BETHEL HOME

225 N EAGLE ST, OSHKOSH, WI 54902 (920) 235-4653
Non profit - Corporation 100 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
53/100
#136 of 321 in WI
Last Inspection: August 2024

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

Overview

Bethel Home in Oshkosh, Wisconsin has a Trust Grade of C, indicating that it is average and falls in the middle of the pack compared to other facilities. It ranks #136 out of 321 in the state, placing it in the top half, and #4 out of 8 in Winnebago County, meaning there are only three better local options. The facility is improving, having reduced issues from four in 2024 to just one in 2025. Staffing is a strong point, with a perfect rating of 5/5 and a turnover rate of 44%, which is lower than the state average. However, there are some significant concerns: a resident suffered a fall due to improper use of a mechanical lift, and there were failures to update care plans and ensure timely medical responses for a resident's fracture. Overall, while Bethel Home has some strengths, families should weigh these serious incidents against the positive aspects when considering care for their loved ones.

Trust Score
C
53/100
In Wisconsin
#136/321
Top 42%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
4 → 1 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
44% turnover. Near Wisconsin's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Wisconsin facilities.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 57 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Wisconsin. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
⚠ Watch
16 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★★★★★
5.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 4 issues
2025: 1 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (44%)

    4 points below Wisconsin average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.

The Bad

3-Star Overall Rating

Near Wisconsin average (3.0)

Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities

Staff Turnover: 44%

Near Wisconsin avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

The Ugly 16 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening
Aug 2025 1 deficiency 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident environment remained as free of accident ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident environment remained as free of accident hazards as possible for 1 resident (R) (R1) of 5 sampled residents when staff used a mechanical lift without ensuring a safety latch was in place prior to transferring R1.On 7/30/25 at 11:00 AM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)-C and CNA-D transferred R1 from bed to Broda chair via a Liko Golvo 7007ES full body lift. CNA-C and CNA-D positioned the sling under R1 and hooked all 4 sling loops onto 2 hooks on either end of the sling bar. During the transfer, a sling loop slid down the sling bar, which caused the bar to go vertical. A safety latch that should have been attached to the sling bar hook was missing which caused a sling loop to detach from the lift. CNA-C and CNA-D were aware the safety latch was missing prior to the transfer. R1 fell out of the sling upper body first and hit R1's head on the leg of the lift. CNA-C stayed with R1 while CNA-D notified the nurse. R1 was bleeding from the back of the head and was transferred to the hospital. A computed tomography (CT) scan indicated R1 had a large right-sided acute subdural hematoma, a right scalp laceration, a small scalp hematoma, and a fracture of the C7 spinous process. R1 was admitted to the hospital and passed away on 8/2/25.The failure to identify and correct a known hazard related to the use of a mechanical lift created a finding of immediate jeopardy that began on 7/30/25. Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A was notified of the immediate jeopardy on 8/11/25 at 3:18 PM. The immediate jeopardy was corrected and removed on 7/31/25. The immediate jeopardy is being cited at past non-compliance. Findings include:The facility's Fall Risk Assessment and Management policy, dated January 2025, indicates it is the policy of the facility to provide as safe of an environment for our residents as possible .High-risk fall prevention interventions .are designed to reduce the severity of injuries due to falls as well as prevent falls from reoccurring, supplementing standard fall prevention interventions, including .Make sure supportive devices are applied properly before leaving the room for any reason.The facility's Safe Resident Handling policy, dated January 2025, indicates: .1. Protect the health and safety of residents and staff; 2. Maintain a high level of resident dignity and a positive resident experience during transfers; 3. Improve quality of care; 4. Maintain the resident's right to be as independent as possible based on their physical and psychological abilities; .6. Standardize resident lifting procedures. The policy also indicates mechanical equipment will be re-evaluated annually to ensure the equipment is adequate to meet the needs of the resident population .Caregivers will do visual inspections of lifts prior to use to ensure they are properly functioning. If equipment is in need of repair, it will not be used and maintenance staff will be contacted. Maintenance staff will complete an inspection of equipment as necessary to ensure it is properly functioning.On 8/11/25, Surveyor reviewed R1's medical record. R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, epilepsy, and anxiety disorder. R1's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 6/18/25, indicated R1 was rarely to never understood and R1's cognition was severely impaired. The MDS also indicated R1 was dependent on staff for mobility and transfers. R1 had an activated Power of Attorney for Healthcare (POAHC). A progress note, dated 7/30/25, indicated at approximately 11:00 AM, a CNA approached the nurse and indicated R1 fell out of a full body lift during a transfer and hit the back of R1's head. The nurse assessed R1 and noted R1 was bleeding from the back of the head. The nurse also noted a safety latch on the lift may have been faulty. The nurse called 911 and R1 was transferred to the hospital. A Hospital History and Physical (H&P), dated 7/30/25, indicated R1's CT scan showed a large right-sided acute subdural hematoma up to 2.3 centimeters (cm) thick with localized mass effect and an approximate 7 millimeters (mm) midline shift, as well as a right posterior lateral scalp laceration and a small underlying scalp hematoma. The cervical CT showed a mild displaced acute fracture of the C7 spinous process. The H&P indicated R1's POAHC opted for Hospice services and comfort measures. A Hospital Discharge summary, dated [DATE], indicated R1 passed away on Hospice services on 8/2/25. The primary cause of death was listed as a subdural hematoma with contributing illness of severe dementia. On 8/11/25 at 10:17 AM, Surveyor interviewed Deputy Medical Examiner (DME)-F via phone who stated R1's death certificate indicated the cause of death was an accident resulting in a closed head injury as a result of a fall. On 8/11/25 at 11:12 AM, Surveyor interviewed Maintenance Technician (MT)-E who stated MT-E completes monthly equipment checks on safety latches and other features of the lifts. MT-E stated if there is a concern, the lift is removed from the floor until maintenance repairs it. MT-E stated MT-E checked the lift with the missing safety latch 2 weeks prior to the incident and the latch was in place. MT-E stated MT-E carries extra latches because MT-E has had to replace the latches on other full body lifts in the past. On 8/11/25 at 11:18 AM, Surveyor interviewed CNA-D via phone who confirmed CNA-D assisted with R1's transfer on 7/30/25. CNA-D confirmed a sling loop detached which caused R1 to fall out of the sling and hit R1's head on the lift. CNA-D stated the sling loop became loose because one of the safety latches for the hook was missing. CNA-D stated CNA-D was aware the latch was missing prior to the transfer on 7/30/25 but was unsure how long the latch was missing CNA-D confirmed CNA-D had used the lift to transfer R1 prior to 7/30/25 with a missing latch. CNA-D indicated CNA-D did not think about the risk prior to the transfers. On 8/11/25 at 1:03 PM, Surveyor interviewed CNA-C who confirmed CNA-C assisted with transferring R1 on 7/30/25. CNA-C indicated a safety latch was missing from the sling bar hook which resulted in R1's fall. CNA-C confirmed CNA-C was aware the latch was missing prior to the transfer but was unsure how long the latch was missing. CNA-C was unable to state for certain if CNA-C had transferred R1 or any other residents with the lift prior to R1's fall on 7/30/25. The Liko Golvo instruction guide for model number 7007ES states for safe operation, a few procedures should be performed every day the lift is used including checking that the latches work properly.Surveyor reviewed the facility's monthly lifting device inspection audits for the facility's 24 mechanical lifts which included the following: Inspect each lift monthly with attention to specific operating points according to manufacturer; Check for accuracy of scale using 50 (pound) weight as needed; Check brakes and wheels, clean and lubricate wheels; Check for loose parts, bolts and nuts; Lubricate lift; Check voltage of all lift batteries; Remove lift from service if repairs are needed.A monthly lift inspection, due date 8/4/25, indicated the Liko Golvo 7007ES full body lift (T013) was last inspected by MT-E on 7/14/25. Surveyor also reviewed lift inspections dating back to March 2025 and noted inspections were completed monthly for all 24 of the facility's mechanicals lifts, including the T013 lift.On 8/11/25 at 9:31 AM, Surveyor interviewed Director of Nursing (DON)-B who confirmed CNA-C and CNA-D transferred R1 knowing that a safety latch was missing from the lift. DON-B stated CNA-C and CNA-D were suspended immediately, completed in-person hands on education related to equipment safety as well as abuse and neglect, and completed retraining on appropriate and safe transfer techniques, including demonstrations, before they returned to work. DON-B verified the lift in question was immediately removed from the unit. A full inspection was completed and the safety latch was replaced before the lift was returned to the floor. DON-B stated all staff received equipment safety education, which was completed on 7/31/25, and indicated all staff who transfer residents attended one of two transfer safety workshops to demonstrate competency. DON-B acknowledged CNA-C and CNA-D should not have transferred R1 knowing that the latch was missing.The failure to keep R1 free from a fall by identifying and eliminating a known hazard for a mechanical lift created a finding of immediate jeopardy. The facility removed and corrected the jeopardy on 7/31/25 when it had completed the following:Immediately removed the lift from resident use, completed a full maintenance inspection, and replaced the safety latch before the lift was returned to the floor. The facility also completed audits on all other mechanical lifts.Removed the staff from resident care pending the outcome of the investigation and hands-on education.Educated staff on equipment safety, gait belt, stand lift, and full body lift transfers, and abuse/neglect related to equipment safety. Randomly audited 8 lifts per month for 3 months to ensure there are no maintenance concerns with lifts and slings.Audited 10 lift transfers per month for 3 months to ensure proper transfer techniques as well as proper pre-lift review of the equipment to ensure there are no safety concerns.
Oct 2024 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure the plan of care was revised for 1 resident (R) (R1) of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure the plan of care was revised for 1 resident (R) (R1) of 3 sampled residents. R1's plan of care was not updated to include recommendations from an Advanced Practice Nurse Prescriber (APNP) regarding transfer speed and hydration related to orthostatic hypotension (a condition where blood pressure drops when standing or sitting up) and unresponsive episodes. Findings include: The facility's Comprehensive Care Plans policy, with a review date of August 2024, indicates the comprehensive care plan will describe at a minimum, the following: The services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well being. Qualified staff responsible for carrying out interventions specified in the care plan will be notified of their roles and responsibilities for carrying out the interventions initially and when changes are made. On 10/23/24, Surveyor reviewed R1's medical record. R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including encounter for surgical aftercare following surgery on the nervous system, cervical spine issues, right clavicle fracture, unresponsive episodes, supraventricular tachycardia, and hypertension (high blood pressure). R1's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 9/4/24, had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 which indicated R1 had intact cognition. R1 was R1's own decision maker. On 9/4/24, R1 had an unresponsive/dizzy episode while being transferred in a sit-to-stand lift by therapy staff. The physician was notified and responded with no new orders. On 9/18/24, R1 saw an APNP. A note from the visit indicated R1 had orthostatic hypotension and staff should continue to monitor, assist with slow position changes, and ensure R1 consumed fluids for adequate hydration. A progress note, dated 9/19/24, indicated R1 complained of dizziness and not feeling well approximately one hour after R1 received R1's