CHARDON CENTER

620 WATER STREET, CHARDON, OH 44024 (440) 285-9400
For profit - Limited Liability company 99 Beds COMMUNICARE HEALTH Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
78/100
#40 of 913 in OH
Last Inspection: April 2025

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

Overview

Chardon Center has a Trust Grade of B, which means it is a good choice, indicating solid overall performance. It ranks #40 out of 913 facilities in Ohio, placing it in the top half, and #2 out of 8 in Geauga County, showing it is one of the better local options. However, the facility is experiencing a worsening trend, with reported issues increasing from 2 in 2023 to 3 in 2025. Staffing is a mixed bag; while the turnover rate of 35% is good and lower than the state average, the staffing rating is only 2 out of 5 stars, indicating below-average performance. There have been some concerning incidents at the facility, including a serious issue where a resident developed unstageable pressure ulcers due to a failure to complete timely assessments and interventions. Additionally, during a COVID-19 outbreak, staff were found reusing N95 masks, which could impact all residents. Finally, residents reported that food was often served at unappetizing temperatures, affecting their meal experience. Overall, while there are strengths in staffing stability and overall quality, these weaknesses raise important questions for families considering this nursing home.

Trust Score
B
78/100
In Ohio
#40/913
Top 4%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Worse
2 → 3 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
35% turnover. Near Ohio's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
$6,500 in fines. Lower than most Ohio facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 20 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Ohio. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
16 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 2 issues
2025: 3 issues

