E.A. HAWSE HEALTHCARE CENTER

18086 STATE ROUTE 55, BAKER, WV 26801 (304) 897-5903
For profit - Corporation 60 Beds COMMUNICARE HEALTH Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
60/100
#24 of 122 in WV
Share this report: Email Text Facebook WhatsApp
Last Inspection: November 2024

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

Overview

E.A. Hawse Healthcare Center has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating it is decent and slightly above average compared to other nursing homes. It ranks #24 out of 122 facilities in West Virginia, placing it in the top half, and is the only option in Hardy County. However, the facility is showing a concerning trend of worsening issues, increasing from 7 to 11 problems from 2023 to 2024. Staffing is average with a rating of 3 out of 5 stars, but the turnover rate is high at 72%, which is significantly above the state average. On the positive side, the center has no fines on record and offers more RN coverage than 90% of facilities in the state, which is beneficial for resident care. Some specific concerns from recent inspections include failures to consistently provide personal hygiene care, as one resident had only one shower in 30 days. Additionally, the facility did not properly inform residents or families about COVID-19 cases and delayed testing for residents and staff after a positive case was identified, which could have increased the risk of transmission. Overall, while there are strengths in RN coverage and no fines, the high turnover and recent deficiencies highlight areas that need improvement.

Trust Score
C+
60/100
In West Virginia
#24/122
Top 19%
Safety Record
Low Risk
No red flags
Inspections
Getting Worse
7 → 11 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
72% turnover. Very high, 24 points above average. Constant new faces learning your loved one's needs.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most West Virginia facilities.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 54 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for West Virginia. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
⚠ Watch
21 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★☆
4.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
↔
Stable
2023: 7 issues
2024: 11 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 72%

26pts above West Virginia avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Chain: COMMUNICARE HEALTH

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is very high (72%)