AM medications and 45 minutes after breakfast. R1's blood sugar level was 252 mg/dL (milligrams/deciliter) and R1's blood pressure was 91/45 mmHg (millimeters of mercury). R1 was encouraged to consume fluids which R1 took well. Prior to therapy, R1 continued to complain of dizziness. R1's blood pressure at rest was 79/58 mmHg. Therapy staff had R1 do exercises and R1's blood pressure rose to 97/60 mmHg. Medical Doctor (MD)-C was notified via fax and a medication list was sent. MD-C gave an order to decrease R1's metoprolol extended release (ER) (a medication used to treat high blood pressure) to 25 mg and decrease R1's linisopril (a medication used to treat high blood pressure) to 10 mg daily. A care plan, initiated on 9/20/24, indicated R1 had the potential to have unresponsive episodes due to a history of syncopal (fainting or passing out) and unresponsive episodes. The care plan indicated R1 displayed symptoms of increased confusion, disorientation, and not responding to staff when prompted. The care plan contained interventions to acknowledge and accept R1's feelings, help R1 find other ways to communicate, assess R1 for unmet needs (such as pain, toileting hunger, or thirst) and note how R1 communicates nonverbally, have Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) acknowledge that they understand R1, face R1 and speak clearly when talking to R1, tell R1's nurse about any pain R1 has, allow time for R1 to respond, and ask R1 questions that can be answered with yes or no. On 10/23/24 at 3:54 PM, Surveyor interviewed Director of Nursing (DON)-B and Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A and asked them to review R1's plan of care related to unresponsive episodes. DON-B and NHA-A confirmed R1's care plan interventions did not include the APNP's recommendation on 9/18/24 to transfer R1 slowly and confirmed the care plan should include that recommendation. When NHA-A asked how staff would know what slow was because it was subjective, Surveyor indicated it could be a cue to nursing staff to take more caution.
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 F0777 (Tag F0777)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure a physician saw and responded to radiological records fo...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure a physician saw and responded to radiological records for 1 resident (R) (R1) of 3 sampled residents. R1 had X-rays of the shoulder and clavicle completed on 10/9/24 after R1 passed out during a transfer and complained of right shoulder/clavicle pain. R1's shoulder X-ray showed normal findings. R1's clavicle X-ray indicated R1 had a fracture. The facility did not ensure a physician received the results of R1's clavicle X-ray. Findings include: On 10/23/24, Surveyor reviewed R1's medical record. R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including encounter for surgical aftercare following surgery on the nervous system, cervical spine issues, right clavicle fracture, unresponsive episodes, osteopenia, supraventricular tachycardia, and hypertension. R1's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 9/4/24, had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 which indicated R1 had intact cognition. R1 was R1's own decision maker. R1's medical record indicated the following: ~ R1 was admitted to the facility for rehabilitation after surgery due to surgical spine issues. ~ On 9/17/24, therapy staff changed R1's transfer status from Hoyer lift to sit-to-stand lift with 1 assist. In the weeks leading up to the change in transfer status, therapy staff worked with R1 on using a sit-to-stand lift and trained staff to transfer R1 with a sit-to-stand lift. R1's care plan was updated on 9/19/24. ~On 9/20/24, a care plan was initiated related to unresponsive episodes. ~ A progress note, dated 10/8/24 at 12:50 PM, indicated R1 had an unresponsive episode in a stand up lift. R1 complained of severe right shoulder/clavicle pain with limited range of motion (ROM). Staff applied ice to the area and as needed (PRN) Norco (a combination of acetaminophen and hydrocodone) was administered per R1's request with minimal relief. Staff called the physician's office and were asked to fax an update which Medical Doctor (MD)-C would address as soon as MD-C returned. R1 and R1's spouse were aware. ~ A physician contact note, dated 10/8/24, indicated R1 had an unresponsive episode while in a stand up lift. R1 complained of severe pain in the right shoulder/clavicle which was slightly swollen. The physician ordered X-rays of the right shoulder and clavicle due to limited mobility. ~ On 10/9/24, the X-rays were completed. ~ On 10/9/24, the facility received the results for R1's shoulder X-ray via fax at 11:00 AM which indicated there was no acute fracture. A handwritten note on the X-ray results indicated the same. The results were signed by MD-C on 10/10/24. ~ On 10/9/24, the facility received the results for R1's right clavicle X-ray via fax at 11:11 AM. The results indicated R1 had an age-indeterminate fracture of the mid-right clavicle with mild displacement of the distal fragment that correlated with the timing of the transfer and pain. The X-ray results did not contain a handwritten note or MD-C's signature. ~ A progress note, written by Registered Nurse (RN)-E on 10/9/24 at 1:51 PM, indicated R1's right shoulder/scapula X-ray was negative for fracture. R1 was updated and a report was faxed to the physician. ~ An orthopedic appointment note, dated 10/15/24, indicated R1 had a closed non-displaced fracture of the right clavicle shaft, point tenderness over the clavicle, and right shoulder pain. R1 had a history and physical exam finding of an acute right clavicle fracture that occurred approximately one week ago. R1 was asked to work on ROM as tolerated and apply ice. The note indicated the physician would follow-up with R1 to determine if R1 needed a rehab program and repeat the X-ray in 1 month. On 10/23/24 at 11:45 AM, Surveyor interviewed RN-E who verified RN-E was working on R1's unit when R1's X-ray results were received. RN-E recalled faxing 2 pieces of paper to MD-C on 10/9/24. RN-E documented in R1's medical record that there were no findings for R1's shoulder X-ray and faxed the results to MD-C. RN-E did not recall receiving R1's clavicle X-ray results. On 10/23/24 at 12:10 PM, Surveyor interviewed MD-C who indicated MD-C must not have seen the results of R1's clavicle X-ray because MD-C did not sign or date the results. MD-C wasn't sure if the results were faxed or if MD-C missed them. MD-C indicated when MD-C reviews X-ray results, MD-C dates and signs the document and sends it back to the facility. MD-C indicated MD-C wouldn't have ordered anything different had MD-C seen R1's clavicle X-ray results. MD-C indicated the treatment for a clavicle fracture was rest, ice, and use as tolerated. There was no surgery or casting needed. MD-C indicated R1 was already taking pain medication which was strong and addictive. On 10/23/24 at 2:09 PM, Surveyor interviewed Occupational Therapist (OT)-D who saw R1 on 10/10/24 due to R1's complaint of shoulder pain. OT-D indicated when OT-D entered R1's room, R1 had an ice pack on R1's shoulder. OT-D was under the impression that R1's shoulder X-ray was negative and was not sure if the X-ray included R1's clavicle. Based on OT-D's assessment, OT-D recommended R1 see Orthopedics due to clavicle pain. OT-D indicated that R1 felt instability and popping when R1 moved R1's right arm. OT-D indicated if OT-D had known R1 had a clavicle fracture, OT-D would have recommended R1 not use the arm and use a sling if R1 was up. OT-D would have also recommended that staff use a Hoyer lift to transfer R1 (which staff were already using). OT-D indicated it was okay for R1 to use R1's elbow and hand when in bed. OT-D indicated the treatment for R1's type of fracture was rest and let it heal On 10/23/24 at 3:54 PM, Surveyor interviewed Director of Nursing (DON-B) who indicated DON-B had not seen the results of R1's 10/9/24 X-rays but heard that MD-C noted there was no fracture. DON-B became aware of R1's clavicle X-ray result on 10/15/24 when a nurse completed paperwork to send to R1's Orthopedics appointment and discovered the clavicle X-ray result which did not contain MD-C's signature. DON-B notified MD-C who was in the building at the time. MD-C indicated the clavicle X-ray showed a fracture, however, MD-C must not have seen the results prior because there was no signature. MD-C indicated MD-C would not have changed R1's treatment because R1 was already receiving rest and ice and would have referred R1 to Orthopedics. DON-B indicated Orthopedics obtained X-rays, noted the clavicle fracture, and did not order anything aside from a sling and ice. DON-B indicated R1 was capable of applying and removing the sling but didn't like the sling. DON-B indicated RN-E said it was not unusual to get duplicate copies of the same results and RN-E remembered faxing 2 pieces of paper to MD-C. RN-E recalled seeing there was no fracture and was surprised to see there was a clavicle fracture. DON-B indicated the facility started a new process to add a date and time stamp when results are faxed to the physician so there is a record of when the results were faxed. On 10/23/24 at 4:57 PM, Surveyor completed a follow-up interview with DON-B who indicated items are put in a blue folder on the desk after they are faxed to MD-C. DON-B verified MD-C responded to the X-ray that stated no fracture on 10/10/24 and indicated staff didn't know there was another X-ray result that MD-C hadn't responded to. DON-B indicated the facility was working on a system to ensure all faxes were addressed by having the night shift supervisor look at all faxes sent to MD-C to see what MD-C had and hadn't followed up on. DON-B confirmed the facility should have followed-up to ensure MD-C saw and responded to R1's clavicle X-ray result.
Aug 2024 2 deficiencies
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 staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure 3 Residents (R) (R50, R65 and R27) of 4 residents review...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure 3 Residents (R) (R50, R65 and R27) of 4 residents reviewed for hospitalization received a transfer notice that included the date of the transfer, the reason for the transfer, the location of the transfer, appeal rights, and contact information for the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman. R50 was transferred to the hospital on 4/5/24, 6/5/24, and 7/28/24. Neither R50 or R50's emergency contact were provided with a written transfer notice for R50's hospital transfers. R65 was transferred to the hospital on 6/24/24. Neither R65 or R65's representative were provided with a written transfer notice for R65's hospital transfer. R27 was transferred to hospital on 6/24/24. Neither R27 or R27's representative were provided with a written transfer notice for R27's hospital transfer. Findings include: 1. Between 8/5/24 and 8/7/24, Surveyor reviewed R50's medical record. R50 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including follicular lymphoma, chronic congestive heart failure, and type 2 diabetes. R50's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 6/11/24, stated R50 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 which indicated R50 had intact cognition. R50 was R50's own decision maker. R50's medical record indicated R50 was transferred to the hospital from [DATE] to 4/10/24, 6/5/24 to 6/7/24, and 7/28/24 to 7/31/24. R50's medical record did not indicate R50 or R50's emergency contact were provided with a written transfer notice. On 8/7/24 at 10:11 AM, Surveyor reviewed Bedhold for Hospitalization and Therapeutic Leave forms for R50's 4/5/24 and 6/5/24 transfers. Surveyor noted the forms did not include the reason for transfer, appeal rights, and contact information for the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman. In addition, the facility did not have a Bedhold for Hospitalization and Therapeutic Leave form for R50's 7/28/24 transfer. 