MAPLE GARDENS REHABILITIATION AND NURSING CENTER

515 SOUTH MAPLE STREET, EATON, OH 45320 (937) 456-5537
For profit - Corporation 85 Beds GARDEN HEALTHCARE GROUP Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
23/100
#728 of 913 in OH
Last Inspection: March 2023

Over 2 years since last inspection. Current conditions may differ from available data.

Overview

Maple Gardens Rehabilitation and Nursing Center has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the facility's overall quality. It ranks #728 out of 913 nursing homes in Ohio, placing it in the bottom half, and is the lowest-ranked option in Preble County. While the facility is improving from six issues in 2024 to one in 2025, it still has serious challenges, including $101,411 in fines, which is higher than 92% of Ohio facilities, indicating recurring compliance problems. Staffing is a weak point, with a 1/5 star rating and less RN coverage than 87% of state facilities, although the staff turnover rate is 43%, which is lower than the state average. Specific incidents include a critical failure to protect a resident from sexual abuse and concerns regarding inadequate food supplies and unsafe food temperatures, highlighting both alarming safety issues and the need for improvement.

Trust Score
F
23/100
In Ohio
#728/913
Bottom 21%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
6 → 1 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
43% turnover. Near Ohio's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
$101,411 in fines. Lower than most Ohio facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 22 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Ohio. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
24 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 6 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
  • Staff turnover below average (43%)

    5 points below Ohio average of 48%

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Below Ohio average (3.2)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Staff Turnover: 43%

Near Ohio avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $101,411

Well above median ($33,413)

Significant penalties indicating serious issues

Chain: GARDEN HEALTHCARE GROUP

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 24 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening
Jan 2025 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

