MILCREST NURSING CENTER

730 MILCREST DRIVE, MARYSVILLE, OH 43040 (937) 642-1026
For profit - Individual 50 Beds COUNTRY CLUB REHABILITATION CAMPUS Data: November 2025 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
21/100
#506 of 913 in OH
Last Inspection: April 2025

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

Overview

Milcrest Nursing Center in Marysville, Ohio, has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about its quality of care. Ranked #506 out of 913 facilities in Ohio places it in the bottom half, although it is the best option among three in Union County. Unfortunately, the facility's trend is worsening, with issues increasing from 3 in 2024 to 12 in 2025. Staffing is a mixed bag; while the RN coverage is good, exceeding 96% of state facilities, the turnover rate is concerning at 66%, much higher than the state average of 49%. Additionally, the facility has incurred fines totaling $68,006, which is higher than 93% of Ohio facilities, suggesting ongoing compliance problems. Specific incidents of concern include a failure to monitor a resident's deteriorating condition, leading to a life-threatening situation and subsequent death, as well as delays in initiating CPR for another resident. There were also issues with food safety, such as improperly stored and dated items in the kitchen. Overall, while there are some strengths in staffing coverage, the critical deficiencies and significant fines raise serious red flags for families considering this facility.

Trust Score
F
21/100
In Ohio
#506/913
Bottom 45%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
3 → 12 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
66% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
$68,006 in fines. Lower than most Ohio facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 62 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of Ohio nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
Violations
⚠ Watch
31 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 3 issues
2025: 12 issues

The Good

  • 5-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: 66%

20pts above Ohio avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $68,006

Well above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

Chain: COUNTRY CLUB REHABILITATION CAMPUS

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is elevated (66%)

18 points above Ohio average of 48%

The Ugly 31 deficiencies on record

2 life-threatening
Apr 2025 12 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, resident and staff interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's bathroom door ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, resident and staff interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's bathroom door opened and closed properly. This affected one (#08) resident out of sixteen residents reviewed for environment. The facility census was 44. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #08 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included anxiety disorder and fibromyalgia. Review of Resident #08's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident was cognitively intact,. Resident #08 was independent with personal hygiene. Resident #08 required supervision with toilet transfers and walking ten feet. Observation of Resident #08's room on 04/07/25 at 1:59 P.M. revealed Resident #08's sliding door to her bathroom was difficult to open and close because it was stuck on the track. Interview with Resident #08 on 04/07/25 at 1:59 P.M. revealed she could not open and close her bathroom door because it would get stuck. Observation of Resident #08's room on 04/09/25 at 3:41 P.M. revealed Resident #08's sliding door to her bathroom remained stuck on the track and difficult to open and close. Interview with Corporate Registered Nurse (CRN) #500 on 04/09/25 at 3:41 P.M. verified Resident #08's sliding door to her bathroom was difficult to open and close because it was stuck on the track.
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 observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident had a care plan for elopement...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident had a care plan for elopement and the use of a Wanderguard. This affected one (#25) out of one residents reviewed for elopement. The facility census was 44. Findings include: Review of Resident #25's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia, high blood pressure, diabetes and depression. Review of an elopement risk assessment dated [DATE] identified the resident to be at risk for elopement. An interventions on the assessment included the use of a Wanderguard. Review of the care plan dated 02/06/25 did not identify the resident to be at risk for elopement or identify the us of the Wanderguard. Observation of Resident #25 on 04/07/25 at 02:17 P.M. revealed she was wearing a Wanderguard on her leg. Review of policy titled Wanderguard Devices, dated 06/19/17, revealed a potential for elopement plan of care will be implemented including Wanderguard as an intervention. Interview on interview 04/10/25 at 2:13 P.M. with Corporate Registered Nurse (RN) #500 verified Resident #25 did not have a care plan identifying her risk for elopement and use of a Wanderguard.
CONCERN (D)

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 review of the medical record, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure care conferences were ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the medical record, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure care conferences were completed quarterly and included participation of the interdisciplinary team and the resident/responsible party. This affected two (#1 and #13) residents reviewed for care conferences. The facility census was 44. Findings include: 1. Review of the medical record for Resident #1 revealed an admission date of 06/12/23. Diagnoses included vascular dementia, anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, and chronic kidney disease stage three. Review of Significant Change Data Set Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #1 had cognitive impairment. This resident was assessed to be independent with eating, require substantial assistance with toileting and transfers, and partial assistance with bathing and dressing. Review of the care conferences for the last 12 months revealed Resident #1 received a care conference on 03/10/24, 06/14/24, and 09/24/24 with no documentation of the meeting, no evidence of the resident/representative participating and no evidence of members of the interdisciplinary team participating. There was no evidence of any quarterly care conferences after 09/24/24. Review of facility policy titled Plan of Care Meeting, dated 01/26/17, revealed facility shall establish a procedure for care conferences. Facility shall hold care conference meetings within 72 hours of admission and at least quarterly to review and revise the care plan. This shall include members of the interdisciplinary team, resident and family. Interview on 04/09/25 at 10:05 A.M. with Social Services Designee (SSD) #26 verified all department heads should be attending the care conference, including the resident and resident representatives. SSD #26 verified the 03/10/24, 06/14/24 and 09/24/24 contained no evidence of any staff or resident participation and there were no quarterly care conferences held after 09/24/24. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #13 revealed an admission date of 03/04/24. Diagnoses included dysphasia, dementia, Alzheimer's, insomnia, cognitive communication deficit, and Crohn's disease. Review of the MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #13 was cognitively intact. Review of care conference dated 09/26/24 revealed it was completed by the admissions director and did not name any staff or resident/family attendance and was left blank without any details about discussion. There was no evidence of any quarterly care conferences after 09/24/24. Interview 04/09/25 at 10:05 A.M. with SSD #26 and Corporate Registered Nurse (RN) #500 confirmed facility did not have any evidence of care conferences for Resident #13 since 09/24/24. SSD #26 confirmed the care conference on 09/24/24 contained no evidence of any staff or resident participation. Corporate RN #500 revealed facility identified the problem of missing care conferences and was including this as a Quality Improvement plan, but was unable to provide evidence of having recent quarterly care conferences.
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

Based on record review, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to maintain hospice documentation for one (#11) of one resident reviewed for Hospice. The facility ident...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, staff interview, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to maintain hospice documentation for one (#11) of one resident reviewed for Hospice. The facility identified three residents receiving hospice care (#11, #14 and #37). The facility census was 44. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #11 revealed an admission date of 11/08/24. Diagnoses included adult failure to thrive, malnutrition, muscle weakness Parkinson's disease, atrial fibrillation, and chronic kidney disease. Review of Hospice election and admission paperwork dated 02/10/25 revealed Resident #11 was admitted to hospice care. Review of the hospice communication binder for Resident #11 contained no documentation from hospice visits. Interview on 04/10/25 at 9:36 A.M. with Unit Manager (UM) #511 confirmed the hospice communication binder for Resident #11 had no documentation from visits. UM #511 revealed they had blank communication forms in the binder. The electronic medical record and paper medical record were reviewed and found no documented communication from hospice visits. Interview on 04/10/25 at 9:40 A.M. with Registered Nurse (RN) #68 confirmed she had never seen communication forms completed for Resident #11 and reported it was difficult to get a binder from hospice. Interview on 04/10/25 at 9:45 A.M., Medical Records #52 revealed she did not have any record of hospice notes. Review of facility policy titled Hospice Services, dated 11/20/17, revealed facility shall establish a procedure for hospice services. The policy revealed the facility shall maintain hospice communication.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide pressure reducing interventions as recommended...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide pressure reducing interventions as recommended to aide in the healing of a pressure ulcer for one (#08) out of four residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility census was 44. Findings include: Review the medical record revealed Resident #08 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included pressure ulcer of sacral regional stage three, pressure ulcer of left hip stage three, adult failure to thrive, malignant neoplasm of right female breast, polyneuropathy, anxiety disorder, iron deficiency anemia, type two diabetes mellitus, and fibromyalgia. Review of Resident #08's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident was cognitively intact. Resident #08 required supervision with rolling left and right, sitting to lying, lying to sitting, sitting to standing, and transfers. Resident #08 had one stage three pressure ulcer that was present upon admission to the facility. Review of Resident #08's skin care plan dated 12/27/24 revealed Resident #08 was at risk for skin integrity related to fragile skin, impaired mobility, incontinence and resisting care. Resident #08 had a stage three pressure ulcer to the left hip. Interventions included a pressure reducing mattress to bed. Review of Resident #08's initial wound evaluation and management summary signed by Wound Care Physician (WCP) #501, dated 12/13/24, revealed Resident #08 had a stage three pressure wound of the right hip full thickness. The wound was 7 centimeters (cm) by 1.5 cm by 0.1 cm. Recommendations included a low air loss mattress. Review of Resident #08's wound evaluation and management summary signed by WCP #501, dated 04/09/24, revealed Resident #08 had a stage three pressure wound of the right hip full thickness. The wound was 2.5 cm by 0.8 cm by 0.1 cm. The wound was listed as healing. Recommendations included a low air loss mattress. Review of Resident #08's physician orders dated 12/10/24 to 04/09/25 revealed Resident #08 did not have an order for a low air loss mattress. Review of Resident #08's progress notes from 12/10/24 to 04/09/25 revealed no information related to Resident #08 having a low air loss mattress. Observations of Resident #08's room on 04/07/25 at 1:59 P.M. and 04/09/25 at 3:41 P.M. revealed Resident #08 was lying in bed on her right hip. Resident #08 did not have a low air loss mattress in place. Interview with Corporate Registered Nurse (RN) #500 on 04/09/25 at 3:41 P.M. verified Resident #08's was lying in bed on her right hip and Resident #08 did not have a low air loss mattress. Review of the facility policy titled Wound and Skin Care Program, dated 12/20/24, revealed residents will be assessed for risk of skin breakdown and appropriate interventions will be initiated. Wound treatments and dressings will be supported by a physician's order.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0687 (Tag F0687)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, observation, staff and resident interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure nail care was provided for one (#30) of three residents reviewed for activities of daily living. The facility census was 44. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #30 revealed an admission date of 01/28/25. Diagnoses included vascular dementia,, stage three kidney disease, anxiety, and cognitive communication deficit. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #30 was cognitively intact and required assistance from staff for activities of daily living (ADLs). Review of the care plan dated 02/02/25 revealed Resident #30 needs assistance from staff for ADL needs with interventions to assist with bathing as needed. The care plan did not specify assistance with nail care. Review progress notes dated 02/01/25 to 04/10/25 revealed no notes related to toe nail care or podiatry services. Review of skin and shower sheets from 02/01/25 to 04/08/25 revealed no mention of nail care being offered or refused. Observation and interview on 04/07/25 at 10:56 A.M. with Resident #30 revealed her toenails were long, thick and the left foot big toenail was torn. Resident #30 revealed she was interested in seeing the podiatrist and would like to have her toenails cut. Interview on 04/09/25 at 10:05 A.M. with Social Service Designee (SSD) #26 revealed residents were on the list for podiatry. The facility identified several residents that had been missed for consents and were working to get consents signed and services provided as needed and desired. Observation and interview on 04/09/25 at 3:40 P.M. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #510 confirmed Resident #30's nails were long and thick with the small toe nails wrapping around the tips of the toes. The left big toenail was split about half way down and jagged. LPN #510 confirmed the nails were long and the left toenail was broken. LPN #510 stated She definitely needs to see the podiatrist. Resident #30 informed LPN #510 she was agreeable to the podiatrist. Interview 04/10/25 at 4:00 P.M. with SSD #26 revealed she may have had consents for podiatry from Resident #30, but was unable to provide evidence of offering or scheduling a podiatrist to the resident. Review of the undated facility policy titled ADLs revealed the facility shall establish a procedure to ensure the level of care and services of each resident. Residents unable to carry out ADL abilities shall shall be assisted.
CONCERN (D)