2. Between 8/5/24 and 8/7/24 Surveyor reviewed R65's medical record. R65 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage, intraventricular, acute kidney failure, and type 2 diabetes. R65's MDS assessment, dated 7/4/24, stated R65 had a BIMS score of 11 out of 15 which indicated R65 had moderately impaired cognition. R65 had an activated Power of Attorney for Healthcare (POAHC) to assist with healthcare decisions. R65's medical record indicated R65 was transferred to the hospital on 6/24/24 and returned to the facility on 6/28/24. R65's medical record did not indicate R65 or R65's POAHC were provided with a written transfer notice. On 8/7/24 at 10:25 AM, Surveyor interviewed Director of Nursing (DON)-B who stated nursing staff are expected to issue Bedhold for Hospitalization and Therapeutic Leave forms for all residents regardless of payer source, but because Medicaid residents are an automatic 15 day bed hold, staff do not always issue the forms for Medicaid residents. 3. Between 8/5/24 and 8/7/24, Surveyor reviewed R27's medical record. R27 was admitted to facility on 3/10/17 with diagnoses including dementia, coronary artery disease, and asthma. R27's MDS assessment, dated 2/25/24, indicated R27's BIMS score was 2 out of 15 which indicated R27 had severe cognitive impairment. R27 had an activated POAHC. R27's medical record indicated R27 was transferred to the hospital on 6/24/24 for pneumonia. R27's medical record did not indicate R27 or R27's POAHC were provided with a written transfer notice. On 8/7/24 at 12:12 PM, Surveyor interviewed Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A who stated NHA-A was not aware of a another written transfer notice that was completed and provided to residents or their representatives at the time of transfer besides the Bedhold for Hospitalization and Therapeutic Leave. In addition, NHA-A stated the facility did not consistently provide the form to Medicaid residents because they had an automatic 15 day bed hold. NHA-A acknowledged the form provided to residents at the time of transfer did not contain all of the necessary information.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0625 (Tag F0625)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure 3 Residents (R) (R50, R65, and R27) of 4 residents revie...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure 3 Residents (R) (R50, R65, and R27) of 4 residents reviewed for hospitalization received the proper bed hold notice when transferred to the hospital. R50 was transferred to the hospital on 4/5/24 and 7/28/24. The facility did not provide R50 or R50's emergency contact with a bed hold notification. R65 was transferred to the hospital on 6/24/24. The facility did not provide R65 or R65's legal representative with a bed hold notification. R27 was transferred to the hospital on 6/24/24. The facility did not provide R27 or R27's legal representative with a bed hold notification. Findings Include: 1. Between 8/5/24 and 8/7/24, Surveyor reviewed R50's medical record. R50 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including follicular lymphoma, chronic congestive heart failure, and type 2 diabetes. R50's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 6/11/24, had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 which indicated R50 had intact cognition. R50 was R50's own decision maker. R50's medical record indicated R50 was transferred to the hospital from [DATE] to 4/10/24 and 7/28/24 to 7/31/24. R50's medical record did not indicate R50 or R50's emergency contact were provided with a bed hold notification for either transfer. On 8/6/24, Surveyor reviewed a bed hold form, dated 6/5/24, for another of R50's hospital transfers. The bed hold form contained the reason for the transfer, the location of the transfer, and the date of the transfer with a printed date of 6/5/24 and R50's signature. On 8/7/24 at 10:11 AM, Surveyor reviewed a bed hold form for R50's 4/5/24 transfer. Surveyor noted the reason for the transfer, the location of the transfer, and the signature and printed date matched R50's 6/5/24 transfer bed hold form, however, the form was dated 4/5/24. On 8/7/24 at 10:25 AM, Surveyor interviewed Director of Nursing (DON)-B who stated Nurse Manager (NM)-F did some research that day and was under the impression the Social Worker spoke with R50's family regarding the transfer, but a bed hold notice was not completed. DON-B stated NM-F wrote the 4/5/24 date on the 6/5/24 form. On 8/7/24 at 10:56 AM, Surveyor interviewed NM-F who confirmed NM-F made a copy of the 6/5/24 bed hold form and wrote the 4/5/24 date based on when R50 was transferred to the hospital. NM-F confirmed a bed hold form was not completed at time of the transfer and R50 was not provided with a bed hold notification for the 4/5/24 transfer. On 8/7/24 at 12:06 PM, Surveyor interview Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A who stated the bed hold notification should have been completed at the time of the transfer and not backdated. 2. Between 8/5/24 and 8/7/24, Surveyor reviewed R65's medical record. R65 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage, intraventricular, acute kidney failure, and type 2 diabetes. R65's MDS assessment, dated 7/4/24, had a BIMS score of 11 out of 15 which indicated R65 had moderately impaired cognition. R65 had an activated Power of Attorney for Healthcare (POAHC) to assist with healthcare decisions. R65's medical record indicated R65 was transferred to the hospital on 6/24/24 and returned to the facility on 6/28/24. R65's medical record did not indicate R65 or R65's POAHC were provided with a bed hold notification for the transfer. 3. From 8/5/24 to 8/7/24, Surveyor reviewed R27's medical record. R27 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia, coronary artery disease, and asthma. R27's MDS assessment, dated 2/25/24, indicated R27's BIMS score was 2 out of 15 which indicated R27 had severe cognitive impairment. R27 had an activated POAHC. R27's medical record indicated R27 was transferred to the hospital on 6/24/24 for pneumonia. R27's medical record did not indicate R27 or R27's POAHC were provided with a bed hold notice for the transfer. On 8/7/24 at 10:42 AM, Surveyor interviewed DON-B who stated DON-B expects staff to provide a bed hold notification for all residents regardless of payer source. DON-B stated since Medicaid residents were an automatic bed hold, Medicaid residents did not always receive a bed hold notice. On 8/7/24 at 12:06 PM, Surveyor interviewed NHA-A who confirmed not all Medicaid residents received a bed hold notice because Medicaid residents were an automatic 15 day bed hold.
Jun 2023 3 deficiencies
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, staff interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure 1 Resident (R) (R33) of 1 resident was tra...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure 1 Resident (R) (R33) of 1 resident was transferred safely and according to their plan of care. R33 was transferred via mechanical lift without the use of the lower extremity safety strap and without therapy staff present. Findings include: The facility's Transferring Residents Safely education document contained the following information: Transfer requirements are outlined on a resident's care plan and caregivers are expected to follow the transfer guidelines. On 6/5/23, Surveyor reviewed R33's medical record. R33 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of morbid obesity and received physical therapy. R33 required extensive assistance of staff for most activities of daily living (ADLs), was R33's own decision maker, and had intact cognition with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15. On 6/5/23 at 11:17 AM, Surveyor observed Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)-D transfer R33 with a mechanical sit-to-stand lift. CNA-D did not use the lower extremity safety strap during the transfer. On 6/5/23 at 11:26 AM, Surveyor interviewed CNA-D and asked if the leg strap should have been used during R33's transfer. CNA-D stated it was easier to transfer R33 without the strap. On 6/6/23 at 1:35 PM, Surveyor interviewed Licensed Practical nurse (LPN)-E who stated the leg strap should be used when transferring residents. On 6/6/23 at 2:35 PM, Surveyor interviewed Director of Therapy Services (DTS)-F who stated R33 was only to be transferred using the sit-to-stand lift with therapy staff present to ensure a safe transfer. Surveyor noted therapy staff were not present during the transfer. DTS-F stated R33 should be transferred using a total body lift at all other times. Surveyor was provided therapy's recommendation for a total body lift transfer document and R33's care plan which indicated R33 required a total body lift for transfers.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, resident and staff interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure the accurate administration o...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, resident and staff interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure the accurate administration of medication for 1 Resident (R) (R33) of 1 resident reviewed. R33's medications were left at the bedside for R33 to self-administer. R33 did not have a physician's order or a self-administration of medication assessment that indicated R33 could safely and accurately self-administer medication. Findings include: Lippincott Nursing Procedures (used as the facility's standard of practice), Ninth edition, 2023, under Oral Drug Administration, stated after administering medications, Stay with the patient until the drug has been swallowed. On 6/5/23, Surveyor reviewed R33's medical record. R33 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of morbid obesity and received physical therapy. R33 required extensive assistance of staff for most activities of daily living (ADLs), was R33's own decision maker, and had intact cognition with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15. On 6/5/23 at 11:33 AM, Surveyor observed a medication cup that contained 15 pills on R33's bedside table. When Surveyor asked if the medications were R33's, R33 stated, I forgot to take them. They are my morning meds. I have to take them right now. Record review indicated R33's scheduled AM medications included: furosemide (diuretic), apixaban (anticoagulant), diltiazem (antihypertensive), spironolactone (diuretic), vitamin D, cetirizine (antihistamine), famotidine (antihistamine/antacid), magnesium, bupropion (antidepressant), duloxetine (antidepressant), sucralfate (antacid), acetaminophen, losartan (antihypertensive) and acidophilus (probiotic). R33 also had PRN (as needed) medications. On 6/6/23 at 1:43 PM, Surveyor interviewed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)-E who stated R33's medication could be left at the bedside because R33 had an order to leave medication at the bedside. Surveyor and LPN-E reviewed R33's physician orders. LPN-E verified R33 did not have a physician's order to self-administer medication. R33's medical record contained a Medication Self-Administration Assessment, dated 4/17/23, that stated R33 did not want to self-administer medication. On 6/6/23 at 2:33 PM, Surveyor interviewed Director of Nursing (DON)-B who stated R33 did not have a physician's order or an assessment to self-administer medication and R33's medications should not have been left at the bedside.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

