WHITESTONE CARE CENTER

370 WHITE STONE CORNER ROAD, STROUDSBURG, PA 18360 (570) 476-1600
For profit - Corporation 90 Beds SABER HEALTHCARE GROUP Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
63/100
#249 of 653 in PA
Last Inspection: February 2025

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

Overview

Whitestone Care Center has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating it is slightly above average but has room for improvement. With a state rank of #249 out of 653 facilities in Pennsylvania, it falls in the top half, while being the top-ranked option in Monroe County with only three other local facilities. The facility is showing positive trends, having reduced issues from 12 in 2024 to 4 in 2025. Staffing is rated average, with a turnover rate of 47%, similar to the state average, which may affect continuity of care. However, the center has concerning fines totaling $23,257, which are higher than 78% of facilities in Pennsylvania, suggesting potential compliance issues. While the facility has a good overall star rating of 4 out of 5, there have been significant concerns, including a serious incident where a resident suffered injuries due to neglect in care. Additionally, there have been issues with food safety practices and failure to provide adequate personal hygiene care for some residents. Despite these weaknesses, the facility has excellent quality measures rated 5 out of 5, indicating a strong focus on the quality of care provided.

Trust Score
C+
63/100
In Pennsylvania
#249/653
Top 38%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Better
12 → 4 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
47% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$23,257 in fines. Higher than 97% of Pennsylvania facilities. Major compliance failures.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 47 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Pennsylvania. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
⚠ Watch
22 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★☆
4.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 12 issues
2025: 4 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

Staff Turnover: 47%

Near Pennsylvania avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

Federal Fines: $23,257

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Chain: SABER HEALTHCARE GROUP

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 22 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Feb 2025 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of clinical records and the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) and staff interview, it was determined the fa...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of clinical records and the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS - a federally mandated standardized assessment conducted at specific intervals to plan resident care) accurately reflected the status of one resident out of 20 sampled (Resident 74). Findings included: A review of Resident 74's clinical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and discharged from the facility on November 15, 2024. A review of Resident 74's Discharge MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed in Section A 2105 Discharge Status that Resident 74 was discharged to a short-term general hospital. A review of a discharge nurses note dated November 15, 2024, at 5:38 PM revealed the resident was discharged home on November 15, 2024, with her son. An interview with the director of nursing on January 30, 2025, at approximately 9:30 AM confirmed the resident's MDS Assessment was inaccurate. 28 Pa. Code 201.18(e)(1) Management 28 Pa. Code 211.12(c)(d)(1)(5) Nursing services
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 a review of clinical records and interviews with staff, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents maint...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of clinical records and interviews with staff, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents maintain acceptable parameters of nutritional status, such as usual body weight, unless the resident's clinical condition demonstrates that is not possible, for one out of 20 residents sampled (Resident 1). Findings include: A clinical record review revealed Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included dementia (a condition characterized by the loss of cognitive functioning such as thinking, remembering, and reasoning, to such an extent that it interferes with a person's daily life and activities) and chronic kidney disease (gradual loss of kidney function). A review of a significant change in status Minimum Data Set assessment (MDS-a federally mandated standardized assessment process conducted periodically to plan resident care) dated January 16, 2025, revealed Resident 1 was moderately cognitively impaired with a BIMS score of 8 (Brief Interview for Mental Status- a tool within the cognitive section of the MDS that is used to assess the resident's attention, orientation, and ability to register and recall new information; a score of 8-12 indicates cognition moderately impaired). Resident 1's care plan, initiated on April 22, 2024, identified increased nutrition and hydration risk related to chronic kidney disease, overweight body mass index, and variable intake at times. The goal was to ensure the resident remained free from unplanned significant weight changes, with interventions including: Respecting the resident's dietary choices, Offering alternate foods if less than 50% of a meal was consumed, and Monitoring for increased nutritional intervention needs. A clinical record review revealed Resident 1 weighed 151 pounds on July 3, 2024, and weighed 136 pounds on August 6, 2024, which is a -9.9% (15-pound) loss of weight in 34 days. The facility conducted a re-weight on August 7, 2024, and determined Resident 1 weighed 132.2 pounds, which is a -12.25% (18.5-pound) weight loss in 35 days. A progress note dated August 9, 2024, at 8:42 AM indicated Resident 1's weight was previously stable over five months at 147-151 pounds. The resident was identified for a 10% weight loss over 30 days and 9% over 90 days. Her body mass index (BMI-a measure of body fat based on weight and height) is 24.87 (the normal range for BMI is 18.5 to 24.9). The resident's diet had been provided as ordered; her meal intake was noted to be variable, ranging from 25 to 100%. Recommending her NAS (no added salt) diet restriction was discontinued, provide 8 oz boost four times a day, and monitor weight weekly. Notify the physician and resident representative of significant weight changes. Follow up with the interdisciplinary team. A progress note dated August 13, 2024, at 11:43 AM indicated the resident had a 10% decrease in weight. The resident's NAS diet restriction was discontinued, an 8 oz boost supplemental drink was added, and weekly weight monitoring was implemented. A clinical record review revealed Resident 1 continued to lose weight from August 6, 2024, through December 3, 2024: 136.0 pounds on August 6, 2024 131.6 pounds on September 2, 2024 130.0 pounds on October 2, 2024 129.0 pounds on November 6, 2024 128.8 pounds on December 3, 2024 A progress note dated December 17, 2024, at 3:44 AM indicated Resident 1 experienced loose, watery stools twice, and the Registered Nurse (RN) Supervisor was notified. The note revealed an order to collect a stool sample was to be entered into the clinical record. However, further record review revealed no documented evidence that a physician's order for a stool sample was entered or that the resident's loose stool was addressed. The clinical record also lacked documentation clarifying whether a stool sample was deemed unnecessary. During an interview on January 30, 2025, at approximately 12:00 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) indicated the resident no longer had loose stool, so the order was not initiated, and the stool sample never occurred. The DON was not able to provide thorough documented evidence of Resident 1's stool consistency from December 17, 2024, through January 8, 2025. A review of the facility's vitals report from November 8, 2024, through January 8, 2025, indicated Resident 1 had 133 recorded bowel movements (formed, soft, loose, etc.); however, the facility documented stool consistency in only 22 instances, making it impossible to determine the onset, frequency, and severity of diarrhea The facility failed to record the necessary clinical documentation to determine the onset, frequency, and pervasiveness of Resident 1's diarrhea/loose stools. A physician progress note dated January 8, 2025, at 11:37 AM, indicated Resident 1 reported loose stools for two months, which worsened over the last 7-10 days. The note indicated facility nursing staff confirmed Resident 1's complaints of diarrhea. A progress note dated January 10, 2025, at 11:14 AM indicated Resident 1 has stable weight over five months; however, had experienced a 14% weight loss over 180 days, despite receiving a regular diet, nutritional supplements, and fluids. She was receiving 8 oz of food caloric supplement twice a day and 8 oz of fluids three times a day with medication pass. The resident accepted supplementation and fluids; 75-100% are consumed on most days. Documented fluid intake averaged [PHONE NUMBER] ml daily and due to worsening loose stools, the physician recommended: Increasing fluids, 8 oz four times a day Discontinuing the current caloric supplement, and Providing an alternative nutritional supplement twice a day and Weekly weights for close monitoring. A physician's progress note dated January 13, 2025, at 12:03 PM indicated Resident 1 was seen for a follow-up on diarrhea and dehydration. The note indicated Resident 1 had a history of chronic kidney disease. The note indicated lab results from January 10, 2025, showed the resident was dehydrated. The resident reported feeling slightly improved but still experiencing diarrhea. A progress note dated January 17, 2025, at 4:00 PM indicated Resident 1 was reweighed and determined to be 115.5 pounds, confirming a 10% weight loss within 30 days and a 23% weight loss in 180 days, despite nutritional interventions. Further clinical record review revealed Resident 1 weighed 128.8 pounds on December 3, 2024, and weighed 115.5 pounds on January 15, 2025, which is a 10.33% (13.3 pounds) loss in 43 days and 23.5% (35.5 pounds) in 195 days. During an interview on January 30, 2025, at approximately 12:00 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed the facility staff did not consistently document Resident 1's bowel movements, and Resident 1's clinical record lacked the documented evidence to determine or evaluate how long Resident 1 was experiencing loose stool or diarrhea. The DON was unable to provide evidence that Resident 1's diarrhea and loose stool (December 17, 2024) were addressed timely. The DON was unable to provide documented evidence that Resident 1's loss of weight or dehydration was unavoidable. The DON confirmed it is the facility's responsibility to ensure residents maintain acceptable parameters of nutritional status, such as body weight and electrolyte balance 28 Pa Code 211.5 (f)(ii)(iii)(x) Medical records. 28 Pa. Code 211.10(c) Resident care policies. 28 Pa Code 211.12 (d)(1)(3)(5) Nursing services.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0773 (Tag F0773)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to promptly provide laboratory results to the ordering ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to promptly provide laboratory results to the ordering practitioner for one out of the 20 residents sampled (Resident 1). Findings include: A clinical record review revealed Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included dementia (a condition characterized by the loss of cognitive functioning such as thinking, remembering, and reasoning, to such an extent that it interferes with a person's daily life and activities) and chronic kidney disease (gradual loss of kidney function). A review of a significant change in status Minimum Data Set assessment (MDS-a federally mandated standardized assessment process conducted periodically to plan resident care) dated January 16, 2025, revealed that Resident 1 is moderately cognitively impaired with a BIMS score of 8 (Brief Interview for Mental Status- a tool within the Cognitive Section of the MDS that is used to assess the resident's attention, orientation, and ability to register and recall new information; a score of 8-12 indicates cognition moderately impaired). A physician progress note dated January 8, 2025, at 11:37 AM documented Resident 1 was seen for increased diarrhea. which had worsened over the past 7-10 days. The resident also indicated she had been slightly nauseated and has had some pressure in her lower abdominal area. The note indicated facility nursing staff confirmed Resident 1's complaints of diarrhea. A progress note from the same day at 7:38 PM indicated a new order for Lomotil 5 mg every six hours for three days and a laboratory panel, including a complete blood count (CBC-complete blood count, CMP-comprehensive metabolic panel, MAG-magnesium blood test). A physician's order for Resident 1 to have CBC, CMP, and MAG twice a day (3:00 PM to 11:00 PM; 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM) was initiated on January 8, 2025, at 7:34 PM. A clinical laboratory report indicated Resident 1's sample for CBC, CMP, and MAG was collected on January 9, 2025, at 6:43 AM and reported back to the facility the same day at 1:45 PM. However, further record review revealed no documented evidence that the physician received, reviewed, or acted upon the results for approximately 24 hours On January 13, 2025, at 12:03 PM, the physician documented that Resident 1's laboratory results from January 9, 2025, indicated significant dehydration, with a blood urea nitrogen (BUN- a blood test that measures the amount of urea nitrogen in the blood) of 59, creatinine (a waste product produced by muscle breakdown) 1.46, potassium slightly decreased at 3.4 (amount of potassium in the blood), and glomerular filtration rate (GFR-measures how well the kidneys are filtering waste products from the blood) 18. Despite these findings, a physician's order for a midline catheter (a type of intravenous catheter allowing for the administration of medications or fluids directly into the bloodstream) insertion was not initiated until January 10, 2025, at 8:38 PM, approximately 30 hours after the laboratory results were reported A physician's order for Resident 1 to receive supplemental fluids with directions to administer 240 ml four times a day was initiated on January 10, 2025. This order was revised from a previous ongoing order from 240 ml three times a day to 240 ml four times a day, initiated in November 2024. A physician's order for Resident 1 to be administered continuous infusion normal saline solution (NSS) 0.9% at 50 ml/hr for one liter was initiated on January 10, 2025, at 11:36 PM. A progress note dated January 10, 2025, at 10:25 PM revealed midline to left upper arm placed for Resident 1. The physician's progress note dated January 13, 2025, at 12:03 PM indicated that Resident 1's furosemide, a diuretic medication, had been held. The resident had received one liter of normal saline solution, which had been well tolerated. Laboratory tests had been redrawn on January 11, 2025, with results showing potassium at 4.5, BUN at 60, creatinine at 2.25, and GFR at 20. Furosemide had remained on hold pending further lab results. Additional laboratory tests had been scheduled for January 14, 2025. The resident had also been scheduled to receive an additional liter of normal saline prior to the next lab draw. The resident had been in no acute distress and had stated that she felt better than the previous week. She had also reported that her diarrhea had slowed down slightly. A review of Resident 1's Medication Administration Record for January 2025 revealed Resident 1 received furosemide (a diuretic medication) 20 mg tablet on January 10, 2025, at 9:00 AM. after the facility had laboratory results indicating dehydration. Subsequent doses were held per physician orders. A review of Resident 1's Medication Administration Record for January 2025 indicated that Resident 1 had received 240 ml of additional fluids on January 10, 2025, at 1:00 PM and during each subsequent shift as ordered until January 15, 2025. However, the revision of the additional fluid treatment had been implemented 23 hours after the laboratory report date, which had indicated that Resident 1 exhibited markers of dehydration. Additionally, the review of Resident 1's Medication Administration Record for January 2025 showed that Resident 1 had received continuous intravenous (IV) NSS 0.9% at 50 ml/hr beginning on the day shift of January 11, 2025, and during each subsequent shift as ordered until January 14, 2025. However, the continuous IV treatment had been initiated more than 40 hours after the laboratory report date, which had indicated that Resident 1 exhibited markers of dehydration. During an interview on January 30, 2025, at approximately 12:00 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) explained that on January 10, 2025, Resident 1 dislodged her IV line, causing an additional delay in treatment. During an interview on January 30, 2025, at approximately 12:00 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed the physician documented that Resident 1's laboratory result indicated significant dehydration. The DON was unable to explain why there was a delay in implementing interventions and treatment to address Resident 1's dehydration. The DON confirmed it is the facility's responsibility to ensure the physician is promptly provided with laboratory results. 28 Pa Code 211.2 (d)(3) Medical director. 28 Pa. Code 211.10(c) Resident care policies. 28 Pa Code 211.12 (d)(3) Nursing services.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0776 (Tag F0776)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure the timely provision and/or procurement of r...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure the timely provision and/or procurement of radiology/diagnostic services to meet the needs of one of 20 residents sampled (Resident 64). Findings include: Review of Resident 64's clinical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with the diagnoses to include unspecified deep vein thrombosis (condition where a blood clot forms in a deep vein, typically in the lower legs), gout (form of inflammatory arthritis), anxiety and was cognitively intact. Review of Resident 64's clinical record revealed a progress note dated January 18, 2025, indicating the resident had a fall and subsequently complained of right shoulder pain. The physician ordered an x-ray of the right shoulder to rule out a fracture. A review of the resident's clinical record conducted during the survey on January 29, 2025, confirmed that the ordered x-ray had not been completed. On January 29, 2025, a STAT x-ray of the right shoulder was ordered; however, as of 8:30 PM, the mobile x-ray company had not completed the imaging. At approximately 9:00 PM, Resident 64 was sent to the emergency room for the x-ray. According to the clinical record, upon arrival at the emergency room, Resident 64 refused the right shoulder x-ray and instead requested imaging of the left shoulder. The left shoulder x-ray was completed and was negative for acute fracture. During an interview on January 30, 2025, at approximately 10:30 AM, the Director of Nursing confirmed that the x-ray was not completed as originally ordered. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(3)(5) Nursing services
Dec 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

