BEAVER COUNTY NURSING HOME

200 EAST 8TH STREET, BEAVER, OK 73932 (580) 625-4571
Government - County 62 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
26/100
#196 of 282 in OK
Last Inspection: December 2024

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

Overview

Beaver County Nursing Home has received an F grade for its trust score, indicating significant concerns about the facility's quality of care. Ranked #196 of 282 in Oklahoma, it falls in the bottom half of nursing homes in the state, and it is the only option in Beaver County. The facility is worsening, with reported issues increasing from 5 in 2022 to 8 in 2024. Staffing is a concern, with a poor rating of 1 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 60%, which is about average for the state. Notable incidents include a critical finding where a resident fell while transferring independently, resulting in a serious injury, and failures in maintaining safe food temperatures, which could lead to foodborne illnesses. Overall, while there are some aspects of average RN coverage, the significant issues and critical incidents raise serious red flags for potential residents and their families.

Trust Score
F
26/100
In Oklahoma
#196/282
Bottom 31%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
5 → 8 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
60% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$15,642 in fines. Higher than 91% of Oklahoma facilities. Major compliance failures.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 25 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Oklahoma. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
13 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2022: 5 issues
2024: 8 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below Oklahoma average (2.6)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 60%

13pts above Oklahoma avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $15,642

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Staff turnover is elevated (60%)