MDS Data Transmission (Tag F0640)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and staff interview, the facility did not ensure timely transmittal of Resident Assessment Information (RAI)/Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for 14 Residents (R) (R8, R47, R6...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility did not ensure timely transmittal of Resident Assessment Information (RAI)/Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for 14 Residents (R) (R8, R47, R61, R51, R17, R42, R12, R9, R37, R25, R66, R16, R31 and R15) of 72 residents. The facility did not timely transmit RAI/MDS assessments for R8, R47, R61, R51, R17, R42, R12, R9, R37, R25, R66, R16, R31 and R15. Findings include: The Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 User's Manual, Version 1.17.1, dated October 2019, states all Medicare and/or Medicaid-certified nursing homes must transmit required MDS records to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS') Quality Improvement and Evaluation System (QIES) Assessment Submission and Processing (ASAP) system. Required MDS records include Admission, Quarterly, annual, discharge assessments and entry tracking records. Transmitted means electronically transmitting to the QIES ASAP System an MDS record that passes CMS' standard edits and is accepted into the system within 14 days of the assessment reference date (ARD) (last day of the resident assessment period). The RAI/MDS assessments were not transmitted within the required 14 days of the ARD for R8, R47, R61, R51, R17, R42, R12, R9, R37, R25, R66, R16, R31 and R15 and were beyond the 120 day requirement for transmission. On 6/7/23 at 10:17 AM, Surveyor interviewed Director of Nursing (DON)-B who verified the RAI/MDS assessments were transmitted late for R8, R47, R61, R51, R17, R42, R12, R9, R37, R25, R66, R16, R31 and R15. DON-B stated a transition in staff and the failure to apply a software update were the underlying causes of the late transmittals.
Apr 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not update staff and revise the care plan when an intervention impl...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not update staff and revise the care plan when an intervention implemented for 1 Resident (R) (R2) of 1 resident was ineffective. On 4/11/23, R2 was placed on 15 minute checks after R2 was observed fondling R1's breast. On 4/23/23, R2 made sexual comments to R3 and was found in R3's room during a 15 minute check. Following the observations on 4/23/23, R2's care plan was not revised and staff were not informed R2 was found in R3's room. Findings include: R2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included major depressive disorder, schizophrenia, and dementia. R2's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 3/29/23, contained a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 which indicated R2 was not cognitively impaired. R2 had an activated Power of Attorney for Healthcare (APOAHC). In addition. R2 wore a wanderguard (a device placed on the resident's person or ambulation device that notifies staff if the resident attempts to leave the unit). R2 was assessed as being at risk for elopement and resided on a secure unit. R3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease and dementia. R3's MDS assessment, dated 1/17/23, contained a BIMS score of 3 out of 15 which indicated R3 was severely cognitively impaired. The facility's Abuse policy, dated January 2023, contained the following information: Investigative Process/Investigation: 1. Once a concern is identified, the facility shall take whatever steps are necessary to ensure all patients/elders are protected from subsequent episodes of misconduct while a determination on the matter is pending. On 4/11/23 at 1:40 PM, staff observed R2 fondling R1's breast in the common area. R1 and R2 were separated and 15 minute checks were initiated for R2. The facility added an alarm to R1's door to alert staff if someone entered the room. The facility also had behavioral health review R2's medication regimen and initiate changes in medication. The facility began an investigation and submitted a facility-reported incident (FRI) to the State Agency (SA). On 4/23/23 at 3:30 PM, a progress note written by Registered Nurse (RN)-C, indicated R2 displayed R2's usual behaviors of wandering the unit and exit seeking. R2 took notice of and made sexual comments to R3 which R3 reported to staff. RN-C observed R2 follow R3 around the unit. R3 was moved away from R2 when R2 was too close. On 4/24/23 at 10:26 AM, Surveyor interviewed RN-C who verified RN-C worked the AM shift (6:00 AM-2:30 PM) on 4/23/23. RN-C verified R2 made sexual comments to R3 and R3 informed staff. RN-C stated staff kept a close eye on R2 and R3. R2 kept wanting to talk with R3 and followed R3; however, staff tried to keep R2 and R3 separated. RN-C verified R2 was on 15 minute checks due to the incident on 4/11/23. RN-C stated staff record the checks on a board; however, R2 is difficult to keep track of in 15 minutes. RN-C stated R2, who is mobile and pedals a wheelchair with R2's feet, can be in 4 different places on the unit within 15 minutes. RN-C stated when staff are in a room doing cares, staff check R2's whereabouts when they exit the room prior to moving onto their next task. RN-C indicated R3 did not seem upset by R2's comments or by being followed by R2. On 4/23/23 at 8:20 PM, a progress note written by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)-D, indicated R2 was observed following R3 into R3's room and was removed from the room. R2 then aimlessly wandered the unit all shift. On 4/24/23 at 10:37 AM, Surveyor interviewed LPN-D who verified LPN-D worked the PM shift (2:00 PM- 10:00 PM) on 4/23/23. LPN-D stated LPN-D was told in report to keep an eye on R2 and R3 due to their earlier interactions. LPN-D informed the Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) as well. LPN-D stated the information charted regarding R2 being found in R3's room was reported to LPN-D by LPN-E (who worked as a CNA that shift). LPN-D did not observe the interaction or intervene and documented what LPN-E reported. LPN-D stated R3 did not seem upset by the attention from R2 and wondered why R2 and R3 could not be by each other. On 4/24/23 at 10:59 AM, Surveyor interviewed LPN-E who verified LPN-E worked as a CNA on the 4/23/23 PM shift. LPN-E stated LPN-E looked for R2 during a 15 minute check and found R2 in R3's room. LPN-E did not see R2 enter R3's room. LPN-E stated R2 and R3 were a distance apart in the room and it did not appear anything happened or was happening between them. LPN-E stated R3 seemed fine with R2 in the room and did not understand why R2 had to leave. LPN-E stated this was the first time LPN-E observed R2 speaking to R3. LPN-E was not aware there was a concern between R2 and R3 on the previous shift and was not informed during shift report. LPN-E knew about the prior incident between R2 and R1 and was told police were called. LPN-E stated 95% of the time staff check on R2 every 15 minutes; however, occasionally it might be longer if staff are doing cares, if there is a fall or emergency or if staff are assisting other residents. On 4/24/23 at 10:47 AM, Surveyor interviewed LPN-F who was working on R2's unit. LPN-F was not aware of an interaction between R2 and R3 the previous day. LPN-F stated nothing was reported during shift change and nothing was written on the 24 hour report board. Surveyor informed LPN-F that R2 made comments to R3 and was found in R3's room yesterday. LPN-F stated R2 is quick and in 5 minutes can go from the common area near the dining room to the door at the end of the hallway. LPN-F also stated R2 is fast and scoots with R2's feet. LPN-F stated an agency nurse worked last night which might be why the information was not reported during shift change. On 4/24/23 at 1:03 PM, Surveyor interviewed Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A who stated when incidents occur, the team looks further to prevent a reoccurrence and felt 15 minute checks were sufficient for R2. NHA-A stated NHA-A trusts staff and knows staff will check on R2 every 15 minutes. Surveyor informed NHA-A about documentation regarding interactions between R2 and R3 on 4/23/23. Surveyor also informed NHA-A about interviews with staff who stated R2 was fast and could be in several locations on the unit within 15 minutes. Surveyor also informed NHA-A the nurse currently on the unit was not aware of the interaction between R2 and R3 on 4/23/23. NHA-A stated NHA-A wants to be especially careful when incidents occur on the secure unit and reiterated staff on the unit are good about keeping an eye on residents.
Apr 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure a thorough investigation was completed to rule out abuse...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure a thorough investigation was completed to rule out abuse for a major injury of unknown origin for 1 Resident (R) (R1) of 3 residents reviewed for abuse. R1 was diagnosed with a left arm fracture. The facility's investigation of the injury of unknown origin did not include interviews with other residents to rule out potential abuse. Findings include: The facility's Abuse policy, last updated in January 2023, contained the following information: Once a concern is identified, Bethel Home shall take whatever steps are necessary to ensure all patients/elders are protected from subsequent episodes of misconduct while a determination on the matter is pending .Often, additional patients/elders are interviewed . On 4/17/23, Surveyor reviewed R1's medical record. R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Alzheimer's dementia, osteoporosis, osteoarthritis of the spine, and osteoarthritis of the shoulder. R1 was severely cognitively impaired and required extensive assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs). R1 was diagnosed with a left humeral (arm) fracture and severe degenerative disease of the left shoulder per an X-ray obtained on 4/5/23. The X-ray was ordered on 4/5/23 after R1 complained to a family member of left arm pain and staff notified the provider. Staff were unsure how the fracture occurred. On 4/17/23, Surveyor reviewed the facility's investigation related to R1's injury of unknown origin and noted the investigation included staff interviews, family and provider notification, and a revised plan of care. Surveyor noted the investigation did not contain other resident interviews to assist in ruling out abuse as the cause of the injury. On 4/17/23 at 8:50 AM, Surveyor interviewed Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A and Director of Nursing (DON)-B who stated other residents were not interviewed during the investigation because the unit was a dementia unit and the residents could not respond to questions. Surveyor asked if residents on other units or family members of residents on the dementia unit were interviewed. NHA-A and DON-B stated R1's family members were interviewed; however, other residents and/or family members were not interviewed.
Jul 2022 6 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0553 (Tag F0553)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility did not ensure residents were invited to participate in quarterly care confe...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility did not ensure residents were invited to participate in quarterly care conferences for 2 Residents (R) (R16 and R35) of 22 sampled residents. The facility did not create an opportunity for R16 and R35 to be included in care planning meetings since August 2021. Findings include: R35 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including hemiplegia and hemiparesis (loss of motor skills on one side of the body) following cerebral infarction affecting right dominant side, hypertension, osteoarthritis, sleep apnea, and dorsalgia (back pain.) R35's medical record included one care conference note dated 8/27/21 at 12:50 PM during the past twelve months. R35's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dates were 5/23/22 (quarterly), 2/25/22 (significant change in status), 11/27/21 (quarterly), and 8/29/21 (quarterly.) On 7/18/22 at 10:21 AM, Surveyor interviewed R35 who stated R35 had no idea what the care plan is and that care plan and care conference is not discussed. R16 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including osteoarthritis, obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (rapid and erratic heart rate), low back pain, retention of urine, and malignant neoplasm (cancer) of kidney. R16's medical record included two care conference notes dated 5/16/21 at 4:07 PM and 8/26/21 at 4:23 PM during the past twelve months. R16's MDS dates were 4/20/22 (quarterly), 1/22/22 (quarterly), and 10/24/21 (significant change in status MDS.) No care conferences were performed following each of the listed MDS assessments. On 7/18/22 at 11:03 AM, Surveyor interviewed R16 who stated R16 was not invited or involved with R16's care planning or care conferences. On 7/19/22 at 1:25 PM, Surveyor interviewed Director of Nursing (DON)-B who stated care conference notes are the only place the social workers would document notes for care conferences within the resident's medical record. DON-B stated SW-C was a little behind in entering notes for care conferences in the medical records. DON-B stated SW-C cannot find documentation that a care conference was done since the last care conference notes for R16 and R35. DON-B was not aware that care conferences should occur quarterly in addition to annually. DON-B then stated social workers, nursing, and therapy are usually meeting quarterly or frequently with residents. On 7/20/22 at 10:59 AM, Surveyor interviewed DON-B who stated the facility did not have a policy and procedure for care conferences and that the intent was to follow the regulation. On 7/20/22 at 11:13 AM, Surveyor interviewed Social Worker (SW)-C regarding care conferences with residents and the frequency the facility performs care conferences. SW-C stated care conferences were performed upon admission and as needed. SW-C stated the facility was looking at conducting them quarterly so they coincide with MDS assessments. SW-C stated SW-C had reached out in the past to R16's spouse and spouse did not want a care conference at that time. SW-C stated if a resident or family member would decline a care conference it would be in a social service note. SW-C stated there were no notes declining R16's care conference. SW-C was unaware of the regulation and care conference timing.
CONCERN (D)

