Bayberry Commons

181 Davis Drive, Pascoag, RI 02859 (401) 568-0600
For profit - Limited Liability company 110 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
0/100
#61 of 72 in RI
Last Inspection: July 2025

Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.

Overview

Bayberry Commons in Pascoag, Rhode Island, has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the facility's overall quality and care. It ranks #61 out of 72 in the state and #32 out of 41 in Providence County, placing it in the bottom half for both rankings. While the facility is improving, having reduced its issues from 10 in 2024 to 7 in 2025, the overall performance remains poor, with 20 deficiencies noted in recent inspections, including critical incidents related to resident safety and care. Staffing is one of the brighter aspects, with a 4 out of 5 star rating and a turnover rate of 38%, which is better than the state average. However, the facility has also faced serious findings, including a failure to protect residents from sexual abuse and not notifying physicians when a resident's condition changed significantly, raising concerns about resident safety and quality of care.

Trust Score
F
0/100
In Rhode Island
#61/72
Bottom 16%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
10 → 7 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
38% turnover. Near Rhode Island's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
○ Average
$51,948 in fines. Higher than 68% of Rhode Island facilities. Some compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 38 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Rhode Island. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
20 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 10 issues
2025: 7 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (38%)

    10 points below Rhode Island average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below Rhode Island average (3.0)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 38%