24 points above West Virginia average of 48%

The Ugly 21 deficiencies on record

Nov 2024 11 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

Based on observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure that residents were treated with dignity and respect, as demonstrated by leaving urinary catheter bags uncovered. This was a random o...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure that residents were treated with dignity and respect, as demonstrated by leaving urinary catheter bags uncovered. This was a random opportunity for discovery during the Long-Term Care Survey Process. Resident identifiers #47 and #257. Facility census: 54. Findings included: a) Resident #47 On 11/12/24 at approximately 11:50 AM, Resident #47 was observed wheeling her chair down the corridor with her uncovered catheter bag and tubing resting in her lap. During an interview with Registered Nurse (RN) #1 at approximately 11:55 AM on 11/12/24, the RN confirmed that the catheter bag should not be placed in the resident's lap and should have been covered. The RN instructed a Nursing Assistant (NA) to find a cover for the resident's catheter bag or to place a blanket over the resident's lap immediately. The RN also confirmed that Resident #47 requires a two-person lift and cannot get into her chair without assistance. A review of Resident #47's care plan revealed the following: This resident is unable to do the following tasks d/t medical reasons: SIT TO LYING, LYING TO SITTING, SIT TO STAND. Date Initiated: 07/31/202 This resident is unable to do the following tasks d/t medical reasons: TRANSFERS: Assist X2 with mechanical lift. Date Initiated: 04/22/2024 b) Resident #257 During an interview with Resident #257 on 11/11/24, at approximately 2:30 PM, it was noted that the resident's catheter bag was uncovered and dangling off the foot of the bed. A follow-up observation on 11/12/24, at approximately 1:00 PM revealed Resident #257's catheter bag remained uncovered and was still dangling off the foot of the bed. At approximately 1:15 PM on 11/12/24, RN #1 confirmed that the catheter bag needed to be covered. The RN called out and instructed a NA to cover the bag.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0561 (Tag F0561)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on resident interview, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to promote self-determination and honor res...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on resident interview, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to promote self-determination and honor resident preferences regarding bathing/showers. This was true for two (2) out of five (5) residents reviewed under choices. Resident identifiers: #23 and #33. Facility census: 54. Findings included: a) Resident #23 During an interview, on 11/12/24 at 12:15 PM, Resident #23 reported she had not had a bath in a week. She also stated she had asked a half a dozen people not to have her shower day on Tuesday because she does not like to attend church services with her hair wet. The resident stated, I must not have asked the right people because they keep doing it. Resident #23 went on to state, I frequently do not accept a shower on Tuesdays because of my preference to not have wet hair when going to church but despite telling each CNA about my preference to have a different shower day, it has never been changed. A record review completed on 11/12/24 at 1:08 PM, confirmed resident's refusals for Tuesday's showers. In addition Section C of the Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], reflected a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13, indicating that resident was cognitively intact. A Physician Determination of Capacity, dated 11/05/23, reflected resident had capacity to make medical decisions. During an interview, on 11/12/24 at 1:15 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated she was not told about resident's request to have a different shower day. The Regional Director of Clinical Operations #104 stated a resident should not need to request a change in shower schedule with six (6) different staff and that the facility should and would the honor the resident's request for a different shower day. b) Resident #33 During an interview on 11/12/24 at 2:30 PM, Resident #23 stated she has dandruff/itchy scalp and she has requested over and over again that the CNAs assisting with her shower actually scrub her scalp but they all just get her hair wet, add the shampoo, and then immediately rinse her hair. Resident reported she tries to demonstrate how she would like to have her hair scrubbed but it is difficult for her to do so because of her limited range of motion. Resident stated she has never had a nurse speak to her about her request nor has there ever been an order for dandruff shampoo. During an interview on 11/12/24 at 2:38 PM, the DON reported that the CNAs should report any resident concerns to the nurse on duty and the nurse should follow-up with the physician for any new orders. The DON stated she would check in to the possibility of dandruff shampoo being ordered and re-educate staff about adhering to a resident's preference.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0655 (Tag F0655)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, facility failed to develop a baseline care plan that addressed the risks associated with c...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, facility failed to develop a baseline care plan that addressed the risks associated with catheter-related urinary tract infections (CAUTI) and did not implement any protocols for the care of the in-dwelling catheter. Additionally, the facility failed to notify the physician, and obtain orders for the care of the indwelling catheter for a newly admitted resident This was a random opportunity for discovery. Resident Identifier: Resident #257. Facility Census: 54. Findings included: a) Resident #257 During an interview with Resident #257 on 11/11/24 at approximately 2:30 PM, resident was observed to have an in-dwelling catheter. The resident stated that the catheter had been inserted at the hospital. Record review on 11/12/24 at approximately 2:15 PM revealed that the resident had been admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Further record review revealed neither a physician's order for an in-dwelling catheter, nor any orders for catheter care. A review of the facility matrix provided to the surveyors showed no evidence that Resident #257 had an indwelling catheter. On 11/12/24, at approximately 3:00 PM, further investigation revealed that the resident's baseline care plan did not indicate any awareness of the resident's in-dwelling catheter. Additionally, the plan failed to address the risks associated with catheter-related urinary tract infections (CAUTI) and did not implement any protocols for the care of the in-dwelling catheter. During an interview with the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Registered Nurse (RN) #8, who was responsible for the Care Plans, on 11/12/24 at approximately 11:14 AM, MDS RN #8 confirmed that the care plan did not address the resident's catheter. MDS RN #8 stated that she received information on each resident during a meeting with other clinical staff. She further stated that there had been no mention of an in-dwelling catheter for Resident #257. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 11/12/24 at approximately 1:35 PM, DON confirmed that the resident's care plan had not been updated, and no physician's orders had been obtained for the care of the catheter. During an interview with the Regional Director of Clinical Operations (RDCO) #104 on 11/13/24 at approximately 9:45 AM, RDCO stated that the physician had prescribed orders for the removal of the in-dwelling catheter. Follow-up observation of the resident at approximately 9:50 AM revealed that the catheter had been removed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to revise and update the care plan based on the changing preferences and needs of the resident. Resident identifier: #16. Facili...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to revise and update the care plan based on the changing preferences and needs of the resident. Resident identifier: #16. Facility Census: 54. Findings: a) Resident #16 During a brief interview on 11/11/24 at approximately 12:09 PM, resident #16 stated that she was unable to move her left sided extremities. Resident's Medical Power of Attorney (MPOA), who was present in the room, explained that resident had recently been diagnosed with a malignant neoplasm of the right temporal lobe, and stated that resident had lost the use of her left side. Resident's bedside table was observed on the left side of the bed with the resident's eyeglasses, and a cup of water on it. Resident wanted some water, and upon being asked whether she could reach the water, the resident stated that she could not, because her left arm did not work. Resident's MPOA then retrieved the cup of water and offered it to the resident. Observation on 11/12/24 at 9:28 AM again revealed the bedside table with resident's water and eyeglasses on the left side of the bed. A review of Resident #16's care plan revealed a note that stated: Place call light to resident's right side Date Initiated: 10/23/2024 Revision on: 11/01/2024 During an interview with the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Registered Nurse (RN) #8, on 11/12/24 at approximately 11:14 AM, she stated that the resident had been care planned for left sided paralysis. An interview with RN #1 on 11/12/24 at approximately 12:15 PM confirmed that the bedside table should be on the resident's right side. She stated that she would make sure that the table was positioned at the resident's right side. However, observation on 11/13/24 at approximately 9:08 AM revealed that the bedside table had been pushed away from the right side of the bed, to make space for fall pads that had been placed on the floor. When this was brought to the attention of Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #95, LPN stated that it would be taken care of.