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interviews, the facility did not ensure an allegation of mistreatment was investigated for 1 Resident (R) (R16) of 1 Resident reviewed for allegations of mistreatment. The ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interviews, the facility did not ensure an allegation of mistreatment was investigated for 1 Resident (R) (R16) of 1 Resident reviewed for allegations of mistreatment. The facility did not investigate R16's allegation of mistreatment. Findings include: The facility document titled Abuse Policy stated, .Investigative Process; Identification; 1. All allegations of mistreatment including abuse, neglect, exploitation and misappropriation are thoroughly investigated. On 7/20/22, Surveyor reviewed R16's medical record which included a care conference note dated 8/26/21 at 4:23 PM by a social worker no longer employed by facility. The note stated, Overall resident and [spouse] have no major concerns. They do have some complaints. Mostly with a particular staff. Resident states [staff] is rough with [R16] and rude to [R16] at times. Writer did talk to this staff and nurse leader about the complaint. Staff states [staff] tries [staff's] best to be nice and feels resident does not like [staff] as a person. Writer asked resident if [R16] wanted to do a concern complaint stated no not at this time. [R16] does not want to complain but does not like when [staff] is too rough with [R16]. Writer will follow up with nurse leader and staff to see if there is a better way to resolve situation. Other than that resident doing well .Writer will continue to follow up with resident and [spouse] to see how things are going. On 7/20/22 at 11:58 AM, Surveyor interviewed DON-B regarding R16's allegation on 8/26/21 of an un-named staff member being rough and rude. DON-B read the note and stated the note revealed the un-named staff member was talked to and that R16 did not want to submit a formal grievance. DON-B stated DON-B did not recall an investigation being conducted related to R16's allegation. On 7/20/22 at 1:06 PM, Surveyor interviewed NHA-A who stated NHA-A did not recall the situation with R16 alleging a staff member was rough and rude. NHA-A state the social worker who wrote the note would have brought forward R16's allegation if social worker thought it needed to be reported. NHA-A state R16 would also freely talk with NHA-A if R16 had a concern. NHA-A stated if NHA-A would have been made aware of something like this now, NHA-A would have investigated, ensuring resident safety, then make the determination of next steps.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0645 (Tag F0645)