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 review of the medical record and staff interviews, the facility failed to implement interventions in a timely manner af...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the medical record and staff interviews, the facility failed to implement interventions in a timely manner after a significant weight loss. This affected one (#29) of four residents reviewed for nutrition. The facility census was 44. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #29 revealed an admission date of 02/20/24. Diagnoses included with fracture of superior rim of right pubis, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and Alzheimer's disease. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #29 had severe cognitive impairment. The resident was assessed to be independent with eating. Review of the care plan dated 04/04/25 revealed Resident #29 was at risk for altered nutrition related to medical diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease. Interventions included administer medications as ordered, encouraged intake as needed, obtain and monitor laboratory work as needed, obtain weight as ordered, provide and serve diet as ordered, and provide nutritional supplements as ordered. Review of the weights recorded for Resident #29 revealed on 08/02/24 a weight of 107.5 pounds (lbs). On 09/03/24 the resident weighed 98.9 lb for an 8.6-pound loss, which equaled an eight percent weight loss in 30 days. Review of the progress note dated 09/05/24 at 3:20 P.M. revealed due to a significant weight variance, re-weight requested. Review of the weights record for Resident #29 revealed no re-weight was completed until 10/02/24 when the resident was identified to weigh 101 lbs. With no interventions implemented. Review of the resident's weight on 12/10/24 revealed a weight of 99.5 lbs. This was an eight pound loss, or 7.4 percent weight loss in four months. On 12/28/24 and 01/06/25 the resident's weight was documented as 99.5 lbs. No interventions were implemented from August 2024 until January 2025. Review of the physician order dated 01/23/25 revealed Resident #29 was ordered a magic cup in the afternoon for supplement. The resident's weight on 02/05/25 was 96 lbs, a loss of 11.5 lbs or 10.6 percent loss in six months. Review of the physician order dated 02/10/25 revealed Resident #29 was ordered house supplement two ounces three times a day for to monitor stability related to significant weight loss. Review of the physician order dated 02/10/25 revealed Resident #29 was ordered to obtain weekly weight times four weeks for weight loss. Review of the weights on 02/18/25 and 0/25/25 revealed the resident weighed 94 lbs. On 03/05/25 the resident weighed 91.5 lb, down eight lbs, or eight percent in three months. The resident's weight on 04/03/25 was 96.5 pounds. Interview on 04/08/25 at 2:48 P.M. with Registered Dietician (RD) #503 verified a re-weight was not completed on Resident #29 after requested in September 2024. RD #503 verified no interventions were put into place until January 2025 after a significant weight loss of eight percent in September 2024.
CONCERN (D)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

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, pharmacy recommendations, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to timely im...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the medical record, pharmacy recommendations, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to timely implement pharmacy recommendations for one (#29) of five residents reviewed for medications. The facility census was 44. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #29 revealed an admission date of 02/20/24. Diagnoses included with fracture of superior rim of right pubis, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and alzheimer's disease. Review of the Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #29 had cognitive impairment. Review of the monthly medication review (MMR) dated May 2024 revealed Resident #29 was recommended laboratory (lab) tests of magnesium, complete metabolic panel (CMP), thyroid stimulation hormone (TSH), and complete blood count (CBC). Review of the physician orders revealed no order was placed for the magnesium, CMP, TSH, or CBC for Resident #29 per the recommendation of the MMR. Review of the physician order dated 08/13/24 revealed Resident #29 was ordered a CBC, CMP, and urinalysis (UA) with culture and sensitivity (C&S) related to back and left flank pain. Review of the MMR dated November 2024 revealed Resident #29 was to have TSH levels checked. Review of the physician order dated 01/15/25 revealed Resident #29 was ordered TSH levels next lab draw. Interview on 04/09/25 at 1:44 P.M. with the Corporate Registered Nurse (RN) #503 verified labs were not completed per recommendations.
CONCERN (D)

