GARRISON NURSING HOME & REHABILITATION CENTER

333 NORTH FM 95, GARRISON, TX 75946 (936) 347-2234
For profit - Individual 93 Beds CARING HEALTHCARE GROUP Data: November 2025 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
36/100
#471 of 1168 in TX
Last Inspection: July 2025

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

Overview

Garrison Nursing Home & Rehabilitation Center has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating poor performance with significant concerns. It ranks #471 out of 1168 facilities in Texas, placing it in the top half, and #1 out of 4 in Nacogdoches County, meaning there is no better local option. The facility is showing an improving trend, reducing issues from 7 in 2024 to 3 in 2025, but still has a concerning staffing situation, with lower RN coverage than 79% of Texas facilities and a turnover rate of 46%, which is below the state average. However, the facility has been fined a total of $52,951, which is average for the state, and recent inspections revealed critical incidents, including a resident who suffered bruises from improper transfers and a failure to address allegations of sexual assault in a timely manner. While the nursing home has strengths such as a 4/5 star rating in quality measures, the serious incidents and staffing concerns should be carefully weighed by families considering this facility for their loved ones.

Trust Score
F
36/100
In Texas
#471/1168
Top 40%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
7 → 3 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
46% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
○ Average
$52,951 in fines. Higher than 74% of Texas facilities. Some compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 19 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Texas. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
○ Average
10 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 7 issues
2025: 3 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

3-Star Overall Rating

Near Texas average (2.8)

Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities

Staff Turnover: 46%

Near Texas avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

Federal Fines: $52,951

Above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

Chain: CARING HEALTHCARE GROUP

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 10 deficiencies on record

2 life-threatening
Jun 2024 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was incontinent of bladder rece...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was incontinent of bladder received appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #27) reviewed for quality of care. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #27's indwelling catheter (drains urine from your bladder into a bag outside your body) had a securement device to anchor catheter. This failure could place residents at risk for urinary tract infections and catheter related injuries. Findings: Record review of a facility face sheet dated 6/25/2024 indicated Resident # 27 was a [AGE] years old female and admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis of heart disease and urinary retention. Record review of a comprehensive care plan dated 3/22/24 indicated Resident #27 was at risk for complications related to Foley catheter and to provide catheter care every shift. Record review of a Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #27 had a BIMS score of 08 indicating moderately impaired cognition, and she required an indwelling catheter. During an observation and interview on 6/25/24 at 9:45 am, Resident # 27 was observed with an indwelling catheter with no securement device for the catheter. Resident # 27 said there was a pulling feeling in her private area at times. During an interview on 6/25/24 at 9:55 am, CNA B said that when care was provided to a resident with a catheter, she made sure the catheter was not pulled but did not check for a securement device. She said the nurses were responsible for placing the securement device. She said a catheter that was not secure could come out or cause pain. During an interview on 6/25/24 at 1:11 pm, LVN A said she had been at the facility for 4 years. She said that residents with an indwelling catheter should be checked every shift and a securement device should be in place to prevent discomfort and dislodgment. She said she had received competency training on indwelling catheters and care. During an interview on 6/26/24 at 10:43 am, the DON said the charge nurses were responsible for checking residents with catheters each shift and each resident with a catheter should have a securement device. She said she was responsible for all nursing oversight and training and nurses had been trained on catheter assessment and ensuring a securement device was in place. She said if a catheter was not secure it could cause abrasions and become dislodged. During an interview on 6/26/24 at 10:46 am, the Administrator said that nursing management was responsible for overseeing that each resident with a catheter had a securement device. She said that an unsecured catheter could cause, pain, infections, and affect the skin. She said she expected the policy to be followed and that all residents with a catheter, had a securement device. Record review of competency check dated 01/26/2024 for catheter care for LVN A indicated LVN A was trained on catheter care and securing catheter according to policy. Record review of facility policy titled Evidenced Based Best Practices: Indwelling Bladder Catheters dated 01/2024 indicated, .the catheter tubing should be secured to prevent accidental displacement .
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 observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 3 of 6 residents (Resident #11, #12, and #43) reviewed for infection control. The facility failed to ensure CNA C sanitized or washed her hands between glove changes, CNA D changed gloves while providing incontinent care to Resident #11 and Resident #43 on 6/24/2024. The facility failed to ensure the COTA (certified occupational therapy assistant) followed enhanced barrier precautions when she provided care to Resident #12 on 6/24/2024. These failures could place residents at risk for cross contamination and infection. Findings included: 1. Record review of a face sheet dated 6/25/2024 for Resident #43 indicated she admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was [AGE] years old with diagnosis of dysphagia (a swallowing disorder that may be due to various neurological, structural, and cognitive deficits), chronic respiratory failure (when the airways that carry air to your lungs become narrow and damaged), cognitive communication deficit (are problems with communication that have an underlying cause in a cognitive deficit), and hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction (total or nearly complete paralysis on one side of the body). Record review of a Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #43 indicated she had moderate impairment in thinking with a BIMS score of 9. She was always incontinent of bladder and always incontinent of bowel. Record review of a care plan revised 3/22/2024 for Resident #43 indicated an ADL self-care performance deficit. She required the extensive assist of direct care staff member for ADL completion for toilet use. During an observation on 6/21/2024 at 10:10 AM, CNA C and CNA D were in the room of Resident #43 to provide incontinent care. Both washed their hands and put on gloves. Supplies were in a plastic bag on the over bed table. CNA C assisted with positioning and holding the resident. CNA C and CNA D opened the brief and pulled it down between Resident #43's thighs. CNA D removed a wipe from the plastic bag and wiped the resident's right inner thigh and folded it over and wiped the left inner thigh and placed the wipe in the trash. CNA D removed a wipe from the plastic bag and wiped up the middle of the vagina from front to back. CNA C rolled Resident #43 onto her left side. CNA D removed wipes from the plastic bag and wiped Resident #43's perineal area from front (vagina) to back (buttocks) and placed wipe in the trash. CNA D rolled the soiled brief under Resident 43's buttocks and rolled Resident 43 to her right side. CNA C removed soiled brief and placed it in the trash. CNA C removed her gloves and placed in the trash and put clean gloves on without sanitizing hands. CNA C placed clean brief under Resident 43 and rolled Resident 43 to her left side. CNA D positioned clean brief under Resident 43. Resident #43 was rolled onto her back and the brief was secured by CNA C and CNA D and the resident was repositioned in the bed. CNA C removed her gloves and exited the room. CNA D removed her gloves and washed her hands. CNA D did not change her gloves while providing incontinent care and repositioning Resident #43. During an interview on 6/21/2024 at 10:20 AM, CNA C said she had been employed at the facility for less than 1 year and worked on the 6 am-2 pm shift. She said with the incontinent care provided to Resident #43 earlier, she should have washed her hands between glove changes. She said that she did not have hand sanitizer with her while providing care to Resident 43. She said that the facility did provide hand sanitizer for the staff. She said that the facility does in services on hand hygiene and infection control. She said residents could be at risk of infections if staff did not wash or sanitize their hands between gloves changes. During an interview on 6/21/2024 at 10:25 AM, CNA D said that she had been employed with the facility for 11 years and worked the 6-2 shift. She said that she should have changed gloves and sanitized her hands while providing incontinent care to Resident #43. She said that the facility provided training on hand hygiene and infection control. She said that the residents were at risk for infection if hand hygiene is not practiced. 2. Record review of a face sheet dated 6/25/2024 for Resident #11 indicated she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was [AGE] years old with the diagnosis of hypertension (high blood pressure), polyosteoarthritis (a degenerative joint condition that causes pain, stiffness, and inflammation), and dementia (a loss of cognitive functioning that interferes with daily life). Record review of a comprehensive MDS dated [DATE] for Resident #11 indicated she had severe impairment in thinking with a BIMS score of 3. She was always incontinent of bladder and incontinent of bowel. Record review of a care plan revised 4/18/2024 indicated that she required extensive to total assistance with ADL care related to dementia and failure to thrive and that Resident #11 was incontinent of bladder and bowel. During an observation on 6/21/2024 at 2:15 PM, CNA D was in the room of Resident #11 to provide incontinent care. CNA D washed her hands and put on gloves. Supplies were in a plastic bag on the over bed table. CNA D opened the brief and pulled it down between Resident #11's thighs. CNA D removed a wipe from the plastic bag and wiped the resident's right inner thigh and folded it over and wiped the left inner thigh and placed the wipe in the trash. CNA D removed a wipe from the plastic bag and wiped down the middle of the vagina from front to back. CNA D rolled Resident #11 onto her left side. CNA D removed wipes from the plastic bag and wiped Resident #11's perineal area from front (vagina) to back (buttocks) The soiled brief was removed from Resident #11. CNA D removed a brief from the plastic bag and placed it underneath the resident's buttocks. Resident #11 was rolled onto her back and the brief was secured and the resident was transferred to wheelchair with assist of another CNA. CNA D removed her gloves and sanitized her hands before exiting the room. CNA D did not change gloves or sanitize her hands while providing incontinent care to Resident #11. 3. Record review of a facility face sheet dated 6/25/24 indicated Resident #12 was [AGE] years old and admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis of disruption of surgical wound. Record review of an admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated a BIMS score of 00 indicating severely impaired cognition and t required maximum assistance with all ADL care. Record review of an acute care plan dated 5/31/24 indicated Resident #12 had a wound and required EBP. Record review of consolidated orders dated 6/25/24 indicated Resident #12 had no order for EBP (enhanced barrier precautions). During an observation on 6/24/24 at 9:47 am, Resident #12 was observed with signs posted on door for Enhanced Barrier Precautions and PPE outside the room. During an observation on 06/24/24 at 2:06 PM, the COTA (certified occupational therapy assistant) was observed transferring Resident # 12 without wearing PPE. The COTA applied gloves and then placed a gait belt around Resident #12's waist. She positioned her next to the bed, locked the wheelchair, and transferred Resident #12 to a sitting position on the side of the bed. COTA then placed her arm around Resident #12's back and legs and turned her into a lowered position in the bed. The COTA removed Resident #12's bra and placed a heel boot on her left foot. The COTA then positioned Resident #12's blanket, call light and remote to the bed. The COTA then adjusted the table next to the bed. She removed her gloves and washed her hands before leaving the room. During an interview on 06/24/24 at 2:16 pm, the COTA said she worked at the facility as needed and had been a COTA for 14 years. She said she was trained by facility staff on EBP and should have put on a gown and gloves before performing care and just got nervous and forgot. She said by not following the EBP, cross contamination could have occurred. During an interview on 06/24/24 at 2:50 pm, the ADON said if a resident required EBP, then signs were posted and PPE were placed outside the room. The ADON stated staff were educated on the precautions, and the infection prevention nurse was notified. She said the infection prevention nurse completed an acute care plan. She said if EBP was not followed, it could introduce residents to infections. During an interview on 06/24/24 at 2:58 pm, the infection prevention (IP) nurse said she has been the IP nurse since February 2024 and when EBP was determined for a resident, the resident and family were educated, signs were posted on the doors and PPE was placed outside the room. She said she then provided education to the staff and completed an acute care plan for the EBP reason. She said that staff that did not follow EBP could place residents at risk of infections. During an interview on 6/26/2024 at 9:50 AM, the DON said she had been employed at the facility for 13 years and has been the