility provided the following corrective action plan with a completion date of 08/19/24. 1. Corrective action for resident (s) affected by the alleged deficient practice. -Head to toe assessment was completed on the affected resident, MD (Medical Director), RD (Registered Dietitian) and Family updated. New orders were initiated for wound. 2. Corrective action for residents with the potential to be affected by the alleged deficient practice. -On 08/16/2024 head to toe skin assessments were completed on all current residents by the assigned nurse. This was completed on 08/16/2024. The results included: There were no new skin issues that were identified. 3. Measures/Systemic changes to prevent reoccurrence of deficient practice: Education (change of condition, pressure ulcer and treatment of pressure ulcer). -On 08/16/2024 the Staff Development Coordinator (SDC) initiated in-service of all licensed nurses and Certified Nurse Assistants (CNA), including agency on change of condition, pressure ulcer assessment and treatment of pressure ulcers. -The Director of Nursing (DON) will ensure that any of the above identified staff who do not complete the in-service training by 8/19/24 will not be allowed to work until the training is completed. 4. Monitoring procedure to ensure that the plan of correction is effective, and that specific deficiency cited remains corrected and/or in compliance with regulatory requirements. -The DON/designee will monitor the skin assessment process weekly for 2 weeks and monthly for 3 months for compliance with the skin/wound process. Reports will be presented to the weekly quality assurance (QA) committee by the wound nurse or DON to ensure corrective action initiated as appropriate. Compliance will be monitored, and ongoing auditing program reviewed at the monthly QA Meeting. The QA Meeting is attended by the Administrator, DON, MDS Coordinator, Wound Nurse, Therapy, Health Information Manager and the Dietary Manager. The corrective action plan was completed on 08/20/2024. Onsite validation was completed on 08/23/24 through staff interviews and record review. Staff were interviewed on training, reporting and timing of reporting. A review of the audits of the residents' notes for skin checks for all residents was noted to be completed on 08/16/24. The review of the audit tools that the facility provided were noted to be completed 08/15/24 to 08/19/2024. The facility's corrective action plan completion date of 08/20/2024 was validated.
Mar 2023 9 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

PASARR Coordination (Tag F0644)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to refer a resident with newly evident diagnosis of mental illne...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to refer a resident with newly evident diagnosis of mental illness for Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) level II screen for 1 of 1 sampled resident reviewed for PASARR (Resident #7). Findings included: Resident # 7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with PASARR level I screen which indicated the screen did not go to level II. Resident #7 had no mental health related diagnosis noted on admission to the facility. The psychiatric note dated 3/8/21 indicated that Resident #7 had a diagnosis of major depressive disorder and was on Zoloft and Doxepin for depression and Remeron for appetite stimulant. The note indicated to discontinue Doxepin as part of gradual dose reduction (GDR). The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated that Resident #7 had a diagnosis of depression and had received an antidepressant medication during the assessment period. The psychiatric note dated 5/3/21 revealed that Resident #7 continued to complain of bugs crawling underneath her skin and all over her body and bed. On examination, she appeared anxious and reported that she could feel and see the bugs on her body and placed them in a cup on the table. There was a cup on the table, but the resident would not allow the writer to look inside the cup. Risperdal was initiated to manage distressing psychotic symptoms that were impairing her function and a diagnosis of Schizophrenia spectrum disorder with psychotic disorder type was added to the diagnosis list. Resident #7 had a physician's order dated 5/3/21 for Risperdal (an antipsychotic drug) 0.5 milligrams (mgs) by mouth at bedtime for psychosis. The annual MDS assessments dated 6/17/21 and 5/30/22 revealed that Resident #7 had a diagnosis of psychotic disorder and had received an antipsychotic medication during the assessment period. The assessments further indicated that the resident had not been evaluated by level II PASARR and determined to have a serious illness and or mental retardation. The Social Worker (SW) was interviewed on 3/8/23 at 11:38 AM. The SW stated that when a resident was newly diagnosed with a mental illness, the resident needed to be evaluated for a level II PASARR. The SW reviewed the medical records of Resident #7 and verified that Resident #7 was admitted with a level I PASARR. She stated that the resident was being followed by the psychiatric services and on 5/31/21, a new diagnosis of Schizophrenia spectrum disorder with psychotic disorder type was added. The SW indicated that if she had been made aware by the interdisciplinary team (IDT) of the new diagnosis, she would have made a referral for level II PASARR evaluation, but she was not. She confirmed that no referral for level II PASARR had been made for Resident #7. The Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed on 3/9/23 at 8:15 AM. She stated that the Social Worker was responsible for making the referral for level II PASARR. She indicated that she expected the SW to make the referral when a resident had a new diagnosis of mental illness.