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0661 (Tag F0661)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide a resident with a discharge summary that was complete...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide a resident with a discharge summary that was completed by all departments and failed to ensure it included follow-up dates and times for medical appointments. This was true for one (1) of two (2) residents reviewed under the discharged pathway. Resident identifier: #56. Facility census: 54. Findings included: a) Resident #56 A record review, completed on 11/12/24 at 8:56 PM, revealed the following details: -Resident #56 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. -Resident went home with his significant other on 09/23/24. -Resident was cognitively intact -Resident was able to complete tasks independently. -An After Visit Summary from the hospital, dated 09/20/24, listed a follow-up neurosurgery appointment in two (2) weeks. -A facility discharge report, dated 09/23/24, reflected that the Nursing section was completed. However the Social Services section, Dietary Manager section, and the Activity Director section were left blank and incomplete. -The facility discharge report also incorrectly indicated that Resident #56 did not have any follow-up appointments. During an interview on 11/13/24 at 11:00 AM, the Director of Nursing acknowledged form was incomplete and inaccurate.
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, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to notify the physician, and obtain orders for the care...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to notify the physician, and obtain orders for the care of the indwelling catheter, for a newly admitted resident. Resident identifier: #257. Facility Census: 54. Findings: a) Resident #257 Record review on 11/12/24, at approximately 2:15 PM revealed that the resident had been admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Further record review revealed that there was neither a physician's order for an in-dwelling catheter, nor any orders for catheter care. A review of the facility matrix, provided to the surveyors, showed no evidence that Resident #257 had an indwelling catheter. On 11/12/24, at approximately 3:00 PM, further investigation revealed that the resident's baseline care plan did not indicate any awareness of the resident's in-dwelling catheter. Additionally, the plan failed to address the risks associated with catheter-related urinary tract infections (CAUTI) and did not implement any protocols for the care of the in-dwelling catheter. During an interview with the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Registered Nurse (RN) #8, who was responsible for the Care Plans, on 11/12/24 at approximately 11:14 AM, MDS RN #8 confirmed that the care plan did not address the resident's catheter. MDS RN #8 stated that she receives the information on each resident during a meeting with other clinical staff, she further stated that there had been no mention of an in-dwelling catheter for Resident #257. The Director of Nursing (DON), during an interview on 11/12/24, at approximately 1:35 PM, confirmed that the staff were aware that the resident had an indwelling catheter. However, the resident's care plan had not been updated, and no physician's orders had been obtained for the care of the catheter. During an interview with the Regional Director of Clinical Operations (RDCO) #104 on 11/13/24 at approximately 9:45 AM, RDCO stated that the physician had prescribed orders for the removal of the in-dwelling catheter. Follow-up observation of the resident at approximately 9:50 AM revealed that the catheter had been removed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Laboratory Services (Tag F0770)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to obtain laboratory services to meet the needs of its residents. This deficient practice had the potential to affect one (1) of five (5...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to obtain laboratory services to meet the needs of its residents. This deficient practice had the potential to affect one (1) of five (5) residents reviewed for the care area of unnecessary medications. Resident identifier: #15. Facility census: 54. Findings included: a) Resident #15 Review of Resident #15's medical records showed a physician's order written on10/19/24 for laboratory testing consisting of Prothrombin Time/International Normalized Ratio (PT/INR) to be performed on 10/19/24. Resident #15 was receiving the medication Coumadin (warfarin) to prevent blood clots. PT/INR testing helps to determine effective Coumadin dosing. No PT/INR laboratory testing results for 10/19/24 were found in the resident's medical record. A physician's order was written on 10/23/24 for PT/INR every week for four (4) weeks, then monthly. The first INR was to be obtained on Wednesday 10/23/24 and then the laboratory testing was to be performed on Thursdays on night shift. A lab results report for a PT/INR specimen received 10/24/24 stated the testing could not performed because the specimen tube received was underfilled. A lab results report for a PT/INR specimen received 10/25/24 stated the testing could not be performed because the specimen was not received at room temperature. On 10/26/24, a PT/INR specimen was received by the laboratory. The test was performed on 10/27/24. A nursing note written on 10/28/2024 at 4:30 PM stated, [Physician] notified of resident's current PT/INR Values - No new orders received. On 11/12/24 at 3:11 PM, the Regional Director of Clinical Operations confirmed results for PT/INR testing were not available for 10/19/24. She stated blood had been drawn for laboratory testing and sent to the laboratory, but she didn't know what happened to the specimen after that. The Regional Director of Clinical Operations also confirmed PT/INR testing could not be performed on 10/24/24 and 10/25/24 because the specimens were incorrect. On 11/13/24 at 11:40 AM, the Director of Nursing stated laboratory testing specimens were obtained by facility nursing staff and sent to the laboratory via courier.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure an admission assessment was completed with an antipsyc...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure an admission assessment was completed with an antipsychotic and residents reviewed during the long-term care survey process had a Physician Orders for Scope of Treatment (POST) form completed per directions specified by the [NAME] Virginia Center for End-of-Life Care in conjunction with the [NAME] Virginia Health Care Decisions Act (16-30-1). The POST forms were unsigned by the Resident or Medical Power of Attorney (MPOA). Resident identifiers: Resident #31and #15. Facility census: 54. Findings Included: a) Resident #31 Record review on 11/11/24 at 2:55 PM found, a POST Form patient information and section F health care provider on Resident #31's chart was completed with the Physicians Full name, Licenses number and phone number. The POST was dated 06/14/24. 11/13/24 09:18 AM 104 Corp nurse verified no physician full name During an interview on 11/13/24 at 9:18 AM with the Corporate Nurse #104, she confirmed Resident #31's POST form was incomplete without a physician's information. b) Resident #15 Review of Resident #15's physician's orders showed the resident was ordered the medications Seroquel (quetiapine), an antipsychotic medication, and Reglan (metoclopramide) on 10/16/24. Resident #15's discharge instructions from the hospital on [DATE] included instructions to continue the medications Seroquel (quetiapine), which is an antipsychotic medication, and Reglan (metoclopramide), a medication for nausea. A side-effect of antipsychotic medications and the medication Reglan is a movement disorder called tardive dyskinesia (TD). Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS) assessments can be performed to assess the presence or worsening of TD. On 11/12/24 at 2:00 PM, the Regional Director of Clinical Operations stated the facility did not have a policy regarding Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS) assessments. She stated AIMS assessments are performed on admission for residents receiving antipsychotic medications and then every six (6) months following admission. Resident #15's Nursing admission Evaluation dated 10/16/24 answered No to the question regarding whether the resident was receiving an antipsychotic and/or Reglan medication. On 11/13/24 at 10:13 AM, the Regional Director of Clinical Operations confirmed Resident #15's Nursing admission Evaluation was incorrect. She stated a Yes response to the question would have triggered an Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS) assessment.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