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

Dental Services (Tag F0791)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, observation, staff and resident interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident received dental care after breaking a tooth. This affected one (#05) resident out of two residents reviewed for dental care. The facility census was 44. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #05 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included muscle weakness, protein calorie malnutrition, iron deficiency anemia, constipation, anxiety disorder, and dysphagia. Review of Resident #05's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident was moderately cognitively impaired. Resident #05 was independent with eating and required set up assistance with oral hygiene. Resident #05 had obvious or likely cavities or broken natural teeth. Review of Resident #05's census information dated 04/10/25 revealed Resident #05 was on Medicaid. Review of Resident #05's oral cavity assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #05 had her own teeth. Resident did not have any broken, loose or carious teeth noted on the assessment. Review of Resident #05's dental care plan dated 08/11/24 revealed Resident #05 had the potential for oral and dental health problems related to natural teeth with likely cavities. Interventions included administer medications as ordered, assist with oral care as needed, and monitor, document and report to the physician as needed of signs and symptoms of oral and dental problems needing attention including broken teeth. Review of Resident #05's undated dental visit history revealed Resident #05 had no history of dental visits while at the facility. Observation of Resident #05 on 04/07/25 at 2:15 P.M. revealed Resident #05 had a front left tooth that appeared to be broken in half with the bottom half of the tooth missing. Interview on 04/07/25 at 2:15 P.M. Resident #05 stated she broke her front left tooth while she resided at the facility and she had not seen the dentist. Interview with Corporate Registered Nurse (CRN) #500 on 04/09/25 at 5:15 P.M. revealed staff at the facility had reported Resident #05 had broken her tooth at the facility but CRN #500 did not know the date when the tooth was broken. CRN #500 verified Resident #05 had not been seen by the dentist since she had broken her front tooth. Interview with Registered Nurse (RN) #502 on 04/10/25 at 10:41 A.M. revealed she completed an oral assessment for Resident #05's 03/28/25 MDS on 03/25/25 and Resident #05 was noted to have cavities. RN #502 stated she did not observe any broken teeth. Interview with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #36 on 04/10/25 at 11:44 A.M. revealed she was not aware Resident #05 had a broken front tooth until 04/09/25 when staff asked her if her broken front tooth was a change. CNA #36 stated Resident #05 was admitted with no broken front teeth, but CNA #35 noticed Resident #05 had a broken front tooth on the left side when asked about it by management on 04/09/25. CNA #36 stated she frequently cares for Resident #05 and she never noticed the broken tooth. Resident #05 never had any complaints about the tooth. Review of the facility's policy titled Ancillary Services, revised 03/28/24, revealed the nurse will contact the resident's physician immediately when any resident has a perceived change in condition. An assessment will be made by the nurse prior to the phone call so that the nurse is prepared to discuss condition changes. The facility will refer to ancillary services as needed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record reviews, observations, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure infection cont...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record reviews, observations, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure infection control measures were followed during medication administration. This affected one (#197) of four residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility census was 44. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #197 revealed an admission date of 04/02/25. Diagnoses included bacteremia, end stage renal disease (ESRD), and atrial fibrillation. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #197 had intact cognition. Review of the care plan dated 04/08/25 revealed Resident #197 was at risk for infection related to indwelling medical device, open wound and central vein catheter (CVC). Interventions included to wear gown and gloves when providing high-contact resident care activities. Review of the physician order date 04/05/25 revealed Resident #197 was ordered enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) related to indwelling devices every shift for monitoring. Review of the physician order dated 04/07/25 revealed Resident #197 was ordered the antibiotic meropenem-sodium chloride intravenous solution reconstituted one gram per 50 milliliters (ml), use 1000 milligrams (mg) intravenously (IV) one time a day for bacteremia. Observation on 04/08/25 at 4:23 P.M. of medication administration revealed Registered Nurse (RN) #68 popped medications into her hands without gloves on and placed them into medication cup. RN #68 administered those medications to Resident #197. At 4:20 P.M. RN #68 administered IV antibiotics through Resident #197's central venous catheter (CVC) on the left side of chest. RN #68 did not wear a gown for enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) during the administration of the IV. Interview on 04/08/25 at 4:25 P.M. with RN #68 verified she placed medications into her hands and then into the medication cup. RN #68 verified she administered those medications to Resident #197. RN #68 verified she did not wear a gown for EBP when administering the resident's IV. Review of the facility policy titled Enhanced Barrier Precautions, revealed the policy of the facility was to implement enhanced barrier precautions for the prevention of transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs). Enhanced barrier precautions involve gown and glove use during high-contact resident care activities for residents known to be colonized or infected with a MDRO as well as those at increased risk of MDRO acquisition (e.g., residents with wounds or indwelling medical devices). High-contact resident activities include dressing, bathing/showering, transferring, providing hygiene, changing linens, changing briefs or assisting with toileting, device care or use: central line, urinary catheter, feeding tube, tracheostomy/ventilator, and wound care.
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 observations, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure safe storage of food in the kitchen. This had potential to affect all facility residents as they all ate food ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure safe storage of food in the kitchen. This had potential to affect all facility residents as they all ate food from the kitchen. The facility census was 44. Findings include: Observation and interview on 04/07/25 at 10:21 A.M. of the freezer with Kitchen Manager (KM) #66 revealed a bag of tater tots and a bag of crinkle fries were open and left undated. A bag of hot dogs had a hold in it and was left open to air. A box of garlic bread was left open to air and uncovered. In the fridge two undated carry out boxes with leftovers were present. One contained cake and another had breakfast food. In the dry storage are there were two cans with dents near the seals, including apple pie filling and apple sauce. KM #66 confirmed findings and acknowledged food should be dated and sealed/covered after opening. KM #66 stated the facility uses dented cans of food. Observation and interview on 04/09/25 at 11:51 A.M. with Kitchen Consultant (KC) #504 confirmed a container of shredded cheese was in the service line refrigeration and dated 03/23/25 to 03/29/25. KC #504 confirmed the cheese was outdated and should have been removed 03/29/25. Review of facility policy titled Food Storage Dry Goods, dated 06/20/17, revealed dietary shall ensure all packaged and canned food items would be kept cleaned, dry and properly sealed. All can goods will be inspect for dents, rust or bulges. All damaged cans would be placed in a designated area for vendor return. Review of facility policy titled Food Storage Cold, dated 08/01/17, revealed dietary would ensure all refrigerated food items would be stored properly, labeled and dated and stored in a manner that would prevent cross contamination.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0572 (Tag F0572)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on review of Resident Council minutes, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed provide ongoing communication to residents about their rights. This had potential to affect al...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of Resident Council minutes, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed provide ongoing communication to residents about their rights. This had potential to affect all residents. The facility census was 44. Findings include: Review of Resident Council meeting minutes dated 04/29/24, 05/27/24, 06/20/24, 07/24/24, 08/2024, 09/30/24, 10/29/24, 11/27/24, 12/30/24, 01/27/25, 02/26/25, and 03/26/25 revealed no resident right was documented as being discussed. Interview on 04/10/25 at 11:30 A.M. with Resident #36 revealed staff does not review any resident rights at the Resident Council meetings. Interview on 04/10/25 at 11:49 A.M. with Activity Director #42 confirmed she was not discussing resident rights during Resident Council meetings. She revealed she had been running the meetings since 09/2024 and was informed in March 2025 of the need to discuss the rights with the residents.
Jun 2024 3 deficiencies 2 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 review of the facility's Self-Reported Incident (SRI) and investigation, review of the facility's video surveillance, c...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the facility's Self-Reported Incident (SRI) and investigation, review of the facility's video surveillance, closed medical record review, review of the hospital records, staff interviews, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from neglect when the Director of Nursing (DON) and License Practical Nurse (LPN) #21 failed to adequately assess, monitor, and timely notify the physician of the resident's condition in accordance with professional standards of practice. This resulted in Immediate Jeopardy, serious life-threatening harm, and ultimate death when on 05/24/24 at 5:13 P.M., Resident #15 had a change in condition and at 5:54 P.M., State Tested Nursing Aides (STNA) #34 and #58 found Resident #15 grabbing at his chest, unresponsive to verbal commands, and in respiratory distress and alerted the DON to the resident's change of condition. There were no ongoing assessments during the evening shift and no notification to the physician for the need to alter treatments and/or send the resident out for evaluation, treatment or care. On 05/24/24 at 11:55 P.M., STNA #34 found the resident to be unresponsive and notified LPN #21 to come to the room and LPN #21 stated Resident #15 was dead. LPN #21 did not immediately initiate Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) or contact the physician. There was a nine-minute delay in CPR being started and ten-minute delay to notify Emergency Medical Services (EMS). EMS responded and transported Resident #15 to the emergency room where he expired on 05/25/24 at 12:50 A.M. This affected one (Resident #15) of three (#15, #41, and #47) residents reviewed for neglect. The facility census was 47 residents. On 06/05/24 at 4:27 P.M., the [NAME] President of Operations #140 and Clinical Director #143 were notified Immediate Jeopardy began on 05/24/24 at 5:54 P.M. when Resident #15 was found by STNAs #34 and #58, grabbing at his chest, unresponsive to verbal commands and in respiratory distress. STNA #58 alerted the DON who was in the hall. STNA #58 and the DON entered the resident's room and proceeded to attempt to verbally stimulate Resident #15 to breathe. The DON attempted to obtain a blood pressure at 6:10 P.M. and was unable to get a blood pressure; however, oxygen saturation and heart rate were taken which was reported to be normal. At 6:00 P.M., STNA #58 ran back into Resident #15's room and told the DON that the resident was a full code. There was no notification to the physician, or activation of emergency services at that time. It was not until approximately 7:34 P.M. that a nurse (LPN #21/night shift) entered Resident #15's room and exited shortly afterwards after a brief discussion with the family about the resident being a full code and not on hospice. The next time LPN #21 entered the resident's room was at 11:55 P.M. after STNA #34 entered the room and noticed the resident had expired. At 11:56 P.M., LPN #21 left Resident #15's room, sat down at the nurse's station, and did not make any telephone calls immediately to notify the physician and/or EMS. On 05/25/24 at 12:00 A.M., LPN #21 notified the DON that Resident #15 was dead, and she did not complete CPR and refused to initiate the CPR. At 12:03 A.M., the DON had LPN #56 initiate CPR on Resident #15. At 12:04 A.M., LPN #21 notified EMS. The physician was never notified. EMS responded and transported Resident #15 to the emergency room where he expired on 05/25/24 at 12:50 A.M. The Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 06/06/24 when the facility implemented the following corrective actions: • On 05/28/24, Staffing Agency #500 was made aware of the neglect allegations involving LPN #21. LPN #21 was placed on the Do Not Return list. • On 06/05/24, the Administrator and [NAME] President of Operations #140 suspended the DON. On 06/10/24, the DON was terminated as an employee from the facility. • On 06/05/24, all 56 employees at the facility were educated on the facility's abuse policy including identification of neglect and reporting an allegation of neglect. • On 06/05/24 at 10:33 A.M., the facility initiated an investigation. • On 06/05/24, an Ad hoc Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) meeting was held to determine the root cause of the Immediate Jeopardy. • On 06/05/24, LPN #93 and Registered Nurse (RN) #177 educated all 16 licensed nursing staff regarding identification of change in condition, the components of a comprehensive assessment, monitoring of the change in condition as well as timely notification of the physician according to professional standards of practice. In addition, all staff were educated regarding the prevention, identification and reporting of abuse to include neglect according to facility policy. • On 06/06/24, 50 residents were interviewed regarding abuse. There were no concerns about any allegations of abuse/neglect made known as a result of the interviews. • On 06/06/24, the facility submitted the initial SRI. • On 06/06/24, the Local Police and the Ohio Board of Nursing were made aware of the neglect allegation involving the DON. • On 06/06/24, Quality Assurance Director (QAD) #180 completed an audit of nurse's progress notes to identify any resident that experienced a change in condition without being appropriately assessed, monitored and reported timely to the physician. A comprehensive assessment was performed for any resident identified as experiencing a change in condition not appropriately assessed, monitored and timely report made to the physician. The audit was conducted for the timeframe of 05/24/24 to 06/06/24. • On 06/06/24, QAD #180 completed an audit on 50 residents' progress notes to identify any documentation indicating an incident of abuse including neglect, as well as any other category of reportable incident according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) regulation, had occurred. No documentation was identified indicating a reportable incident occurred. • On 06/06/24, Clinical Director #143 educated the facility's 13 Directors and Supervisors regarding the investigation and reporting requirements according to CMS regulation for all reportable events including neglect. • Beginning on 06/06/24, the facility will complete questionnaires to evaluate licensed nursing staffs' understanding of the components of a comprehensive assessment, monitoring of the change in condition, and timely notification of the physician according to professional standards of practice as well as audits also in the form of questionnaires consisting of staff understanding of abuse identification and reporting specifically neglect. This will be conducted six times per week each for four weeks to include all shifts. • Beginning on 06/06/24, the facility will complete audits in the form of questionnaires which will be conducted by the facility Directors and Supervisors to evaluate understanding of incident investigation and reporting requirements. The audits will be conducted six times per week for four weeks. • Beginning on 06/06/24, the facility will complete audits consisting of review of nurse's progress notes to determine completion of a comprehensive assessment, monitoring of a change in condition and timely notification