The Good

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

    13 points below Ohio average of 48%

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 35%

11pts below Ohio avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $6,500

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Chain: COMMUNICARE HEALTH

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 16 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Apr 2025 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0583 (Tag F0583)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on medical record review, observation, staff interview and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure staff knocked on Resident #21's room door and/or asked permission to enter...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on medical record review, observation, staff interview and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure staff knocked on Resident #21's room door and/or asked permission to enter the resident's room prior to entering. This affected one resident (#21) of one resident reviewed for privacy. The facility census was 85. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #21 revealed an admission date of 02/07/2024 with diagnoses including epilepsy, respiratory failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic chronic kidney disease, unspecified dementia, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, anxiety, depression, and personal history of cerebral infarction without residual deficits. Observation on 04/16/25 at 8:27 A.M. revealed Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #500 walked into Resident #21's without knocking on the door or asking permission to enter the room. Interview with Resident #21 on 04/15/25 at 9:03 A.M. revealed staff does not respect his privacy. They just walk into the room without knocking or asking permission. Interview with CNA # 500 on 04/16/25 at 8:43 A.M. verified CNA #500 did not knock or ask permission before entering Resident #21's room. Review of the undated policy titled Resident Rights revealed residents' private space and property shall be respected at all times, and staff will knock before entering resident room and wait for an answer and/or request permission before entering residents' rooms.
CONCERN (E)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure Residents #67, #189 and #196 were pr...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure Residents #67, #189 and #196 were provided with showers as scheduled. This finding affected three residents (#67, #189 and #196) of five residents reviewed for showers. The facility census was 85. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #189 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including encounter for orthopedic aftercare following a surgical amputation, diabetes, and generalized weakness. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #189 exhibited moderate cognitive impairment and was dependent on staff for showers/bathing. Review of the activities of daily living (ADL) care plans revealed an intervention dated 03/25/25 for shower/bathing, and Resident #189 was totally dependent on staff. Review of the shower schedules revealed Resident #189 was scheduled for showers Sunday and Thursday during the nightshift. Review of the Documentation Survey Report form dated 03/21/25 to 04/14/25 revealed Resident #189 received a shower/bath on 03/27/25, 03/30/25, 04/07/25 and 04/13/25. Interview on 04/14/25 at 10:37 A.M. with Resident #189 revealed he had only received two bed baths and one shower since admission. Interview on 04/15/25 at 12:12 P.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed Resident #189 should have had at least six showers/baths since 03/21/25 and was only provided four showers/bathes since admission. 2. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #196 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including myelodysplastic syndrome and unspecified cirrhosis of the liver. Review of the admission MDS 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #196 had intact cognition and was dependent on staff for showers/bathing. Review of the ADL care plans revealed an intervention dated 03/25/25 for shower/bathing, and Resident #196 was totally dependent on staff. Review of the shower schedules revealed Resident #196 was scheduled for showers Tuesday and Saturday on nightshift. Interview on 04/14/25 at 10:40 A.M. with Resident #196 revealed she had not received a shower/bath since admission. Review of the Documentation Survey Report form from 03/21/25 to 04/14/25 revealed Resident #196 refused a shower/bath on 04/05/25 and received a shower/bath on 04/09/25. Interview on 04/15/25 at 12:12 P.M. with the DON confirmed Resident #196 should have had at least six showers/baths since 03/21/25, and the resident refused one shower/bath and received only one shower/bath. 3. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #67 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including muscle weakness, unspecified lack of coordination, and abnormal posture. Review of the MDS 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #67 had intact cognition, required substantial/maximal assistance for shower/bathing, was dependent for mobility and transfers with the assistance of two or more staff for showers and all transfers by Hoyer (mechanical) lift. Review of the shower scheduled revealed Resident #67 was to receive showers every Sunday and Thursday. Review of the plan of care dated 02/14/25, revealed Resident #67 required assistance for ADL self-care. Interventions included bed mobility, transfer with Hoyer lift, bathing, toileting and hygiene required the assistance of two staff. Review of the Documentation Survey Report Form dated 03/01/25 through 03/31/25 revealed Resident #67 received showers on 03/13/25, 03/27/25, and 03/30/25. Interview on 04/16/25 at 9:38 A.M. with Resident #67 revealed that she would like to have her showers as scheduled and would like more showers than her scheduled two days. Resident #67 revealed issues with staff having time to Hoyer her to be showered. Interview with Executive Director on 04/17/25 at 8:42 A.M. verified the skin assessment/shower sheets revealed that Resident # 67 only received three showers in March on 03/13/25, 03/27/25, and 03/30/25. Review of the undated Routine Resident Care policy revealed routine resident care was defined as care that was not necessarily medically or clinically based but necessary for quality of life promoting dignity and independence as appropriate including routine care by a nursing assistant. The routine care by a nursing assistant includes but not limited to bathing, dressing, eating, hydration and toileting.
CONCERN (E)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations, interviews and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure oxygen tubing ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations, interviews and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure oxygen tubing was changed and dated and oxygen was set to the ordered liter flow per minute. This affected five residents (#1, #5, #8, #61, and #65) out of eight residents reviewed for oxygen. The facility census was 85. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #1 revealed an admission date of 09/03/24. Diagnoses included epilepsy, chronic respiratory failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), chronic diastolic congestive heart failure and atrial fibrillation. Review of Resident #1's Minimal Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had intact cognition. He required setup or clean up assistance with eating and dressing. He was independent with bed mobility, and required supervision or touching assistance with showers, toileting, and personal hygiene. Review of the Care Plan dated 04/09/25 revealed Resident #1 had COPD and chronic respiratory failure. Goals and interventions included Resident #1 would have a reduction in complications related to COPD, staff were to administer medications per order, observe for side effects and effectiveness, and report any abnormal findings to the physician. Staff were to monitor vital signs, observe for signs and symptoms of COPD, increased shortness of breath, coughing with or without mucus, wheezing, tightness in the chest, and anxiety. Oxygen therapy as ordered, and changing tubing per facility policy. Review of Resident #1's Physician orders dated April 2025 revealed an order for oxygen at three liters per minute (lpm) via nasal cannula (NC) continuous every shift. Change oxygen tubing and humidifier every seven days and as needed on Wednesday on night shift. Observation on 04/14/25 at 10:08 A.M. of Resident #1's oxygen revealed it was set at four lpm. Interview on 04/14/25 at 10:10 A.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #585 revealed they verified Resident #1 was to be on three lpm of oxygen, and the resident was on four lpm of oxygen. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #5 revealed an admission date of 10/25/24. Diagnoses included systolic congestive heart failure, venous insufficiency, chronic atrial fibrillation, and COPD. Review of Resident #5's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had intact cognition. He required setup or clean up assistance with eating, supervision or touching assistance with bed mobility, partial to moderate assistance for oral hygiene, showers, dressing, and personal hygiene. He required substantial to maximal assistance for toileting. Review of Resident #5's care plan dated 02/24/25 revealed the resident had COPD with potential for shortness of breath while lying flat. Interventions and goals included staff administering medications per medical providers order, observing for side effects and effectiveness, reporting abnormal findings to the medical provider, resident and resident representative. Provide oxygen therapy as ordered, change tubing per facility policy and provide bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP)/continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) as ordered. Review of Resident #5's physician orders dated April 2025, revealed the resident was to wear a BiPAP with settings of 16/10 with an oxygen bleed of two lpm at bedtime. Observation made on 04/14/25 at 10:18 A.M. revealed the oxygen tubing from the oxygen concentrator to the BiPAP machine was last changed and dated 04/03/25. Interview on 04/14/25 at 10:20 A.M. with LPN #585 revealed she verified the oxygen tubing had not been changed since 04/03/25, and the tubing was to be changed weekly. 3. Review of Resident #8's medical record revealed an admission date of 02/24/25. Diagnoses included chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, COPD, and congestive heart failure (CHF). Review of Resident #8's Medicare 5-day admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had intact cognition. She required setup to clean up assistance with eating, partial to moderate assistance for oral hygiene, and bed mobility. She required substantial to maximal assistance for showers, dressing, and personal hygiene. Review of Resident #8's care plan dated 02/09/25 revealed the resident had oxygen therapy related to diagnosis of COPD and CHF. Interventions and goals included the resident would not have signs or symptoms of poor oxygen absorption, staff would encourage or assist with ambulation as indicated, staff to give medications as ordered by the physician, monitor and document side effects and effectiveness, staff to monitor for signs and symptoms of respiratory distress and report to the physician as needed. Resident #8 to have oxygen at four lpm via nasal cannula. Review of Resident #8's physician orders dated April 2025 revealed the resident was prescribed oxygen at four lpm via nasal cannula continuously every shift. Change oxygen tubing and humidification every seven days and as needed, every night shift on Wednesday and as needed. Observation on 04/14/25 at 9:38 A.M. of Resident #8's oxygen tubing revealed it was undated as to when it was changed last. The humidification bottle was undated and empty, and the oxygen concentrator was set to 4.5 lpm. Interview on 04/14/25 at 9:40 A.M. with Resident #8 revealed staff had not changed the oxygen tubing in over a week. Resident #8 stated her oxygen was to be at four lpm. Interview on 04/14/25 at 9:41 A.M. with LPN #585 verified Resident #8's oxygen tubing was not dated, the humidification bottle was empty and undated, and the concentrator was set to 4.5 lpm and not 4 lpm per the resident's physician's orders. 4. Review of the medical record for Resident #61 revealed an admission date of 01/09/24. Diagnoses included COPD, nonspecific abnormal findings of lung field, personal history of other malignant neoplasm of bronchus and lung. Review of Resident #61's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had impaired cognition. She required setup or clean up assistance for eating and oral hygiene. She required substantial to maximal assistance for bed mobility and was dependent on staff for toileting hygiene, showers, dressing and personal hygiene. Review of Resident #61's care plan dated 04/02/25 revealed the resident had COPD with potential for shortness of breath while lying flat. Interventions and goals included staff administering medications per physician orders, oxygen therapy as ordered, and changing tubing per facility policy. Review of Resident #61's physician orders dated April 2025 revealed oxygen at two lpm via nasal cannula, change oxygen tubing and humidifier every seven days and as needed every night shift on Wednesday. Observation on 04/14/25 at 10:12 A.M. of Resident #61's oxygen tubing revealed it was undated, and oxygen was set at three lpm. Interview on 04/14/25 at 10:13 A.M. with LPN #585 verified Resident #61's oxygen tubing was undated, and the oxygen was set at three lpm and not at two lpm per the physician orders. 5. Review of the medical record for Resident #65 revealed an admission date of 04/18/24. Diagnoses included CHF, emphysema, atrial fibrillation, hypertension, and heart failure. Review of Resident #65's annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed she had intact cognition. She required setup or clean up assistance for eating and oral hygiene and substantial to maximal assistance for showers, dressing, and personal hygiene. She was independent with bed mobility. Review of Resident #65's care plan dated 02/24/25 revealed she had COPD with potential of shortness of breath while lying flat, staff were to apply oxygen therapy as ordered and change tubing per facility policy. Review of Resident #65's physician's orders dated April 2025 revealed the resident was prescribed oxygen at two lpm via nasal cannula continuous every shift, change oxygen tubing and humidifier every seven days on Wednesday and as needed. Observation on 04/14/25 at 9:58 A.M. of Resident #65's oxygen revealed the oxygen tubing had not been changed since 04/03/25 and was set at 3.5 lpm. Interview on 04/14/25 at 10:00 A.M. with Resident #65 revealed her oxygen was to be at three lpm, and the oxygen tubing had not been changed in a couple of weeks. Interview on 04/14/25 at 10:04 A.M. with LPN #585 verified Resident #65's oxygen tubing had not been changed since 04/03/25 and they confirmed the oxygen was set at 3.5 lpm and not three lpm. Review of the undated facility policy titled Supplemental Oxygen using Nasal Cannula revealed oxygen is to be administered per physician orders, and oxygen tubing is to be labeled and dated when opened and changed every seven days.
Feb 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (F) 📢 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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure staff were not re-using N95 masks during a COVID-19 outbreak. This had the potential to affect all 74 resi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure staff were not re-using N95 masks during a COVID-19 outbreak. This had the potential to affect all 74 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: Observation on 02/01/23 at 9:04 A.M. of Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #107 revealed she donned a gown, N95 mask with surgical mask overtop, gloves, and face shield to enter Residents #38 and #51's room. Signs on the door indicated droplet isolation precautions should be followed. Upon exiting the room, LPN #107 doffed her gown, gloves, and surgical mask in the room and performed hand hygiene. She did not change her N95 mask. Interview on 02/01/23 at 9:10 A.M. with LPN #107 verified she did not change her N95 mask. She stated she wore the same N95 mask all day and just discarded the surgical mask that she put on overtop to go in COVID-19 isolation rooms. She also indicated the only training she received was to follow the precautions on the doors of isolation rooms. Observation on 02/01/23 at 9:51 A.M. of State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) #108 revealed she donned a gown, gloves, face shield, and N95 mask with multiple surgical masks over top to enter Residents #18 and #58's room. Signs on the door indicated droplet isolation precautions should be followed. Upon exiting the room, STNA #108 discarded the top surgical mask, gown, and gloves. She did not discard or change her N95 mask. Interview on 02/01/23 at 9:53 A.M. with STNA #108 verified she only discarded the top surgical mask and continued wearing the same N95 mask. She stated she wore the same N95 mask all day long. She stated the education she received was to follow the instructions on the doors of isolation rooms. Observation on 02/01/23 at 10:17 A.M. of LPN #109 revealed she donned a gown, gloves, face shield, and retrieved a N95 mask from on top of the medication cart to enter Residents #66 and #69's room. Signs on the door indicated isolation precautions for aerosol treatments only. Upon exiting the room, LPN #109 discarded her gown and gloves and performed hand hygiene. She removed her N95 mask and placed it on top of the medication cart. Interview on 02/01/23 at 10:17 A.M. with LPN #109 verified she placed the N95 mask on top of the medication cart and she wore the same N95 mask all day long. She stated she would put the N95 mask on over top of a surgical mask and when she was done with it, she would place the N95 mask on the medication cart to use later. Interview on 02/01/23 at 11:32 A.M. with Regional Registered Nurse (RN) #106 confirmed N95 masks should be changed when exiting isolation rooms and that staff should have received education on proper personal protection equipment (PPE) use. Review of facility policy titled Criteria for COVID-19 Requirements, dated 09/23/22, revealed full personal protective equipment (PPE) including a gown, N95 mask, eye protection, and gloves was required for COVID-19 isolation rooms, PPE would be discarded before exiting the room, and a new surgical mask or N95 mask would be applied when exiting the room. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Master Complaint Number OH00139867 and Complaint Number OH00139828.
