Failure to Maintain Clean, Odor-Free Environment on Resident Hall
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide a clean, sanitary, and homelike environment on one hall, particularly in the room of Resident #3. Resident #3, who was cognitively intact and admitted with diagnoses including acute and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, type 2 diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia, and stage 3 chronic kidney disease, required set-up/clean-up assistance with toileting, showering, and personal hygiene and had mixed bladder incontinence. Her care plan directed staff to check frequently for incontinence, cleanse the perineum, apply barrier cream, change clothing as needed, and encourage the use of a chux pad and open brief in the chair during the day, with the resident notifying staff when she needed changing. Surveyors observed a strong, pervasive urine odor on the 600 hall during the initial tour and again on a later date, and staff confirmed the odor was coming from Resident #3’s room. Upon entering Resident #3’s room, surveyors observed a pile of laundry near the door. The resident reported that she places soiled laundry on the floor near the door every day for an aide to collect, and that the pile present had been there since earlier that morning; she also stated that when housekeeping came to clean, additional soiled laundry was added to the pile. CNAs confirmed the hall was malodorous, verified the presence of soiled clothing, and reported there was a bagged soiled down comforter in the room that the resident would not allow the facility to launder and was awaiting family pick-up. One CNA stated the odor on the hall was always a problem and that some residents had requested their doors be shut due to the odor; she also stated she had not known the soiled linen was on the floor until the survey and later verified that the collected laundry was saturated. Another resident on the hall confirmed preferring her door shut at times because of the odor. Fourteen other residents lived on the same hall, and the facility’s Homelike Environment policy required a safe, clean, comfortable environment with pleasant, neutral scents.
Plan Of Correction
F584 Safe/Clean/Comfortable/Homelike The PoC will what corrective action(s) will be accomplished for those residents found to have been affected by the deficient practice. Resident # 3 met with the care conference team on 3-25-26 to discuss plans to manage the resident's mattress pad when soiled and a plan to manage behaviors related to toileting assistance. Nursing staff are rounding, monitoring linen placed on the floor by the resident, and removing linen when providing care. These rounds began 3-20-26. Resident # 3 has improved, clean, comfortable /homelike as of 3-26-26. The mattress pad is being laundered by the facility as of 4-9-26. Resident #3 was assessed for any negative effects from this deficient practice and she made it very clear that she is fine and does not believe she has any odor. Resident has no infection control concerns as a result of soiled linen and odor in her room. The assessment was completed by Infection preventionist nurse by 4-9-26. How you will identify other residents having the potential to be affected by the same deficient practice and what corrective action will be taken. Residents affected by the odor on the 600 hall are a total of 17. The residents involved are (#2, #4, #9, #12, #13, #17, #21, #25, #33, #34, #35, #40, #42, #49 and all per interview state, they do not notice any pervasive odors. All 600 hall residents have been interviewed by the social services/designee and none are complaining of a pervasive odor as of 3-19-2026. What measures will be put into place or what systemic changes you will make to ensure that the deficient practice does not recur. Education for nursing and housekeeping to provide a clean and sanitary environment, and odor control. was completed on 4-9-2026 by DON and the housekeeping director. The mattress cover will now be laundered in the facility laundry and rounds in place by nursing and housekeeping to prevent soiled linen on the floor and to frequently mop the floor. How the corrective action will be monitored to ensure the deficient practice will not recur. Daily round audits began 3-30-26 by housekeeping 5x a week x4 weeks by housekeeping director or designee, resident #3s room, and a random 5 rooms on the 600 hall for linens on the floor or soiled floors. Nursing rounds are routinely conducted throughout the 600 hall, monitoring for soiled linen, clothes on the floor and pervasive smells. CNA rounds are routine and ongoing audits beginning 4-9-26. The social worker began 4-8-26 to interview 5 residents a day, 5 xs a week for 4 weeks, for complaints of odor. If concerns arise, the social worker will notify housekeeping and nursing managers to review what has caused the odors. If nursing or housekeeping audits reveal concerns, the room will be cleaned, and laundry pursued with staff reeducated. Results submitted to the weekly QAPI with further follow through. Random social service audits are completed daily, interviewing residents on the 600 hall 5x a week X 4 weeks
Penalty
Resources
Below are regulatory guidelines relevant to this citation:
Surveyors found that the facility failed to maintain a safe, clean, and homelike environment, with strong, persistent urine and feces odors noted throughout multiple halls and confirmed by staff. On two nursing units, hallways and resident rooms contained torn flooring, food debris, broken blinds, dirty and leaking toilets and sinks, rusted and corroded fixtures, missing outlet covers with oxygen concentrators plugged in, exposed light sockets, unmade and visibly soiled beds, and black, mold-like substances on walls and around toilet bases. Bathrooms had missing ceiling tiles, cracked door facings with brown stains, used briefs and torn toilet paper on floors, and toilets with brown or rust-like buildup. Outside, the patio and fencing area had broken and rotted railings, exposed rusted nails, fallen palm fronds, and overgrown vegetation, and the Administrator acknowledged the area was not safe for residents. Housekeeping and maintenance staff described daily cleaning and a work-order process, but the Maintenance Director reported being unaware of many of the observed issues, and the DON confirmed there was no specific environmental cleaning policy despite job descriptions and a general policy requiring a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment.