DON for almost 1 year. She said EBP was for any resident that had a history of MDRO's (multi drug resistant organisms), current chronic wounds, feeding tubes, and foley catheters. She said EBP would stay in place for residents that had MDRO's indefinitely. She said staff were supposed to wear a gown and gloves when they are providing care that would include contact with the resident, when linens were changed, bathing, incontinent care, and wound care. She said staff were aware of the residents that had EBP in place because they placed protocols on the resident's door. She said the infection preventionist monitored that staff were following EBP protocols. She said there was a risk of spreading MDRO's to other residents if staff did not follow EBP. She said hand hygiene should be performed before care, between care, before and after glove changes and after care was provided. She said glove changes occurred during incontinent care when gloves were visibly soiled and after disposing soiled briefs and prior to placing clean brief on resident. She said would be performing hand hygiene and infection control in services for all staff as well as one on one hand hygiene check offs with direct care staff. She said residents could be a risk of infections if staff did not wash or sanitize their hands. During an interview on 6/26/2024 at 10:15 AM, the Administrator said EBP was for residents that had MDRO's, chronic wounds, and implanted devices to prevent spreading of bacteria. She said staff should don (put on) and doff (take off) gown and gloves to prevent cross contamination for residents who were on EBP. She said staff should wash or sanitize their hands anytime gloves were changed, and staff should be changing gloves during incontinent care. She said there was a risk of contamination and infections if staff did not wash their hands after glove changes or change their gloves when appropriate. Record review of a CNA Proficiency Skills Check dated 4/25/2024 for CNA C indicated she was satisfactory in perineal care for a female along with infection control on hand washing. Record review of a CNA Proficiency Skills Check dated 12/21/2023 for CNA D indicated she was satisfactory in perineal care for a female along with infection control on hand washing. Record review of course certification dated 3/30/24 indicated the COTA was trained on EBP. Record review of a facility policy titled Handwashing/ Hand Hygiene revised August 2015 indicated, .Use of an alcohol-based hand rub containing at least 62% alcohol; or, alternatively, soap (antimicrobial or non-antimicrobial) and water for the following situations . j. after contact with blood or bodily fluids .m. after removing gloves. 8. Hand hygiene is the final step after removing and disposing of personal protective equipment. The policy also indicated, Perform hand hygiene before applying non-sterile gloves and after removing gloves. Record review of CMS QSO-24-08-NH titled Enhanced Barrier Precautions in Nursing Homes dated March 20, 2024 indicated, .EBP is indicated for residents with chronic wounds, surgical wounds
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure nurse staffing data was posted and readily accessible to residents and visitors with all required information for nurs...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure nurse staffing data was posted and readily accessible to residents and visitors with all required information for nurse staffing information for 5 of 5 days (6/21/24, 6/22/24, 6/23/24, 6/24/24 and 6/25/24). The facility failed to ensure the daily staffing information was accurate and posted daily for 6/21/24, 6/22/24, 6/23/24, 6/24/24 and 6/25/24. This failure could place residents, families, and visitors at risk of not being informed of the census and number of staff working each day to provide care on all shifts. Findings: During an observation on 6/25/2024 at 9:00 am, there was a daily staffing posting for the facility on the 200-hallway bulletin board (not in a central location, easily visible to all residents and visitors) dated 6/21/2024. The staffing form was blank for reporting the daily census. The form was not easily legible to all residents and visitors due to misprinting of the copied form. During an interview on 06/25/24 at 9:41 am, the Assistant Regional Nurse said the facility should post the nurse staffing information for each discipline daily with the facility census. She said she could see if the posting was not posted and visible for residents and visitors, they could think there were not enough staff present to provide care. She said the restorative aide was responsible for the daily staff posting. The Assistant Regional Nurse said she would correct the posting and place the posting on a wall at the entrance so all residents and visitors could view it. During an interview on 06/25/24 at 10:00 am, the DON said the restorative aide was responsible for posting the staffing information and she should have been ensuring that it was posted. She said they would also start a binder to store the information for 18 months per the regulation. She said by not having the information posted residents and visitors might not think there was sufficient staff present to provide care. During an interview on 06/25/24 at 10:20 am, the Administrator said the restorative aide was responsible for posting the nurse staffing information. She said she was not sure when the last time the nurse staffing information was posted but would correct the problem and place the sign per the regulations that day. She said there was no policy for nurse staffing information. Record Review of a staffing policy undated titled Staffing read: .Our facility provides sufficient numbers of staff with the skills and competency necessary to provide care and services for all residents in accordance with resident care plans and the facility assessment .
Feb 2024 4 deficiencies 2 IJ (1 affecting multiple)
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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to implement written policies that prohibit abuse for 1 of 4 residents ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to implement written policies that prohibit abuse for 1 of 4 residents reviewed ( Resident #2) in that: The facility failed to ensure CNA B reported, to the abuse coordinator, Resident #1's allegation of sexual assault after she was informed of it by Resident #1's roommate. An Immediate Jeopardy (J) situation was identified on 2/7/24 at 3:35 p.m. as PNC. The noncompliance began on 9/30/23 and ended on 10/12/23. The facility corrected the noncompliance before the survey began. This failure caused a delay in retrieving possible evidence and could have caused serious harm, if the abuse was allowed to continue. Findings included: Record review of resident #2 Face sheet dated 9/19/23 indicated she was a [AGE] year-old female, admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Some of her diagnoses were schizoaffective disorder, major depression, severe with psychotic symptoms, and dementia. Record review of Resident #2 quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. She required set up help with eating and hygiene, partial assist with showers and dressing. The resident was independent with rolling from left to right, and she required supervision with laying down and standing up. Record review of Resident #2 care plan dated 4/10/23. Indicated a Focus area of the resident received psychotic medication related to psychosis. The resident was taking antipsychotics before admission, and she went to outpatient program at the behavioral hospital three times a week. The resident had a history of giving things away and would forget that she gave them away. Some of the interventions were administer medication as needed, referred to psychiatric and social services as needed, and determine the cause of expressions, and if possible. Resident #2 Had a focused area of required limited assistance with ADLs. The resident required one person assist with transfers, and grooming and ADLs. Record review of Resident #2 Provider Investigation report dated 9/30/23 indicated the former roommate indicated Resident #2 was sexually abused by the outpatient clinic van driver. A full body assessment of the resident was conducted and showed no injuries. The resident attended a face-to-face appointment with her physician on 10/3/23 and a pelvic exam was completed. On 10/1/23 criminal investigation, division, interview resident with family member present. The local police department was notified and present at the facility on 9/30/23 to speak with the resident and family. The perpetrator was not employed with the facility. There were no other residents in the building were receiving services from the outpatient clinic . The resident was receiving weekly counseling services. Record review of a nursing progress note dated 9/30/23 at 12:15 p.m. indicated the nurse was informed the resident had alleged sexual assault and skin assessments were performed. At approximately 12:10 p.m. The sheriff's department spoke to the family and did not interview any other staff at that time. At 12:30 PM the sheriff came to the nurses' station and spoke to the writer and gave a description of the suspect, the writer called the behavioral hospital to get information on the van driver. At 3:39 PM. the nurse spoke to the resident's old roommate to see if she had heard of a confession from Resident #2. The roommate stated that the resident told her she was tired of being sexually assaulted. The roommate said Resident #2 would go to the outpatient clinic and her hair would look nice and she would come back in her hair was a mess. The roommate said Resident #2 told her that about three weeks ago. Record review of a statement written by CNA B dated 10/6/23 indicated when she was talking to the former roommate when she told her that Resident #2 had been molested at the Behavior Center around this time she stopped going to the outpatient clinic. She also thought that it was reported and that was the reason she was no longer going. The aid said she made a mistake by not going to report it to the Administrator. Because she thought it had already been reported. Record Review of labs collected from a pelvic exam on 10/3/23 with resulting labs completed 10/13/23 indicated there were no sexually transmitted diseases noted. Record review of a Corrective Action Form indicated CNA B was suspended due to failure to report an allegation of abuse to the abuse coordinator. The employee had been in-serviced on proper reporting requirements and was suspended pending investigation. The form did not have a date. Record review of an in-service conducted on 10/6/23 indicated staff were in-serviced on abuse and neglect and reporting abuse to the abuse coordinator. Record review of the QAPI Meeting sign-in sheet dated 10/12/23 indicated the medical director attended the meeting. The topic of discussion listed as Trauma informed and culturally competent care related to sexual abuse. The policy was required with QA and discussed the resident that experienced trauma due to sexual assault. Record review of the Sheriff's Office Report indicated it was initiated on 9/30/23 at 11:59 a.m. and closed on 12/15/23. The record indicated the case was closed due to lack of sufficient evidence. During an interview on 2/5/24 at 3:55 p.m., the Administrator said they called the Sheriff's Office, and the deputies came out the same day. She said a female deputy had interviewed Resident #2 multiple times. The Administrator said she did not know the outcome of those interviews; Resident #2 had not revealed anything to her staff. She said the SW and the counseling services had not gotten her to reveal anything to them. She said the Sheriff's office had basically handled the investigation; it was a criminal investigation. She suspended CNA B for not reporting the incident sooner. She said the police had not told her anything because the investigation was still on going. They had just suspended all services with the Behavioral Outpatient clinic at that time. However, they did not have any residents attending prior to being made aware of the incident with Resident #2. During an interview on 2/6/24 at 1:38 p.m. CNA B said Resident #2 was not going to the Outpatient Behavioral Clinic and seemed depressed. One day the roommate Resident #4 told her while they were in the bathroom that Resident #2 was upset because she had been F by the van driver. CNA B said she thought it was something that had already been reported because Resident #2 was no longer going to the program, so she did not report what the roommate had said. She said about 2 weeks later the family member came to her and said and something was wrong with Resident #2. The aide said at that time she told the family member what Resident #4 had told her. She said the family member was not aware and Resident #2 had never said anything. CNA B said she was suspended that day for not report the allegation to the Administrator. She said if anything like that ever happened again would report immediately. She said if she thought it was abuse or sounded like abuse she would report. CNA B said she knew what sexual abuse was but had not reported it because she thought the Administrator was aware. During an interview on 2/6/24 at 2:17 p.m., CNA C said she was aware of what abuse and neglect were; they were in-serviced all the time. She was able to identify the different types of abuse and neglect. She said if she heard or seen abuse, and she would immediately report to nurse and abuse coordinator. During an interview on 2/6/23 at 2:33 p.m. CNA D said he was able to identify the different types of abuse, multiple types of abuse, physical abuse, mental, verbal abuse, not seen or heard any abuse, and would report immediately to charge nurse and abuse coordinator. During an interview on 2/6/24 at 2:45 p.m., CNA E said she was able to identify different types of abuse and neglect. She said she had not seen or heard any abuse and would immediately report to the Administrator if she did. During an interview on 2/6/24 at 3:19, CNA G said she was familiar with abuse and neglect. She said if she heard or seen any abuse or neglect would report immediately to the abuse coordinator/Administrator. During an interview on 2/6/24 at 3:27 p.m., the DON said it was her understanding that Resident #2 was out to an outpatient service and one incident occurred. She said she did not know anything about the Resident #2's incident until they had taken statements. She said she knew the family stopped sending her to the outpatient clinic. She said Resident #2 never reached out to the facility staff, but apparently talked to the Sheriff's deputy. She said she did not know when occurred had to occurred sometimes before 9/14/23. She said when they go to outpatient treatment and the therapist recommended outpatient. The DON said she was not sure of what the process was. She said as far as she knew the resident may have requested to go, or the social worker may have completed a referral. She said they provided an outside service to the residents in the facility. The DON said the facility was responsible for getting them the clinic they provide their own transportation. During an interview on 2/6/24 at 4:00 p.m., Resident #2 said she did not remember the time frame for when she was molested by the van driver. She said she did remember the incident and provided details. She said she had not confided in anyone at the facility because she was embarrassed. She said she was feeling better now and was putting the incident behind her. During an interview on 2/6/24 at 4:22 p.m. the SW said she had worked at the facility for 3 years and during that time Resident #2 had never opened to her. She said she would try to explore things with her, but she never told her what happened. The SW said she went back and talked to her weekly and she would not tell me anything. She said the process that took place was the Outpatient liaison would come to the facility and did activities with the residents. The SW said if the liaison thought any of the patients qualified, and some with prior behavior hospital inpatients. She said she did not remember how long Resident #2 was the only resident attending the program. She said she discussed with the family member Resident #2's her depression. The SW said they started to note a change with Resident 2. The family member requested on 8/29/23 to change the amount of days Resident #2 attended from 5 days a week to 3 days a week. The Resident #2 continued to be depressed and lost weight and it was the family's decision to stop the Outpatient program. The SW said the family thought that may be too much for her so on 9/14/23 Resident #2 stopped attending the program. During an interview on 2/7/24 at 3:10 a.m. the Administrator said she had counseled CNA B about not reporting the incident with Resident #2 on 9/30/23 and she was suspended that day. The Administrator said she had spoken to the aide several times during the next few days, and they had done the counseling. The initial counseling started on 9/30/23. She said they had in serviced on abuse and reporting. They had also taken the issue to QA and discussed trauma informed care. Record review of the facility Abuse policy last revised April 2021 indicated If Resident abuse was suspected, the suspicion must be reported immediately to the administrator and other officials according to state law. Immediately is defined as within two hours of an allegation involving abuse or result in serious bodily injury or withing 24 hours of an allegation that does not involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury. Resident has the right to be free from abuse. Protect residents form abuse from staff from other agencies, visitors, or any individual.
CRITICAL (K) 📢 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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident received adequate supervision and an environme...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident received adequate supervision and an environment free from hazards for 2 of 10 residents (Resident #1 and Resident #3) reviewed in that: 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 did not sustain bruises due to her side rails. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 sustained bruises due to an improper transfer by an outside hospice aide. Resident #1 was a two person transfer and was transferred by one person. 3. The facility failed to ensure Resident #3 did not sustain at least two falls with side rails on his bed. 4. the facility failed to ensure Resident # 3 a resident did not suffer injuries from side rails. An IJ was identified on 2/8/24. The IJ began on 11/2/23and removed on 12/21/23. While the IJ was removed on 12/21/23, the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of pattern and a severity level of no actual harm because (e.g.) all staff had not been trained on fall interventions for residents at a high risk for falls. These failures placed residents at risk for physical harm. Findings Included: Record review of Resident #1's Annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #1'scogntition was moderately impaired. She required extensive assist with bed mobility of one person. She did not get out of bed often but required two people for assistance. Resident #1 required extensive assist with dressing, she was totally dependent on one staff for eating, dressing, and toilet use. The MDS indicated the resident had limited range of motion, she had lower and upper extremities impairment on the left and right sides. She used a wheelchair for mobility. The MDS also indicated she did not have any restraints. Record review of Resident #1's acute care plan dated 6/14/22 indicated to pad the bed rails. Record review of Resident #1's hospice care plan dated 6/6/23 indicated the patients ADLS and personal care needs will be met with hospice aide. Record review of Resident #1's initial assessment for use of physical restraints dated 6/19/23. The reason listed for use of physical restraint was to aide in turning and positioning. The alternatives attempted was listed as siderail. The decision to restrain was the family and resident requested the siderails. The form stated a physician order is required. The family and resident were educated regarding the risks and safety of siderails and wished to continue risks. Record review of a fax cover sheet dated 6/12/23 indicated was called to Resident #1's room for a bruise to the lower left forearm measuring 13 cm x 7 cm. There were no signs and symptoms of pain. The resident reported hitting it on the siderail. Record review of a physician communication form dated 6/14/23 indicated Resident #1 had a bruise on her forehead and left inner elbow. The Resident thinks she did it while repositioning. Record review of Resident #1's nursing notes indicated on 7/3/23 at 7:30 p.m., an aide reported a dark purple discoloration of 16 cm x 11 cm to Resident #1's right shoulder and extending down to the breast area with edema noted. There were no signs and symptoms of distress or complaint of pain at this time. The hospice, MD, DON, and Administrator were notified as well as the RP. At 8:00 p.m., received an order from the MD to have right shoulder x-rayed. At 11:00 p.m. the hospice nurse was in the facility. Signed by LVN A. Review of a nursing note dated 7/4/23 at 12:00 a.m. indicated the hospice physician wanted to hold Aggrenax (blood thinner) at this time. At 7:30 p.m. x ray results received. Record review of hospice notes dated 7/3/23 indicated a hospice Aide was at the facility around 9:30 a.m. and provided care to the resident. She gave her a bed bath, changed the sheet, and provided ADL services. Record review of a hospice RN note dated 7/3/33 at 11:17 p.m. indicated a head-to-toe assessment was completed. Resident #1 was lying in bed sleeping. She reported pain to a bruised area on the right side of chest and shoulder area with light palpation. The area had a bruise with edema noted to the right upper arm and chest. The patient had right sided paralysis with contractures to the right hand and hardened raises area near the right elbow. It was unknown if new finding or related to right sided contracture from stroke. The physician was informed and ordered x-rays. The facility reported new onset of bruising, swelling and pain to right shoulder and right chest. Routine medications used for pain relief in the last 24 hours Tylenol routine and PRN doses were administred. The resident reported the area had moderate, severe pain, was aching and sore, and painful on movement and all activities. Record review of Resident #1's discharge summary indicated she was discharged on 8/1/23 to a facility closer to family. During an interview on 2/6/24 at 11:57 a.m., LVN A said Resident #1 had bruise on her shoulder that was reported and one of the hospice CNAs had seen it. She said she was not sure about bruise on the head. LVN A said Resident #1 was a two-person transfer, and she would fight during care. She said hospice would come and give bed baths in the morning. During an interview on 2/6/24 at 12:45 p.m., the ADON said Resident #1 had a bruise and her investigation indicated she had a history of favoring her right side. She had a large hematoma, eventually it was drained. She stated the family did not want her going to the hospital; she was on hospice there were some broken ribs, but she did not receive treatment. It was several weeks later before she was sent to the hospital to have the hematoma drained. She said the blood pooled in one spot and formed a large knot. She was under hospice care when she was transferred and something put some pressure on it which caused bruising. The ADON said Resident # 1 was a resident of the facility for 11 years. She said that staff reported Hospice aide said she knew the bruise was there and Resident #1 required two people to transfer. The hospice aide transferred her by herself, and did not report the bruise. She knew the bruise was there that morning but did not report it to anyone in the facility or to the hospice agency. The ADON said the incident where the resident bumped her head, she could not have bumped it on the wall due to the way the bed was situated. She said it was a possibility she bumped her head on the siderail. Resident #3 Record review of Resident #3's Face sheet dated 9/19/23 indicated he was an [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Some of his diagnoses were Parkinson's disease, abnormalities of gate and mobility, history of falling, trimmers, dementia, and anxiety. Record review of a quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #3's cognitive score was not listed. He required partial to moderate assistance to bed roll left to right, sitting to lying, lying to sitting on the side of the bed, sit to stand, chair to bed transfer and toilet transfer. The MDS indicated the resident required partial to moderate assist with walking 10 feet once standing and the ability to walk 150 in the corridor once standing did not occur. Record review of Resident #3 Care Plan dated 7/26/23 indicated a focused area of limited supervision with ADLs. Some of the interventions were. One to two aides to transfer the resident as needed. Assist with dressing and grooming by one to two CNA's and encourage the resident to assist as much as possible. A focused area that indicated Resident #3 had a history of Falls, related to gait pattern, changes, when