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 a review of clinical records and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to develop and implement care a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of clinical records and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to develop and implement care and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to prevent pressure ulcer development for one resident out of two sampled. (Resident 1). Findings include: According to the US Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality, the pressure ulcer best practice bundle incorporates three critical components in preventing pressure ulcers: Comprehensive skin assessment, Standardized pressure ulcer risk assessment and care planning and implementation to address the areas of risk. The American College of Physicians (ACP) is a national organization of internists, who specialize in the diagnosis, treatment, and care of adults. The largest medical-specialty organization and second-largest physician group in the United States) Clinical Practice Guidelines indicate that the treatment of pressure ulcers should involve multiple tactics aimed at alleviating the conditions contributing to ulcer development (i.e. support surfaces, repositioning and nutritional support); protecting the wound from contamination and creating and maintaining a clean wound environment; promoting tissue healing via local wound applications, debridement and wound cleansing; using adjunctive therapies; and considering possible surgical repair. A review of the clinical record revealed that Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and readmitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included Fournier gangrene (a rare, life-threatening, and rapidly progressive infection that affects the soft tissue and skin of the genital area and perineum), Type 2 diabetes (body has trouble controlling blood sugar and using it for energy) with diabetic chronic kidney disease (loss of kidney function), and cerebral infarction (stroke). Review of Resident 1's admission Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS - a federally mandated standardized assessment conducted at specific intervals to plan resident care) dated September 28, 2024, revealed the resident was severely cognitively impaired, required substantial/maximal assistance for rolling in bed, required total staff assistance for activities of daily living, required total staff assistance for transfers, and was at-risk for the development of pressure ulcers and injuries. A review of the facility admission skin assessment titled Weekly Observation dated September 26, 2024, revealed the resident had new skin issues that included right arm bruising 15 cm x 7 cm, left arm bruising 5 cm x 12 cm, left hand bruise 5 cm x 5 cm, left leg redness 3 cm x 0.5 cm, left big toe scab 1 cm x 1 cm, 2nd toe scab 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm, right buttock Stage II pressure ulcer (partial-thickness skin loss, with loss of epidermis with or without true ulceration) 1 cm x 1 cm x 0.1 cm, and a sacral pressure ulcer Stage II 0.5 cm x 3 cm. Additional site description added the resident had a scrotal opening (previous wound vaccuum site) 8 cm x 1.5 cm x 1.7 cm, and a scrotal incision with sutures 1 cm x 4 cm. A review of Resident 1's plan of care initiated September 6, 2024, revealed the resident was identified with skin impairments related to decreased mobility, and infection. Planned interventions were to provide a pressure reducing mattress and wheelchair cushion, provide incontinence care after each incontinence episode, keep resident clean and dry as possible, minimize skin exposure to moisture, maintain the head of the bed at the lowest degree of elevation possible, and keep linens clean, dry and wrinkle-free. A revision was made on October 9, 2024, to include the addition of an air mattress, and to turn and reposition the resident every two hours. The goal was the resident's pressure ulcer would heal without complications. A review of a facility skin assessment titled Weekly Observation dated November 10, 2024, revealed the resident had existing skin issues that included an abrasion to the scrotal area. No areas of pressure injury were noted on the weekly skin assessment. A review of an outside consultant wound report dated November 12, 2024, two days after the facility performed the weekly skin assessment, the wound consultant reported that Resident 1 had a new area of an unstageable pressure wound (a wound is unstageable when the assessor cannot see the base of the wound to determine the severity or stage of the wound) of the left heel. The wound was described at 100% black eschar tissue (necrotic [dead] tissue often seen in pressure ulcers) with the peri-wound soft (surrounding area of the wound edge). Orders were to Xray the left heel to rule out osteomyelitis (infection in the bone), apply Betadine to left heel with a foam dressing, and to apply heel protectors to both heels at all times. Review of a nurses noted dated November 14, 2024, at 12:04 AM, two days after the facility received the wound consultation report, the nurses note stated the following: after reviewing consult from wound care, documentation revealed a new unstageable pressure area to left heel. Upon observation, a 4 cm x 3 cm unstageable area was visualized. The MD (physician) was notified. New treatment ordered. Prevalon boots (boot with a cushioned bottom that floats the heel off the surface of the mattress, helping to reduce pressure that stays in place for continuous pressure relief) added to care. Will continue to monitor. Review of the facility documentation titled Skin Integrity Events dated November 14, 2024, at 12:04 AM revealed a newly identified area of the left heel measuring 4 cm x 3 cm pressure ulcer classified as unstageable as the area was covered with eschar. The area was characterized as necrotic eschar. Prior to the pressure wound development on Resident 1's left heel, there was no documented evidence the facility had developed measures to prevent the development of a pressure sore of the resident's heel. The resident's care plan included no additional measures to prevent the development of pressure sores, such as pressure relief for the resident's heels, for a resident who was identified as at-risk for pressure sore development. The facility was unable to provide documented evidence the resident was turned and repositioned every 2 hours as indicated in the plan of care. There was no evidence that staff were elevating the resident's heels off the bed prior to the wound development. The facility failed to provide documented evidence the facility developed, implemented and provided preventative measures to prevent the development of a pressure ulcer on the resident's left heel. Interview with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) on December 19, 2024, at 2:00 PM confirmed the facility was unable to provide documented evidence that preventative measures were timely and consistently implemented to prevent the development of an unstageable pressure injury to the left heel for Resident 1. 28 Pa. Code 211.5 (f)(ii) Medical records 28 Pa. Code: 211.12 (c)(d)(1)(3)(5) Nursing Services
Jun 2024 1 deficiency 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of the facility's abuse prohibition policy, select investigative reports and clinical records, and interviews ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of the facility's abuse prohibition policy, select investigative reports and clinical records, and interviews with staff and the resident's family it was determined that the facility neglected to provide the care and services necessary to avoid physical harm and maintain physical health for one resident out of six residents sampled (Resident 1) resulting in serious injuries, a fractured thumb and closed head injury. Findings include: The facility's policy entitled Abuse Policy dated as reviewed by the facility August 30, 2023 revealed that The facility will not tolerate abuse, neglect, exploitation of residents, and misappropriation of resident property by anyone. Facility staff must immediately report all such allegations to the administrator/abuse coordinator. The administrator/abuse coordinator will immediately begin an investigation and notify the applicable local and state agencies in accordance with the procedures in this policy. A review of the clinical record revealed that Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses of cerebral infarction (stroke), dysphagia (difficulty swallowing) requiring enteral feeding through a PEG tube (gastric feeding tube receiving liquid feeding provided through a rubber tube inserted into the stomach) and diabetes, and the need for maximum assistance with personal care. A quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment (MDS- a federally mandated standardized assessment process conducted at specific intervals to plan resident care) dated March 6, 2024, indicated that the resident required the assistance of two staff member for transfers, bed mobility and toileting and was moderately, cognitively impaired with a BIMS score of 12 (BIMS stands for Brief Interview for Mental Status. The BIMS test is used to get a quick snapshot of how well you are functioning cognitively at the moment, a score of 8-12 indicated moderate cognitively impaired). A review of the resident's current plan of care, initially dated March 27, 2023, revealed a care plan in place for ADL (activities of daily living) self-care performance deficit related to cerebral infarction and weakness. Resident 1 could answer questions with one /two words. Planned interventions, upon admission, indicated that the resident required the use of a mechanical lift (devices used to assist with transfers and movement of individuals who require support for mobility beyond the manual support provided by caregivers alone) with the assistance of two staff for transfers, was dependent on two staff for bed mobility and toileting, and was non-ambulatory. A facility investigation report dated May 21, 2024, revealed that Resident 1, had a BIMS score at the time of the incident 14 out of 15, indicating cognitively intact, and reported that he rolled out of bed while a nurse aide was providing his care. The resident stated that Employee 1, a nurse aide, was providing his care and he fell out of bed. Employee 1 then left the room to get another staff member and they both assisted him back into bed. A review of a witness statement dated May 22, 2024 (no time indicated) Resident 1 answered the following questions asked by the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) and the RN corporate consultant: -Do you remember when you fell? Yes -Do you know who picked you up off the floor? Yes -You previously stated, it was Employee 1, nurse aide. Is that correct? Yes -Did she have help? Yes -Do you know who helped her? Yes -Did you ever see the person before the night that she assisted you off the floor? Yes The facility reviewed their surveillance camera footage, revealed to ascertain who entered and left Resident 1's room. A new employee (Employee 5, a nurse aide orientee) started on the 11 PM to 7AM shift and a nurse aide on the 3 PM shift worked that hallway and had not worked in that hall before. Following the facility's review of the footage, they asked Resident 1 the following questions: -Can you tell me if the employee was black or white? Black -Did she have light or dark hair? Dark Resident 1 was unable to convey whether his fall occurred on the 3 PM to 11 PM shift. - Did the nurse come to assess you after you fell? No - Did Employee 1 provide care for you by herself? Yes -Do you have any pain? No -Do you feel safe? Yes A review of a witness statement dated May 21, 2024, (no time indicated) from Employee 1, a nurse aide, revealed that While providing care to {Resident 1}, I saw a red swelling on his forehead. I continued to wash him up and when I was done, I told Employee 3 (RN Supr), when I did not see the nurse (the LPN assigned to the unit). I did not observe {Resident 1} on the floor at any time. I did not assist {Resident 1} off the floor. I reported to Employee 3 (RN Supr) and the Director of Nursing (DON) when she came in the morning. The NHA and corporate nurse consultant asked Employee 1 on May 22, 2024: -What time did you provide care? Later in the evening -What time did you see the swelling? Later in the evening when washing him up -Who did you provide care with you, to this resident? Employee 2 a nurse aide -How many times did you provide care to Resident 1 on the 11 PM to 7 AM shift and who was with you each time? I don't remember A review of a witness statement dated May 21, 2024, at 11:19 A.M., Employee 2 stated, I assisted Employee 1 to provide care for Resident 1. While providing care, Employee 1 noticed a red mark and swelling on his forehead. We finished care and Employee 1 reported this to Employee 3 (RN Supr), the supervisor. Additional questions asked of Employee 2: -What time did you provide care? Sometime after dinner -What time did you and Employee 1 report the red area? Employee 1 reported, but not sure what time A review of a witness statement dated May 21, 2024, at 12:20 PM Employee 5, nurse aide orientee, indicated that Monday May 20, 2024, 11 PM to 7 AM shift was my first physical shift of nurse aide training. I was assigned with Employee 1. I