Near Rhode Island avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $51,948

Above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

The Ugly 20 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening 2 actual harm
Jul 2025 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to provided services that meet professional standards of quality for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for a psychiat...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to provided services that meet professional standards of quality for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for a psychiatric recommendation that was not implemented, Resident ID #107. Findings are as follows: Record review revealed the resident was admitted to the facility in April of 2025 with diagnoses including, but not limited to, dementia and major depressive disorder. Record review revealed the resident was seen by psychiatric services on 6/3/2025 with a recommendation to increase sertraline (an antidepressant medication) to 50 milligrams (mg) once daily, due to inappropriate behaviors. Further review of the psychiatric documentation revealed a handwritten note which states Completed 6/11/25 with a staff signature.Record review revealed a progress note dated 6/3/2025 which states in part, Resident is alert and oriented at [his/her] baseline. Resident was seen by meditelecare and gave new recommendation for setraline [sic.] 50mg once a day due to inappropriate behaviors. [Resident ID #107's provider] approved new recommendation. Resident new order will be on hold due to family consent.Record review revealed a progress note dated 6/11/2025 which states, Call placed to POA [Power of Attorney] to alert of increase in Sertraline and to sign consent for psychotropic medication. Message left to return call.Record review failed to reveal evidence that the facility obtained consent or attempted to obtain consent from the resident's POA for the increased dose of sertraline after a phone call was placed on 6/11/2025.During a surveyor interview on 7/18/2025, with Licensed Practical Nurse, Staff A, he revealed that when there is an increase in a psychotropic medication, the facility will obtain consent from the resident representative, and indicated that when the consent is obtained, a consent form is completed and printed for the representative to sign. He revealed that the psychotropic medication would be on hold until consent is obtained and acknowledged that the resident's increased dose of sertraline was still on hold since the recommendation was made and approved by the provider on 6/3/2025. Further, he revealed that anytime the facility calls the resident representative to obtain consent, it should be documented in a progress note but was unable to provide evidence that the facility continued to attempt to obtain consent from the resident's POA after 6/11/2025.During a surveyor interview on 7/18/2025 at 9:35 AM, with the Director of Nursing Services, he revealed that nursing will receive the recommendation from the psychiatric provider, address it with the resident's provider, and if approved, they will obtain consent from the resident representative. He revealed that when consent is obtained, a form is to be completed and printed, so the resident representative can sign. Further, he revealed that he would expect nursing to inform the provider if consent was unable to be obtained and document their attempts in a progress note.During a surveyor interview on 7/18/2025 at 9:54 AM, with the resident's provider, he revealed that he was not aware the resident's sertraline increase was still on hold and indicated that as far as he knew, the resident had been receiving the 50 mg of sertraline daily. Further, he revealed that he was called on 6/3/2025 due to a psychiatric recommendation to increase the resident's sertraline, where he approved the recommendation due to the resident's history of depression, indicating he felt it would benefit the resident.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on surveyor observation, record review and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to maintain medical records for all residents that are accurately documented in accord...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on surveyor observation, record review and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to maintain medical records for all residents that are accurately documented in accordance with professional standards and practices for 1 of 2 residents reviewed with a physician's order for aspiration precautions (practices designed to prevent food, fluids, or secretions from entering the airway), Resident ID #112.Findings are as follows:Record review revealed the resident was readmitted to the facility in June of 2025 with diagnoses including, but not limited to, Alzheimer's disease and a history of dysphagia (impaired swallowing). Record review revealed a physician's order dated 6/23/2025, for aspiration precautions: head of bed elevated to 30 degrees, one staff to one resident for assistance with meals, oral care after eating, nectar thick fluids and a puree diet.Additional record review revealed a second physician's diet order dated 7/7/2025 for a house (regular texture) diet with thin liquids. During a surveyor observation on 7/15/2025 at 12:35 PM the resident was observed eating alone with thin liquids and a regular diet. Record review of the July 2025 Treatment Administration Record (TAR) revealed the order for aspiration precautions was signed during the day shift on 7/15/2025 by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), Staff B.Further review of the resident's July 2025 TAR revealed the order for aspiration precautions was signed off as completed three times a day, between 7/7/2025, when the house diet order was implemented, through 7/16/2025. During a surveyor interview on 7/16/2025 at 3:10 PM with LPN, Staff A, he revealed that the order for aspiration precautions was no longer active, indicating that s/he is currently prescribed a house regular diet and eats independently.During a surveyor interview on 7/16/2025 at 3:11 PM with Staff B, she acknowledged signing the aspiration precautions order without verifying the resident's diet on 7/15/2025 and indicated that she should not have.During a surveyor interview on 7/16/2025 at approximately 3:30 PM, with the Director of Nursing Services, he indicated that he would expect staff to document accurately.
CONCERN (E)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to ensure a resident's drug regimen was reviewed and acted upon by the attending physician, when irregularit...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to ensure a resident's drug regimen was reviewed and acted upon by the attending physician, when irregularities were identified during the monthly Pharmacist Medication Regimen Review (MRR) for 3 of 5 residents reviewed, Resident ID #s 10, 92, and 107.Findings are as follows:Record review of a facility policy titled, CONTINUOUS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT OF THE MEDICATION USE PROCESS last revised January of 2023, states in part, The care center is responsible for monitoring the quality of the entire medication use process including, the.outcomes of consultant pharmacy services.1. Record review revealed Resident ID #10 was admitted to the facility in March of 2022 with diagnoses including, but not limited to, lower back pain and a wedged compression fracture of the first lumbar vertebra (a type of spinal compression fracture that forms on the front of the vertebra/back bone).Record review of a pharmacy consultant recommendation dated 5/2/2025 indicated that the lidocaine patch order needed to specify the area that the patch should be applied. Further record review failed to reveal evidence that the MRR irregularity recommendation was addressed since 5/2/2025 until it was brought to the facility's attention by the surveyor.2. Record review revealed Resident ID #92 was readmitted to the facility in April of 2025 with a diagnosis including, but not limited to, Alzheimer's disease. Record review of a pharmacy consultant note dated 4/4/2025, revealed the following recommendations:-Miralax (a laxative) recommendation: update order to use the provided cap to measure the dose accurately. Stir powder in 4 to 8 ounces of water, juice, soda, coffee or tea until dissolved.-Cholecalciferol (vitamin D3) 50,000 units weekly on Wednesday. Recommendation: discharged paperwork lists patient as taking Ergocalciferol (vitamin D2) 50,000 units. Please evaluate which vitamin D patient should be receiving.Record review of a pharmacy consultant note dated 7/3/2025, revealed a repeat of the above-mentioned recommendations were made.Further record review failed to reveal evidence the MRR irregularity recommendations were addressed since 4/4/2025, until it was brought to the facility's attention by the surveyor. 3. Record review revealed Resident ID #107 was readmitted to the facility in April of 2025 with diagnoses including, but not limited to, dementia, vitamin d deficiency, and folate deficiency anemia (a condition that occurs when you do not have enough B9 in your diet). Record review of a pharmacy consultant note dated 6/3/2025, revealed a recommendation to add appropriate diagnoses for the following medications: - Atorvastatin (a medication prescribed to treat high cholesterol) - Vitamin D - Vitamin B1 - Folic acidFurther record review failed to reveal evidence the MRR irregularity recommendation was addressed since 6/3/2025 until it was brought to the facility's attention by the surveyor. During surveyor interviews on 7/16/2025 at 1:49 PM and 7/17/2025 at 2:35 PM with the Director of Nursing Services, he revealed that it would be his expectation for the MRR to be addressed within 30 days. Additionally, he was unable to provide evidence that the pharmacy irregularity reports had been reviewed and acted upon by the physician.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on surveyor observation, record review, and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to maintain a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on surveyor observation, record review, and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program to help prevent the transmission of communicable diseases and infections, for 3 of 3 residents reviewed for transmission-based precautions (TBP) Resident ID #s 3, 91, and 105.Findings are as follows:Review of a facility policy titled, Guidelines for Management of MDROs [Multi-Drug Resistant Organism] states in part, .CONTACT PRECAUTIONS - In addition to Standard Precaution, Contact precautions or the equivalent used with specific individuals known or suspected to be infected or colonized with epidemiologically important micro-organisms that can be transmitted by direct contract with the individual or indirect contact with environmental surfaces or equipment. Contact precautions include proper resident placement, proper use of PPE [personal protective equipment], and proper environmental measures.ENHANCED BARRIER PRECAUTIONS - it has been determined by the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] that focusing on residents with active infection fails to address the continued risk of transmission from residents with MDRO colonization, which can persist for long periods of time (e.g., months) and result in the silent spread of MDROs. Enhanced Barrier Precautions fall between Standard and Contact Precautions and requires gown and gloves for certain residents (both with existing MDROs, colonization of MDROs or those residents in close physical vicinity of those residents) during specific high contact care activities that have been found to increase the risk for MDRO transmission.Findings are as follows:1) Record review revealed Resident ID #3 was admitted to the facility in June of 2025 with diagnoses including, but not limited to, osteomyelitis (an infection in the bone) and a non-pressure ulcer of the right foot.Record review of an admission Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident requires assistance with toileting and bathing.Record review revealed the resident has a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC, a long, thin, flexible tube inserted into a vein in the upper arm and threaded into a larger vein near the heart). Additional record review revealed the resident has a non-pressure ulcer to the right foot with a KCI wound vac (a wound vacuum device that speeds up the healing process of a wound).During surveyor observations of the resident's doorway on the following dates and times failed to reveal signage indicating the resident is on EBP:- 7/15/2025 at 9:20 AM, 10:20 AM, and at 12:20 PM- 7/16/2025 at 8:39 AM, 10:45 AM and at 1:16 PM- 7/17/2025 at 8:21 AMDuring a surveyor observation on 7/16/2025 at approximately 10:00 AM, Registered Nurse, Staff C, was observed administering the resident his/her antibiotic via the PICC line, without wearing a gown. During a surveyor interview on 7/17/2025 at 10:20 AM with the Infection Preventionist, she acknowledged that this resident should have been on EBP and revealed that the signage for EBP had fallen off. B) Record review revealed Resident ID #91 was readmitted to the facility in June of 2025 with a diagnosis including, but not limited to, dementia.Review of a urinalysis dated 7/7/2025 revealed the resident tested positive for Extended Spectrum Beta Lactamase (ESBL, an MDRO) and Vancomycin Resistant Enterococci (VRE, an MDRO).Record review revealed a progress note dated 7/15/2025 which revealed the resident was being treated with Macrobid (an antibiotic medication), twice daily for 5-days, due to testing positive for ESBL and VRE. Further review revealed the resident will remain on contact precautions. During surveyor observations from 7/15/2025 through 7/18/2025, revealed signage and a PPE bin were posted outside Resident ID #91's doorway, which indicated that s/he was on contact precautions.Review of the contact precautions signage posted outside Resident ID #91's room revealed that providers and staff must put on gloves and gown before room entry and discard before room exit.During a surveyor observation on 7/17/2025 at 8:33 AM, two staff members were noted to be in Resident ID #91's room without a gown and gloves, preparing a breakfast tray for his/her roommate.During a surveyor interview on 7/17/2025 at 8:34 AM with Licensed Practical Nurse, Staff D, in the presence of Nursing Assistant, Staff E, she revealed that Staff E was on orientation and was still training. She further revealed that Resident ID #91 was on contact precautions due to a pending urinalysis but indicated contact precautions were only for Resident ID #91 and did not apply for his/her roommate. She acknowledged the signage posted outside Resident ID #91's room and acknowledged that based on the signage, they should have both worn a gown and gloves upon room entry.During a surveyor interview on 7/17/2025 at 10:02 AM, with the Infection Preventionist, she acknowledged that Resident ID #91 was on contact precautions and acknowledged that the signage posted indicated to wear PPE upon room entry.C) Record review revealed Resident ID #105 was readmitted to the facility in June of 2025 with a diagnosis including, but not limited to, respiratory failure with hypoxia (low levels of oxygen in body tissue).Review of a progress note dated 7/3/2025 revealed the resident tested positive for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA, an MDRO) in the nares and was being treated with mupirocin (an antibiotic medication) twice daily, for 14 days.Review of physician's orders revealed an order dated 6/30/2025 for droplet precautions secondary to MRSA in the nares.During surveyor observations from 7/15/2025 through 7/18/2025, revealed signage posted outside Resident ID #105's doorway, which indicated that s/he was on contact and droplet precautions.Review of the signage posted outside Resident ID #105's doorway revealed a gown, surgical mask, and gloves are to be worn on all room entries, regardless of anticipated patient contact.During a surveyor observation on 7/18/2025 at 9:30 AM, Housekeeper, Staff F, was in Resident ID #105's room, without wearing a gown, gloves, or mask. Further observation revealed Staff F failed to perform hand hygiene after leaving the room.During a surveyor interview, immediately following the above observation, Staff F acknowledged that the resident was on contact and droplet precautions. He acknowledged that he should have been wearing the appropriate PPE, stating that he forgot to wear it.During a surveyor interview on 7/18/2025 at 11:30 AM, with the Infection Preventionist, she acknowledged that Resident ID #105 is on contact and droplet precautions due to a diagnosis of MRSA in the nares and indicated that she would expect staff to wear the appropriate PPE when entering the room.
Jul 2025 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 F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to ensure that the comprehensive car...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to ensure that the comprehensive care plan was reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after an incident of resident-to-resident abuse for 2 of 3 residents reviewed, Resident ID #s 3 and 4.Findings are as follows: Review of a facility reported incident submitted to the Rhode Island Department of Health on 6/27/2025 revealed that while rounding on 6/26/2025 at approximately 8:45 PM, staff observed Resident ID #4 in Resident ID #3's room. Staff witnessed Resident ID #4 holding Resident ID #3's arm and striking his/her side, arm, and legs. The report further revealed that after Resident ID #4 was removed from the room, s/he was then sent to the emergency department for an evaluation. Resident ID #3 was observed to be teary and upset during the nursing assessment.Review of an undated document titled, Special care unit disclosure, states in part, .The mission of [facility name redacted] Special care unit is to help the residents live a life of dignity, love, respect, in an environment that is best suited to their needs .the environment is designed to promote and encourage independence while promoting safety .1. Record review revealed Resident ID #3, the victim, was admitted to the facility in December of 2023 with diagnosis including, but not limited to, Alzheimer's disease.Record review of a Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 5 out of 15, indicating the resident has severely impaired cognition. Further review revealed the resident is totally dependent on staff for his/her activities of daily living.Record review of the care plan dated 9/20/2024 revealed that Resident ID #3 is unable to care for him/herself related to his/her cognitive impairment. Further, the care plan revealed s/he is non ambulatory and requires a Hoyer lift (a device that aids in the transfer a resident with challenged mobility from one place to another) for transfers by two caregivers.Record review revealed a progress note dated 6/27/2025 authored by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), Staff A, which revealed Resident ID #4 (the perpetrator) grabbed Resident ID #3's arm and s/he hit him/her all over his/her body. Additionally, the progress note indicated that both residents were separated. Further review of the note revealed that all safety precautions were applied.Review of Resident ID #3's care plan failed to reveal evidence the care plan was updated or revised to include interventions to promote the resident's safety after the incident that took place on 6/26/2025.2. Record review revealed Resident ID #4, the perpetrator, was admitted to the facility in April of 2025 and readmitted in June of 2025 with diagnoses including, but not limited to, dementia and anxiety disorder. Review of the admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of 4 out of 15, indicating the resident has severely impaired cognition. Further review revealed the resident is independent with transfers and utilizes a walker for mobility. Record review revealed a progress note dated 6/26/2025 authored by LPN, Staff B, which revealed Resident ID #4 went into Resident ID #3's room while s/he was asleep, grabbed his/her arm and hit him/her all over his/her body. Additionally, the progress note indicated Resident ID #4 was transferred to the hospital because s/he was a danger to others. Further review of the note revealed that all safety precautions were applied.Additional review revealed a progress note dated 6/27/2025 that revealed Resident ID #4 returned to the facility with a diagnosis of a urinary tract infection and new orders for keflex (an antibiotic), ativan (an anti-anxiety medication), and trazodone (a medication prescribed to treat depression, anxiety and insomnia). Further review of the note revealed all safety precautions applied.Record review of Resident ID #4's care plan last revised on 6/30/2025 revealed the resident exhibits periods of increased anxiety and agitation. S/he often reaches out to touch objects, which may include other residents. S/he attempted to bite his/her spouse, has pinched others, grabbed another resident's hand on 5/31 and grabbed another resident's nose on 6/3/2025. Interventions include, monitoring for increase in agitation as evidenced by loud tone, clenched fists, and argumentative behaviors. Additional review of the care plan revealed a problem start date of 6/30/2025 as the resident experienced signs and symptoms of an acute urinary tract infection which will resolve in 14 days with an intervention to administer medications as ordered.Record review failed to reveal evidence that the resident's care plan was revised to include updated safety interventions to prevent further incidents until 7/6/2025, 10 days after the resident was readmitted to the facility following his/her hospital admission. During a surveyor interview on 7/7/2025 at 1:03 PM with Staff A, she revealed that Resident ID #4 was transferred to the hospital following the incident with Resident ID #3. Additionally, she indicated that there were no additional safety measures put in place upon his/her return to the facility.During a surveyor interview on 7/7/2025 at approximately 2:30 PM with the Administrator, in the presence of the Assistant Director of Nursing Services, she revealed that the safety precaution that was implemented for Resident ID #3 was placing Resident ID #4 on one to one supervision prior to his/her transfer to the hospital on the date of the incident. Additionally, she was unable to provide evidence that Resident ID #3's care plan was revised to include safety interventions were implemented going forward, following the resident-to-resident incident on 6/26/2025. Additionally, she was unable to provide evidence that Resident ID #4's care plan was revised to include updated safety precautions were implemented to prevent future incidents, until 7/6/2025, which was 10 days after s/he was readmitted to the facility following his/her hospitalization.
Feb 2025 2 deficiencies 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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to immediately consult with the resi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to immediately consult with the resident's physician and notify them when there is a significant change in the resident's condition, for 1 of 1 resident reviewed who experienced a change in condition, Resident ID #2. Findings are as follows: Review of a facility policy titled Medication Administration Safety Program (MASP)- Physician Notification states in part, .When a regularly scheduled dose of medication is not administered due to resident refusal, unavailability, resident condition or absence from the facility, the physician should be notified . On 2/19/2025 at approximately 10:00 AM the surveyor requested the facility's policy on a change in condition for a resident from the Director of Nursing Services (DNS). When the DNS returned to provide the surveyor with all of the requested policies he indicated that the facility did not have a policy specific to a change in condition. Review a community reported complaint submitted to the Rhode Island Department of Health on 2/5/2025, alleged that Resident ID #2 was transported to the hospital following an unwitnessed fall at the facility on 2/4/2025. The complaint further alleged that the resident was .barely able to open [his/her] eyes . on 2/4/2025, prior to the fall. Record review revealed the resident was admitted to the facility in November of 2024 with diagnoses including, but not limited to, heart disease, acute pulmonary edema (an abnormal buildup of fluid in the lungs), and reduced mobility. Review of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 15 out of 15, indicating the resident's cognition was intact. Further review of the MDS revealed that the resident required moderate assistance of one staff member for transfers and ambulation. Record review revealed the following progress notes: -1/30/2025- 2:30 PM- resident alert and oriented to self, is rousable, refused medication, refused meals. -1/31/2025- 2:26 AM- 3PM- 7AM resident soundly sleeping at beginning of shift, unable to arouse with verbal stimulation, needed to use moderate tactile stimulation and still barely awoken, before supper s/he was noted to be attempting to get out of bed by him/herself. -1/31/2025- 9:52 PM- max assist times two staff with care this evening, refused dinner, poor fluid intake this evening. -2/1/2025- 3:31 PM- resident noted to be intermittently sleeping in chair though easily roused. -2/2/2025- 12:05 AM- per family members all conversation was non-sensical, having notable difficulty with ambulation, at times requiring the assistance of two staff, appetite continues to be poor. -2/2/2025- 11:41 PM- report from 7-3 shift stated that resident had not voided (urinated) that shift, physician gave orders to straight cath (procedure of inserting a tube into the bladder to allow the urine to empty) if no void in 8 hours, resident voided twice this shift, poor appetite and fluid intake. -2/3/2025- 8:02 AM- at approximately 2 AM the resident was noted to be reaching into the air and nasal cannula (NC-tubing that delivers oxygen through the nose) was found off of the resident's face. -2/3/2025- 9:04 AM- safe patient handling update- partial/moderate assistance of two with 4 wheeled walker with ambulation and transfers. -2/3/2025- 11:05 PM- resident mostly unresponsive this shift, did respond to tactile stimuli, not responding to verbal stimuli, did not take anything by mouth this shift. -2/4/2025- 4:29 PM- resident remains with oxygen (O2) at 2 liters (L) via NC with O2 saturation at 94 % (normal limits between 94-100%), independently sat on edge of bed. -2/4/2025- 4:53 PM- resident noted to have taken O2 off, O2 saturation of 77% on room air, O2 replaced at 2 L via NC with O2 saturation at 99%, resident responsive to tactile stimuli only, physician