Deficiency F0838 (Tag F0838)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observations, staff interviews, policy review and review of a facility emergency management plan, the facility failed to ensure there was an adequate amount of food available in the facility ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, staff interviews, policy review and review of a facility emergency management plan, the facility failed to ensure there was an adequate amount of food available in the facility to account for scheduled meals and emergency situations. This had the potential to affect all 53 residents residing in the facility. Facility census was 53. Findings include: Tour of the facility kitchen with Dietary Supervisor #10 on 01/15/25 at 9:19 A.M. revealed the emergency food supply consisted of six cans (24 servings per can) of tuna; six cans (12 servings per can) of ravioli; 48 individual serving cans of a variety of soups; 72 orange juice, four ounces (oz) each; 12 packs of lemonade powder, each pack makes three gallons of lemonade; four five pound bags of dry milk; a box of crackers; and 150 gallons of water. Interview on 01/15/25 at 9:32 A.M. with Dietary Supervisor #10 confirmed, during the facility tour, the kitchen has a shelf with emergency food available that contains the items observed. Interview on 01/15/25 at 12:42 P.M. with Maintenance Director (MD) #32 confirmed he is responsible for the emergency water supply and there is currently 150 gallons of drinking water available. MD #32 confirmed Food Supplier #12 will supply water in an emergency, but recommends the facility has 1.5 gallons available for each resident on hand with a three-day supply, in case an emergency deliver is delayed. MD #32 also confirmed the facility has 53 residents, which would require 238.5 gallons to be on hand and the current supply is not enough to last three days. Interview on 01/15/25 at 1:30 P.M. with the Administrator confirmed the kitchen has an order placed for additional emergency food supplies coming on 01/16/25 from Food Supplier #12. Interview on 01/15/25 at 3:40 P.M. with Dietary Supervisor #10 confirmed the emergency food available at this time is not enough to last three days in the event of an emergency. Dietary Supervisor #10 confirmed the food currently available in the emergency stock would not last three days for the 51 residents in house, who eat food from the kitchen. Interview on 01/16/25 at 10:43 A.M. with Dietary Supervisor #10 confirmed the Disaster Plan, undated states the facility will have a three-day supply of staple goods on hand at all times and that disposable eating ware in ample supply will be available. Dietary Supervisor #10 confirmed the facility does not have the three-day supply of staple goods on hand and does not have enough disposable eating ware. Dietary Supervisor #10 also confirmed an order for the disposable eating ware has been place and would arrive next week. Review of the Disaster Plan, undated revealed in the event of a disaster, the facility wound keep a 3-day supply of staple goods is on hand at all times, a 2-day supply of perishable goods is on hand at all times, and disposable eating ware in ample supply are maintained. Review of Food Supplier #12's, Emergency Preparedness Plan, dated 10/15/23 revealed the facility should have contingency plans to include a backup supplier for the following: Food and supplies (please see state guidelines for quantities to have on-hand), water (industry standards suggest up to 1.5 gallons per person per day), and refrigeration. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00161442.
Nov 2024 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record reviews, review of a facility self-reported incident (SRI), staff and legal guardian interviews, and pol...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record reviews, review of a facility self-reported incident (SRI), staff and legal guardian interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to implement their abuse policy by ensuring a resident's legal guardian and physician were notified of an allegation of potential sexual abuse. This affected one (#12) out of the three residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 53. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for the Resident #12 revealed an admission date of 06/30/21 with medical diagnoses of multiple sclerosis (MS), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), dementia, Depression, and peripheral vascular disease (PVD). The medical record revealed a discharge of date 11/11/24. Review of the medical record for Resident #12 revealed a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 08/21/24, which indicated Resident #12 had moderate cognitive impairment and was dependent for all activities of daily (ADL's) except required set-up with eating. The MDS revealed Resident #12 was non-ambulatory. Review of the medical record for Resident #12 revealed no documentation related to Resident #51 being found in her room and allegation of possible sexual abuse. Review of the medical record for Resident #12 revealed no documentation to support the legal guardians or physician were notified of the allegation of sexual assault. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #51 revealed an admission date of 01/20/17 with medical diagnoses of COPD, anxiety, congestive heart failure, schizoaffective disorder, and chronic ischemic heart disease. Review of the medical record for Resident #51 revealed a quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], which indicated Resident #51 was cognitively intact and was independent with all ADL's except required supervision with bathing. Review of the medical record for Resident #51 revealed a nurses' note dated 11/07/24 at 11:08 A.M. stated Resident #51 continued 15-minute checks due to being in a female room unsupervised. The resident has stayed in room thus far today. Review of a facility SRI dated 11/11/24 revealed on 11/06/24 there was an allegation of potential sexual abuse by Resident #51 towards Resident #12. Review of the SRI revealed the investigation was ongoing and a conclusion had not been made. Review of the statement written by State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #115 stated when he walked into Resident #12's room he witnessed Resident #51 on top of Resident #12's bed leaning over with one leg on her bed and his pants halfway off his bottom. The statement by STNA #115 continued to state when Resident #51 noticed STNA #115 he told the STNA not to tell anybody that he saw him in the room. The statement concluded that STNA ran out of the room to get two nurses to redirect Resident #51 back out. Interview on 11/13/24 at 10:19 A.M. interview with Registered Nurse (RN) #166 confirmed she worked on 11/06/24 and during report around 7:10 P.M. State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #115 came to the nurses' station and informed her Resident #51 was found in Resident #12's room and STNA #115 had concerns that something inappropriate had occurred. RN #166 stated when she entered Resident #12's room she observed Resident #51 sitting in his wheelchair and he was observed pulling Resident #12's sheet up to cover her abdominal region. RN #166 stated she had Resident #51 leave Resident #12's room immediately. RN #166 stated she asked Resident #12 if Resident #51 had touched her inappropriately and Resident #12 denied being touched by Resident #51 and stated she felt safe in the facility but also stated she did not want Resident #51 to enter her room again. RN #166 stated she asked permission from Resident #12 to look underneath her sheet and was given authorization to do so. RN #166 stated she observed Resident #12's brief to be loose and slightly opened. RN #166 stated she again asked Resident #12 if she had been sexually assaulted to which Resident #12 denied. RN #166 stated the incident was very suspicious to her, so she called the Director of Nursing (DON) around 7:25 P.M. and notified her concern for possible sexual abuse. RN #166 stated the Administrator arrived at the facility between 8:00 P.M. and 8:30 P.M. and both the Administrator and RN #166 interviewed Resident #12 who repeated that she had not been sexually assaulted and stated she felt safe in the facility. RN #166 confirmed she did not notify Resident #12's Legal Guardian or physician of the concern of possible sexual assault. Interview on 11/13/24 at 10:50 A.M. with Administrator stated he was notified on 11/06/24 by the DON of a concern for possible sexual abuse of Resident #12 by Resident #51. Administrator stated he went to the facility and interviewed Resident #12 who denied any sexual assault. Administrator stated he interviewed STNA #115 who stated he found Resident #51 in Resident #12's room with his knee up on Resident #12's bed and that Resident #51 told STNA #115 not to say anything. Administrator stated STNA #115 immediately left and went to get the nurse. Administrator confirmed the incident occurred on 11/06/24 but confirmed the SRI was not reported until 11/11/24. Administrator confirmed an investigation began immediately and the investigation into the SRI was still in progress. Administrator stated Resident #51 was put on 15-minute staff checks on 11/06/24 and was changed to one-on-one supervision on 11/07/24 and had remained on one-on-one supervision since 11/07/24. Interview on 11/13/24 at 10:55 A.M. with DON confirmed the medical record for Resident #12 revealed no documentation related to concern for possible sexual abuse or that Resident #12's legal guardian or physician were notified of the incident. Interview on 11/13/24 at 11:35 A.M. with Resident #12's legal guardian stated the facility notified both he and Resident #12's mother of the concern for possible sexual assault involving the resident on 11/11/24. Review of facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, and Misappropriation of Resident Property, dated revised 11/01/19, stated the facility would investigate all alleged violations involving Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, Mistreatment of a resident or Misappropriation of Resident property, including injuries of unknown sources. The policy stated if a third party is accused or suspected (not a staff member) the facility would take action to protect the resident including, but not limited to, contacting the third party and addressing the issue directly with him/her, preventing access to resident during the investigation and /or referring the matter to the appropriate authorities. The policy stated the Resident Representative, and the attending physician should be notified of the incident. The policy stated documentation in the nurses' notes should include the results of the resident's assessment, notification of the physician and Resident Representative, and any treatment provided. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00159734.
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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the medical record reviews, review of a facility self-reported incident (SRI), staff interviews, and policy r...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the medical record reviews, review of a facility self-reported incident (SRI), staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to report an allegation of potential sexual abuse to the Ohio Department of Health in a timely manner. This affected one (12) out of the three residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 53. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for the Resident #12 revealed an admission date of 06/30/21 with medical diagnoses of multiple sclerosis (MS), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), dementia, Depression, and peripheral vascular disease (PVD). The medical record revealed a discharge of date 11/11/24. Review of the medical record for Resident #12 revealed a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 08/21/24, which indicated Resident #12 had moderate cognitive impairment and was dependent for all activities of daily (ADL's) except required set-up with eating. The MDS revealed Resident #12 was non-ambulatory. Review of the medical record for Resident #12 revealed no documentation related to Resident #51 being found in her room and allegation of possible sexual abuse. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #51 revealed an admission date of 01/20/17 with medical diagnoses of COPD, anxiety, congestive heart failure, schizoaffective disorder, and chronic ischemic heart disease. Review of the medical record for Resident #51 revealed a quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], which indicated Resident #51 was cognitively intact and was independent with all ADL's except required supervision with bathing. Review of the medical record for Resident #51 revealed a nurses' note dated 11/07/24 at 11:08 A.M. stated Resident #51 continued 15-minute checks due to being in a female room unsupervised. The resident has stayed in room thus far today. Review of a facility SRI dated 11/11/24 revealed on 11/06/24 there was an allegation of potential sexual abuse by Resident #51 towards Resident #12. Review of the SRI revealed the investigation was ongoing and a conclusion had not been made. Review of the statement written by State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #115 stated when he walked into Resident #12's room he witnessed Resident #51 on top of Resident #12's bed leaning over with one leg on her bed and his pants halfway off his bottom. The statement by STNA #115 continued to state when Resident #51 noticed STNA #115 he told the STNA not to tell anybody that he saw him in the room. The statement concluded that STNA ran out of the room to get two nurses to redirect Resident #51 back out. Interview on 11/13/24 at 10:19 A.M. interview with Registered Nurse (RN) #166 confirmed she worked on 11/06/24 and during report around 7:10 P.M. STNA #115 came to the nurses' station and informed her Resident #51 was found in Resident #12 ' s room and STNA #115 had concerns that something inappropriate had occurred. RN #166 stated when she entered Resident #12 ' s room she observed Resident #51 sitting in his wheelchair and he was observed pulling Resident #12 ' s sheet up to cover her abdominal region. RN #166 stated she had Resident #51 leave Resident #12 ' s room immediately. RN #166 stated she asked Resident #12 if Resident #51 had touched her inappropriately and Resident #12 denied being touched by Resident #51 and stated she felt safe in the facility but also stated she did not want Resident #51 to enter her room again. RN #166 stated she asked permission from Resident #12 to look underneath her sheet and was given authorization to do so. RN #166 stated she observed Resident #12 ' s brief to be loose and slightly opened. RN #166 stated she again asked Resident #12 if she had been sexually assaulted to which Resident #12 denied. RN #166 stated the incident was very suspicious to her, so she called the Director of Nursing (DON) around 7:25 P.M. and notified her concern for possible sexual abuse. RN #166 stated the Administrator arrived at the facility between 8:00 P.M. and 8:30 P.M. and both the Administrator and RN #166 interviewed Resident #12 who repeated that she had not been sexually assaulted and stated she felt safe in the facility. Interview on 11/13/24 at 10:50 A.M. with Administrator stated he was notified on 11/06/24 by the DON of a concern for possible sexual abuse of Resident #12 by Resident #51. Administrator stated he went to the facility and interviewed Resident #12 who denied any sexual assault. Administrator stated he interviewed STNA #115 who stated he found Resident #51 in Resident #12's room with his knee up on Resident #12's bed and that Resident #51 told STNA #115 not to say anything. Administrator stated STNA #115 immediately left and went to get the nurse. Administrator confirmed the incident occurred on 11/06/24 but confirmed the SRI was not reported until 11/11/24. Administrator confirmed an investigation began immediately and the investigation into the SRI was still in progress. Administrator stated Resident #51 was put on 15-minute staff checks on 11/06/24 and was changed to one-on-one supervision on 11/07/24 and had remained on one-on-one supervision since 11/07/24. Review of facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, and Misappropriation of Resident Property, dated revised 11/01/19, stated if the event that caused the allegation involved an allegation of abuse or serious bodily injury, it should be reported to the Ohio Department of Health immediately, but no longer than 24 hours from the time the incident/allegation was made know to the staff member. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00159734.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record reviews, review of a facility self-reported incident (SRI), staff interview, and policy review, the faci...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record reviews, review of a facility self-reported incident (SRI), staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff intervened when a concern was identified regarding potential resident to resident sexual abuse. The affected one (#12) out of three residents reviewed for abuse. The facility census was 53. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for the Resident #12 revealed an admission date of 06/30/21 with medical diagnoses of multiple sclerosis (MS), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), dementia, Depression, and peripheral vascular disease (PVD). The medical record revealed a discharge of date 11/11/24. Review of the medical record for Resident #12 revealed a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 08/21/24, which indicated Resident #12 had moderate cognitive impairment and was dependent for all activities of daily (ADL's) except required set-up with eating. The MDS revealed Resident #12 was non-ambulatory. Review of the medical record for Resident #12 revealed no documentation related to Resident #51 being found in her room and allegation of possible sexual abuse. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #51 revealed an admission date of 01/20/17 with medical diagnoses of COPD, anxiety, congestive heart failure, schizoaffective disorder, and chronic ischemic heart disease. Review of the medical record for Resident #51 revealed a quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], which indicated Resident #51 was cognitively intact and was independent with all ADL's except required supervision with bathing. Review of the medical record for Resident #51 revealed a nurses' note dated 11/07/24 at 11:08 A.M. stated Resident #51 continued 15-minute checks due to being in a female room unsupervised. The resident has stayed in room thus far today. Review of a facility SRI dated 11/11/24 revealed on 11/06/24 there was an allegation of potential sexual abuse by Resident #51 towards Resident #12. Review of the SRI revealed the investigation was ongoing and a conclusion had not been made. Review of the statement written by State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #115 stated when he walked into Resident #12's room he witnessed Resident #51 on top of Resident #12's bed leaning over with one leg on her bed and his pants halfway off his bottom. The statement by STNA #115 continued to state when Resident #51 noticed STNA #115 he told the STNA not to tell anybody that he saw him in the room. The statement concluded that STNA ran out of the room to get two nurses to redirect Resident #51 back out. Interview on 11/13/24 at 10:19 A.M. interview with Registered Nurse (RN) #166 confirmed she worked on 11/06/24 and during report around 7:10 P.M. STNA #115 came to the nurses' station and informed her Resident #51 was found in Resident #12's room and STNA #115 had concerns that something inappropriate had occurred. RN #166 stated when she entered Resident #12's room she observed Resident #51 sitting in his wheelchair and he was observed pulling Resident #12's sheet up to cover her abdominal region. RN #166 stated she had Resident #51 leave Resident #12's room immediately. RN #166 stated she asked Resident #12 if Resident #51 had touched her inappropriately and Resident #12 denied being touched by Resident #51 and stated she felt safe in the facility but also stated she did not want Resident #51 to enter her room again. RN #166 stated she asked permission from Resident #12 to look underneath her sheet and was given authorization to do so. RN #166 stated she observed Resident #12's brief to be loose and slightly opened. RN #166 stated she again asked Resident #12 if she had been sexually assaulted to which Resident #12 denied. RN #166 stated the incident was very suspicious to her, so she called the Director of Nursing (DON) around 7:25 P.M. and notified her concern for possible sexual abuse. RN #166 stated the Administrator arrived at the facility between 8:00 P.M. and 8:30 P.M. and both the Administrator and RN #166 interviewed Resident #12 who repeated that she had not been sexually assaulted and stated she felt safe in the facility. RN #166 confirmed STNA #115 left Resident #12 alone in her room with Resident #51 while he went to get staff assistance. Interview on 11/13/24 at 10:50 A.M. with Administrator stated he was notified on 11/06/24 by the DON of a concern for possible sexual abuse of Resident #12 by Resident #51. Administrator stated he went to the facility and interviewed Resident #12 who denied any sexual assault. Administrator stated he interviewed STNA #115 who stated he found Resident #51 in Resident #12's room with his knee up on Resident #12's bed and that Resident #51 told STNA #115 not to say anything. Administrator stated STNA #115 immediately left and went to get the nurse. Administrator confirmed the incident occurred on 11/06/24 but confirmed the SRI was not reported until 11/11/24. Administrator confirmed an investigation began immediately and the investigation into the SRI was still in progress. Administrator stated Resident #51 was put on 15-minute staff checks on 11/06/24 and was changed to one-on-one supervision on 11/07/24 and had remained on one-on-one supervision since 11/07/24. Review of facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, and Misappropriation of Resident Property, dated revised 11/01/19, stated the facility would investigate all alleged violations involving Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, Mistreatment of a resident or Misappropriation of Resident property, including injuries of unknown sources. The policy stated if a third party is accused or suspected (not a staff member) the facility would take action to protect the resident including, but not limited to, contacting the third party and addressing the issue directly with him/her, preventing access to resident during the investigation and /or referring the matter to the appropriate authorities. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00159734.
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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, staff and resident interviews, and review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 manual...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, staff and resident interviews, and review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 manual, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive person-centered care plan was updated with current interventions. This affected one (#51) out of the three residents reviewed. The facility census was 53. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #51 revealed an admission date of 01/20/17 with medical diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), anxiety, congestive heart failure, schizoaffective disorder, and chronic ischemic heart disease. Review of the medical record for Resident #51 revealed a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], which indicated Resident #51 was cognitively intact and was independent with all ADL's except required supervision with bathing. Review of the medical record for Resident #51 revealed no documentation to support a comprehensive person-centered care plan was developed for behavioral concerns with the interventions of 15-minute checks or one on one supervision. Review of the facility document titled 15-minute check sheet, dated 11/06/24, revealed Resident #51 was started on 15-minute staff checks on 11/06/24 at 7:45 P.M. until 11/07/24 at 5:45 P.M. Review the facility staffing from 11/06/24 to 11/12/24 revealed staff had been scheduled to provide Resident #51 with one-on-one supervision 24 hours per day. Interview on 11/13/24 at 8:38 A.M. with State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #147 stated Resident #51 had been put on one-on-one supervision after an allegation that Resident #51 had inappropriately touched a female resident. STNA #147 stated she had worked 11/07/24, 11/09/24 and 11/12/24 and provided the one-on-one supervision for Resident #51 for day shifts. Interview on 11/13/24 at 8:45 A.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #134 confirmed Resident #51 was put on 15-minute checks on 11/06/24 and then was put on one-on-one supervision on 11/07/24. LPN #134 stated Resident #51 was put on one-on-one supervision to ensure he did not enter any female resident rooms. Interview on 11/13/24 at 8:47 A.M. with Resident #51 confirmed he was found in a female resident's room on 11/06/24 and had been under staff supervision she that incident. Resident #51 denied any allegation of abuse. Interview on 11/13/24 at 10:50 A.M. with Administrator stated he was notified on 11/06/24 by the Director of Nursing (DON) of a concern for possible sexual abuse of Resident #12 by Resident #51. Administrator stated he went to the facility and interviewed Resident #12 who denied any sexual assault. Administrator stated he interviewed STNA #115 who stated he found Resident #51 in Resident #12's room with his knee up on Resident #12's bed and that Resident #51 told STNA #115 not to say anything. Administrator stated STNA #115 immediately left and went to get the nurse. Administrator confirmed he initiated a Self-Reported Incident (SRI) and an investigation into the allegation. Administrator stated Resident #51 was put on 15-minute staff checks on 11/06/24 and was changed to one-on-one supervision on 11/07/24 and had remained on one-on-one supervision since 11/07/24. Interview on 11/13/24 at 10:55 A.M. with Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed the medical record for Resident #51 did not contain documentation to support Resident #51's comprehensive person-centered care plan included the one-on-one supervision by staff effective 11/07/24. Review of the RAI 3.0 manual, dated October 2023, page 4-8 stated the comprehensive care plan is an interdisciplinary (IDT) communication tool which must include measurable objectives and time frames. The comprehensive care plan must describe the services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. The RAI manual stated the care plan must be reviewed, and revised, periodically, and the services provided or arranged must be consistent with each resident's written plan of care. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00159734.
Nov 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