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation and family and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide showers as scheduled for 1 o...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation and family and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide showers as scheduled for 1 of 5 sampled residents who needed extensive assistance or were dependent on the staff for activities of daily living (Resident #59). Findings included: Resident #59 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnosis including hemiplegia/hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting the left dominant side and dementia. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated that Resident #59 had moderate cognitive impairment and she needed extensive assistance with personal hygiene and bathing. The assessment further indicated that the resident had no behaviors including rejection of care. Resident #59's care plan that was reviewed on 1/29/23 revealed that she had an activity of daily living (ADL) self -care performance deficit related to hemiplegia/hemiparesis. The approaches included I required staff extensive assistance with grooming and personal hygiene. Review of the shower schedule revealed that Resident #59 was scheduled to have a shower twice a week on Monday and Thursday on 3-11 shift. Review of the nurse's notes from January 2023 through March 2023 revealed that Resident #59 did not have refusal of care. Resident #59 was observed in bed on 3/6/23 at 11:25 AM. The resident was clean and her hair was a litthe bit greasy. A family member was at bedside visiting. A family member of Resident #59 was interviewed on 3/6/23 at 11:28 AM. The family member voiced a concern that every time she visited, the resident's hair was greasy. The staff did not provide shower to the resident unless she/he asked for it. The family member reported that the resident was supposed to receive a shower twice a week but that was not happening. The shower documentation for the last 3 months was requested but the facility only provided one month of shower documentation (2/9/23 through 3/6/23). Interview with the Administrator on 3/7/23 at 3:20 PM revealed that the computer would only allow the staff to pull 30 days of shower documentation. Review of the shower documentation from 2/9/23 through 3/6/23 revealed that Resident #59 had received a shower on 2/9, 2/20, 2/23, 2/27, 3/2 and 3/6/23. The resident missed her shower on 2/13, and 2/16. There was no documentation on the shower form that the resident had refused shower. Attempts to interview Nurse Aide (NA)#2, who was assigned to Resident #59 on 2/13/23 but was unsuccessful. NA #3, who was assigned to Resident #59 was interviewed on 3/8/23 at 3:50 PM. The NA stated that the resident seldom refused care, especially showers. If she refused shower and you tried to persuade her, most of the time she would allow you to give her a shower. The NA would not comment as to why the resident had missed some showers. The Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed on 3/9/23 at 8:20 AM. The DON stated that she expected NAs to provide showers to the resident as scheduled and if the resident refused shower to document on the form. The DON also reported that the computer would not allow her to pull the shower documentation for more than 30 days.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure oxygen therapy was provided as ordered ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure oxygen therapy was provided as ordered by the physician for 1 of 4 sampled residents for respiratory care (Resident #33). The findings included: Resident #33 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, and dependence on supplemental oxygen. Review of the significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #33 was cognitively intact. She required extensive assistance with 2 people with bed mobility, dressing, and toilet use. She was coded as utilizing oxygen. Resident #33's care plan dated 05/11/22 revealed she required oxygen therapy due to congestive heart failure. The goal included she would have no signs or symptoms of poor oxygen absorptions through the review date. Interventions, in part, included oxygen settings are based on physician orders and observe for signs and symptoms of respiratory distress and report to physician. Review of Resident #33's physician orders dated 12/13/22 revealed supplemental oxygen to be delivered at 2 liters per minute via cannula. On 03/06/23 at 10:21 AM, Resident #33 was observed lying in the bed receiving humidified oxygen at 2.5 liters per minute via nasal cannula when viewed horizontally, eye level. On 03/07/23 at 8:33 AM, Resident #33 was observed lying in the bed receiving humidified oxygen at 2.5 liters per minute via nasal cannula when viewed horizontally, eye level. On 03/08/23 at 8:25 AM Resident #33 was observed lying in the bed receiving humidified oxygen at 2.5 liters per minute via nasal cannula when viewed horizontally, eye level. An observation was made with Nurse #4 of Resident #33's oxygen concentrator on 03/08/23 at 08:30 AM, who stated the oxygen regulator on the concentrator was set at 2 liters when she viewed it while she stood over the machine. She stated she quickly checked the flow rate earlier in the morning at eye level and stated it was 2 liters per minute. Then Nurse #4 viewed the oxygen regulator on the concentrator at eye level and adjusted the flow to administer 2 liters of oxygen as ordered. Nurse #4 stated she did not know why the oxygen regulator was set at 2.5 liters. During an interview with the Director of Nursing on 03/03/23 at 11:15 AM, nurses should view the oxygen regulator on the concentrator at eye level to determine if it was set at the correct flow rate. The Administrator was interviewed on 03/08/23 at 1:05 PM. She stated physician orders should be followed at the correct oxygen flow rate.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident #29's physician orders revealed the following: - An order dated 1/12/23 to cleanse stage 3 pressure ulcer to the ri...