c) Resident #23 A record review, completed on 11/12/24 at 12:02 PM, revealed Resident #23 had one (1) shower (on 11/08/24) over the last 30 days. On 11/12/24 at 1:11 PM, the DON verified the facility ...

Read full inspector narrative →
c) Resident #23 A record review, completed on 11/12/24 at 12:02 PM, revealed Resident #23 had one (1) shower (on 11/08/24) over the last 30 days. On 11/12/24 at 1:11 PM, the DON verified the facility was unable to produce evidence that showers were provided to residents on a consistent basis within the last 30 days. d) Resident #33 A record review, completed on 11/12/24 at 12:15 PM, revealed that Resident #33 had two (2) showers (on 11/02/24 and 11/08/24) over the last 30 days. On 11/12/24 at 1:11 PM, the DON verified the facility was unable to produce evidence that showers were provided to residents on a consistent basis within the last 30 days. Based on record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide activities of daily living (ADL's) to maintain good personal hygiene for dependent residents. This is true for 0ne (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for ADL care. Resident Identifiers: #20, #17, #33, #23, #16 and #34. Facility census: 54. Findings included: a) Resident #17 During an annual recertification with a simultaneous complaint investigation for Residents not being groomed adequately found Resident #17 on 11/11/24 not get his showers per schedule. Medical record review revealed, Resident #17's shower schedule and preference are two (2) times weekly. A continued review of Resident #17s ADL documentation found: No documentation for showers given. On 11/12/24 at 1:11 PM the Director of Nursing (DON) verified the facility could not provide documentation for Resident #17's showers. b) Resident #20 During an observation 11/11/24 at about 1:54 PM Resident #20 appeared to be unkept, with oily hair and facial hair. Medical record review revealed, Resident #20's shower schedule and preference are two (2) times weekly. A continued review of Resident #20s ADL documentation found: No documentation for showers given. On 11/12/24 at 1:11 PM the Director of Nursing (DON) verified the facility could not provide documentation for Resident #20's showers.
CONCERN (E)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure Resident #18's environment remained as free of accide...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure Resident #18's environment remained as free of accident hazards as possible; and that each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents. Resident #18 had a care plan for nonskid footwear which were not in place at the time of a fall. The Central Supply closet which contained harmful chemicals was not secured by a locking door. Resident identfieir: #18. Facility census: 54. Findings included: Resident #18 a) Record review of nursing progress notes dated [DATE] revealed Resident #18 was found on the floor with a head injury and complaining of right leg pain. It was noted that Resident #18's feet were bare during assessment after the fall. On [DATE] at 3:15PM, During an interview with the Director of Nursing and the Assistant Director of Nursing They both confirmed resident #18 did not have nonskid footwear on at the time of her fall. Resident #18's Care Plan, dated back to [DATE], revealed the resident was to have nonskid/footwear. A nursing note dated [DATE] 2:40 PM revealed: Called to resident's room by staff member, upon entering room, resident was observed to be laying on the floor on her right side between her bed and the wall, a pool of bright red blood was on the floor behind resident's head, pressure dressing was held in place to the right side of resident's head, during this time resident was only verbal stating My right leg when asked if it hurt she moaned, blanket placed between leg and floor and resident appeared to feel some comfort with this measure per her bodylanguage - pupils were reacted to light - foley catheter was patent and intact with clear yellow urine present, resident's feet were observed to be bare, Physical Therapy had been in room minutes before the fall - paramedics were notified by another staff member. When paramedics arrived, taking charge of situation, paramedics lifted resident off floor, performing a log roll blanket carry, and placed on stretcher, Resident was taken to (name of hospital). - POA (name) notified via phone call of incident b) Central Supply Closet On [DATE] at 11:40 AM, the central supply closet in the resident hallway A opened when this surveyor turned the door handle. The door had a keypad on it. This surveyor entered the room to look around. The Director of Nursing (DON) entered the central supply closet. She stated she had entered the keypad code to open the closet door. This surveyor showed the DON that the door opened without the keypad code being entered. The DON confirmed this and stated she did not know how long this had been occurring. She stated she would immediately notify maintenance. The supply closet was noted to contain the potentially hazardous substances: - DermaRite's GelRite Instant Gel Hand Sanitizer, which contained the following warnings on the bottle, Avoid contact with eyes. In case of contact, flush thoroughly with water and In case of accidental ingestion contact a physician or poison control center right away. - Dermarite's Dermaklenz wound cleanser, which contained the following warning on the bottle, For external use only. Avoid eye contact. - Bacitracin first aid antibiotic ointment, which contained the following warning on the box, If swallowed get medical help or contact poison control center right away. - Good Sense Diphenhydramine ointment, which contained the following warnings on the box, If swallowed get medical help or contact poison control center right away and Avoid contact with the eyes. - Hibiclens antimicrobial skin cleanser, which contained the following warning on the box, Keep out of eyes, ears, and mouth. May cause serious and permanent eye injury if permitted to enter and remain in the eye or may cause deafness when instilled in the middle ear through perforated eardrums. On [DATE] at 3:00 PM, the Administrator stated the keypad battery had died and had been replaced. No further information was provided through the completion of the survey. The facility failed to provides an environment that is free from accident hazards over which the facility has control
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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