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 did not ensure 2 of 2 Residents (R8 and R18) had a Preadmission Screening and...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure 2 of 2 Residents (R8 and R18) had a Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) Level II screening completed when the county 30 day exemption expired or the resident had diagnoses that warranted a Level II screen be completed. R8 had diagnoses and was taking related medications and did not have a PASRR Level II screen completed. R18 was marked as a 30 day exemption and did not have a PASRR Level II screen completed. Findings include: 1. R8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses that included: Major Depressive Disorder. R8 had a significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) (a comprehensive assessment done for each resident at regular intervals or upon a change in condition) dated [DATE] that was marked in section A1510 (Level II Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) Conditions) as having a Serious Mental Illness. Between [DATE] and [DATE], Surveyor reviewed R8's medical record and noted R8's PASRR Level 1 was completed on [DATE] and marked as having a serious mental illness and taking medications that included Wellbutrin, Lexapro, and Klonopin. Surveyor could not find a Level 2 screen. 2. R18 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses that included Major Depressive Disorder. R18's Significant Change MDS dated [DATE] was marked in section A1510 as having a Serious Mental Illness. Between [DATE] and [DATE], Surveyor reviewed R18's medical record and noted R18's PASRR Level 1 was completed on [DATE] and was marked as having a 30 day exemption. Surveyor could not find a Level 2 screen. On [DATE] at 2:53 PM, Surveyor interviewed Social Worker (SW-C) who indicated that they have been revamping the process for PASRR. It was the responsibility of the old admission coordinator who left earlier in the year to ensure the PASRR Level 1 and Level 2's were completed. Since that individual left, the facility is revamping the process to have more than one department looking at the PASRR's to ensure they are completed. At the time of R8 and R18's admissions, the admission coordinator should have been ensuring the Level 2's were completed. SW-C indicated that now SW-C tracks 30 day exemptions on SW-C's calendar. SW-C indicated R8 and R18 must have been missed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** R8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with related diagnoses that included: Chronic Kidney Disease and Diabetes. R8 does not...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** R8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with related diagnoses that included: Chronic Kidney Disease and Diabetes. R8 does not have a history of open areas or pressure injuries but on R8's Minimum Data Set (MDS) (A comprehensive evaluation of residents completed at regular intervals or upon a significant change of condition) Quarterly assessment dated [DATE], Section M0150 indicated that R8 was at risk for developing Pressure Ulcers. Additionally, R8 had a skin care plan related to having diabetes and potential for fragile skin. This care plan had an approach that indicated reduce pressure and friction between myself and bed or chair. On 7/13/22 at 11:01 PM, A progress note for R8 indicated: Staff discovered a skin issue on the inside of the left thigh close to the brief line that looked like a shear from the lift sling that measures 6 long X 1/4 wide at the middle. Cleansed, applied no sting barrier film on the edges where the dressing bonds, and applied a primapore dressing. Put note in folder with the update. On 7/19/22 at 1:03 PM, Surveyor observed CNA-G and CNA-H completing a hoyer lift transfer from R8's wheelchair to bed. At this time, Surveyor observed the sling under R8 while sitting in the wheelchair. CNA-G indicated that physical therapy was working on transferring with R8 and sometimes the sling falls low in the chair. CNA-G asked R8 to lean forward and pulled the sling up enough so it could be connected to the hoyer lift. After the transfer was completed, Surveyor observed a square white cloth pad app 1/4 thick sitting over R8's wheelchair cushion. Surveyor asked CNA-G who indicated this pad is used for those residents that are incontinent and R8 is sometimes. On 7/20/22 at 7:52 AM, Surveyor observed R8 in R8's room sitting in wheelchair. The brown sling was under R8 and Surveyor could see the white pad sticking out as well. On 7/20/22 at 10:37 AM, Surveyor observed R8 to see if there were any sling marks, and no sling marks were present on R8's skin. Surveyor observed the sling and the white pad between the resident and the R8's wheelchair cushion. On 7/20/22 at 10:14 AM, Surveyor interviewed Director of Nursing (DON-B) who indicated that the facility does not have an assessment or risk / benefit for leaving the sling underneath a resident and staff try not to. As for the white pad layer, DON-B indicated the facility encourages as few layers as possible between the resident and the wheelchair cushion. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure the necessary care and treatment to promote healing or prevent pressure injuries from developing for 2 of 2 sampled Residents (R) (R75 and R8) who were reviewed for pressure injuries (PI). Observations were made for 2 survey days of R75 sitting in chair without a cushion. R8 had a moderate risk for pressure injury and was observed with a sling and extra layer of cloth over R8's wheelchair cushion, negating the function and purpose of the cushion. Findings include: Facility's Skin Policy dated January 2022 indicated: Objective: This Facility strives to ensure that- (i) Residents receive care, consistent with professional standards of practice, to prevent pressure injuries and do not develop pressure injuries unless the individual's clinical condition demonstrates that they were unavoidable. (ii) A resident with pressure injuries receives necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, prevent infection and prevent new pressure injuries from developing. R75 was admitted to facility on 11/25/20 with the diagnoses of dementia, neurogenic bladder, atrial fibrillation and complex medical conditions. R75's MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment indicated that R75 required extensive assist for transfers and staff assistance for bed mobility, dressing, and eating. Surveyor reviewed R75's medical record which indicated that on 6/26/22 R75 acquired an open area on left buttock area that measured 5 cm (centimeters) around with surrounding tissue intact. Another nursing note dated 6/27/22, indicated wound in the left gluteal fold measured, .8 x 2.0 x .1 cm, linear in shape. Another small area below .3 x .4 x < .1 cm Both areas clean + surrounding skin intact. Wound appears friction vs pressure. The next nursing note on 7/6/22 indicated skin conditions none, then on 7/11/22 a nursing note indicated skin to right buttocks is intact; previous open area is healed. On 7/19/22 at 10:37 AM Surveyor observed wound on left buttock area. Area appeared to be circular and un-blanchable, over bony prominence. The circular area appeared to have a center point. On 7/18/22 at 10:45 AM Surveyor observed R75 sitting in a wheelchair on a thick pad covering cushion in chair. Surveyor observed R75 through the shift until 3:30 PM sitting in chair with thick pad over cushion in chair. On 07/19/22 08:40 AM Surveyor observed R75 sitting in a different style wheelchair with no cushion in chair and a thick pad under R75. On 07/19/22 02:16 PM Surveyor observed R75 sitting in chair, no cushion, with a thick pad under buttocks. On 07/20/22 07:47 AM Surveyor observed R75 in dayroom sitting in recliner with no cushion underneath. R75's wheelchair was next to recliner with no cushion in wheelchair and a thick pad over surface of seat. On 07/20/22 09:50 AM Surveyor observed R75 sitting in wheelchair with no cushion in chair, thick pad under R75 and a sling in chair. On 07/20/22 10:54 AM Surveyor observed R75 sitting in wheelchair with no cushion in chair and sitting on sling and thick pad. On 07/20/22 11:56 AM Surveyor observed R75 sitting in wheelchair with no cushion in chair and sitting on sling and thick pad. On 7/20/22 at 12:06 PM Surveyor interviewed LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse)-D. Surveyor and LPN-D looked at R75 sitting in wheelchair, LPN-D verified that R75 did not have a cushion under R75 and was sitting on a sling and thick pad. LPN-D indicated that R75 should be sitting on a cushion and they must have missed it. Surveyor and LPN-D then went to R75's room and found the gel cushion R75 should be utilizing in wheelchair and all seated surfaces.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0698 (Tag F0698)

