GALION POINTE, LLC
For profit - Corporation
45 Beds
JAG HEALTHCARE
Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
60/100
#464 of 913 in OH
Last Inspection: October 2023
Over 2 years since last inspection. Current conditions may differ from available data.
Overview
Galion Pointe, LLC has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating it is slightly above average but not exceptional. It ranks #464 out of 913 facilities in Ohio, placing it in the bottom half, and #4 out of 6 in Crawford County, meaning only one local option is better. The facility’s performance is worsening, with the number of reported issues increasing from 8 in 2021 to 9 in 2023. Staffing is a significant concern, receiving a low rating of 1 out of 5 stars, with a high turnover rate of 47%, indicating instability among staff. While the facility has no fines on record and overall health inspections receive a good rating of 4 out of 5 stars, there have been specific incidents such as serving milk at improper temperatures and failing to report a gastrointestinal outbreak, which raises concerns about infection control and food safety practices. Overall, families may find some strengths but should carefully consider the staffing situation and the facility's declining trend.
- Trust Score
- C+
- In Ohio
- #464/913
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 47% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Ohio facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 26 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Ohio. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 23 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
60/100
Top 50%
No red flags
8 → 9 violations
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
↔
Stable
2021: 8 issues
2023: 9 issues
The Good
-
4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
3-Star Overall Rating
Near Ohio average (3.2)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
Staff Turnover: 47%
Near Ohio avg (46%)
Higher turnover may affect care consistency
Chain: JAG HEALTHCARE
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 23 deficiencies on record
Oct 2023
6 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 F0558
(Tag F0558)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, and medical record review, the facility failed to ensure the call light was in reach for ...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, and medical record review, the facility failed to ensure the call light was in reach for Resident #04. This affected one (#04) of 29 residents reviewed for call lights. The facility census was 30.
Findings include:
Review of the medical record for Resident #04 revealed an admission date of 03/11/11. Medical diagnoses included multiple sclerosis, stage three pressure ulcer to right and left buttocks, muscle wasting, and atrophy.
Review of Resident #04's Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 quarterly assessment dated [DATE], revealed a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12, indicating Resident #04 was moderately cognitively impaired. Resident #04 required extensive assistance of two staff for bed mobility, dressing, and toileting. Resident #04 was totally dependent on two staff for transfers and was identified to be non-ambulatory.
Observation on 10/10/23 at 11:45 A.M. revealed Resident #04 in bed with his head positioned near the left side rail. The resident's body was lying diagonal across the bed, with his feet near the right and open side of the bed. Resident #04 was observed to repeatedly state, Help me, help me. Further observation revealed the call light cord was pinned to the backside of the privacy curtain in the center of the room, approximately ten feet away from Resident #04.
Interview on 10/10/23 at 11:51 A.M. with Certified Occupational Therapy Assistant (COTA) #160 verified Resident #04's call light was out of reach and he appeared uncomfortable and out of alignment in bed. COTA #160 repositioned Resident #04 and returned his call light within reach.
Review of the policy titled, Answering the Call Light, revised September 2022, revealed the call light is to be accessible to the resident when in bed, from the toilet, from the shower or bathing facility, and from the floor.
This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00145989.
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** Based on observation, staff interview, medical record review and policy review, the facility failed to monitor and evaluate the ...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, medical record review and policy review, the facility failed to monitor and evaluate the continued use of a personal alarm. This affected one (#16) of five resident reviewed for the use of alarms. The facility census was 30.
Findings include:
Review of the medical record for Resident #16 revealed an admission date of 05/21/21. Diagnoses include hemiplegia affecting the left (non-dominant side) after a cerebral vascular accident, generalized weakness, anxiety, unspecified psychosis.
Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #16 was cognitively impaired, required the extensive assistance of two for transfers, and required the total dependence of staff for locomotion.
Review of the significant change MDS dated [DATE] when Resident #16 started Hospice services revealed a chair alarm was used daily.
Review of the care plan dated 05/28/21 revealed Resident #16 was at risk for falls characterized by a history of falls related to confusion, dementia, impaired balance, impaired mobility, pain, unsteady gait and use of psychotropic medications. The care plan also identified Resident #16 placed self on the floor and crawled around. Interventions included bilateral grab bars to assist with bed mobility, toilet use, ensure environment clear of clutter, assistance with mobility, call light within reach when resident in room, common used articles within reach. A revision to the care plan dated 05/31/23 revealed the use of a chair alarm for safety to alert staff or unassisted transfers and for function of the alarm to be checked prior to use and to place on recliner as needed.
Review of the current physician orders revealed an order dated 02/08/23 for a chair alarm to safety alert staff of an unassisted transfer with instructions to check function of the alarm prior to use, and place in the recliner every one hour as needed for monitor for safety and self transferring.
Review of the care conference summary dated 03/22/23 and 06/28/23 revealed the chair alarm was used for safety with the alarm to be checked prior to use.
Review of the fall risk assessment dated [DATE] and timed 11:11 A.M. revealed Resident #16 had no falls in the past three months.
Review of the treatment records for Resident #16 for February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, and October 2023 remained silent for documentation related to the use, monitoring for resident safety and or the functional use of the alarm prior to each use.
Review of the certified nurse aide daily documentation for Resident #16 for February, March, August, and October 2023 remained silent for the use of restraints or alarms.
Review of the occupational therapy notes for Resident #16 from 04/03/23 to 07/21/23 remain silent for the use of a patient alarm.
Review of the physical therapy notes for Resident #16 from 05/26/23 to 06/20/23 remain silent for the use of a patient alarm.
Observation on 10/10/23 at 2:32 P.M. revealed Resident #16 was sitting in tilt chair with pull tab alarm clipped to the back of shirt attached to alarm box hanging on chair.
Observation on 10/11/23 at 9:47 A.M. of Resident #16 revealed a tab alarm box to the back of the wheelchair with the white string from the alarming box clipped to shirt on the left middle back of Resident #16.
Observation on 10/12/23 at 9:42 A.M. revealed Resident #16 was sitting in the living room in a tilt chair in front of television, the chair tilted slightly backwards with resident sitting upright and leaning to the left. Further observation revealed the chair alarm clip was pinned to Resident #16's blouse on the resident's back and attached to the alarm hanging off the right hand grip of the tilt chair.
Interview on 10/12/23 at 3:00 P.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #134 verified Resident #16's alarm was used daily when the resident was up in a chair. LPN #134 stated Resident #16 had a tendency to lean forward when sitting in chairs, but had not experienced a fall in a long time. LPN #134 stated the alarm was used to alert the staff so staff can respond to prevent a fall.
Interview on 10/11/23 at 3:45 P.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) verified Resident #16 had a personal alarm applied in February 2023, and it had been used daily due to Resident #16's history of falls. The DON stated there was no formal evaluation documented for the use of the alarm, and verified there was no documentation of the daily use of the alarm for Resident #16.
Interview on 10/12/23 at 12:27 P.M. with Regional MDS Nurse #200 verified there was no documentation of the alarm use by the nursing department in Resident #16's medical record.
Review of the undated facility policy titled, Tab Alarms, Sensor Pad Alarms, Wander Guard System, Resident Behavior and Facility Practices, revealed tab sensor alarms may be used on a resident who is deemed unsafe through the nursing assessment and interdisciplinary team review and documented on the resident's care plan that the resident is at risk for falls. The plan of care must be formulated with the interdisciplinary team defined as nursing, physical therapy, occupational therapy, activities, social work and or resident and family, to determine the need for tab sensor and documented in the care plan. After applying the tab alarm the alarm checks will be documented in the treatment record.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, medical record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure supplemental oxyg...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, medical record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure supplemental oxygen supplies were dated and labeled per facility policy. This affected two (#1 and #24) of four residents identified as receiving oxygen therapy. The facility census was 30.