did not witness any resident falls, injuries or incidents during that time. Additional questions asked of Employee 5 during the interview: -Did you provide care to Resident 1 with Employee 1? I shadowed Employee 1 on the 11 PM to 7 AM shift and I do not know the residents yet by name or initials. I accompanied Employee 1 in each room that shift. A review of a witness statement dated May 21, 2024, from Employee 3 (RN Supr) revealed that Employee 3 stated that Employee 1 came to me and told me he (Resident 1) has a little red area on his head. I checked his chart (clinical record) and there was nothing charted of anything that might have happened. I then came to his room to assess and at that moment there was slight reddened to his head. No hematoma present. He did not complain of any pain. The facility's administrative staff asked Employee 3 the following additional questions: -Did you ask the resident how he got the red area? No, I asked him if it hurt. He stated no and smiled. -Did you interview the nurse aides if anything happened to him? No A witness statement no date or time indicated from Employee 6 LPN, revealed that the employee stated I was on duty Monday May 20, 2024, on the 3 PM to 11 PM shift. I went to give meds to {Resident 1} twice, around 5:30 PM to 6 PM and 8 PM. The resident was fine, without any bruises or marks at any parts of his body. If anything happened during my shift, it was not reported to me. A witness statement dated May 21, 2024, from Employee 4, nurse aide, stated Around 10:30 AM (May 21, 2024) My co worker and I went to provide ADLs to {Resident 1}. We noticed swelling and bruising to left eye and forehead injury and left leg and right finger injury. The RN supervisor and DON notified immediately. A witness statement dated May 21, 2024, (no time indicated) from Employee 7, a nurse aide, stated my coworker and I were about to do ADLs and noticed swelling and bruising to his {Resident 1} left eye and forehead, injury to left leg and right finger. This was immediately reported to the Supervisor and DON. A witness statement dated May 29, 2024 (no time indicated) Employee 8, LPN, stated that on May 21, 2024, she was called to {Resident 1's} room by nurse aide staff at approximately 10:30 AM Upon entering the room, this nurse observed multiple discolorations and lacerations, swelling on the left side of his head and face. The NHA was notified. Employee 8 stated that she had been in the resident's room perviously on that shift at 9 AM to administer his medications through the g-tube. He was covered up and his head was turned at that time when the meds were given, stating I did not observe anything at that time. He was sleeping at that time. A review of the resident's clinical record revealed that there was no nursing documentation entered on May 20, 2024, during the 3 PM to 11 PM or May 21, 2024, on the 11 PM to 7 AM shifts. A review of facility staffing documents revealed that Employee 1 worked May 20, 2024, on the 3 PM to 11 PM shift and May 20th into May 21, 2024, 11 PM to 7 AM shift. Employee 3 (RN Supr) worked May 20, 2024, 7 PM to 11 PM and May 20th into May 21, 2024, 11 PM to 7 AM shifts. There was documented evidence that the licensed and professional nursing staff had conducted a thorough nursing assessment, including neuro checks, on May 20, 2024, during the 3 PM to 11 PM and 11 PM to 7 AM shifts in response to the resident's reported fall and observed facial and head injuries. A review of a nursing wound summary report dated May 21, 2024, at 10:45 PM revealed the resident sustained the following injuries: - a bruise to the right thumb, measuring 1.5 cm x 2 cm -a bruise to the left forehead measuring 4 cm x 3 cm -a bruise to the left eye, measuring 4 cm x 1,5 cm -a laceration to the left cheek, measuring 2 cm x 0.1 cm -a skin tear to the left shoulder measuring 0.9 cm x 0.7 cm -a skin tear to the right, top of the foot, right medial skin tear measuring 2 cm x 0.5 cm -skin tear to the left knee measuring 3.8 cm x 0.9 cm -a skin tear to the left lateral knee measuring 2.5 cm x 0.8 cm There was no additional description of these wounds in the resident's clinical record at the time of the survey ending June 4, 2024, to include the characteristics/appearance of the skin condition or any bleeding. A review of nursing documentation dated May 21, 2024 at 10:50 AM Resident was interviewed, feels safe while in facility and pleasant, no pain noted, will continue to monitor. MD aware. Wife was called and still awaiting a call. Multiple areas noted as well as a hematoma to his left forehead. RN provided a full body assessment. Tylenol was immediately offered, resident did not accept and stated he was fine but accepted Tylenol a few hours later. The physician was notified and gave new orders for ice pack and x-rays of resident's right hand and left shoulder. Resident stated that he rolled out of bed as he was being cared for during the night time hours. Resident stated a NA was providing care while he rolled out of bed onto floor. She left the room to get another staff member and they assisted him back into bed. Resident was unsure of the other person who assisted the CNA. An immediate investigation with statements was initiated from all staff that had come in contact with resident. Resident then notified us of the name of the NA that he stated was changing resident. A review of a social services note dated May 21, 2024, at 2:33 PM revealed SS paid resident a supportive visit following a fall incident. Resident expressed that he was upset about the fall and in discomfort. The nurse came in and gave resident pain relief and he denied any further concerns or pain. A nurse's note dated May 21, 2024, at 1:57 PM revealed Resident to be sent out to the Hospital to evaluate for status post fall. A nursing entry May 21, 2024 at 4:21 PM revealed, resident being sent out to evaluate for self-reporting a fall on May 20, 2024. Resident has multiple skin tears, a bump and bruise on his left head, a black left eye, and a bruise on his right thumb with edema and pain. X-ray of left shoulder negative for fracture. X-ray of right hand cannot rule out fracture. Resident complained of intermittent headache, right hand pain, left shoulder pain, does not like ice pack due to cold. Spouse requesting resident be sent out for evaluation. Physician notified. EMS arrived to bring resident to Emergency department. Sent to the hospital. A review of hospital documentation dated May 21, 2024, revealed that the resident's diagnoses included a displaced fracture of distal phalanx of right thumb, a closed head injury, contusion of left orbital tissues, neck and left shoulder pain. The resident received a CT scan (Uses several X-ray images and computer processing to create cross sectional images) of the head, cervical spine, chest, hand and shoulder X-Rays. Tylenol was administered and a dressing and splint applied. Right thumb swollen and bruised, patient tender to palpation, particular with palpation of the distal portion. Small abrasions not amenable to repair noted to the right foot as well as the left knee, significant tenderness to palpation of those areas. Presentation as above with fracture of the distal phalanx of the right thumb as well as shoulder pain and neck pain and contusion of the left orbit and closed head injury status post fall. Vital signs and examination as above. A nurses note dated May 21, 2024 at 10:40 P.M. revealed Resident returned from the hospital and wife present. Resident diagnosis with displaced fracture of distal phalanx of right thumb. Resident arrived with splint to right thumb. Resident is to follow up with Ortho. During an interview on June 4, 2024, at 12 PM, Resident 1's wife stated that she visits her husband daily. She stated that he told her that the nurse aide rolled him out of bed. He fell to the floor and rolled underneath the bed. The nurse aide left him on the floor and returned with another nurse aide. The two nurse aides then picked him up from the floor, without using the mechanical lift (as is his transfer status, mechanical lift and assist of 2 staff). She stated that she felt that the multiple cuts and skin tears he sustained were due the two nurse aides pulling him out from under the bed. Employee 1 was caring for the resident, while he was in bed, without the assistance of another nurse aide, and the resident rolled out of bed. Employee 1 failed to report the resident's fall and sought the assistance of another nurse aide to put the resident back to bed, without the use of a mechanical lift. These nurse aides did not report the resident's fall. Upon report of the resident's head and facial injuries, licensed and professional nursing staff failed to promptly assess the resident and initiate checks of the resident's neurological status An interview with the Nursing Home Administrator and Director of Nursing on June 4, 2024, at approximately 2 PM confirmed that the facility's nursing staff failed to provide resident Resident 1 with the care and services necessary to avoid physical harm. The NHA and DON confirmed that Employee 1 was aware that the resident's bed mobility and transfer were to performed with two people but neglected to assure the presence of a second person for the resident's care, and did not use the mechanical lift to assist the resident back to bed after the fall, and failed to report the incident to assure the resident received timely and necessary care. 28 Pa. Code 201.18 (e)(1) Management 28 Pa. Code 201.29 (a)(c) Resident Rights 28 Pa. Code 211.12 (c)(d)(5) Nursing Services
Feb 2024 10 deficiencies
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 a review of clinical records and select facility reports and staff interviews it was determined that the facility faile...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of clinical records and select facility reports and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to timely consult with the physician regarding the potential need to alter treatment in response to a resident's increased pain following an unwitnessed fall for one resident out of 18 sampled (Resident 3). Findings included: Review of Resident 3's clinical record revealed that the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included dementia, muscle weakness, history of fractures, age-related osteoporosis, and abnormal gait and mobility. A review of an unwitnessed fall incident report that was completed by Employee 3, a registered nurse (RN), dated October 22, 2023, at 4:45 a.m., revealed that staff found Resident 3 sitting on her buttocks in her room on the right side of her bed. The resident reported to staff, I was trying to hang the picture back on the wall. Employee 3 assessed the resident and noted that she had some pain/discomfort to her left elbow and an ice pack was applied and that the physician was notified. An eMAR - Medication Administration Note completed by Employee 4, a licensed practical nurse (LPN) dated October 22, 2023, at 3:49 p.m., revealed that nursing administered the physician's ordered as needed (PRN) Acetaminophen Tablet (Tylenol - a non-opioid pain medication used to treat mild to moderate pain) 325 mg, 2 tablets to the resident in response to the resident offering complaints of left elbow pain. The resident reported pain at a level of 7 out of 10 (on a scale of 0-10, with 10 being the most severe). An eMAR - Medication Administration Note completed by Employee 5, a LPN, dated October 23, 2023, at 8:57 p.m., revealed that a PRN Tylenol dose was administered for further complaints of severe pain post fall. The resident reported 7 out of 10, left elbow pain. A review of a Head to Toe Evaluation completed by Employee 5, LPN, dated October 23, 2023, at 9:46 p.m., revealed that Resident 3 was assessed post fall occurrence and note with increased complaints (a resident reported 7 out of 10 pain level) of left elbow pain and swelling. A progress note completed by Employee 5 on October 23, 2023, at 9:59 p.m., revealed that Resident 3's left elbow was warm to touch and swollen and to continue to monitor. There was no documented evidence that nursing staff timely notified the resident's attending physician of the resident's increased and ongoing complaints of severe pain after the unwitnessed fall on October 22, 2023. The physician was not notified until October 24, 2023, according to an eMAR - Medication Administration Note completed by Employee 6, a RN, dated October 24, 2023, at 11:11 AM., which noted that Resident 3's attending physician was made aware of swelling to her left elbow with new orders to obtain an x-ray. A review of a nursing progress note completed by the Director of Nursing (DON) dated October 24, 2023, at 2:00 p.m., revealed x-ray results that confirmed that Resident 3 sustained a left acute humeral fracture (is the medical name for breaking the bone in the upper arm). Resident 3's son was notified and declined to have the resident transferred to the hospital and requested to have a consult with an orthopedic (bone specialist) physician instead for treatment. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on February 23, 2024, at 10:15 a.m., confirmed that the facility failed to notify the physician of Resident 3's increased complaints of pain post an unwitnessed fall that resulted in a fracture to the resident's left upper arm. Refer F697 28 Pa. Code 211.12 (c)(d)(1)(3)(5) Nursing services 28 Pa. Code 211.5(f) Clinical records