12 points above Oklahoma average of 48%

The Ugly 13 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening
Dec 2024 8 deficiencies 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** An IJ was identified from 12/11/24 through 12/12/24. The deficient practice remained at isolated level of a potential for harm. ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** An IJ was identified from 12/11/24 through 12/12/24. The deficient practice remained at isolated level of a potential for harm. On 12/11/24, an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was determined to exist related to the facility's failure to implement fall interventions for a resident with severe cognitive impairment and high fall risk. On 12/10/24, Resident #13 had a fall with injury in their room. Resident #13 fell during an independent transfer and was found by staff on the floor with their left foot rotated outward with no range of motion to left hip. Resident #13 was taken to the ER by staff. This fall resulted in Resident #13 acquiring a closed displaced intertrochanteric fracture of the left femur and laceration of scalp. On 12/11/24 at 3:04 p.m., the Oklahoma State Department of Health was notified and verified the existence of a IJ situation. On 12/11/24 at 3:56 p.m., the administrator and DON were notified of the IJ situation and the IJ template was provided. On 12/12/24 at 12:34 p.m., an acceptable plan of removal was approved by the Oklahoma State Department of Health. The plan of removal documented the total number of residents at risk for the same deficient practice was 35. It documented the actions to remove the immediacy of the alleged deficient practice were the following: a. on 12/11/24, Resident #13's care plan completed via phone with the family and the family agreed to move Resident #13 to the east side of the facility to be more closely monitored due to high fall risk; b. on 12/11/24, Resident #13's care plan was individualized with specific fall interventions; c. on 12/11/24, all staff were educated in person and by phone on the policy put into place, where to find the master list for fall risk, the falling leaf program, location of the fall manual, and where to find care plans for each resident; and d. all residents deemed a high fall risk care plan interventions were updated and falling leaf program updated. It documented action taken to prevent recurrence of the alleged deficient practice were the following: a. on 12/11/24, the facility fall policy and procedure manual will be located at the nurse's station for all staff to review at any time. The master list of all high fall risk residents will be located in the front of the binder. A falling leaf program policy will be implemented. Note cards will be available at the nursing station for all residents sorted by hall for quick reference of each residents care needs including fall risk category. The fall intervention list from the care plan for each resident will be available in the fall manual; b. a master fall risk list and note cards will be updated weekly by the DON to ensure accuracy; c. the DON or administrator will randomly interview three to five staff members once a week to ensure each one is aware of the new policies and where to find all the fall risk information. Staff will be reeducated as needed; d. new hires will be educated on fall program and policies and procedures upon hire; e. when a fall happens in the facility, the charge nurse will do a huddle with nursing staff immediately to look for interventions, update care plan if needed, and notify the PCP and family; f. as new interventions are put into place a huddle will be completed with all staff on duty for education; g. the IDT team will meet weekly on all falls. The care plan will be updated with new interventions; and h. the QAPI team will meet monthly and review all falls, monitor tracking and trending, and address any concerns noted. The IJ was lifted, effective 12/12/24 at 2:37 p.m., when all components of the plan of removal had been verified as completed. The deficient practice remained isolated with the potential for more than minimal harm. Based on record review, and interview, the facility failed to update and implement individualized fall interventions in the care plan after a fall for residents assessed as a high fall risk for two (#13 and #15) of two sampled residents reviewed for individualized fall interventions. The administrator identified 35 residents were high fall risk. Findings: An undated facility Accidents policy, read in part, The intent of this policy is to ensure this facility provides an environment that is free from accidents hazards over which the facility has control and provides supervision and assistive devices are provided for each resident to prevent avoidable accidents. This includes: a. Identifying hazards and risk, b. Evaluating and analyzing hazards and risk, c. Implementing interventions to reduce hazard, and d. Monitoring for effectiveness and modifying interventions when necessary. The policy also read, Individualized, person centered interventions will be implemented, including adequate supervision assistive devices, to reduce risk related to hazards in the environment. The facility's Falls and Fall Risk, Managing policy, read in part, the staff will identify interventions related to the resident's specific risks and causes to try to prevent the resident from falling and try to minimize complications from falling. 1. Resident #13 had diagnoses which included anxiety, depression, cataract, and dizziness. Resident #13's Care plan, date initiated 03/02/22 and revised 10/23/24, documented interventions for fall focus, read in part, Fall interventions: purposeful staff rounding, proper seating in chair for W/C, ensure proper foot wear/nonskid socks, exercise program to improve balance, gait, strength, assist, staffing, environment, friendly to reduce clutter, assess medications - side effects and interactions - PCP and pharmacy review, educate resident regarding risk for falls, increased observation, increased activities, restorative care, staff education on falls and interventions, keep items within reach, bed, and low position when occupied with format. Answer, call promptly, re-orientate to call if needed, use of pictures to provide cues and reminders to call for staff assist, evaluate hearing, vision as needed, root cause analysis for falls, assess for illness, open, parentheses delirium, UTI, respiratory, infection, etc in parentheses, educate resident when applying intervention, create something that makes high-risk followers, identifiable, open, parentheses falling, leaf, pictures, etc. In parentheses involve all staff to prevent falls, maintain daily routine, assist WF/toileting before and after each meal, at bedtime as needed. Evaluate B/P for hypotension, rooms/bathrooms with adequate light, call light in reach of resident at all times and remind them to call for staff assist, PT evaluation, evaluate height of bed/toilet seat/chairs, etc. Offer nutritional stacks and meals, offer fluids, everyone- two hours during waking hours promote hydration, proper ambulation, assistive devices (walker, cane W/C space ETC.) and educate on proper use of devices. A Un-Witnessed Fall report, dated 08/01/24, read in part, resident observed laying on her stomach on the floor with no bottoms on. Urine and BM on the floor by the bathroom. Neighbor unsure of how she fell, just that she fell. Resident had abrasions noted to both knees and good range of motion. There was no documentation the care plan was updated with new specific interventions after the fall. Resident #13's Morse Fall Scale, dated 09/19/24, documented high fall risk with a score of 75. A Significant Change assessment, dated 09/23/24, documented Resident 13's cognition was severly impaired. It also documented Resident #13 was independent with walking with walker and going to bathroom independently. A Incident note, dated 11/29/24, read in part, resident reported fall in room- unknown how resident fell. Nurse called to dining room by hospice aid. 2 cuts noted near left eye brow, inner nose swollen and