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident #29's physician orders revealed the following: - An order dated 1/12/23 to cleanse stage 3 pressure ulcer to the right buttock with normal saline. Apply Santyl to the wound bed and cover with a foam dressing every day. This order was discontinued 2/23/23. - An order dated 2/24/23 to cleanse the right buttock with wound cleanser. Apply Collagen sheet to wound bed and cover with dry dressing on Monday, Wednesday, Friday and as needed. This was discontinued 2/28/23. - An order dated 2/25/23 to cleanse the skin tear to the left outer knee, apply Vaseline gauze and cover with dry dressing until healed every day. - An order dated 2/28/23 to cleanse the right buttock pressure ulcer with normal saline. Apply Medihoney gel to the wound bed, top with Calcium Alginate and cover with dry dressing. Change Monday, Wednesday, Friday and as needed. This order was discontinued on 3/3/23. - An order dated 3/3/23 to cleanse the stage 3 pressure ulcer to the right buttock with saline. Apply Santyl to the wound bed, add Calcium Alginate and cover with a dry dressing every day. The February 2023 and March 2023 Treatment Administration Records (TARs) were reviewed and revealed the following: - The stage 3 pressure ulcer to Resident #29's right buttock had not been documented as completed or refused by the resident on 2/8/23, 2/23/23, 3/3/23 and 3/5/23. - The skin tear to the left outer knee was not documented as completed or refused by the resident on 3/5/23. Review of the nursing progress notes from 1/10/23 until 3/8/23 revealed Resident #29 accepted wound care. On 3/8/23 at 1:10 PM, the Treatment Nurse was interviewed and explained she became the Treatment Nurse towards the end of February 2023. She stated Resident #29 she completed wound care to Resident #29 but had forgotten to document the wound care as completed on the TAR for 2/23/23 and 3/3/23. The Treatment Nurse added the former wound care nurse would have been responsible for the wound care on 2/8/23. Nurse #2 was interviewed on 3/8/23 at 2:00 PM and reviewed the March 2023 TAR. She verified caring for Resident #29 on 3/5/23 and completed the wound care. Nurse #2 added she had forgotten to sign the wound care as completed on the TAR. An interview occurred with the Director of Nursing on 3/9/23 at 9:30 AM and indicated she expected the nursing staff to complete wound care as ordered as well as to document it was completed or refused by the resident. Based on record review, observation and resident and staff interview, the facility failed to have accurate and complete medical records in the areas of pressure ulcers (Resident #4), wound care (Resident #29) & splint application (Resident #1) for 3 of 20 sampled residents whose medical records were reviewed (Residents # 1, # 4 & #29). Findings included: 1. Resident # 4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of the weekly decubitus ulcer (damage to an area of the skin caused by constant pressure on the area for a long time) assessments was conducted. The assessment revealed that Resident #4 had developed a stage 3 pressure ulcer on the left buttock on 1/24/23. Review of the physician's orders from January 2023 through March 2023 revealed there was no treatment ordered for the stage 3 pressure ulcer on the left buttock. Review of the January through March 2023 Treatment Administration Records (TARs) revealed there was no evidence that treatment was provided to the left buttock pressure ulcer. On 3/7/23 at 4:30 PM, Resident #4 was observed during the dressing change. The resident was observed to have open areas on the right and left buttocks. The Treatment Nurse was observed to clean the pressure ulcers on the right and left buttocks with wound cleanser, Sulfadiazine (used to treat and prevent wound infection) was applied to both areas and covered with a foam dressing. On 3/8/23 at 1:20 PM, the Treatment Nurse was interviewed. She verified that Resident #4 had stage 3 pressure ulcers on her right and left buttocks. The Treatment Nurse reviewed the physician's orders and the TARs and reported that she did not realize that there was no treatment ordered for the left buttock pressure ulcer and there was no evidence in the TARs that the treatment was provided. She reported that the treatment to both left and right buttocks was provided 7 days a week as ordered. On 3/9/23 at 8:15 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed. The DON indicated that it was an oversight on the part of the treatment nurse for not writing the treatment order for the left buttock pressure ulcer and therefore there was no treatment transcribed to the TARs. She reported that the treatment was provided to the left buttock, however, it was not documented on the TARs. 2. Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The quarterly Minimum Data (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated that Resident #1's cognition was intact. Resident #1 had a physician's order dated 11/11/22 to wear bilateral hand splints at night as tolerated and to remove in AM before meal. Resident #1 was observed on 3/6/23 at 1:25 PM with her right and left hands in a fist position. There was no device noted on both hands. The resident was interviewed and stated that the splints were applied at night. Review of the January, February and March 2023 Medication Administration Records (MARs) revealed multiple boxes with no nurse's initials to indicate that the splints were applied as ordered on the following dates: 1/2, 1/9, 1/10, 1/11, 1/13, 1/14, 1/15, 1/16, 1/23, 1/24, 1/25, 1/27, 1/28, 1/30, 2/6, 2/7, 2/8, 2/10, 2/11, 2/12, 2/14, 2/16, 2/21, 2/22,2/24, 2/25, 2/26 and 3/2/23. An attempt was made to interview Nurse #6 who was assigned to Resident #1 on 3/2/23 but was unsuccessful. Nurse #7 was interviewed on 3/7/23 at 10:16 AM. She stated that she worked night shift. Nurse #7 was assigned to Resident #1 on 1/9, 1/10, 1/11, 1/13, 1/14, 1/15, 1/16, 1/23, 1/24, 1/25, 1/27, 1/28, 2/6, 2/7, 2/8, 2/10, 2/11, 2/12, 2/22 and 2/25/23. She stated that she was aware that Resident #1 had an order for splints to be applied at night. Nurse #7 reported that she applied the splints every night and she did not know why the MARS were not signed off. She stated that she might have missed to sign them. The Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed on 3/9/23 at 8:15 AM. The DON stated that Nurse #6 and Nurse #7 were both agency nurses. She indicated that the nurses were applying the splints as ordered but she expected them to document to ensure complete and accurate medical records.