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 did not ensure ongoing communication with the dialysis facility was consisten...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure ongoing communication with the dialysis facility was consistent with professional standards of practice and care plan was not put in place for for 1 Resident (R18) of 1 resident receiving dialysis care and services. R18 did not have a care plan in place for dialysis and monitoring of R18's fistula and was missing communication sheets between the facility and dialysis center on the days R18 had dialysis. Findings include: On 7/20/22 at 12:30 PM, Director of Nursing (DON-B) indicated that the facility does not have a policy for Dialysis. On 7/20/22, Surveyor reviewed the dialysis contract between the facility and R18's dialysis center. This indicated: Collaboration of care; Both parties shall ensure that there is documented evidence of collaboration of care and communication between the Nursing Facility and ESRD (End Stage Renal Disease) dialysis unit. R18 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had related diagnoses that included End Stage Renal Disease and Dependence on Renal Dialysis. R18 had Physician orders that indicated: Dialysis every Tuesday and Friday. 8:15 AM Arrival time return to facility time is around 12:15. R18 had the following care plans related to dialysis in place: Nutrition; Weight fluctuations related to edema; Activity Participation level; Activities of Daily Living (ADL) assistance; Fluid restriction; Skin integrity. Between 7/18/22 and 7/19/22, Surveyor reviewed R18's medical record and did not locate a care plan related to dialysis or physician's orders related to monitoring of R18's fistula site. On 7/19/22 at 3:00 PM, Director of Nursing (DON-B) indicated there was no care plan specific for dialysis, but there were other care plans that discussed nutrition, edema, and mentioned that R18 was on dialysis. On 7/20/22, Surveyor noted that on 7/19/22 at 4:25 PM, a care plan related to dialysis was added to R18's electronic health record. This care plan indicated: I have end stage renal disease and I am at risk of issues with my fluid balance. I am dependent on hemodialysis and I have a fluid restriction in place. I have a history of loose stools. I need my nurses too, Monitor my fluid intake, provide and encourage fluids with my ordered restriction, observe me for changes in my mental status or behavior, monitor the effects of my medications, monitor my weight regularly as ordered, and notify my provider as needed. Assess me for edema and determine the severity as needed, review my lab values as ordered. Send me to dialysis as scheduled (Currently Tuesdays and Fridays). Communicate any status changes to the dialysis center. My fistula is currently in my right upper chest/shoulder area but is going to be moved to my left arm on 7/28. Monitor my fistula site and report any concerns to dialysis/my provider. I need my aides to: report any confusion or behaviors that may not be normal for me, to my nurse. Report any changes in my abilities to my nurse. Record/report my fluid intake to the nurse. Report my daily weights to the nurse. I need dietary staff to: review my diet and fluid needs, and modify them as needed or ordered. I need social services to: Confirm my advanced directives related to fluid and hydration with me and/or my family. I need everyone to: report any confusion or behaviors that may not be normal for me to my nurse. On 7/19/22 at 8:49 AM, Surveyor interviewed Unit Secretary (US-I) who informed surveyor that dialysis sheets should be scanned in to the residents Electronic Health Record. Between 7/18/22 and 7/20/22, Surveyor reviewed R18's dialysis communication sheets for the previous 3 months (24 communication sheets.) Surveyor found 1 sheet from 5/20 in R18's electronic health record. On 7/19/22 at 1:55 PM, the facility provided 11 out of 25 communication sheets between 4/25/22 and 7/11/22 : 5/9, 5/16, 5/20, 5/23, 6/7, 6/10, 6/24, 7/1, 7/5, 7/8, 7/11. At this time, Nursing Home Administrator (NHA-A) indicated there is a sheet in an envelope that goes with R18 to dialysis. As for the missing ones, NHA-A was unsure if there was anything to report, so maybe the facility did not send them back with R18. Though NHA-A was unsure why the dialysis facility would not fill out the pre/post dialysis weights as on the other sheets. NHA-A indicated that unit secretary prepares the form but the staff nurse signs or updates it. Once the facility nurse reviews the sheet, the nurse places the sheet in the unit secretary's mailbox to be scanned in. Surveyor requested other missing sheets. On 7/20/22 at 11:52 AM, Surveyor interviewed Director of Nursing (DON-B) who indicated that the remainder of the dialysis sheets were missing, the Unit Secretary had to leave and at this time was unable to locate them. DON-B also indicated that a care plan for dialysis had been put into place for R18 and this care plan did discuss R18's fistula site.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0886 (Tag F0886)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility did not ensure one of one staff required to test for COVID-19 obtained testing in accordance with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) re...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility did not ensure one of one staff required to test for COVID-19 obtained testing in accordance with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations. Human Resource Assistant (HR)-F did not receive COVID-19 testing per facility policy and CDC guidelines in June and July 2022. Findings: Facility policy titled Facility Testing Requirements with a revision date of 3/10/22 indicated: Miravida Living will follow CMS's (Centers for Medicare/Medicaid Services) guidance published on 8/26/20 Interim Final Rule CMS-3402-IFC CMS Document QSO-20-38-NH Interim Final Rule CMS-3402-IFC . related to long-terrm care (LTC) facility testing requirements, published on 8/26/20 and updated 3/10/22 read as follows: Routine testing of staff, who are not up-to-date (with COVID-19 vaccination), should be based on the extent of the virus in the community. Staff, who are up-to date, do not have to be routinely tested. Facilities should use their community transmission level as the trigger for staff testing frequency. Table 2: Routine Testing Intervals by County COVID-19 Level of Community Transmission: Level of Community Transmission Minimum Test Frequency Staff (not up-to-date) Low (blue) Not recommended Moderate (yellow) Once a week Substantial (orange) Twice a week High (red) Twice a week *The guidance above represents the minimum testing expected. On 7/18/22, Surveyor interviewed IP-E who indicated the facility is currently testing staff who were not up-to date with COVID-19 vaccine twice weekly. On 7/18/22, Surveyor reviewed the staff matrix which indicated only one staff, HR-F, was not up-to-date with COVID-19 vaccination, for which the staff received a non-religious exemption for on 1/4/22. Surveyor reviewed the staff testing logs for June and July which revealed the below for HR-F. Week Of Test Date 7/10 to 7/16 Tested 7/12 7/3 to 7/9: No entry 6/26 to 7/2: Tested 6/29 6/19 to 6/25: Tested 6/21 Surveyor reviewed the community transmission rate provided by the facility which indicated each of the above-noted weeks the community transmission rate was high (red), which per guidelines would require twice a week testing. On 7/19/22 at 8:26 AM, Surveyor interviewed IP-E who confirmed HR-F is a full-time employee at the facility but does work remotely at times. On 7/19/22 at 8:47 AM, Surveyor interviewed HR-F who indicated having 7/4 off but worked the rest of that week. HR-F confirmed missing COVID-19 testing stating, I must have gotten mixed up and it (testing) most have completely slipped my mind that week. HR-F then confirmed having worked at the facility (not remotely) that week of 7/4. With regards to the weeks HR-F only tested on ce vs twice, HR-F stated, I believe that week of 7/10 and a few other weeks recently, I did not test twice. Some of the days of the week I worked from home and I must have been mixed up those weeks as well and did not test twice. Or I was working from home and I did not come in to test, I was mixed up those weeks as well. Surveyor asked how often do you work from home? HR-F replied, It depends, if someone feels sick here (at work), I may not come or if I have something going on, my boss is very flexible with that (working remote). On 7/19/22 at 8:57 AM, Surveyor again interviewed IP-E who confirmed HR-F is the only staff at the facility who has to test twice a week due to being not up-to-date with vaccine. IP-E indicated that a different employee who works offsite from the facility tracks the testing for facility staff and enters the data into a spreadsheet. Regarding missed testing for HR-F, IP-E stated, We will have to watch (testing frequency) more closely. IP-E indicated having looked back at lab results and said prior to 6/19, HR-F was testing very routinely and that IP-E will work with HR-F to set up a system or calendar to ensure testing is more routinely done. IP-E indicated that staff do self-testing, there is a testing station where staff swab and the swab goes into a refrigerator and then lab picks the swab up. On 7/19/22 at 12:27 PM, IP-E provided HR-F's time card for the timeframe testing was missed. The time card indicated the week of 6/19/22 HR-F worked remotely Monday, Thursday and Friday and at the facility on Tuesday and Wednesday. The week of 6/26, HR-F worked remotely Monday and Thursday, at the facility on Tuesday and Wednesday and was off Friday. The week of 7/3, HR-F was off Monday, worked at the facility on Tuesday and remotely Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. The week of 7/10, HR-F worked at the facility Monday and Tuesday and remotely Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. IP-E confirmed the week of 7/3 employee did not test at all and should have due to coming into the facility. On 7/20/22 at 8:32 AM, Surveyor again interviewed HR-F who explained that HR-F went back and looked at emails and text messages with HR-F's boss to determine if HR-F worked remotely and it was more often than originally thought. HR-F confirmed having worked at the facility 7/5 and did not test that week at all. With regards to testing twice a week, HR-F said the expectation was to test twice a week despite working remote at times but there was no discussion (by supervisors) if HR-F should go somewhere else to test other than the facility on those dates. HR-F confirmed no one has ever contacted HR-F when missing a test other than way back when the testing requirement first started, then IP-E reminded me to test twice a week. HR-F indicated that facility staff come to the HR department (in the lower level of facility) to ask questions and/or with requests and HR-F sees approximately five staff per day and also holds an anniversary luncheon once a month in which approximately seven employees are present with HR-F. On 7/20/22 at 12:20 PM, Surveyor interviewed Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A who confirmed the expectation for staff COVID-19 testing when not fully vaccinated is to follow the guidelines put fourth for testing (referring to the CMS memo).
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
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Wisconsin facilities.
  • • 44% turnover. Below Wisconsin's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 16 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • Grade C (53/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 53/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Bethel Home's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns BETHEL HOME an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Wisconsin, this rating places the facility higher than 0% 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 Bethel Home Staffed?

CMS rates BETHEL HOME's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 44%, compared to the Wisconsin average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Bethel Home?

State health inspectors documented 16 deficiencies at BETHEL HOME during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 14 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 Bethel Home?

BETHEL HOME is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 100 certified beds and approximately 69 residents (about 69% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in OSHKOSH, Wisconsin.

How Does Bethel Home Compare to Other Wisconsin Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Wisconsin, BETHEL HOME's overall rating (3 stars) matches the state average, staff turnover (44%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Bethel Home?

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 Bethel Home Safe?

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

Do Nurses at Bethel Home Stick Around?

BETHEL HOME has a staff turnover rate of 44%, which is about average for Wisconsin 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 Bethel Home Ever Fined?

BETHEL HOME 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 Bethel Home on Any Federal Watch List?

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