bruised, nurse took resident over to ER- resident refused to stay at ER. Nurse did treatment on eye brow with steri strips and family, PCP notified of her refusal of care in ER. There was no documentation the care plan was updated with new specific interventions after the fall. A Incident note, dated 12/10/24 at 10:41 a.m., read in part, Resident noted yelling out from room. [They]were sitting on floor at foot of bed next to side table. Left foot was rotated outward and [they] did not have ROM in this hip without having pain. [They] also had blood noted running down [their] cheek. Resident stated 'I fell, help me up and leave me alone' Cleaned face up to assess head wound, laceration appears to be superficial. Assisted [them] up into wheelchair without applying weight to left hip. Notified PCP and brought [them] to ER. Also notified DON, ADM, and [family member]. admitted to hospital. There was no documentation the care plan was updated with new specific interventions after the fall. An initial State Reportable Incident, dated 12/10/24, documented Resident #13 was found sitting on their floor in room. It documented Resident #13's left foot was rotated outward and did not have range of motion in the left hip without having pain. It documented Resident #13 arrived at the ER on [DATE] at 11:57 a.m. Resident #13's ER report, dated 12/10/24, documented they were treated and then transferred to another hospital for a closed displaced intertrochanteric fracture of the left femur and laceration of scalp. There was no documentation the care plan was updated with new specific interventions after the fall on 08/01/24- no injury, the fall on 11/29/24- laceration above left eye and inner nose, and the fall on 12/10/24- injury obtained. On 12/10/24 at 2:56 p.m., the DON was asked the reason Resident #13 was transferred to bigger hospital. The DON stated for a fractured left hip. On 12/12/24 at 11:02 a.m., MDS coordinator #1 was asked the policy for updating and revising interventions on the care plan. They stated they were updated as needed. MDS Coordinator #1 was asked to review Resident #13's care plan for falls and was then asked if new fall interventions were added, updated or revised after the fall on 08/01/24. They stated no new interventions were put into place. They were then asked about the fall on 11/29/24. They were asked if there were new fall interventions put into place, updated or revised. MDS Coordinator #1 stated, No. MDS Coordinator #1 was then asked if all fall interventions were from a generic list or were they individualized for the specific resident. They stated if staff started a new intervention then they updated or revised the care plan as needed. 2. Resident #15 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included unspecified dementia without behaviors and anxiety. Resident #15's Care plan, date initiated 12/20/22 and revised on 10/23/24, documented interventions for fall focus, read in part, Fall interventions: purposeful staff rounding, proper seating in chair for W/C, ensure proper foot wear/nonskid socks, exercise program to improve balance, gait, strength, assist, staffing, environment, friendly to reduce clutter, assess medications - side effects and interactions - PCP and pharmacy review, educate resident regarding risk for falls, increased observation, increased activities, restorative care, staff education on falls and interventions, keep items within reach, bed, and low position when occupied with format. Answer, call promptly, re-orientate to call if needed, use of pictures to provide cues and reminders to call for staff assist, evaluate hearing, vision as needed, root cause analysis for falls, assess for illness, open, parentheses delirium, UTI, respiratory, infection, etc in parentheses, educate resident when applying intervention, create something that makes high-risk followers, identifiable, open, parentheses falling, leaf, pictures, etc. In parentheses involve all staff to prevent falls, maintain daily routine, assist WF/toileting before and after each meal, at bedtime as needed. Evaluate B/P for hypotension, rooms/bathrooms with adequate light, call light in reach of resident at all times and remind them to call for staff assist, PT evaluation, evaluate height of bed/toilet seat/chairs, etc. Offer nutritional stacks and meals, offer fluids, everyone- two hours during waking hours promote hydration, proper ambulation, assistive devices (walker, cane W/C space ETC.) and educate on proper use of devices. Resident #15's Morse Fall Scale assessment, dated 01/11/24, documented Resident #15 was at high risk for falling. The facility's Un-Witnessed Fall report, dated 02/08/24, read in part, Neighbor observed sitting on the floor at the foot of [their] bed. Wheelchair was flipped over as well. Neighbor stated [they] were getting up to go to the bathroom and grabbed at the wheelchair when [they] started to fall and it flipped over. Assessed for injuries, reports not hurt and did not hit [their] head. Has good ROM noted. Assisted to standing position and returned to bed. Resident #15's Morse Fall Scale assessment, dated 04/09/24, documented Resident #15 was at high risk for falling. The facility's Witnessed Fall report, dated 04/27/24, read in part, CNA informed nurse of neighbor laying on [their] floor. Neighbor observed to be laying on floor on [their] left side with top of head towards the restroom door,eyes facing towards hall.Neighbor bent at waist with feet and legs pointed towards the hall.ROM performed, neighbor c/o pain to BLE and to back rated at an 8. Asked [them] if [they] hit [their] head and suite mate stated that neighbor did hit [their] head.No skin impairments, hematoma, or injury noted to head. Eyes PERRLA.VS:165/93p-76, T-98.2, O2-92%RA, R-20.Neighbor assisted up slowly via x3 staff to sitting position and then slowly up to WC via x3 staff.Quartersized skin tear noted to left elbow.Call light was observed to be in reach but not on. Alarm to bed was noted to have light on but was not sounding. Neighbor began to vomit into emesis bag.Neighbor then taken to [name withheld] ER. Resident Description: When asked what happened neighbor stated that [they] was going to the restroom. When asked how come [they] didn't use the call light [they] stated 'I did. A Incident Report Form dated 04/27/24, read in part, resident observed lying on the bathroom floor by CNA. Resident stated [they] had gotten up to use the bathroom and fell. It also read, Resident was transferred to [name withheld]. Resident #15's hospital operative report , dated 04/29/24, read in part, L1 vertebral compression fracture. Resident #15's Care Plan fall focus, revised 08/05/24, read in part, [Resident #15] is a (high) risk for falls r/t weakness/gait/balance problems and impaired mobility. The care plan did not document interventions after the falls on 02/08/24 and 04/27/24. Resident #15's quarterly assessment, dated 11/04/24, documented their cognition was moderately impaired and they were dependent on staff for ADLs. On 12/11/24 at 11:43 a.m., MDS coordinator #1 was asked what was the facility fall protocol. They stated after a resident was assessed, they completed a report, and huddled with staff for documentation for additional ideas and interventions in the care plan. They were asked what interventions were added after the two falls on 02/08/24 and 04/27/24 to prevent future accidents and hazards. MDS Coordinator #1 stated there were no interventions added to the care plan after the two falls. They were asked about the fall interventions initiated on 12/20/22 and revised 10/23/24. They stated they had a list of interventions for falls and added them to all residents who fall. MDS Coordinator #1 stated those interventions were not specific to the resident, but all residents that fall. They stated that was part of their facility fall protocol. On 12/11/24 at 12:30 p.m., the administrator was asked to review the care plan for Resident #15. The administrator stated that there was no new interventions added after the falls on 02/08/24 and 04/27/24 and the care plan was not individualized and specific to the resident.
CONCERN (D)