The facility failed to serve food in a safe sanitary manner in regards to hand washing after coughing and touching soiled items and storing medical ice packs in the freezer in the residents pantry. Th...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility failed to serve food in a safe sanitary manner in regards to hand washing after coughing and touching soiled items and storing medical ice packs in the freezer in the residents pantry. This has the potential to affect all resident that gets their nutrition form the kitchen. Facility census: 54. Findings Included: a) Resident Pantry During the tour on 11/11/24 at 12:20 PM to the Resident pantry found multiple medical Ice packs stored in resident freezer. An interview 11/11/24 at 12:20 PM with the Dietary Manager confirmed the medical ice packs should not be stored with resident food. b) Kitchen An observation on the second tour to the kitchen 11/13/24 at 12:35 PM found the [NAME] #46 testing holding temperatures, she coughed and stepped away to the office area, she then opened the trash with her hands, returned to tray line and started to continue temperature testing without washing her hands until surveyor intervention. [NAME] #46 verified she should have washed her hands prior to returning to steam table, she stated that she forgot. During an interview 11/13/24 at 1:18 PM with the Dietary Manager confirmed the cook #46 should have washed her hands prior to returning to work.
Jan 2023 7 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0583 (Tag F0583)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

. Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the and privacy of Resident #27 during a treatment. This was a random opportunity for discovery. Resident identifier: #27. Fac...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the and privacy of Resident #27 during a treatment. This was a random opportunity for discovery. Resident identifier: #27. Facility census: 47. Findings included: a) Resident #27 Observation, on 01/24/23 at 11:40 AM, identified Resident #27's door was open. RN #20 had pulled the first privacy curtain between Resident #27 and his roommate but failed to pull the second privacy curtain by the foot of resident's bed to ensure resident privacy during treatment. During an interview on 01/25/23 at 8:25 AM, the Administrator reported all nursing staff have been trained to pull both privacy curtains to ensure resident privacy. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment. The facility failed to ensure resident rooms were in good repair. These w...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment. The facility failed to ensure resident rooms were in good repair. These were random opportunities for discovery. Room identifiers: B09A and B05A. Facility census: 47. Findings included: a) Room B09A Observation, on 01/23/23 at 9:to AM, found the wall had multiple scrapes / gouges spanning the an area of approximately 18 inches. Additionally, the area behind the bed had scrapes / gouges spanning an area of approximately 28 inches. During a second observation, on 01/25/23 at 8:37 AM, Social Worker #39 reported the scrapes / gouges were not homelike and needed to be repaired. The social worker also stated, This definitely should have been addressed and repaired. I will see that it gets done. b) Room B05A Observation on 01/23/23 at 9:55 AM, found the wall had two white rectangular patched areas both approximately four (4) inches long and twelve (12) inches long. During an second observation, on 01/25/23 at 8:40 AM, Social Worker #39 reported it appeared the maintenance department had forgotten to finish the repair by sanding and painting over the patch work. The social worker stated it was not homelike and she would be sure to address the concern. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide evidence a the long-term care Ombudsman was...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide evidence a the long-term care Ombudsman was provided a Notice of Transfer for a resident who had acute hospital transfers/discharges. This had the potential to affect all residents being transferred or discharged . Resident identifier: #45. Facility census: 47. Findings included: a) Resident #45 A medical record review was completed on 01/25/23 at 9:16 AM. There was no evidence the facility had provided the long-term care Ombudsman a copy of the written Notice of Transfer/Discharge for Resident #45's acute hospital transfer/discharge on [DATE] or for Resident #45's acute hospital transfer/discharge on [DATE]. In an interview on 01/25/23 at 9:41 AM, Social Worker #39 reported the facility was unable to produce evidence the Ombudsman had been notified via fax on both transfers/discharges to the hospital. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . Based on observation, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide an environment free from accident haz...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . Based on observation, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide an environment free from accident hazards over which it had control. The facility failed to ensure matches and a reusable razor with blade were kept in a secure place, not accessible to residents. A book of matches and a reusable razor with a double edge intact blade was observed on the bed of a resident with impaired cognition. This deficient practice was found to be true during a random opportunity for discovery and had the potential to affect a limited number of residents. Resident identifier: Resident #21. Facility census: 47. Findings included: a) Resident #21 During the initial tour, on 01/23/23 at 11:05 AM, while speaking to Resident #21, a match book with matches was observed to be laying on the resident's bed in plain view. An interview, with Nursing Assistant (NA) #26, on 01/23/23 at 11:06 AM, verified matches were laying on the resident's bed NA #26 confirmed at this time, the match book did contain matches. An observation of Resident #21's bed, on 01/23/23 at 10:12 AM , revealed a retractable reusable razor laying on the right side of the bed. At this time, the Social Service Director was in the resident's room. An interview, with the Social Service Director, on 01/23/23 at 10:12 AM, confirmed the presence of a [NAME] double edge razor with a replaceable blade intact, laying on the resident's bed and stated further, she was not aware the razor was laying there, until pointed out by the surveyor. During the interview, the Social Services Director confirmed neither the razor nor the matches were permitted to be at the resident's bedside. An electronic medical record review, showed Resident #21 had diagnoses of Alzheimer's Disease and dementia. The resident was assessed by the facility to have a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of eight (8), which showed the resident as having moderate cognitive impairment. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

. Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to provide food services in accordance with professional standards. The facility failed to ensure food was labeled. This practice had th...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to provide food services in accordance with professional standards. The facility failed to ensure food was labeled. This practice had the potential to affect a limited number of residents. Facility census: 47. Findings included: a) Unlabeled Food During a tour of the kitchen with the Dietary Manager, on 01/23/23 at 8:45 AM, the dry storage area had a clear Ziploc bag of noodles that had been half used and was not labeled. Additionally, in the freezer, there was a clear Ziploc bag of hotdogs that was not labeled. The Dietary Manager acknowledged the oversight and mentioned the guidelines are sometimes hard to implement when training new staff. .
CONCERN (E)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

. Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to respect resident dignity. Four (4) residents requiring assistance with dressing were noted to have on non-skid socks that had the res...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to respect resident dignity. Four (4) residents requiring assistance with dressing were noted to have on non-skid socks that had the residents names either on the top or on the side of the sock. This practice was not inconspicuous and could readily be seen by any visitor. This was a random opportunity for discovery. Resident identifiers: #8, #13, #44, and #41. Facility Census: 47. Findings included: a) Resident #8 Observation, on 01/23/23 at 9:30 AM, found Resident #8 sitting in the hallway by the nurses station wearing non-skid socks with her name visible on the top of the left sock. A brief record review, completed on 01/23/23 at 9:45 AM, found Resident #8 required staff assistance with dressing. A second observation on 01/23/23 at 10:25 AM, Activity Assistant #14 was asked if she would agree Resident #8's name was visible on her left sock. Activity Assistant #14 glanced at Resident #8 and merely stated, Yeah. b) Resident #13 Observation, on 01/24/23 at 1:20 PM, found Resident #13 walking down the hallway wearing non-skid socks with her name visible on the top of the socks. A brief record review, completed on 01/24/23 at 1:26 PM, found Resident #8 required staff assistance with dressing. A second observation on 01/24/23 at 1:34 AM, with Social Worker #39 found Resident #13 walking in the lobby wearing non-skid socks with her name visible. Social Worker #39 identified this as a dignity issue. c) Resident #44 Observation on 01/24/23 at 1:22 PM, found Resident #44 sitting in her wheelchair in the lobby wearing non-skid socks with her name visible on the side of the socks. A brief record review, completed on 01/24/23 at 1:28 PM, found Resident #44 required staff assistance with dressing. A second observation on 01/24/23 at 1:36 AM, with Social Worker #39 found Resident #44 sitting in the lobby in her wheelchair wearing non-skid socks with her name visible. Social Worker #39 identified this as a dignity issue and asked resident's permission to reposition sock. d) Resident #41 Observation on 01/24/23 at 1:24 PM, found Resident #41 propelling herself down the hallway with her name visible on the top of her non-skid socks. A brief record review, completed on 01/24/23 at 1:30 PM, found Resident #41 required staff assistance with dressing. A second observation on 01/24/23 1:38 AM, with Social Worker #39 found Resident #41 sitting in the hallway by the nurses station in her wheelchair wearing non-skid socks with her name visible. Social Worker #39 identified this as a dignity issue and asked resident's permission to reposition sock. .
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