CONCERN (E)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 5. Resident #54 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included obstructive and reflux uropathy (a condition...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 5. Resident #54 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included obstructive and reflux uropathy (a condition in which the flow of urine is blocked). A physician's order dated 7/10/22 indicated Resident #54 to have a urinary catheter for obstructive uropathy. Nursing notes dated 12/1/22 through 2/3/23 specified Resident #54 had a urinary catheter in place. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #54 was cognitively intact. She was coded with an indwelling catheter and as frequently incontinent of bladder. Review of Resident #54's active care plan, last reviewed 3/4/23, included a focus area having an indwelling urinary catheter for obstructive uropathy. During an interview with the MDS Nurse on 3/8/23 at 4:00 PM, he confirmed Resident #54 had an indwelling urinary catheter when the 2/3/23 MDS was completed, and it was an error to have coded her with bladder incontinence. This area should have been coded as Not Rated. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing on 3/9/23 at 9:30 AM and she indicated it was her expectation for the MDS to be coded accurately. Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments in the areas of medications (Residents # 22, #4 & #1), accidents (Resident #4 & #26), diagnoses (Resident #4) and urinary status (Resident # 54) for 5 of 20 sampled residents whose MDS were reviewed. Findings included: 1 a. Resident # 4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including congestive heart failure (CHF). Resident #4 had a physician's order dated 12/14/22 for Bumetanide (a diuretic drug) 1 milligram (mg.) by mouth twice a day for CHF. Review of the January 2023 Medication Administration Records (MARs) revealed that Resident #4 had received Bumetanide from January 1 through January 31, 2023. The annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] did not indicate that Resident #4 had received a diuretic medication during the assessment period. The MDS Nurse was interviewed on 3/8/23 at 4:10 PM. The MDS Nurse reviewed the physician's orders and the January 2023 MARs and verified that Resident #4 had received Bumetanide during the assessment period. He reported that he missed to note on the annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] that Resident #4 had received a diuretic medication. b. Resident #4 had a physician's order dated 1/7/23 for Ertapenem (an antibiotic drug) 1 gram (gm) - 500 mgs. intramuscular (IM) in the evening for urinary tract infection (UTI) for 10 days. Review of the January 2023 Medication Administration Records (MARs) revealed that Resident #4 had received Ertapenem from January 7 through January 16, 2023. The annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated that Resident #4 had received an antibiotic medication during the assessment period but did not indicate that the resident had a diagnosis of UTI. The MDS Nurse was interviewed on 3/8/23 at 4:10 PM. The MDS Nurse reviewed the physician's orders and the January 2023 MARs and verified that Resident #4 had received Ertapenem for UTI during the assessment period. He reported that he missed to note on the annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] that Resident #4 had a diagnosis of UTI. c. Review of the nurse's note and the incident report dated 1/1/23 at 11:15 AM revealed that Resident #4 was found on the floor. The resident complained of head, neck and back pain and noted to have a skin tear to the left shin. The annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated that Resident #4 had no falls since admission/entry, reentry or prior assessment. The MDS Nurse was interviewed on 3/8/23 at 4:10 PM. The MDS Nurse reviewed the nurse's notes and verified that Resident #4 had a fall on 1/1/23. He reported that he missed to note on the annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] that Resident #4 had a fall. 2. Resident #22 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including hypertension. Resident #22 had a physician's order dated 8/26/22 for hydrochlorothiazide (a diuretic drug) 25 mgs by mouth in the evening for hypertension. The January 2023 Medication Administration Records (MARs) revealed that Resident #22 had received hydrochlorothiazide from January 1 through January 31, 2023. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] did not indicate that Resident #22 had received a diuretic medication during the assessment period. The MDS Nurse was interviewed on 3/8/23 at 4:10 PM. The MDS Nurse reviewed the physician's orders and the January 2023 MARs and verified that Resident #22 had received hydrochlorothiazide during the assessment period. He reported that he missed to note on the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] that Resident #22 had received a diuretic medication. 3. Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including non-pressure chronic ulcer on the ankle. Resident #1 had a physician's order dated 1/27/23 for Flagyl 500 milligrams (mgs) capsule- apply to ankle wounds topically every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday for wound care. Review of the February 2023 Medication Administration Records (MARs) revealed that Resident #1 had received Flagyl to her wounds every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday from February 1 through February 28, 2023. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] did not indicate that Resident #1 had received an antibiotic medication during the assessment period. The MDS Nurse was interviewed on 3/8/23 at 4:10 PM. The MDS Nurse reviewed the physician's orders and the February 2023 MARs and verified that Resident #1 had received Flagyl during the assessment period. He reported that he missed to note on the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] that Resident #1 had received an antibiotic medication. 4. Resident # 26 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including hemiplegia affecting the left dominant side. Review of the nursing note and the incident report dated 12/26/22 at 1:20 PM revealed that Resident #26 was found on the floor in front of his wheelchair. The resident stated that he was trying to go back to bed. There was no injury noted. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated that Resident #26 had no falls since admission/entry, reentry or prior assessment. The MDS Nurse was interviewed on 3/8/23 at 4:10 PM. The MDS Nurse reviewed the nurse's notes and verified that Resident #26 had a fall on 12/26/22. He reported that he missed to note on the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] that Resident #26 had a fall. The Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed on 3/9/23 at 8:15 AM. The DON reported that the MDS Nurse was brand new (started last summer), and he had no MDS experience. He is still learning MDS.