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident's physician and family representative was notifie...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident's physician and family representative was notified of inappropriate behaviors for one (#35) of 16 sampled residents who were reviewed for notifications. The DON identified 35 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Resident #35 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included legal blindness, adjustment disorder with depression, and anxiety disorder. Resident #35's quarterly assessment, dated 11/04/24, documented the resident's cognition was mildly impaired. A progress note, dated 12/08/24, read in part, Reported by CNA that neighbor was in dining room this morning at breakfast sitting at the table and stood up and pulled [their] pants down and peed on the floor. On 12/10/24 at 10:03 a.m., Resident #35's POA stated they were not notified of the incident on 12/08/24. On 12/12/24 at 11:33 a.m., LPN #2 was asked who and when was someone contacted when a resident had a behavior like pulling pants down in front of others and urinating on the floor. LPN #2 stated they should contact the physician, the family, the DON, and the administrator. They were asked about Resident #35's behaviors. They stated Resident #35 stood up and pulled their pants down and urinated on the floor on 12/08/24 in the dining room. They stated there was no information in the EHR that anyone was contacted regarding the behavior on 12/08/24. On 12/12/24 at 11:40 a.m., the DON was asked to discuss the facility's policy for contacting individuals when there was a behavior in front of other residents such as exposing self and urinating in front of others. They stated first discreetly redirect, notify the charge nurse, notify house keeping, write a progress note, notify family, and the provider. The DON was asked who was contacted on 12/08/24 after the incident. They stated the behavior was out of character for Resident #35 and it was not documented in the EHR the family or the physician was notified. They stated they were unaware if there was a policy regarding notifications. On 12/12/24 at 11:48 a.m., the administrator was asked to discuss the facility's policy for contacting individuals when there was a behavior in front of other residents such as exposing self and urinating in front of others. The administrator stated they should contact the family, the PCP, and the psych provider. They were asked who was contacted on 12/08/24 after the incident in the dining room involving Resident #35. The administrator stated there was no documentation in the EHR the family and/or physician, or psych provider was contacted. They stated the facility did not have a policy regarding notifications.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the facility policy to change O2 tubing was fo...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the facility policy to change O2 tubing was followed for one (#5) of one sampled resident reviewed for O2 tubing. The DON identified 12 residents had physician orders for O2 therapy. Findings: The facility's Departmental (Respiratory Therapy)-Prevention of Infection policy, revised 11/2011, read in part, The purpose of this procedure is to guide prevention of infection associated with respiratory therapy task and equipment, including ventilators, among residents and staff. The policy also read, Change the oxygen cannula and tubing every (7) days, or as needed. Resident #5 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Bartter's syndrome, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and anxiety disorder. Resident #5's physician orders, dated 06/19/24, documented O2 at 2 liters via nc and as needed for SOB and HS. On 12/09/24 at 1:35 p.m., Resident #5's O2 tubing was observed labeled in pen on white tape and dated 11/01/24. On 12/12/24 at 2:53 p.m., LPN #2 was asked how often O2 tubing was changed per policy. They stated it should be changed once a month and labeled. They were asked to look at resident #5's O2 tubing and what date was on the O2 tubing. They stated it was dated 11/01/24 and it should of been changed the first of December. On 12/12/24 at 2:57 p.m., the DON what asked what was the facility's policy for changing residents O2 tubing. The DON stated O2 tubing should be changed bimonthly on the first and the 15th by the night nurse. The DON stated there was a form to be completed and it was not documented the O2 tubing was changed. On 12/12/24 at 3:15 p.m., the administrator was asked what the policy was for changing O2 tubing. The administrator stated the tubing should be changed the first of every month. The stated O2 tubing dated 11/01/24 does not follow the policy.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a diuretic and blood pressure medication were administered per physician's orders for one (#11) of three sampled resid...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a diuretic and blood pressure medication were administered per physician's orders for one (#11) of three sampled residents observed during medication pass. The administrator identified 35 residents resided in facility. Findings: A Adverse Consequences and Medication Errors policy, revised April 2014, read in part, a medication error is defined as the preparation or administration of drugs or biological which is not in accordance with physician's orders, manufacturer specifications. It also read in part, examples of medications errors include: omission- a drug is ordered but not administered. Resident #11 had diagnoses which included hypertension, edema, and dementia. A Order Summary dated 12/10/24, documented order for quinapril (hypertensive medication)10mg by mouth daily and Lasix (furosemide) (diuretic medication) 10mg daily for edema. There was no documentation in the order directions for holding either medication if the blood pressure reading was below certain parameters. On 12/10/24 at 8:25 a.m., CMA #1 was observed holding Resident #11's Lasix 20mg and quinapril 10mg due to a blood pressure of 96/49. CMA #1 was asked why the Lasix was being held. They stated because the blood pressure was low. CMA #1 was then asked if Lasix normally was held for low blood pressure, CMA #1 had no response. CMA #1 was asked what the parameters were for holding the quinapril. They stated it was on the order to hold it. There were no orders found regarding the parameters to hold Lasix or quinapril if blood pressure was too low or to high. On 12/10/24 at 9:24 a.m., the DON was asked what medications should be held if no parameters given by doctor. The DON stated blood pressure and insulin medications. The DON was then asked the reason a diuretic medication would be held. The DON stated they were not sure. The DON was asked to review the Lasix and quinapril orders for Resident #11. The DON was asked if there was an order to hold Lasix for any reason. The DON stated, No. The DON was then asked if there was a parameter written in the order for quinapril. The DON stated, No. The quinapril and Lasix medications were not given. On 12/10/24 at 11:51 a.m., the DON was asked what the facility policy was for medication errors. The DON stated if found, the CMA was to inform the nurse, the nurse informed the DON, and DON informed the doctor. The DON stated then they write up a medication error.
CONCERN (E)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure fall interventions were individualized and revised after a f...