Findings included:
1. Review of Resident #1's medical record revealed an admission date of 06/06/23. Diagnoses included breast cancer, diabetes mellitus, peripheral vascular disease, atrial fibrillation, congestive heart failure, and an aortic aneurysm.
Review of Resident #1's most recent care plan revealed the resident experienced a significant decline in health status related to terminal illness and was received hospice services. The resident had ineffective airway clearance and breathing patterns related to obstructive sleep apnea and hypoxemia with an intervention for oxygen to be administered per physician orders.
Review of Resident #1's medical record revealed a physician order dated 06/06/23 for oxygen per nasal cannula as needed to maintain oxygen saturation above 90 percent (%) for dyspnea. Review of an order dated 09/18/23 revealed staff may titrate the oxygen via nasal cannula at two to four liters per minute for resident comfort.
Observation on 10/10/23 at 10:02 A.M. revealed Resident #1 was lying in bed sleeping with the nasal cannula in place. Observation of the oxygen tubing and humidification bottle revealed no label or date were on the supplies.
Observation and interview on 10/10/23 at 12:06 P.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #134 observed and verified that Resident #1's oxygen tubing and humidification were not labeled and dated.
2. Review of Resident #24's medical record revealed an admission date of 09/15/22. Diagnoses included schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, dyspnea, and nicotine dependence.
Review of Resident #24's MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had an intact cognitive function.
Review of Resident #24's most recent care plan revealed the resident had an ineffective airway clearance and breathing patterns related to obstructive sleep apnea. Interventions included to administer oxygen per physician order.
Review of Resident #24's physician order dated 09/15/22 revealed oxygen per nasal cannula as needed to maintain oxygen saturation above 90 % for dyspnea.
Review of Resident #24's physician order dated 05/02/23 the resident was to be on two liters of oxygen via nasal cannula until a replacement bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPap) device arrived and was needed at bedtime and during naps.
Observation of Resident #24 on 10/10/23 at 9:34 A.M. revealed the resident was in her room wearing a nasal cannula. Further observation revealed the oxygen tubing and humidification bottle were not dated.
Observation and interview on 10/10/23 at 12:48 P.M., with LPN #132 verified Resident #24's oxygen tubing and humidification bottle were not dated.
Review of the facility policy titled, Departmental (Respiratory Therapy)- Prevention of Infection, dated November 2011, revealed staff were to mark the bottle with date and initials upon opening and discard after twenty-four (24) hours. Staff were to change the oxygen cannula and tubing every seven (7) days, or as needed.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0698
(Tag F0698)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, review of dialysis books, staff interview, and review of a facility policy, the facility failed ...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, review of dialysis books, staff interview, and review of a facility policy, the facility failed to ensure arteriovenous (AV) fistulas for dialysis treatments were properly monitored and failed to monitor weights following dialysis treatments as ordered. This affected two (#3 and #31) of two residents reviewed for dialysis. The facility census was 30.
Findings included:
1. Review of Resident #3's medical record revealed an admission date of 07/15/23. Diagnoses included chronic kidney disease stage four, diabetes mellitus, and peripheral vascular disease.
Review of Resident #3's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident's cognition was intact.
Review of Resident #3's most recent care plan revealed she had an actual/potential for alteration in skin integrity related to a surgical wound which was due to placement of an AV fistula (an artificial connection of an artery and a vein) in the left arm and a hemodialysis port in the right jugular. The resident required hemodialysis/peritoneal dialysis related to renal failure with a potential for electrolyte imbalance, weight gain, and psychosocial changes related to the decision to continue dialysis. An AV fistula was placed on 05/25/2023 and a dialysis port to the right jugular was placed on 07/10/2023. Interventions included monitoring the AV shunt (fistula) for presence of a bruit (a sound heard in an AV fistula) and a thrill (a vibration felt in an AV fistula) as well as redness or swelling at the site. If bleeding was present, apply pressure and notify the physician.
Review of Resident #3's medical record revealed a physician's order dated 07/14/23 for dialysis every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at 11:30 A.M. with no evidence of the AV fistula being assessed.
Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #134 on 10/12/23 at 10:33 A.M. revealed Residents #3's thrill and bruit were not assessed. LPN #134 stated the nursing staff observed and monitored the area for signs of infection and bleeding, but it was only documented on exception. If an issue was noted the nursing staff would report any issues to the dialysis center.
2. Review of Resident #31's medical record revealed an admission date of 08/24/23. Diagnoses included end stage kidney disease, history of kidney transplant atrial fibrillation, and diabetes mellitus.
Review of Resident #31's admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident was assessed with intact cognition.
Review of Resident #31's most recent care plan revealed she required hemodialysis related to renal failure with potential for electrolyte imbalance, weight gain, and psychosocial changes related to the decision to continue dialysis. Resident #31 also had a polycystic kidney due to a transplant (cytomegaloviral disease with the kidney she received), and a left arm AV shunt. Interventions included hemodialysis, monitor the shunt for presence of a bruit and a thrill, and redness or swelling at site. If bleeding was present, apply pressure and notify the physician.
Review of Resident #31's medical record revealed the resident went to dialysis every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at 11:20 A.M. with no evidence of the AV fistula being assessed.
Review of Resident #31's treatment administration record dated 08/24/23 through 10/12/23 revealed the record was silent for monitoring of a thrill, a bruit, and AV fistula observation.
Review of Resident #31's medical record revealed a physician's order dated 09/08/23 for post dialysis weights in the afternoon every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday for monitoring.
Interview with the Director of Nursing on 10/12/23 at 10:06 A.M. revealed Resident #31's post dialysis weights were documented in the dialysis books kept at the nurse's station.
Review of the dialysis books found Resident #31 had sporadic weights documented.
Interview with LPN #134 on 10/12/23 at 10:33 A.M. revealed Resident #31's weights found in the dialysis book were documented by the dialysis nursing staff, and all facility obtained weights were documented in the electronic medical record for Resident #31.
Review of Resident #31's electronic medical record revealed her post dialysis weights failed to be obtained on 09/11/23, 09/13/23, 09/15/23, 09/18/23, 09/20/23, 09/22/23, 09/25/23, 09/29/23, 10/04/23, 10/06/23, and 10/09/23 as ordered following dialysis treatments.
Interview with LPN #134 on 10/12/23 at 10:33 A.M. verified Resident #31's thrill and bruit were not accessed. LPN #134 stated the nursing staff observed and monitored the area for signs of infection and bleeding, but it was only documented on exception. If an issue was noted the nursing staff would report any issues to the dialysis center.
Review of the facility policy titled, Hemodialysis Access Care, dated September 2010, revealed care of an arterio-venous graft included to check for signs of infection (warmth, redness, tenderness or edema) at the access site when performing routine care and at regular intervals. Also check the color and temperature of the fingers, and the radial pulse of the access arm when performing routine care and at regular intervals. The general medical nurse should document in the resident's medical record every shift as follows: location of the catheter, condition of the dressing, if dialysis was done during the shift, any part of the report from dialysis nurse post-dialysis being given, and observations post-dialysis.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review, staff interview, and review of the facility policy the facility failed to ensure that residents receiving antipsychotic medications received gradual dose reductions (GDR) unles...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, staff interview, and review of the facility policy the facility failed to ensure that residents receiving antipsychotic medications received gradual dose reductions (GDR) unless clinically contraindicated by the physician. This affected two (#16 and #24) of five residents reviewed for medications. The facility census was 30.
Findings include:
1. Review of the medical record for Resident #16 revealed an admission date of 05/21/21 with diagnoses including cerebral infarction, hemiplegia and hemiparesis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), unspecified psychosis, and anxiety disorder.
Review of physician orders for Resident #16 revealed an order dated 09/04/21 for the antipsychotic medication Abilify 10 milligrams (mg) at bedtime for psychosis. The order was discontinued on 12/07/22.