Jan 2023 1 deficiency
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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations and interviews the facility failed to provide a dignified existence for all residents. This...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations and interviews the facility failed to provide a dignified existence for all residents. This affected one (Resident #36) of 10 residents observed for activities and staff interaction. The census was 66. Findings Include: Review of medical record revealed Resident #36 was admitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses included unspecified dementia, history of falls, and anxiety disorder. Resident #36 was receiving hospice services. Review of the plan of care dated 08/17/21 revealed Resident #36 was at risk for falls due to balance problems, history of falls and weakness. Review of the plan of care dated 12/09/22 revealed Resident #36 had a self-care deficit and required assistance by staff for activities of daily living (ADL). Review of the 01/16/23 quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment for Resident #36 revealed she had severe cognitive impairment. Observation on 01/18/23 from 10:03 A.M. to 12:00 P.M. revealed Resident #36 dressed in street clothes seated in a Broda (geriatric) chair in front of the nurse's desk. Staff walking by Resident #36 did not engage with her in any manner; the staff did not extend a greeting or make any acknowledgement of her presence at any time during the observation. Observations on 01/18/23 from 1:55 P.M. to 3:52 P.M. revealed Resident #36 dressed in street clothes seated in a Broda chair in front of the nurse's desk. Staff were observed walking past Resident #36 with no interaction. Observation on 01/18/23 at 3:53 P.M. revealed staff taking Resident #36 to her room to complete incontinence care. Observation on 01/18/23 at 4:11 P.M. revealed Resident #36 was back out in front of the nurse's desk. Observation and interviews on 01/18/23 at 4:12 P.M. with State Tested Nurse Assistant (STNA) #40, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #41 and Registered Nurse (RN) #89 revealed they were seated behind the nurse's desk. All staff were asked if Resident #36 attended any activities during the day. RN #89 was the only staff to reply stating Resident #36 attended activities in the evenings when family visited. Staff were unable to provide an explanation as to why Resident #36 was seated by herself throughout the day with no interaction by staff as they walked past and with no opportunities to interact with other residents. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00138971.
Dec 2019 11 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure timely assessments were completed and adequate ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure timely assessments were completed and adequate interventions were implemented to prevent the development of three unstageable pressure ulcers for Resident #55. Actual Harm occurred on 12/05/19 when Resident #55, who was bedfast and required extensive assistance to total dependence on staff for activity of daily living care, including bed mobility and transfers developed unstageable (full thickness tissue loss in which the base of the ulcer is covered by slough [yellow, tan, gray, green or brown tissue] and/or eschar [tan brown or black tissue] in the wound bed) pressure ulcers to the right heel, left heel and coccyx. This affected one Resident (#55) of two residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility identified three current residents with pressure ulcers. Findings include: Record review revealed Resident #55 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including type two diabetes mellitus without complications, dementia, congestive heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Review of the physician's orders revealed the following orders: A diet order on 07/02/19 for a consistent carbohydrate diet, no added salt. On 08/13/19 a physician order for Med Plus no sugar added (NSA) four ounces twice a day as a nutritional supplement. On 10/18/19 fortified foods three times a day were added to the resident meals along with a 2:00 P.M. snack and bedtime (HS) snack. Review of Resident #55's care plan initiated 07/02/19 revealed Resident #55 had a potential for actual impairment to skin integrity due to fragile skin, edema to her lower extremities, a deficit in self care performance related to dementia, incontinent of urine and stool and was at nutritional risk for weight loss and dehydration. The interventions included apply barrier cream to buttocks and peri area after each incontinent episode, encourage good nutrition and hydration in order to promote healthier skin, provide and serve snacks and supplements as ordered, pressure relieving devices to bed and wheelchair, turn and reposition every two hours and elevate legs in bed. Record review revealed Resident #55 was discharged to the hospital on [DATE] with diagnoses of urinary retention and exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The resident returned to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the 11/04/19 admission Evaluation completed by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #352 upon the resident's return from the hospital revealed Resident #55 could not walk, did not stand or sit in a chair, used a mechanical lift for transfers and was dependent on staff to roll in the bed from back to sides and sides to back. The Braden Observation Tool dated 11/04/19 and authored by LPN #352 revealed Resident #55's skin was very moist, she was confined to bed, had potential problems with friction and shearing of the skin and very limited mobility being unable to independently make significant changes in body position. The tool scored the resident at moderate risk for skin breakdown with interventions listed as encourage turn and reposition, float heels, elevate legs above heart while in bed and place a blanket between resident and mechanical lift. Review of the physician orders, dated 11/04/19 revealed the resident was ordered to be non weight bearing (NWB), pressure reduction mattress to the bed, encourage and assist resident to float heels in bed, encourage and assist her to turn and reposition every two hours and a consistent carbohydrate, no added salt diet. The Med Plus NSA nutritional supplement was not reordered by the physician upon readmission. Review of a progress note dated 11/05/19 and authored by Certified Registered Nurse Practitioner (CRNP) #900 revealed Resident #55 had been recently in the hospital for urinary retention, had a decrease in weight following the hospital stay of 12.4 pounds (weight noted at 160 pounds) and trace edema to the bilateral extremities. Review of the facility document titled MD Progress Note, dated 11/08/19, authored by Primary Care Physician (PCP) #901 revealed Resident #55 had an elevated blood sodium level at 149, her weight was stable at 174 pounds and she may have been dehydrated. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #55 had cognitive impairment, did not reject care, was at risk for pressure ulcers requiring pressure reducing devices to her bed and chair, was always incontinent of bowel and bladder and required total assistance by two staff for transfers and extensive assistance of two staff for bed mobility, dressing, toileting and hygiene. A physician order dated 11/12/19 revealed an order for Prafo boots (specialized boots used to relieve pressure to the heels in people who spend most of the time in bed ) while in bed. Review of a progress note dated 11/13/19 and authored by CRNP #900 revealed Resident #55 had not been eating well, would not sit up in bed more than 30 degrees, had trace edema and needed fluids encouraged due to high blood sodium levels being monitored by the CRNP. Review of the Braden Observation Tool dated 11/17/19 indicated Resident #55 was chair fast, had very limited mobility, adequate nutrition and was low risk for skin impairment. Review of the MD Progress Note dated 11/22/19 and authored by PCP #901 revealed Resident #55 had decreased by mouth intake of meals and was at risk for weight loss and dehydration so a diet downgrade would be considered because she refused to sit upright for meals. Review of the documented titled Skid Grid Non Pressure, dated 11/24/19, revealed the resident had developed on 11/17/19 an abrasion to her left front thigh from improper briefing. The abrasion was described as no skin loss, red in color, no exudate and size of 10.0 centimeters (CM) length by 10.0 cm width and 0.0 depth. Review of the Weekly Skin Check document dated 11/26/19 revealed new areas since the last skin check. A progress note dated 11/27/19 authored by Registered Dietitian (RD) #373 revealed the resident's weight was up three percent (%) and nursing staff reported her by mouth intakes were increased. RD #373 added the RN was made aware of the weight gain and current interventions would continue along with monitoring. There was no assessment of actual percentage of meal intakes or implementation of any supplements or meal fortifiers (foods used to provided a concentrated source of calories and protein) for nutritional support during this review by RD #373. Review of the Weekly Skin Check documented dated 12/03/19 indicated there were no new skin areas. Review of the facility documents titled Skin Monitoring Comprehensive CNA Shower Review, from 11/07/19 to 12/05/19 revealed the resident was provided bed baths due to shower refusals during that