of the physician according to professional standards of practice. The audits will be performed three times a week for four weeks. • Beginning on 06/06/24, the facility will submit their audit findings to the QAPI Committee weekly for recommendations. Although the Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 06/06/24, 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 is still in the process of implementing their corrective actions and monitoring to ensure on-going compliance. Findings include: Review of the closed medical record for Resident #15 revealed an admission date of 05/22/24. Diagnoses included atrial fibrillation, mesothelioma (an aggressive and rare form of cancer that usually occurs in the thin layer of tissue that lines the lungs or the abdomen), and respiratory failure with hypoxia. Resident #15 died on [DATE] at 12:50 A.M. at the emergency room. Review of the five-day Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #15 was cognitively intact and required substantial/maximal assistance from staff for toileting. Review of the physician orders for Resident #15 revealed an order dated 05/23/24 for the resident to be a full code. Review of Resident #15's medical record revealed there was no documentation of a blood pressure reading or the inability to obtain blood pressure. There was no documentation that the physician was notified of Resident #15's change in condition. There was no documentation of a respiratory assessment, neurological assessment, pain assessment, or cardiac assessment completed after the DON was alerted by STNAs #34 and #58 of Resident #15's change of condition at 6:00 P.M. Review of the progress note dated 05/24/24 at 7:00 P.M. revealed LPN #21 documented Resident #15 was in respiratory distress when this nurse arrived to report for shift. The DON was in the room with the resident. The DON reported all vitals within normal limits and does not see any need to send the resident out to the hospital when the day shift nurse recommended to send him to the hospital. There was no documentation of vital signs, notification of physician, no documentation of respiratory assessment, neurological assessment, pain assessment, or cardiac assessment completed by LPN #21. The progress note dated 05/24/24 at 11:40 P.M. (the facility's video surveillance shows actual time was 11:55 P.M.) revealed LPN #21 was notified by STNA #34 to assess Resident #15. Resident #15 was found in bed and unresponsive. There was no documentation that CPR was initiated, or the physician was notified. Review of Resident #15's hospital records revealed on 05/25/24 at 12:50 A.M., Resident #15 was pronounced dead. Review of the facility's SRI revealed the facility concluded the allegation of neglect was substantiated on 06/10/24. The facility's review of video and video audio on 05/24/24 from 5:00 P.M. to midnight showed the DON failed to assess, monitor, and timely notify the physician of Resident #15's change in condition. The DON stated, He is transitioning and discusses the inability to obtain blood pressure and he was shaking. The facility substantiated the allegation of neglect and concluded the DON did not adequately assess, monitor, and timely notify the physician of Resident #15's change of condition which led to his death. Interview with STNA #34 on 06/03/24 at 10:30 A.M. revealed during the change of shift at approximately 6:00 P.M. on 05/24/24, she and STNA #58 found Resident #15 in severe distress, eyes wide open, grabbing at his chest, and he looked like he was having trouble breathing. They both went to the hall to get help and found the DON and she went into Resident #15's room. STNA #34 stated she found Resident #15 unresponsive and cold during the 11:00 P.M. to 11:30 P.M. rounds (the facility's video surveillance shows actual time was 11:54 P.M.) and alerted LPN #21 of Resident #15's condition. STNA #34 was unable to remember the last time she provided care to Resident #15 prior to finding Resident #15 unresponsive. Interview with Nurse Practitioner (NP) #75 on 06/03/24 at 1:30 P.M. confirmed there was no communication from the facility regarding Resident #15's change of condition at 6:00 P.M. or when staff found him unresponsive at 11:55 P.M. NP #75 confirmed any change of condition, including inability to obtain blood pressure, low oxygen saturation levels, difficulty breathing, or any signs of distress would indicate a need for notification of a physician. She would expect a nurse to provide an assessment of the condition of the resident if they were unable to obtain blood pressure, or if a concern for respiratory distress in a patient. Interview with the DON on 06/05/24 at 10:20 A.M. revealed that on 05/24/24 at around 6:00 P.M., she was called into Resident #15's room by STNAs because of concerns for respiratory distress. The DON verified she was unable to obtain blood pressure on Resident #15, using manual and automatic cuff after multiple attempts. The DON verified she did not perform a respiratory, neurological, cardiac, or pain assessment at that time. The DON verified she did not call the physician regarding Resident #15's change of condition and further verified that she did not call the responsible party regarding Resident #15. The DON verified that on the facility's video surveillance, she was the one at 6:10 P.M. speaking to LPN #21 and RN #62 regarding Resident #15 and stated, He's breathing almost like someone who is transitioning, that he is a full code, she did not have a reason to send to hospital, because he would come right back. Interview with STNA #58 on 06/05/24 at 1:00 P.M. revealed that on 05/24/24 at approximately 5:15 P.M., Resident #15 was complaining of coughing, to which she helped him set up in bed, provided water, and his meal tray, and he began to eat at that time. During change of shift on 05/24/24 at approximately 6:00 P.M. with oncoming STNA #34, they entered Resident #15's room to find him grasping at his chest with his hands, his eyes wide open, unresponsive to verbal stimulation and irregular breathing/holding breath. STNAs #34 and #58 immediately exited the room to find the DON, outside of his room. The DON began to talk to Resident #15 to which he did not respond. The DON directed STNA #58 to find his code status in the medical record. STNA #58 went to the nurses' station, found his medical record, and found his code status was a full code, and ran back to tell the DON. STNA #58 told the DON he was a full code and proceeded to find vital sign equipment. The pulse oximeter was applied to the finger of Resident #15 and his oxygen saturation was 76 percent (%). STNA #58 stated the resident's oxygen saturation never was normal (normal is 96 to 100%) and it stayed in the 70's range. Resident #15 had oxygen on via nasal cannula and they were unable to obtain blood pressure with wrist cuff. STNA #58 left the room shortly after, around the same time as the DON, and continued walking rounds with STNA #34. Interview with RN #62 on 06/05/24 at 1:30 P.M. revealed she was giving report to LPN #21 on 05/24/24 at approximately 6:00 P.M. when she was told Resident #15 was in distress and the DON was handling it. RN #62 stated she was under the understanding it was an emergency with Resident #15. The DON came to the nursing desk shortly after beginning shift report and was told Resident #15 was having respiratory issues and was unable to obtain blood pressure. RN #62 stated she asked the DON if Resident #15 needed to be sent to the hospital and was told by the DON the hospital will send him right back because his oxygen saturation was 97%. RN #62 verified she did not call the physician or assess Resident #15 at that time because she was transferring care to LPN #21. Attempts to interview LPN #21 during the investigation were unsuccessful. Interview with VPO #140 on 06/10/24 at 9:30 A.M. verified LPN #21 would not cooperate with the facility's investigation, and LPN #21 refused to provide a statement on 05/25/24 and would not return any of the facility's telephone calls to provide a statement. VPO #140 also verified LPN #21 worked for a staffing agency and the staffing agency reported LPN #21 would not return their telephone calls either and was uncooperative with the staffing agency's investigation. Review of the facility's video surveillance outside of Resident #15's room revealed the following events occurred beginning on 05/24/24 at 5:00 P.M. and ending on 05/25/24 at 12:17 A.M.: • From 5:02 P.M. to 5:13 P.M., a male's voice is heard coughing/yelling with inaudible communication. • At 5:14 P.M., a male's voice is heard coughing with inaudible communication. STNA #58 is seen bringing food trays down the hall and states, [Resident #15's first name] calm down, hold on then proceeds to deliver a food tray to another resident's room. Then STNA #58 proceeded to walk into Resident #15's room and Resident #15 stated Can't stop coughing. STNA #58 states I am going to pull you up, then there is inaudible conversation, then states, Do you want a drink, breath through your nose to get that oxygen. STNA #58 walks out of Resident #15's room at 5:17 P.M. • At 5:18 P.M., STNA #58 enters Resident #15's room with a food tray. STNA #58 tells Resident #15 that a nurse will come check on you and states she is not a nurse. STNA #58 leaves Resident #15's room and proceeds to deliver food trays to surrounding rooms until 5:20 P.M. and then leaves the hall with the food cart. • At 5:40 P.M., a male's voice is heard coughing with inaudible communication, and this is the last time that the male's voice is heard. • At 5:58 P.M., STNAs #34 and #58 can be seen entering Resident #15's room and parts of a conversation are heard including a female's voice asking Resident #15 You, ok?' and tells him to breathe through his nose multiple times. No male voice is heard. • At 5:59 P.M., STNA #34 enters a room across the hall from Resident #15 and the DON exits the same room and proceeds into Resident #15's room. • At 6:00 P.M., STNA #58 exits Resident #15's room and walks down to the nurses' station. STNA #58 is seen running from the nurses' station to Resident #15's room, and a female's voice is heard saying, he does not have a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order and form. • At 6:01 P.M., the DON leaves Resident #15's room and goes to the nurse's station. • At 6:01 P.M., STNA #58 removes the tray from Resident #15's room and states I don't know what's happening. • At 6:02 P.M., the DON and STNA #58 are seen outside Resident #15's room, and the DON states he has mesothelioma and lung cancer. STNA #58 leaves Resident #15's room, enters room across the hall, then leaves and proceeds to walk down to the nurse's station. • At 6:03 P.M., STNA #58 returns to Resident #15's room with a blood pressure cuff in her hand. • At 6:06 P.M., the DON and STNA #58 are seen exiting Resident #15's room. • At 6:07 P.M., the DON is seen entering Resident #15's room with a blood pressure cuff in her hand. • At 6:10 P.M., the DON is seen exiting Resident #15's room with a blood pressure cuff in her hand, and a female's voice is heard saying, I can't get blood pressure. • At 6:12 P.M., the DON is seen leaving off unit. • From 6:10 P.M. to 7:33 P.M., no staff enter Resident #15's room. • At 7:34 P.M., LPN #21 enters Resident #15's room and talks to the two family members that arrived at 7:32 P.M. • At 7:37 P.M., LPN #21 leaves Resident #15's room. • From 7:38 P.M. to 11:55 P.M., LPN #21 did not enter Resident #15's room. • At 11:54 P.M., STNA #34 enters Resident #15's room and remains in the room for a full minute before exiting and stands at the door and waits for LPN #21. LPN #21 reaches STNA #34 at Resident #15's door and states I don't know why he's so cold. LPN #21 states The room is cold? They both enter Resident #15's room at 11:55 P.M. STNA #34 is heard stating He's dead and LPN #21 states Yeah. • At 11:55:59 P.M., LPN #21 exits Resident #15's room stating, And he is a full code and no hospice. LPN #21 walks to the nurse's station and you can hear the bed in Resident #15's room being moved. • At 11:56 P.M., LPN #21 reaches the nurse's station and sits there. • At 11:57 P.M., STNA #34 exits Resident #15's room carrying a gown and states something to LPN #21 that was inaudible. LPN #21, STNA #34 and STNA #103 have a conversation at the nurse's station. • At 11:59 P.M., STNA #103 leaves the nurse's station. • At 12:00 A.M., LPN #21 makes a telephone call (to the DON) and states Our guy just passed away. I wanted to send him out but .he is a full code .I can't even get him out of the bed. He is dead weight. I can't get him on the floor. Okay, I'm calling to let you know .I will start CPR and I will yell across the room for the next nurse to call 9-1-1. LPN #21 got louder and said I already verified [DON's name]. You knew his situation when you left here. I already verified he was dead, and I called you .Why are you yelling at me .I was at the assisted living (AL) unit, you had me working at AL .I will go in and do CPR. You call the other nurse. LPN #21 is off the telephone and makes comments to STNA #34 before she leaves the nurses station stating Don't act like it's an emergency now. You knew the situation. • At 12:02 A.M., LPN #21 sends STNA #34 to tell the long-term care (LTC) nurse (LPN #56) to call 911. LPN #21 then starts down the hall walking. She turns back around towards the nurse's station and sits down again. • At 12:03 A.M., LPN #56 arrives at the nurse's station and enters Resident #15's room at 12:03 A.M. LPN #56 can be heard doing compressions as the bed squeaks with each compression. • At 12:04:34 A.M., LPN #21 is seen walking up to Resident #15's room with the crash cart. As she enters the room, LPN #21 asks LPN #56 Do we have a backboard?. The backboard can be seen on the back of the crash cart by the camera. STNA #34 states I don't know. LPN #56 asks LPN #21 if she has called 911. LPN #21 replies Yeah. LPN #56 asks LPN #21, Has the responsible parties been notified? LPN #21's replies You don't have to do all that. LPN #56 states, He is a full code. Yes, we do. LPN #21 states, I'm not saying you don't have to do CPR. I'm saying doing it in the bed its ineffective. LPN #21 asks Where is the backboard? LPN #56 yells back, I don't know. We don't have one. You are in a nursing home. Noises can be heard coming from the room but not distinguishable. LPN #56 states Help me get him on the floor. LPN #21 states There should be a backboard. LPN #56 repeats, I need some help. Are you kidding me? This is someone's life here. Give me the attitude later. LPN #21 is heard stating, I need to start my rounds. • From 12:10 A.M. to 12:17 A.M., EMS arrives, takes over CPR for Resident #15, and transports Resident #15 to the hospital. Review of the facility's video surveillance of the nurse's station revealed the following events occurred beginning on 05/24/24 at 6:00 P.M. and ending on 05/24/24 at 6:10 P.M.: • At 6:00 P.M., a female's voice is heard saying Oh my goodness. STNA #58 is seen looking at a resident's chart, and places it on the desk. • At 6:01 P.M., the DON is seen looking at the same chart on the desk. • At 6:05 P.M., RN #62 picks up the telephone and states there was an emergency down the hall, someone will be down. STNA #34 and STNA #148 at the nurses' station have conversations. • At 6:06 P.M., RN #62 is heard talking to a female voice. The voice stated He is moving, he is twitching, he is not (inaudible conversation); he is wide eyed. Multiple conversations are heard at the nurse's station. STNA #58 is now at the nurse's station. • From 6:06 P.M. to 6:10 P.M., multiple conversations at the nurse's station are heard, with STNAs #34, #58, #148, RN #62 and LPN #21. • At 6:10 P.M., a female voice is heard saying Can't get a blood pressure ., (inaudible conversation); He is wide eyed, he's almost like someone who is transitioning, that's what it is, he is a full code. RN #62 says Send him, and the DON says, He will come right back. Review of the facility policy titled Resident Condition Changes dated 04/01/23 revealed the nurse will contact the resident's physician immediately when any resident has perceived a change in condition. An assessment will be made by the nurse prior to the phone call so the nurse is prepared to discuss condition change. A change of condition includes but is not limited to changes in physical or mental status. The nurse will document condition change and physical/responsible party contact information in nurses' notes. Review of the facility policy titled Abuse dated 01/31/20 revealed residents have the right to be free from abuse, neglect, exploitation and misappropriation of resident property. It is the facility policy to investigate all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment. The policy further defines neglect as the failure of the facility, its employee, or facility service to provide goods and services necessary to avoid physical harm, pain, mental anguish or emotional distress. The facility policy defines abuse to include the deprivation by an individual, including a caretaker of goods or services that are necessary to attain or maintain physical, mental and psychosocial well-being. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00154334.
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