Review of physician orders for Resident #16 revealed an order dated 12/07/22 for Abilify 15 mg at bedtime for psychosis. The order was discontinued on 07/11/23.
Review of consultant pharmacist review for Resident #16 dated 06/26/23 revealed resident was due for consideration for an evaluation of use of Abilify therapy. The medication review had no physician response.
Review of physician orders for Resident #16 revealed an order dated 07/11/23 for Abilify 20 mg at bedtime for psychosis.
Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #16 dated 09/13/23 revealed the resident received antipsychotic medications on a routine basis for seven out of seven days in the review period. Further review revealed a GDR had not been attempted, and the assessment indicated the physician documented a GDR was contraindicated with the last physician documented GDR on 03/30/22.
Review of the September and October 2023 medication administration record (MAR) for Resident #16 revealed Abilify was signed off as administered once daily.
Interview on 10/11/23 at 2:20 P.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed Resident #16 has been on Abilify at bedtime since 09/04/21 with the dose gradually increasing from 10 mg to the current dose of 20 mg. The DON confirmed the facility had not attempted a GDR of Abilify for Resident #16 nor has the physician documented a GDR as clinically contraindicated in the past year.
2. Review of the medical record for Resident #24 revealed an admission date of 09/15/22 with diagnoses including epilepsy, schizoaffective disorder, adult failure to thrive, bipolar disorder, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and anxiety disorder
Review of the physician's orders for Resident #24 revealed an order dated 09/26/22 for the antipsychotic medication Geodon 60 mg to be given twice daily for schizoaffective disorder.
Review of consultant pharmacist reviews for Resident #24 dated 03/27/23, 07/26/23, and 09/26/23 revealed the resident was due for consideration for an evaluation of use of Geodon therapy. The medication reviews had no physician response.
Review of the MDS assessment for Resident #24 dated 07/10/23 revealed the resident was cognitively intact and received antipsychotic medications on a routine basis for seven out of seven days in the review period. Further review revealed a GDR was not attempted and the physician did not document a GDR was clinically contraindicated.
Review of the September and October 2023 MARs for Resident #24 revealed Geodon was signed off as administered twice daily.
Interview on 10/11/23 at 2:20 P.M. with the DON confirmed Resident #24 was ordered Geodon 60 mg twice daily since 09/26/22. The DON confirmed the facility had not attempted a GDR of Geodon for Resident #24 nor has the physician documented a GDR as clinically contraindicated.
Review of the undated facility policy titled, Antipsychotic Medication Use, revealed antipsychotic medications will be prescribed at the lowest possible dosage for the shortest period of time and are subject to gradual dose reduction and re-review.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on medical record review, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure an accurate and readily accessible medical record was maintained. This affected one (#14) of ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on medical record review, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure an accurate and readily accessible medical record was maintained. This affected one (#14) of 15 residents reviewed for medical records. The census was 30.
Findings include:
Review of the medical record for Resident #14 revealed an admission date of 02/13/23. Medical diagnoses included traumatic brain injury (TBI), Parkinson's disease, alcoholic cirrhosis of the liver without ascites, and depression.
Review of Resident #14's progress notes dated 09/03/23 revealed Resident #14 made romantic advances at Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #134. LPN #134 informed Resident #14 she was his nurse, not his girlfriend. Following the event, Resident #14 made statements of self-harm and was placed on 15-minute checks. Further review of the medical record revealed no documentation of the every 15-minute checks could be found.
Review of Resident #14's behavior care plan, dated 02/22/23, revealed Resident #14 is prone to anger and aggression that was often misplaced on others. The care plan further identified Resident #14 to have poor coping skills, impulsiveness, and poor judgement. The care plan identified Resident #14 was anticipated to be a long term resident of the facility, with care plan approaches which included referring to counseling and psychiatric services as needed.
Interview on 10/10/23 at 4:49 P.M. with Social Services Director (SSD) #129 and Director of Nursing (DON) stated they recalled the event with Resident #14 and LPN #134, and afterward, Resident #14 was placed on 15-minute checks for a total of 24 hours after discussion with Resident #14's physician and guardian. The DON stated staff documented 15-minute checks on a paper form, that was filed in the medical record upon completion.
Review of Resident #14's chart revealed Resident #14 was last seen by Medical Director #210 on 07/03/23 at the facility for a complaint of a cough and sore throat.
Interview on 10/12/23 at 8:57 A.M. with the Administrator and the DON revealed Resident #14 had seen various psychological and counseling providers, but was unsure on what provider Resident #14 was currently established with.
Interview on 10/12/23 at 9:40 A.M. with Medical Director (MD) #210, facilitated by the Administrator, revealed MD #210 was familiar with Resident #14, his behaviors, and his plan of care. MD #210 stated he last saw Resident #14 for a visit in August of 2023, but the exact date was unknown. MD #210 stated he was due to see Resident #14 in October 2023. MD #210 stated he could not provide a progress note for his August 2023 physician visit to Resident #14 as his nurse who transcribed his notes was out of the office on vacation.
Interview on 10/12/23 at 9:43 A.M. with the Administrator verified she was present for the phone call with MD #210. Administrator verified MD #210's process was to take notes, and the nurse at the office was responsible to type and send all notes to the facility. The Administrator verified the medical record for Resident #14 was missing a current physician visit note.
Interview on 10/12/23 at 9:55 A.M. with SSD #129 revealed Resident #14 had an evaluation for counseling services completed on 08/03/23, and provided a copy of the report. SSD #129 stated she kept the report in a binder in her office and verified the provided report was not in Resident #14's medical record, but should have been. SSD #129 stated offices are locked after hours, on weekends, and when not in the facility, and would not be readily accessible if needed.
Interview on 10/12/23 at 12:04 P.M. with the Administrator and the DON revealed they were unable to locate the 15-minute check form for Resident #14 from 09/03/23. The Administrator verified the 15-minute check form was not in the medical record, but should have been filed under the nurse's notes tab in the physical chart. The Administrator further identified that physician and consultation notes should be maintained in the resident's physical chart.
Review of the policy titled, Location and Storage of Medical Records, revised December 2006, revealed the facility should protect and safeguard all medical records, and medical records were to be filed by the medical records department.
Review of the policy titled, Physician Visits, revised April 2013, revealed the Attending Physician must perform tasks, including a review of the resident ' s total program of care, review with facility nursing staff, and appropriate
documentation as part of the physician visit.
Apr 2023
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, staff interview, and review of a self-reported incident, the facility failed to ensure residents...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, staff interview, and review of a self-reported incident, the facility failed to ensure residents were treated with dignity and respect. This affected one resident (#10) of three residents reviewed for dignity and respect. The facility census was 33.
Findings Include:
Review of Resident #10's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included Huntington's disease, dysarthria, anxiety, depression, muscle wasting, and weakness.
Review of the 03/31/23 significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) revealed Resident #10 had memory problems, had no hallucination, delusions, and rejected care one to three days of the review period, no other behaviors were noted. Resident #10 required extensive assistance with eating and was dependent with two staff for all other daily care. The resident was coded as receiving hospice care at the facility.
Review of the care plan revealed Resident #10 had behavioral symptoms not easily altered related to Huntington's disease. The resident had inappropriate behaviors making verbalizations that are disruptive, was non-compliant with asking for assistance with transfers, combative and aggressive during care and may hit staff. Interventions included to play music the resident enjoys, when physically aggressive ensure safety and reapproach later, explain all procedures prior to starting, allow resident to calm down before attempting to continue with care, redirect and cue as needed and provide a less stimulating environment when the resident had agitation.
Review of a progress note dated 04/09/23 at 9:49 P.M. revealed the floor nurse was called into room by State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #450 who had been providing care for Resident #10 due to the resident striking out and hitting the STNA during evening care. Encouragement and reassurance was documented as provided to Resident #10 and the two staff finished the care and documented the resident was resting in bed.