time frame, there were no skin impairment areas identified to the heels or coccyx and the sheets were signed and dated by the charge nurses. Review of a progress note dated 12/06/19 at 7:54 P.M. revealed while Resident #55 was being moved with the mechanical lift from the bed to the shower chair it was identified the resident had discoloration to her bilateral heels, an area to the right lateral foot, an abrasion to left third toe and discoloration to coccyx. The note continued to describe the right heel had a deep tissue injury measuring four centimeters (cm) in length by five cm, the left heel had deep tissue injury measuring 2.5 cm in length by 5.8 width, the coccyx had an unstageable ulceration measuring 1.2 cm by 1.5 cm and third toe had an abrasion. The physician and daughter were made aware of the ulcers and treatments were ordered at that time. Review of the document titled Skin Grid Pressure, dated 12/06/19 and authored by LPN #370 revealed an in-house acquired right heel pressure ulcer identified on 12/05/19 measuring 4.0 cm length by 5.0 cm width with an undetermined (UTD) depth and suspected deep tissue injury (SDTI). The ulcer was assessed to have indistinct edges, red color with granulation tissue present, no drainage or pain. The treatment order was paint with betadine (an anti-septic solution used to prevent infection) and cover with a foam dressing daily. Review of the document titled Skin Grid Pressure, dated 12/06/19, and authored by LPN #370 revealed an in-house acquired left heel pressure ulcer identified on 12/05/19 measuring 2.5 cm length by 4.8 cm width with an undetermined (UTD) depth and suspected deep tissue injury (SDTI). The ulcer was assessed to have indistinct edges, eschar (tan, brown or black color) with necrotic (dead) tissue present, no drainage or pain. The treatment order was paint with betadine (an anti-septic solution used to prevent infection) and cover with a foam dressing daily. Review of the document titled Skin Grid Pressure, dated 12/06/19 and authored by LPN #370 revealed an in-house acquired coccyx pressure ulcer identified on 12/05/19 measuring 1.2 cm length by 1.5 cm width with an undetermined (UTD) depth and unstageable. The ulcer was assessed to have distinct edges, with yellow slough (dead skin tissue that may have yellow or white appearance) present, bloody drainage and no odor. The treatment order was for medihoney and a foam dressing daily. On 12/16/19 at 1:31 P.M. RN #375 and LPN #335 were observed completing wound care for Resident #55. Proper infection control procedures were followed and the resident denied pain before starting the dressing changes. Upon positioning the resident to expose the coccyx there was no dressing in place and a small area of dry pink and dark color skin was noted on the coccyx. A dressing dated 12/15/19 was removed from the right heel. The right heel was observed to have a large purple and black colored area which was covered with eschar. A dressing dated 12/15/19 was removed from the left heel. The left heel appeared calloused with purple dotted areas of deep injury. The resident retracted her left foot during cleansing and complained of extreme tenderness to the left heel. All ordered treatments were implemented and dated 12/16/19. On 12/17/19 at 11:01 A.M. observation and interview with Resident #55 revealed she appeared pale and tired, as she closed her eyes a few times during the conversation. The resident was able to have reciprocal conversation remaining oriented to the situation. She was laying on her back on a pressure reducing mattress, head elevated to approximately 30 degrees and her heels were wrapped in white bandages and elevated on a bolster. Resident #55 had been watching television while waiting for her lunch. She was alert with some confusion, as she said she did not remember why she had bandages on her feet. She indicated she preferred to stay in bed only occasionally getting up to a chair and did not have a good appetite. On 12/17/19 at 4:54 P.M. during an interview with Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) #372, CDM #372 revealed prior to her going to the hospital on [DATE] the resident had been receiving fortified foods that consisted of fortified cereal, fortified potato and fortified pudding but it was not restarted when she returned from the hospital on [DATE]. CDM #372 said it was up to the registered dietitian to implement the fortified foods. She added the resident did receive snacks twice a day as before she went to the hospital. On 12/18/19 from 9:56 A.M. to 10:27 A.M. interview with RD #373 verified she had not completed a comprehensive nutritional assessment on the resident when she returned to the facility on [DATE] but instead did a progress note on 11/27/19 addressing the three percent weight gain with no new recommendations. RD #373 identified Resident #55 as a nutritional risk prior to her hospitalization on 11/01/19, had put her on fortified foods three times a day and Med Plus NSA supplement four ounces twice a day with snacks twice a day. RD #373 verified the Med Plus NSA and fortified foods were not restarted for the resident upon return to the facility on [DATE]. RD #373 shared she implemented a Promod (protein) supplement on 12/06/19 after the multiple in-house acquired pressure ulcers were reported to her at the weekly meeting but as of 12/18/19 she had still not done a comprehensive nutritional assessment of the resident with the last one being 09/25/19 when her quarterly review was due. On 12/18/19 at 1:11 P.M. interview with LPN #314 who reviewed the Skin Monitoring Comprehensive CNA Shower Review documents from 12/01/19 and 12/05/19 verified the documents indicated there were no skin impairment areas notated on them. LPN #314 added she would assume the resident's skin was intact during that time period based on the documents reviewed. On 12/18/19 at 4:02 P.M. interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) and RN #375 both verified Resident #55 developed pressure related wounds to her bilateral heels and coccyx in the facility. The DON revealed she believed the wounds were caused because Resident #55 had edema in her legs and was wearing Prafo boots in bed which caused the pressure on her heels. She had no comment regarding how the ulcer on the resident's coccyx developed or how it first identified as an unstageable pressure ulcer. On 12/18/19 at 4:41 P.M. during an interview with RN #375, the RN indicated she believed the coccyx pressure ulcer developed from prolonged pressure as a result of the resident having the head of her bed elevated, edema in her heels and keeping her legs elevated put pressure on the coccyx.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0559 (Tag F0559)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to provide written notification of room changes to Resident #29 prior to conducting the room changes. This affecte...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to provide written notification of room changes to Resident #29 prior to conducting the room changes. This affected one Resident (#29) of one resident reviewed for room changes and had the potential to affect all 77 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #29 revealed an admission date of 08/31/18. Diagnoses included intellectual disabilities, cognitive communication deficit, generalized anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 10/23/19, revealed the resident had no cognitive impairment. The resident required staff supervision and set-up assistance with bed mobility, transfers, walking, locomotion, dressing, eating, toileting, personal hygiene and bathing. Review of the care plan, dated 09/05/18, revealed Resident #29 had impaired cognitive function/dementia or impaired thought processes related to MRDD (Mentally Retarded Developmentally Disabled), and he can get argumentative at times and get in altercations. Interventions included to keep his routine consistent, provide consistent caregivers, use task segmentation, and encourage activity programs consistent with his interests. Observation on 12/16/19 at 9:01 A.M. revealed resident was not in his room, the room was absent of personal belongings, and the bed was without linen. Review of progress notes dated 12/15/19 at 1:51 P.M. indicated resident was notified of a room change and family was also notified. Further review of progress notes revealed on 06/10/19 at 1:44 P.M. indicated a message was left for family to inform of a room change, and on 06/11/19 at 12:05 P.M. a room change was made. Review of profile sheet revealed Resident #29 was listed as his own representative and family as emergency contact. Additional review of the entire medical record revealed no signed written notices for room changes indicated on 12/15/19 and 06/10/19. Interview on 12/17/19 at 4:36 P.M. with Social Worker #376 confirmed Resident #29 had two room changes on 12/15/19 and 06/11/19. She verified there was no written notice and indicated she only verbally talked with Resident #29 for both room changes and called the family. Interview on 12/18/19 at 4:13 P.M. with Social Worker #376 verified she completed the room change form on the electronic medical record when a room change was made but did not provide it to the residents or have residents sign it. Review of facility policy, Resident Room Change Policy, dated 05/30/19, revealed Social Service was to complete Notification of Room Change and New Roommate Notification forms in the medical record. Review of this form revealed a Resident's Signature area.
CONCERN (D)