Deficiency F0678 (Tag F0678)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on closed medical record review, review of the facility's video surveillance, staff interviews, review of the facility's S...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on closed medical record review, review of the facility's video surveillance, staff interviews, review of the facility's Self-Reported Incident (SRI) and investigation, review of the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) run report, review of the facility policy, and review of the American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines, the facility failed to timely initiate Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) or contact EMS timely for one resident (#15), who was found unresponsive, without a pulse or respirations, and who was identified as a Full Code status. In addition, once initiated, the facility failed to provide adequate CPR techniques for Resident #15. This resulted in Real and Present Danger, serious life-threatening harm, and ultimate death when Resident #15 did not receive CPR for nine minutes after he was discovered with no vital signs, EMS was not contacted for assistance until ten minutes after the resident was discovered, and when CPR was initiated, staff performed chest compressions while Resident #15 remained in the bed, without a backboard present, which lessoned the overall effectiveness of chest compressions. This affected one (Resident #15) of three (#15, #55, and #56) residents reviewed for death in the facility. The facility census was 47. On [DATE] at 4:47 P.M., the Administrator, the Director of Nursing (DON), [NAME] President of Operations #140 and Clinical Director #143 were notified Real and Present Danger began on [DATE] at 11:55 P.M. when the facility failed to immediately initiate CPR for Resident #15 who was a full code and was found unresponsive and without vital signs. State Tested Nursing Aide (STNA) #34 and Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #21 found Resident #15 dead on [DATE] at 11:55 P.M. LPN #21 was heard stating Resident #15 was a Full Code and not hospice services on the facility's video surveillance. At 11:56 P.M., LPN #21 leaves Resident #15's room and sits at the nursing station and does not make any telephone calls until 12:00 A.M. On [DATE] at 12:00 A.M., LPN #21 telephones the DON to report Resident #15 has deceased , and LPN #21 is reluctant to initiate CPR. At 12:03 A.M., LPN #56 initiates CPR on Resident #15 and completes CPR on Resident #15's bed without a backboard present. At 12:04 A.M., EMS were contacted by LPN #21. LPN #56 continued with CPR until EMS arrives at 12:10 A.M. The Real and Present Danger was removed on [DATE] when the facility implemented the following corrective actions: • On [DATE] at 12:17 A.M., EMS transported Resident #15 to the hospital and the emergency room pronounced Resident #15 dead at 12:50 A.M. • On [DATE], Clinical Director #143 submitted their initial SRI. • On [DATE], the facility held an ad-hoc Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee meeting to discuss and identify the problem and complete a root cause analysis. • On [DATE], the DON and LPN #93 educated all 16 licensed nurses regarding verification of the resident's code status and when the nurse should complete CPR. Education will be provided to all agency licensed nurses upon their next scheduled shift by the DON/designee. The education included advance directive specifics (Full Code, Do Not Resuscitate Comfort Care Arrest (DNRCCA), and Do Not Resuscitate Comfort Care (DNRCC)), physician required pronouncement of death and steps to performing a code/providing CPR according to AHA guidelines as well as location of crash carts and the supplies/equipment necessary to perform resuscitative measures. • On [DATE], the DON and LPN #93 verified all 16 licensed nurses had active CPR certification. • On [DATE], the DON, LPN #93 and Clinical Director #143 conducted an audit on all 46 residents' advance directive. The Advance Directive state forms, physician orders, and care plans were audited to ensure all were consistent throughout the medical record. • On [DATE], the DON and LPN #93 completed an audit of the facilities crash carts. The equipment and supplies were present on the two crash carts in the facility. • Beginning on [DATE], mock codes will be conducted to ensure staff proficiency as well as CPR is performed according to AHA guidelines. Mock codes will be conducted three times weekly to include both licensed nurse shifts as well as nine staff questionnaires weekly regarding understanding of the Advanced Directive policy. Mock codes and questionnaires will be coordinated to include licensed nurses provided by the staffing agency. Both mock codes and questionnaires will be performed at minimum for four weeks by the DON and/or designee. Audit findings will be presented to the QAPI Committee weekly for recommendations. • On [DATE], Clinical Director #143 educated all 14 therapists (physical, occupational, and speech) regarding advance directive specifics (Full Code, DNRCCA, and DNRCC) as well as the required response to identifying a resident experiencing a potential life-threatening event. Education was also provided regarding potential for participation in code events whether CPR certified or not. • On [DATE], the facility reported LPN #21 to the Ohio Board of Nursing and to the local police for failure to initiate CPR on a resident whose code status was Full Code. Although the Real and Present Danger was removed on [DATE], the facility remained out of compliance at Severity Level 2 (no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not Real and Present Danger) as the facility is still in the process of implementing their corrective action plan and monitoring to ensure on-going compliance. Findings include: Review of the closed medical record for Resident #15 revealed an admission date of [DATE]. Diagnoses included atrial fibrillation, mesothelioma, and respiratory failure with hypoxia. Resident #15 died at the emergency room on [DATE] at 12:50 A.M. Review of the five-day Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #15 had intact cognition. Review of the physician orders for Resident #15 revealed an order dated [DATE] for the resident to be a full code. Review of Resident #15's progress notes dated [DATE] at 11:40 P.M. (per video surveillance the time was 11:54 P.M.) revealed LPN #21 was notified by State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) #34 to come to the residents' room to assess. Resident #15 was found laying in bed unresponsive. No signs of breathing noted. LPN #21 attempted to move the resident from the bed to the floor but was unable to. The DON was notified. The crash cart was moved from behind the nurses' station to the resident's room. Staff nurse (LPN #56) continues CPR, with no back board noted. LPN #21 expressed concern of doing ineffective CPR. CPR continues until EMS arrived on scene. Review of the facility's video surveillance outside of Resident #15's room revealed the following events occurred beginning on [DATE] at 11:54 P.M. and ending on [DATE] at 12:17 A.M.: • At 11:54 P.M., STNA #34 enters Resident #15's room and remains in the room for a full minute before exiting and stands at the door and waits for LPN #21. LPN #21 reaches STNA #34 at Resident #15's door and states I don't know why he's so cold. LPN #21 states the room is cold? They both enter Resident #15's room at 11:55 P.M. STNA #34 is heard stating He's dead and LPN #21 states yeah. • At 11:55:59 P.M., LPN #21 exits Resident #15's room stating, And he is a full code and no hospice. LPN #21 walks to the nurse's station and you can hear the bed in Resident #15's room being moved. • At 11:56 P.M., LPN #21 reaches the nurse's station and sits there. • At 11:57 P.M., STNA #34 exits Resident #15's room carrying a gown and states something to LPN #21 that was inaudible. LPN #21, STNA #34 and STNA #103 have a conversation at the nurse's station. • At 11:59 P.M., STNA #103 leaves the nurse's station. • At 12:00 A.M., LPN #21 makes a telephone call (to the DON) and states Our guy just passed away. I wanted to send him out, but .he is a full code .I can't even get him out of the bed. He is dead weight. I can't get him on the floor. OK I'm calling to let you know .I will start CPR and I will yell across the room for the next nurse to call 9-1-1. LPN #21 got louder and said I already verified [DON's name]. You knew his situation when you left here. I already verified he was dead, and I called you .Why are you yelling at me .I was at the assisted living (AL) unit, you had me working at AL .I will go in and do CPR. You call the other nurse . LPN #21 is off the telephone and makes comments to STNA #34 before she leaves the nurses station stating Don't act like it's an emergency now. You knew the situation. • At 12:02 A.M., LPN #21 sends STNA #34 to tell the long-term care (LTC) nurse (LPN #56) to call 911. LPN #21 then starts down the hall walking. She turns back around towards the nurse's station and sits down again. • At 12:03 A.M., LPN #56 arrives at the nurse's station and states He is a full code honey as she is talking on the telephone and asking where the crash cart is. We need to do CPR, and someone needs to call 911. STNA #34 returns and is talking to LPN #21 while she is sitting at the nurse's station. LPN #56 is still on the telephone, asks, Where is he at? STNA #34 follows and states, that one and points to Resident #15's room. LPN #56 enters Resident #15's room at 12:03 A.M. LPN #56 is heard saying I am. I am. I am. LPN #56 can be heard doing compressions as the bed squeaks with each compression. • At 12:04 A.M., STNA #34 enters Resident #15's room. LPN #56 is heard saying His name is [First name of Resident #15] what? STNA #34 steps out of the room and looks at the name plate and states [Resident #15's first and last name]. STNA #34 asks LPN #56 You called 911, right?. LPN #56 states, We still have to do CPR. • At 12:04:34 A.M., LPN #21 is seen walking up to Resident #15's room with the crash cart. As she enters the room, LPN #21 asks LPN #56 Do we have a backboard?. The backboard can be seen on the back of the crash cart by the camera. STNA #34 states I don't know. LPN #56 asks LPN #21 if she has called 911. LPN #21 replies Yeah. LPN #56 asks LPN #21, Has the responsible parties been notified? LPN #21's replies You don't have to do all that. LPN #56 states, He is a full code. Yes, we do. LPN #21 states, I'm not saying you don't have to do CPR. I'm saying doing it in the bed its ineffective. LPN #21 asks Where is the backboard? LPN #56 yells back, I don't know. We don't have one. You are in a nursing home. Noises can be heard coming from the room but not distinguishable. LPN #56 states Help me get him on the floor. LPN #21 states There should be a backboard. LPN #56 repeats, I need some help. Are you kidding me? This is someone's life here. Give me the attitude later. LPN #21 is heard stating, I need to start my rounds. • At 12:10 A.M, EMS arrives and STNA #34 escorts EMS to Resident #15's room. Code verification asked of nurses. Both nurses respond, He is a full code. • At 12:17 A.M., EMS is seen transporting Resident #15 out of the room. Review of the facility submitted SRI revealed an allegation of neglect was made known on [DATE]. The involved resident was identified as Resident #15, and the alleged perpetrator was LPN #21. The date of occurrence was indicated to be [DATE] and the SRI's initial report was noted to have been submitted on [DATE]. The SRI's summary of the incident revealed on [DATE] at 12:00 A.M., LPN #21 contacted the DON to inform her Resident #15 had expired. The DON questioned LPN #21 if CPR had been conducted and LPN #21 stated no. The DON directed LPN #21 to initiate CPR in which the LPN was reluctant to initiate. The DON hung up the telephone and called LPN #56 to initiate CPR on Resident #15. The facility's investigation determined there was a delay and reluctancy to initiate CPR on Resident #15. Review of LPN #56's undated witness statement revealed on [DATE] at 12:02 A.M., LPN #56 was notified by the DON to go to the skilled unit because Resident #15 was in cardiac arrest and a full code. LPN #56 immediately went to the skilled unit and LPN #21 was sitting at the nurse's station. LPN #56 went into Resident #15's room, and Resident #15 was gray, no sign of rise and fall from chest, mouth open and no verbal/non-verbal response when she spoke his name. LPN #56 started CPR and shouted out for the nurse (LPN #21) to assist with CPR. LPN #21 entered the room and began to argue regarding the position of the resident that he was in a bed and that CPR would be ineffective. LPN #56 stated CPR should have been started until the resident could be placed on a flat/firm surface and continued to provide CPR compressions after a count of 20 compressions. Review of STNA #34's undated witness statement revealed on [DATE] at about 11:00 to 11:30 P.M. (actual time was 11:54 P.M. per video surveillance), STNA #34 found Resident #15 unresponsive and called LPN #21. LPN #21 called the DON and EMS. LPN #21 asked STNA #34 to call the other nurse, LPN #56. LPN #56 and STNA #34 got Resident #15 on the floor and the nurses did CPR before the squad came. Review of the DON's witness statement dated [DATE] revealed she received a telephone call from LPN #21 at midnight on [DATE] stating Resident #15 had died. The DON asked for a statement of her involvement in the code. LPN #21 stated she had not initiated the code. The DON stated Resident #15 was a full code and she needed to get off the telephone and initiate CPR. The DON repeated to LPN #21 to get off the telephone. LPN #21 continued to argue with the DON. The DON raised her voice and told LPN #21 to get off the telephone and go do CPR. The DON immediately called LPN #56 on the long-term hall and told LPN #56 there was a code in the building in [Resident #15]'s room and needed her to help as LPN #21 had not initiated the code. The DON was on the telephone until LPN #21 was in the room initiating compressions. Review of the EMS run report dated [DATE] revealed EMS received the call on [DATE] at 12:04 A.M. Resident #15 was transported to the local hospital and provided with advanced life support interventions by EMS. Interview with STNA #34 on [DATE] at 10:30 A.M. revealed she found Resident #15 cold and non-responsive and alerted LPN #21 of his status. STNA #34 verified LPN #21 did not initiate any life saving measures including CPR, and CPR was initiated by LPN #56 once she arrived on the unit. Interview with the DON on [DATE] at 1:00 P.M. confirmed she received a telephone call on [DATE] at 12:00 A.M. from LPN #21. LPN #21 told her Resident #15 had died. The DON stated she told LPN #21 to go start CPR and call 911, to which LPN #21 refused. LPN #21 continued to refuse to start CPR, so the DON hung up the telephone, and she called LPN #56 at 12:02 A.M. to go to the skilled unit and start CPR on Resident #15. Interview with Nurse Practitioner (NP) #75 on [DATE] at 1:30 P.M. confirmed there was no communication from the facility regarding Resident #15's change of condition, emergency services, CPR and/or Resident #15's death. NP #75 confirmed she met Resident #15 on [DATE] and during Resident #15's assessment, Resident #15 requested to be a full code. NP #75 confirmed CPR should have been initiated immediately when LPN #21 found Resident #15 unresponsive without vital signs. Interview with the DON on [DATE] at 10:30 A.M. verified that facility policy and standard adult CPR was 30 compressions to two breaths ratio, and LPN #56 did compressions of 20 and a pulse check which were not within the guidelines of the correct performance of CPR. The DON verified the backboard was present on the crash cart on [DATE] at 12:04 A.M. and LPN #56 should have utilized the backboard when completing CPR on Resident #15. Interview with LPN #56 on [DATE] at 11:43 A.M. revealed she received a telephone call from the DON on [DATE] at 12:02 A.M to go start CPR on Resident #15 who was a full code because LPN #21 refused to start CPR. When she arrived at the skilled unit, both LPN #21 and STNA #34 were at the nurse's station. LPN #56 was directed to the residents' room at approximately 12:04 A.M., where she found Resident #15 and he was gray, he had no sign of rise and fall from his chest, mouth open and no verbal/non-verbal response when she spoke his name. LPN #56 verified she began compressions on Resident #15 while in bed with no backboard and no backboard was used for the entirety of CPR. LPN #56 verified she provided CPR to Resident #15 with 20 compressions and then would check for a pulse. LPN #56 verified she provided CPR to Resident #15 until the medics arrived and took over. Attempts to interview LPN #21 during the investigation were unsuccessful. Interview with the [NAME] President of Operations (VPO) #140 on [DATE] at 9:30 A.M. verified LPN #21 would not cooperate with the facility's investigation, and LPN #21 refused to provide a statement on [DATE] and would not return any of the facility's telephone calls to provide a statement. VPO #140 also verified LPN #21 worked for a staffing agency and the staffing agency reported LPN #21 would not return their telephone calls either and was uncooperative with the staffing agency's investigation. Review of the facility policy titled Adult CPR dated [DATE] revealed to provide high-quality CPR per AHA Basic Life Support guidelines, a licensed staff member who was certified in CPR/BLS (basic life support) shall initiate two rescue breaths after 30 compressions, continue at 30 to two ratio. Review of the AHA guidelines dated [DATE] revealed the AHA urged all potential rescuers to immediately start CPR unless a valid DNR order was in place or there were obvious clinical signs of irreversible death present (e.g., rigor mortis, dependent lividity, decapitation, transection, or decomposition) or initiating CPR could cause injury or peril to the rescuer. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00154334.
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 medical record review, staff interviews, review of the facility's Self-Reported Incidents (SRI), and policy review, the...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, staff interviews, review of the facility's Self-Reported Incidents (SRI), and policy review, the facility failed to timely report allegations of neglect to the State Survey Agency and Local Law Enforcement. This affected one (Resident #15) of three residents reviewed for abuse and neglect. The facility census was 47 residents. Findings include: Review of the closed medical record for Resident #15 revealed an admission date of [DATE]. Diagnoses included atrial fibrillation, mesothelioma (an aggressive and rare form of cancer that usually occurs in the thin layer of tissue that lines the lungs or the abdomen), and respiratory failure with hypoxia. Resident #15 died on [DATE] at 12:50 A.M. at the emergency room. Review of the physician orders for Resident #15 revealed an order dated [DATE] for the resident to be a full code. Review of Resident #15's medical record revealed there was no documentation of a blood pressure reading or the inability to obtain blood pressure. There was no documentation that the physician was notified of Resident #15's change in condition. There was no documentation of a respiratory assessment, neurological assessment, pain assessment, or cardiac assessment completed after the Director of Nursing (DON) was alerted by State Tested Nursing Aides (STNAs) #34 and #58 of Resident #15's change of condition at 6:00 P.M. Review of the progress note dated [DATE] at 7:00 P.M. revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #21 documented Resident #15 was in respiratory distress when this nurse arrived to report for shift. The DON was in the room with the resident. The DON reported all vitals within normal limits and does not see any need to send the resident out to the hospital when the day shift nurse recommended to send him to the hospital. There was no documentation of vital signs, notification of physician, no documentation of respiratory assessment, neurological assessment, pain assessment, or cardiac assessment completed by LPN #21. Review of the facility's SRI control number 248014 revealed the initial report was filed to the State Survey Agency on [DATE] for an allegation of neglect that occurred on [DATE] at 12:00 A.M. The facility did not report the allegation of neglect to Local Law Enforcement until [DATE]. The SRI's summary of the incident revealed on [DATE] at 12:00 A.M., LPN #21 contacted the DON to inform her Resident #15 had expired. The DON questioned LPN #21 if Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) had been conducted and LPN #21 stated no. The DON directed LPN #21 to initiate CPR in which the LPN was reluctant to initiate. The DON hung up the telephone and called LPN #56 to initiate CPR on Resident #15. The facility's investigation determined there was a delay and reluctancy to initiate CPR on Resident #15 and substantiated the allegation of neglect. Review of the facility's SRI control number 248354 revealed the facility initially reported to the State Survey Agency on [DATE] for an allegation of neglect that was reported on [DATE]. The facility initiated an investigation on [DATE]. The facility did not report the allegation of neglect to the Local Law Enforcement until [DATE]. The allegation of neglect was substantiated on [DATE]. The facility's review of video and video audio on [DATE] from 5:00 P.M. to midnight showed the DON failed to assess, monitor, and timely notify the physician of Resident #15's change in condition. The DON stated, He is transitioning and discusses the inability to obtain blood pressure and he was shaking. The facility substantiated the allegation of neglect and concluded the DON did not adequately assess, monitor, and timely notify the physician of Resident #15's change of condition which led to his death. Interview on [DATE] at 1:00 P.M. with the DON confirmed she received a phone call on [DATE] at 12:00 A.M. from LPN #21 and told her Resident #15 had died. The DON stated she told LPN #21 to go start CPR and call 911, to which LPN #21 refused. LPN #21 continued to refuse to start CPR, so the DON hung up the telephone, and she called LPN #56 at 12:02 A.M. to go to the skilled unit and start CPR on Resident #15. The DON verified the facility did not report the allegation of neglect for delay and reluctancy to initiate CPR on Resident #15 to the State Survey Agency immediately and did not report it until [DATE]. Interview on [DATE] at 3:30 P.M. with Clinical Director #143 verified the facility did not report the allegation of neglect of Resident #15 by the DON to the State Survey Agency and Local Law Enforcement until the day after ([DATE]) the facility was made aware of an Immediate Jeopardy in neglect ([DATE]). Review of the facility policy titled Accident or Incident Reporting dated [DATE] revealed accidents and incidents are to be promptly and thoroughly reviewed and investigated. Any reasonable cause to believe that a resident has suffered abuse or neglect is to be reported to the Ohio Department of Health (ODH) thought the Enhanced Information Dissemination Collection (EIDC) portal. Review of the facility policy titled Abuse dated [DATE] revealed if the event that caused the allegation involves an allegation of abuse or serious bodily injury, it should be reported to the ODH no later than two hours after the allegation is made. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00154334.
Aug 2023 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to timely notify residents and responsib...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to timely notify residents and responsible parties of a change in condition. This affected two (#10 and #80) of three residents reviewed for wounds. The facility census was 47. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #10's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility with 06/02/23 with diagnoses that include chronics respiratory failure, pneumothorax, need for assistance with personal care, and chronic venous hypertension with ulcer of the left lower extremity. Review of the weekly wound tracking logs for July and August 2023 for Resident #10 revealed on 07/07/23 Resident #10 had a stage two pressure ulcer (partial-thickness skin loss with exposed dermis) to the left buttocks that resolved on 07/14/23. Further review revealed Resident #10 had a stage two pressure ulcer on the coccyx beginning 07/24/23 and continued until 08/11/23 when the wound healed. On 08/18/23, Resident #10 was again documented to have a stage two pressure ulcer on the coccyx. Review of physician orders revealed Resident #10 was prescribed to have the left buttocks wound cleansed with normal saline, pat dry, and apply a dry dressing every Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday for wound care dated 07/06/23. Review of Resident #10's medical record revealed Resident #10's skin changes and physician orders related to her wounds were not documented as communicated with Resident #10 or the resident's responsible party. 2. Review of Resident #80's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including diabetes type two, anxiety, sepsis, and morbid obesity. Review of weekly wound tracking logs for July and August 2023 revealed Resident #80 had moisture associated skin dermatitis on the coccyx on 08/04/23. On 08/11/23, Resident #80 was assessed with an unstageable wound (obscured full-thickness skin and tissue loss) to the coccyx. On 08/18/23, Resident #80 was assessed to have a stage three pressure ulcer (full-thickness skin loss) to the coccyx and a stage two pressure ulcer to the right heel. Review of Resident #80's physician orders revealed Resident #80 was ordered zinc cream to wounds on the coccyx every shift dated 07/23/23, orders for wound care to the coccyx wound dated 07/28/23 and 08/09/23, and orders for treatment to Resident #80's right heel wound on 07/28/23 and 08/18/23. Review of Resident #80's medical record revealed Resident #80's skin changes and physician orders related to the wounds were not documented as communicated with Resident #80 or the resident's responsible party. Interview with Regional Director of Clinical Services (RDCS) #256 on 08/23/23 at 10:25 A.M. confirmed there was no resident or responsible party notification documented regarding the wounds and the wound care provided to Resident #10 and Resident #80. Review of a policy titled, Resident Condition Changes, last revised 04/01/23, revealed a change in condition includes but is not limited to change in physical or mental status, refusal of medications or treatment, a need to alter treatment, an accident, need to transfer or discharge, development of wounds or other new condition, inability to provide an ordered medication or treatment, or laboratory or radiology results. The nurse will also notify the resident's responsible party of a condition change. If resident is responsible for self, that is the person who should be notified. Documentation will be completed in nurses' notes. The nurse will document condition change and physician/responsible party contact information in nurses' notes. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00145227.
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 and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure resident care conferences were held with resid...