. Based on observation, review of facility documentation, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals, used in the facility, were stored, and administered in accordance wi...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on observation, review of facility documentation, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals, used in the facility, were stored, and administered in accordance with current accepted professional practices. This was true for medications stored in one (1) of two (2) medication carts and one (1) of one (1) medication storage rooms inspected. The facility failed to ensure medications were dated when opened and put in to use, failed to ensure medications being stored for use after the manufacturer's use by date, were discarded and not administered to residents and failed to ensure medications were stored at the proper manufacturer's temperature requirement. This deficient practice was identified during a random opportunity for discovery and had the potential to affect more than a limited number of residents. Facility census: 47 Findings included: a. Policy Review A review of the Policy : Lifetree Pharmacy Policy: Storage of Medications, revision date 09/01/20, showed medications and biologicals were to be stored safely and properly following manufacturer's recommendations. Under Temperature,, Section B. , noted medications requiring storage at room temperature were to be kept at temperatures ranging from 59 degrees Fahrenheit (F) to 77 degrees F. Under Temperature, Section C., noted medications requiring refrigeration were to be kept in a refrigerator at temperatures between 36 degrees F and 46 degrees F. Refrigerators were to have an appropriate thermometer to allow temperature monitoring. Under Expiration Dating (Beyond Use Dating), Section C, noted certain medication or package types , once opened , required an opened date and an expiration date, which may be shorter than the manufacturer's expiration date , due to the usable life after opening. Under Expiration Dating (Beyond Use Dating), E. and F., showed no expired medication would be administered to a resident with all expired medications removed from the active supply and destroyed in accordance with facility policy, regardless of amount remaining. b) Medication Cart A Inspection An inspection of Medication Cart A, on 01/24/23 at 08:46 AM, showed the following: 1) A stock bottle of Tylenol 325 milligrams (mg) not dated when opened and being used for resident medication administration. An interview, on 01/24/23 at 08:46 AM, with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3, revealed staff were to date all over the counter medications when opened. LPN #3 verified the Tylenol 325 mg was opened, with no date noted and being administered to residents. 2) Lantus insulin, dated as opened on 12/03/23, and Novolog insulin, dated as opened on 12/03/22. During the Medication Cart A inspection, conducted 01/24/23 at 08:46 AM, LPN #3 verified the insulins were currently in use. According to Manufacturer's directions, for both Lantus and Novolog, the medications are to discarded after 28 days of when the insulin was opened. b) Medication Room inspection An observation of the actual temperature readings , on 01/24/23 at 08:56 AM , revealed the outside temperature gauge to read 47.4 degrees F with the inside thermometer reading 48/50 degrees F. The temperature readings were verified with LPN #3. On 01/24/23 at 08:56 AM, LPN #3 verified the following medications and the specific storage instructions for each: - Two (2) vials of Levemir insulin, with manufacturer's storage instructions of do not freeze. The fill date of the vials were 12/14/22 and 10/21/22. - Four (4) vials of Novolog insulin, with manufacturer's storage instructions of do not freeze. The fill date of the vials were 1/2/23 , 12/13/22 , 12/8/22 and 12/12/22. -One (1) vial of Lantus insulin, with manufacturer's storage instructions of do not freeze. The fill date of the insulin was 1/2/23. -One (1) Lantus pen, with manufacturer's storage instructions of do not freeze. The fill date of the insulin was 10/05/22. On 01/24/23 at 09:03 AM , the refrigerator contents check continued in which Registered Nurse (RN) #90 verified the following medications and the the specific storage instructions for each: - Tuberculin Purified Protein Derivative (PPD ) vaccine with manufacturer's direction for the vaccine to be stored at a temperature range 35-46 degrees and do not freeze. RN #90 verified the fill date to be 11/15/22. - Fluvac, with a with a manufacturer's direction for the medication to be stored at 36-46 degrees F and do not freeze. RN #90 verified the fill date of 10/13/22. -Hydrocortisone suppositories, with a with a manufacturer's direction to store at 68-77 degrees F. RN #90 verified the fill date of 11/21/22 and stated further, the refrigerator temperatures were too cold for this medication to be stored there. A review of the temperature logs for 11/2022, 12/2022 at 01/2023 revealed the following : A review of 11/2022 temperature logs provided by the facility, showed fourteen (14) days in which the documented refrigerator temperatures were 32 degrees F or lower. The dates included: 11/05/22, 11/06/22, 11/10/22, 11/14/22 through 11/17/22, 11/24/22 through 11/30/22. A review of the 12/2022 temperature logs provided by the facilty , showed three (3) days in which the documented refrigerator temperatures were 32 degrees F or lower. The dates included 12/01/22, 12/17/22 and 12/19/22. a review of the 01/2023 temperature logs provided by the facilty , showed fourteen (14) days in which the documented refrigerator temperatures were 32 degrees F or lower. The dates included 01/2/23 through 01/06/23, 01/10/23 through 01/14/23 and 01/16/23 through 01/18/23. An interview, with RN #90, on 01/24/23 at 09:14 AM, verified the medications, in the medication room refrigerator noted above, should not have been stored at a freezing temperature and confirmed the several dates of when the storage was at 32 degrees F. RN #90 further stated, the temperature of 32 degrees F would have been too cold for storage. An interview, with the Administrator, on 01/25/23 at 08:15 AM , revealed the facility was not unsure if the thermometer had been working correctly but confined medications were not to be stored outside the range of the manufacturer's direction. During the interview, the Administrator confirmed staff were to date stock medications when opened and put into use. An additional interview, with the Administrator, on 01/25/23 at 08:45 AM stated nurses were to date the vial or pen, when the insulin was opened and it was each nurse's responsibility to ensure the insulin was not used past the manufacturer's date. On 01/25/23 at 09:44 AM, the Administrator provided documentation of the insulin type and expiration date. A review of the document and further interview with the Administrator, verified Lantus and Novolog insulin in a vial or pen , should have been discarded after 28 days of use. .
Oct 2021 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