Deficiency F0569 (Tag F0569)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure money from a resident fund account (RFA) was returned in a timely manner following the resident's discharge. This affe...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure money from a resident fund account (RFA) was returned in a timely manner following the resident's discharge. This affected one (#60) out of the three residents reviewed for resident fund accounts. The facility census was 52. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #60 revealed an admission date of 05/01/23 with medical diagnoses of schizophrenia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, hypertension, and anemia. Review of the medical record for Resident #60 revealed a discharge date of 11/20/23. Review of the medical record for Resident #60 revealed a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 09/07/23, which indicated Resident #60 had moderate cognitive impairment and required supervision with toileting, bathing, bed mobility and transfers. Review of the RFA statement for Resident #60 revealed a balance of $50.87 on 12/01/23. Review of the RFA statement revealed the balance was refunded to Resident #60 on 02/09/24 and the RFA was closed. Interview on 11/05/24 at 1:08 P.M. with Business Office Manager (BOM) #215 confirmed Resident #60 was discharged from the facility on 11/20/23 and the resident's RFA remaining balance was not disbursed until 02/09/24. BOM #215 confirmed Resident #60 had transferred to another facility where she remained as a resident for at least six weeks after discharge. BOM #215 stated the facility did not have a policy for RFA. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00158172.
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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on medical record review, observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff followed infection control procedures during medication administration. This affect...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on medical record review, observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff followed infection control procedures during medication administration. This affected one (#51) out of the two residents observed for medication administration. The facility census was 52. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #51 revealed an admission date of 02/27/23 with medical diagnoses of Parkinson's disease, arthritis, hypertension, anxiety, heart failure, and depression. Review of the medical record for Resident #51 revealed a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 08/24/24, which indicated Resident #51 had moderate cognitive impairment and was independent with eating and bed mobility, required supervision with toileting and transfers, and required partial/moderate staff assistance with bathing. Review of the medical record for Resident #51 revealed a physician order dated 02/27/23 for Carbidopa-Levodopa 25-100 milligram (mg) one tablet by mouth four times per day, an order dated 02/28/23 for glucosamine 400 mg one tablet by mouth daily and Primidone 50 mg one tablet by mouth three times per day, an order dated 10/11/24 for Buspar 5 mg one tablet by mouth three times per day, an order dated 01/07/24 for hydroxyzine 25 mg one tablet by mouth two times per day, and an order dated 02/06/24 for Coreg 3.125 mg one tablet by mouth two times per day. Observation on 11/05/24 at 8:25 A.M. revealed Registered Nurse (RN) # 202 prepare Resident #51 medications for administration. The observation revealed RN #202 place carbidopa-levodopa, glucosamine, Primidone, Buspar, hydroxyzine, and Coreg tablets into his bare hands prior to placing medications into a medication cup. The observation revealed RN #202 observed Resident #51 consume the medications. Interview on 11/05/24 at 9:06 A.M. with RN #202 confirmed he had not performed hand hygiene before or after medication administration and that he placed Resident #51's medications into his bare hands prior to administration. Review of the facility policy titled, Medication Administration, stated only persons licensed by the State to prepare, administer and document the administration of medications may do so. The policy stated the medications must be administered in accordance with the orders, including any required time frame. The policy also stated staff shall follow established facility infection control procedures (i.e. handwashing, antiseptic technique, gloves, isolation precautions, etc.) for the administration of medications as applicable. The deficiency was based on incidental findings discovered during the course of this complaint investigation.
Mar 2023 3 deficiencies 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, review of a Self-Reported Incident (SRI), interviews with staff, residents, the law enforcement...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, review of a Self-Reported Incident (SRI), interviews with staff, residents, the law enforcement detective, and Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE), review of the police report, review of the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) report, review of the hospital records, review of the facility investigation, review of the SANE report, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure one resident (#49) was free from resident-to-resident sexual abuse. This resulted in Immediate Jeopardy and the potential for serious physical, mental and/or psychosocial harm on 02/26/23 at approximately 6:00 P.M., when Resident #25 entered Resident's 49's room and forcefully penetrated Resident #49's vagina with his fingers causing Resident #49 to have pain and bleeding while the resident yelled for help. This affected one resident (#49) of three residents (#25, #49, and #59) reviewed for abuse. There was a total of eight residents (#14, #24, #25, #28, #43, #44, #49, and #59) screened for abuse during the annual survey. The facility census was 66. On 03/09/23 at 3:50 P.M., the Administrator, Director of Nursing (DON), Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #125, and Regional Director of Clinical Services (RDCS) #400 were notified Immediate Jeopardy began on 02/26/23 at 6:00 P.M. when Resident #25 entered Resident #49's room and forcefully penetrated Resident #49's vagina with his fingers causing pain and bleeding. Resident #49 told Resident #25 to quit as the resident yelled for help. Resident #49, who was cognitively intact but had a guardian due to significant psychiatric disorders, held onto this information until approximately 11:00 P.M., when she tearfully reported the incident to Hospitality Aide (HA) #79. Subsequently, Resident #49 was transported to the Emergency Department (ED) where the resident reported she was inappropriately touched by another resident causing vaginal pain and right sided abdominal pain. Additionally, Resident #49 was examined by the SANE nurse and according to the examination report, Resident #49 was noted to have significant abrasions on areas of her vagina and the resident was frightened about returning to the facility. The Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 03/10/23 when the facility implemented the following corrective actions: • On 02/26/23 at 6:00 P.M., Resident #25 touched Resident #49's vagina in Resident #49's room. • On 02/26/23 at 11:00 P.M., Resident #49 reported that Resident #25 inserted his fingers into her vagina, and she had discomfort. The residents were already separated as Resident #25 was asleep in his bed. • On 02/26/23 from 11:00 P.M. to 12:40 A.M., the staff were sitting with Resident #49 to ensure the resident's psychiatric needs were met. • On 02/26/23 at 11:01 P.M., Resident #25 was placed immediately on one-to-one (1:1) monitoring. • On 02/26/23 at 11:05 P.M., a message was left for Resident #49's guardian by Registered Nurse (RN) #130. A message was left for Resident #25's Power-of-Attorney (POA) by RN #130. • On 02/27/23 at 12:10 A.M., Medical Director/Physician #500 was contacted related to the incident and made aware of Resident #49 needing to go to the ED. • On 02/27/23 at 12:40 A.M., Resident #49 was sent to the local hospital ED for an assessment. The local police responded with EMS due to the nature of the call. • On 02/27/23 at 7:45 A.M., Resident #25's POA was made aware of the incident after a returned phone call. • On 02/27/23 at 8:00 A.M., Resident #25 was moved to the Meadows unit to separate the distance between the residents to ensure no contact. • On 02/27/23 at 8:00 A.M., referrals to transfer Resident #25 were sent to other facilities to transfer the resident. • On 02/27/23 at 8:42 A.M., the Administrator initiated an SRI noting the category of allegation as sexual abuse. • On 02/27/23 at 9:30 A.M., Detective #230 arrived at the facility and interviewed Resident #25. • On 02/27/23 from 10:00 A.M. to 12:00 P.M., Social Services Designee (SSD) #115 interviewed other residents. No further incidents were identified. • On 02/27/23 at 11:00 A.M., RDCS #400 educated the DON, ADON #125, and the Administrator on abuse, documentation on resident relationships and notification to responsible parties, and care planning of relationships if there is approval from guardian or if there is not, proper interventions for when incidents occur that may be sexual in nature. • On 02/27/23 at 11:03 A.M., Resident #49's Guardian was notified by the DON. • On 02/27/23 at 12:00 P.M., the DON and ADON #125 reviewed other residents that were in a relationship. The facility identified two residents (#15 and #39) being in a relationship status and there were no identified concerns related to abuse. • On 02/27/23 at 1:25 P.M., Resident #49 returned to the facility from the hospital. Resident #49 was placed on 15-minute checks for psychiatric signs and symptoms. • On 02/27/23 at 2:00 P.M., GuideStar Eldercare psychiatric services were notified of the sexual abuse incident and that Resident #49 needed further psychosocial services. • On 02/27/23 at 2:09 P.M., the DON, ADON #125 and the Administrator completed education to all facility staff regarding abuse. • On 02/27/23 at 2:30 P.M., a Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) meeting was completed to review the incident with all department heads and the Administrator. Attendees included: Administrator, DON, ADON #125, Minimum Data Set (MDS)/RN #119, Staff Scheduler/Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #124, SSD #115, Business Office Manager (BOM) #122, Activities Director (AD) #68, Dietary Manager (DM) #76, Maintenance Director #116, Housekeeping Supervisor #114, Medical Records Supervisor #123, and Admissions Staff #126. • On 02/27/23, the DON, ADON #125 and LPN #124 initiated skin assessments for all residents. This was completed by 02/28/23 with no concerns being identified. • On 02/28/23 at 1:17 P.M., Licensed Professional Clinical Counselor (LPCC) #900 was notified to provide extra counseling for Resident #49. • On 03/01/23 at 8:30 A.M., GuideStar Eldercare assessed residents (#49 and #25). The plan was for Resident #49 to have weekly counseling sessions. • On 03/06/23 at 10:27 A.M., the DON and ADON #125 reviewed the facilities abuse policy, and no changes were made. • On 03/06/23 at 12:30 P.M., Resident #25 was transferred to another Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF). • On 03/07/23 at 4:59 P.M., the facility Administrator initiated another SRI (unrelated to the incident involving Residents (#25 and #49) noting the category of allegation as staff to resident emotional/verbal abuse and completed the SRI on 03/09/23. The facility unsubstantiated the allegations of abuse; however, the facility completed additional abuse education on 03/09/23 related to the verbal abuse allegations. • On 03/08/23 at 2:00 P.M., SSD #115 updated Resident #49's care plan. • On 03/09/23 at 5:00 P.M., the DON notified Medical Director/Physician #500 of the Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) notification. • On 03/09/23, MDS/RN #119 initiated weekly audits on psychosocial care plans for four weeks. • On 03/09/23, SSD #115 initiated weekly audits on grievances and concerns for four weeks. • On 03/13/23, review of the medical records for residents (#14, #24, #25, #28, #43, #44, and #59), reviewed for abuse, revealed no concerns related to abuse of a resident. Proper assessments, care plans and appropriate interventions were noted in the medical records of the residents. • On 03/13/23, interviews with LPNs #135 and #136, RN #128, State Tested Nursing Assistants (STNAs) #64, #90, #94, #95, and #101, Housekeeper #108, Dietary Staff #69, #73, #75, and #76, and Activities Aid #66, verified they were educated on resident abuse. All staff members interviewed were knowledgeable of the content of each education provided by the facility. Although the Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 03/10/23, the facility remained out of compliance at Severity Level 2 (no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not Immediate Jeopardy) as the facility was still in the process of implementing their corrective actions and monitoring to ensure on-going compliance. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #49 revealed an admission date of 10/29/20. Diagnoses included paranoid schizophrenia, psychosis, suicidal ideations, obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), anxiety disorder, delusional disorder, and panic disorder. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #49 had intact cognition. Review of the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed the resident was assessed as a 14, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Further review of the assessment revealed resident had no hallucinations, delusions, rejection of care and no behaviors were identified. Further review of the assessment revealed Resident #49 required extensive assistance for toileting, hygiene and dressing and supervision for all other activities of daily living (ADLs). Review of the plan of care for Resident #49 dated 02/15/23, revealed the resident had behavioral problems related to suicidal ideations. Interventions included GuideStar psychiatric services as needed, praising any indication of progress/improvement in resident behavior, and a medication review. Further review of the care plan for Resident #49 revealed no care plan related to the resident being in a relationship or involved in sexual activities with other residents. Review of psychiatric notes dated 02/15/23 and 03/01/23 for Resident #49, revealed resident lacked judgement regarding everyday activities and lacked insight concerning matters of self. Review of the progress notes dated 02/18/23 at 6:26 P.M for Resident #49, revealed the resident was in her room visiting with her boyfriend. Review of the medical record of Resident #25, revealed an admission date of 09/01/17. Diagnoses included history of traumatic brain injury (TBI), major depressive disorder, hypotension, and legal blindness. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #25 had an intact cognition. Review of the BIMS assessment dated [DATE], revealed the resident was assessed as a 14. Further review of the assessment revealed resident had no hallucinations, delusions, rejection of care and no behaviors were identified. Further review of the assessment revealed Resident #25 required extensive from staff for locomotion on/off the unit, dressing toileting, hygiene and supervision. Review of the plan of care dated 04/25/22 revealed Resident #25 required medications and psychiatric services as needed from Eldercare Psych Services related to behavioral management. Further review of the care plan for Resident #25 revealed no care plan related to the resident being in a relationship or involved in sexual activities with other residents. Review of the psychiatric notes dated 02/15/23 and 03/01/23 for Resident #25, revealed the resident lacked judgement regarding everyday activities and lacked insight concerning matters of self. Review of the progress notes from 02/26/23 through 03/06/23 for Resident #25, revealed the resident was placed on 1:1 supervision at all times due to the incident with Resident #49. Review of the SRI created on 02/27/23 at 8:42 A.M., revealed around midnight on 02/27/23, an aide (identified as Hospitality Aide [HA] #79) notified the LPN Unit/Charge Nurse (who was later identified and clarified to be RN #130) that Resident #49 was alleging Resident #25 had touched her inappropriately. Resident #49 stated to HA #79 and RN #130 that Resident #25 touched her vagina with his fingers and his fingers were inserted inside her. According to Resident #25's statements, the incident occurred on 02/26/23 between 5:30 P.M. and 7:30 P.M. Resident #49 stated to HA #79 that her vaginal area hurt, and she experienced some bleeding. The SRI indicated certain factors made the investigation challenging such as Resident #49 had diagnoses of paranoid schizophrenia, unspecified psychosis, delusional disorders, suicidal ideations, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. On several occasions when the facility had been unable to provide her proper care, the resident was transferred to the hospital for psychological and behavioral services. Resident #49 was care planned for making false accusations. Further review of the SRI revealed Resident #25 was noted to be legally blind and suffered a traumatic brain injury. Resident #25 used a wheelchair to ambulate throughout the building. The SRI indicated it was tough to discern if Resident #25 had the capability to fully grasp the gravity of different situations. Resident #25 appears to be easily swayed or manipulated. Review of the progress notes dated 02/27/23 at 12:40 A.M. for Resident #49, revealed the resident requested to go to the hospital for an evaluation. The nurse practitioner was made aware of the events and gave the order to send the resident to the hospital for evaluation. Review of the E-Interact Change in Condition assessment dated [DATE] at 12:40 A.M., revealed the client made an allegation against another resident and wanted to go to the hospital for evaluation. Review of the EMS run report dated 02/27/23 at 12:59 A.M., revealed the patient (Resident #49) was located conscious/breathing, seated on bed, talking with the police department. Patient stated about 5:30 P.M., another resident who resides at facility sexually assaulted her by ramming his fingers up my vagina. Patient stated there was bleeding at the time, and stated she did not know if there was any bleeding now. Patient stated she was having pain in her vaginal area, and reported the pain was a ten out of a ten on the pain scale (0 = none and 10 = severe pain) with no radiation. Workers at the facility stated they changed patient's sheets two times prior to EMS arrival. Patient states she was not assaulted anywhere else and stated she was sitting on her bed eating dinner at time of assault. Review of the SANE report dated 02/27/23 at 3:34 A.M. revealed the patient (Resident #49) reported being touched by a fellow resident (Resident #25) at the nursing home. The two residents were in Resident #49's room and they had just finished supper. Resident #25 was noted to hang out in Resident #49's room and talk. Resident #49's roommate was in the room, but asleep. Resident #49 reported she was crocheting, when Resident #25 who was seated in a wheelchair and next to her bed, pulled her covers back. Resident #49 reported that Resident #25 was always telling her he loved her and stuff. Review of the report indicated Resident #25 put his hands in Resident #49's Depends (incontinent briefs) and then put his fingers in her vagina. Resident #25 was scratching her with his nails and Resident #49 told him to get off of her and quit. Resident #49 could not find her call light. Resident #49 jerked his hand to get him to stop. Resident #49 tried to get the nurses attention, but she could not. Resident #49 had to wait to tell them and after she told them, they called the police. Further review of the report revealed Resident #49 reported she could not sleep there, I am scared. Resident #49 was noted by the examiner to be anxious and guarded. Resident #49 was asked about the vaginal penetration, and she stated that he put his fingers in my vagina, it hurt. Further review of the report indicated Resident #49 had significant abrasions of her labia minora, majora, and clitoris. Resident #49 was frightened about going back to nursing home if the perpetrator was still there. The hospital was holding patient until a decision has been made about where perpetrator is to go. The report indicated all specimens collected were being sent off for analysis. Review of the progress notes dated 02/27/23 at 1:40 P.M. for Resident #49, revealed the resident returned to the facility from the hospital at about 1:25 P.M. that afternoon. Review of the progress notes dated 02/27/23 at 3:50 P.M. for Resident #49, revealed social services went in to check on the resident. Resident #49 stated that she was not in the mood to talk. The resident was noted to be in her bed knitting. Review of the progress notes dated 02/27/23 at 10:56 P.M. for Resident #49, revealed the resident was very tearful and having episodes of paranoia this shift. The resident refused a shower and a skin assessment. Resident #49 stated she did not want a shower or for anyone to see her naked body. Review of the hospital records dated 02/27/23 for Resident #49, revealed the resident arrived at the hospital at 1:39 A.M. The resident stated that she was inappropriately touched by another resident at the facility endorsing mild vaginal pain and right-sided abdominal pain. The resident was seen by the SANE nurse at the hospital. Resident #49 was diagnosed with an alleged assault and abdominal pain. Resident #49 was discharged back to the facility on [DATE] at 12:58 P.M. Review of the progress notes dated 02/28/23 at 12:37 A.M. for Resident #49, revealed the resident spent most of the shift in her room. Resident #49 had some brief episodes of crying this shift. Review of the progress notes dated 02/28/23 at 2:01 P.M for Resident #49, revealed the resident spent most of the day in bed resting and resident's appetite was fair. Resident #49 had episodes of tearfulness, however, did not want to talk about anything at that moment with the nurse. Review of the progress notes dated 02/28/23 at 2:17 P.M for Resident #49, revealed the writer reached out to a counseling resource to see if they could see the resident soon due to her experiencing a recent trauma. Review of the psychiatric notes for Resident #49 dated 03/01/23, revealed the resident did not wish to talk about the incident on 02/26/23, but the staff were great in helping her through the process. Review of the progress notes dated 03/02/23 at 12:17 A.M. for Resident #49, revealed the resident continued to have episodes of crying. Review of the progress notes dated 03/02/23 at 10:25 A.M. for Resident #49 revealed Social Services Designee (SSD) #115 was given a note from a staff member which was written by Resident #49. The note stated, no one cared for the resident anymore and she had an empty spot in her life, so it's like being empty in my heart now and Resident #25 do not like me anymore. SSD #115 entered the room, and the resident was sobbing. Resident #49 also stated the television was talking to her and telling her about Resident #25 and his new girlfriend. SSD #115 explained to the resident that because of the circumstances, she was unable to talk with Resident #25 at this time. Review of the progress notes dated 03/02/23 at 11:33 P.M., for Resident #49, revealed the resident remained on 15-minute checks this shift and remained in her room all shift. The resident was noted to have several episodes of crying this shift. Review of the progress notes dated 03/03/23 at 3:32 P.M. for Resident #49, revealed SSD #115 was in to visit with the resident. The resident was tearful at times. Review of the progress notes dated 03/04/23 at 12:04 A.M. for Resident #49, revealed she had episodes of crying throughout the shift. Interview on 03/06/23 at 9:11 A.M. with Resident #49, revealed that she and Resident #25 would regularly eat meals together. On 02/26/23, Resident #25 told Resident #49 that he was going to get into her pants. Resident #49 stated Resident #25 scratched the inside of her vagina when he inserted his fingers. Resident #49 stated that she tried to get the attention of her roommate, but she was sleeping. Resident #49 stated that she had asked Resident #25 to stop but he kept going with his fingers. Resident #49 stated that she pulled his arm to make him stop. Resident #49 stated she notified staff of her injuries later that evening, went to the hospital later in the evening where they took pictures of her injuries. The resident also stated that she was in a relationship with Resident #25, and they were engaged. Resident #49 stated that her guardian is aware and told her it was not a good idea since she had been married three times prior. Interview on 03/06/23 at 10:40 A.M. with Resident #25, revealed that he used to eat with Resident #49, and it stopped because he was leaving today. Resident #25 stated that he is going to another nursing home closer to his sisters. The resident confirmed penetrating the vagina of Resident #49 on the evening of 02/26/23. Resident #25 stated I was stupid and dumb. I should have never did it. The resident denied doing that to any other women before. Resident #25 stated that the roommate of Resident #49 was not in the room at the time. Resident #25 classified the relationship with Resident #49 as somewhat girlfriend and boyfriend and went on to say that they kissed before, and he loved her. Resident #25 stated that Resident #49 still comes around and tells him hello and confirmed that he still loves her, and she knows it. Subsequent interview with Resident #49 on 03/08/23 at 9:30 A.M. revealed the resident had three husbands who were abusive to her. The resident stated that she still wanted to press charges on Resident #25 even though she loved him because he hurt her and made her bleed. Phone interview on 03/08/23 at 9:48 A.M. with SANE Nurse #01 revealed the resident was upset when she examined her. Resident #49 stated that she was in bed and was eating when Resident #25 came into her room and sat next to her, and the roommate fell asleep. Resident #25 lifted her bedding and stuck his hands under the blanket. SANE Nurse #01 stated Resident #49 had some significant scratches on her vagina. One was up the left side and blood was seeping significantly on the right side of the vagina. The scratch on the right side of the vagina was wider than on the left and could have been sutured. Resident #49 was consistent with her story and very upset. SANE Nurse #01 reported the two residents were involved in some type of relationship but Resident #49 did not say Resident #25 was her boyfriend. Resident #49 was worried about going back and did not want to go back to the facility. The resident appeared afraid. Interview on 03/08/23 at 2:10 P.M. with the DON, revealed the facility was aware of the relationship between both residents and always kept the door open to keep an eye on the couple. The DON reported Resident #49's guardian was aware of the relationship. Interview on 03/08/23 at 2:16 P.M. with HA #79 confirmed that she worked on 02/26/23 from 11:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. HA #79 reported when she started her shift, the door to Resident #49's room was open and when she walked into the room, Resident #49 was in the bathroom and another Aide was changing her linens due to an incontinence episode. HA #79 noted the resident would become more incontinent when she was more emotional. The resident hit her call light a little later and told HA #79 that she was not good. Resident #49 reported that Resident #25 hurt her really bad. HA #79 told the resident to tell the nurse. The nurse on the floor (RN #130) went into Resident #49's room and the resident was crying and said she was sore and wanted someone to call her daughter. Resident #49 had another incontinence episode in the bed. HA #79 stated she changed her sheets when the resident was in the bathroom getting cleaned up. HA #79 stated that she checked the trash can and there was no blood on her depends and there were traces of blood on the sheet. HA #79 reported the facility was aware of a relationship between Residents #49 and #25. HA #79 reported Resident #49 had an engagement ring on, and the resident took it off and stated she was done with Resident #25. Resident #49 had mentioned that she had been raped before and did not want