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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #10 and Resident #29 were free from ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #10 and Resident #29 were free from physical abuse. This affected two residents (Residents #10 and #29) of three residents (Residents #10, #29 and #131) reviewed for abuse and neglect. The facility census was 77. Findings include: 1. Record review revealed Resident #10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including muscular dystrophy, weakness, and bilateral primary osteoarthritis of knee. Review of the most recent quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 10/01/19 revealed Resident #10 had no cognitive impairment. Review of the care plan dated 06/26/19 revealed Resident #10 has a behavior problem related to bully-like, disrespectful behaviors towards other residents, and she tends to manipulate, and verbally express unsolicited, negative comments to peers. Record review revealed Resident #131 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with dementia with behavioral disturbance, persistent mood (affective) disorder, and major depressive disorder. Review of the most recent annual MDS 3.0 assessment, dated 07/30/19 revealed Resident #131 was cognitively impaired. Review of the care plan dated 05/03/18 revealed target behaviors of delusions, inappropriate language, aggressiveness, and disruptive to others. The care plan also reflected a history of resident to resident altercation in the dining room initiated on 01/18/17 and resolved on 10/16/17. Resident #131 was discharged from the facility on 09/07/19. Review of the facility self reported incident (SRI) tracking number 174612 dated 06/04/19 revealed Resident #131 punched Resident #10 in the back while passing behind her in the dining room. Resident #131 was removed from the dining room and staff were directed to keep both residents separated. Local law enforcement was not contacted. Resident #131's medications were reviewed by the Consultant Pharmacist on 06/06/19. Resident #10's skin was assessed and identified no bruising or swelling but complaints of pain and tenderness below the left shoulder blade. She received counseling services on 06/10/19. Staff were inserviced on Abuse, Neglect, and Re-directing Residents on 06/05/19. Interview on 12/18/19 at 7:29 A.M. with the Director of Nursing verified the findings of the above SRI. Reviewed the facility Abuse, Neglect and Misappropriation policy, dated 09/02/16, revealed with resident to resident altercation, the facility would separate the residents, conduct appropriate assessments on each resident, may place the aggressive resident in a quiet area to reduce stimulation, notify the physician, update the care plan, make appropriate referrals, and complete a thorough investigation following the initial report. 2. Record review revealed Resident #29 revealed an admission date of 08/31/18 with diagnoses that included intellectual disabilities, cognitive communication deficit, generalized anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder. Review of the most recent quarterly MDS 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had no cognitive impairment and required staff supervision and set-up assistance with with activities of daily living (ADL). Review of the care plan, dated 09/05/18, revealed Resident #29 had impaired cognitive function/dementia or impaired thought processes related to MRDD (Mentally Retarded Developmentally Disabled), and he can get argumentative at times and get in altercations. Record review revealed Resident #10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including muscular dystrophy, weakness, and bilateral primary osteoarthritis of knee. Review of the most recent quarterly MDS 3.0 assessment, dated 10/01/19 revealed Resident #10 had no cognitive impairment. Review of the care plan dated 06/26/19 revealed Resident #10 has a behavior problem related to bully-like, disrespectful behaviors towards other residents, and she tends to manipulate, and verbally express unsolicited, negative comments to peers. Review of SRI tracking number 184597 dated 11/30/19 revealed upon investigation Resident #29 and #10 had a witnessed verbal argument which resulted in Resident #10 striking Resident #29 on the face. Both residents were immediately separated. Resident #10 was placed on safety checks for supervision through 12/01/19. Upon assessment, Resident #29 had no injury. Local law enforcement was contacted, and no police report was filed. Interview on 12/18/19 at 7:29 A.M. with the Director of Nursing verified the findings of the above SRI. Reviewed facility Abuse, Neglect and Misappropriation policy, dated 09/02/16, revealed with resident to resident altercation, the facility would separate the residents, conduct appropriate assessments on each resident, may place the aggressive resident in a quiet area to reduce stimulation, notify the physician, update the care plan, make appropriate referrals, and complete a thorough investigation following the initial report.
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 record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to implement the policy and procedure for reporting alleged physical abuse for Resident #29. This affected one Resident (#29) o...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to implement the policy and procedure for reporting alleged physical abuse for Resident #29. This affected one Resident (#29) of three residents reviewed for abuse and neglect. The facility census was 77. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #29 revealed an admission date of 08/31/18. Diagnoses included intellectual disabilities, cognitive communication deficit, generalized anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 10/23/19, revealed the resident had no cognitive impairment. The resident required staff supervision and set-up assistance with bed mobility, transfers, walking, locomotion, dressing, eating, toileting, personal hygiene, and bathing. Review of the care plan, dated 09/05/18, revealed Resident #29 had impaired cognitive function/dementia or impaired thought processes related to MRDD (Mentally Retarded Developmentally Disabled), and he can get argumentative at times and get in altercations. Interventions included to keep his routine consistent, provide consistent caregivers, use task segmentation, and encourage activity programs consistent with his interests. Review of the progress note dated 07/08/19 at 6:02 P.M. indicated resident had a bruise to the left thigh measuring six by eleven. The unit of measurement was not noted. Review of the progress note dated 08/06/19 at 4:05 A.M. indicated resident had returned from a leave of absence and a skin check revealed the right side of the cheek and jaw was slightly swollen, the right arm, abdomen, left foot and lower back had scratches. Review of the progress note dated 10/24/19 at 12:33 P.M. indicated resident had returned from a leave of absence and the staff observed a bruise to the left upper back measuring 26 centimeters (cm) by 5 cm, and a bruise to the left upper extremity measuring 7 cm by 3 cm. Interview on 12/17/19 at 4:36 P.M. with Social Worker (SW) #376 verified Resident #29 had taken multiple leave of absences to visit home, and the injuries on 07/08/19, 08/06/19 and 10/24/19 were each after one of those visits. She confirmed the facility's interdisciplinary team had concerns about the injuries, discussed those concerns, and decided Resident #29 would start counseling services. SW #376 also verified there were concerns of abuse, but Resident #29 was minimizing it and so the concerns were shared with the counselor. SW #376 confirmed she had not discussed it with anyone else or reported it to anyone else. Interview on 12/18/19 at 10:50 A.M. with SW #376 verified the Director of Nursing (DON) and Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #335 were included in the interdisciplinary meeting to discuss Resident #29 after the last injury on 10/24/19. SW #376 confirmed she expressed concerns about abuse. Interview on 12/18/19 at 10:50 A.M. with the DON and LPN #335 verified there was an interdisciplinary meeting held after Resident #29's injury was discovered on 10/24/19 to discuss concerns, and verified abuse was discussed at the meeting. The DON verified there was a different administrator for the facility at the time who was aware. Interview on 12/18/19 at 10:50 A.M. with the Administrator confirmed it was the facility's policy with any allegation or suspicion of abuse to report it and investigate. Review of the facility policy on Abuse, Neglect and Misappropriation, dated 09/02/16, revealed all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property, are reported.
CONCERN (D)