walking, and functioning status, and unsteady gate. The resident had diagnoses of Parkinson's and Lewy body dementia. The resident had confusion. Disorientation, lack of familiarity with surroundings, and impaired judgments/decision-making. The plan had a note at the bottom that said see acute care plans for actual files, dated 10/19/23. Record review of Resident # 3 Fall assessment dated [DATE] indicated prior to admission. The resident had multiple falls, and he was on Psychotropics, and he had problems by exhibiting loss of balance while standing. Record review of Resident #3 bed Rail and Assistive Bar evaluation dated 7/3/23 indicated Resident #3 had half Rails on the left side of the bed. Record review of Resident #3 Incident report dated 9/10/23 indicated at 7:50 a.m. The resident was confused and disoriented bed rails were ordered, and bed rails were present. Called to the room and noted the resident laying on his back in between the chair and the bed feet towards the TV, head towards the head of the bed as resident what happened and he stated, I do not feel good. Record review of Resident #3 Acute care plan dated 9/10/23. Indicated the resident was observed on the floor in room between the bed and the chair. The approach was insured. The resident had proper footwear. Record review of Resident #3 Acute care plan dated 9/23/23 indicated the resident was observed on the floor in the room in front of the AC unit. The approach was to ensure the room has the proper comfortable temperature. Record review of Resident #3 Acute care plan dated 10/2/23 indicated the resident was observed on the floor against the bed with the laceration to the right eyebrow. The approach was to conduct a medication review. Record review of Resident #3 Acute care plan dated 10/ 29/23 indicated the resident was observed on the floor. Some of the approaches were to place mats by the bed and to conduct 15-minute checks. Record review of Resident #3 Incident report dated 11/2/23 indicated at 9:15 PM. The resident was confused and disoriented he had side rails ordered and the side rails were present. The aide alerted the nurse the resident had fallen. When in the room the resident was laying on his left side left side beside his bed. The resident cried out in pain when attempting to move his left leg, the resident was assessed and sent to the hospital. Record review of resident #3 Provider investigation report dated 11/2/23 indicated around 9:15 PM. The resident was found on the floor Resident #3 was laying on his left side on the floor by his bed with fall mat in place. The resident voiced pain and was sent to the hospital for evaluation. Resident #3 Was diagnosed with an acute displaced angulated fracture of the neck of the hip. The resident was admitted to the hospital for consultation with an orthopedic surgeon. Record review of Resident #3 Acute care plan dated 11/2/23 indicated the resident was observed on the floor. The goals were 15-minute check times 72 hours and 30-minute check times, and a scoop mattress. Record review of Resident #3 Hospital Records dated 11/3/23 indicated the patient had complained of severe pain on the left hip. His x-ray and CT scan of the pelvis found that the patient has a left hip fracture. Record review of Resident # 3's incident reports indicated he had 10 falls between 9/5/23 and 11/2/23. During an interview on 2/5/24 at 3:55 p.m. the Administrator said Resident #3 was found on the floor, sent to the hospital, and had a fractured. She said he had participated in therapy for few weeks and then they put him back on Hospice. She said he had a history of falls, diagnosis of Parkinson's and dementia. The Administrator said he passed away before Christmas. During an interview on 2/6/24 at 2:17 p.m. CNA C said she worked with Resident #3 and had laid him down on 11/2/23 around 9:15 p.m. He is usually up during the night, so we tried to put him down at the end of the shift, hoping he was all tired out. She said they (CNA E) left the room and it was only a few minutes. She said they heard a big bang. She said she thought he climbed over the rail. CNA C said Resident # 3's rail was up because she put them up before leaving the room. The aide said Resident #3 came over or around the half rail. CNA C said she had to re write the statement and take out the side rail part. She said she did not see him fall, but the rail was up. He his head was on the fall mat and his arm was under the chair. During an interview on 2/6/24 at 2:45 p.m. CNA E said we (CNA C) had just put Resident #1 in the bed on 11/2/23. She said they did everything right, went back to the seating area, heard a noise and he was on the floor. CNA E said Resident # 3 was a two person assist and he had two side rails on the bed. He was declining in his health, and he was restless. She said they were waiting for him to wind down and be ready to go to bed. She said she did not know how he got out of the bed, they heard a big boom, he was on the floor. She said the rail was still up when they went into the room. During interview on 2/6/24 at 3:04 p.m. LVN F said she thought Resident #3 was trying to get up to use the restroom. She said when she had gone in the room, he was on the floor between the bed and the chair. She said he could not stand unassisted, he could stand with two people assisting him, and could not bear all his weight. She said she did not remember if he had a scoop mattress or side rails. He did break his hip with that fall and had been on hospice prior to the fall. During an interview on 2/6/24 at 3:27 p.m., the DON stated Resident #3 fell out of his bed and sent to ER and had a fractured hip. He was admitted on hospice at that time. During an interview on 2/7/24 at 11:28 a.m. the ADON said she Resident #3 did not have side rails. He was not supposed to have any and if he did, she was not aware of the rails. She said she was working to reduce the side rails in the building.
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 F0840 (Tag F0840)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure services furnished by an outside resource complied in writin...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure services furnished by an outside resource complied in writing that the facility assumed responsibility to meet professional standards while providing care to 1 of 1 resident reviewed ( Resident #2) in that: The facility failed to have a contract with the Outpatient Behavior Day clinic and did not have any method in place to track the residents' progress, decline, or wellbeing. This negative finding resulted in emotional, mental, and possible physical harm. Findings Included: Record review of resident #2 Face sheet dated 9/19/23 indicated she was a [AGE] year-old female, admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Some of her diagnoses were schizoaffective disorder, major depression, severe with psychotic symptoms, and dementia. Record review of Resident #2 care plan dated 4/10/23. Indicated a Focus area of the resident received psychotic medication related to psychosis. The resident was taking antipsychotics before admission, and she went to outpatient program at the behavioral hospital three times a week. The resident had a history of giving things away and would forget that she gave them away. Some of the interventions were administer medication as needed, refer to psychiatric and social services as needed, and determine the cause of expressions, and if possible. Resident #2 Had a focused area of required limited assistance with ADLs. The resident required one person assist with transfers and grooming and ADLs. Record review of Resident #2 Provider Investigation report dated 9/30/23 indicated the former roommate indicated Resident #2 was sexually abused by the outpatient clinic van driver. A full body assessment of the resident was conducted and showed no injuries. The resident attended a face-to-face appointment with her physician on 10/3/23 and a pelvic exam was completed. On 10/1/23 criminal investigation, division, interview resident with family member present. The local police department was notified and present at the facility on 9/30/23 to speak with the resident and family. The perpetrator was not employed with the facility. There were no other residents in the building were receiving services from the outpatient clinic . The resident was receiving weekly counseling services. Review of the facility contract book on 2/6/24 did not reveal a contract with the Outpatient Clinic. During an interview on 2/6/24 at 3:27 p.m. the DON said it was her understanding Resident #2 was attending an outpatient service and an incident occurred. She said she did not know anything about the Resident #2's incident until they had taken statements. She said she knew the family stopped sending her to the outpatient clinic. She said Resident #2 never reached out to the facility staff, but apparently talked to the Sheriff's deputy. She said she did not know when the incident occurred but knew it had to have occurred sometimes before 9/14/23. She said when Residents went to outpatient treatment and the therapist recommended outpatient services. The DON said she was not sure of what the process was. She said as far as she knew the resident may have requested to go, or the social worker may have completed a referral. She said they provided an outside service to the residents in the facility. The DON said the facility was not responsible for getting them the clinic they provide their own transportation. During an interview on 2/5/24 at 3:55 p.m. the Administrator said they did not have a contact with the Outpatient Behavioral Clinic. She said the clinic provided transportation to and from their services. She was not sure how many residents they had going at one time. However, Resident #2 was the only resident going to the Outpatient Clinic in September 2023. She thought the social worker handled the referral for the residents to go. She was not sure of what the procedures were. During an interview on 2/6/24 at 4:22 p.m. the SW said she had worked at the facility for 3 years and during that time Resident #2 had never opened to her. She said she would try to explore things with her, but she never told her what happened. The SW said she went back and talked to her weekly and she would not tell me anything. She said the process that took place was the Outpatient liaison would come to the facility and did activities with the residents. The SW said if the liaison thought any of the patients qualified, and some with prior behavior hospital inpatients. She said the Outpatient clinic would do an assessment and sign them up for outpatient services. The SW said she really had no interactions with signing them up and did not know exactly what services they received. She said she had the initial list of residents who attended made for nurses so they would have them ready in the morning when the clinic staff picked them up. She said it was up to the facility who they picked up on some days. They had one resident that required incontinent care and at one time he could not go. They said they did not have sufficient staff. She said she did not really do a referral. The SW said they did not have a contract with the outpatient clinic. They did not have a logbook of who went on what days. She said she did not remember how long Resident #2 was the only resident attending the program. She said she discussed with the family member Resident #2's her depression. The SW said they started to note a change with Resident 2. The family member requested on 8/29/23 to change the amount of days Resident #2 attended from 5 days a week to 3 days a week. The Resident #2 continued to be depressed and lost weight and it was the family's decision to stop the Outpatient program. The SW said the family thought that may be too much for her so on 9/14/23 Resident #2 stopped attending the program. The SW said she did not have any notes or assessments from the Outpatient Clinic and was not sure what the residents did while at the clinic. The SW said she did not have any assessments or progress notes associated with Resident #2 or any residents that had attended the Outpatient Services.