that. Resident #49 stated that she was yelling for her roommate, but she was sleeping. HA #79 reported Resident #49 was obsessed with Resident #25 and asked about him all the time. HA #79 stated the facility was aware of what went on with Resident #49 and Resident #25, but they have free will, our job was to provide safety, and try to make sure it does not get to this point. HA #79 mentioned another couple in the facility. Review of the progress notes dated 03/08/23 at 2:48 P.M for Resident #49, revealed the resident had episodes of tearfulness this shift. Interview on 03/08/23 at 3:25 P.M. with STNA #83 revealed that she was the aide taking care of Resident #49 on 02/26/23 from 3:00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M. STNA #83 reported Resident #25 was put on 1:1 monitoring after the 8:00 P.M. smoke break. STNA #83 never witnessed Resident #25 inside Resident #49's room. STNA #83 denied hearing Resident #49 calling out for help and stated the resident never reported the sexual abuse during her shift. STNA #83 stated Resident #49 was not incontinent during the evening and was resting in her bed after the evening medications were administered. Interview on 03/08/23 at 4:00 P.M. with RN #130, revealed she was the nurse assigned to care for Resident #49 on 02/26/23 from 7:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. RN #130 stated that sometime between 11:00 P.M. and 12:00 A.M., Resident #49 informed her that another resident had touched her inappropriately in the vaginal area. RN #130 stated that Resident #49 was unable to give many details about the incident. Resident #49 was able to give a time frame of between 5:30 P.M. and 7:30 P.M. of when the incident with Resident #25 occurred. The resident was unable to provide how long it occurred and did not provide a lot of details. RN #130 asked Resident #49 if she wanted to go to the hospital, and when the resident stated yes, RN #130 called EMS. RN #130 stated that she did not notice any blood on the sheets or on the resident's brief. Follow up interview on 03/08/23 at 5:25 P.M. with RN #130 reported she examined the outside area of Resident #49's vaginal area and there was no blood or bruising noted. Interview on 03/09/23 at 9:05 A.M. with Detective #230 revealed that he did investigate the alleged sexual abuse against Resident #25 on 02/26/23. Detective #230 stated that he could not comment on the incident as the investigation was still ongoing. The police report was finished, and the incident was being sent up for charges. Detective #230 stated the alleged perpetrator (Resident #25) had not been officially charged with anything. Review of the progress notes dated 03/09/23 at 2:13 P.M for Resident #49, revealed the resident was having incontinence episodes. Resident #49 was noted having tearful episodes where the resident stated, she wants to be left alone. Review of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) interpretive guidance on sexual abuse indicated generally, sexual contact is nonconsensual if the resident appears to want the contact to occur but lacks the cognitive ability to consent. CMS addresses the facility's responsibility to determine whether sexual activity was consensual on the part of the resident. CMS indicates a resident's apparent consent to engage in sexual activity is not valid if it is obtained from a resident lacking the capacity to consent, or consent is obtained through intimidation, coercion, or fear, whether it is expressed by the resident or suspected by staff. Any forced, coerced or extorted sexual activity with a resident, regardless of the existence of a pre-existing or current sexual relationship, is considered sexual abuse. A facility is required to investigate and protect a resident from non-consensual sexual relations anytime the facility has reason to suspect that the resident does not wish to engage in sexual activity or may not have the capacity to consent. A resident's voluntary engagement in sexual activity may appear to mean consent to the activity, in these instances, if the facility has reason to suspect that the resident may not have the capacity to consent, the facility must protect the resident from potential sexual abuse while the investigation is in progress. Review of the facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation and Misappropriation of Resident Property dated 11/01/19, revealed that sexual abuse was defined as Non-consensual sexual contact of any kind with a resident. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00140737.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to create a comprehensive ca...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, staff interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to create a comprehensive care plan for a resident with a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). This affected one resident (#215) out of twenty-one residents reviewed for care plans. The facility census was 66. Findings included: Review of the medical record for Resident #215 revealed an admission date of 02/01/23. Diagnoses included, but not limited to, PTSD, Parkinson's Disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), vascular dementia, history of Coronavirus (COVID-19), and hypertension. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #215, revealed the resident had an intact cognition. The resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment score of 15 which indicated intact cognition. Assessment indicated the resident had no hallucinations, delusions, behaviors or concerns with his mood and /or rejection of care. Review of the progress note dated 02/08/23 at 6:50 P.M. for Resident #215, revealed the resident was in his room on the phone. The nurse entered the resident's room, and the resident handed the nurse the phone. Resident #215 had called the Veteran Crisis Center. The Crisis Center stated that the resident had called them and stated he wanted to commit suicide and planned to hang himself. Resident #215 was sent to the hospital for evaluation and treatment. Review of the progress note dated 02/28/23 at 2:31 P.M for Resident #215, revealed a referral was sent to the facility counseling service after a consent was received from the resident. Review of the care plans for Resident #215 revealed no care plan was implemented for the resident's diagnosis of PTSD. Interview on 03/08/23 at 9:37 A.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON), confirmed Resident #215 did not have a care plan for his diagnosis of PTSD. The DON stated that the resident had a long-standing history of suicidal and homicidal ideations. Review of the facility policy titled Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered dated 12/01/16 revealed a comprehensive, person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial, and functional needs is developed and implemented for each resident.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure staff wore hairnets and gloves while serving meals. This affected all residents except Resident #46 who wa...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure staff wore hairnets and gloves while serving meals. This affected all residents except Resident #46 who was nothing by mouth (NPO) and did not receive food from the kitchen. Census was 66. Findings include: During the initial tour of the kitchen on 03/06/23 at 8:05 A.M., Dietary Aide (DA) #71 was observed with facial hair while serving breakfast. Further observation revealed DA #71 was not wearing a beard protector nor gloves while serving breakfast meals on the tray line. Additionally, DA #75 was observed placing bread in a toaster without gloves in place. During continued observations, revealed DA #75 touched her arms and continued to place bread in the toaster without washing her hands. Interview on 03/06/23 at 8:15 A.M., revealed Dietary Supervisor (DS) #76 verified findings and reported staff are to always cover beard and hands while serving meals on the tray line. DS #76 verified DA #75 touched her arms and failed to wash her hands before loading more bread in the toaster. Review of the undated facility policy titled, Hair Covering Policy, reported all dietary staff are required to wear effective hair restraints that cover all exposed body hair including facial hair and head hair. Review of an undated and untitled facility document, revealed the dietary department were to use single use gloves to protect both patrons and employees from contagious and food borne illnesses. Employees will wash their hands thoroughly before and after wearing or changing gloves.
Dec 2019 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure resident care plans were developed to address ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure resident care plans were developed to address the resident's care needs. This affected two (#14 and #39) out of 15 sampled residents for care plans. Facility census was 61 residents. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #14's medical record, revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with pertinent diagnoses including malignant cancer of the spinal meninges, congestive heart failure, diabetes, anxiety disorder, morbid obesity, liver disease, major depressive disorder, insomnia, sleep apnea, and dementia with behavioral disturbance. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], revealed the resident was cognitively impaired with no behaviors. On 09/19/19, a care plan was developed that documented the resident was on psychotropic medications including antidepressant and anti-anxiety medications. Interventions included administering medication as ordered, monitoring for signs and symptoms of adverse reactions, and monitoring for signs and symptoms of mood changes and report to physician as needed. Review of the 12/2019 physician orders, revealed the resident had orders for an anti-anxiety medication, Diazepam 5.0 milligrams (mg) daily and Diazepam 2.5 mg twice daily. Further review of the resident's care plans revealed there was no care plan developed to address the resident's use of Diazepam, the rationale for the use of the medication, and individualized, non-pharmacological interventions used to treat his symptoms. The lack of a care plan for the use of Diazepam, was verified by the Director of Nursing on 12/11/19 at 1:00 P.M. 2. Review of Resident #39's record, revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including neurogenic arthritis, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, nephrotic syndrome, edema, severe protein caloric malnutrition, visual loss, chronic kidney disease with dialysis, and peripheral vascular disease. Review of the admission MDS dated [DATE], revealed the resident participated in a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) with a score of 15, fully intact cognitive abilities. The MDS revealed the resident had severe vision impairment and required extensive assistance of staff with bed mobility, transferring, dressing, and toilet use tasks. She was able to feed herself with supervision. The MDS also revealed the resident used tobacco. Due to the resident's severe visual impairment, she was evaluated by an ophthalmologist on 11/15/19 and again on 12/05/19, for blurry vision and possible cataracts. At the 12/05/19 evaluation, the physician made a referral for the resident to be evaluated by a retinal specialist for vitreous hemorrhage of the right eye and proliferating diabetic retinopathy (PDR). On 12/10/19, during the survey, the resident was evaluated by the retinal eye specialist. She was administered eye injections to treat the PDR and was scheduled for eye surgery. Review of the resident's care plans, revealed no care plan was developed to address the resident's vision losses and visual needs. The lack of a care plan to address vision needs, was confirmed by the DON on 12/11/19 at 1:00 P.M.
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, medical record review, and staff and resident interview, the facility failed to ensure appropriate interve...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, medical record review, and staff and resident interview, the facility failed to ensure appropriate interventions were in place to prevent the development of a vascular ulcer. This affected one (#39) of two residents reviewed for non-pressure related skin conditions. Facility census was 61 residents. Findings include: Review of Resident #39's record, revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including neurogenic arthritis, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, nephrotic syndrome, edema, severe protein caloric malnutrition, visual loss, chronic kidney disease with dialysis, and peripheral vascular disease. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], revealed the resident participated in a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) with a score of 15, fully intact cognitive abilities. The MDS revealed the resident had severe vision impairment and required extensive assistance of staff with bed mobility, transferring, dressing, and toilet use tasks. She was able to feed herself with supervision. The MDS also revealed the resident used tobacco and had no pressure sores. On 10/24/19 a care plan was developed that documented the resident was at risk for skin breakdown related to diabetes, malnutrition, weakness, impaired mobility, and chronic kidney failure. Interventions included to apply lotion/moisture barrier cream as needed, observe skin for redness or open areas and notify the nurse, and provide a skin assessment as needed. Further review of the care plan revealed there were no interventions in place to prevent pressure sores or vascular ulcers to the lower extremities including applying skin prep to the heels, the use of compression stockings, elevating the lower extremities, or applying pressure relief boots. Review of the facility's skin assessment dated [DATE], revealed the resident's skin was intact with no signs of breakdown. The nurse documented on 12/09/2019 at 8:00 A.M., while skin prepping the resident's right ankle, she stated that she really doesn't understand why the nurses skin prep her ankle when her heal was hurting. Her sock was taken off and an area was noted to her right heel. Contacted the supervisor. The supervisor will follow up. Review of the skin assessment dated [DATE], revealed the resident had a 2.0 by 2.0 vascular ulcer on her right heel. The measurements did not designate whether centimeters (cm) or inches. On 12/10/2019 at 10:01 A.M., the nurse documented the skin assessment completed today. Resident has a suspected vascular ulcer to right heel. New orders to apply skin prep, apply heel boot while in bed, and a vascular study to both legs. Resident is aware of new orders. Will continue to monitor. On 12/11/19 at 11:50 A.M., the resident was interviewed and stated she was going to have a doppler on her right foot today. She stated the staff told her the open area on her heel was the size of a quarter. She gave permission for the surveyor to observe the procedure. The technician arrived to the facility and performed the ultrasound. The resident's lower extremities from the mid-shin down, were observed to be reddened and swollen. The resident's right medial heel, was observed to have a purplish/red surface ulcer approximately 2.0 cm by 3.0 cm in diameter with no depth. On 12/11/19 at 1:00 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed there were no preventive measures in place to prevent this at risk resident from developing pressure or vascular ulcers on her lower extremities until after an ulcer developed on her right outer heel.