CONCERN (E)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included type 2 diabetes, and Alzheimer's disease. A revi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included type 2 diabetes, and Alzheimer's disease. A review of the active physician orders included an order dated 6/30/21 for a low loss air mattress for pressure ulcer protection/preventive and comfort. Maintain proper function every shift. Air mattress settings should be semi firm (dial settings should be at 12 o'clock position). A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #29 had severe cognitive impairment. She was coded as having a pressure ulcer over a bony prominence and one stage 3 pressure ulcer. She had a pressure reducing device to the bed. A review of Resident #29's active care plan, last reviewed 1/18/23, included the following focus areas: - Risk for pressure ulcer development due to decreased ability to assist with repositioning. The interventions included a low loss air mattress to the bed for pressure prophylaxis (pressure injury prevention). - Currently have a pressure ulcer to the right buttock, gluteal fold related to immobility. One of the interventions was an air mattress to the bed. - Activities of Daily Living (ADL) self-care performance deficit related to dementia and overall weakness. The interventions included an air mattress. A review of Resident #29's medical record from 12/13/22 to 3/6/23 revealed wound care was provided to a right buttock pressure ulcer. On 3/6/23 at 10:20 AM, an observation was made of Resident #29 while she was lying in the bed. A hissing sound was coming from the air mattress machine that was hooked to the foot of the bed. Upon observation the bottom connector of the air mattress was dislodged from the machine. Resident #29 was lying on the deflated air mattress. Another observation was made of Resident #29 on 3/6/23 at 12:03 PM while she was lying in bed. The air mattress bottom connector was not connected to the machine and Resident #29 was lying on the deflated air mattress. On 3/7/23 at 8:35 AM, Resident #29 was observed while being assisted with her breakfast meal by Nurse Aide (NA) #1. The bottom connector on the air mattress machine remained dislodged and Resident #29 was lying on the deflated air mattress. NA #1 stated the nurses monitored the air mattress functionality. Another observation was made of Resident #29 while she was lying in bed on 3/7/23 at 2:19 PM. The bottom connector remained unconnected to the machine and Resident #29 was on the deflated air mattress. On 3/7/23 at 3:19 PM, an observation of Resident #29 occurred with Nurse #1, who verified the bottom connector of the air mattress was not connected to the machine and Resident #29 was lying on the deflated air mattress overlay in the bed. Nurse #1 stated when she signed on the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) it was indicating that the air mattress settings were in the correct position. She added she did not visualize the connectors or if the overlay was inflated. The Wound Physician was interviewed on 3/9/23 at 9:00 AM and stated she would expect the air mattress to be connected and functioning properly as Resident #29 currently had a pressure ulcer to her buttock area and remained at high risk for further skin breakdown. Based on record review, observation, and interviews with the Physician, Wound Physician and staff, the facility failed to obtain an order for treatment to the left buttock pressure ulcer (Resident #4) and failed to ensure the alternating air mattress was functioning resulting in a deflated air mattress (Resident #29) for 2 of 3 sampled residents reviewed for pressure ulcers (Residents #4 & #29). Findings included: 1. Resident # 4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including diabetes mellitus, thoracic, thoracolumbar, lumbosacral, and intervertebral disk disorder, stage 4 chronic kidney disease, and congestive heart failure (CHF). A review of Resident #4's weekly decubitus ulcer assessments dated 1/11/23 revealed that Resident #4 had a stage 3 pressure ulcer on the right buttock measuring 2.7 centimeter (cm) by (x) 2.6 cm x 0.1 cm. with 25 % slough (dead tissue). Resident #4 had a physician order dated 1/11/23 to clean the right buttock pressure ulcer with wound cleanser, pat dry, apply hydrogel gauze (provides a moist wound environment for healing) and cover with dry dressing daily. On 2/2/23, the treatment to the right buttock pressure ulcer was changed to clean with wound cleanser, apply Sulfadiazine (used to prevent/treat wound infections) and cover with dry dressing daily. Resident #4's care plan dated 1/11/23 was reviewed. One of the care plan problems was I currently have a pressure ulcer to my right buttock, and I am at risk for development of additional pressure ulcers due to decreased ability to reposition and incontinence. The approaches included to administer treatments as ordered and monitor for effectiveness. The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated that Resident #4's cognition was intact, and she needed extensive assistance with bed mobility. The assessment further indicated that the resident had a stage 3 pressure ulcer that was not present on admission. The weekly pressure ulcer assessment dated [DATE] revealed that Resident #4 had developed a pressure ulcer on the left buttock. The assessment revealed a stage 3 pressure ulcer measuring 2.5 centimeter (cm) by (x) 1.3 cm x 0.1 cm. and the physician was notified. Review of Resident #4's physician's orders from January through March 2023 revealed no order for treatment to the left buttock pressure ulcer. The January through March 2023 Treatment Administration Records (TARs) were reviewed and there was no evidence that treatment was provided to the left buttock pressure ulcer from January 24, 2023 (pressure ulcer was first identified) through March 7, 2023. On 3/6/23 at 10:05 AM, Resident #4 was observed in bed. She had an air mattress, and she was positioned to her right side. She stated that she had pressure ulcers on her buttocks and the nurses had changed the dressing every day and had turned her from side to side. On 3/7/23 at 4:30 PM, Resident #4 was observed during the dressing change. The resident was observed to have open areas on the right and left buttocks. The Treatment Nurse was observed to clean the pressure ulcers on the right and left buttocks with wound cleanser, Sulfadiazine was applied to both areas and covered with a foam dressing. On 3/8/23 at 1:20 PM, the Treatment Nurse was interviewed. She stated that she started as Treatment Nurse a month ago. She assessed Resident #4's pressure ulcers weekly and provided the treatment on both buttocks daily. She verified that Resident #4 had stage 3 pressure ulcers on her right and left buttocks. She stated that the previous treatment nurse had notified the Physician and the responsible party of the pressure ulcer on the left buttock. The Treatment Nurse reviewed the physician's orders and the TARs and reported that she did not realize