notified and new orders given for STAT (immediate) labs and a urinalysis with culture and sensitivity (a urine test conducted to identify the presence of an infection), grossly distended abdomen with pear shape. Urine difficult to obtain, results pending, lab results obtained and sent to physician. -2/4/2025- 9:11 PM- resident found to have sustained a fall this evening, it is presumed that s/he hit his/her head, family wishes to send resident out for an evaluation. -2/5/2025- 8:15 AM- resident admitted to hospital with hypercapnic respiratory failure (when there is too much carbon dioxide in the blood stream), pneumonia, and a urinary tract infection (UTI). Review of the January 2025 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed that the resident had not required the use of oxygen, during the month of January. Review of the February 2025 MAR revealed the resident was administered 2 L of oxygen for an O2 saturation of 88% on 2/1/2025. Further review failed to reveal documentation that the resident continued to receive O2 as indicated in the progress notes. Additional review of the February 2025 MAR revealed the following medications were not administered as ordered, with the documented reason being that the resident was unable to be aroused: - Warfarin (a medication prescribed to prevent a blood clot) 2.5 milligrams (mg) once an evening, not administered on 2/3. - Aspirin 81 mg once a morning, not administered on 2/2 or 2/4. - Furosemide (a medication prescribed to decrease excess fluid in the body) 40 mg once a morning, not administered on 2/2 or 2/4. - Gentle Iron (a vitamin) once a day, not administered on 2/2 or 2/4. - Metoprolol Succinate Extended Release (a medication prescribed to lower blood pressure) 100 mg once a day, not administered on 2/2 or 2/4. - Polyethylene Glycol 17 grams (a laxative) once a morning, not administered on 2/2 or 2/4. Record review failed to reveal evidence that the provider was notified that the resident did not receive any of the above medications on 2/2, 2/3 or 2/4/2025. Record review failed to reveal evidence that the provider was notified of the resident's change of condition including a mental status change until 2/4/2024, four days after the resident was first noted to be intermittently unarousable. Record review failed to reveal evidence that vital signs were obtained or documented on 1/31, 2/1, 2/2, or 2/3, following a documented change in the resident's condition. Record review of the hospital discharge paperwork dated 2/6/2025 revealed the resident was found to have possible pneumonia, a UTI and acute hypoxic (the lack of a sufficient supply of oxygen) and hypercarbic (when there is too much carbon dioxide in the blood) respiratory failure likely secondary to volume overload (a condition where you have too much fluid volume in your body), and pulmonary edema. Further review revealed the resident was transferred to hospice for end of life care following this hospital admission. During a surveyor interview on 2/19/2025 at 8:45 AM with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), Staff B, she revealed that she would expect Resident ID #2's physician to be notified if s/he was not responding to verbal stimuli, as the resident's baseline was to respond to verbal stimuli. During a surveyor interview on 2/19/2025 at approximately 1:30 PM with LPN, Staff A, she indicated that she worked on Resident ID #2's unit on 2/4/2025. Additionally she revealed that she was a per diem nurse and was unfamiliar with the resident, as that was the first time she was worked with him/her. She further revealed that she recalled being informed in report that the resident wasn't doing well and that the resident required a sternal rub (a sternal rub is performed by using the knuckles of a closed fist to firmly rub up and down on the sternum. This action creates a significant amount of discomfort or pain, which in a conscious person would elicit a response. The primary objective of this procedure is to determine the level of consciousness based on the patient's reaction to the stimulus) the day before. Furthermore she revealed that at the beginning of the shift she observed the resident having a conversation with his/her visitors, and that the next time she saw the resident s/he was on the floor bleeding from his/her knee and had a bump on his/her head. Lastly, she revealed that the resident's O2 saturation was approximately 70%, the resident's physician was then contacted, and the resident was transferred to the hospital via 911. During a surveyor interview on 2/19/2025 at 1:15 PM with the DNS, He revealed that Resident ID #2 passed away at an in-patient hospice facility on 2/7/2025. During a subsequent surveyor interview on 2/19/2025 at approximately 2:30 PM with DNS, he acknowledged that the documentation in the resident's medical record was lacking the appropriate information such as, physician notification and vital signs. He further indicated that the facility had discussed approaching the resident's family about hospice, but were also aware that the resident was still being seen by specialists, including hematology. Additionally, he could not provide evidence that the resident received the appropriate care including the identification of the resident's change in condition. During a surveyor interview on 2/20/2025 at 9:48 AM with the resident's physician, he indicated that he would expect to be notified of a resident's change in condition and if medications were missed. He further indicated that he believed a change in condition or that the resident was lethargic was mentioned to him. However he was unable to provide evidence that he was notified.
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 F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to meet professional standards of quality relative to following physician's orders for 1 of 1 resident revie...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to meet professional standards of quality relative to following physician's orders for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for the refusal of medications, Resident ID #2. Findings are as follows: According to Mosby's 4th Edition, Fundamentals of Nursing, page 314 states in part, .The physician is responsible for directing medical treatment. Nurses are obligated to follow physician's orders unless they believe the orders are in error or would harm the clients . Review of a facility policy titled Medication Administration Safety Program (MASP)- Physician Notification states in part, .When a regularly scheduled dose of medication is not administered due to resident refusal, unavailability, resident condition or absence from the facility, the physician should be notified . Record review revealed the resident was admitted to the facility in November of 2024 with diagnoses including, but not limited to, heart disease, acute pulmonary edema (an abnormal buildup of fluid in the lungs), and reduced mobility. Review of the February 2025 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed the following medications were not administered on 2/2 and 2/4 as ordered: - Aspirin 81 milligrams (mg) once a morning - Furosemide (a medication prescribed to decrease excess fluid in the body tissues) 40 mg once a morning - Gentle Iron (a vitamin) once a day - Metoprolol Succinate Extended Release (a medication prescribed to lower blood pressure) 100 mg once a day - Polyethylene Glycol 17 gram (a laxative) once a morning Further review of the February 2025 MAR revealed the following medications were not administered on 2/3 as ordered: - Warfarin (a medication prescribed to prevent a blood clot) 2.5 mg once an evening - Melatonin 3 mg at bedtime - Simvastatin (a medication prescribed to lower cholesterol) 10 mg once an evening - Trazodone (a medication prescribed for restlessness/agitation) 25 mg once an evening - Zyprexa (a prescribed antipsychotic medication) 5 mg once an evening Record review failed to reveal evidence that the provider was notified that the resident did not receive the above medications on 2/2, 2/3 or 2/4/2025. During a surveyor interview on 2/19/2025 at approximately 9:00 AM with the Director of Nursing Services (DNS), he indicated that he would expect the physician to be notified of missed medications. During a subsequent surveyor interview with the DNS on 2/19/2025 at approximately 2:30 PM, he acknowledged that the documentation in the resident's medical record was lacking the appropriate information such as, physician notification. During a surveyor interview on 2/20/2025 at 9:48 AM with the resident's physician, he indicated that he would expect to be notified within 24 to 48 hours of a missed medication. Additionally, he could not recall if he had been made aware that the resident's did not receive all of his/her prescribed medications on 2/2, 2/3, and 2/4/2025. Cross reference F-580
Dec 2024 1 deficiency 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff and resident interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to ensure that resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff and resident interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents are free from sexual abuse, for 1 of 2 residents reviewed, Resident ID #1. Findings are as follows: Review a facility reported incident submitted to the Rhode Island Department of Health on 12/13/2024, revealed that Resident ID #1 and Resident ID #2 were found in a room where they appeared to be engaging in an act that was sexual in nature. Review of a policy titled Abuse prohibition last reviewed on 12/4/2024, states in part, It is the policy of this facility to ensure that all residents are treated with respect and dignity and that all residents are free from abuse, mistreatment, neglect and or misappropriation of their personal property .Residents have the right to be free of sexual abuse. However, a resident may desire to engage in consensual sexual activity. In this case, the facility needs to perform an evaluation as to the resident's capacity to consent to sexual activity . Record review revealed that Resident ID #1, the victim, was admitted to the facility in September of 2024 with diagnoses including, but not limited to, dementia, major depressive disorder, and adjustment disorder. Resident ID #1 resides on a secured unit. Review of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 5 out of 15 indicating severe cognitive impairment and the inability to form consent for sexual activity. Further review of the resident's MDS Assessment revealed that his/her ability to make themselves understood or the ability to understand was documented as Sometimes understands responds adequately to simple, direct communication only and is Sometimes understood, the ability is limited to making concrete requests. Record review revealed that Resident ID #2, the perpetrator, was admitted to the facility in May of 2024 with diagnoses including, but not limited to, dementia, altered mental status, and adjustment disorder. Resident ID #2 resides on a secured unit. Review of a MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of 99 out of 15. This score indicates that the resident was unable to complete the assessment due to his/her impaired cognitive abilities which also leaves him/her unable to form consent for sexual activity. Further review of the resident's MDS Assessment revealed that his/her ability to make decisions regarding tasks of daily life was documented as severely impaired and that s/he had a short term and long-term memory problem. Record review of Resident ID #2 revealed the following progress notes: - 12/13/2024 at 9:36 PM - Resident ID #2 was noted by staff to kiss Resident ID #1 prior to dinner being passed while sitting in the bistro area. The residents were separated. After dinner, the staff were picking up meal trays in the hallways and a staff member observed Resident ID #2 with Resident ID #1 in a room. Both residents had their pants and briefs down. Resident ID #1 was lying down on the bed while Resident ID #2 was noted to have his/her mouth on Resident ID #1's genitals. The residents were separated, and 15-minute checks were initiated. A couple of hours later, while conducting the 15-minute checks both residents were found to be in another room in the same situation as earlier. The residents were again separated. Upon separating the residents, Resident ID #2 became very upset and became aggressive towards staff, yelling [s/he] would kill us, shaking [his/her] fingers at staffs face. A call was placed to the physician regarding the situation and a new order was obtained for a one time dose of Trazadone (an medication used to treat behaviors) 50 milligrams (mg). The Trazadone 50 mg was administered to Resident ID #2 and s/he was assisted to bed. The residents will continue to be monitored for 72 hours, and the 15-minute checks will be continued. - 12/15/2024 at 10:00 PM, Resident ID #2 was attempting to grab at a nurse's front side and followed the nurse throughout the unit. Also, s/he was noted with another resident's feces in his/her hands, and when nursing staff intervened to clean the resident, the resident became angry, shouting loudly, and attempting to strike out at the nursing staff. Record review failed to reveal an intervention was implemented related to the increased sexual behaviors on 12/15/2024. A surveyor interview was attempted with Resident ID #2 on 12/16/2024 at 12:18 PM, but was unsuccessful due to his/her cognition. A surveyor interview was attempted with Resident