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 conferences were held with residents and resident representatives to allow for input into the resident's plan of care. This affected two (#60 and #90) of six residents reviewed for care planning conferences. The facility census was 47. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident # 60's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses include occlusion and stenosis of carotid artery, dysphagia, aphasia, chronic kidney disease, type two diabetes, and history of falling. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #60 was assessed with intact cognition. Further review of Resident #60's medical record revealed the facility had two care planning conferences since admission on [DATE] that were held on 06/30/22 and on 07/03/23. There was no documentation of the facility holding care planning conferences during quarterly review of Resident #60's care plan between 06/30/22 and 07/03/22. 2. Review of Resident #90's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included cerebral vascular accident, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, and hyperlipidemia. Review of the quarterly MDS 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #90 was assessed with cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #90's medical record revealed the facility held the two most recent care planning conferences on 05/02/22 and 08/17/23. There was no documentation of the facility holding care planning conferences during quarterly review of Resident #90's care plan between 05/02/22 and 08/17/23. Interview with Social Service Designee (SSD) #200 on 08/22/23 at 11:05 A.M. stated she had been at the facility for approximately two months, and confirmed she documented care conferences in the assessment tab of each resident's electronic health record. SSD #200 stated she did not know how care conferences were scheduled or implemented prior to her start of employment. Interview with the Administrator and the Director of Nursing (DON) on 08/22/23 at 11:30 A.M. confirmed the care conferences for Resident #60 and Resident #90 did not occur quarterly during review of the resident's plan of care. This deficiency represents non-compliance investigated under Complaint Number OH00145227.
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 F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, medical record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure resident medications were stored in a safe and secure manner. This affected one (#60) of one residents observed for medication storage. The facility census was 47. Findings include: Review of Resident # 60's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses include occlusion and stenosis of carotid artery, dysphagia, aphasia, chronic kidney disease, type two diabetes, and history of falling. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #60 was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #60's medication orders revealed Resident #60 was ordered the pain medication aspirin 81 milligrams (mg), the blood pressure medication metoprolol 12.5 mg, the stool softener Miralax 17 grams, the antidepressant Zoloft 50 mg, and the supplement vitamin D3 50 micrograms (mcg) scheduled daily between 6:00 A.M. and 9:00 A.M.; the supplement cranberry tablet 450 mg, the diuretic Lasix 40 mg, and the supplement potassium chloride 20 milliequivalents (mEq) scheduled daily between 7:00 A.M. and 10:00 A.M.; and the pain medication Tylenol 650 mg and the opioid pain medication tramadol 50 mg scheduled three times daily with the first dose scheduled between 7:00 A.M. and 10:00 A.M. Observation on 08/22/23 at 8:01 A.M., revealed Resident #60 with her eyes closed appearing to be asleep in her wheelchair with the over bed table in front of her. Resident #60 did not wake up when the Surveyor knocked on the door and called to the resident. A medication cup with unidentified medications in the cup was observed sitting on the over bed table in front of Resident #60. Registered Nurse (RN) #218 was brought to Resident #60's room on 08/22/23 at 8:02 A.M. and Resident #60 was still sitting in the wheelchair with the over bed table in front of her with the medication cup containing medication in front of her. Resident #60 continued to appear to be asleep. Interview on 08/22/23 at 8:02 A.M. with RN #218 during observation of Resident #60's room stated the medications in the cup on Resident #60's over bed table were the resident's morning medications. RN #218 verified she was not the staff member who provided Resident #60 her medications on that day, but stated she administered medications for Resident #60 in the past, and recognized the medications in the cup as what the resident was administered at morning medication pass. RN #218 verified medication should not be left in the room, and staff should observe the residents consuming the medications. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #203 on 08/22/23 at 8:08 A.M. confirmed she was the nurse who prepared Resident #60's medications the morning of 08/22/23, and verified she left the medications in Resident #60's room. LPN #60 stated she knew medication was not to be left at the bedside, but Resident #60 liked to take her medication with her breakfast, and breakfast had not been delivered to the hallway. Review of the policy titled, Medication Administration -General Guidelines, last revised on 12/2019 revealed medications are administered as prescribed in accordance with good nursing principles and practices and only by persons legally authorized to do so. Medications are administered only by licensed nursing, medical, pharmacy or other personnel authorized by state laws and regulations to administer medications. When medications are administered by mobile cart taken to the resident's location (room, dining area, etc.) medications are administered at the time they are prepared. Medications are not pre poured either in advance of the med pass or for more than one resident at a time. The resident is always observed after administration to ensure that the dose was completely ingested. If only a partial dose is ingested, this is noted on the medication administration record (MAR), and action is taken as appropriate.
May 2022 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 record review and interview the facility failed to ensure an advanced directive was signed by the physician on the hard...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure an advanced directive was signed by the physician on the hard chart. This affected one resident (#34) out of 18 residents reviewed for advanced directives. The facility census was 45. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #34 revealed an admission date of 04/09/22. Diagnoses included cognitive communication deficit, type II diabetes, atrial fibrillation, congenital myopathy, cirrhosis of the liver and emphysema. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #34 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating the resident was cognitively intact. Resident #34 required extensive assistance of two people for transfers, bed mobility, dressing, toileting, and bathing. Review of the Care Plan dated 04/11/22 revealed Resident #34 had a Do Not Resuscitate Comfort Care Arrest (DNRCCA) in place. Interventions included the facility would review code status annual and as needed (PRN). Review of the hard chart revealed the DNRCCA form only contained Resident #34's name at the top of the form. The DNRCCA form was missing Resident #34's address, date of birth , and the physicians signature. Interview on 05/23/22 at 2:17 P.M. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #351 verified the DNRCCA paperwork was not filled out for Resident #34. Interview on 05/24/22 at 11:38 A.M. Regional Nurse #361 verified once the DNR form was filled out it was placed in a folder for the physician to sign. The DNR form was then sent to Medical Records to be filed in the chart. Regional Nurse #361 stated the facility would try to find the signed form to present to the surveyor. Review of DNRCCA Form on 05/24/22 at 1:55 P.M. provided by the facility revealed the DNRCCA form for Resident #34 was signed by the physician on 05/23/22. Resident #34 was admitted on [DATE]. Review of facility policy titled, DNR Policy, dated 02/02/17, revealed the DNRCC/DNRCCA form or Full Code form would be signed by the resident and/or resident representative and the physician. The resident would be considered a Full Code until the physician could sign the form. The completed DNRCC form would be uploaded to the electronic medical record and a paper copy would be placed in the front of the hard chart.
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain a clean and sanitary environment. This affected two residents (#38 and #20) out of five residents reviewed for ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain a clean and sanitary environment. This affected two residents (#38 and #20) out of five residents reviewed for environment. The census was 45. Findings include: 1. Observation on 05/23/22 at 3:06 P.M. of Resident #38's room revealed the bed linens were visibly soiled. The fitted sheet covering the resident's mattress had areas of brown discoloration starting at the middle of the bed which continued to the foot of the bed. The spots appeared as fingerprints and smears. There were also brown particles, appearing as dirt, located on the fitted sheet. Observation on 05/24/22 at 1:28 P.M. of Resident #38's bed linens revealed the bed linens were unchanged from the previous observation on 05/23/22. The same brown discolorations spots were visible. Interview on 05/24/22 at 1:29 P.M. State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) #304 reported bed linens were changed when linens were dirty or on resident's scheduled shower days. STNA #304 verified Resident #38's bed linens were dirty and needed to be changed. 2. Observation on 05/23/22 at 10:26 A.M. of Resident #20's room revealed paper scraps, and debris on the floor of the kitchen, common area, bathroom and under the bed. There appeared to be food on the floor along the edge of the bed. Interview on 05/23/22 at 10:26 A.M. Resident #20 stated she had not seen anyone clean her room since she moved in. Interview on 05/24/22 at 2:27 P.M. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #312 verified the paper scraps and debris on the floor of the kitchen, common area, bathroom, and under the bed in Resident #20's room. Interview on 05/24/22 at 2:27 P.M. Housekeeping Supervisor #361 stated resident rooms were cleaned everyday by the end of the day. Review of facility undated policy titled, Monarch Skilled Nursing and Rehabilitation Policies and Procedures Manual, Daily Housekeeping, revealed purpose keeping rooms clean and orderly. Daily room cleaning protocol: sweep and mop under bed, furniture, and registers.
CONCERN (D)