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 fall interventions were individualized and revised after a fall for residents assessed as a high risk for falls for two (#13 and #15) of two sampled residents reviewed for individualized care plans. The administrator identified 35 residents resided in the facility Findings: An undated facility Accidents policy, read in part, The intent of this policy is to ensure this facility provides an environment that is free from accidents hazards over which the facility has control and provides supervision and assistive devices are provided for each resident to prevent avoidable accidents. This includes: a. Identifying hazards and risk, b. Evaluating and analyzing hazards and risk, c. Implementing interventions to reduce hazard, and d. Monitoring for effectiveness and modifying interventions when necessary. The policy also read, Individualized, person centered interventions will be implemented, including adequate supervision assistive devices, to reduce risk related to hazards in the environment. A Falls and Fall Risk, Managing policy, revised December 2007, read in part the staff will identify interventions related to the resident's specific risks and causes to try to prevent the resident from falling and to try to minimize complications from falling. A Comprehensive Care Plan, policy, dated 05/01/22 read in part, Each resident will have a person-centered comprehensive care plan developed and implemented to meet [their] preferences and goals and address the resident/s ,medical, physical, mental and psychosocial needs. The policy also read, The comprehensive care plan will be reviewed and revised, based on the changing goals, preferences and needs of the resident and in response to current interventions. 1. Resident #13 had diagnoses which included heart failure, weakness, dizziness, cataract, and anxiety. Resident #13's Care plan, date initiated 03/02/22 and revised 10/23/24, documented interventions for fall focus, read in part, Fall interventions: purposeful staff rounding, proper seating in chair for W/C, ensure proper foot wear/nonskid socks, exercise program to improve balance, gait, strength, assist, staffing, environment, friendly to reduce clutter, assess medications - side effects and interactions - PCP and pharmacy review, educate resident regarding risk for falls, increased observation, increased activities, restorative care, staff education on falls and interventions, keep items within reach, bed, and low position when occupied with format. Answer, call promptly, re-orientate to call if needed, use of pictures to provide cues and reminders to call for staff assist, evaluate hearing, vision as needed, root cause analysis for falls, assess for illness, open, parentheses delirium, UTI, respiratory, infection, etc in parentheses, educate resident when applying intervention, create something that makes high-risk followers, identifiable, open, parentheses falling, leaf, pictures, etc. In parentheses involve all staff to prevent falls, maintain daily routine, assist W/toileting before and after each meal, at bedtime as needed. Evaluate B/P for hypotension, rooms/bathrooms with adequate light, call light in reach of resident at all times and remind them to call for staff assist, PT evaluation, evaluate height of bed/toilet seat/chairs, etc. Offer nutritional stacks and meals, offer fluids, everyone- two hours during waking hours promote hydration, proper ambulation, assistive devices (walker, cane W/C space ETC.) and educate on proper use of devices. An Un-Witnessed Fall report, dated 08/01/24, read in part, resident observed laying on [their] stomach on the floor with no bottoms on. Urine and BM on the floor by the bathroom. Neighbor unsure of how [they] fell, just that [they] fell. Resident had abrasions noted to both knees and good range of motion. There was no documentation the care plan was updated with new specific interventions after the fall. A Fall Risk Assessment, dated 09/19/24, documented Resident #13 was a high fall risk with a score of 75. A Significant Change assessment, dated 09/23/24, documented Resident #13's cognition was severly impaired. It also documented Resident #13 was independent with walking with a walker and going to the bathroom independently. A Incident note, dated 11/29/24, read in part, resident reported fall in room- unknown how resident fell. Nurse called to dining room by hospice aid. 2 cuts noted near left eye brow, inner nose swollen and bruised, nurse took resident over to ER- resident refused to stay at ER. Nurse did treatment on eye brow with steri strips and family, PCP notified of her refusal of care in ER. There was no documentation the care plan was updated with new specific interventions after the fall. A Incident note, dated 12/10/24 at 10:41 a.m., read in part, Resident noted yelling out from room. [They]were sitting on floor at foot of bed next to side table. Left foot was rotated outward and [they] did not have ROM in this hip without having pain. [They] also had blood noted running down her cheek. Resident stated 'I fell, help me up and leave me alone' Cleaned face up to assess head wound, laceration appears to be superficial. Assisted [them] up into wheelchair without applying weight to left hip. Notified PCP and brought [them] to ER. Also notified DON, ADM, and [family member]. admitted to hospital. There was no documentation the care plan was updated with new specific interventions after the fall. On 12/12/24 at 11:02 a.m., MDS coordinator #1 was asked the policy for updating and revising interventions on the care plan. They stated they were updated as needed. MDS Coordinator #1 was asked to review Resident #13's care plan for falls and was then asked if fall interventions were updated or revised after the fall on 08/01/24. They stated no new interventions were put into place. They were then asked about the fall on 11/29/24. They were asked if there were fall interventions updated or revised. MDS Coordinator #1 stated, No. MDS Coordinator #1 was then asked if all fall interventions were from a generic list or were they individualized for the specific resident. They stated if staff started a new intervention then they updated or revised the care plan as needed. 2. Resident #15 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included unspecified dementia without behaviors and anxiety. Resident #15's Care plan, date initiated 12/20/22 and revised on 10/23/24, documented interventions for fall focus, read in part, Fall interventions: purposeful staff rounding, proper seating in chair for W/C, ensure proper foot wear/nonskid socks, exercise program to improve balance, gait, strength, assist, staffing, environment, friendly to reduce clutter, assess medications - side effects and interactions - PCP and pharmacy review, educate resident regarding risk for falls, increased observation, increased activities, restorative care, staff education on falls and interventions, keep items within reach, bed, and low position when occupied with format. Answer, call promptly, re-orientate to call if needed, use of pictures to provide cues and reminders to call for staff assist, evaluate hearing, vision as needed, root cause analysis for falls, assess for illness, open, parentheses delirium, UTI, respiratory, infection, etc in parentheses, educate resident when applying intervention, create something that makes high-risk followers, identifiable, open, parentheses falling, leaf, pictures, etc. In parentheses involve all staff to prevent falls, maintain daily routine, assist with toileting before and after each meal, at bedtime as needed. Evaluate B/P for hypotension, rooms/bathrooms with adequate light, call light in reach of resident at all times and remind them to call for staff assist, PT evaluation, evaluate height of bed/toilet seat/chairs, etc. Offer nutritional stacks and meals, offer fluids, everyone- two hours during waking hours promote hydration, proper ambulation, assistive devices (walker, cane W/C space ETC.) and educate on proper use of devices. Resident #15's Morse Fall Scale assessment, dated 01/11/24, documented Resident #15 was a high risk for falling. The facility's Un-Witnessed Fall report, dated 02/08/24, read in part, Neighbor observed sitting on the floor at the foot of [their] bed. Wheelchair was flipped over as well. Neighbor stated [they] was getting up to go to the bathroom and grabbed at the wheelchair when [they] started to fall and it flipped over. Assessed for injuries, reports not hurt and did not hit [their] head. Has good ROM noted. Assisted to standing position and returned to bed. Resident #15's Morse Fall Scale assessment, dated 04/09/24, documented Resident #15 was a high risk for falling. The facility's Witnessed Fall report, dated 04/27/24, read in part, CNA informed nurse of neighbor laying on her floor. Neighbor observed to be laying on floor on [their] left side with top of head towards the restroom door,eyes facing towards hall.Neighbor bent at waist with feet and legs pointed towards the hall.ROM performed, neighbor c/o pain to BLE and to back rated at an 8. Asked [them] if [they] hit [their] head and suite mate stated that neighbor did hit [their] head.No skin impairments, hematoma, or injury noted to head. Eyes PERRLA.VS:165/93p-76, T-98.2, O2-92%RA, R-20.Neighbor assisted up slowly via x3 staff to sitting position and then slowly up to WC via x3 staff.Quartersized skin tear noted to left elbow.Call light was observed to be in reach but not on. Alarm to bed was noted to have light on but was not sounding. Neighbor began to vomit into emesis bag.Neighbor then taken to [name withheld] ER. Resident Description: When asked what happened neighbor stated that [they] was going to the restroom. When asked how come [they] didn't use the call light [they] stated 'I did. Resident #15's hospital operative report , dated 04/29/24, read in part, L1 vertebral compression fracture. Resident #15's Care Plan fall focus, revised 08/05/24, read in part, [Resident #15] is a (high) risk for falls r/t weakness/gait/balance problems and impaired mobility. The care plan did not document interventions after the falls on 02/08/24 and 04/27/24. Resident #15's quarterly assessment, dated 11/04/24, documented Resident #15's cognition was moderately impaired and they were dependent on staff for ADLs. On 12/11/24 at 11:43 a.m., MDS coordinator #1 was asked what was the facility fall protocol. They stated after a resident was assessed, they completed a report, huddled with staff for documentation for additional ideas and interventions in the care plan. They were asked what interventions were added after the two falls on 2/08/24 and 4/27/24 to prevent future accidents and hazards. MDS Coordinator #1 stated there were no interventions added to the care plan after the two falls. They were asked about the fall interventions initiated on 12/20/22 and revised 10/23/24. They stated they had a list of interventions for falls and added them to all residents who had falls. They stated those interventions were not specific to the resident, but all residents that fall. They stated it was part of their facility fall protocol. On 12/11/24 at 12:30 p.m., the administrator was asked to review the care plan for Resident #15. The administrator stated there were no new interventions added after the falls on 02/08/24 and 04/27/24. They stated the care plan was not individualized and specific to the resident.