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to report alleged physical abuse for Resident #29. This affected one Resident (#29) of three residents reviewed for abuse and n...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to report alleged physical abuse for Resident #29. This affected one Resident (#29) of three residents reviewed for abuse and neglect. The facility census was 77. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #29 revealed an admission date of 08/31/18. Diagnoses included intellectual disabilities, cognitive communication deficit, generalized anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 10/23/19, revealed the resident had no cognitive impairment. The resident required staff supervision and set-up assistance with bed mobility, transfers, walking, locomotion, dressing, eating, toileting, personal hygiene, and bathing. Review of the care plan, dated 09/05/18, revealed Resident #29 had impaired cognitive function/dementia or impaired thought processes related to MRDD (Mentally Retarded Developmentally Disabled), and he can get argumentative at times and get in altercations. Interventions included to keep his routine consistent, provide consistent caregivers, use task segmentation, and encourage activity programs consistent with his interests. Review of the progress note dated 07/08/19 at 6:02 P.M. indicated resident had a bruise to the left thigh measuring six by eleven. The unit of measurement was not noted. Review of the progress note dated 08/06/19 at 4:05 A.M. indicated resident had returned from a leave of absence and a skin check revealed the right side of the cheek and jaw was slightly swollen, the right arm, abdomen, left foot and lower back had scratches. Review of the progress note dated 10/24/19 at 12:33 P.M. indicated resident had returned from a leave of absence and the staff observed a bruise to the left upper back measuring 26 centimeters (cm) by 5 cm, and a bruise to the left upper extremity measuring 7 cm by 3 cm. Interview on 12/17/19 at 4:36 P.M. with Social Worker (SW) #376 verified Resident #29 had taken multiple leave of absences to visit home, and the injuries on 07/08/19, 08/06/19 and 10/24/19 were each after one of those visits. She confirmed the facility's interdisciplinary team had concerns about the injuries, discussed those concerns, and decided Resident #29 would start counseling services. SW #376 also verified there were concerns of abuse, but Resident #29 was minimizing it and so the concerns were shared with the counselor. SW #376 confirmed she had not discussed it with anyone else or reported it to anyone else. Interview on 12/18/19 at 10:50 A.M. with SW #376 verified the Director of Nursing (DON) and Licensed Practical Nurse #335 were included in the interdisciplinary meeting to discuss Resident #29 after the last injury on 10/24/19. SW #376 confirmed she expressed concerns about abuse. Interview on 12/18/19 at 10:50 A.M. with the DON and LPN #335 verified there was an interdisciplinary meeting held after Resident #29's injury was discovered on 10/24/19 to discuss concerns, and verified abuse was discussed at the meeting. The DON verified there was a different administrator for the facility at the time who was aware. Interview on 12/18/19 at 10:50 A.M. with Administrator confirmed it was the facility's policy with any allegation or suspicion of abuse to report it and investigate. Review of the facility policy on Abuse, Neglect and Misappropriation, dated 09/02/16, revealed all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property, are reported; in the event an allegation is made, the facility will take measures to protect residents from harm during an investigation; and accurate and timely reporting of incidents, both alleged and substantiated, will be sent to officials in accordance with the state law.
CONCERN (D)