that there was no treatment ordered for the left buttock pressure ulcer and there was no evidence on the TARs that the treatment was provided. She reported that she used Sulfadiazine to treat the pressure ulcers on the resident's right and left buttocks. The Treatment Nurse reported that the ulcers on the resident's buttocks were improving. The Treatment Nurse explained that she provided the treatment to the left buttock Monday through Friday and the nurses who were assigned to Resident #4 provided the treatment on Saturday and Sunday. She reported that she could tell that the treatment was provided to the left buttock on the weekends by the date of the dressing. On 3/9/23 at 8:15 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed. She stated that the weekly assessments indicated that the Physician was aware of the pressure ulcers on the right and left buttocks. The DON indicated that it was an oversight on the part of the Treatment Nurse for not ensuring that there was a treatment ordered for the left buttock pressure ulcer and for not ensuring there was a treatment transcribed and documented on the TARs. She reported that the treatment was provided to the left buttock, and the pressure ulcer was improving. The DON indicated that she expected an order for treatment for each pressure ulcer. The Physician was interviewed on 3/9/23 at 9:20 AM. The Physician stated that Resident #4 was a high risk for pressure ulcer due to her comorbidities and her age. He indicated that he expected the Treatment Nurse to obtain a treatment order for each pressure ulcer and she might have obtained the order but forgot to write it down. He also stated that most of the time if the ulcers were on the same area, the order for treatment was the same.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0757 (Tag F0757)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews, Nurse Practitioner, Medical Director and staff interviews, the facility failed to hold diabetic medicat...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews, Nurse Practitioner, Medical Director and staff interviews, the facility failed to hold diabetic medications (Residents #18 and #42) and blood pressure medications (Residents #42 and #22) as ordered by the physician for 3 of 6 residents whose medications were reviewed. The findings included: 1. Resident #18 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included type 2 diabetes. A Significant Change in Status Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #18 was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #18's February 2023 and March 2023 physician orders included an order for Levemir Solution (a diabetic medication) 100 unit per milliliter. Inject 5 units subcutaneously in the morning for diabetes. Please hold for blood sugar less than 120. The February 2023 and March 2023 Medication Administration Records (MARs) were reviewed and revealed Resident #18 had received Levemir, despite the blood sugar less than 120 on the following dates: - 2/7/23- blood sugar was 109. - 2/23/23- blood sugar was 116. - 3/1/23- blood sugar was 116. - 3/2/23- blood sugar was 104. - 3/3/23- blood sugar was 98. An interview occurred with Nurse #1 on 3/8/23 at 12:56 PM, who was assigned to Resident #18 on 2/7/23, 2/23/23, 3/1/23 and 3/2/23. Nurse #1 indicated she was aware of the parameters to hold the Levemir. She reported she obtained the blood sugar and recorded on the MAR. Nurse #1 reviewed the February 2023 and March 2023 MARs, verified the Levemir was documented as administered despite the blood sugar being less than 120 when it should have been held and responded it was an oversight. The Nurse Practitioner (NP) was interviewed via the phone on 3/9/23 at 9:15 AM and stated she would expect the nurses to follow the orders for the Levemir parameters as written. Attempts to contact Nurse #3 were made without success. She was assigned to Resident #18 on 3/3/23. 2. Resident #42 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Atrial Fibrillation, heart disease, congestive heart failure, and type 2 diabetes. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #42 had moderately impaired cognition. a. Review of Resident #42's active physician orders included an order dated 10/28/22 for Metformin (a diabetic medication) 250 mg one tablet by mouth twice a day for diabetes. Hold for blood sugar less than 110. The March 2023 MAR was reviewed and revealed Resident #42 had received Metformin, despite the blood sugar being less than 110. - 3/5/23 the blood sugar was 108. An interview occurred with Nurse #2 on 3/8/23 at 2:00 PM, who was assigned to Resident #42 on 3/5/23. Nurse #2 reported she took the blood sugar and recorded it on the MAR. She reviewed the March 2023 MAR and verified the Metformin was administered despite the blood sugar being below 110 when it should have been held and felt it was an oversight. The Nurse Practitioner (NP) was interviewed via the phone on 3/9/23 at 9:15 AM and stated if Resident #42 had received a dosage of Metformin outside the parameter it should not have caused any serious harm. The NP added she would have expected the nurses to follow the orders for the Metformin parameters as written. b. Review of Resident #42's active physician orders included an order dated 9/30/22 for Metoprolol (a blood pressure medication) 25 milligrams. Give half a tablet by mouth every 12 hours for high blood pressure. Hold for systolic blood pressure (SBP) less than 100, diastolic blood pressure (DBP) less than 55, heart rate less than 55. The February 2023 Medication Administration Record (MAR) was reviewed and revealed Resident #42 had received Metoprolol, despite the SBP less than 100 and DBP less than 55. - 2/20/23 SBP was 98 and DBP was 52. - 2/25/23 SBP was 88. A phone interview occurred with Nurse #5 on 3/8/23 at 2:17 PM, who was assigned to Resident #42 on 2/25/23. The February 2023 MAR was reviewed with Nurse #5 and stated the medication should have been held per the parameters and felt it was an oversight. The NP was interviewed via the phone on 3/9/23 at 9:15 AM and stated if Resident #42 had received a few dosages of Metoprolol outside the parameters it should not have caused any serious harm. The NP added she would have expected the nurses to follow the orders for the Metoprolol parameters as written. Attempts to contact Nurse #6 were made without success. She was assigned to Resident #42 on 2/20/23. 