Review of the Self-Reported Incident (SRI) number 233840 revealed Resident #10 received care from a former STNA #450 on 04/09/23 when the resident struck the STNA on multiple occasions and the employee was heard on video surveillance by the family to say expletive this twice. STNA #450 replaced the floor mat next to the bed and exited the room. The family reported the STNA to the facility on the next day 04/10/23. The facility properly investigated the concern, followed their abuse policies and procedures, and terminated the employee for unprofessional conduct. The SRI documented the family of Resident #10 through the video evidence did not believe the staff was purposefully trying to harm, not provide care or hurt Resident #10. The SRI documented the family verified they had not felt the curse words spoken were directed at the resident but were unprofessional being said out loud in the room. The SRI documented STNA #450 was not allowed to be in the facility during the investigation of the incident and was subsequently terminated from the facility 04/14/23 for unprofessional behavior. STNA #450 had not provided care for any residents nor was the STNA in the facility after the facility was aware of the STNA cursing in the resident room.
Interview with the Director of Nursing and the Administrator on 04/28/23 at 12:30 P.M., verified Resident #10 was coded as dependent with two person assist on the MDS for all care except feeding. The DON stated the former STNA #450 was assisting Resident #10 in the room by herself however was placing a blanket on the resident and adjusting the pillow when Resident #10 struck the STNA on two occasions and STNA #450 stated expletive this twice and left the room. The DON stated when the resident became combative with STNA #450 the STNA left the room after placing the floor mat in place and got another staff member to assist with the care and and the two completed the care with the resident without incident.
This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Control Number OH00142182.
Jan 2023
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
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, medical record review, family interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to assist a dependent r...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, medical record review, family interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to assist a dependent resident with shaving. This affected one (Resident #1) of three residents reviewed for assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADLs). The facility's census was 31.
Finding include:
Review of Resident #1's medical record identified admission to the facility occurred on 10/19/22. Diagnoses included Parkinson's disease, malnutrition, urine retention from enlarged prostate, and kidney failure.
Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #1 was moderately cognitively impaired and required extensive assistance with ADLs.
Observation of Resident #1 occurred on 01/23/23 at 9:00 A.M. Resident #1 was sitting on the bedside of his low bed eating breakfast. The resident was observed with a large amount of facial hair, which appeared to be several days worth of growth. Resident #1 was asked if he minded the facial hair and did not respond to the question.
A telephone interview with Resident #1's daughter was completed on 01/23/23 at 9:22 A.M. Resident #1's daughter reported the resident used to be clean-shaven every day, which was his preference. Resident #1's daughter verified Resident #1 was incapable of shaving himself and would require assistance from facility staff.
Observation of Resident #1 with State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #41 was completed on 01/23/23 at 9:27 A.M. The observation confirmed Resident #1 needed shaved and was not capable of doing this himself. STNA #41 confirmed she was not aware Resident #1 preferred to be shaven daily and was unsure the last time the resident was shaved because that is not something they (herself and other aides) track.
This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00138122.
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 F0692
(Tag F0692)
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 ensure weights were recorded accurately, failed to obtai...
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 ensure weights were recorded accurately, failed to obtain re-weights in a timely manner, and failed to ensure supplements were increased as recommended to potentially prevent additional weight loss. This affected one (Resident #1) of three residents review for significant weight loss. The facility's census was 31.
Findings include:
Review of Resident #1's medical record identified admission to the facility occurred on 10/19/22. Further review revealed Resident #1 lived alone prior to admission with diagnoses including Parkinson's disease, malnutrition, urine retention from enlarge prostate and kidney failure. Review of Resident #1's admission weight revealed he was 6 foot tall and weighed 136.2 pounds.
Review of the Initial admission Nutritional assessment dated [DATE] was revealed the assessment inaccurately identified Resident #1 weighed 165 pounds. Resident #1 was receiving a regular diet and was able to feed himself. The facility would monitor weights and meal intake to evaluate the need for nutritional interventions.
Review of Resident #1's weight history revealed on 11/03/22, Resident #1 weighed 139.8 and on 11/21/22, following a hospitalization, Resident #1 weights 123.2 pounds. The residents was identified has having a significant weight loss.
Review of the physician orders and Medication Administration records (MAR) identified on 11/03/22, Resident #1 was started on a house supplement (high calorie), three times a day. Further review confirmed the supplement was given three times a day from 11/03/22 through 11/28/22, when it was increased to four times a day. In additional, an appetite stimulate (Magace) was started on 11/29/22 and given as ordered.
Further review of the medical record revealed on 12/09/22, Resident #1 weighed 99.8 pounds and on 12/15/22, Resident #1 weighed 110.3 pounds. Review of the dietician notes dated 12/09/22 revealed the dietician thought the weight on 12/09/22 was inaccurate and requested re-weights to be completed. Further review revealed re-weight did not occur until 01/04/23, where the resident weight 119.6 pounds. Resident #1 was identified as having significant weight loss with a recommendation to increase supplements to five times per day.
Review of the MAR for January 2023 revealed the supplement was not increased to five times per day as recommended. Resident #1 continued to reviewed supplements only four times per day from 01/01/23 to 01/24/23.
Review of Resident #1's admission weight of 139.8 pounds and most current weight from 01/04/23 of 119.6 pounds indicates a significant weight loss of 14.4 percent within three months.
Interview on 01/23/23 at 11:40 A.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed the facility did not implement and increase Resident #1's supplements as recommended by the Dietician on 12/09/22. Furthermore, the DON verified the re-weights requested on 12/09/22 were not completed timely, and the admission nutritional assessment was not completed accurately.
This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00138112.
Jul 2021
8 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review, observation, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents who require assistance with personal hygiene were provided assistance with nail care. T...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, observation, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents who require assistance with personal hygiene were provided assistance with nail care. This affected one (Resident #1) of one resident reviewed for hygiene. The facility census was 30.
Findings include:
Review of the medical record for Resident #1 revealed an admission date of 04/04/18 with diagnoses including dementia and Parkinson's disease. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 06/18/21, revealed Resident #1 had severe cognitive impairment.
Review of the comprehensive care plan revealed Resident #1 required extensive assistance with dressing, personal hygiene, and showers.
Review of the shower sheet, dated 07/04/21, revealed the staff marked yes for nail care having been provided and on 07/07/21 staff marked no for nail care having been provided.
Observation of Resident #1's finger nails on 07/06/21 at 11:15 A.M. revealed his finger nails were long and untrimmed.
Interview with State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) #147 on 07/08/21 at 10:37 A.M. revealed Resident #1 does not refuse care. The STNA stated the staff document on resident shower sheets whether nail care was provided.
Observation of Resident #1's finger nails on 07/08/21 at 1:12 P.M. revealed his finger nails were long and untrimmed.
Interview with STNA #147 on 07/08/21 at 1:12 P.M. verified Resident #1's finger nails were long and untrimmed. During the interview, STNA #147 stated Resident #1's finger nails should have been cut before they got as long as they were, and they should have been cut on his shower days. Resident #1 was observed to be agreeable to STNA #147 cutting his finger nails at the time of the interview.
Review of the facility's policy titled Care of Fingernails/Toenails, last revised December 2017, revealed nail care includes daily cleaning and regular trimming.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0698
(Tag F0698)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review, staff interview and review of the facility's Nursing Home Dialysis Transfer Agreement, the facility failed to ensure ongoing communication was completed with the dialysis cente...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, staff interview and review of the facility's Nursing Home Dialysis Transfer Agreement, the facility failed to ensure ongoing communication was completed with the dialysis center. This affected one (#12) of one resident who received dialysis. The facility census was 30.