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 interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to update a care plan for on...

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 update a care plan for one resident (#15) out of four residents reviewed for care planning. The facility census was 45. Findings include: Medical record review for Resident #15 revealed an admission date of 06/30/21 with diagnoses including but not limited to, dementia without behavioral disturbance, Parkinson's disease, obstructive and reflux uropathy, and repeated falls. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of nine, indicating Resident #15 was cognitively impaired. Resident #15 required extensive assistance of two people for Activities of Daily Living (ADLs). Review of the care plan dated 01/19/22 revealed Resident #15 was at risk for falls. Interventions included side rails to assist with bed mobility and positioning, perimeter mattress, non-skid footwear to be worn at all times, physical therapy to evaluate and treat, ensure walker was within reach, wheelchair seat tilted back, and wheelchair assessment. Observation on 05/23/22 at 3:06 P.M. revealed Resident #15 had a floor mat on the left side of the bed and the bed was against the wall. No side rails were observed on the bed. Resident #15 was sitting in a Broda chair watching television. Observation on 05/25/22 at 9:48 A.M. revealed Resident #15 was sitting in a reclined Broda chair in the common area. Resident #15 was wearing regular socks with no shoes. Resident #15 was not wearing non-slip footwear. A mechanical lift sling was observed underneath Resident #15. Interview on 05/25/22 at 12:53 P.M. The Director of MDS #366 verified Resident #15 no longer needed side rails on the bed, non-skid footwear, therapy evaluation (as this was in the past), wheelchair seat tilted back or wheelchair assessment, because the resident was changed to a Broda chair. The resident no longer used a walker because the resident no longer ambulated. The Director of MDS #366 verified the floor mat or having Resident #15's bed against the wall were not included in the care plan. Interview on 05/25/22 at 2:47 P.M. Regional Nurse #364 verified the facility did not have a policy regarding care plans. The facility followed the RAI (MDS) manual guidelines. Review of facility policy titled, Falls Policy and Procedures, revised 5/21/18, revealed the facility would develop interventions based upon the residents fall risk factors and individual needs and implement a falls care plan. The falls care plan would be reviewed quarterly and as needed and updated.
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 medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure fall interventions were utilized as identified...

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 fall interventions were utilized as identified in the plan of care. This affected one (#13) of four resident reviewed for falls. The census was 45. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #13 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses include hemiplegia, diabetes mellitus type two, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, bipolar, anxiety, depression, chronic kidney disease, and end stage renal disease. Review of the significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #13 was rarely to never understood. The resident was totally dependent of two people for bed mobility and transfers. Review of the fall risk assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #13 was at moderate risk for falls. Review of the plan of care, date initiated 10/05/20, revealed Resident #13 was at risk for falls and potential injury, related to incontinence, lack of coordination, a history of falls, poor balance, weakness, and right ankle fracture. The goal was to minimize potential risk factors related to falls. Interventions included fall mat in front of bed while resident is in bed, scoop mattress, mat on floor next to bed, and bed to be in the low position. Observation on 05/23/22 at approximately 3:00 P.M. revealed Resident #13 was in bed. Non-skid strips were observed on the floor next to the resident's bed. The bed was not in the low position and there was no floor mat next to or in front of the bed. Continued observation revealed the mattress was a regular mattress. Observation on 05/25/22 at 8:42 A.M. of Resident #13 revealed the resident was in bed, on a regular mattress with the call light in reach. Further observation revealed there was no fall matt next to or in front of the bed and the bed was not in the low position. The bed frame was observed to be approximately two and a half feet from ground level. Interview on 05/25/22 at 8:49 A.M. during an observation of Resident #13 with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), revealed the resident was at risk for falls. The ADON verified Resident #13 had no floor mat next to or in front of the bed, the bed was not in the lowest position, and the mattress was not a scoop mattress. The ADON verified fall interventions for Resident #13 were not being utilized as documented in the plan of care.
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

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 ensure an indwelling urinary catheter w...

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 ensure an indwelling urinary catheter was stabilized. This affected one resident (#4) out of of two residents reviewed for urinary catheter. The census was 45. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #4 revealed an admission date of 08/10/21. Diagnoses included sepsis, methicillin resistant staphylococcus bacteremia (MRSA), obstructive reflux uropathy, chronic osteomyelitis to right ankle and foot, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, hypertension, systolic congestive and diastolic congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, obstructive uropathy, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had impaired cognition. The resident required extensive assistance of two plus persons for bed mobility and transfers. The resident required one-person extensive assistance for dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene. The resident had an indwelling Foley catheter. Review of the Plan of Care dated 05/03/22 revealed the resident had alteration in elimination and had an indwelling Foley catheter due to a diagnosis of obstructive uropathy. Interventions included assess for abdominal distention, medications as ordered, monitor for signs/symptoms of urinary tract infection (UTI): elevated temperature, dysuria, flank pain, hematuria, foul smelling urine, report to physician to seek diagnosis and treatment promptly. Provide incontinence care as needed, change Foley catheter as ordered and as needed, Foley catheter care every shift and as needed, keep Foley catheter bag below the level of bladder, and provide hydration as prescribed. Review of physician orders dated 10/20/21 revealed an order for Foley catheter, continuous drainage 22 French with 30 milliliter (ml) balloon, due to a diagnosis of obstructive uropathy. Irrigate Foley catheter with 60 cubic centimeters (cc) normal saline as needed for possible blockage. Change 22 French urethral catheter every four weeks starting 12/14/21. Observation on 05/25/22 at 1:04 P.M. of Foley catheter care for Resident #4 provided by State Tested Nurse Aide (STNA) #365 revealed the resident did not have a stabilizer (strap hold the catheter tubing around the resident's leg) for the Foley tubing. The STNA stated he usually had a stabilizer in place. Interview on 05/25/22 at 1:20 P.M. the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #317 stated the Foley bag was changed 05/25/22 and she would look into it. Review of facility policy titled, Catheter Care, Urinary, revised date 09/14 revealed the facility would ensure catheters remained secure with a leg strap to reduce friction and movement at the insertion site. (Note: Catheter tubing should be strapped to the resident's inner thigh).
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 and staff interview, the facility failed to assess a resident upon return from dialysis. This aff...

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 assess a resident upon return from dialysis. This affected one resident (#38) out of one resident reviewed for dialysis. The census was 45. Findings include: Review of the medical record for Resident #38 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included chronic kidney disease stage four, noncompliance with medication regime, weakness, peripheral vascular disease, and diabetes mellitus type two Review of an the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had intact cognition. Resident #38 received dialysis at the facility within the last 14 days. Review of the plan of care dated 04/20/22, revealed Resident #38 received dialysis at a contracted dialysis center located in the community on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. Review of a document titled, Hemodialysis Communication Form, dated 05/10/22, 05/11/22, 05/13/22, 05/16/22, 05/18/22, and 05/20/22, revealed the facility utilized a document to communicate resident information with the dialysis center. The document included an assessment to be completed by the facility prior to dialysis, an assessment to be completed by the dialysis center pre and post dialysis, and an assessment to be completed by the facility upon return from dialysis. Continued review of the communication form revealed the assessment to be completed by the facility nurse upon return from dialysis included the resident's vital signs, and an assessment of the resident's status including cognition, pain, lung congestion, shortness of breath, and edema. Review of the communication forms revealed there was no assessment completed by a facility nurse upon Resident #38's return from dialysis. Further review of the medical record for Resident #38 revealed no evidence of a post dialysis assessment being completed by a facility nurse completed 05/10/22 through 05/20/22. Interview on 05/24/22 at 9:53 A.M. with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) revealed when a resident returned to the facility from dialysis, a nurse was to complete a post dialysis assessment. The ADON revealed the post dialysis assessment would be documented on the hemodialysis communication form and on the treatment record or medication administration record. The ADON verified the medical record for Resident #38 contained no evidence of a post dialysis assessment completed on 05/10/22, 05/11/22, 05/13/22, 05/16/22, 05/18/22, and 05/20/22 for Resident #38.
May 2019 7 deficiencies
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** Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to notify resident's representatives of transfer to the hospital....

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to notify resident's representatives of transfer to the hospital. This affected one (#36) resident of two reviewed for hospitalizations. The facility also failed to notify the Long- Term Care Ombudsman of transfers to the hospital. This affected two (#6 and #36) of two residents reviewed for hospitalizations. The facility census was 37. Findings include: 1. Resident #6 was admitted to the facility 10/25/18 with a diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, anxiety disorder, depression and shortness of breath. Resident #6 was admitted on [DATE] to a local hospice company after a brief stay in the hospital. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #6 had severe cognitive impairment. Her functional status was listed as supervise one person assist for all activities of daily living. Review of the progress note dated 05/11/19 revealed the resident was sitting her wheelchair in the common area and a nurse noticed she was a little shaky. Upon assessment her oxygen saturations were at 77 percent (%) on room air, temperature was 99.9 tympanic, blood pressure was 129/62, respirations were 24 and heart rate was 72. The resident was assisted into her bed and placed on oxygen via nasal cannula. Once in bed, the nurse attempted to auscultate the resident's heart rate. It was not audible due to wheezing and labored breathing. The resident's son arrived and the decision was made to send the resident to the local emergency room. Interview with the Business Office Manager (BOM) #54 on 05/19/19 at 12:43 P.M. revealed she did not notify the Long Term Care Ombudsman of the resident's transfer to the hospital. 2. Review of the closed record revealed Resident #36 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of acute and chronic respiratory failure, encephalopathy, epilepsy, anxiety, paralytic syndrome, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebrovascular disease affecting right dominant side with contractures. Review of the MDS dated [DATE] revealed Resident #36 was cognitively intact. His functional status is listed as extensive two person assist for all activities of daily living. Review of the progress note dated 04/09/19 revealed Resident #36 was sent out to the local hospital for possible pneumonia. Interview with BOM #54 confirmed no letter of transfer was sent to Resident #36's Power of Attorney or the Long Term Care Ombudsman.
CONCERN (D)

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** 3. Medical record review for Resident #35 revealed an admission date of 11/02/17. Medical diagnoses included diabetes, hemiplegi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Medical record review for Resident #35 revealed an admission date of 11/02/17. Medical diagnoses included diabetes, hemiplegia to left side for upper and lower extremities and end stage renal disease. Review of quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed he was cognitively intact. His functional status was supervision for bed mobility, transfer, and toilet use and he was independent for eating. Review of care conference meetings for Resident #35 revealed for the past year he had only one, which was held on 10/12/18 at 10:00 A.M. Interview with Resident #35 on 05/19/19 at 2:19 P.M. he had had a care conference recently. An interview conducted with the Administrator on 05/21/19 at 8:43 A.M. verified she was behind on the care conferences for the residents. Review of policy entitled Plan of Care Meeting dated 01/26/17 revealed all residents will have a care conference meeting scheduled at least every 90 days. The attendees should be, but limited to a therapist, program nursing, registered nurse, MDS nurse, activity director, aide, physician, dietary manager and dietician. Based on record review, resident and staff interview, and review of facility policy the facility failed to have quarterly care conferences for residents and failed to have the proper staff attend the care conferences. This affected three Residents (#7, #13, and #35) of 16 reviewed during the investigative phase of the survey. The facility census was 37. Findings include: 1. Resident #7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of acute osteomyelitis of right radius and ulna, type II diabetes mellitus, bipolar disorder, chronic pain syndrome, opioid dependence, chronic obstructive disease, skin graft infection and Stevens-Johnson Syndrome. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #7 was cognitively intact. His functional status was listed as independent for all transfers and ambulation. Interview with Resident #7 on 05/19/19 at 2:00 P.M. revealed the facility did not hold quarterly care conferences and he wished they would. He revealed the facility did not have a social worker in this facility. Interview with the Administrator on 05/21/19 at 9:00 A.M. confirmed she was behind on her care conferences and Resident #7's last care conference was held on 10/12/18. She also confirmed the proper disciplines were not involved. She only had herself, the resident, and a nurse during the care conference on 10/12/18. 2. Resident #13 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of pneumonia, acute respiratory failure, cellulitis of bilateral lower extremities, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and schizophrenia. Review of the quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed the resident had no cognitive impairment. Her functional status was listed as extensive two person assist for all activities of daily living. The resident needed a Hoyer lift for transfers. Interview with Resident #13 on 05/19/19 at 2:30 P.M. revealed the facility did not hold care conferences on a quarterly basis. She revealed it was sometime last year when her last conference was completed. Interview with the Administrator on 05/21/19 at 9:00 A.M. confirmed she was behind in her care conferences and Resident #13's last care conference was held on 10/11/18. She also confirmed the proper disciplines were not involved in the care conference.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0688 (Tag F0688)