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse 1 of 4 residents reviewed ( Resident ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse 1 of 4 residents reviewed ( Resident #2) in that: CNA B did not report to the abuse coordinator Resident #1's allegation of sexual assault after she was informed of it by Resident #1's roommate. This failure caused a delay in retrieving possible evidence and could have caused serious harm, if the abuse was allowed to continue. Findings included: Record review of resident #2 Face sheet dated 9/19/23 indicated she was a [AGE] year-old female, admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Some of her diagnoses were schizoaffective disorder, major depression, severe with psychotic symptoms, and dementia. Record review of Resident #2 quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. She required set up help with eating and hygiene, partial assist with showers and dressing. The resident was independent with rolling from left to right, and she required supervision with laying down and standing up. Record review of Resident #2 care plan dated 4/10/23. Indicated a Focus area of the resident received psychotic medication related to psychosis. The resident was taking antipsychotics before admission, and she went to outpatient program at the behavioral hospital three times a week. The resident had a history of giving things away and would forget that she gave them away. Some of the interventions were administer medication as needed, referred to psychiatric and social services as needed, and determine the cause of expressions, and if possible. Resident #2 Had a focused area of required limited assistance with ADLs. The resident required one person assist with transfers, and grooming and ADLs. Record review of Resident #2 Provider Investigation report dated 9/30/23 indicated the former roommate indicated Resident #2 was sexually abused by the outpatient clinic van driver. A full body assessment of the resident was conducted and showed no injuries. The resident attended a face-to-face appointment with her physician on 10/3/23 and a pelvic exam was completed. On 10/1/23 criminal investigation, division, interview resident with family member present. The local police department was notified and present at the facility on 9/30/23 to speak with the resident and family. The perpetrator was not employed with the facility. There were no other residents in the building were receiving services from the outpatient clinic . The resident was receiving weekly counseling services. Record review of a nursing progress note dated 9/30/23 at 12:15 p.m. indicated the nurse was informed the resident had alleged sexual assault and skin assessments were performed. At approximately 12:10 p.m. The sheriff's department spoke to the family and did not interview any other staff at that time. At 12:30 PM the sheriff came to the nurses' station and spoke to the writer and gave a description of the suspect, the writer called the behavioral hospital to get information on the van driver. At 3:39 PM. the nurse spoke to the resident's old roommate to see if she had heard of a confession from Resident #2. The roommate stated that the resident told her she was tired of being sexually assaulted. The roommate said Resident #2 would go to the outpatient clinic and her hair would look nice and she would come back in her hair was a mess. The roommate said Resident #2 told her that about three weeks ago. Record review of a statement written by CNA B Dated 10/6/23 indicated when she was talking to the former roommate when she told her that Resident #2 had been molested at the Behavior Center around this time, she stopped going to the outpatient clinic. She also thought that it was reported and that was the reason she was no longer going. The aid said she made a mistake by not going to report it to the Administrator. Because she thought it had already been reported. Record Review of labs collected 10/3/23 indicated they were all negative, and also labs collected 10/13/23 indicated they were all negative as well. Record review of a Corrective Action Form indicated CNA B was suspended due to failure to report an allegation of abuse to the abuse coordinator. The employee had been in serviced on proper reporting requirements an was suspended pending investigation. The form did not have a date. Record review of an Inservice conducted on 10/6/23 indicated staff were in serviced on abuse and neglect and reporting abuse to the abuse coordinator. Record review of QAPI Meeting sing in sheet dated 10/12/23 indicated the medical director attended the meeting they had topic of discussion listed as Trauma informed and culturally competent care related to sexual abuse. The policy was required with QA and discussed the resident that experienced trauma due to sexual assault. Record review of Sheriff's office Report indicated it was initiated on 9/30/23 at 11:59 a.m. and closed on 12/15/23. The record indicated the case was closed due to lack of sufficient evidence. During an interview on 2/6/24 at 12:45 p.m. the ADON said Resident #2 was going to Out Patient Clinic and had a report the van driver for that facility was inappropriate with her. She said she went to her physician, and they completed a pelvic exam and made sure it was all clear. She said the problem was the timing was off she could not say exactly when it happened, and by the time Resident #1 had already stopped going to the clinic, and the incident had happened some weeks before then. The ADON said Resident #2 started having issues with depression and would not eat about a month before the alleged abuse was discovered. During an interview on 2/6/24 at 1:38 p.m. CNA B said Resident #2 was not going to the Outpatient Behavioral Clinic and seemed depressed. One day the roommate Resident #4 told her while they were in the bathroom that Resident #2 was upset because she had been F by the van driver. CNA B said she thought it was something that had already been reported because Resident #2 was no longer going to the program, so she did not report what the roommate had said. She said about 2 weeks later the family member came to her and said and something was wrong with Resident #2. The aide said at that time she told the family member what Resident #4 had told her. She said the family member was not aware and Resident #2 had never said anything. CNA B said she was suspended that day for not report the allegation to the Administrator. She said if anything like that ever happened again would report immediately. She said if she thought it was abuse or sounded like abuse she would report. CNA B said she knew what sexual abuse was but had not reported it because she thought the Administrator was aware. During an interview on 2/6/24 at 2:17 p.m. CNA C said she was aware of what abuse and neglect were, they were in serviced all the time. She was able to identify the different types of abuse and neglect. She said if she heard or seen abuse, and she would immediately report to nurse and abuse coordinator. During an interview on 2/6/23 at 2:33 p.m. CNA D said he was able to identify the different types of abuse, multiple types of abuse, physical abuse, mental, verbal abuse, not seen or heard abuse and would report immediately to charge nurse and abuse coordinator. During an interview on 2/6/24 at 2:45 p.m. CNA E said she was able to identify different types of abuse and neglect. She said she had not seen or heard any abuse and would immediately report to the Administrator is she did. During an interview on 2/6/24 at 3:19 CNA G said she was familiar with abuse and neglect. She said if she heard or seen any abuse or neglect would report immediately to the abuse coordinator/Administrator. During an interview on 2/6/24 at 3:27 p.m. the DON said it was her understanding Resident #2 out to an outpatient service and one incident occurred. She said she did not know anything about the Resident #2's incident until they had taken statements. She said she knew the family stopped sending her to the outpatient clinic. She said Resident #2 never reached out to the facility staff, but apparently talked to the Sheriff's deputy. She said she did not know when occurred had to occurred sometimes before 9/14/23. She said when they go to outpatient treatment and the therapist recommended outpatient. The DON said she was not sure of what the process was. She said as far as she knew the resident may have requested to go, or the social worker may have completed a referral. She said they provided an outside service to the residents in the facility. The DON said the facility was responsible for getting them the clinic they provide their own transportation. During an interview on 2/5/24 at 3:55 p.m. the Administrator said they called the Sheriffs Office, and the deputies came out the same day. She said a female deputy had interviewed Resident #2 multiple times. The Administrator said she did not know the outcome of those interviews, Resident #2 had not revealed anything to her staff. She said the SW and the counseling services had not gotten her to reveal a thing to them. She said the Sheriff's office had basically handled the investigation; it was a criminal investigation. She suspended her CNA B for not reporting the incident sooner. She said the police had not told her anything because the investigation was still on going. They had just suspended all service with the Behavioral Outpatient clinic at this time, however they did not have any residents attending prior to being made aware of the incident with Resident #2. During an interview on 2/6/24 R 4:00 p.m. Resident #2 said she did not remember the time frame for when she was molested by the van driver. She said she did remember the incident and provided details. She said she had not confided in anyone at the facility because she was embarrassed. She said she was feeling better now and putting the incident behind her. During an interview on 2/6/24 at 4:22 p.m. the SW said she had worked at the facility for 3 years and during that time Resident #2 had never opened to her. She said she would try to explore things with her, but she never told her what happened. The SW said she went back and talked to her weekly and she would not tell me anything. She said the process that took place was the Outpatient liaison would came to the facility and did activities with the residents. The SW said if the liaison thought any of the patients qualified, and some with prior behavior hospital inpatients. She said the Outpatient clinic would do an assessment and sign them up for outpatient services. The SW said she really had no interactions with signing them up and did not know exactly what services they received. She said she had the initial list of residents who attended made for nurses so they would have them ready in the morning when the clinic staff picked them up. She said it was up to the facility who they picked up on some days. They had one resident that required incontinent care and at one time he could not go. They said they did not have sufficient staff. She said she did not really do a referral. The SW said they did not have a contract with the outpatient clinic. They did not have a logbook of who went on what days. She said she did not remember how long Resident #2 was the only resident attending the program. She said she discussed with the family member Resident #2's her depression. The SW said they started to note a change with Resident 2. The family member requested on 8/29/23 to change the amount of days Resident #2 attended from 5 days a week to 3 days a week. The Resident #2 continued to be depressed and lost weight and it was the family's decision to stop the Outpatient program. The SW said the family thought that may be too much for her so on 9/14/23 Resident #2 stopped attending the program. During an interview on 2/7/24 at 3:10 a.m. the Administrator said she had counseled CNA B about not reporting the incident with Resident #2 on 9/30/23 and she was suspended that day. The Administrator said she had spoken to the aide several times during the next few days and they had done the counseling. The initial counseling started on 9/30/23. She said they had in serviced on abuse and reporting. They had also taken the issue to QA and discussed trauma informed care. Record review of the facility Abuse policy last revised April 2021 indicated If Resident abuse was suspected, the suspicion must be reported immediately to the administrator and other officials according to state law. Immediately is defined as within two hours of an allegation involving abuse or result in serious bodily injury or withing 24 hours of an allegation that does not involve abuse or result in serous bodily injury. Resident has the right to be free from abuse. Protect residents form abuse from staff from other agencies, visitors, or any individual.