ID #1 on 12/16/2024 at 12:29 PM and 12/17/2024 at 10:06 AM, but were unsuccessful due to his/her cognition. During a surveyor interview on 12/16/2024 at 12:38 PM with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), Staff A, she revealed before dinner Resident ID #s 1 and 2 were observed kissing in a common area and separated. She then revealed that a Nursing Assistant (NA) found Resident ID #1 laying in bed with his/her pants and brief down. Resident ID #2 was found with his/her mouth on Resident ID #1's genitals. Both residents were placed on 15-minute checks. She further revealed that later in the shift while on the 15-minute checks, Resident ID #1 was found in bed again with his/her pants down and Resident ID #2 was stroking Resident ID #1's genitals. The residents were then separated, and Resident ID #1's room was changed. Record review of the 15-minute checks sheets for Resident ID #1 failed to reveal evidence that the checks were completed every 15 minutes from 8:00 PM on 12/15/2024 through 6:45 AM on 12/16/2024. The 15-minute checks sheets also failed to reveal evidence that the checks were completed every 15 minutes from 11:45 AM through 12:15 PM on 12/16/2024. Record review of the 15-minute checks sheets for Resident ID #2 failed to reveal evidence that the checks were completed every 15 minutes from 4:15 PM on 12/15/2024 through 6:45 AM on 12/16/2024. The 15-minute checks sheets also failed to reveal evidence that the checks were completed every 15 minutes from 11:45 AM through 12:15 PM on 12/16/2024. Further review of the 15-minute checks sheets revealed that the third incident where Resident ID #1 was found in bed with his/her pants down and Resident ID #2 had his/her hand stroking Resident ID #1's genitals occurred at 8:15 PM on 12/13/2024. During a surveyor interview on 12/16/2024 at 1:52 PM with LPN, Staff B, she revealed that that an NA found Resident ID #s 1 and 2 with their pants and briefs down. Resident ID #2's mouth was on Resident ID #1's genitals. Both residents were placed on 15-minute checks. She further revealed that later in the shift while on the 15-minute checks, a similar situation occurred involving both residents. Additionally, she revealed that Resident ID #2 believed that Resident ID #1 was his/her spouse, indicating that s/he was unaware of with whom s/he was having sexual contact with and what Resident ID #1's relationship was to him/her. During a surveyor interview on 12/17/2024 at 2:43 PM with NA, Staff C, she revealed that prior to dinner she saw Resident ID #'s 1 and 2 in the common area kissing and that they were separated immediately. She then revealed that after supper she was cleaning up the meal trays when she saw Resident ID #1 lying in bed with his/her pants and brief down. Resident ID #2 was sitting on the side of the bed with his/her pants and brief down. Resident ID #2 was observed leaning down with his/her mouth on Resident ID #1's genitals. Staff C revealed that staff intervened and separated the residents. Furthermore, later in the shift while on the 15-minute checks, Resident ID #1 was found in bed again with his/her pants down and Resident ID #2 had his/her hand stroking Resident ID #1's genitals. Further record review revealed a progress noted dated 12/16/2024 at 8:01 PM revealed, prior to the supper meal, it was noted that Resident ID #2, the perpetrator, was in the common area standing next to a table with a resident of the opposite sex sitting there. Resident ID #2 attempted to get the attention of this resident, though the resident did not respond. Resident ID #2 then proceeded to expose his/her chest, causing nursing staff to quickly intervene and separate these residents. During the separation of the residents, Resident ID #2 began to shout loudly at the nursing staff and attempted to strike out at the nursing staff. Resident ID #2 was placed on a 1:1 observation at this time. A call was placed to the physician to update them regarding this event. An order was received to send Resident ID #2 out for an evaluation secondary his/her hypersexual behaviors. During a surveyor interview on 12/17/2024 at 10:31 AM, with LPN, Staff D, he revealed that Resident ID #2 was sent to the hospital where s/he was diagnosed with a urinary tract infection on 12/16/2024 and is still in the hospital at this time. During a surveyor interview on 12/16/2024 at 2:12 PM with the Director of Nursing Services (DNS), he acknowledged that the 15-minute check sheets were not documented in their entirety. Record review revealed that following the incident where Resident ID #s 1 and 2 were found kissing, the staff separated the residents, but no additional interventions or monitoring were put into place. Additional review revealed that the residents were then placed on 15-minute checks following a second incident where Resident ID #2 was putting Resident ID #1's genitals in his/her mouth. Further review revealed a third incident while on 15-minute checks Resident ID #s 1 and 2 were found again engaging in another act that was sexual in nature. Following this incident, Resident ID #1's room was changed to a new room which was directly across the hall from where the third incident occurred. Following this incident the 15-minute checks failed to be completed in their entirety. Resident ID #2 continued to have increased sexual behaviors on 12/15/2024, and the record review failed to reveal evidence that a new intervention was implemented. It was not until after the immediate jeopardy was identified on 12/16/2024 that Resident ID #2 was sent to the hospital, after showing his/her chest, where s/he was found to have a urinary tract infection. During a surveyor interview on 12/16/2024 at 3:47 PM and 12/18/2024 at approximately 10:40 AM with the DNS and the Administrator, they acknowledged that Resident ID #s 1 and 2 engaged in sexual behaviors multiple times on 12/13/2024. Additionally, they were unable to provide evidence that the facility kept Resident ID #1 free from sexual abuse on 12/13/2024.
Aug 2024 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to provide respiratory care consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 of 3 residents reviewed...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to provide respiratory care consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for oxygen (O2), Resident ID #1. Findings are as follows: According to Lippincott Manual of Nursing Practice 10th Edition, 2014, page 240, states in part, .Administering Oxygen by Nasal Cannula [N/C, a device that is used to deliver oxygen through a tube in your nose] .1. Record flow rate used and immediate patient response . Review of a facility policy titled, Oxygen Administration last reviewed in January of 2024 states in part, .Procedure .Check the physician's order for liter flow and method of administration .Documentation: 1. Ensure that a physician's order has been obtained. 2. Document the date, time, amount, and method of oxygen administration. 3. Document the resident's condition before and after the initiation of therapy . Review of a community reported complaint submitted to the Rhode Island Department of Health on 8/14/2024 alleges that Resident ID #1 was transported to the hospital because s/he could not breathe. Record review revealed the resident was readmitted to the facility in June of 2024 with diagnoses including, but not limited to congestive heart failure and shortness of breath. Review of a progress note dated 8/11/2024 at 10:53 AM revealed that the resident requested to be transferred to the hospital and the physician was in agreement. Additionally, s/he was admitted for congestive heart failure. Review of a hospital document dated 8/10/2024 at 7:29 PM revealed that the resident was alert and oriented and was short of breath for approximately one week. Additionally, it revealed s/he was on 3 liters (L) of oxygen at baseline. Record review revealed the following physician orders pertaining to oxygen active at the time of his/her transfer to the hospital: - 6/13/2024 Oxygen at 1L via nasal cannula for comfort every shift as needed - 6/13/2024 Change oxygen tubing and clean filter every Sunday Record review failed to reveal evidence of a physician order for continuous oxygen therapy. Review of the August 2024 Medication and Treatment Administration Record revealed that the resident was not documented as having received oxygen. Additionally, the resident's oxygen tubing was replaced, and the concentrator filter was cleaned, as ordered, on 8/4. Review of the following progress notes revealed that the resident was receiving oxygen on the following dates and times: - 8/6/2024 at 1:53 PM O2 tubing replaced .on 2L O2 via N/C . - 8/9/2024 at 10:30 PM .oxygen at 2L via nasal cannula . - 8/10/2024 at 2:49 PM .on 3L O2 via N/C, decreased oxygen to 2L . During a surveyor interview on 8/15/2024 at 11:18 AM with Licensed Practical Nurse, Staff A, and Registered Nurse, Staff B, Staff A revealed that the resident utilizes oxygen continuously and receives between 1-3L of oxygen. Staff A acknowledged that the record failed to reveal evidence of a physician's order for continuous oxygen and revealed that there needs to be a physician's order to administer continuous oxygen that also includes the liter flow and method of administration. During a surveyor interview on 8/15/2024 at 11:43 AM with physician, he revealed that he would expect an oxygen order to be in place that includes the liter flow and for the nursing staff to document accordingly. During a surveyor interview on 8/15/2024 at 11:54 AM with the Director of Nursing Services, he acknowledged that there should be a physician order to administer continuous oxygen that includes liter flow, method of administration, and an oxygen saturation level documented every shift. Additionally, he was unable to explain why an order for continuous oxygen was not in place. Cross reference F 842
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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to maintain medical records that are accurately documented in accordance with professional standards and pra...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to maintain medical records that are accurately documented in accordance with professional standards and practices for 1 of 3 residents reviewed relative to oxygen therapy, Resident ID #1. Findings are as follows: Review of a facility policy titled, Oxygen Administration last reviewed in January of 2024 states in part, .Documentation: 1. Ensure that a physician's order has been obtained. 2. Document the date, time, amount, and method of oxygen administration. 3. Document the resident's condition before and after the initiation of therapy . Record review revealed the resident was readmitted to the facility in June of 2024 with diagnoses including, but not limited to, congestive heart failure and shortness of breath. Review of a progress note dated 8/11/2024 at 10:53 AM revealed that the resident requested to be transferred to the hospital (on 8/10/2024) and the physician was in agreement. Additionally, s/he was admitted for congestive heart failure. Review of a hospital document dated 8/10/2024 at 7:29 PM revealed that the resident was alert and oriented and was short of breath for approximately one week. Additionally, it revealed s/he was on 3 liters (L) of oxygen at baseline. Record review revealed a physician order dated 6/13/2024 Oxygen at 1L via nasal cannula for comfort every shift as needed. Additionally, record review failed to reveal evidence of a physician order for continuous oxygen therapy. Review of the following progress notes revealed that the resident was receiving oxygen on the following dates and times: - 8/6/2024 at 1:53 PM O2 tubing replaced .on 2L O2 via N/C . - 8/9/2024 at 10:30 PM .oxygen at 2L via nasal cannula . - 8/10/2024 at 2:49 PM .on 3L O2 via N/C, decreased oxygen to 2L . Review of the August 2024 Medication Administration Record revealed that the resident was not documented as having received oxygen on the above dates and times. During a surveyor interview on 8/15/2024 at 11:18 AM with Licensed Practical Nurse, Staff A, she revealed that the resident utilizes oxygen continuously and receives between 1-3L of oxygen. During a surveyor interview on 8/15/2024 at 11:54 AM with the Director of Nursing Services, he acknowledged that he would expect staff to be documenting the administration of oxygen and the resident's oxygen saturation level every shift. Additionally, he was unable to provide evidence that the facility maintained complete and accurate medical records for the resident relative to oxygen therapy. Cross reference F 695