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Medical record review for Resident #40 revealed an admission date of 09/11/18. Medical diagnoses included heart failure, rena...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Medical record review for Resident #40 revealed an admission date of 09/11/18. Medical diagnoses included heart failure, renal failure, diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) Review of quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] for Resident #40 revealed she was cognitively intact. Functional status was extensive assistance for bed mobility, transfers, and toilet use. She was supervision for eating. Review of care plan dated 04/02/19 for Resident #40 revealed she was a smoker and based on assessment she was safe to smoke unsupervised and had been educated on the dangers of smoking with oxygen on and around oxygen. Interventions were to educate on smoking safety and on dangers of not smoking around oxygen and to provide the resident with education related to smoking cessation. Review of physician orders dated 10/17/19 for Resident #40 revealed oxygen at two liters per minute via nasal cannula. Review of smoking assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #40 revealed she was safe to smoke with supervision. The assessment further revealed resident needed to be taken outside to smoke with assistance and brought back in because she had trouble holding the cigarette. She also had trouble taking self to and from outdoors in her wheelchair. Interview with Resident #40 on 12/09/19 at 3:10 P.M. revealed she started smoking again in April 2019. She revealed she takes her cigarettes and lighter outside with her to smoke and keeps them in her room with her. She stated she was an independent smoker and could go outside with her smoking materials but didn't know what the policy was regarding keeping smoking materials in her room with her. Observation at the same time as the interview revealed she had a pack with four cigarettes in the package and a lighter in her coat pocket in her room. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #77 on 12/09/19 at 3:30 P.M. revealed the residents are supposed to get the cigarettes and lighter from the locked cabinet behind the nursing station when they wanted to smoke. She revealed even if a resident was unsupervised they still had to keep the smoking materials at the locked box at the nursing station. Interview with LPN #15 on 12/09/19 at 3:21 P.M. verified the resident had a pack of four cigarettes and a lighter in her pocket of her coat in her room. She stated it is a continuous education with the residents to keep the smoking materials at the nursing station. She stated this resident has been non-compliant with placing her smoking materials back in the locked box. Interview with the DON on 12/11/19 at 2:00 P.M. revealed the smoking assessment should have been updated due to there was one instance when the resident was outside smoking and was acting drowsy and tired and couldn't hold on to her cigarette, so she told the nurse to make sure she went outside with someone. Review of the facilities undated policy titled Safe Smoking Policy revealed the policy was intended to ensure that all residents who reside at the facility remain safe from any harm associated with smoking practices for example cigarette burns, smoke inhalation and fire. The policy revealed smoking materials will be kept at the nursing stations. There shall be no resident to have any cigarettes or lighters in their possession while outside the building unless on their way out to smoke. Based on observation, medical record review, staff and resident interviews and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents implemented the facility policy regarding smoking. This affected two (#39 and #40) out of 20 residents residing in the facility who were identified as smoking tobacco. Facility census of 61 residents. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #39's record, revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including neurogenic arthritis, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, nephrotic syndrome, edema, severe protein caloric malnutrition, visual loss, chronic kidney disease with dialysis, and peripheral vascular disease. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], revealed the resident participated in a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) with a score of 15, fully intact cognitive abilities. The MDS revealed the resident had severe vision impairment and required extensive assistance of staff with bed mobility, transferring, dressing, and toilet use tasks. She was able to feed herself with supervision. The MDS also revealed the resident used tobacco. Review of the Smoking Safety Screen dated 11/14/19, revealed the resident did not have cognitive deficits but had visual impairment. She had no dexterity problems and was able to light her own cigarettes. The resident did need facility to store lighter and cigarettes. Resident was alert and oriented and she was able to safely smoke unsupervised. Resident had been educated on the facility's smoking policy and dangers of smoking around oxygen. Review of the care plan dated 11/14/19, revealed the resident was a current, everyday smoker. The resident had been made aware of and signed the safe smoking policy. She had been made aware of the dangers of smoking around or with oxygen on. Based on the smoking assessment, the resident was safe to smoke unsupervised. At times the resident was non-compliant with the policy of keeping smoking materials at the nurse's station. She was not interested in smoking cessation. Interventions included educating on smoking safety as needed, providing education on the safety of not smoking around oxygen as needed, and providing with education on smoking cessation. The resident signed the facility's Safe Smoking Policy on 11/11/19. The policy document, all residents and or patients, who currently smoke, commence smoking, have significant change of condition, or practice unsafe smoking will be assessed to determine if they are appropriate to smoke with supervision or independently. Protective material will be available if assessment requires such. Supervised smoking times will not exceed 15 minutes. Independent smokers are not required to have staff supervision while in the designated area. Independent smokers; assessments will determine if a resident is safe to smoke independently with still following some of the required guidelines as supervised residents. Smoking materials will be kept at nursing stations. No resident shall have any cigarettes or lighters in their possession while inside the building unless on their way out to smoke. Independent smokers may sign out in the Leave of Absence book at their nurses' station where they reside and then request their smoking materials to take with them. Residents are advised that if any smoking material is found in their possession, that smoking privileges will be revoked. The smoking policy is part of the admission agreement and must be signed and undergo an evaluation prior to being able to attend smoke breaks. Any non-compliance with smoking policy will be addressed with the resident and family members and the safe smoking assessment will be reviewed and updated. Additionally, smoking in non-designated areas may warrant a 30 day day discharge notice for violation of all resident's and staff's safety. This resident has received and understands the safe smoking policy of this facility. This resident also understands the policy is effective immediately. On 12/09/19 at 2:00 P.M., the resident was observed outdoors smoking with other residents. The resident was carrying her own cigarettes and lighter on her person. The resident stated she kept her cigarettes and lighter in her room. On 12/09/19 at 3:43 P.M., the resident was observed carrying her own cigarettes and lighter in her room. The resident stated, they better not try to take them away. During interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 12/10/19 at 2:05 P.M., she stated there are some residents who are carrying their cigarettes and lighter on their persons and who don't hand in their lighters and cigarettes to the nurse for safekeeping as stated in the smoking policy. She stated the residents were independent smokers and it is very hard to prevent them from carrying smoking materials on their person.
CONCERN (E)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure five bathroom floors were clean. This has the potential to affect five (#11, #19, #45, #37 and #14) out of 24 residents reviewed...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure five bathroom floors were clean. This has the potential to affect five (#11, #19, #45, #37 and #14) out of 24 residents reviewed during the annual survey. The census was 61. Findings included: Observation of Resident #11's bathroom on 12/09/19 at 10:17 A.M. revealed the floor was badly stained and around the bottom of the toilet there was a dark thick substance and the floor was sticky. Observation on 12/09/19 at 11:25 A.M. of Resident #19's bathroom revealed the tile was discolored. Observation of Resident #45's bathroom floor on 12/09/19 at 12:06 P.M. revealed it was badly stained under the sink and around and behind the toilet. Observation on 12/09/19 at 2:27 P.M. of Resident #37's and #14's shared bathroom revealed under the sink there were dark stains. Observation with the Administrator and Housekeeping Supervisor (HS) #41 on 12/12/19 at 1:55 P.M. verified the conditions of the above mentioned bathrooms for Resident #11, #19, #45, #37 and #14. Interview with the Administrator on 12/12/19 at 2:00 P.M. verified he thought it was an issue of the bathroom floors but more of a scrubbing and a waxing that was needed and said the facility just got remodeled in the front of the facility and had plans to remodel the rest of the rooms, but didn't have a date. Interview with HS #41 on 12/12/19 P.M. verified the bathroom floors in the above mentioned rooms needed scrubbed and waxed. He stated the census was low and he haven't been able to get to them in quite a while now. He denied he had documentation of the last time the bathrooms had been scrubbed and waxed.
Oct 2018 10 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, observation, and staff interview the facility failed to provide food to a resident on the behavi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, observation, and staff interview the facility failed to provide food to a resident on the behavioral unit when he requested something to eat because he was hungry. This affected one Resident (#31) out of 15 residents who resided on the behavioral unit. The facility census was 65. Findings include: Medical record review revealed Resident #31 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included altered mental status, epilepsy, dementia, anemia, moderate intellectual disabilities, anxiety, altered mental status, and major depressive disorder. Review of the resident's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed the resident required supervision with one-person assistance for bed mobility, transferring and bathing with moderately impaired cognition. Observations on 10/24/18 at 10:20 A.M. through 10:45 A.M., revealed the resident asked State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #500 for a sandwich because he was hungry. STNA #500 initially told Resident #31 to wait until lunch time. Resident #31 stressed to STNA #500 that he was hungry and could not wait for lunch, even though lunch was scheduled at 11:00 A.M. Resident #31 stated again how hungry he was and wanted a piece of bologna and bread. with ketchup. STNA #500 told Resident #31 that she was unable to leave the unit and he had to wait until the nurse came back on the unit before she could leave the unit. Resident #31 stated he was hungry and wanted to go back and lay down. Interview with STNA #500 on 10/24/18 at 10:30 A.M. stated she thought Resident #31 wanted a bologna sandwich instead of a turkey sandwich which was on the menu for the day. Observation on 10/24/18 at 10:45 A.M., revealed Activity Aide (AA) #200 informed STNA #500 that the resident was ready to eat now and could not wait for lunch. AA #200 asked STNA #500 to supervise activities while she went to the kitchen and requested a sandwich for Resident #31. Observation on 10/24/18 at 10:50 A.M., revealed AA #200 returned to the unit with a ham sandwich with ketchup for Resident #31. Interview on 10/24/18 at 10:55 A.M., revealed the Director of Nursing (DON) reported STNA #500's action was unacceptable. The DON stated STNA #500 should have radioed the request for a sandwich to dietary services, STNA #500 would not have to leave the floor to do this. Dietary services would radio back when the sandwich was ready and the DON or someone else could have brought the sandwich to Resident #31. Observation on 10/24/18 at 11:15 A.M., revealed lunch was served on the behavioral unit.
CONCERN (D)