May 2023 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to treat each resident with respect and dignity and care ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to treat each resident with respect and dignity and care in a manner that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life for 1 of 18 residents (Resident # 7) reviewed for resident rights. The facility failed to ensure Resident # 7 was assisted with eating in a dignified manner. This failure could place residents at risk for decreased quality of life, quality of care, and self-esteem. Findings: Record review of facility face sheet dated 05/09/2023 indicated Resident #7 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of cerebrovascular disease (stroke), contracture (lack of movement of joint), dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), and impaired communication. Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated a BIMS of 99 indicating Resident # 7 was unable to be interviewed and was totally dependent on staff for eating. Comprehensive care plan indicated Resident # 7 required total care assistance for activities of daily living and for facility staff to feed the resident. During an observation on 05/08/23 at 11:25 am CNA A announced openly in the dining room two times that Resident # 7 was a feeder and needed her tray with other residents present during the noon meal. During an interview on 05/09/23 at 10:13 AM CNA B stated she had been an aide for 4 years and had worked at the facility for 3 months. She stated a resident was a feeder when they could not feed themselves. She stated she had not been trained to use any other term but hearing it out loud that term does not sound good and could affect a resident's dignity. She stated she would do better when discussing a resident that needs assistance. During an interview on 05/09/23 at 10:19 AM LVN C stated residents that need help with meals are feeders. She stated that term is used throughout the building but did recall a training that educated on the term feeder versus needs assistance. She stated using that term could affect a resident's self-worth and dignity. During an observation on 05/09/23 at 11:46 AM the tray cart in the main dining room was observed with tape labeled feeders written in a size that was readable by those present in the dining room. During an interview on 05/10/23 at 07:53 AM CNA A stated she had been a CNA for 13 years and employed at the facility for 7 months. She stated all residents have the right to privacy and dignity and she had been trained on ways to maintain resident rights and dignity. She stated that referring to a resident as a feeder could affect their dignity because it labels them. During an interview on 05/10/23 at 7:59 AM the MDS coordinator stated that she was responsible for care plans and MDS and the term feeder had been used at the facility for a long time. She stated she had not seen an issue with the term until now and how labeling a resident could make them feel bad. During an interview on 05/10/23 at 08:01 AM the ADON stated nursing staff are trained on hire and annually regarding resident rights and dignity. She stated the training includes privacy measures, appropriate language and terminology for the resident care level. She stated the risk of using the term feeder could cause the resident embarrassment. She stated they would begin retraining all staff on dignity measures and remove the tags from the meal tray carts. During an interview on 05/10/23 at 08:13 AM CNA D stated she had been a CNA for 20 years and she was responsible for training new CNA's under the direction of the DON and ADON. She stated the training does include resident rights and dignity and how the facility was the resident's home. She stated there had been training in the past on not labeling residents as feeders but it had been a while. She stated that labeling a resident as a feeder could make them feel helpless. During an interview on 05/10/23 at 08:42 AM the Admin stated it was everyone's responsibility to maintain resident dignity. She stated she was not aware that the term feeder was not allowed but now could see how it could be demeaning and cause embarrassment. She stated they would train all staff on maintaining resident dignity and the appropriate language to use regarding residents level of care and expected all staff to respect residents dignity. Record review of facility policy titled Resident Rights, dated December 2016 indicated, .1.Federal and state laws guarantee certain basic rights to all residents of this facility. These rights include the resident's right to: a. dignified existence.
CONCERN (D)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordanc...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. The facility did not ensure the ice chest used for distributing ice were clean and sanitized before serving ice. This failure could place residents at risk for food borne illness. Findings included: During an observation on 05/08/23 at 9:10 a.m., there were two dirty ice chest carts used to distribute ice on hallways in facility, located in the dining room with black grime on the lids as well as the carts. During an observation on 05/08/2023 at 5:00 pm Resident # 37 was [AGE] years old and admitted on [DATE] and has a BIMS of 15.Diagnosis include lack of coordination, pain and hypertension. The resident resided on 200 hall and was observed scooping ice from the now clean ice chest located in the dining room using her dirty personal cup. After surveyor intervention the Maintenance Supervisor removed the ice chest, dumped the ice, and sanitized the ice chest. During an interview on 05/09/23 at 1:39 p.m., the Maintenance Supervisor, said he was responsible for deep cleaning the ice chest as needed, and he hasn't deep cleaned them in a while. He stated if they were not cleaned it could cause a resident to become ill. During an interview 05/09/23 at 1:46 p.m., CNA D, she said she wiped the ice cart down this morning, but it didn't come clean. She said she didn't notify anyone that the ice chest needed to be deep cleaned. She said the Maintenance Supervisor would have to power wash them. She said that the ice chest not being clean could cause a resident to become sick. During an interview on 05/10/23 at 10:33 a.m., the Admin. said that there were no department responsible for cleaning the ice chest. She said housekeeping would be responsible for routine cleaning of ice chest and the Maintenance Supervisor would be responsible for power washing as needed. She stated the risk of the ice chest being dirty could be cross contamination and infection. She stated she would train the staff on proper sanitation of the ice chest and oversee that a log was maintained for monitoring. The Admin. said that Resident # 37 does not remember when instructed not to get ice out of the ice chest, to let the staff get it for her. She said that it could cause cross contamination because Resident # 37 touches everything and doesn't remember to wash her hands. A Policy titled: Ice Machine and Ice Storage Chest from Operational Policy and Procedure Manual for Long Term Care @ 2001 MED-Pas, Inc. (Revised January 2012. Policy Statement: Ice machines and ice storage/distribution containers will be used and maintained to assure a safe and sanitary supply of ice. Policy Interpretation and Implementation: 1. Ice making machines, ice storage chest/containers, and ice can all become contaminated by: a. Unsanitary manipulation by employees, residents, and visitors. 2. To help prevent contamination of ice machines or ice storage chest/containers or ice, staff shall follow these precautions. a. Limit access to ice machines or ice storage chest to employees only. 3. Our facility has established procedures for cleaning and disinfecting ice machines and ice storage chests which adhere to manufacturer's instructions. The Infection Preventionist (or designee maintains a copy of these procedures.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0925 (Tag F0925)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program to ensure th...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program to ensure the facility was free of pests for 2 of 4 halls (Hall 100 and Hall 200) and the dining area. The facility failed to ensure one hundred hall, two hundred hall, and the dining area were free from flies. This failure could place residents at risk for the potential spread of infection, cross-contamination, and decreased quality of life. Findings Included: Record review of facility roster, Census Report, dated 05/08/2023 revealed: Resident #33 resided in room [ROOM NUMBER] in Hall 200. Resident #37 resided in room [ROOM NUMBER] in Hall 200 Resident #127 resided in room [ROOM NUMBER] in Hall 100. Resident #128 resided in room [ROOM NUMBER] in Hall 100. Review of the most recent pest control visit on 05/09/23 titled Service Report, revealed American roaches . Other Notes: Regular service was done today in kitchen . no other pests treated. Review of facility Pest Service Agreement, dated 06/22/2018 revealed a current contract for semi-monthly service. During an observation on 05/08/23 at 9:00 a.m., two live flies were flying around and crawling on the table in the conference room (beside the dining area) provided to the survey team. An insect repellant light was mounted on the wall but not functioning. During an observation and interview on 05/08/23 at 9:45 a.m. in room [ROOM NUMBER], Resident #127 who resided on the 100 hall said flies were around all the time. She said she had to shoo them away to eat at times. Two live flies were flying around the resident's overbed table then let and crawled around on her roommate, rResident #128 while she was sleeping. During an observation and interview on 05/09/23 in the dining room at 11:15 a.m. 4-5 flies were crawling on a dining table, food, plates, glasses of water and utensils of 3 resident occupying the table. Resident #37 said the flies had been bad, and she shooed them away with her hands. During an observation and interview with LVN F on 05/09/23 at 3:00 p.m. three flies were flying around and crawling on Resident #33, while she was lying in her bed on the 200 hall. LVN F said that the facility had a boom of flies recently and that the staff were to log when they see pests in the pest control log located at the nurse's station. During a record review and interview on 5/09/23 at 3:15 p.m. the Maintenance Director said he worked at the facility for 14 years, he provided a pest log of staff observations of pests. The pest log contained no entry concerning flies from 1/25/23 to 5/09/23. The Maintenance Director said he did not have a copy of receipts from the pest control company for review of what service had been provided at the facility for the past year, but he would obtain them. The Maintenance Director said that flies are unsanitary, a bother to residents, and they can promote illness. During a record review on 5/09/23 at 4:00 p.m. of pest control receipts for prior 12 months, there were no specific treatments for control of flies. During an interview on 05/09/23 at 3:30 p.m. the Administrator said she had been employed at the facility since October 2022. She did not know what exactly had been tried to control the flies or if the pest light in the conference room worked. The Administrator said she would call pest control to come back specifically for fly recommendations and treatment. She said she would have the Maintenance Director look at the pest light in the conference room to determine if it functioned. She said pests can potentially spread infection, cross-contamination, and cause decreased quality of life. The Administrator said she would be providing an in-service concerning the use of the pest log by staff. Review of facility policy, Pest Control, dated May 2008, provided by the facility on 05/09/2023 revealed Policy Statement . Our facility shall maintain an effective pest control program. Policy Interpretation and Implementation . 1. This facility maintains an on-going pest control program to ensure the building is kept free of insects and rodents. Review of facility policy, Homelike Environment, dated February 2021, provided by the facility on 05/09/2023 revealed Policy Interpretation and Implementation . 2. The facility staff and management shall maximize, to the extent possible, the characteristics of the facility that reflect a personalized, homelike setting. These characteristics include a. Clean, sanitary and orderly environment .
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?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 life-threatening violation(s), $52,951 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 10 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $52,951 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Texas. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (36/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 36/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Garrison & Rehabilitation Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns GARRISON NURSING HOME & REHABILITATION CENTER an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Texas, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.