Aug 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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on surveyor observation, record review, and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to ensure tha...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on surveyor observation, record review, and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents receive assistance devices to prevent accidents for 1 of 2 residents reviewed who utilize hip protectors, Resident ID #1. Findings are as follows: Review of the facility reported incident submitted to the Rhode Island Department of Health on 8/1/2024 states in part, Resident was ambulating with staff in the hallway. [S/he] tripped, lost [his/her] balance and fell to the floor .[S/he] was transferred to [hospital's] emergency department and subsequently admitted with a diagnosis of R [right] femur fracture. Record review revealed the resident was admitted to the facility in April of 2024 with diagnoses including, but not limited to, altered mental status, syncope, and collapse. Record review revealed a physician's order dated 5/3/2024 to Encourage hip protectors at all times, may remove for care. Record review of a facility document titled Fall Reduction Plan and Protocol last reviewed on 2/6/2024 states in part, .4. Any resident who has been identified and care planned as a 'high risk for falls' and/or has a known history of falls, will be offered hip protector pads (such as: 'hipsters') as an intervention in minimizing the risk of fractured hip(s). Education will be provided to the Resident and/or Representative regarding the hip protectors; this will be documented in the medical record. - If the Resident declines the hip protectors, the progress notes must indicate that the Resident and/or Representative were educated about the benefits of the pads (but declined) . Record review of the Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 3 out of 15 indicating severe cognitive impairment. Record review of a facility document titled Fall Risk Observation dated 5/31/2024 revealed that the resident was assessed as a High Fall Risk. Record review of the resident's plan of care revealed that s/he is at risk for falls related to having a history of falls, impaired cognition, the use of psychotropic medications, diagnosis of diabetes mellitus, and bowel/bladder incontinence. S/he had an intervention to encourage hip protectors at all times and they may be removed when providing personal care. Record review of a progress notes dated 7/31/2024 at 8:40 PM, revealed in part, Resident is alert and confused at [his/her] baseline. Resident was ambulating with a walker with certified nursing assistant when resident trip and fall down to the floor around 8:40pm. Resident landed in right hip. Resident is complaining of pain and discomfort, resident was unable to ambulate due to pain .Resident went to the hospital via 911. Resident went to [hospital] per rescue. Record review of the June 2024 Treatment Administration History revealed the above order was signed off as not being completed due to the item being unavailable by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), Staff A, on 7/31/2024 for second shift, 3:00 PM - 11:00 PM. During a surveyor interview on 8/5/2024 at 11:00 AM with Staff A, she revealed that she was one of the nurses who responded when the resident fell to the floor on 7/31/2024. Additionally, she indicated that she was unable to remember if the resident was wearing hip protectors when s/he fell. Furthermore, she revealed that if she had signed off the hip protectors as being unavailable in the resident's record, then the resident was not wearing them at that time as they may have been soiled as the resident is incontinent. Staff A then reviewed Resident ID # 1's record with the surveyor and acknowledged that she charted in the resident's record that s/he was not wearing the hip protectors on 7/31/2024, when s/he fell. Record review of the progress notes for 7/31/2024 failed to reveal evidence that the resident refused to wear the hip protectors. Record review of the Emergency Department progress notes dated 7/31/2024 at 11:42 PM, revealed the resident was diagnosed with a closed comminuted displaced right intertrochanteric fracture (a broken hip). During a surveyor interview on 8/5/2024 at approximately 12:30 PM with the Director of Nursing Services, he was unable to provide evidence that the resident was provided with hip protectors to prevent an accident that resulted in a broken hip when s/he fell on 7/31/2024. The facility's failure to provide the resident with the intervention that they developed to protect them from injuries, as a result of him/her being identified as a high fall risk, resulted in the resident sustaining a broken hip on 7/31/2024.
Jul 2024 6 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for falls while receiving an anticoagulant (a medication that prevents blood from clotting, that can increase your risk of severe or fatal bleeding), Resident ID #83. Findings are as follows: Review of the facility's policy titled Fall Reduction Program states in part, 7. The licensed nurse on duty is responsible to .Notify the doctor utilizing the SBAR [Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendation] format . Record review revealed that Resident ID #83 was admitted to the facility in June of 2024 with diagnoses including, but not limited to, muscle weakness, and acute cystitis (inflammation of the bladder, often caused by a urinary tract infection). Record review revealed a physician's order dated 6/27/2024 for Eliquis (an anticoagulant) 5 milligrams (mg) twice a day. Record review revealed a progress noted dated 7/10/2024 revealed, the resident had an unwitnessed fall with a head strike and a small lump was noted and that the Nurse Practitioner (NP) was notified of the fall. Review of a document titled Safety Events -- Post Fall Huddle SBAR dated 7/10/2024 revealed, the resident had an unwitnessed fall in his/her room. It further revealed the resident is taking an anticoagulant medication with a bump on his/her head and complained of a headache following the fall. Review of the Medication Administration Record for July 2024 revealed that the resident received Acetaminophen (pain medication) 975 mg on 7/10/2024 following the fall. During a surveyor interviews with the NP on 7/11/2024 at 9:54 AM and 12:07 PM, she revealed that she did receive a call on 7/10/2024 related to the resident having a fall and that she was aware that the resident is on Eliquis and s/he did bump his/her head. Additionally, she revealed that she had given a verbal order for the resident to have neurological assessments and vital signs completed every shift, for 72 hours. Furthermore, she revealed she was unaware that the resident complained of a headache following the unwitnessed fall with a head strike. She indicated she would have sent the resident to the hospital for evaluation had she been aware that the resident had a headache after a fall. Record review failed to reveal evidence that the verbal order to have neurological assessments and vital signs completed every shift for 72 hours was transcribed into the resident's record. Further record review failed to reveal evidence that the vital signs or neurological assessments were completed per the Nurse Practitioner's verbal order. During a surveyor interview on 7/11/2024 at 11:25 AM with the Assistant Director of Nursing, she was unable to provide evidence that the verbal order for the neurological assessments and vital signs were transcribed into the record and/or completed. She further revealed that if a resident had a fall with a head strike while on an anticoagulant that they would be to be sent out automatically to the emergency room for an evaluation.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0805 (Tag F0805)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on surveyor observation, record review, resident and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to provide food prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs for 1 o...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on surveyor observation, record review, resident and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to provide food prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for a mechanical soft diet, Resident ID #6. Findings are as follows: Record review revealed the resident was admitted to the facility in January of 2024 with a diagnosis including, but not limited to, dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). Review of a progress note dated 6/14/2024 states in part, Resident was having difficulty swallowing this afternoon at lunch. [S/he] stated [s/he] felt like the food was stuck in [his/her] throat and began hiccupping with face turning flushed. Resident was able to breath appropriately through entire ordeal. Speech Therapy was notified and evaluation requested. This writer sat with resident until [s/he] was able to clear the food and no longer felt like it was stuck. Resident in agreement to diet downgrade to mechanical soft at this time . Record review revealed a physician order dated 6/14/2024 for a mechanical soft diet. Review of the facility's altered diet menu revealed, sausage links should be ground for a mechanical soft diet and bacon should not be served on a mechanical soft diet, indicating the resident should be served ground sausage. During a surveyor observation and interview on 7/8/2024 at 9:36 AM, of the resident's breakfast tray revealed, two whole sausage links. The resident indicated that s/he was unable to eat the sausage links. During a surveyor observation and interview on 7/9/2024 at 8:56 AM, of the resident's breakfast tray revealed, two whole strips of bacon. The resident indicated that the bacon was too hard and was difficult to eat. During a surveyor observation of the resident and simultaneous interview on 7/9/2024 at 9:09 AM, with Registered Nurse, Staff D, she acknowledged that the resident is on a mechanical soft diet and was served two strips of bacon, and should not have. During a surveyor interview on 7/9/2024 at 9:05 AM, with Cook, Staff C, he acknowledged that a resident on a mechanical soft diet should not be receiving whole sausage links or bacon. During a surveyor interview on 7/9/2024 at 1:26 PM, with the Assistant Director of Nursing Services, she acknowledged that the resident should not have received whole sausage links or bacon. Additionally, she was unable to provide evidence that the food was prepared in a form designed to meet the residents' individual needs.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0604 (Tag F0604)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on surveyor observation, record review, staff and resident interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to e...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on surveyor observation, record review, staff and resident interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents are free from physical restraints that are not required to treat the resident's medical symptoms. Additionally, the facility failed to document ongoing re-evaluation of the need for restraints for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for alarms, Resident ID #8. Findings are as follows: Review of the Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 User's Manual last revised in October 2023 states in part, .When the use of an alarm is considered as an intervention in the resident's safety strategy, use must be based on the assessment of the resident and monitored for efficacy on an ongoing basis, including the assessment of unintended consequences of the alarm use and alternative interventions. There are times when the use of an alarm may meet the definition of a restraint, as the alarm may restrict the resident's freedom of movement and may not be easily removed by the resident . Record review revealed that the resident was admitted to the facility in September of 2021 with diagnoses including, but not limited to, difficulty walking and repeated falls. Review of a Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 14 out of 15 indicating the resident is cognitively intact. Further review of the MDS revealed that the resident utilizes an alarm in his/her chair and bed. Record review revealed a physician order dated 5/8/2024 which states, May utilize bed or chair alarm as a friendly reminder not to rise alone. Surveyor observations on the following dates and times revealed the resident had two alarms engaged while sitting in his/her wheelchair. One alarm was attached to the back of his/her shirt and would alarm if pulled and the other alarm the resident was sitting on and would alarm if the resident attempted to stand up. 7/8/2024 at 8:58 AM 7/9/2024 at 8:09 AM 7/9/2024 at 10:02 AM 7/10/2024 at 9:27 AM During a surveyor interview on 7/9/2024 at 10:35 AM with the resident s/he acknowledged that s/he has two alarms on while in the wheelchair and revealed that they are to stop him/her from getting out of his/her chair and that s/he does not like the alarms on his/her chair. During a surveyor interview on 7/9/2024 at 1:35 PM with Registered Nurse, Staff A, she revealed that the resident has two alarms engaged at all times while in his/her wheelchair as a fall intervention. Additionally, she was unaware if any type of assessment was performed for use of the alarms. During a surveyor observation on 7/10/2024 at 11:35 AM of the resident in the presence of Nursing Assistant, Staff B, the resident was unable to turn off or remove either of the two alarms in use. Record review failed to reveal evidence of an assessment for use of the alarms or ongoing evaluation to include adverse reactions of alarm use. During a surveyor interview on 7/10/2024 at 1:48 PM with the Administrator and the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADNS) they acknowledged that the resident utilizes two movement alarms while in his/her wheelchair. Additionally, they were unable to provide evidence that the use of two alarms did not cause the resident to limit his/her movement while in his/her wheelchair. The ADNS and the Administrator were unable to provide evidence that ongoing evaluations of the alarms were completed or that the use of two alarms was the least restrictive intervention.
CONCERN (E)