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of clinical records and the Resident Assessment Instrument and staff interviews, it was determined that the fa...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of clinical records and the Resident Assessment Instrument and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set Assessments (MDS - a federally mandated standardized assessment conducted at specific intervals to plan resident care) accurately reflected the status of one resident out of 19 sampled (Resident 13). Findings include: A review of the clinical record revealed that Resident 13 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses to have included cardiovascular disease, renal insufficiency, and diabetes. A review of Resident 13's quarterly review MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed Section P - P0100. Restraints was coded as D. Other indicating that the resident had a form of restraints in place. A review of Resident 13's clinical record failed to reveal that the resident had restraints in place as noted on the quarterly MDS assessment. An interview with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) on February 22, 2024, at 2:00 p.m., revealed that Resident 13 did not have physician's orders for restraints or require restraints and confirmed that the quarterly MDS Assessment November 7, 2023, Section P - P0100. Restraints was coded in error to indicate that the resident had a restraint in place.
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 clinical record review and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to review and revis...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to review and revise the care plan to include the plan to meet the resident's current discharge goal for one resident out of 18 sampled (Resident 64). Findings include: A review of clinical record revealed that Resident 64 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses of anxiety and depression. Review of a Quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment (MDS- a federally mandated standardized assessment process conducted at specific intervals to plan resident care) dated January 31, 2024, revealed that the resident was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 15 (Brief Interview for Mental Status - a tool to assess cognitive function). Review of Resident 64's care plan initially dated, September 17, 2023, indicated that the resident's discharge plan was to return home. Upon review at the time of the survey ending February 23, 2024, revealed no revisions were noted to that plan and goal to return home. Review of social service progress notes dated during January 2024 and February 2024, revealed that the facility's social services director was dealing with outside agencies to assist Resident 64 to return home. However, the resident's care plan had not but updated to reflect the current obstacles to her discharge home and the measures needed to meet that goal. The social service director confirmed during interview on February 22, 2024, at approximately 1:30 p.m. that Resident 64's care plan had not been updated to reflect the resident's current discharge plans and measures, which need to be taken to meet that goal.
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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of clinical records, select facility policy and investigative reports and staff interviews it was determined t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of clinical records, select facility policy and investigative reports and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to implement an individualized incontinence management plan to assure timely services to meet the resident's assessed needs for one resident out of two sampled (Resident 18). Findings included: A review of a facility policy entitled Continence Management Program that was last reviewed by the facility on April 21, 2023, indicated that an incontinence plan is developed according to the resident's needs and capabilities. A Continence Evaluation will be conducted to determine if a 72-hour bowel and bladder tracking is indicated and licensed nurse will instruct the nursing assistants to complete the form. When a [NAME] has been identified, a new Continence Evaluation will be completed and the licensed nurse will develop a toileting program, determining the approaches needed to achieve the goal(s) and establish the type of staff intervention needed to meet each individual resident's goal(s). The licensed nurse will select equipment and aids needed to be successful and note the interventions and will review the plan as needed to identify any necessary modifications. A review of Resident 18's clinical record revealed that the resident was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's dementia, spinal stenosis (is a condition where spinal column narrows and compresses the spinal cord), ambulatory dysfunction, and anxiety. Resident 18's plan of care initiated June 29, 2021, identified that the resident was at risk for bladder and bowel incontinence related to impaired mobility and Alzheimer's dementia with a goal for the resident to be continent at all times through next review. Planned interventions included scheduled toileting 12:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m., toilet with a.m. and p.m. care, and to check and change every two-hours. A review of a quarterly Minimum Data Set Assessments (MDS- a federally mandated standardized assessment process conducted periodically to plan resident care) dated May 2, 2024, and August 2, 2023, revealed that the resident had severe cognitive impairment, was dependent on staff for activities of daily living (ADLs), and was frequently incontinent of bladder and bowel and not on a toileting program. A review of Resident 18's clinical record weekly wound assessment completed by Employee 2, a registered nurse (RN), dated September 27, 2024, at 3:11 a.m., revealed that the resident had a newly facility acquired developed moisture-associated skin damage (MASD - inflammation or skin erosion caused by prolonged exposure to moisture from sources such as urine, stool, sweat, wound drainage, saliva, or mucus) to the buttocks that measured 30.0 cm in length by 30.0 cm in width and zero (0) depth with no drainage, no odor. The immediate intervention was to apply veraseptine [skin treatment that forms a moisture barrier that prevents and helps heal skin irritations from urine, diarrhea, perspiration) twice per day and with each incontinence episode. A progress note by the wound care specialist nurse practitioner (CRNP), dated September 28, 2024, at 8:45 a.m., revealed that the resident was evaluated due to a new skin impairment. The CRNP assessed that Resident 18 had a deep tissue injury (DTI - a localized area of maroon or purplish discoloration of intact skin or a blood-filled blister that forms due to shear and/or pressure). The area, (wound #1), to the sacrum measured 2.0 cm in length by 0.5 cm in width by 0.0 depth intact purplish non-blanchable epithelial tissue with pressure identified as the primary etiology. A second DTI, (wound #2) was noted to the resident's left ischium (one of three bones of the pelvis) that measured 8.0 cm in length by 0.0 cm in depth intact purplish non-blanchable epithelial tissue with pressure identified as the primary etiology. A third area (wound #3) was noted to the sacral/perineal area with primary etiology as incontinence associated dermatitis with partial thickness that measured 0 cm in length by 0 cm in width by 0.0 cm in depth that had one hundred percent epithelial tissue and attached wound edges. The periwound was described as fragile, dermatitis, with scant amount of serous exudate. The recommended wound preventative measures were to continue on-going pressure reduction and turning/repositioning precautions, including pressure reduction to all boney prominences. Also, due to the resident's incontinence and increased risk of skin breakdown to continue protocol for swift incontinence management. The resident's plan for incontinence management and toileting was not revised to reflect the need and increased emphasis on the swiftness of incontinence management to ensure that staff provided prompt incontinence care at the frequency required to prevent further skin damage and to promote healing and prevent worsening of existing pressure sores. A review of Resident 18's Survey Documentation Report (a summary report of staff's task/intervention completion) dated September 2023, revealed that there was no documented evidence that the planned check and change every two-hours was performed in effort to keep the resident's skin clean and dry. Resident 18's clinical record revealed that last documented bladder and bowel evaluation was completed on January 20, 2022. The facility failed to timely reassess Resident 18's toileting needs and schedule to promptly implement an effective incontinence management and toileting plan to prevent incontinence related complications, such as MASD. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on February 23, 2024, at 10:33 a.m., the DON confirmed that the facility was unable to provide documented evidence that Resident 18's incontinence needs were reassessed following the identification of the MASD and that a plan to provide prompt and frequent services for the resident's incontinence and toileting needs was implemented. Refer F686 28 Pa. Code 211.12 (c)(d)(1)(5) Nursing services 28 Pa. Code 211.10 (a)(d) Resident care policies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0697 (Tag F0697)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of clinical records and select facility reports and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of clinical records and select facility reports and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to timely recognize that a resident was experiencing increased pain after an unwitnessed fall, assure prompt evaluation of the cause of the pain and manage the resident's pain consistent with professional standards of practice for one resident out of 18 sampled (Resident 3). Findings included: Review of Resident 3's clinical record revealed that the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included dementia, muscle weakness, history of fractures, age-related osteoporosis, and abnormal gait and mobility. A review of an unwitnessed fall incident report that was completed by Employee 3, a registered nurse (RN), dated October 22, 2023, at 4:45 a.m., revealed that staff found Resident 3 sitting on her buttocks in her room on the right side of her bed. The resident reported to staff, I was trying to hang the picture back on the wall. Employee 3 assessed the resident and noted that she had some pain/discomfort to her left elbow and an ice pack was applied and that the physician was notified. An eMAR - Medication Administration Note completed by Employee 4, a licensed practical nurse (LPN) dated October 22, 2023, at 3:49 p.m., revealed that nursing administered the physician's ordered, as needed (PRN) Acetaminophen Tablet (Tylenol) 325 mg, 2 tablets, prescribed for administration to the resident every 8 hours, to the resident in response to the resident offering complaints of left elbow pain. However, the resident reported pain at a level of 7 out of 10 (on a scale of 0-10, with 10 being the most severe) at that time. An eMAR - Medication Administration Note completed by Employee 5, a LPN, dated October 23, 2023, at 8:57 p.m., revealed that another dose of PRN Tylenol was administered, within five hours of the last dose, for the resident's further complaints of severe pain post fall. The resident reported 7 out of 10, left elbow pain. There was no documented evidence that nursing staff timely consulted with the physician regarding the resident's increased pain, rated at level 7 out of 10, requiring repeat administration of Tylenol 325 mg 2 tablets. A review of a Head to Toe Evaluation completed by Employee 5, LPN, dated October 23, 2023, at 9:46 p.m., revealed that Resident 3 was assessed post fall occurrence and note with increased complaints (a resident reported 7 out of 10 pain level) of left elbow pain and swelling. A progress note completed by Employee 5 on October 23, 2023, at 9:59 p.m., revealed that Resident 3's left elbow was warm to touch and swollen and to continue to monitor. There was no documented evidence that nursing staff timely notified the resident's attending physician of the resident's increased and ongoing complaints of severe pain after the unwitnessed fall on October 22, 2023, to ensure the resident's prescribed pain management regimen was consistent with the resident's current pain management needs. The physician was not notified until October 24, 2023, according to an eMAR - Medication Administration Note completed by Employee 6, a RN, dated October 24, 2023, at 11:11 AM., which noted that Resident 3's attending physician was made aware of swelling to her left elbow with new orders to obtain an x-ray. A review of a nursing progress note completed by the Director of Nursing (DON) dated October 24, 2023, at 2:00 p.m., revealed x-ray results that confirmed that Resident 3 sustained a left acute humeral fracture (is the medical name for breaking the bone in the upper arm). Resident 3's son was notified and declined to have the resident transferred to the hospital and requested to have a consult with an orthopedic (bone specialist) physician instead for treatment. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on February 23, 2024, at 10:15 a.m., confirmed that the facility failed to ensure a timely evaluation of the resident's current pain management needs following an unwitnessed fall and repeated complaints of increased pain after an unwitnessed fall, that resulted in a fracture to the resident's left upper arm. Refer F697 28 Pa. Code 211.12 (c)(d)(1)(3)(5) Nursing services 28 Pa. Code 211.5(f) Clinical records