How is Garrison & Rehabilitation Center Staffed?

CMS rates GARRISON NURSING HOME & REHABILITATION CENTER's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 46%, compared to the Texas average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Garrison & Rehabilitation Center?

State health inspectors documented 10 deficiencies at GARRISON NURSING HOME & REHABILITATION CENTER during 2023 to 2024. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 7 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Garrison & Rehabilitation Center?

GARRISON NURSING HOME & REHABILITATION CENTER is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by CARING HEALTHCARE GROUP, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 93 certified beds and approximately 81 residents (about 87% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in GARRISON, Texas.

How Does Garrison & Rehabilitation Center Compare to Other Texas Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Texas, GARRISON NURSING HOME & REHABILITATION CENTER's overall rating (3 stars) is above the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (46%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Garrison & Rehabilitation Center?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations.

Is Garrison & Rehabilitation Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, GARRISON NURSING HOME & REHABILITATION CENTER has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 3-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Texas. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Garrison & Rehabilitation Center Stick Around?

GARRISON NURSING HOME & REHABILITATION CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 46%, which is about average for Texas 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 Garrison & Rehabilitation Center Ever Fined?

GARRISON NURSING HOME & REHABILITATION CENTER has been fined $52,951 across 3 penalty actions. This is above the Texas average of $33,608. 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 Garrison & Rehabilitation Center on Any Federal Watch List?

GARRISON NURSING HOME & REHABILITATION CENTER is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.