Findings include:
Review of Resident #12's medical record revealed an admission date of 06/09/21. Diagnoses included respiratory failure, diabetes mellitus, and end stage renal disease. Review of the five-day Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident had a high cognitive function.
Review of Resident #12's physician order, dated 07/06/20, revealed the resident was to obtain hemodialysis every Monday, Wednesday and Friday.
Review of the facility's Quality Improvement Organizations form revealed information sent to the dialysis center included resident's name, primary physician, vital sign, medications administered that day, last time resident ate, his diet, fluid restriction orders and any significant alerts. On all 36 forms the resident's name, physician and vital signs were completed. All other information was left blank.
Review of Resident #12's medical record revealed the resident was scheduled 65 dialysis visits from 01/01/21 through 07/11/21. During that time the facility failed to send a communication form with Resident #12 28 times. Dialysis forms were completed on 01/01/21, 01/04/21, 01/06/21, 01/11/21, 01/15/21, 01/20/21, 01/27/21, 01/29/21, 02/01/21, 02/08/21, 02/12/21, 02/15/21, 02/17/21, 02/19/21, 02/22/21, 02/24/21, 02/26/21, 03/01/21, 03/03/21, 03/05/21, 03/08/21, 03/24/21, 03/26/21, 03/29/21, 03/31/21, 04/01/21, 04/05/21, 04/07/21, 04/14/21, 04/21/21, 05/14/21, 05/19/21, 05/28/21, 05/31/21, ,06/07/21, and 06/23/21,
Interview with the Director of Nursing on 07/12/21 at 3:55 P.M. verified the facility failed to send communication forms with Resident #12 on multiple occasions between 01/01/21 and 07/11/21.
Review of the facility's Nursing Home Dialysis Transfer Agreement, dated 01/02/15, revealed the facility shall ensure that all appropriate medical, social, administrative and other information accompany all designated residents at the time of transfer to the center.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Dental Services
(Tag F0791)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
2. Medical record review revealed Resident #6 had an admission date of 03/11/19. Diagnoses included dementia, fatigue, and depressive disorder. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment, dated 04/09/21, ...
Read full inspector narrative →
2. Medical record review revealed Resident #6 had an admission date of 03/11/19. Diagnoses included dementia, fatigue, and depressive disorder. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment, dated 04/09/21, revealed the resident had impaired cognition.
Review of the physician order, dated 08/27/20, revealed to make a dental appointment for the resident as soon as possible. Further review of the order revealed the resident's crown fell out and there was a sharp area. The order was discontinued as completed on 05/25/21.
Review of the medical record revealed no documentation the resident had been to the dentist.
Interview on 07/06/21 at 10:25 A.M. with Resident #6 stated she had one tooth fall apart and the dentist had not been to the facility. Resident #6 stated she would like to visit her local dentist.
Interview on 07/08/21 at 4:01 P.M. with Social Worker (SW) #146 revealed she could not recall if she had not been notified to make the dental appointment or she had forgot to make the dental appointment for the resident. SW #146 stated she called today and scheduled a dental appointment for the resident. Further interview with SW #146 revealed the resident had not been to the dentist since 2018.
Interview on 07/08/21 at 4:27 P.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) verified the resident had not been seen by the dentist.
Review of the facility's policy titled Dental Services, dated 12/2017, revealed routine and emergency dental services are available to meet the resident's oral health services in accordance with the resident's assessment and plan of care. Residents have the right to select dentists of their choice, as practicable, when dental care or services are needed. Social services will assist residents with appointments, transportation, arrangements, and for reimbursement of dental services under the State plan, if eligible.
Based on medical record review, family, resident, and staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to arrange timely dental services for two residents. This affected two (#6 and #28) of two residents reviewed for dental services. The facility census was 30.
Findings include:
1. Review of Resident #28's medical record revealed an admission date of 09/06/18. Diagnoses included severe intellectual disabilities, bipolar disorder, and osteoarthritis. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 06/06/21, revealed the resident had impaired cognition.
Review of Resident #28's care plan revealed the staff must assess the resident for nonverbal signs of pain such as a clenched fists, reluctance to move, restlessness, diaphoresis, change in vital signs, etc. The resident had oral and dental problems.
Review of Resident #28's dental note, dated 10/30/19, revealed the resident had an examination and diagnosis was gingivitis, moderate plaque, slight calculus and moderate periodontal disease.
Review of the physician order, dated 03/17/21, revealed Tylenol was to be administered every eight hours. Give 1,300 milligrams (mg.) by mouth every morning and at bedtime for pain. Refer to a dentist/ hygienist for evaluation and/or recommendations. Orapeutic Gel (oral wound care product) one application dental every six hours as needed for tooth pain for 10 days.
Review of Resident #28's physician orders, dated 06/30/21, revealed to apply Orapeutic Gel once every six hours as needed for mouth/tooth pain.
Review of the resident's medical record revealed there was no evidence the resident was referred or seen by a dentist from 03/17/21 to 06/29/21.
A telephone interview was completed with Resident #28's family on 07/06/21. The family stated the resident had had a toothache for over a month. The family assisted the resident on a examination at a local dentist office on 05/25/21 and the resident was given an prescription for antibiotic therapy due to an infected tooth. The dentist could not pull the tooth at that time due to the resident being in a wheelchair and requiring a mechanical lift for transfers. The dentist gave the family and facility a name of a dentist in Columbus that could do the oral surgery and provide a mechanical lift, but the facility had failed to set up an appointment. The family of Resident #28 revealed they informed Social Worker Designee (SWD) #146 of the need for the appointment on 05/25/21 and multiple times after. The SWD informed the family that there was a long wait for an appointment due to the resident having Medicaid and a long wait list at dental offices. The family's power of attorney (POA) gave permission to the SWD to pay cash for the dental services and to use use the money in the resident's account because it was her stimulus money and had to be spent.
Interview with Resident #28 on 07/08/21 at 8:08 A.M. revealed she was experiencing tooth pain. The resident pointed at the tooth and said it hurt.
Interview with SWD #146 on 07/08/21 at 11:19 A.M. revealed Resident #28 was not very mobile and it was difficult getting her out of the wheelchair. The SWD revealed she had called the area dentists and was not having any luck getting the resident an appointment. The dentists were booking out six weeks in advance. The SWD stated she was expanding the search area to a couple places around the Columbus area. The SWD also revealed the transportation director had two employees that could transport the resident to a large city for treatment. SWD #146 verified she had been notified by Resident #28's POA that she was allowed to use money from the resident's account to pay for dental services and she was working on that, too. The SWD revealed was was unaware of any notes from the local dentist referring to an oral surgeon in Columbus and she would have to look for the dental notes from Resident #28's dental appointment on 05/25/21.
Interview with SWD and Transportation Director #157 on 07/12/21 at 10:20 A.M. revealed the referral to a local university medical center was sent in on 06/30/21 or 07/01/21. They were waiting for an answer for the referral process. This was due to needing a dentist who takes care of patients with disabilities and need a Hoyer lift during care and revealed these specialized dentists had a one to two year waiting list.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0887
(Tag F0887)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure all residents were offered the COVID-19 vaccination. This affected one (#31) of three residents revie...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure all residents were offered the COVID-19 vaccination. This affected one (#31) of three residents reviewed for COVID-19 immunizations. The facility census was 30.
Findings include:
Review of Resident #31's medical record revealed an admission date of 11/27/20. Diagnoses included Huntington's disease with chorea and paranoid schizophrenia. The resident was discharged to another facility on 04/29/21. Review of Resident #31's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 02/25/21, revealed the resident had impaired cognition.
Review of Resident #31's most recent care plan revealed she was at risk for contracting the COVID-19 virus based on their age and/or chronic medical conditions.
Review of Resident #31's medical record revealed on 12/12/20, the resident's daughter was legally appointed her guardian.