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of resident clinical records, select facility policy, facility incident reports, and staff interview it was reve...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of resident clinical records, select facility policy, facility incident reports, and staff interview it was revealed that the facility failed to assure that one of 19 residents reviewed was free of significant medication errors (Resident 84). Findings include: A review of a current facility policy entitled 24 Hour Order Review, last reviewed by the facility April 2023 revealed a resident's record will be checked each night for new orders written in the past 24 hours. Further it was indicated if new orders were written, the nurse will verify the order has been transcribed correctly on the medication record. A review of the clinical record revealed that Resident 84 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with a diagnosis of congestive heart failure. The resident's hospital discharge orders included a list of medications the resident was to receive after discharge and upon admission to the skilled nursing facility, which included Xarelto (anticoagulant) 15 mg two times a day for 27 doses. The next dose was due on November 29, 2023. The instructions indicated that resident was then to begin Xarelto 20 mg with breakfast for 21 doses. A notation was written on the discharge orders to not start the 20 mg tablet before December 13, 2023. A review of physician's orders initially dated November 29, 2023, revealed an order for Xarelto 15 mg two times a day and Xarelto 20 mg daily to begin on November 30, 2023. The facility's nursing staff failed to accurately transcribe the physician orders for the Xarelto into the resident's clinical record and started the 20 mg dose on November 30, 2023, instead of following the hospital discharge orders to begin the Xarelto 20 mg daily on December 13, 2023. The facility staff failed to identify the transcription error when completing the 24 hour order review. A review of a facility incident report dated December 7, 2023, at 3:30 PM revealed Resident 84 was administered additional doses of Xarelto. Upon review of the hospital discharge orders, Xarelto 20 mg was to start on December 13, 2023, and Xarelto 15 mg twice a day November 29, 2023. Both orders, Xarelto 15 mg BID and Xarelto 20 mg daily, were started upon the resident's admission, on November 29, 2023, and November 30, 2023, respectively. Resident 84 received seven doses of Xarelto 20 mg daily, in addition to the Xarelto 15 mg she was receiving twice a day from November 30, 2023, until December 7, 2023. An interview with the Director of Nursing on February 23, 2024, at approximately 2:00 PM confirmed that facility staff administered the incorrect dose of medication to Resident 84 and, failed to ensure the resident was free from significant medication errors. This deficiency is cited as past non-compliance. The facility's corrective action plan included the following: On December 7th 2023, the physician was made aware and a new order was received to change the timing of the Xarelto. The resident and the resident's responsible party was made aware of the medication error. Resident 84 received a head to toe assessment with no ill effects noted. To identify like residents that have the potential to be affected the DON or designee will review current residents on anticoagulants to ensure the order is correct and transcribed to the medication administration record correctly. To identify like residents that have the potential to be affected the DON or designee will review new admissions and readmissions in the past seven days to ensure all orders from the hospital were reconciled correctly into the residents' medical records. To prevent this from occurring again the DON or designee will complete medication competencies on all current licensed nurses. To prevent this from occurring again the DON or designee will educate all the licensed nurses on the admission chart check form, transcribing medications, and the 24 Hour Order Review policy. To monitor and maintain ongoing compliance the DON or designee will audit three random admissions weekly for four weeks then monthly for two months to ensure all orders from the hospital were reconciled correctly into the resident's medical record. To monitor and maintain ongoing compliance the DON or designee will audit five current residents on anticoagulants weekly for four weeks then monthly for two months to ensure the order is correct and transcribed on the medication administration record correctly. The facility completed the plan of correction on December 10, 2023, as verified during the survey of February 23, 2024. 28 Pa. Code 211.12 (c)(d)(1)(3)(5) Nursing Services. 28 Pa. Code 211.9 (a)(1)(d) Pharmacy Services.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on a review of select facility policies, observations, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to label and identify use by/discard dates for multidose insulin and failed...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on a review of select facility policies, observations, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to label and identify use by/discard dates for multidose insulin and failed to store drugs and pharmacy supplies at appropriate temperatures for one of 19 residents sampled (Resident 50) Findings include: A review of facility policy entitled Storage and Expiration Dating of Medications and Biologicals last reviewed April 21, 2023, revealed that medications and biologics should have an expiration date for opened medications. If a multi-dose vial of an injectable medication has been opened the vial should be dated and discarded within 28 days. The facility should ensure that medications and biologicals are stored at their appropriate temperatures according to the United States Pharmacopeia guidelines for temperature ranges. Staff should monitor the temperature of vaccines twice a day. Refrigeration 36°F to 46°F. An observation of the first-floor medication cart on February 22, 2024, at approximately 8:55 AM revealed Resident 50's Lantus multidose vial 100 units/ml (insulin/glargine) was opened and in use. but not dated when it was opened for use. An interview with Employee 1, RN (registered nurse), on February 22, 2024, at the time of the observation revealed that the Lantus insulin vial was not dated when opened and all insulins should be dated when opened and disposed of 28 days after opening. An observation of the first-floor medication storage room performed on February 22, 2024, at 9:20 AM, revealed that the thermometer inside the small medication refrigerator, closest to the door, used to store insulins and other medications that required proper refrigeration, read 30-degrees Fahrenheit. A review of the manufacturer's directions for use of the insulin stored inside the refrigerator revealed that the insulin is to be stored in a refrigerator at approximately 36°F to 46°F. There was no temperature log for this refrigerator to show that staff was checking the temperatures as noted in facility policy. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on February 22, 2024, at approximately 10:15 AM confirmed the facility failed to follow the policy for labeling and dating medications and failed to ensure that the insulin refrigerator was being monitored for appropriate temperature settings and that the medications were stored at acceptable temperatures. 28 Pa Code 211.12 (d)(3)(5) Nursing services 28 Pa. Code 211.9 (a)(1)(k) Pharmacy services
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of select facility policy and clinical records and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility faile...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of select facility policy and clinical records and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents dependent on staff for assistance with activities of daily living were the necessary care and services to maintain good personal hygiene by failing to shower residents at the scheduled/planned frequency for three out of 18 residents sampled (Residents 7, 31, and 1). Findings include: A review of a facility policy entitled Resident Bath/Shower/Scheduling Policy that was last reviewed by the facility on April 21, 2023, indicated that residents will be bathed or showered according to their preferences in order to maintain healthy hygiene and skin condition. Each resident will be scheduled to receive bathing a minimum of two times per week unless they prefer less frequent baths or state regulations requires more frequent bathing. When the bath or shower is complete, the nurse assistant (NA) will document the activity on the shower sheet or Point of Care [(POC) an electronic record keeping system that staff record assigned care tasks that they completed for each resident] of the electronic record. If the bath/shower cannot be given or the resident refuses, the nursing assistant will promptly report this to the Charge Nurse. The Charge Nurse will speak with the resident who refuses to ascertain why they are refusing and to determine if alternative arrangements that suit the resident can be made. If the resident continues to refuse, the Charge Nurse will document the resident's refusals in the medical record. A review of Resident 7's clinical record revealed that the resident was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body) and hemiparesis (muscular weakness or partial paralysis restricted to one side of the body) following unspecified cerebrovascular disease (includes a range of conditions that affect the flow of blood through the brain that alters the blood flow and can sometimes impair the brain's functions on either a temporary or permanent basis) affecting unspecified side, Alzheimer's dementia, Parkinson's disease (chronic and progressive movement disorder that initially causes tremor in one hand, stiffness or slowing of movement), and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). The resident's care plan, initiated May 6, 2015, and revised on September 23, 2023, indicated that the resident had activities of daily living (ADL) self-care deficit related to muscle weakness, advanced dementia, Parkinson's, S/P CVA, Hemiplegia/ Hemiparesis, and severely impaired cognition, and decreased range of motion (ROM) bilateral upper and bilateral lower extremities with a resident goal to maintain a clean, neat, and well-groomed appearance through next review. The care plan noted that the resident was non-ambulatory and required an assist of two with use of mechanical lift for transfers, and extensive to total assist of two staff for care to include bathing, dressing, toileting, and bed mobility. The resident's care plan indicated that staff were to shower the resident as per schedule (twice per week). A review of the resident's shower task documentation report dated December 2023, revealed that staff showered Resident 7 on 12/1/2023, at 5:44 p.m., on 12/12/2023, at 2:59 p.m., and on 12/15/2023, at 10:03 p.m., providing the resident three showers out of eight scheduled/planned according to the shower schedule. The resident's shower task documentation report dated January 2024, revealed that Resident 7 was showered on 1/5/2024, at 10:23 p.m., and on 1/12/2024, at 10:32 p.m The facility provided two showers out of eight scheduled for the resident. Resident 7's shower task documentation report dated through survey ending February 23, 2024, revealed that staff showered the resident on 2/16/2024, at 5:07 p.m. To date, staff provided the resident one out of six scheduled showers. There was no documented evidence that Resident 7 refused to be showered according to the schedule planned by the facility. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on February 23, 2024, at approximately 11:45 a.m., revealed that Resident 7 should have received two showers per week. A review of the clinical record revealed that Resident 31 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses to include unspecified dementia (a condition that affects memory, thinking and interferes with daily life) and acute/chronic respiratory failure (lung condition where organs have inadequate oxygen supply due to fluid buildup in the lungs) with hypoxia (occurs when tissues and cells do not get enough oxygen to function correctly). A review of Resident 31's care plan dated November 21, 2023, indicated that the resident required total assistance with bathing and hygiene related to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD, a chronic inflammatory lung disease that causes obstructed airflow from the lungs), muscle weakness and difficulty walking with interventions to have an assist of two staff members and use of a Hoyer lift (mechanical lift used to transfer residents) for transfers. A review of Resident 31's task schedule for showers indicated that staff were to shower the resident every Monday and Friday. A review of the resident's bathing records for November 2023, December 2023, January 2024, and February 2024 (as of the date of the survey ending February 23, 2024) revealed no evidence that the resident had been showered during these four months. A review of the clinical record revealed that Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses to include unspecified dementia and a pressure ulcer stage two to the sacral region (partial thickness skin loss that extends into the bottom layers of the skin). A review of Resident 1's care plan, revised on January 23, 2024, indicated that the resident required assistance from staff related to impaired mobility with planned interventions to have an assist of one staff member for bathing/hygiene and transfers. A review of Resident 1's task schedule for showers indicated that the resident was to receive a shower every Monday and Thursday. A review of the resident's bathing records for January 2024 and February 2024 revealed that staff showered the resident only once during the last two months through the time of the survey ending February 23, 2024. During an interview on February 23, 2024, at approximately 2:00 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) and Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) confirmed that the facility has not been able to consistently provide residents' showers as planned and that it was the facility's responsibility to ensure that residents that were dependent on staff for ADLs received timely and consistent assistance to maintain good personal hygiene and grooming. 28 Pa. Code 211.12 (d)(4)(5) Nursing services.