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0727 (Tag F0727)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure RN coverage for eight consecutive hours, seven days per week. The administrator identified 35 residents resided in the facility. Fi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure RN coverage for eight consecutive hours, seven days per week. The administrator identified 35 residents resided in the facility. Findings: A PBJ Staffing Report, dated 07/01/24 through 09/30/24, did not document any RN hours for 07/06/24, 07/07/24, 07/12/24, and 07/13/24. A Nurses Schedule, dated July 2024, were reviewed and schedule did not document RN coverage for 07/06/24, 07/07/24, 07/13/24, and 07/14/24. On 12/11/24 at 11:03 a.m., the administrator was asked what the facility policy for staffing an RN eight hours a day seven days a week. They stated the facility should have RN coverage eight hours a day, seven days a week. The administrator was then asked to review the nurses schedule for 07/06/24, 07/07/24, 07/13/24, and 07/14/24, then asked if the facility had RN coverage for those four days. They stated No.
CONCERN (E)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a medication rate of less than 5%. A total of 25 opportunities were observed during the medication pass with two error...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a medication rate of less than 5%. A total of 25 opportunities were observed during the medication pass with two errors identified. The total medication error rate was 8% related to two medications held without physician orders for parameters to hold medications for one (#11) of three sampled residents observed during medication pass. The administrator identified 35 residents resided in the facility. Findings: A Adverse Consequences and Medication Errors policy, revised April 2024, read in part, a medication error is defined as the preparation or administration of drugs or biological which is not in accordance with physician's orders. Resident #11 had diagnoses which include hypertension, edema, and dementia. A Order Summary, dated 12/10/24, documented an order for quinapril [hypertensive medication] 10mg by mouth daily and Lasix (furosemide) (diuretic medication) 10mg daily for edema. There was no documentation in the order directions for holding either medication if the blood pressure reading was below certain parameters. On 12/10/24 at 8:15 a.m., a medication pass was conducted with CMA #1. The CMA stated that the quinapril 10mg and Lasix were being held due to a blood pressure reading of 96/59 for Resident #11. CMA #1 was asked what the parameters were for holding the Quinapril and Lasix. CMA #1 stated they were holding both medications due to a B/P reading of 96/59. CMA #1 was asked the reason Lasix was being held due to B/P being low. CMA #1 had no response. The quinapril and Lasix medications were not given. On 12/10/24 at 9:24 a.m., the DON was asked what medications should be held if not in parameters. The DON stated blood pressure and insulin medications. The DON was then asked what would a Lasix medication be held for. The DON stated they were not sure about holding a diuretic medication.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, records review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff washed their hands between residents wh...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, records review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff washed their hands between residents while assisting dependent residents with feeding for three (#11, 19, and #35) of three sampled residents observed during dining. The DON identified six residents required assistance during meals. Findings: The facility's Handwashing/Hand Hygiene policy, revised 08/2015, read in part, Use an alcohol-based hand rub containing at least 62% alcohol: or, alternatively, soap (antimicrobial or non-antimicrobial) and water for the following situations: The policy also read, Before and after assisting a resident with meals. 1. Resident #11 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included unspecified dementia and delusional disorder. Resident #11's quarterly assessment, dated 09/30/24, documented the resident's cognition was significantly impaired and required supervision or touching assistance with eating. 2. Resident #19 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Alzheimer's disease and metabolic encephalopathy. Resident #19's quarterly assessment, dated 10/21/24, documented the resident's cognition was significantly impaired and they were fully dependent on staff for eating assist. 3. Resident #35 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included legal blindness, adjustment disorder with depression, and anxiety disorder. Resident #35's quarterly assessment, dated 11/04/24 documented the resident's cognition was mildly impaired and they required partial to moderate assistance with eating. On 12/09/24 at 11:20 a.m., the DON was observed feeding Resident #19 on their right side using their right hand with no glove. The DON then stopped and turned to the resident on their left and picked up Resident #11's eating utensil with their right hand and assisted Resident #11 with feeding. No hand washing or sanitizing between residents was observed between feeding Resident #19 and Resident #11. The DON was then observed getting up from their chair and went to Resident #35. The DON used their right hand and touched Resident #35's plate, patted the resident's shoulder, and sat back down and resumed feeding Resident #19. No hand washing or sanitizing between residents was observed. On 12/09/24 11:25 a.m., the infection preventionist stated they witnessed no hand washing or sanitizing between the residents during dining when the DON was assisting separate residents. They stated they were unsure of the policy and would have to review it. On 12/09/24 at 12:49 p.m., the DON was asked what the infection control issues were during dining on 12/09/24 at 11:20 a.m. The DON stated they got up to move pie on Resident #35's plate, patted Resident #35 on the shoulder, returned their chair to Resident #19 to give a bite, and turned to the right to feed Resident #11 without sanitizer or hand washing between the residents. The DON stated they should of sanitized between each resident.
Jul 2022 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure FSBS was obtained prior to administering sliding scale insulin for one (#41) of one sampled resident reviewed for insu...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure FSBS was obtained prior to administering sliding scale insulin for one (#41) of one sampled resident reviewed for insulin administration. The MDS coordinator identified six residents received insulin. Findings: A policy titled, Resident-Centered Medication Pass, review date 05/01/22, read in part, .Purpose: Allow administration of medications according to a resident's schedule/routine while ensuring the safe and accurate administration of all medications .Exceptions to the Resident-Centered Medication Pass Policy/Procedure: Insulin should be administered consistently each day . Resident #41 was admitted with diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. A Physician's Order, dated 03/17/18, documented to administer Novolog Solution eight units for a FSBS between 151-200. A Physician's Order, dated 06/22/21, documented to obtain FSBS before meals and at bedtime. Resident #41's quarterly assessment, dated 07/04/22, documented the resident's cognition was moderately impaired. It documented the resident received seven insulin injections in a seven day period. On 07/21/22 at 8:12 a.m., LPN #1 stated the resident's FSBS was obtained by the night shift nurse. They stated the FSBS was 155 at 6:18 a.m. LPN #1 was asked if they would recheck FSBS prior to administering the insulin. LPN #1 stated, I usually don't. LPN #1 was observed to draw up eight units of Novolog. LPN #1 was observed to administer the insulin without obtaining a FSBS. On 07/21/22 at 11:10 a.m., the administrator was asked when was a FSBS to be obtained before administering insulin. They stated, Immediately. The administrator was asked if sliding scale insulin should be administered approximately two hours after a FSBS was obtained. They stated, Absolutely not.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to follow up on a physician's response on a GDR for one (#17) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The Resident Census and ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to follow up on a physician's response on a GDR for one (#17) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents, dated 07/19/22, documented four residents received antipsychotic medications. Findings: Resident #17 was admitted with diagnoses of schizoaffective bipolar disorder and dementia with behavioral disturbance. A Physician's Order, dated 10/13/21, documented the resident was to receive Zyprexa once a day. A Medication Regimen Review, dated 01/07/22, read in parts, .Could a reduction be tried for the Zyprexa . The physician's response read in parts, .defer to .psych provider . There was no documentation in the resident's clinical record the GDR was followed up on. Resident #17's quarterly assessment, dated 05/23/22, documented the resident's cognition was intact. It documented the resident received seven antipsychotic medications in seven days. It documented a GDR hadn't been attempted and there was no documentation of a contraindication. On 07/20/22 at 3:27 p.m., the DON was asked what the policy was for recommendations from the pharmacy. They stated they faxed the recommendations to the physicians and waited to receive the response. They stated the nurses were to document the response. The administrator stated the psych provider completes visits once a month, or as needed, via telemedicine. On 07/21/22 at 11:10 a.m., the administrator was asked for documentation for Resident #17's January 2022 GDR had been addressed by the psych provider as the physician documented. On 07/21/22 at 12:39 p.m., the DON stated there was no documentation located.
CONCERN (E)