3. Resident # 22 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including hypertension. Resident #22 had a physician's order dated 8/26/22 for hydrochlorothiazide (can treat hypertension and fluid retention) 25 milligrams (mgs) - give 1 tablet by mouth in the evening. Hold for systolic blood pressure (SBP) of less than or equal to 130. The Medication Administration Records (MARs) from October through March 2023 were reviewed and revealed that hydrochlorothiazide was administered despite the blood pressure was less than 130 on the following dates: 10/5/22 - blood pressure (BP) 122/57 10/23/22 - BP 114/68 10/14/22 - BP 110/54 10/28/22 - BP 125/85 10/21/22 - BP 117/58 10/29/22 - BP 125/70 11/2/22 - BP 121/66 11/10/22 - BP 104/65 11/4/22 - BP 101/62 11/12/22 - BP 107/59 11/6/22 - BP 114/52 11/14/22 - BP 100/52 11/7/22 - BP 114/62 11/15/22 - BP - 100/52 11/8/22 - BP 101/61 11/17/22 - BP - 120/53 11/19/22 - BP 123/52 11/24/22 - BP 124/72 11/22/22 - BP 111/70 11/26/22 - Bp 129/65 11/23/22 - BP 107/68 12/4/22 - BP 119/73 12/7/22 - BP 126/68 12/8/22 - Bp 120/81 12/9/22 - BP 118/80 12/10/22 - BP 95/50 12/11/22 - BP 95/50 12/16/22 - BP 118/62 12/26/22 - BP 105/66 12/27/22 - BP 114/57 12/30/22 - BP 112/60 1/1/23 - BP 127/75 1/16/23 - BP 107/60 1/18/23 - BP 107/60 1/21/23 - BP 112/66 1/30/23 - BP 118/66 2/1/23 - BP 123/54 2/3/23 - BP 128/66 2/5/23 - BP 130/68 2/6/23 - BP 122/67 2/13/23 - BP 126/74 2/14/23 - BP 127/79 2/22/23 - BP 122/50 3/2/23 - BP 128/64 Nurse #2, assigned to Resident #59 on 3/2/23 was interviewed. She reviewed the physician's order for the hydrochlorothiazide and stated that she was aware of the parameters to hold the medication if the SBP was below 130 but obviously she missed to hold the medication when the resident's blood pressure was 128/64 on 3/2/23. Attempts to interview Nurse #6, who was assigned to Resident #59 on 2/13/23 and 2/22/23 but was unsuccessful. The Pharmacy Consultant was interviewed on 3/8/23 at 3:05 PM. She reported that she identified the irregularity regarding the physician's order to hold the hydrochlorothiazide was not being followed. The Pharmacy Consultant reported that she brought it to the attention of the Director of Nursing (DON) on 6/22/22, 10/5/22 and on 3/6/22. Nurse #8, who was assigned to Resident #59 on 1/23/23, 1/27/23, 1/30/23, 2/5/23, and 2/6/23 was interviewed on 3/9/23 at 8:14 AM. She reviewed the order for the hydrochlorothiazide and indicated that she was aware of the order to hold the medication if the SBP was 130 or below. Nurse #8 reviewed the MARs and stated, I just don't know what to say, I missed it. The Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed on 3/9/23 at 8:15 AM. She stated that she expected the nurses to follow the physician's orders in holding the medications with parameters. She reported that she provided education to the nurses when she received the report from the Pharmacy Consultant. The Physician was interviewed on 3/9/23 at 9:20 AM. He stated that he expected the nurses to follow the order in holding the BP medications with parameters.
CONCERN (E)

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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record reviews, observations, Nurse Practitioner, Medical Director, and staff interviews, the facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee failed to maintain impl...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record reviews, observations, Nurse Practitioner, Medical Director, and staff interviews, the facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee failed to maintain implemented procedures and monitor interventions the committee put into place following the annual recertification survey on 7/1/21. This was for four deficiencies that were cited in the areas of Accuracy of Assessments, Activities of Daily Living Care Provided to Dependent Residents, Treatment/Services to Prevent/Heal Pressure Ulcers and Drug Regimen is Free From Unnecessary Drugs. The duplicate citations during two federal surveys of record shows a pattern of the facility's inability to sustain an effective QAPI program. The findings included: These citations are cross referenced to: 1. F641- Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments in the areas of medications (Residents # 22, #4 & #1), accidents (Resident #4 & #26), diagnoses (Resident #4) and urinary status (Resident # 54) for 5 of 20 sampled residents whose MDS were reviewed. During the facility's recertification survey of 7/1/21, the facility failed to code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments accurately in the areas of accidents, nutrition, and diagnoses for 3 of 19 sampled residents reviewed. In an interview with the Administrator on 3/9/23 at 9:00 AM, she felt the repeat citation in MDS accuracy was felt to be related to human error. 2. F677- Based on record review, observation and family and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide showers as scheduled for 1 of 5 sampled residents who needed extensive assistance or were dependent on the staff for activities of daily living (Resident #59). During the facility's recertification survey of 7/1/21, the facility failed to provide nail care for a resident dependent on staff for assistance with her activities of daily living (ADLs). This was for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for nail care. In an interview with the Administrator on 3/9/23 at 9:00 AM, she indicated the facility was utilizing agency staff and felt there was a lack of oversight and education to ensure showers were offered, provided, and documented that they were given or refused by the resident. 3. F686- Based on record review, observation, and interviews with the Physician, Wound Physician and staff, the facility failed to obtain an order for treatment to the left buttock pressure ulcer (Resident #4) and failed to ensure the alternating air mattress was functioning resulting in a deflated air mattress (Resident #29) for 2 of 3 sampled residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. During the facility's recertification survey of 7/1/21, the facility failed to ensure the alternating pressure reducing air mattress was set according to the resident's weight for 2 of 4 residents reviewed for pressure ulcer. In an interview with the Administrator on 3/9/23 at 9:00 AM, she stated it was felt to be related to human error not to have documented when a treatment was completed as ordered. 4. F757- Based on record reviews, Nurse Practitioner, Medical Director and staff interviews, the facility failed to hold diabetic medications (Residents #18 and #42) and blood pressure medications (Residents #42 and #22) as ordered by the physician for 3 of 6 residents whose medications were reviewed. During the facility's recertification survey of 7/1/21, the facility failed to hold the blood pressure medications as ordered and failed to check the blood pressure prior to administering the blood pressure medications for 2 of 5 sampled residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. In an interview with the Administrator on 3/9/23 at 9:00 AM, she indicated the facility was utilizing agency staff and felt the repeat citation could be a result of the need for education and oversight.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and interviews with staff, the facility failed to provide the resident and/or Responsible Party (RP) wri...