CONCERN (E)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of clinical records, observations and staff and resident interviews it was determined that the facility failed...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of clinical records, observations and staff and resident interviews it was determined that the facility failed to demonstrate the consistent implementation of measures planned to prevent pressure sore development for one resident out of two sampled with a pressure sore (Resident 18). Findings included: A review of Resident 18's clinical record revealed that the resident was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's dementia, spinal stenosis (is a condition where spinal column narrows and compresses the spinal cord), ambulatory dysfunction, and anxiety. Resident 18's current plan of care identified that the resident was at risk for skin breakdown related to decreased mobility and weakness and that the resident would have no preventable breakdown. Planned interventions included to turn and reposition every two hours, keep clean and dry, and to monitor for skin breakdown. A review of a quarterly Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS- a federally mandated standardized assessment process conducted periodically to plan resident care) assessment dated [DATE], revealed that the resident had severe cognitive impairment and was dependent on staff for toileting, bathing, bed mobility and transfers. A review of Resident 18's Survey Documentation Report (a summary report of staff's task/intervention completion) dated September 2023, revealed that there was no documented evidence that the planned pressure ulcer prevention intervention to turn and reposition every two hours was completed as planned. A review of Resident 18's clinical record weekly wound assessment completed by Employee 2, a registered nurse (RN), dated September 27, 2024, at 3:11 a.m., revealed that the resident had a newly facility acquired developed moisture-associated skin damage (MASD - inflammation or skin erosion caused by prolonged exposure to moisture from sources such as urine, stool, sweat, wound drainage, saliva, or mucus) to the buttocks that measured 30.0 cm in length by 30.0 cm in width and zero (0) depth with no drainage, no odor. The immediate intervention was to apply veraseptine [skin treatment that forms a moisture barrier that prevents and helps heal skin irritations from urine, diarrhea, perspiration) twice per day and with each incontinence episode. A progress note by the wound care specialist nurse practitioner (CRNP), dated September 28, 2024, at 8:45 a.m., revealed that the resident was evaluated due to a new skin impairment. The CRNP assessed that Resident 18 had a deep tissue injury (DTI - a localized area of maroon or purplish discoloration of intact skin or a blood-filled blister that forms due to shear and/or pressure). The area, (wound #1), to the sacrum measured 2.0 cm in length by 0.5 cm in width by 0.0 depth intact purplish non-blanchable epithelial tissue with pressure identified as the primary etiology. A second DTI, (wound #2) was noted to the resident's left ischium (one of three bones of the pelvis) that measured 8.0 cm in length by 0.0 cm in depth intact purplish non-blanchable epithelial tissue with pressure identified as the primary etiology. A third area (wound #3) was noted to the sacral/perineal area with primary etiology as incontinence associated dermatitis with partial thickness that measured 0 cm in length by 0 cm in width by 0.0 cm in depth that had one hundred percent epithelial tissue and attached wound edges. The periwound was described as fragile, dermatitis, with scant amount of serous exudate. The recommended wound preventative measures were to continue on-going pressure reduction and turning/repositioning precautions, including pressure reduction to all boney prominences. Also, due to the resident's incontinence and increased risk of skin breakdown to continue protocol for swift incontinence management. The resident's plan for maintenance of skin integrity was not revised to reflect the need and increased emphasis on the swiftness of incontinence management to ensure that staff provided prompt incontinence care at the frequency required to prevent further skin damage and to promote healing and prevent worsening of existing pressure sores. The facility was unable to provide documented evidence that staff provided turning and repositioning at least, every two hours as care planned and Resident 18 received timely incontinence management in attempt to keep the resident clean and dry to prevent skin impairments. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on February 23, 2024, at 10:33 a.m., the DON confirmed that the facility was unable to provide documented evidence that Resident 18 received timely and consistent repositioning and increased incontinence care in efforts to prevent the development of pressure sores. Refer F690 28 Pa. Code: 211.12 (c)(d)(1)(3)(5) Nursing Services
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, review of select facility policy and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain acceptable practices for the storage and service of food to prevent t...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, review of select facility policy and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain acceptable practices for the storage and service of food to prevent the potential for contamination and microbial growth in food, which increased the risk of food-borne illness. Findings include: Food safety and inspection standards for safe food handling indicate that everything that comes in contact with food must be kept clean and food that is mishandled can lead to foodborne illness. Safe steps in food handling, cooking, and storage are essential in preventing foodborne illness. You cannot always see, smell, or taste harmful bacteria that may cause illness according to the USDA (The United States Department of Agriculture, also known as the Agriculture Department, is the U.S. federal executive department responsible for developing and executing federal laws related to food). A Review of a facility policy entitled Food and Nutrition Services: Food Production and Food Safety that was last reviewed by the facility on April 21, 2023, revealed that all items must be stored at least six (6) inches above the floor and all food removed from the freezer will be labeled with a pull date. The initial tour of the kitchen was conducted with the certified dietary manager (CDM) on February 21, 2024, at 8:44 a.m., revealed the following unsanitary practices with the potential to introduce contaminants into food and increase the potential for food-borne illness, was identified: Observations of the walk-in produce/dairy refrigerator revealed that there were several cases of juices that were directly on the floor. Inside of the walk-in freezer there were several cases of frozen foods that were blocking the walkway and directly on the floor. Observations of the dry storage area revealed several cases of dry foods on the floor. An interview with the CDM confirmed that when food/food items are received that they should not be directly on the floor and should be stored 6-inches off the floor. Observation of the cold production reach-in cooler revealed a full sheet tray of thawed 4-ounce shakes, which lacked a thaw or discard date. According to manufacturer's directions, the product had a 14-day shelf life after thawing. The CDM confirmed at the time of the observation that the tray of 4-ounce shakes should have included a thaw date and/or a discard date. An interview with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) on February 21, 2024, at 2:15 p.m., confirmed that foods and beverages should be stored off the floor and labeled to ensure acceptable use. 28 Pa. Code 201.18 (e) (2.1) Management 28 Pa. Code 211.6 (f) Dietary Services
Aug 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on review of test tray results and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to serve foods at palatable temperatures and quality as discerned by residents includ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of test tray results and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to serve foods at palatable temperatures and quality as discerned by residents including one of six residents sampled (Resident 1 ). Findings include: During interview with Resident 1 on August 15, 2023, at 10 AM the resident stated that the hot food is served cold and arrives late and his hot tea is always cold. He stated that the food doesn't taste good. Observation of the lunch meal service on August 15, 2023, on the nursing unit revealed the following: The food cart was delivered to the resident unit at approximately 12:37 p.m., to the first floor B hallway. At the time the last tray was served to the resident at approximately 1:05 p.m., the temperatures of the test tray food items revealed the following unpalatable food beverage temperatures: cheeseburger - 113.9 degrees Fahrenheit (cold to taste) mashed potatoes with gravy 117.5 degrees Fahrenheit (cold to taste) orange juice - 43.8 degrees Fahrenheit (luke warm) fruit punch - 49.6 degrees Fahrenheit (luke warm) hot water for tea - 127 degrees Fahrenheit (luke warm) These food and beverages were not palatable at the temperatures served. During an interview August 15, 2023 at approximately 1 P.M., the Director of Nursing and the Nursing Home Administrator confirmed that the temperatures of the food and beverages were not within palatable range.
Apr 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (E) 📢 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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of clinical records, grievances lodged with the facility and information submitted by the facility, resident a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of clinical records, grievances lodged with the facility and information submitted by the facility, resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide services necessary to prevent complications related to the use of indwelling urinary catheters for one resident out two sampled (Resident 1) and failed to ensure appropriate staff technique during perineal care and management of fecal incontinence/diarrhea to prevent increased risk for transmission of fecal bacteria during the delivery of care. Findings include: A review of the clinical record revealed that Resident 1, was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses to include malignant neoplasm of posterior wall of bladder, benign prostatic hyperplasia, and neurogenic bladder and had an indwelling urinary Foley catheter (A flexible plastic tube {a catheter} inserted into the bladder that remains {dwells} there to provide continuous urinary drainage). A review of a quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed that the resident was cognitively intact with a BIMS of 15/15 and required extensive assistance with toileting. Additionally, the MDS indicated that the resident was frequently incontinent of bowel. A review of Resident 1's baseline care plan indicated that Resident 1 required a urinary foley catheter. The established goal was for the resident to remain free from catheter related complications. Interventions included planned included to provide peri care per protocol. However, the resident's care plan did not included individualized care approaches to be provided for Resident 1 as the resident was uncircumcised such as pulling the foreskin back away from the end of the penis and rinsing underneath the foreskin with soap and warm water. Review of Resident 1's clinical record revealed a progress note dated March 21, 2023, noting that Resident 