Review of Resident #31's nurse's note, dated 12/17/20, revealed the nurse called and left a message with the guardian and requested a verbal consent for COVID-19 vaccinations and was waiting for a reply. There were no further notes regarding the COVID-19 vaccination. There was no consent or refusal noted for the COVID-19 vaccination in the resident's medical record.
Interview with the Administrator on 07/12/21 at 2:56 P.M. revealed Resident #31 was not administered a COVID-19 vaccine due to her guardian not responding to the phone call from the facility on 12/17/20. The facility failed to obtain a refusal letter or consent regarding the COVID-19 vaccine. The Administrator revealed at the time of the initial COVID-19 vaccinations in December 2020 and January 2021 a local pharmacy was providing vaccinations and they did not require a refusal letter.
Review of the facility's policy titled COVID-19 Vaccine, dated 12/2017, revealed all residents and staff will be offered COVID-19 vaccines to aid in preventing COVID-19 infections. Before receiving a COVID-19 vaccine, the resident or legal representative, or staff shall receive information and education regarding the benefits and potential side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine. For residents, the provision of such education shall be documented in the resident's medical record. Residents/representatives have the right to refuse vaccination. If refused, appropriate entries will be documented in each resident's medical record indicating the date of the refusal and the vaccination.
This deficiency substantiates Complaint Number OH00122144.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, policy review, staff interviews and family interview, the facility failed to maintain the facility in a ho...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, policy review, staff interviews and family interview, the facility failed to maintain the facility in a homelike and odor free environment. This had the potential to affect all 19 residents who resided on the south hall. The facility census was 30.
Findings include:
Interview with the family of Resident #28 on 07/07/21 at 8:59 A.M. revealed the family was concerned regarding the odors in the facility. The family revealed the odors were constant on every visit.
Observations on 06/30/21 at 1:20 P.M. revealed the facility had an stale, musty, urine odor. The odor was throughout the whole facility.
Further observations on 07/06/21 through 07/12/21 revealed the building odor continued especially on the south hall.
Interview with Housekeeping Supervisor #118 on 07/12/21 at 10:34 A.M. verified there were strong odors in the building. She stated the staff spray odor eliminator twice daily, but there was one resident who refused to take a shower on the south hall. Residents also were known to urinate on the floors.
Tour with Housekeeping Supervisor #118 on 07/12/21 at 10:38 A.M. revealed the resident in room [ROOM NUMBER] refused to shower or bathe. Observation of the resident's room revealed a large odor of urine. The room contained two large lined yellow garbage cans which were used for dirty laundry. The housekeepers had placed a bag of charcoal on the resident's bed frame and in the bottom of one of the linen bins/garbage cans. The door was kept closed.
Review of the facility's policy titled Quality of Life - Homelike Environment, dated 12/2017, revealed facility staff and management shall maximize, to the extent possible, the characteristics of the facility that reflect a personalized, homelike setting. Those characteristics included pleasant, neutral scents, inviting colors and decor and a clean, sanitary and orderly environment.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review, observation, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to store medications in a locked compartment to maintain a safe environment for the residents. This had the ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, observation, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to store medications in a locked compartment to maintain a safe environment for the residents. This had the ability to affect 14 residents (#1, #2, #3, #5, #6, #7, #14, #15, #17, #18, #19, #20, #30, and #232) who were cognitively impaired and mobile who resided in the building. The facility census was 30.
Findings include:
Review of Resident #26's medical record revealed an admission date of 09/01/18. Diagnoses included congestive heart failure, chronic kidney disease, peripheral vascular disease and lymphedema. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment, dated 06/11/21, revealed the resident had a high cognitive function.
Review of the Medication Administrator Record (MAR) dated 07/06/21 revealed morning medications included aspirin 81 milligrams (mg.), calcium citrate with vitamin D3, Loratadine (antihistamine) 10 mg., Raloxifene (estrogen receptor modulator) 60 mg., Uloric (uric acid reducer) 40 mg., vitamin D, Amiodarone (antiarrhythmic) 100 mg, Senna-S (stool softener) , Lasix (diuretic) 20 mg., Poly-iron, and potassium chloride (potassium supplement.)
Observation on 07/06/21 at 10:18 A.M. revealed Resident #26 had two medication cups sitting on her bedside table. In the cups, it was the resident's medication mixed with pudding.
Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse #122 on 07/06/21 at 10:22 A.M. revealed she left Resident #26's medication on the bedside table for the resident to take later in the morning at the resident's convenience.
Review of the facility's list of residents who were mobile and cognitively impaired revealed Resident #1, #2, #3, #5, #6, #7, #14, #15, #17, #18, #19, #20, #30, and #232 were mobile and cognitively impaired.
Review of the facility's policy titled Administering Medications, dated 12/2017, revealed medications shall be administered in a safe and timely manner, and as prescribed. If a drug is withheld, refused, or given a time other that the scheduled time, the individual administering the medication must initial the resident's MAR on the appropriate line after giving each medication and before administering the next ones.
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0730
(Tag F0730)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on review of the employee records and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure performance evaluations were completed for three State Tested Nursing Assistants (STNA). This had the potenti...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of the employee records and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure performance evaluations were completed for three State Tested Nursing Assistants (STNA). This had the potential to affect all 30 residents residing in the facility.
Findings include:
1. Review of the employee record for STNA #148 revealed a hire date of 05/19/19. Further review of the employee record revealed no performance evaluations had been completed in 2020 or 2021.
2. Review of the employee record for STNA #154 revealed a hire date of 11/11/19. Further review of the employee record revealed no performance evaluations had been completed in 2020.
3. Review of the employee record for STNA #155 revealed a hire date of 06/17/90. Further review of the employee record revealed no performance evaluations had been completed in 2020 or 2021.
Interview on 07/12/21 at 3:50 P.M. with Human Resource Manager (HRM) #137 verified no performance evaluations had been completed for STNA #148, STNA #154, and STNA #155.
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Staffing Information
(Tag F0732)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on observations, facility policy review and staff interview, the facility failed to post daily direct care staffing numbers and maintain the posted daily nurse staffing data. This had the abilit...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, facility policy review and staff interview, the facility failed to post daily direct care staffing numbers and maintain the posted daily nurse staffing data. This had the ability to affect all 30 residents who resided in the facility.
Findings include:
Observations on 07/06/21, 07/07/21, 07/08/21, and 07/09/21 revealed the facility failed to post their daily direct care staffing numbers.
Interview on 07/12/21 at 2:45 P.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) verified the facility failed to complete the daily direct care staffing numbers. In addition, the DON stated the staff were attempting to obtain the staffing posts from the previous six months. As of 07/13/21, the DON did not provide the posted daily nurse staffing data.
Review of the facility's policy titled Posting Direct Care Daily Staffing Numbers, dated 12/2017, revealed within two hours of the beginning of each shift, the number of Licensed Nurses and their number of unlicensed nursing personnel directly responsible for resident care will be posted in a prominent location (accessible to residents and visitors) and in a clear and readable format.
Mar 2019
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0578
(Tag F0578)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, facility advanced directive policy and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure advanced ...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, facility advanced directive policy and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure advanced directive wishes were consistent throughout the medication record. This affected two (Resident #8 and Resident #26) of 17 residents reviewed for advanced directives. The facility census was 35.
Findings include:
1. Review of Resident #26's medical record revealed the resident was admitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses included hemiplegia, dysphagia, obstructive sleep apnea, atherosclerotic heart disease of native coronary artery, impulse disorder, blindness of right eye, diabetes mellitus type two, anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
Review of the care plan initiated [DATE] revealed Resident #26's advance directive wish was for Do Not Resuscitate/Comfort Care Arrest (DNR/CC Arrest) which permitted the use of life-saving measures (such as powerful heart or blood pressure medications) before a person's heart or breathing stopped. At a time where the heart stopped beating or breathing stopped, no cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was to be performed.