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 resident and staff interview, the facility failed to follow recommendations for...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, observation, and resident and staff interview, the facility failed to follow recommendations for restorative therapy. This affected one (#35) of one resident for restorative therapy. The facility identified seven residents who currently receive restorative care. The census was 37 residents. Findings include: Medical record review for Resident #35 revealed an admission date of 11/02/17. Medical diagnoses included diabetes, hemiplegia to left side for upper and lower extremities and end stage renal disease. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed the resident was cognitively intact. His functional status was supervision for bed mobility, transfer, and toilet use and he was independent for eating. Review of discharge recommendations from Physical therapy (PT) dated 09/12/18 revealed ROM/strengthening of the left leg. Review of discharge recommendations from Occupational Therapy (OT) dated 11/01/18 revealed restorative for Range of Motion (ROM) and splinting for left hand. Review of progress notes, physician orders and restorative documentation from 09/12/18 through 12/31/18 for Resident #35 revealed the record was silent for restorative care. Interview with Resident #35 on 05/19/19 revealed he didn't wear his brace anymore on his left hand. He stated staff did not helping him with applying the brace and he couldn't apply the brace by himself. He denied exercises were done for his left leg. Interview with PT #52 on 05/21/19 at 9:41 A.M. revealed Resident #35 was seen for services through therapy. She stated he was seen for left sided impairment for upper and lower strengthening and provided a brace for him for his left hand. The recommendations from the therapy department was for him to have restorative care for his left hand for ROM and strengthening exercises and to utilize a brace. She stated for his leg he the recommendation was to perform ROM and strengthening exercises. S he stated this should have been done for 8-12 weeks and then he would go to functional maintenance. She stated this should have been tasked out to the aides taking care of the resident. Interview with Corporate Registered Nurse (CRN) #9 on 05/21/19 at 11:12 A.M. verified she couldn't find any evidence of the recommended therapy orders being implemented.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

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 interview, the facility failed to ensure physicians orders were followed to h...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, staff and resident interview, the facility failed to ensure physicians orders were followed to hold blood pressure medication for a resident prior to receiving dialysis. This affected one (#35) of one resident reviewed for dialysis. The facility identified two residents who attending dialysis off grounds. The census was 37. Findings include: Medical record review for Resident #35 revealed an admission date of 11/02/17. Medical diagnoses included diabetes, hemiplegia to left side for upper and lower extremities and end stage renal disease. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed the resident was cognitively intact. His functional status was supervision for bed mobility, transfer, and toilet use and he was independent for eating. Review of the care plan dated 11/08/17 revealed the resident needed dialysis due to renal failure. The intervention was to hold blood pressure medication on dialysis days. Review of progress note dated 03/27/19 at 10:10 P.M. revealed Resident #35 returned from dialysis with a new order from the nephrologist to hold all blood pressure medication on dialysis days. Review of physician orders dated 03/27/19 revealed Norvasc give 10 milligram (mg) by mouth one time a day. Further review revealed Metoprolol 50 mg give one tablet by mouth two times a day for hypertension dated 03/27/19. Review of physician orders dated 04/09/19 revealed to hold all blood pressure medications on days the resident went to dialysis. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) from 05/01/19 through 05/22/19 revealed dialysis participation was documented on 05/01/19, 05/03/19, 05/06/19, 05/08/19, 05/10/19, 05/13/19, 05/15/19,and 05/17/19. Further review of the MAR for revealed Resident #35 received Novasc 10 mg on 05/01/19, 05/06/19, 05/13/19, and 05/20/19. Further review of MAR revealed Metoprolol 50 mg was given on 05/01/19, 05/06/19, 05/08/19, 05/10/19, 05/13/19, 05/15/19, 05/17/19 and 05/22/19. Interview was conducted on 05/20/19 at 1:55 P.M. with the Director of Nursing (DON) who revealed sometimes Resident #35 wanted to take his medications before he went to dialysis. She verified Norvasc and Metoprolol were given to the resident on dialysis days even though the physician order indicated to not give them. An interview with Resident #35 was conducted on 05/20/19 at 3:10 P.M., the resident denied he requested to take his blood pressure medications on dialysis days.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0679 (Tag F0679)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, observations, resident and staff interviews and review of the activity calendar the facility fai...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, observations, resident and staff interviews and review of the activity calendar the facility failed to ensure an ongoing activity program was provided for the residents, failed to ensure there were activities provided in the evenings and also failed to ensure participation for activities were documented. This affected four (#13, #15, #32, and #35) of four residents reviewed during the annual survey for activities. The census was 37. Findings include: 1. Medical record review for Resident #35 revealed an admission date of 11/02/17. Medical diagnoses included diabetes, hemiplegia to left side for upper and lower extremities and end stage renal disease. Review of quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed he was cognitively intact. His functional status was supervision for bed mobility, transfer, and toilet use and he was independent for eating. Review of care plan dated 01/22/19 revealed he had little to no involvement in activities and was at risk for psychosocial well being decline. Interventions were to assist resident to plan leisure activities, determine feasibility of offering activities of interest that are not currently offered, engage resident in group activities, and visit resident at least one time a day with resident to develop or sustain contact using conversation. Interview with Resident #35 on 05/19/19 at 2:10 P.M. revealed activities were boring and the facility didn't have anything on the weekends or evenings. He said he told the activities director, but it didn't get better. Observation of Resident #35 on 05/19/19 at 2:28 P.M., 05/20/19 at 3:10 P.M. and on 05/21/19 at 1:00 P.M. revealed he was sitting in his room and there was no encouragement given from staff to participate in activities during these times. Review of activity calendar from 05/01/19 through 05/22/19 revealed it was silent for activities scheduled in the evening. Review of participation logs for Resident #35 from 01/01/19 through 05/22/19 revealed the facility couldn't produce any participation in activities for the resident. Interview with Activities Director (AD) #32 on 05/20/19 at 11:28 A.M. verified there wasn't activities in the evenings. She said the activity director left about three weeks ago. She verified the participation for the residents had not been documented. 2. Medical record review for Resident #32 revealed an admission date of 04/07/18. Medical diagnoses included heart failure, venous insufficiency, chronic lung disease and diabetes. Review of the quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed Resident #32 was cognitively intact. Functional status was supervision for bed mobility, limited assistance for toilet use and transfer and he was independent for eating. Observation of Resident #32 on 05/19/19 at 1:57 P.M., 05/20/19 at 7:32 A.M., on 05/20/19 at 10:27 A.M., and on 05/21/19 at 9:22 A.M. revealed he was sitting in his room and there was no staff encouragement given to participate in activities during these times. Interview with Resident #32 on 05/19/19 at 1:57 P.M. revealed there wasn't activities offered in the evenings for the residents. Interview with AD #32 on 05/20/19 at 11:28 A.M. verified there wasn't activities in the evenings. She said the activity director left about three weeks ago. She verified the participation for the residents had not been documented. 3. Resident #15 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of dementia with behavioral disturbance, macular degeneration, Alzheimer's disease, overactive bladder, legal blindness and depression. Review of the MDS dated [DATE] revealed severe cognitive impairment. Her functional status was listed as independent to supervise only for all activities of daily living. Resident #15 was occasionally incontinent of urine and always continent of bowel. Review of the care plan dated 04/01/19 revealed Resident #15 had feelings of sadness, emptiness, anxiety, uneasiness, depression characterized by ineffective coping, low self-esteem, tearfulness, motor agitation, withdrawal from care/activities related to brain deterioration and recent relocation. Interventions included to monitor/document for changes in hearing ability, and one on one activities. Observation of Resident #15 on 05/19/19 at approximately 11:00 A.M. revealed Resident #15 in her room with the door closed. Interview with the AD #32 on 05/20/19 at 11:28 A.M. revealed Resident #15 does not want to come out of her room, so the staff go in and do one on one activities with her. When asked what kind of activities were provided with the resident, she revealed she talks with her. AD #32 also revealed she could not produce any activity logs to show she had been doing one on one activities. Observations of the resident on 05/20/19 at 10:00 A.M., and 11:00 A.M., on 05/21/19 at 2:00 P.M., and 3:00 P.M. and on 05/21/19 at 2:00 P.M. revealed no activity staff going into the room to provide one on one. 4. Resident #13 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of pneumonia, acute respiratory failure, cellulitis of bilateral lower extremities, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and schizophrenia. Review of the quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed the resident had no cognitive impairment. Her functional status was listed as extensive two person assist for all activities of daily living. The resident required a Hoyer lift for transfers. Review of the care plan dated 04/05/19 revealed Resident #13 had feelings of sadness, anxiety, uneasiness characterized by; tearfulness, motor agitation, withdrawal from care/ activities related to: relocation. Interventions included to encourage verbalization, encourage loved ones to keep in contact/visit, encourage resident to attend group activities. Interview with Resident #13 on 05/19/19 at 2:00 P.M. revealed the activities were lacking. She revealed there was only two activities and no activities in the evenings. Interview with the AD #32 on 05/20/19 at 10:00 A.M. revealed she just started her job as activity director, two weeks ago. She indicated the need to redo the activity calendar and to schedule more and later activities. AD #32 also revealed she could not produce any activity log to show she had been doing one on one activities.
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, staff and resident interview and policy review the facility failed to ensure food was served at appropriate temperatures. This had the potential to affect all 37 residents. The c...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff and resident interview and policy review the facility failed to ensure food was served at appropriate temperatures. This had the potential to affect all 37 residents. The census was 37. Findings include: Interview with Resident #35 on 05/19/19 at 2:20 P.M. revealed his meal is never hot and he has been told there was not a microwave to heat up his meal. Observation of the breakfast meal on 05/20/19 at 8:07 A.M. with Dietary Manager (DM) #34 revealed the temperature of the fired eggs was 95 degrees and the sausage links were 106 degrees. DM #34 utilized a facility thermometer to check the temperatures. Interview with DM #34 on 05/20/19 at 8:10 A.M. verified the meal was cold. Review of policy entitled Food Preparation dated 06/20/17 revealed all dietary staff will ensure all foods are held at appropriate temperature for hot foods at greater than 135 degrees.
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 facility policy review and staff interview the facility failed to monitor and test for Legionella in the facility. This had the potential to affect all 37 residents. Findings include: Review...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on facility policy review and staff interview the facility failed to monitor and test for Legionella in the facility. This had the potential to affect all 37 residents. Findings include: Review of the Legionella Policy and Procedure, revision dated 05/16/19 revealed the facility was expected to implement a water management program that included control measures such as physical controls, temperature management, disinfectant level control, visual inspections, and environmental testing for pathogens. Testing protocols and acceptable ranges for control measures, and document the results of testing and corrective actions taken when control limits are not maintained Interview with the Administrator on 05/21/19 at 4:00 P.M. confirmed the facility had not been monitoring water temperatures, chemical levels, flushing the lines, or monitoring for pathogens.
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?"
  • "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 life-threatening violation(s), $68,006 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 31 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $68,006 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Ohio. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (21/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 21/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Milcrest Nursing Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns MILCREST NURSING CENTER 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 Milcrest Nursing Center Staffed?

CMS rates MILCREST NURSING CENTER's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 66%, which is 20 percentage points above the Ohio average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 56%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Milcrest Nursing Center?

State health inspectors documented 31 deficiencies at MILCREST NURSING CENTER during 2019 to 2025. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 28 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Milcrest Nursing Center?

MILCREST 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 COUNTRY CLUB REHABILITATION CAMPUS, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 50 certified beds and approximately 47 residents (about 94% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in MARYSVILLE, Ohio.

How Does Milcrest Nursing Center Compare to Other Ohio Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Ohio, MILCREST NURSING CENTER's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (66%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Milcrest 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?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "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 facility's high staff turnover rate.

Is Milcrest Nursing Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, MILCREST NURSING CENTER has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 3-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 Milcrest Nursing Center Stick Around?

Staff turnover at MILCREST NURSING CENTER is high. At 66%, the facility is 20 percentage points above the Ohio average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 56%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Milcrest Nursing Center Ever Fined?

MILCREST NURSING CENTER has been fined $68,006 across 1 penalty action. This is above the Ohio average of $33,759. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.

Is Milcrest Nursing Center on Any Federal Watch List?

MILCREST 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.