. Based on observation and staff interview the facility failed to complete the temperature log on the B hall pantry refrigerator. This failed practice had the potential to affect more than an limited ...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on observation and staff interview the facility failed to complete the temperature log on the B hall pantry refrigerator. This failed practice had the potential to affect more than an limited number of residents currently residing in the facility. Facility census: 50. Findings included: a) Pantry Refrigerator On 10/18/21 at 11:00 AM during an initial tour with Dietary Supervisor (DS) #92 of the B hall pantry, found the temperature of the refrigerator was no obtained daily. The following dates had no temperature recorded on the temperature log: 10/01/21 10/02/21 10/03/21 10/05/21 10/09/21 10/10/21 10/11/21 10/13/21 10/16/21 and 10/17/21 The DS agreed dietary staff had not completed the temperature log for the missing dates. DS stated, I will educate the dietary staff on completing temperature logs daily. .
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0885 (Tag F0885)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

. Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to inform residents and/or their representatives, by 5:00 p.m. the next calendar day following the occurrence of either a single confir...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to inform residents and/or their representatives, by 5:00 p.m. the next calendar day following the occurrence of either a single confirmed infection of COVID-19, or three or more residents or staff with new-onset of respiratory symptoms occurring within 72 hours. This failed practice affected all residents residing at the facility. Facility census 50. Findings included: On 10/19/21 at 1:45 PM during an interview with the Infection Preventionist (IP) revealed the first staff was positive for COVID-19 on 09/06/21, she was asked if Residents and Families were informed. IP stated that would have been the job of the Social Worker. Review of electronic charts revealed no evidence to show any phone calls or any type of communications to the Residents or the families and/or representatives, occurred on 09/06/21 or 09/07/21. On 10/19/21 at 2:45 PM, Social Worker #42 was asked if residents and/or families were contacted and informed on 09/06/21 or by 5:00 PM on 09/07/21. SW #42 stated, she would not have informed the residents and would not have charted that anywhere, but if she contacted the families, it would be charted in the electronic record. SW #42 looked at many residents nursing notes and could not provide any further information to show the residents and/or families had been informed. SW #42 stated no calls were made in that time frame. .
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0886 (Tag F0886)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to conduct facility wide testing of all residents and all staff...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to conduct facility wide testing of all residents and all staff after an individual was known to be positive for COVID-19. The facility failed to prevent and/or contain the transmission of COVID-19 due to this failed practice and had the potential to affect all residents that currently reside in the facility. Facility census 50. Findings included: During an interview on 10/19/21 at 2:09 PM, the Infection Preventionist (IP) stated the first positive case of COVID-19 was on 09/04/21. She was asked when the facility wide testing of all residents and staff was started. IP stated the facility wide testing did not began until the residents began showing respiratory symptoms on 09/16/21. She was asked why a 12-day delay had occurred. She said the local health department advised the facility to send that staff person home and self-quarantine until symptoms subside, and was told this was not considered an outbreak, therefore it was not necessary to do a facility wide test. Upon further review of the staff line listing revealed the Business office Assistant BOA #17 had a date of onset of 09/04/21, they were tested on [DATE], the date worked prior to symptoms was 09/03/21, the last date worked with symptoms was 09/06/21 and they were sent home on this day. No facility wide test was implemented at this time. .
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

  • "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • No major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most West Virginia facilities.
Concerns
  • • 21 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
  • • 72% turnover. Very high, 24 points above average. Constant new faces learning your loved one's needs.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 60/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is E.A. Hawse Healthcare Center's CMS Rating?

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

How is E.A. Hawse Healthcare Center Staffed?

CMS rates E.A. HAWSE HEALTHCARE CENTER's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 72%, which is 26 percentage points above the West Virginia average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 67%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at E.A. Hawse Healthcare Center?

State health inspectors documented 21 deficiencies at E.A. HAWSE HEALTHCARE CENTER during 2021 to 2024. These included: 21 with potential for harm.

Who Owns and Operates E.A. Hawse Healthcare Center?

E.A. HAWSE HEALTHCARE 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 COMMUNICARE HEALTH, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 60 certified beds and approximately 52 residents (about 87% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in BAKER, West Virginia.

How Does E.A. Hawse Healthcare Center Compare to Other West Virginia Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in West Virginia, E.A. HAWSE HEALTHCARE CENTER's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 2.7, staff turnover (72%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting E.A. Hawse Healthcare Center?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's high staff turnover rate.

Is E.A. Hawse Healthcare Center Safe?

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

Do Nurses at E.A. Hawse Healthcare Center Stick Around?

Staff turnover at E.A. HAWSE HEALTHCARE CENTER is high. At 72%, the facility is 26 percentage points above the West Virginia average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 67%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was E.A. Hawse Healthcare Center Ever Fined?

E.A. HAWSE HEALTHCARE CENTER has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.

Is E.A. Hawse Healthcare Center on Any Federal Watch List?

E.A. HAWSE HEALTHCARE 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.

E.A. HAWSE HEALTHCARE CENTER

18086 STATE ROUTE 55, BAKER, WV 26801 | (304) 897-5903

C+
Trust Grade (60/100)
4.0
CMS Rating
21
Deficiencies

Strengths

  • Licensed facility

Concerns

  • Review findings

Ask about: Staff Retention, Rn Coverage

nursinghomedata.org | Data: CMS November 2025