Review of the paper chart revealed a Resuscitation Designation form dated [DATE] which revealed Resident #26's advanced directive wish was to be a Full Code which meant resuscitative actions (including the use of powerful heart or blood pressure medications and/or CPR) to maintain life would be attempted.
Review of the resident's admission record face sheet dated [DATE] in the paper chart revealed Resident #26's advanced directive wish was to be a Full Code.
Review of Resident #26's physician orders revealed an order dated [DATE] for DNR-CCA.
Review of the paper chart revealed a DNR Identification Form dated [DATE] revealed Resident #26's advance directive wish was for DNR-CCA.
Review of Resident #26's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #26 had mild cognitive impairment.
Interview on [DATE] at 8:39 A.M., with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed Resident #26's advanced directive wishes did not match throughout the medical record on the admission record face sheet, the DNR Identification Form, the Resuscitation Designation form, and on the care plan.
2. Review of Resident #8's medical record identified admission to the facility occurred on [DATE] with medical diagnoses including; anemia, congestive heart failure, high blood pressure, stroke with left side hemiparesis and fracture. The electronic medical record clinical census form identified under advanced directive DNR/CC Arrest.
Review of Resident #8's baseline care plan dated [DATE] revealed the resident desired to be full code. Resident #8's resuscitation designation form dated [DATE] revealed residents desires full code.
Review of Resident #8's electronic medical record identified Resident #8 desired to be a DNR/CC Arrest.
Review of Resident #8's comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #8 was completely cognitively aware and able to make her own choices and decisions.
Resident #8's [DATE] physician orders lacked evidence of advanced directives.
Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #700 on [DATE] at 7:14 A.M., confirmed the advanced directive's for Resident #8 did not match in the records. The interview confirmed the facility was utilizing paper chart and electronic medical records and they do not match for Resident #8's desires for advanced directives.
Review of the policy titled, Advanced Directives, revised 02/2018 revealed the plan of care for each resident would be consistent with the documented treatment preferences and/or advance directive. Further review revealed information regarding advance directive would be displayed prominently in the medical record.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, observation, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents received ass...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, observation, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents received assistance with showers and personal hygiene. This affected two (Resident #2 and #33) of 17 sampled residents reviewed. The facility census was 35.
Findings include
1. Review of Resident #2's medical record revealed the resident had an admission date of 04/04/18. Diagnoses included hypertension, weakness, dysphagia, Parkinson's disease, chronic fatigue, and dementia.
Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment revealed Resident #2 had impaired cognition. Further review of the MDS assessment revealed Resident #2 required the extensive assistance of one staff member for personal hygiene.
Review of a bath/shower report for Resident #2 revealed he received a shower on 03/24/19. Further review of the shower report revealed his nails were not trimmed and there was no documentation Resident #2 refused care.
Observation on 03/25/19 at 10:28 A.M., revealed Resident #2's fingernails were long.
Interview on 03/25/19 at 10:28 A.M. with Resident #2 revealed he received a shower the night before, however no one trimmed his fingernails.
Observation on 03/26/19 at 12:31 P.M., revealed Resident #2's fingernails were long and not trimmed.
Interview on 03/26/19 at 12:56 P.M., with Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #700 revealed Resident #2's finger nails had not been trimmed. ADON #700 revealed she had cut the residents fingernails about three weeks ago. ADON #700 revealed staff try to trim the resident's fingernails once per week.
Interview on 03/26/19 at 4:21 P.M., with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed nail care should be documented on the resident's shower sheet.
Interview on 03/27/19 at 1:57 P.M. with State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) #101 revealed resident fingernails were trimmed on shower days.
Interview on 03/28/19 at 8:53 A.M. with STNA #102 revealed she cleaned Resident #2's nails on 03/24/19 but had no fingernail clippers with her. STNA #102 verified she forgot to go back and trim Resident #2's nails.
2. Review of Resident #33's medical record identified admission to the facility occurred on 03/04/16.
Review of Resident #33's MDS comprehensive assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident required assistance with bathing and grooming. The care area assessment for activities of daily living (ADL's) confirmed Resident #33 required limited assistance.
Review of the written plan of care for ADL's identified Resident #33 requested showers to be completed twice a week.
Review of the facility shower schedule listing identified each day, residents are assigned showers according to what bed they have. Resident #33 was was scheduled for Tuesdays and Fridays, on the 6:00 A.M.-2:00 P.M. shift.
Interview with Resident #33 on 03/26/19 at 4:10 P.M., revealed she was scheduled for a shower today, from the 6:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M. shift and she did not get it. Resident #33 identified her last shower was more than a week ago, on Monday 03/18/19, and she needed one. Resident #33 confirmed she did not receive a shower on 03/19/19, 03/22/19, and 03/26/19 when she was scheduled.
Interview with the DON on 03/26/19 at 4:23 P.M., stated STNA's fill out a bath/shower report for all showers they have completed. The DON confirmed the last shower Resident #33 received was 03/18/19. The DON identified Resident #33 moved rooms recently and the staff forgot she was in the new room and therefore she did not receive her showers as scheduled.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, staff interviews, review of manufacturer guidelines and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than five percent. The facility had two medic...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interviews, review of manufacturer guidelines and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than five percent. The facility had two medication errors during observation of 35 administered medications, for a medication administration error rate of 5.71%. This affected two (#20, #19) of four residents observed during medication administration. The facility census was 35.
Findings include
1. Review of Resident #20's medical record revealed the resident had an admission date of 06/12/18. Diagnoses included chronic kidney disease, chronic pain, diabetes mellitus type two, anxiety, depressive disorder, seizures, and hypertension.
Review of physician orders dated 11/29/18 revealed Resident #20 was ordered 15 units of Levemir pen 100 units per milliliter subcutaneously every morning for diabetes mellitus type two.
Observation on 03/27/19 at 8:24 P.M. revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #202 prepared a Levemir pen for administration. LPN #202 turned the dial to 15 units without first priming the pen with two units of insulin. Further observation revealed LPN #202 administered the 15 units of Levemir pen to Resident #20.
Interview on 03/27/19 at 8:24 P.M. with LPN #202 revealed she forgot to prime the flex pen with two units of the insulin before dosing the pen to 15 units.
Review of the manufacturer instructions for Levemir revealed to ensure proper dosing and to avoid injecting air, prime the pen with two units before administration of ordered dose of insulin.
Review of the policy Insulin Pen Administration Instructions, last reviewed 01/12/19 revealed to dial up two units on the pen then point pen needle up toward ceiling and tap gently then press button on bottom all the way. Then dial the pen to the individual prescribed dose.
2. Medical record review revealed Resident #19 had an admission date of 05/22/19. Diagnoses included Parkinson's disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus type two, hypertension, and arthritis.
Review of the monthly physician orders 03/2019 revealed Resident #19 was ordered one drop of artificial tears solution in each eye three times a day for dry eyes.
Observation on 03/27/19 at 8:55 A.M., revealed Resident #19's artificial tears were omitted as the artificial tears were not available.
Interview on 03/27/19 at 8:55 A.M., with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #202 revealed she would notify management there were no artificial tears in the contingency supply.
Review of the policy Medication Administration - General Guidelines, last revised 03/24/10 revealed Medications should be administered in accordance with written orders of the attending physician. Additionally, medication should be administered without unnecessary interruptions.
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 medical record review, laboratory results, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure physician order...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, laboratory results, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure physician ordered laboratory testing was completed in a timely manner. This affected one (Resident #19) of 17 sampled residents reviewed. The facility census was 35.