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

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #18 revealed he was admitted [DATE]. Diagnoses included acute respiratory failure w...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #18 revealed he was admitted [DATE]. Diagnoses included acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, sixth nerve palsy of an unspecified eye, amputation of lesser toe, local lupus erythematosus, chronic kidney disease, stage 4, iron deficiency anemia, right bundle branch block, protein-calorie malnutrition, non pressure chronic ulcer of right foot with unspecified severity, hypo-osmolality and hyponatremia, hyperkalemia, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, chronic viral hepatitis C, type 2 diabetes with polyneuropathy, cocaine abuse in remission, bi polar disease, von willebrand's disease, peripheral vascular disease, chronic embolism and thrombosis of deep veins of right lower extremity, benign prostatic hyperplasia, cirrhosis of liver, hypertension, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, and chronic pain syndrome. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) revealed he was cognitively intact and required supervision with eating and extensive assistance with activities of daily living (ADL's), bed mobility and transfers. Review of the progress notes dated 10/08/18 revealed Resident #18 went to the hospital due to critically low labs. During an interview in 10/25/18 at 2:30 P.M., the Administrator verified they had not provided notice to the Ombudsman's office of residents transfer or discharges to the hospital. Based on resident record review and staff interview, the facility failed to notify the resident/resident representative in writing of the reason for a transfer to the hospital. Additionally, the facility failed to send a copy of the notice to a representative of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman. This affected two (#5 and #18) of two residents reviewed for hospitalization. The census was 65. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #5 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included diarrhea, diabetes mellitus type two, morbid obesity, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, post traumatic stress disorder, stage three chronic kidney disease, heart failure, depressive episodes and insomnia. Review of a nurse progress noted dated 06/04/18 at 2:07 P.M. revealed Resident #5 was noted to have critical laboratory results. Documentation revealed the resident was assessed to have shortness of breath and four plus pitting edema. The certified nurse practitioner was made aware of the abnormal assessment and critical lab results. A new order was received to send Resident #5 to the hospital for evaluation and treatment. Review of a nurse progress note dated 6/04/18 at 8:06 P.M. revealed Resident #5 was admitted to the hospital related to kidney failure. Review of a nurse progress note dated 09/05/18 at 10:16 A.M. revealed Resident #5 was sent to the hospital for evaluation and treatment at 9:30 A.M. Documentation revealed the resident returned to the facility from the hospitalization on 09/07/18. Review of Resident #5's minimum data set (MDS) assessments revealed discharge return anticipated MDS assessments were completed on 06/04/18 and 09/05/18. Continued review of the medical record for Resident #5 revealed no documentation the resident/resident representative or ombudsman was notified in writing of the reason for Resident #5's hospital transfer. Interview on 10/25/18 at 3:24 P.M. with social worker #100 verified the resident/resident representative was not notified in writing of the reason of the hospital transfer. The social worker further verified the ombudsman was not send a copy of the notice.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0625 (Tag F0625)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #18 revealed he was admitted [DATE]. Diagnoses included acute respiratory failure w...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #18 revealed he was admitted [DATE]. Diagnoses included acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, sixth nerve palsy of an unspecified eye, amputation of lesser toe, local lupus erythematosus, chronic kidney disease, stage 4, iron deficiency anemia, right bundle branch block, protein-calorie malnutrition, non pressure chronic ulcer of right foot with unspecified severity, hypo-osmolality and hyponatremia, hyperkalemia, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, chronic viral hepatitis C, type 2 diabetes with polyneuropathy, cocaine abuse in remission, bi polar disease, von willebrand's disease, peripheral vascular disease, chronic embolism and thrombosis of deep veins of right lower extremity, benign prostatic hyperplasia, cirrhosis of liver, hypertension, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, and chronic pain syndrome. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) revealed he was cognitively intact and required supervision with eating and extensive assistance with activities of daily living (ADL's), bed mobility and transfers. Review of the progress notes dated 10/08/18 revealed Resident #18 went to the hospital due to critically low labs. During an interview on 10/25/18 at 2:30 P.M., the Administrator verified no bed hold notice was given to Resident #18 when he was discharged to the hospital on [DATE]. Based on resident record review and staff interview, the facility failed to notify the resident/resident representative of the bed hold and reserve bed payment policy upon transfer to the hospital. This affected two (#5 and #18) of two residents reviewed for hospitalization. The census was 65. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #5 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included diarrhea, diabetes mellitus type two, morbid obesity, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, post traumatic stress disorder, stage three chronic kidney disease, heart failure, depressive episodes and insomnia. Review of a nurse progress noted dated 06/04/18 at 2:07 P.M. revealed Resident #5 was noted to have critical laboratory results. Documentation revealed the resident was assessed to have shortness of breath and four plus pitting edema. The certified nurse practitioner was made aware of the abnormal assessment and critical lab results. A new order was received to send Resident #5 to the hospital for evaluation and treatment. Review of a nurse progress note dated 06/04/18 at 8:06 P.M. revealed Resident #5 was admitted to the hospital related to kidney failure. Review of a nurse progress note dated 09/05/18 at 10:16 A.M. revealed Resident #5 was sent to the hospital for evaluation and treatment at 9:30 A.M. Documentation revealed the resident returned to the facility from the hospital on [DATE]. Review of Resident #5's minimum data set (MDS) assessments revealed discharge return anticipated MDS assessments were completed on 06/04/18 and 09/05/18. Continued review of the medical record for Resident #5 revealed no documentation the resident/resident representative was made aware of the facility's bed hold and reserve payment policy upon transfer to the hospital. Interview on 10/25/18 at 3:24 P.M. with social worker #100 verified the resident/resident representative was not made aware of the bed hold and reserve bed payment policy.
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Review of the medical record for Resident #66 revealed she was admitted initially on 03/21/17 with re-entry on 05/15/18. Diag...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Review of the medical record for Resident #66 revealed she was admitted initially on 03/21/17 with re-entry on 05/15/18. Diagnoses included osteomyelitis of vertebra of lumbar region, edema, hypocalcemia, abdominal pain, contusion of abdominal wall, idiopathic peripheral autonomic neuropathy, anemia, hypokalemia, sepsis, elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate, elevated C-reactive protein, tobacco use, radiculopathy, chronic hepatitis C, acute post-hemorrhagic anemia, constipation, insomnia, discitis of the lumbar region, bacteremia and low back pain. Review of her discharge MDS dated [DATE] revealed she required supervision with eating, activities of daily living (ADL's), bed mobility and transfer. Further review of her MDS revealed documentation of a planned discharge to the acute hospital. Review of the progress notes for Resident #66 revealed she was discharged home with home health services on 07/30/18. During an interview on 10/25/18 at 8:52 A.M. with RN #700 verified the documentation regarding Resident #66's planned discharge to the hospital was not accurate. Based on resident record review and staff interview; the facility failed to accurately complete minimum data set (MDS) assessments. This affected three (#36, #41 and #66 ) of 24 residents reviewed for accuracy of the MDS. The census was 65. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #36 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included diabetes mellitus type two, bacteremia, complete traumatic amputation, dermatitis, and chronic embolism and thrombosis. Review of Resident #36's weight dated 03/11/18 revealed the resident's weight was 195.8 pounds. Review of the weight dated 08/13/18 revealed Resident #36 was documented to weigh 234.4 pounds. Continued review of Resident #36's weights revealed on 09/13/18 the resident weighed 234.8 pounds. Review of a MDS assessment dated [DATE], section K 300, revealed Resident #36 was assessed to have weight loss that was not prescribed. Interview on 10/25/18 at 11:24 A.M. with clinical dietician #400 verified the MDS assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #36, section K 300, was not accurate. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #41 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included osteoarthritis, paranoid schizophrenia, major depressive disorder, hypothyroidism, obesity, and anxiety. Review of Resident #41's medication administration record dated 09/2018, revealed the resident was administered the hypnotic medication Ambien (zolpidem tartrate) on 09/13/18, 09/14/18, 09/15/18, 09/16/18, 09/17/18, 09/18/18, and 09/19/18. Review of an annual MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #41 was assessed to have been administered hypnotic medication five days during the seven day reference period. Interview on 10/25/18 at 9:31 A.M. with Registered Nurse (RN) #700 revealed Resident #41 was administered hypnotic medication on seven days of the seven day reference period. RN #700 verified the annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] was inaccurate.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0679 (Tag F0679)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, observation and interview the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive and indiv...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, observation and interview the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive and individualized activities program designed to meet the needs and the interests of residents who were cognitively impaired. This affected one Resident (#15) of two reviewed for activities. The facility census was 65. Findings include: Record review revealed Resident #15 was admitted on [DATE] to the facility. Diagnoses included intellectual disabilities, bipolar disorder, anemia, dementia, schizoaffective disorder, Alzheimer's disease with early onset, adult failure to thrive, and type 2 diabetes mellitus without complications. Resident #15's quarterly assessment Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed the resident required extensive assistance for bed mobility, transferring and bathing with severe impaired cognition. Review of Resident #15's Care plan, dated 11/01/17 revealed staff will invite, encourage, remind and escort resident to activity programs that promote exercise, socialization. Staff would involve Resident #15 in activities which didn't depend on ability to communicate/hear, such as parties, crafts, movies. Staff will engage Resident #15 in activities/tasks to keep occupied. Staff would modify activity settings to increase or decrease stimulation as needed. Resident #15 had a short attention span and liked to wander through the hallways but could find enjoyment in activities like music and entertainment. The care plan also indicated Resident #15 loved Elvis songs and Elvis movies. She would participate in the parachute and ball toss at times. Review of Resident #15's 1:1 Participation Sheet revealed two 1:1 visits from activity in August 2018, no 1:1 visits from activity in September 2018 and no 1:1 visits from activity in October 2018. Review of Resident 15's activity participation for the month of August 2018 revealed activity offered hand and nail care 21 times and Resident #15 only participated one time. Further review revealed for social time, Resident #15's participation was two times out of 26 times offered. Review of Resident #15's activity participation for the month of September 2018 revealed activity offered hand and nail care 22 times and Resident #15 did not participate at any time. Further review revealed for social time, Resident #15's participation was zero out of 25 times offered. Review of Resident#15's activity participation for the month of 10/01/18 through 10/25/18 revealed: activity offered hand and nail care 15 times and Resident #15 did not participate at any time. Further review revealed for social time, Resident #15's participation was zero of 22 times offered. Observation on 10/22/18 at 11:32 A.M., revealed Resident #15 was in bed sleeping while activities was going on. Observation on 10/23/18 at 10:17 A.M., revealed Resident #15 was in bed with the television on. Interview on 10/23/18 at 4:21 P.M. with Activity Aide (AA) #1 revealed Resident #15 had not been attending activities offered. AA #1 reported Resident #15 was in bed until lunch time and typically watched television in her room. AA #1 reported she was not able to watch Resident #15 and provide activities to the other residents when there was not a State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) available to assist with Resident #15. AA #1 further reported Resident #15 could not stay seated long but enjoyed socializing with other residents. Interview on 10/23/18 at 5:00 P.M. STNA #1 stated Resident #15 gets into everything and is childlike. Resident #15 needed assistance to get out of bed. STNA #1 reported Resident #15 enjoyed watching television in her room. Observation on 10/23/18 at 5:30 P.M., revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3 assisted Resident #15 with a transfer. Resident #15 was unable to get out of bed alone. LPN #3 assisted her out of bed by holding out her hand and Resident #15 was able to ambulate and get out of bed with assistance. Observation on 10/24/18 at 9:00 A.M., revealed Resident #15 was in bed with the television on. Interview on 10/24/18 at 9:01 A.M., LPN #2 reported Resident #15 enjoyed watching cartoons in her room and she was able to get out of the bed on her own. Observation on 10/24/18 at 9:41 A.M., revealed Resident #15 was in bed while music and activity was going on in the dining room.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on resident record review and staff interview; the facility failed to complete weekly pressure ulcer assessments. This aff...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on resident record review and staff interview; the facility failed to complete weekly pressure ulcer assessments. This affected one (#57) of one resident reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility identified two residents with pressure ulcers. The census was 65. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #57 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included paraplegia, osteomyelitis, cellulitis, tobacco use, chronic viral hepatitis C, mechanical complications of cystostomy, colostomy status, anemia, atrial fibrillation, pressure ulcer of buttocks, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, protein calorie malnutrition, metabolic encephalopathy, cirrhosis of the liver, anxiety, neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder and gastrostomy. Review of the care plan revision date 10/11/18 revealed Resident #57 had medial coccyx and and sacral ulcers. Interventions included monitor/document the wound size, depth, margins, appearance, and progress. Weekly treatment documentation was to include measurements (length, width, and depth), tissue type, exudate, and any other notable changes or observations of each area of skin breakdown. Review of the wound consultant documentation revealed Resident #57 was being assessed by the wound consultant on a routine basis. The facility was lacking pressure ulcer assessments for the week of 08/05/18 to 08/11/18, 09/02/18 to 09/08/18, and 10/14/18 to 10/20/18. Review of the wound consultant progress note dated 10/23/18 revealed, overall the three pressure wounds continued to improve. Measurements were documented as right ischium four centimeters (cm) in length by five cm in width by one cm depth, left ischium six and three tenths cm length by one and seven tenths cm length by four tenths cm depth, and coccyx two and seven tenths cm length by nine cm width by six tenths cm depth. Interview on 10/25/18 at 12:15 P.M. with the director of nursing (DON) revealed Resident #57's three pressure wounds were to be assessed weekly. The DON verified there was no wound assessment completed for the week of 08/05/18 to 08/11/18, 09/02/18 to 09/08/18, and 10/14/18 to 10/20/18.
CONCERN (D)