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and interviews with staff, the facility failed to provide the resident and/or Responsible Party (RP) written notification of the reason for a hospital transfer for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for hospitalization (Residents #54 and #17). The findings included: 1. Resident #54 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #54 was cognitively intact. Resident #54's medical record revealed she was transferred to the hospital on 2/26/23 for altered mental status and was readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. There was no documentation that written notice of transfer was provided to the resident and/or RP for the reason of the transfer. The Social Worker (SW) was interviewed on 3/7/23 at 10:55 AM and stated she was not responsible for notifying the resident or RP when a resident was discharged to the hospital. On 3/7/23 at 10:56 AM, the Admissions staff member was interviewed and stated that she began employment at the facility 2 weeks ago. She was responsible for notifying the resident or RP when a resident was discharged to the hospital. She called the RP, discussed the bed hold policy and requested the RP to come to the facility to sign the bed hold form. She then provided the RP a copy of the form with the reason and date the resident was discharged to the hospital. An interview occurred with the Administrator on 3/9/23 at 9:10 AM. She stated that the Admissions staff member was responsible for notifying the resident or RP when a resident was discharged to the hospital. She added that the Admissions staff member called the RP, explained the bed hold policy and requested the RP come to the facility and to sign the bed hold form. The form included the reason and date of hospital discharge. After the bed hold form was signed, a copy was provided to the RP or resident. The Administrator further explained when Resident #54 was discharged to the hospital, the previous Admissions staff member, who no longer worked at the facility, did not have the bed hold form completed or signed by the resident/RP. 2. Resident # 17 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was readmitted on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses including cerebrovascular accident (CVA) with aphasia and dysphasia. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated that Resident #17 had severe cognitive impairment. A nursing note dated 1/29/23 at 3:34 AM revealed that Resident #17 had a medium stool with small blood clots present in brief. The note indicated that the resident was stable with no complaints of abdominal pain and his vital signs were within normal limits. The Physician Assistant (PA) was notified and ordered to monitor the resident and to call back if the vital signs or the resident status worsen. A nursing note dated 1/29/23 at 2:12 PM, Resident #17 was seen by the PA and ordered to send the resident to the emergency room for evaluation and treatment. Resident #17 was readmitted back to the facility on 2/13/23. The Social Worker (SW) was interviewed on 3/7/23 at 10:55 AM. The SW stated that she was not responsible for notifying the resident or the responsible party (RP) when a resident was discharged to the hospital. The admission staff member was interviewed on 3/7/23 at 10:56 AM. She stated that she started working at the facility 2 weeks ago. She was responsible for notifying the resident or the RP when a resident was discharged to the hospital. She called the RP, discussed the bed hold policy and requested the RP to come to the facility to sign the bed hold form. She then provided the RP a copy of the form with the reason and the date the resident was discharged to the hospital. The Administrator was interviewed on 3/9/23 at 9:10 AM. She stated that the admission staff member was responsible for notifying the resident or the RP when a resident was discharged to the hospital. She added that the admission staff member called the RP, explained the bed hold policy and requested the RP to come to the facility and to sign the bed hold form. The form included the reason and the date the resident was discharged to the hospital. After the bed hold form was signed, a copy was provided to the RP. The Administrator further explained that when Resident #17 was discharged to the hospital, the previous admission staff member, who no longer worked at the facility, did not have the bed hold form completed and signed by the RP.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most North Carolina facilities.
Concerns
  • • 12 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • 55% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 70/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Westfield Rehabilitation And Health Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns Westfield Rehabilitation and Health Center an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered above average nationally. Within North Carolina, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.

How is Westfield Rehabilitation And Health Center Staffed?

CMS rates Westfield Rehabilitation and Health Center's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 55%, which is 9 percentage points above the North Carolina average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.

What Have Inspectors Found at Westfield Rehabilitation And Health Center?

State health inspectors documented 12 deficiencies at Westfield Rehabilitation and Health Center during 2023 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm, 10 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Westfield Rehabilitation And Health Center?

Westfield Rehabilitation and Health Center is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by LIBERTY SENIOR LIVING, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 83 certified beds and approximately 78 residents (about 94% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in Sanford, North Carolina.

How Does Westfield Rehabilitation And Health Center Compare to Other North Carolina Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in North Carolina, Westfield Rehabilitation and Health Center's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (55%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Westfield Rehabilitation And Health Center?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's high staff turnover rate and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Westfield Rehabilitation And Health Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Westfield Rehabilitation and Health Center has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in North Carolina. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at Westfield Rehabilitation And Health Center Stick Around?

Staff turnover at Westfield Rehabilitation and Health Center is high. At 55%, the facility is 9 percentage points above the North Carolina average of 46%. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Westfield Rehabilitation And Health Center Ever Fined?

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

Is Westfield Rehabilitation And Health Center on Any Federal Watch List?

Westfield Rehabilitation and Health Center 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.