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

Comprehensive Assessments (Tag F0636)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to conduct a comprehensive assessmen...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to conduct a comprehensive assessment using the resident assessment instrument (RAI), for 5 of 6 residents reviewed, Resident ID #s 7, 25, 39, 53 and 89, and for 1 of 4 residents reviewed related to a Significant Change Assessment, Resident ID #50. Findings are as follows: 1. Review of the Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 User's Manual last revised in October 2023 states in part, .comprehensive assessments include the completion of both the MDS [Minimum Data Set assessment] and the CAA [Care Area Assessment] process, as well as care planning. Comprehensive assessments are completed upon admission, annually, and when a significant change in a resident's status has occurred or a significant correction to a prior comprehensive assessment is required .The MDS does not constitute a comprehensive assessment. Rather, it is a preliminary assessment to identify potential resident problems, strengths, and preferences. Care Areas are triggered by MDS item responses that indicate the need for additional assessment based on problem identification, known as triggered care areas, which form a critical link between the MDS and decisions about care planning .Whereas the MDS identifies actual or potential problem areas, the CAA process provides for further assessment of the triggered areas by guiding staff to look for causal or confounding factors, some of which may be reversible. It is important that the CAA documentation include the causal or unique risk factors for decline or lack of improvement. The plan of care then addresses these factors, with the goal of promoting the resident's highest practicable level of functioning: (1) improvement where possible, or (2) maintenance and prevention of avoidable declines. Documentation should support your decision making regarding whether to proceed with a care plan for a triggered CAA and the type(s) of care plan interventions that are appropriate for a particular resident .). The CAAs reflect conditions, symptoms, and other areas of concern that are common in nursing home residents and are commonly identified or suggested by MDS findings. Interpreting and addressing the care areas identified by the CATs [Care Area Triggers] is the basis of the Care Area Assessment process, and can help provide additional information for the development of an individualized care plan .CAAs must be completed in order to meet the requirements of the OBRA [Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act] comprehensive assessment . 1a. Record review for Resident ID #7 revealed that s/he had an annual comprehensive assessment dated [DATE]. Review of section V, CAA Summary of the assessment revealed to refer to the CAA note for location and date of CAA documentation. Further record review failed to reveal evidence of a CAA note that documented information on the complicating factors, risks, and any referrals for the resident for the care areas. 1b. Record review for Resident ID #25 revealed that s/he had an annual comprehensive assessment dated [DATE]. Review of section V, CAA Summary of the assessment revealed to refer to the CAA note for location and date of CAA documentation. Further record review failed to reveal evidence of a CAA note that documented information on the complicating factors, risks, and any referrals for the resident for the care areas. 1c. Record review for Resident ID #39 revealed that s/he had an annual comprehensive assessment dated [DATE]. Review of section V, CAA Summary of the assessment revealed to refer to the CAA note for location and date of CAA documentation. Further record review failed to reveal evidence of a CAA note that documented information on the complicating factors, risks, and any referrals for the resident for the care areas. 1d. Record review for Resident ID #53 revealed that s/he had an annual comprehensive assessment dated [DATE]. Review of section V, CAA Summary of the assessment revealed to refer to the CAA note for location and date of CAA documentation. Further record review failed to reveal evidence of a CAA note that documented information on the complicating factors, risks, and any referrals for the resident for the care areas. 1e. Record review for Resident ID #89 revealed that s/he had an annual comprehensive assessment dated [DATE]. Review of section V, CAA Summary of the assessment revealed to refer to the CAA note for location and date of CAA documentation. Further record review failed to reveal evidence of a CAA note that documented information on the complicating factors, risks, and any referrals for the resident for the care areas. During a surveyor interview with the Minimum Data Set Coordinator on 7/10/2024 at approximately 2:00 PM and 7/11/2024 at approximately 10:00 AM, she acknowledged that Care Area Assessment indicated to refer to a CAA note for the location of the CAA documentation. Additionally, she acknowledged that a CAA note was not completed for the above-mentioned residents, which included information on the complicating factors, risks, and any referrals for the resident for the care areas. 2. According to the MDS 3.0 Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual version 3.0, last updated 10/2023 Section A states in part, .If a nursing home resident elects the hospice benefit, the nursing home is required to complete an MDS Significant Change in Status Assessment (SCSA). The nursing home is required to complete an SCSA when the resident comes off the hospice benefit (revoke) . Record review revealed Resident ID #50 was admitted to the facility in November of 2023 with a diagnosis including, but not limited to, Alzheimer's disease. Record review revealed Resident ID #50 was admitted to hospice services on 4/19/2024, indicating a significant change in his/her health status. Record review failed to reveal evidence that a SCSA was completed for the resident after being admitted to hospice services. During a surveyor interview on 7/11/2024 at 12:58 PM with the ADNS, she revealed that she would have expected a significant change assessment to be completed after being admitted to hospice services. Additionally, she was unable to provide evidence the assessment was completed.
CONCERN (E)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to ensure that the assessment accura...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to ensure that the assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for position alarms, Resident ID #8, 1 of 1 resident reviewed for smoking, Resident ID #19, 1 of 3 residents reviewed for a multi-drug resistant organism (MDRO, a bacteria that is resistant to antibiotics), Resident ID #25, and 1 of 2 residents reviewed for an indwelling catheter (a tube that is placed in the body to drain and collect urine from the bladder), Resident ID #56. Findings are as follows: 1. Record review revealed Resident ID #8 was readmitted to the facility in March of 2024 with a diagnosis including, but not limited to, repeated falls. Record review revealed a physician order dated 5/8/2024 which states, may utilize bed or chair alarm as a friendly reminder not to rise alone. Review of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], Section P, titled, Restraints and Alarms revealed the resident utilized a bed and chair alarm, less than daily, during the 7-day look back period. During a surveyor interview on 7/9/2024 at 1:40 PM, with the MDS Coordinator, she acknowledged that the 4/23/2024 MDS Assessment was inaccurate, as the resident should have been coded as using the bed and chair alarm daily, indicating that the staff do not remove the alarm. 2. Record review revealed Resident ID #19 was readmitted to the facility in April of 2022 with a diagnosis including, but not limited to, nicotine dependence. Record review revealed a care plan problem area dated 4/23/2024 which revealed the resident is an independent smoker. Review of a MDS assessment dated [DATE], Section J, titled, Health Condition revealed the resident does not currently use tobacco. During a surveyor interview on 7/9/2024 at 2:23 PM, with the MDS Coordinator, she acknowledged that the 4/19/2024 MDS Assessment was inaccurate, as the resident was coded for not using tobacco products. She indicated that the resident should have been coded for tobacco use, as s/he is a current smoker. 3. Review of a facility policy titled, Guideline for Management of MDROs states in part, .MRSA [an infection is caused by a type of staph bacteria that's become resistant to many of the antibiotics] - RI [Rhode Island] DOH [Department of Health] recommends that Contact precautions [the use of gown and gloves upon entering resident rooms] may be discontinued when: There is documentation of 2 consecutive negative MRSA screens from previously positive sites . Record review revealed Resident ID #25 was admitted to the facility in January of 2021 with a diagnosis including, but not limited to, carrier or suspected carrier of MRSA. Record review revealed the resident had two consecutive negative MRSA screenings dated 3/23/2023 and 3/31/2023. Review of a MDS assessment dated [DATE], Section I, titled, Active Diagnoses revealed the resident was coded as having a MDRO. During a surveyor interview on 7/10/2024 at 2:01 PM, with the MDS Coordinator, she acknowledged that the resident's 11/17/2023 MDS Assessment was coded inaccurately and indicated the resident should have been documented as having a history of an MDRO, not an active diagnosis. 4. Record review revealed Resident ID #56 was admitted to the facility in October of 2023 with a diagnosis including, but not limited to, retention of urine. Review of a progress note dated 3/24/2024 revealed the resident had an indwelling catheter that was removed and discontinued. Review of a MDS assessment dated [DATE], Section H, titled, Bladder and Bowel revealed the resident was coded as having an indwelling catheter. Review of a MDS assessment dated [DATE], Section H, titled, Bladder and Bowel revealed the resident was coded as having an indwelling catheter. During a surveyor interview on 7/10/2024 at 1:47 PM, with the MDS Coordinator, she acknowledged that the resident's 4/4/2024 and 6/28/2024 MDS Assessments were inaccurate, as the resident did not have an indwelling catheter during the 7-day look back period and indicated that both assessments should be modified. During a surveyor interview on 7/11/2024 at approximately 2:00 PM, with the Administrator and the Assistant Director of Nursing Services, they were unable to provide evidence that the MDS Assessments for Resident ID #s 8, 19, 25, and 56 were completed accurately.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on surveyor observation, record review, and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program to help prevent the transmiss...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on surveyor observation, record review, and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program to help prevent the transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 1 of 3 residents reviewed relative to Multi-drug Resistant Organisms (MDRO), Resident ID #s 39. Findings are as follows: Review of a facility policy titled Guidelines and management of MDRO's states in part, Enhanced Barrier Precautions- it has been determined by the CDC that focusing on residents with active infection fails to address the continued risk of transmission from residents with MDRO colonization, which can persist for long periods of time (e.g., months) and Contact Precautions and requires gown and gloves for certain residents ( those with existing MDROs, colonization of MDROs or residents in close vicinity of those residents) during specific high contact care activities that have been found to increase risk for MDRO transmission .Epidemiologically important pathogens-Infectious agents that have one or more of the following characteristics .Antimicrobial resistance, i.e., resistance to first-line therapies (MRSA [Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus], VRE [Vancomycin Resistant Enterococcus] .) .MRSA - RI [Rhode Island] DOH [Department of Health] recommends that Contact precautions may be discontinued when: There is documentation of 2 consecutive negative MRSA screens from previously positive sites . Record review revealed Resident ID #39 was re-admitted to the facility in April of 2021 with diagnoses including, but not limited to, carrier or suspected carrier of MRSA and Alzheimer's disease. Review of Resident ID #39's care plan dated 4/4/2023 last reviewed/revised on 7/9/2024 states in part, [the resident] has MRSA Nares Colonization .Goal .