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to report and investigate an injury of unknow origin for one (#24) of one sampled resident reviewed for abuse. The Resident Cens...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to report and investigate an injury of unknow origin for one (#24) of one sampled resident reviewed for abuse. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents, dated 07/19/22, documented 40 residents resided in the facility. A policy titled, Abuse, Neglect, Mistreatment And Misappropriation of Resident Property, approved 05/26/21, read in part, .It is the policy of this facility that reports of abuse ( .including injuries of unknown source .) are promptly and thoroughly investigated .REPORTING AND RESPONSE .The facility will ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse .including injuries of unknown source .are reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made .in accordance with State law . Findings: Resident #24 was admitted with diagnoses of unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbance, tremors and hypertension. Resident #24's admission assessment, dated 06/08/22, documented the resident's cognition was moderately impaired. On 07/19/22 at 10:39 a.m., Resident #24's right hand was observed swollen. The swelling was observed to start above the resident's right wrist and continued to their fingers. There was no documentation in the resident's clinical record regarding an incident that happened to the resident's right hand/wrist. On 07/20/22 at 2:28 p.m., the administrator was asked if the resident had an injury to their right hand. They stated they weren't aware of the resident's hand and didn't see anything documented. On 07/20/22 at 2:35 p.m., LPN #2 was observed to look at the resident's right hand. They stated the resident's hand and wrist were kind of puffy. On 07/20/22 at 2:45 p.m., LPN #1 was observed to look at the resident's right hand. They stated, it's kind of swollen. On 07/20/22 at 3:32 p.m., the Administrator was asked what had been done about Resident #24's hand. They stated, the resident was sent to the hospital for an x-ray. The DON stated, I think it was an incident down in the dining room where [resident] was swinging .arms and .walker. I think I saw a note where one of the CNA's wrote [residents] hand was red. Just on a piece of paper where they told the nurse. The nurse said they didn't follow up on it. The DON was asked who was the nurse. The DON stated, LPN #2. On 07/20/22 4:04 p.m., the DON was asked what the process was when staff reports an injury or abnormal finding. The DON stated the nurse should follow up on it and document it. The administrator stated an investigation needed to be started.
CONCERN (E)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review, observation, and interview the facility failed to assess, monitor and intervene for an injury of unknown origin for one (#24) of one sampled resident reviewed for injury. The ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, observation, and interview the facility failed to assess, monitor and intervene for an injury of unknown origin for one (#24) of one sampled resident reviewed for injury. The Resident Census and Condition report, dated 07/19/22, documented 40 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Resident #24 was admitted with diagnoses of unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbance, tremors and hypertension. Resident #24's admission assessment, dated 06/08/22, documented the resident's cognition was moderately impaired. On 07/19/22 at 10:39 a.m., Resident #24's right hand was observed swollen. The swelling was observed to start above the resident's right wrist and continued to their fingers. There was no documentation in the resident's clinical record regarding an incident that happened to the resident's right hand/wrist. On 07/20/22 at 2:28 p.m., the administrator was asked if Resident #24 had an injury to their right hand. They stated they weren't aware of the resident's hand and didn't see anything documented. On 07/20/22 at 2:30 p.m., the DON and LPN #2 came into the room. The Administrator, DON and LPN #2 was asked if there was any documentation about the residents hand. They stated, they did not see anything. On 07/20/22 at 2:35 p.m., LPN #2 was observed to look at the resident's right hand. They stated the resident's hand and wrist were kind of puffy. On 07/20/22 at 2:45 p.m., LPN #1 was observed to look at the resident's right hand. They stated, it's kind of swollen. On 07/20/22 at 3:32 p.m., the Administrator was asked what had been done about Resident #24's hand. They stated, the resident was sent to the hospital for an x-ray. The DON stated, I think it was an incident down in the dining room where [resident] was swinging .arms and .walker. I think I saw a note where one of the CNA's wrote [residents] hand was red. Just on a piece of paper where they told the nurse. The nurse said they didn't follow up on it. The DON was asked who was the nurse. The DON stated, LPN #2. On 07/20/22 at 4:04 p.m., the DON was asked to describe what the process/expectation was when a CNA reports an unknown injury or abnormal finding to the nurse. The DON stated the nurse should follow up on it and document it. The Administrator stated the CNA should go to the charge nurse, so an investigation can be started. A Health Status Note, created 07/20/22 at 4:56 p.m., read in part, .Late Entry on 07/17/2022 at 20:00 [8:00 p.m.] .it was reported by off going shift that [Resident #24] had some behaviors over the weekend and may have hurt right hand. CMA reported that [Resident #24] had complained to [CMA] that [resident's] right hand was numb. This nurse question [Resident #24] the evening of the 17th about this during 1900-2300 [7:00 p.m.-11:00 p.m.] shift and [resident] moved it around and said it was fine. Nothing further was reported or mentioned by [resident] that evening. Hand was a little red and puff at the time this nurse talked to [Resident #24]. It was passed on to night shift to notify AM shift about what happened if [resident] had any complaints of pain or numbness on Monday morning. Note was passed on about hand, but [Resident #24] never complained about discomfort to anyone the next day .