Findings include:
Review of Resident #19's medical record identified admission to the facility occurred on 08/27/18 with medical diagnoses including; Parkinson's Disease, diabetes, COPD, ankle fracture and urinary retention. The record identified Resident #19 was in isolation for MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) in his suprapubic wound. The nursing notes dated 03/02/19 identified Resident #19 was started on isolation precautions.
Review of the medical record identified a physician order dated 03/15/19 to obtained culture and sensitivity of suprapubic wound. Review of the TAR (treatment administration record) identified the culture was not obtained until 03/22/19 (seven days following the order being received).
Review of the culture and sensitivity testing report confirmed the laboratory did not receive the sample from the facility until 03/22/19. The laboratory test identified the results were submitted back to the facility on [DATE]. The progress notes identified on 03/25/19 at 5:33 P.M. Resident #19's isolation was discontinued.
Observation and interview with Resident #19 occurred on 03/25/19 at 6:34 P.M. Resident #19 identified he was in a private room because he was on isolation for an infection and was moved from another room. Resident #19 confirmed he was not allowed to leave his room and was ready to be free.
Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #400 on 03/26/19 at 8:53 A.M. confirmed Resident #19's laboratory test was not completed when it was order. The interview identified she did not think the facility had the supplies from the laboratory to conduct the testing when ordered.
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, policy review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure milk was served at the proper temperatures. This had the potential to affect 34 of 35 residents, except (Residen...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, policy review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure milk was served at the proper temperatures. This had the potential to affect 34 of 35 residents, except (Resident #26) whom received meals from the kitchen. The facility census was 35.
Findings include:
Observation of the breakfast meal on 03/27/19 at 7:20 A.M,. occurred with [NAME] #900 and Cooks helper #920. The staff were observed plating breakfast for residents at that time. Cooks helper #920 was noted to be placing drinks including milk onto meal trays located on a slotted cart. The glasses of milk were coming off of a tray, with no ice around the milk glasses. A request was made to obtain a temperature of the milk prior to placing on the meal trays. Dietary Manager (DM) #930 took the temperature of the milk on 03/27/19 at 7:32 A.M. and confirmed it was 45 degrees. DM #930 identified that was to warm. The milk was sampled and tasted lukewarm at that time. DM #930 confirmed the staff usually have the milk placed on ice during service to keep it cold and she was not sure why they were not doing that this morning.
Review of the facility food temperatures procedure date July 2005 identified cold food shall be maintained at temperature of 41 degrees Fahrenheit
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, record review, staff interviews and review of facility policy, the facility failed to report a gastrointestinal outbreak to the local health department and the state agency. This...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, staff interviews and review of facility policy, the facility failed to report a gastrointestinal outbreak to the local health department and the state agency. This affected eight residents (#15, #8, #24, #16, #34, #3, #11, #12) with the potential to affect all residents. Additionally, the facility failed to follow infection control procedures during catheter care for one (#19) of one reviewed for catheter care. The facility identified two residents with catheters. The facility census was 35.
Findings include:
1. Review of the Infection Control program with the Director of Nursing (DON) was conducted on 03/27/19. The DON provided a facility Infection Tracking Map for 03/2019 which revealed eight residents (#15, #8, #24, #16, #34, #3, #11, #12) were noted with gastrointestinal symptoms including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and abdominal discomfort.
Review of a nurse progress note dated 03/13/19 at 11:02 A.M., revealed Resident #15 received new medication orders for nausea and diarrhea.
Review of a nurse progress note dated 03/13/19 at 11:13 A.M., revealed Resident #8 had nausea/vomiting and diarrhea this morning.
Review of a nurse progress note dated 03/14/19 at 9:23 A.M., revealed Resident #24 had nausea and vomiting.
Review of a nurse progress note dated 03/14/19 at 1:19 P.M., revealed Resident #16 complained of weakness after having nausea, vomiting and diarrhea yesterday.
Review of a nurse progress note dated 03/14/19 at 1:28 P.M., revealed Resident #34 had nausea, vomiting and diarrhea.
Review of a nursing progress note dated 03/14/19 at 1:19 P.M., revealed Resident #3 had nausea symptoms and diarrhea.
Review of a nurse progress note dated 03/14/19 at 1:29 P.M., revealed Resident #11 had abdominal discomfort throughout the morning.
Review of a nurse progress note dated 03/15/19 at 11:07 P.M., revealed Resident #12 complained of nausea and vomiting.
Interview on 03/27/19 at 10:24 A.M., with the DON revealed the facility had a GI outbreak a couple weeks ago. The DON revealed the residents were encouraged to stay in their room and their symptoms were treated. The DON revealed the physician had not ordered any testing.
Further interview on 03/27/19 at 12:11 P.M. with the DON verified the GI outbreak was not reported to the local health department or the state agency.
Telephone interview on 03/27/19 at 12:48 P.M. with the Disease Intervention Specialist (DIS) #420 from the local health department revealed the facility had not reported the eight cases of nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. DIS #420 revealed the facility should have reported the unusual number of cases of nausea, vomiting and diarrhea.
Review of the policy Know Your ABCs: A Quick Guide to Reportable Infectious Diseases in Ohio, revealed to report an outbreak, unusual incident or epidemic of other diseases by the end of the next business day.
Review of the policy Reporting Communicable Diseases, last revised 12/17 revealed the infection preventionist was responsible for notifying the local, district, or State health department of confirmed cased of state-specific reportable diseases.
2. Review of Resident #19's medical record identified admission to the facility occurred on 08/27/18 with medical diagnoses including; Parkinson's Disease, diabetes, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), ankle fracture and urinary retention. The record identified Resident #19 was in isolation for MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) in his suprapubic wound. The nursing notes dated 03/02/19 identified Resident #19 started on isolation precautions.
Observation of Registered Nurse (RN) #300 was conducted on 03/26/19 at 10:21 A.M. RN #300 was observed to provide Resident #19 with suprapubic catheter care and dressing change. RN #300 removed the old dressing the Resident #19's abdomen and cleaned the area without issues. RN #300 then donned a new set of gloves and applied a new dressing. The observation revealed RN #300 did no wash her hand following removal of the old dressing and application of the new gloves and dressing.
Interview with RN #300 on 03/26/19 at 10:29 A.M., confirmed she did not wash her hand following removal of the old dressing and application of new gloves and dressing for the resident.
Review of the facilities Catheter care policy dated 12/2017 was completed. The policy identified between glove changes and clean to dirty dressings remove gloves and discard; perform hand antisepsis.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated
K - Pattern
L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated
H - Pattern
I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated
E - Pattern
F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated
B - Pattern
C - Widespread
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
Strengths
- • No major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Ohio facilities.
Concerns
- • 23 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 60/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.
✓ Report will be sent to your email
About This Facility
What is Galion Pointe, Llc's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns GALION POINTE, LLC an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Ohio, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.
How is Galion Pointe, Llc Staffed?
CMS rates GALION POINTE, LLC's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 47%, compared to the Ohio average of 46%.
What Have Inspectors Found at Galion Pointe, Llc?
State health inspectors documented 23 deficiencies at GALION POINTE, LLC during 2019 to 2023. These included: 21 with potential for harm and 2 minor or isolated issues.
Who Owns and Operates Galion Pointe, Llc?
GALION POINTE, LLC 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 JAG HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 45 certified beds and approximately 27 residents (about 60% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in GALION, Ohio.
How Does Galion Pointe, Llc Compare to Other Ohio Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Ohio, GALION POINTE, LLC's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (47%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Galion Pointe, Llc?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the below-average staffing rating.
Is Galion Pointe, Llc Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, GALION POINTE, LLC has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 3-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Ohio. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at Galion Pointe, Llc Stick Around?
GALION POINTE, LLC has a staff turnover rate of 47%, 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 Galion Pointe, Llc Ever Fined?
GALION POINTE, LLC has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.
Is Galion Pointe, Llc on Any Federal Watch List?
GALION POINTE, LLC 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.