[the resident] will not spread MRSA to other residents . Review of the resident's lab documentation revealed, the resident tested positive for MRSA in the nares on 5/14/2021 and 6/30/2021. Record review of a progress note dated 6/12/2024 authored by the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADNS)/Infection Preventionist states, Resident to have MRSA nares screen done. Send to lab tomorrow am. History of MRSA is unresolved at this time. Further record review revealed, a MRSA screen was not completed until 7/8/2024 which resulted negative for MRSA in unknown nares. Additional record review failed to reveal evidence that the resident had 2 consecutive negative MRSA cultures obtained prior to being removed from Contact Precautions or Enhanced Barrier Precautions. Surveyor observations on 7/8, 7/9, 7/10, and 7/11/2024 failed to reveal evidence that the resident was on Contact or Enhanced Barrier Precautions relative to the diagnosis of a MDRO, per the facility policy. During a surveyor interview on 7/11/2024 at approximately 2:00 PM with the ADNS and the Administrator, they were unable to provide evidence that the facility maintained an infection prevention and control program to help prevent the transmission of communicable diseases.
Jun 2023 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on surveyor observation, record review, and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to provide necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards o...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on surveyor observation, record review, and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to provide necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote wound healing and prevent new ulcers from developing for 1 of 3 residents reviewed with pressure ulcers, Resident ID #392. Findings are as follows: 1. Review of a facility policy titled, Skin Care Protocol, states in part, .For those residents identified as at risk interventions must be carried out in a timely manner . Record review revealed Resident ID #392 was admitted to the facility in June of 2023 with a pressure ulcer (a localized injury to the skin and/or underlying skin usually over a boney prominence) to his/her coccyx (bottom portion of the spine). Review of a Braden Risk Assessment Scale (pressure risk assessment tool) dated 6/15/2023, indicates the resident is at moderate risk with a score of 14. Review of the resident's progress notes, revealed a note dated 6/15/2023, which indicated that upon admission, the resident had a Stage II pressure ulcer (partial-thickness skin loss with exposed dermis), located on his/her coccyx, measuring 3.5 x 1.5 centimeters (cm), with a mixture of granulation (new tissue forming during the healing process), slough (tissue that must be removed to promote wound healing) and surrounding blanchable redness. It further revealed a treatment order was received for Triad (wound treatment) and the in-house medical doctor will see the resident. Review of the June 2023 Treatment Administration Record (TAR) revealed the order for Triad treatment was not transcribed until 6/18/2023, 3 days after the order was initially received. Further review of the resident's progress notes revealed a note dated 6/19/2023, authored by the Wound Nurse, Licensed Practical Nurse, Staff A, which revealed the resident's wound was documented as, unstageable related to necrosis (dead tissue) and was measured at 4.2 x 3.5 x 0.3 cm, with light serous drainage, surrounding skin pink and blanchable. This indicates that the wound increased in size (more than doubled in width) and is now assessed as being unstageable. During a surveyor interview with the Director of Nursing Services (DNS) on 6/21/2023 at 10:47 AM, she was unable to explain why that the Triad treatment order, was not implemented until 6/18/2023.
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 F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents are free from any significant medication errors for 1 of 1 dialysis resident review...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents are free from any significant medication errors for 1 of 1 dialysis resident reviewed for medication administration, Resident ID #22. Findings are as follows: Record review of the facility policy titled Medication Administration Safety Program (MASP) - Safety Guidelines states in part, .6. Following the attempt to administer the medical record (MAR) shall be documented as administered or not administered, by the employee administering the [medication]. As necessary an explanation as to why the medication was not administered is then required to be documented . Record review revealed the resident was originally admitted to the facility in August of 2021 with diagnoses including, but not limited to, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, end stage renal disease, chronic diastolic congestive heart failure (chronic condition in which the heart doesn't pump blood as well as it should), atrial fibrillation (irregular heartbeat), hyperlipidemia (abnormally high concentration of fats) and hypertensive urgency (high blood pressure). Additional record review reveals the resident attends dialysis on every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. Review of the May and June of 2023 Medication Administration Records failed to reveal evidence that the resident received the medications listed below on the following dates and times: 1. Doxazosin (medication used to treat high blood pressure) 8mg (milligrams) on 5/27 and 6/10 2. Eliquis (medication used to treat atrial fibrillation) 2.5mg on 5/27, 6/10, 6/13, 6/15, and 6/17 3. Ezetimibe (medication used to treat hyperlipidemia) 10mg on 5/27, 6/10, 6/13, 6/15, and 6/17 4. Isosorbide mononitrate (medication to prevent chest pain) extended release 120mg on 6/9 5. Nephro-Vite Rx (vitamin supplement) 1-60-300mg-mg-mcg (micrograms) on 5/27, 6/10, 6/13, 6/15, and 6/17 6. Senna (medication to prevent constipation) 8.6mg on 6/13, 6/15, and 6/17 7. Sevelamer (medication used to control high blood levels of phosphorus in patients on dialysis) 2400 mg on 5/27, 6/10, and 6/17 8. Slow-mag (magnesium supplement) delayed release 71.5 mg on 5/27, 6/10, 6/13, 6/15, and 6/17 9. Torsemide (medication used to prevent fluid retention) 100mg on 5/27, 6/10, 6/13, 6/15, and 6/17. During a surveyor interview with the Director of Nursing Services on 6/22/2023 at 1:04 PM, she acknowledged the resident did not receive the above mentioned medications as s/he was at dialysis.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on surveyor observation and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to store and label drugs and biological's in accordance with currently accepted professional principl...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on surveyor observation and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to store and label drugs and biological's in accordance with currently accepted professional principles for 1 of 2 medication storage rooms observed, the Sunset Villa Unit. Findings are as follows: Record review of the facility policy titled Medication Administration Safety Program (MASP) - Safety Guidelines states in part, .3. Medications may not be prepared in advance . During a surveyor observation of the Sunset Villa Unit's medication room on 6/21/2023 at approximately 1:15 PM in the presence of the Licensed Practical Nurse, Staff B, revealed 8 clear cups containing medications. Five of the cups were labeled with the residents' names on them, and three cups had no labels or resident identifiers on them. During a surveyor interview with Staff B following the above observation, she acknowledged that medications are not supposed to be prepared in advance. During a surveyor interview with Certified Medication Technician (CMT), Staff C, on 6/21/2023 at approximately 1:25 PM, she acknowledged that she prepared all 8 cups of medications. Additionally, she acknowledged that she was not supposed to prepare medications in advance. During a surveyor interview with the Director of Nursing Services in the presence of the Administrator on 6/21/2023 at 2:50 PM, she acknowledged that medications are not supposed to be prepared in advance.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
  • "What safeguards are in place to prevent abuse and neglect?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • 38% turnover. Below Rhode Island's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: Federal abuse finding, 1 life-threatening violation(s), 2 harm violation(s), $51,948 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 20 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $51,948 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Rhode Island. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: This facility has a substantiated abuse finding. Extreme caution advised. Explore alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Bayberry Commons's CMS Rating?

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

How is Bayberry Commons Staffed?

CMS rates Bayberry Commons's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 38%, compared to the Rhode Island average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Bayberry Commons?

State health inspectors documented 20 deficiencies at Bayberry Commons during 2023 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 2 that caused actual resident harm, and 17 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Bayberry Commons?

Bayberry Commons is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 110 certified beds and approximately 97 residents (about 88% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in Pascoag, Rhode Island.

How Does Bayberry Commons Compare to Other Rhode Island Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Rhode Island, Bayberry Commons's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (38%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Bayberry Commons?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "What safeguards and monitoring systems are in place to protect residents from abuse or neglect?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the substantiated abuse finding on record.

Is Bayberry Commons Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Bayberry Commons has documented safety concerns. The facility has 1 substantiated abuse finding (meaning confirmed case of resident harm by staff or other residents). Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Rhode Island. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Bayberry Commons Stick Around?

Bayberry Commons has a staff turnover rate of 38%, which is about average for Rhode Island 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 Bayberry Commons Ever Fined?

Bayberry Commons has been fined $51,948 across 3 penalty actions. This is above the Rhode Island average of $33,598. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.

Is Bayberry Commons on Any Federal Watch List?

Bayberry Commons 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.