1 went to Urology for his monthly foley change and the findings while at urology was reduced paraphimosis (Reduction of the paraphimosis is complete when the phimotic ring is drawn back over the glans. Confirm that the procedure is complete by ensuring that the foreskin fully covers the glans. The patient's pain should be resolved once the paraphimosis has been successfully reduced.) Review of Resident 1's urology consultant report dated February 20, 2023 revealed professional findings to note Resident 1 had urinary retention and paraphimosis. Recommendations noted were to Reduce foreskin over head of penis. Review of Resident 1's urology consultant report dated March 21, 2023, revealed urology reduced paraphimosis. Recommendations from the urologist included please ensure proper foley care daily and ensure foreskin is always over the head of the penis. (Paraphimosis is a common urologic emergency that occurs in uncircumcised males when the foreskin becomes trapped behind the corona of the glans penis. This can lead to strangulation of the glans and painful vascular compromise, distal venous engorgement, edema, and even necrosis). A review a grievance lodged with the facility dated March 31, 2023, revealed that the NHA spoke with Aging (local Area Agency on Aging representative) who stated an allegation of care concerns with his {Resident 1} foley care. The documentation of facility follow-up to the grievance was noted as CNAs will be educated on proper foley and penis care. Interview with Resident 1 on April 4, 2023 at approximately 12:00 PM revealed an individual (resident did not want to provide the person's name to protect the individual) had observed his foley catheter and his penis and had observed that feces were corroded on the device, which secures the catheter to his leg and also observed feces build up on his penis and surrounding area. The resident explained that the individual had taken a photograph, with his permission, and reported it (Resident 1 unsure to whom this individual had reported these observations regarding the care of the resident's catheter and penis). The resident also stated that the facility staff continue to leave his foreskin retracted which can cause problems for him. The resident stated that staff do not know how to properly provide him peri care as he in uncircumcised and the issue with leaving his foreskin retracted is ongoing in the facility. Interview with the Nursing Home Administrator on March 4, 2023 at approximately 2:30 PM confirmed that the facility had documented evidence that facility nursing staff possessed the necessary knowledge, competencies and skills to care for an uncircumcised resident with an indwelling urinary catheter. The NHA stated that education was provided to staff following the grievance received from AAA on the resident's behalf on March 31, 2023. A review of infection control records revealed a GI outbreak in the facility beginning February 2023. On February 24, 2023, Resident 1 had loose stools and was diagnosed with cryposporidium (Cryptosporidium is a microscopic parasite that causes the diarrheal disease cryptosporidiosis. Both the parasite and the disease are commonly known as Crypto.) and c-diff norovirus (C. difficile an infection that can cause diarrhea. Most cases of C. diff infection occur in patients taking prolonged courses of antibiotics and are also immune compromised. Norovirus is a highly contagious virus. Norovirus infection causes gastroenteritis (inflammation of the stomach and intestines). A review of infection control tracking revealed that between February 24, 2023 and March 22, 2023, the facility experienced a gastro intestinal (GI) outbreak to include 47 residents and staff. The facility provided education to staff as a result of the outbreak in the facility, that included hand washing to prevent the spread of infection. Facility documentation indicated that this education was provided to staff over the course of several days. There was no documented evidence that nursing staff were educated on appropriate technique for providing resident peri care in response to increased bowel movements and loose stools occurring among residents during this GI outbreak. During an interview April 5, 2023 at 12 PM, the Corporate Nurse Consultant confirmed that nursing staff were not inserviced on proper peri care during this ongoing GI outbreak to ensure staff were using appropriate technique to prevent the spread of infection. 28 Pa Code 211.12 (a)(c)(d)(1)(3)(5) Nursing Services 28 Pa. Code 201.20 (a)(d) Staff development 28 Pa. Code 211.11 (d)(e) Resident care plan
Mar 2023 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on review of clinical records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to revise a comprehensive care plan in response to the resident's display of unsafe behavior to meet...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of clinical records and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to revise a comprehensive care plan in response to the resident's display of unsafe behavior to meet the current safety needs of one resident out of 18 reviewed (Resident 19). Findings include: A review of Resident 19's clinical record revealed the resident had diagnoses which included Alzheimer's disease. A review of the resident's comprehensive plan of care, last revised by the facility April 18, 2022, revealed that the resident had the potential to demonstrate physical behaviors such as banging on the nurses station, throwing papers, ripping wallpaper off walls, and yelling at others. The goal was not to harm herself or others. The planned interventions were to monitor the resident as needed and document observed behavior and the attempted interventions in a behavior log. A nurses note dated February 16, 2023, indicated that the nurse was called to activities where the resident was eating foam beads that were being used for arts and crafts. The resident was able to spit out all the foam she had in her mouth. The CRNP (certified registered nurse practitioner) was in the facility and notified of the resident's behavior. The entry indicated that the foam was were non-toxic and should not cause harm to the resident so no new were noted orders at this time. The resident was redirected and given a snack. The responsible party was contacted and the registered nurse supervisor was made aware. Further review of the resident's care plan revealed no documented evidence the resident's care plan was revised following the resident's attempted consumption of the foam beads to prevent future incidents of ingesting non-food items. An interview on March 10, 2023, at approximately 10:00 AM, with the director of nursing confirmed the resident's care plan had not been reviewed and revised in response to the resident's behavior of attempting to eat the foam beads to ensure any additional planned interventions and supervision needed to prevent recurrence of this behavior were incorporated into the resident's plan of care and consistently implemented by staff. 28 Pa. Code 211.12(a)(c)(d)(1)(3)(5) Nursing Services. 28 Pa. Code 211.11(d)(e) Resident Care Plan.
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on a review of clinical records, facility provided documentation and select investigative reports and resident and staff interview, it was determined that failed to provide sufficient staff supe...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on a review of clinical records, facility provided documentation and select investigative reports and resident and staff interview, it was determined that failed to provide sufficient staff supervision and effective monitoring of resident whereabouts to prevent an elopement for one of eight residents reviewed (Resident 47). Findings include: A review of Resident 47's clinical record revealed admission to the facility on September 24, 2021, with a diagnosis of alzheimer's disease. The facility assessed the resident for elopement risk upon admission and quarterly thereafter. The resident was assessed to be at high risk for elopement. Review of resident's clinical record revealed that the resident displayed consistent behaviors of attempting to leave the second floor of the facility. The resident was packing her bags, telling staff she needed to leave because family was coming to pick her up. The facility applied a wanderguard bracelet to the resident's left ankle, on July 2, 2022, after the resident had left the 2nd floor of the facility on an elevator with another resident's family member and was found on the first floor of the facility. According to information submitted by the facility, on September 12, 2022, at 1:00 p.m the facility was made aware that Resident 47 was not in her room at approximately 1:00 p.m. A member of the community found the resident in front of the building and this citizen brought the resident back to the facility at approximately 1:30 p.m. A review of a witness statement from Employee 1 revealed that she last saw Resident 47 eating lunch in dining room at approximately 12:45 p.m. on the day of the elopement. At approximately 1:15 p.m , the resident's daughter came to the nurses' station asking where her mother was. The facility reviewed surveillance camera footage and found the resident had exited the second floor resident unit through a side door on the second floor and exited the building through the main front doors on the first floor at 12:56 p.m. Resident 47 was found by a local citizen and returned to the facility at 1:35 p.m. The facility was unaware of the resident's exit seeking behaviors and had assessed the resident to be at high risk for elopement. The facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent Resident 47's elopement and was unaware that Resident 47 had left the building until resident's daughter made them aware that she was unable to locate the resident. Interview with the Administrator on March 9, 2023, at 1:15 p.m. revealed that Resident 47 exited the building through the front doors without the awareness of facility staff. This deficiency is cited as past non-compliance. The facility's corrective action plan was to do an immediate head count, check all doors and windows. All residents with a wanderguard were checked for placement and functioning. Facility residents were reassessed for elopement via facility elopement assessments and care plans updated with necessary assessments. With care plans updated as deemed necessary. All staff was to participate in an elopement drill. Staff were educated on updating elopement as needed per policy to identify other residents at risk for elopement. Facility to complete elopement drill weekly x 4 weeks then monthly. The results to QAPI for further evaluation of monitoring is necessary. Facility Social Worker/Designee will review progress notes 5 x week, then 4 x week, then monthly x 2 to ensure residents with exit seeking behavior have a care plan with individualized interventions. The results to QAPI for further evaluation of monitoring is necessary. Facility will interview staff weekly x 4 weeks than monthly x 2 to ensure comprehension of the elopement policy. New hires will also be reviewed weekly x 4 weeks than monthly x 2 to ensure comprehension of the elopement policy. The results to QAPI for further evaluation of monitoring is necessary. Facility will weekly x 4 weeks than monthly x 2 ensure doors and windows are locked and functioning appropriately. The results to QAPI for further evaluation of monitoring is necessary. This plan of correction was completed by September 14, 2022. 28 Pa. Code 211.12 (a)(c)(d)(1)(3)(5) Nursing services.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review clinical records and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident was ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review clinical records and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident was free from unnecessary psychoactive drugs by failing to ensure the presence of clinical rationale for the continued use of an as needed psychotropic medication for one of five residents reviewed (Resident 6). Findings include: Review of Resident 6's clinical record revealed that the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including depression and anxiety. Review of Resident 6's clinical record revealed a physician's order for Lorazepam (used to treat anxiety) tablet 0.5 MG give 1 tablet by mouth every 6 hours as needed for Anxiety with a start date of November 30, 2022. Review of the February 2023 Medication Administration Records (MAR) revealed that the medication (Lorazepam) was administered to the resident five times during the month of February 2023. Review of the March 1-10, 2023, Medication Administration Records (MAR) revealed that the medication (Lorazepam) was not administered to the resident during that time period. Review of the physician's notes for the months of February 2023 and March 2023 revealed that the physician failed to document the clinical rationale for the continued use or identify the duration for the prn (as needed) order for the psychoactive drug. An interview was conducted with the Nursing Home Administrator on March 09, 2023, at approximately 12:30 p.m. verified that there was no physician documentation of the clinical rationale for the prn medication to be used more than 14 days. 28 Pa. Code 211.5 (f)(g)(h) Clinical records 28 Pa. Code 211.2(a) Physician services
CONCERN (E)