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

Laboratory Services (Tag F0770)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on resident record review, staff interview, and policy review; the facility failed to assess a physician ordered amylase l...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on resident record review, staff interview, and policy review; the facility failed to assess a physician ordered amylase level. This affected one (#41) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medication. The census was 65. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #41 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included osteoarthritis, paranoid schizophrenia, major depressive disorder, hypothyroidism, obesity, and anxiety. Review of a physician order dated 08/03/18 revealed an order for the laboratory tests complete blood count, hemoglobin A1C, liver panel, lipase, and amylase on 08/06/18. Review of laboratory test results dated 08/06/18 revealed no assessment of Resident #41's amylase level. Continued review of laboratory results for 08/2018, 09/2018, and 10/2018 revealed no documentation of the residents amylase level. Interview on 10/24/18 at 4:28 P.M. with the director of nursing (DON) verified the amylase laboratory test was not completed for Resident #41. Review of the facility policy titled, Request for Laboratory/Diagnostic Services revised 04/17, revealed orders for diagnostic services will be promptly carried out as instructed by the physicians order.
CONCERN (E)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical review, observations, staff interview and review of census the facility failed to provide adequate maintenance ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical review, observations, staff interview and review of census the facility failed to provide adequate maintenance services to maintain residents room and the dining room on the 200 hall were in good repair. This had the potential to affect 15 Residents (#7, #8, #10, #15, #19, #23, #25, #27, #37, #39, #47, #55, #59, #61, and #215) who resided on the 200 hall. unit. The facility census was 65. Findings include: Observation on 10/22/18 at 10:35 A.M., room [ROOM NUMBER]-2 had several missing pieces of tile on the floor that measured approximately 12 inches by 12 inches, next to the resident's bed. The subfloor was observed to be exposed. Observation on 10/22/18 at 11:00 A.M., revealed the common area next to room [ROOM NUMBER] and across from the dining area had two holes in the wall near the floor which exposed the dry wall. The holes were approximately 4 to 5 inches. Observation on 10/22/18 at 11:00 A.M., revealed a 10-foot crack in the beam on the ceiling in the dining room. Interview on 10/24/18 at 9:42 A.M., Maintenance Supervisor (MS) #150 stated the dining room used to be residents' rooms and was converted into the dining room. MS #150 stated he had fixed the crack in the beam on the ceiling several times. MS #150 reported he did not have a maintenance repair slip for the above issues. MS #150 revealed the facility did not have a policy on maintaining resident's rooms and equipment. He indicated, rooms were prioritized by safety first. During the interview, MS #150 verified the above findings. Review of the census revealed 15 Residents (#7, #8, #10, #15, #19, #23, #25, #27, #37, #39, #47, #55, #59, #61, and #215) resided on the 200 hall.
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 observation and staff interview the facility failed to maintain safe food temperatures. This had the potential to affected 64 residents. The facility identified Resident #60 as not consuming ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and staff interview the facility failed to maintain safe food temperatures. This had the potential to affected 64 residents. The facility identified Resident #60 as not consuming food by mouth. The census was 65. Findings include: On 10/23/18 at 5:32 P.M., after all residents had been served, the temperature of the food was obtained prior to making a test tray. The soup was 169 degrees, the pasta salad was 61 degrees and the chicken for the crispy chicken salad was 69 degrees. The test tray was served at 5:40 P.M. and the temperature of the soup was 157 degrees, the pasta salad was 62.6 degrees and the chicken was 69.4. At the time of the observation, the Dietary Manager (DM) #1 was interviewed and verified the temperature of the food was not safe. DM #1 verified the cold food should have been 41 degrees or lower.
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to safely store food items in the snack nourishment refrigerators on each unit. This had the potential to affecte...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to safely store food items in the snack nourishment refrigerators on each unit. This had the potential to affected 64 residents. The facility identified Resident #60 as not consuming food by mouth. The census was 65. Findings include: Observation on 10/24/18 at 5:20 P.M., revealed Gardens I and Gardens II nourishment refrigerator had one mighty shake date with an expiration date of 10/21/18, pumpkin cheese cake for a resident dated 10/21/18 with a use by date of 10/23/18, one 12 ounce (oz) can of Pepsi and a 1/2 bottle of 20 oz Mountain Dew both with no name, two slices of cheese and two packs of crackers in a baggy unsealed with no date. At the time of the observations, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #300 was interviewed and verified the findings. Observation on 10/24/18 at 5:30 P.M. revealed Meadow/Forest Rehab nourishment refrigerator had five packs of crackers with two slices of cheese in a baggy unsealed with no date, a chocolate pudding cup opened with no date, Thick and Easy honey thickener dated 10/19/18, a container of orange juice dated 10/15/18, and another container or orange juice dated 10/19/18 with a use by date 10/19/18. At the time of the observations, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #300 was interviewed and verified the findings. LPN #300 did not know if the Review of the facility policy titled Food Receiving and Storage, revised July 2014, revealed all foods belonging to residents must be labeled with the residents' name, the item and the use by date. Beverages must be dated when opened and discarded after 24 hours. All foods stored in the refrigerator or freezer will be covered, labeled and dated (use by date). Review of the facility policy titled Foods Brought by Family /Visitors, revised February 2014, revealed nursing staff is responsible for discarding perishable foods on or before the use by date. Perishable foods must be stored in resealable containers with tightly fitting lids in the refrigerator. Containers will be labeled with the resident's name, the item and the use by date.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • 43% turnover. Below Ohio's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), $101,411 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 24 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $101,411 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Ohio. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (23/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 23/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Maple Gardens Rehabilitiation And Nursing Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns MAPLE GARDENS REHABILITIATION AND NURSING CENTER an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within Ohio, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.

How is Maple Gardens Rehabilitiation And Nursing Center Staffed?

CMS rates MAPLE GARDENS REHABILITIATION AND NURSING CENTER's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 43%, compared to the Ohio average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care. RN turnover specifically is 67%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Maple Gardens Rehabilitiation And Nursing Center?

State health inspectors documented 24 deficiencies at MAPLE GARDENS REHABILITIATION AND NURSING CENTER during 2018 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 23 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Maple Gardens Rehabilitiation And Nursing Center?

MAPLE GARDENS REHABILITIATION AND NURSING 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 GARDEN HEALTHCARE GROUP, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 85 certified beds and approximately 57 residents (about 67% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in EATON, Ohio.

How Does Maple Gardens Rehabilitiation And Nursing Center Compare to Other Ohio Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Ohio, MAPLE GARDENS REHABILITIATION AND NURSING CENTER's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (43%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Maple Gardens Rehabilitiation And Nursing Center?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "Can 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 Immediate Jeopardy citations and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Maple Gardens Rehabilitiation And Nursing Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, MAPLE GARDENS REHABILITIATION AND NURSING CENTER has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Ohio. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Maple Gardens Rehabilitiation And Nursing Center Stick Around?

MAPLE GARDENS REHABILITIATION AND NURSING CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 43%, 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 Maple Gardens Rehabilitiation And Nursing Center Ever Fined?

MAPLE GARDENS REHABILITIATION AND NURSING CENTER has been fined $101,411 across 1 penalty action. This is 3.0x the Ohio average of $34,093. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.

Is Maple Gardens Rehabilitiation And Nursing Center on Any Federal Watch List?

MAPLE GARDENS REHABILITIATION AND NURSING 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.