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate a physical abuse incident inv...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate a physical abuse incident involving Resident #10 and Resident #29. This affected two Residents (#10 and #29) of three residents reviewed for abuse and neglect. The facility census was 77. Findings include: Record review revealed Resident #29 revealed an admission date of 08/31/18 with diagnoses including intellectual disabilities, cognitive communication deficit, generalized anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder. Review of the most recent quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had no cognitive impairment and required staff supervision and set-up assistance with with activities of daily living (ADL). Review of the care plan, dated 09/05/18, revealed Resident #29 had impaired cognitive function/dementia or impaired thought processes related to MRDD (Mentally Retarded Developmentally Disabled), and he can get argumentative at times and get in altercations. Record review revealed Resident #10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including muscular dystrophy, weakness, and bilateral primary osteoarthritis of knee. Review of the most recent quarterly MDS 3.0 assessment, dated 10/01/19 revealed Resident #10 had no cognitive impairment. Review of the care plan dated 06/26/19 revealed Resident #10 has a behavior problem related to bully-like, disrespectful behaviors towards other residents, and she tends to manipulate, and verbally express unsolicited, negative comments to peers. Review of the facility self-reported incident (SRI) tracking number 184597 dated 11/30/19 revealed upon investigation Resident #29 and #10 had a witnessed verbal argument which resulted in Resident #10 striking Resident #29 on the face. Both residents were immediately separated. Resident #10 was placed on safety checks for supervision through 12/01/19. Upon assessment, Resident #29 had no injury. Local law enforcement was contacted, and no police report was filed. Interview on 12/15/19 at 10:36 A.M. with Resident #29 revealed he was living in the room next to Resident #10 and did not remember how long ago the incident took place. He stated Resident #10 said bad things about him, his family, and his wife to be so he got mad and called her names in return, then she punched him in the jaw. Resident #29 indicated Resident #10 picks on him by sitting in places where he likes to go and sticks her middle finger up at him. He confirmed the police talked with him about the incident and encouraged him to not press charges so he did not. Interview on 12/15/19 at 11:06 A.M. with Resident #10 revealed there were issues between her and Resident #29 building prior to the incident on 11/30/19. She indicated Resident #29 was living in the room next to hers and walked around her, watched her, and taunted her by calling her names. She stated on the day of the incident he walked over to her, leaned down into her face, and called her a [expletive], so she hit him in the mouth. She expressed Resident #29 was intimidating since she was in a wheelchair and he was not. Resident #10 indicated she told the police that Resident #29 harassed her, and the police talked Resident #29 out of pressing charges. Resident #10 further explained right after the incident Resident #29 sang a song in her face to get rid of evil he has to cut me like a goat, then he cracked his knuckles and had his fists clenched around her which caused her to feel scared and worried. Interview on 12/17/19 at 5:32 P.M. with Administrator confirmed no additional residents or staff assigned to the area where Resident #10 and #29 reside and the incident took place were interviewed. He also confirmed Resident #10 was not interviewed in detail about the effects of the incident and no follow-up interviews with Resident #10 and Resident #29 were conducted. Interview on 12/18/19 at 7:29 A.M. with Director of Nursing verified no additional residents or staff assigned to the area where Resident #10 and #29 reside and the incident took place were interviewed. She also confirmed Resident #10 was not interviewed in detail about the effects of the incident and no follow-up interviews with Resident #10 and Resident #29 were conducted. Interview on 12/18/19 at 9:56 A.M. with State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #330 verified Resident #29 sang a song to Resident #10 that ended with off with her head, then looked at Resident #10, grinned and laughed, so she told Resident #10 to stay by the nurses station and reported it to the nurse on duty. STNA #330 stated Resident #29 likes to instigate and start things with other residents. Review of the progress notes dated 12/4/2019 at 4:51 P.M. confirmed Resident #29 was observed ambulating in hallway, pacing back and fourth around the nursing station with his headphones around his neck, singing explicit alleged song lyrics taunting Resident #10 while staring at her and verbalizing vulgar language and violence. Interview on 12/18/19 at 10:00 A.M. with Registered Nurse (RN) #315 verified Resident #29 usually kept to herself, and Resident #10 did not know personal space or boundaries and gets very close to people. Review of the facility policy on Abuse, Neglect and Misappropriation, dated 09/02/16, revealed following the initial report of the alleged violation the facility will complete a thorough investigation.
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, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) recommendations were incorporated into Resident #53's plan of care. This affected one (Resident #53) of two residents reviewed for PASRR status. The facility census was 77. Findings include: Record review revealed Resident #53 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, a history of bullet to the brain with fragmentation, and diabetes mellitus type 2. Review of the PASRR determination from the Ohio Department of Mental Health dated 05/03/19 revealed Resident #53 was approved for a sixty day nursing facility stay to expire on 07/02/19, and that any further stay beyond sixty days would require a new PASRR request and subsequent approval by the Ohio Department of Mental Health. Review of the PASRR determination from the State Department of Mental Health revealed Resident #53 had a history of serious mental illness and noted a list of recommendations for services, supports and linkages which included ongoing medication review, medication education, socialization and recreation activities, coordinate discharge with the county Mental Health board, refer to Opportunities for Ohioans with Disabilities for vocational services, Case Management, and Behavioral Health Services. Review of the care plan dated 07/15/19 revealed no evidence of the PASRR recommendations included into the care plan. Interview on 12/18/19 at 12:29 P.M. with Registered Nurse #345 verified Resident #53's care plan did not reflect the PASRR determination recommendations including discharge planning for return to the community. Review of facility policy entitled, Plan of Care Overview, dated 05/30/19, revealed care plan documents are resident specific/resident focused and reflect resident/representative opportunities for participation and preferences.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0645 (Tag F0645)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a valid Pre-admission Screen and Resident Review (PASRR) was...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a valid Pre-admission Screen and Resident Review (PASRR) was in place for Resident #53. This affected one (Resident #53) of two residents reviewed for PASRR status. The facility census was 77. Findings include: Record review revealed Resident #53 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, a history of bullet to the brain with fragmentation, and diabetes mellitus type 2. Review of the PASRR determination from the Ohio Department of Mental Health dated [DATE] revealed Resident #53 was approved for a sixty day nursing facility stay to expire on [DATE], and that any further stay beyond sixty days would require a new PASRR request and subsequent approval by the Ohio Department of Mental Health. Review of the medical record revealed no evidence a new PASRR was submitted for approval to the State agency prior to admission on [DATE]. Interview on [DATE] at 4:36 P.M. with Social Worker #376 verified a new PASRR was not requested for Resident #53 when it expired on [DATE], and no valid PASRR was currently in place for Resident #53's continued stay at the facility.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0660 (Tag F0660)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #52 had a current discharge plan of care and failed...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #52 had a current discharge plan of care and failed to have documented evidence of care plan meetings. This affected one (Resident #52) of two (Residents #52 and #79) reviewed for discharge. The facility census was 77. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #52 revealed an admission date of 02/02/19. Diagnoses included dementia, diabetes, difficulty in walking, acute embolism and thrombosis of left lower extremity. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 11/03/19, revealed the resident required the extensive assistance of one person for bed mobility, dressing, toilet use and personal hygiene. Extensive assistance of two people was needed for transfers. Supervision was needed for locomotion in a wheelchair. Review of the annual MDS 3.0 assessment, dated 10/11/19, revealed the resident had impaired cognition. Review of the care plans for Resident #52 revealed there was no discharge plan in place. Review of the medical record for Resident #52 revealed no documented evidence of care plan meetings. Review of the nursing progress note on 09/19/19 at 11:18 A.M. the interdisciplinary team (IDT) revealed Resident #52's original admission was 10/18/18, the resident was discharged home. Resident #52 was readmitted from home on [DATE]. The resident's family had not managed the resident at home, and Resident #52 was Long-Term Care (LTC) with a guardian. Review of the Baseline Care Plan signed 02/04/19 revealed the original discharge plan was for the resident to discharge home. Interview on 12/15/19 at 11:07 A.M. with Resident #52 revealed the resident wanted to know when she would be able to go back home to live with her children. Interview on 12/17/19 at 6:08 P.M. Licensed Social Worker (LSW) #376 stated Resident #52's children were not able to take care of her. The resident had a guardian appointed on 06/11/19. Interview on 12/18/19 at 3:05 P.M. LSW #376 verified there was no current discharge plan in the medical record, and there had been no documented care plan meetings.
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 observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #52 was wearing a wander/elopement alarm per physician's order. This affected one (Resident #52) of two (Resid...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #52 was wearing a wander/elopement alarm per physician's order. This affected one (Resident #52) of two (Residents #52 and #8) reviewed for wandering/elopement. The facility census was 77. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #52 revealed an admission date of 02/02/19. Diagnoses included dementia, diabetes, difficulty in walking, acute embolism and thrombosis of left lower extremity. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment, dated 11/03/19, revealed the resident required the extensive assistance of one person for bed mobility, dressing, toilet use and personal hygiene. Extensive assistance of two people was needed for transfers. Supervision was needed for locomotion in a wheelchair. A wander/elopement alarm was used daily. Review of the annual MDS 3.0 assessment, dated 10/11/19, revealed the resident had impaired cognition. Review of the Wandering Observation Tool dated 10/15/19 revealed the resident was at risk for elopement. Review of the plan of care dated 07/15/19 revealed the resident was at risk for elopement/wandering behavior related to an attempt to exit out the front door. Interventions included to apply a code alert bracelet, check function every shift, check placement every shift, assess for hunger, thirst, ambulation or toileting needs when found attempting to exit and provide diversionary activities. Review of the physician's orders for 12/2019 identified orders for a code alert bracelet (a bracelet that alerts staff if a resident attempts to exit the facility). Observation and interview on 12/17/19 at 1:41 P.M. revealed Resident #52 was not wearing a code alert bracelet. The Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON)/ Registered Nurse (RN) #375 checked the resident for wander guard/code alert bracelet placement and verified it was not on the resident. Interview on 12/17/19 at 3:32 P.M. with RN #375 revealed Resident #52's wander guard/code alert bracelet was just found in the laundry.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review, observation and interviews, the facility did not ensure foods were served at palatable temperatures. This had the potential to affect all residents in the facility except for o...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, observation and interviews, the facility did not ensure foods were served at palatable temperatures. This had the potential to affect all residents in the facility except for one Resident (#35) who did receive food by mouth. The facility census was 77. Findings included: Resident interviews were conducted on 12/15/19 from 9:06 A.M. to 12:45 P.M. with Residents #25, #27, #39, #45 and #52. The residents consistently reported that hot foods were not hot and it could be at any meal the food was not hot. Resident #52 said she expected to get cold eggs when they were ordered. Resident #45 shared he did not eat a full meal a lot of times due to the hot foods being too cool, and he had lost weight. Resident #39 said the longer the trays sit in the hall waiting to get passed the colder the food was to him. Record review was conducted of the Food Committee Meeting Minutes dated 06/2019 which indicated foods were served at the proper temperature based on the floor staffing. On 09/19/19 the minutes reflected foods were served at the proper temperatures most of the time, but the meal carts took too long to pass. On 11/14/19 a comment was noted regarding eggs being cold in the morning. Observation was conducted on 12/18/19 at 10:59 A.M. of the lunch trayline food temperatures in the kitchen with Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) #372. CDM #372 used a calibrated, digital touch point thermometer to obtain the following food temperatures: balsamic pork - 209.5 degrees Fahrenheit (F), roasted potato - 176 degrees F, zucchini - 169.5 degrees F and scalloped apples - 31.3 degrees F. Tray line service began at 11:11 A.M. with CDM #372 serving. She placed the foods onto a plate that had been warmed in a stainless steel plate warming unit. The plates were then placed onto a plastic thermal base and covered with a plastic thermal dome cover. The thermal bases and dome covers were noted to be aged to the point the plastic was starting to separate forming a scale like appearance to the domes and bases. The cart going to the 100 unit for room trays was loaded with 12 trays and the last tray, a test tray, at 11:19 A.M. At 11:22 A.M. the cart left the kitchen and arrived on the 100 unit at 11:23 A.M. District Dietary Manager (DDM) #371 followed the cart to the unit with the surveyor. Using a calibrated, digital touch point thermometer DDM #371 began taking test tray temperatures at 11:32 A.M. when the last tray, the test tray, was passed by the unit staff. The test tray temperatures were as followed: milk - 37 degrees F, scalloped apples 40.7 degrees F, balsamic pork 104.3 degrees F, roasted potato 113.5 degrees F and zucchini 113.9 degrees F. The food flavor and texture were good, however, the food temperature palpability of the pork, potato and zucchini felt barely warm in the mouth. These temperatures were verified with DDM #371 at the time of the observation.
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

  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • 35% turnover. Below Ohio's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • 16 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is Chardon Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns CHARDON CENTER an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much above average nationally. Within Ohio, 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 Chardon Center Staffed?

CMS rates CHARDON CENTER's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 35%, compared to the Ohio average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care. RN turnover specifically is 62%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Chardon Center?

State health inspectors documented 16 deficiencies at CHARDON CENTER during 2019 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 15 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Chardon Center?

CHARDON 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 COMMUNICARE HEALTH, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 99 certified beds and approximately 84 residents (about 85% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in CHARDON, Ohio.

How Does Chardon Center Compare to Other Ohio Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Ohio, CHARDON CENTER's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (35%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Chardon Center?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the below-average staffing rating.

Is Chardon Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, CHARDON 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 5-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Ohio. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at Chardon Center Stick Around?

CHARDON CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 35%, which is about average for Ohio 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 Chardon Center Ever Fined?

CHARDON CENTER has been fined $6,500 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Ohio average of $33,144. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Chardon Center on Any Federal Watch List?

CHARDON 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.