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 record review, observation, and interview the facility failed to: a. ensure temperatures were obtained and foods were held at 135 degrees on the holding table, and b. ensure dishes and utens...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, observation, and interview the facility failed to: a. ensure temperatures were obtained and foods were held at 135 degrees on the holding table, and b. ensure dishes and utensils were cleaned/sanitized to prevent food borne illness. The Administrator identified 40 residents who received their meals from the kitchen. Findings: A policy titled, Food Temperatures, review date 05/01/22, read in part, . Ensure food is served at a safe temperature to prevent food-borne illness .Hot Foods should be maintained at a minimum of 135 degrees F . A policy titled, Dish Washing, review date 05/01/22, read in part, .Low Temperature Dishwasher(chemical sanitization): Wash-120 degrees F and Final Rinse-50 ppm .hypochlorite .on dish surface in final rinse .The chemical solution must be maintained at the correct concentration, based on periodic testing, at least once per shift, and for the effective contact time according to manufacturer's guidelines . A Monitoring Record, dated 07/01/22 to 07/20/22, documented on 07/05/22, 07/09/22 and 07/10/22 holding table temperatures were only recorded one time on these dates. Breakfast items Hot cereal and eggs was the only food items that were documented with temperature checks for the month of July 2022. On 07/21/22 at 7:50 a.m., holding table temperatures was obtained with [NAME] #1 and were as follows: Scrambled eggs 80 degrees, bacon 100 degrees, Malt O Meal 100 degrees, oatmeal 110 degrees, and white gravy 110 degrees. Cook #1 was asked what should the temperature be held at on the holding table. [NAME] #1 stated, 120-130. On 07/21/22 at 7:58 a.m., the DM was asked what temps should be on the holding table. The DM stated, 165 degrees. The DM was informed the holding table temps were not above 110 on anything temped with [NAME] #1. The DM was asked if the food should be served to the residents. The DM stated No, it should not. On 07/21/22 at 8:04 a.m., [NAME] #1 was observed to plate Malt O Meal, bacon and toast. [NAME] #1 was asked to obtain a temperature on the Malt O Meal. The Malt O Meal temperature was 120 degrees. [NAME] #1 sent out the tray to a resident. On 07/21/22 at 8:06 a.m., the DM took holding temps again with a different thermometer, the results were as follows: Oatmeal 135, white gravy 138, bacon 118 and sausage patty 110. The DM stated, I usually throw the sausage on the grill prior to serving to get the temp up. The DM was asked how they ensured other staff would do the same. The DM stated, I trained them. On 07/21/22 at 9:55 a.m., The DM was observed using the chemical testing strip during a dishwashing cycle. The testing strip did not register/show any color on the testing strip. The DM attempted to check another cycle and was asked what the strip was showing. They stated, 10 ppm. The DM was asked what should it be. The DM stated, At least 50 ppm. The DM was asked if there had been any recent gastrointestinal outbreaks in the facility. The DM stated, No. The vial of testing strips was observed and had an expiration date of 08/2018. The DM was unaware the strips being used were expired On 07/21/22 at 10:20 a.m., DA #1 was asked if they had washed dishes today. DA #1 stated, Yes, I ran the jail dishes. DA #1 was asked what time the dishes were washed. DA #1 stated, Right before 10 [a.m.]. DA #1 was asked if the chemicals were checked. They stated, I didn't. DA #1 was asked how often should chemicals be checked. They stated, Before every meal or every time we start dishes for meals. On 07/21/22 at 10:22 a.m., DA #2 was asked if they knew the strips were expired. They stated, yes. DA #2 was asked how often the test strips were used. They stated, three times a day. They were asked if they noticed the test strips not reading correctly. DA #2 stated, Yes, was supposed to have 2 new bottles, but I don't know where they are. DA #2 was asked when was the last time they had washed dishes. DA #2 stated, Yesterday, it keeps showing 10 ppm. DA #2 was asked if they had notified anyone. DA #2 stated, Yes my boss [DM]. A dishwashing record, dated July 2022, documented from 07/01/22 through 07/20/22, chemical sanitization was 100 PPM three times a day. On 07/21/22 at 10:30 a.m., the Administrator was asked what the facility would put into place for meals. They stated, We will use paper plates. The Administrator stated, they were not aware of the issue with the chemicals. On 07/21/22 at 11:10 a.m., the Administrator was asked what temperature should food be on the holding table. They stated, At least 135. The Administrator was asked how often should holding temps be checked. They stated, Every meal. The Administrator was asked how long has the chemicals for the dishwasher been out. They stated, the strips were outdated, and they didn't know how long the strips had been used. On 07/21/22 at 11:21 a.m., the DM approached this surveyor and stated, I ordered the strips today. The DM was asked what staff had been using. They stated, the expired ones. The DM was asked when they were aware the strips weren't working. The DM stated, They didn't tell me. I was aware of them today. On 07/21/22 at 12:55 p.m., the DM was asked to review the monitoring records for the month of July. The DM acknowledged holding table temperatures were not obtained correctly.
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: 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 13 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $15,642 in fines. Above average for Oklahoma. Some compliance problems on record.
  • • Grade F (26/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 26/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Beaver County's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns BEAVER COUNTY NURSING HOME an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within Oklahoma, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.

How is Beaver County Staffed?

CMS rates BEAVER COUNTY NURSING HOME's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 60%, which is 13 percentage points above the Oklahoma average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.

What Have Inspectors Found at Beaver County?

State health inspectors documented 13 deficiencies at BEAVER COUNTY NURSING HOME during 2022 to 2024. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 12 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Beaver County?

BEAVER COUNTY NURSING HOME is owned by a government entity. Government-operated facilities are typically run by state, county, or municipal agencies. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 62 certified beds and approximately 34 residents (about 55% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in BEAVER, Oklahoma.

How Does Beaver County Compare to Other Oklahoma Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Oklahoma, BEAVER COUNTY NURSING HOME's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.6, staff turnover (60%) 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 Beaver County?

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 you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the facility's high staff turnover rate, and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Beaver County Safe?

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

Do Nurses at Beaver County Stick Around?

Staff turnover at BEAVER COUNTY NURSING HOME is high. At 60%, the facility is 13 percentage points above the Oklahoma average of 46%. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Beaver County Ever Fined?

BEAVER COUNTY NURSING HOME has been fined $15,642 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Oklahoma average of $33,235. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Beaver County on Any Federal Watch List?

BEAVER COUNTY NURSING HOME 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.