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

Tube Feeding (Tag F0693)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, review of clinical record and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to provide neces...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, review of clinical record and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to provide necessary care to prevent complications for one resident receiving an enteral tube feeding out of two sampled (Resident 44). Findings include: A review of the clinical record revealed Resident 44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and had diagnoses including cerebrovascular accident, aphasia, and malnutrition. Resident 44 required a PEG tube [Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is an endoscopic medical procedure in which a tube (PEG tube) is passed into the patient's stomach through the abdominal wall, most commonly to provide a means of feeding when oral intake is not adequate [for example, because of dysphagia] for enteral feeding [enteral nutrition generally refers to any method of feeding that uses the gastrointestinal (GI) tract to deliver part or all of a person's caloric requirements]. Review of Resident 44's plan of care, initiated November 4, 2022, revealed the need for the tube feeding to maintain nutritional status due to chewing and swallowing difficulties. A physician order dated February 22, 2023, was noted for the resident to receive enteral tube feeding (Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy [PEG] - tube feeding via tube placed into the stomach to provide nutrition) of Diabetisource AC 90 milliliters (ml)/hour (hr) for 22 hours on at 1400 (2:00 PM) and off at noon (12:00 PM), providing a total volume of 1980 ml. Observation on March 8, 2023, at 9:25 AM, revealed Resident 44 was in his room with a tube feeding running, infusing a liquid enteral feeding formula via the resident's PEG tube. The bag of feeding formula and tubing were not labeled with the resident's name, date, and the type of enteral feeding contained in the bag, or the rate the feeding was to be administered (according to physician orders 90 cc/hr). Additionally, according to the tube feeding pump 2750 ml was the total volume of formula that had been infused and there was 500 ml remaining in the feeding bag. Observation on March 9, 2023, at approximately 10:00 AM, revealed Resident 44 was in his room with the tube feeding running. The bag of feeding formula failed to include the time the feeding was hung and delivery began. Observation on March 10, 2023, at 9:26 AM, revealed Resident 44 was in his room with a tube feeding running. The bag of feeding running was dated March 9, 2023, and 0200 was noted on the bag, but feeding bag failed to include the resident's name and rate at which the feeding was to be infused. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on March 10, 2023, at approximately 11:00 AM, confirmed that tube feeding supplies and solutions were to be properly labeled as stated above to prevent complications and ensure adequate nutrition and hydration. The DON verified that staff failed to complete these tasks. 28 Pa. Code 211.12 (a)(c)(d)(1)(5) Nursing services. 28 Pa. Code 211.10(a)(d) Resident care policies
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • 22 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • $23,257 in fines. Higher than 94% of Pennsylvania facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 63/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Whitestone's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns WHITESTONE CARE CENTER an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered above average nationally. Within Pennsylvania, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.

How is Whitestone Staffed?

CMS rates WHITESTONE CARE CENTER's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 47%, compared to the Pennsylvania average of 46%. RN turnover specifically is 65%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Whitestone?

State health inspectors documented 22 deficiencies at WHITESTONE CARE CENTER during 2023 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 21 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Whitestone?

WHITESTONE CARE 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 SABER HEALTHCARE GROUP, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 90 certified beds and approximately 80 residents (about 89% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in STROUDSBURG, Pennsylvania.

How Does Whitestone Compare to Other Pennsylvania Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania, WHITESTONE CARE CENTER's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (47%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Whitestone?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?"

Is Whitestone Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, WHITESTONE CARE CENTER has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Pennsylvania. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at Whitestone Stick Around?

WHITESTONE CARE CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 47%, which is about average for Pennsylvania nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Whitestone Ever Fined?

WHITESTONE CARE CENTER has been fined $23,257 across 2 penalty actions. This is below the Pennsylvania average of $33,311. 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 Whitestone on Any Federal Watch List?

WHITESTONE CARE 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.