A resident reported that bedroom hand sinks did not provide warm water, requiring handwashing with cold water and causing discomfort. Surveyors observed that in two rooms, the hot water remained cold despite running for several minutes, and thermometer readings at shared hand sinks showed temperatures in the 70°F range on the hot side, below the facility’s stated 100–110°F expectation. Further observation with the MD revealed that in one room the hot and cold valves were transposed, with hot water only available from the cold side. The MD, ADM, and DON each stated the MD was responsible for monitoring and maintaining water temperatures, but none were aware of recent issues, and the DON did not know the required temperature range. The facility’s maintenance request policy was requested twice but was not provided.
Inadequate Shower Function and Hot Water Temperatures: The facility failed to maintain a functioning shower in the Magnolia unit and failed to keep shower and room sink water temperatures within the expected range. A resident reported delayed showers and inconsistent warm water, while staff confirmed residents were using showers on another hall because the Magnolia shower was out of service and water pressure was poor. Observations and log review showed repeated low hot water readings in Magnolia rooms and showers, and the Wildflower shower also measured below the facility's temperature range.
Surveyors observed that the lab specimen refrigerator had brown stains on the door and bottom shelves and multiple small dead bugs on the door shelf, demonstrating that staff failed to maintain a clean environment in an area used for specimen storage. The Infection Prevention Nurse acknowledged the refrigerator was dirty.
The facility failed to maintain a clean, safe, and homelike environment in multiple resident rooms, shower rooms, and common areas. Surveyors observed shower rooms with broken and missing tiles, jagged holes, dark residue in grout, and hair and brown matter in drains. A resident’s dinner tray with food remained on the bed the next morning, and several rooms had wall damage, exposed metal bars near a commode, missing bathroom doors, and vents coated with thick gray buildup. The dining room and hall ceilings had cobwebs and dirty vents, and the kitchen ceiling, pipes, and vents were covered with thick, gray, fuzzy material. Staff, including the Maintenance Supervisor and Administrator, acknowledged that these areas should have been repaired or cleaned and that some surfaces were not included in the cleaning schedule.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment was found to be living in a room where window curtains had scattered red stains, dried brown liquid remained on the floor beneath a tube feeding pole, and the PTAC unit contained visible dust-like black debris on and inside the vents. Over multiple days, housekeeping staff either did not recognize or did not effectively address these issues, with one housekeeper attempting but failing to remove the hardened brown liquid and not reporting the stained curtains, and another focusing only on trash and flooring and reporting that everything appeared fine. The housekeeping manager and administrator later acknowledged that these cleanliness concerns should have been identified and corrected, and that the window curtains were old and awaiting replacement.
Widespread Odors and Environmental Disrepair in Resident Care Areas
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified that the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment as required by 42 CFR 483.10(i). Upon entrance to the building on multiple days, surveyors noted a strong, pungent odor of urine and feces throughout the facility, with the odor particularly strong on the 200, 300, and 400 halls. Staff interviews confirmed that the building "usually smells like" urine, and staff attributed the odor to residents defecating and urinating on the floor, an old building structure, and cleaning products that sanitize but do not deodorize. Housekeeping staff reported that they clean resident rooms daily but that nursing staff must first clean fecal and urine waste before housekeeping can sanitize, and delays by nursing staff in doing so postponed housekeeping’s ability to address the odors. On the 300 unit, surveyors observed multiple environmental and sanitation issues in resident rooms and bathrooms. The hallway had torn flooring, food particles, and a butter knife on the floor. Individual rooms had food debris, a straw on the floor, and broken blinds. Bathrooms contained dark brown stains on walls, rusted ceiling tile trim, toilets with brownish substances inside, and wet floors around toilets. Trim was missing around toilet bases, exposing a black, mold-like substance. Corroded and rusted sink faucet handles, leaking faucets, rusted pipes under sinks with buildup of corrosion, and rusted sprinklers were observed. Some toilets and three-in-one commodes had duct tape on them, and bathroom walls had black, mold-like substances. Doors and door facings showed rust, scrape marks, chipped and peeling paint, and exposed wood. In some rooms, electrical outlets had no covers while oxygen concentrators were plugged into them, boards covered windows, light fixtures over beds lacked covers with sockets exposed, and one fixture had only one bulb. A resident bed appeared dirty with a black substance on it, and dresser drawers were broken with drawer fronts on the floor. On the 400 unit, surveyors again noted a strong odor of urine upon entry and found additional environmental deficiencies. Bathrooms had missing ceiling tiles, broken emergency light covers with no pull strings, and toilet tank covers that did not fit properly, exposing the inside of the tank. In one bathroom, torn toilet paper and used briefs were lying in the corner of the floor, and toilets had brown, rust-like substances inside the bowls. Door facings appeared cracked with brown substances along the sides, and toilets had brownish-black buildup around the bases with broken, peeling trim. Light bases on walls had rust-like appearances, multiple rooms had broken or missing blinds, and some outlets lacked covers while oxygen concentrators were plugged into them. Some rooms had unmade beds, exposed wires at outlets, toilets with dark brown-black rings around the base and flooring, uncovered light fixtures, leaking sinks with rusted pipes, loose flooring, loose toilet seats, and dry red substances on door frames. Surveyors also observed deficiencies in the outdoor patio area adjacent to the locked unit. The gate code was broken, and a resident lock was placed on the gate. The patio and surrounding fencing had fallen palm fronds on the grass, broken and rotted wooden fence railings, unsteady railings, and multiple exposed rusted nails protruding from the railings where boards were broken or detached. Overgrown trees and bushes from the perimeter extended through the fence railings. When asked, the Administrator acknowledged that the area was not safe for residents and stated that they planned to have it redone in the future. The Maintenance Director reported that he and one other maintenance person relied on work orders and verbal reports to identify needed repairs and stated he was not aware of the specific room and equipment issues on the 300 and 400 units. Housekeeping staff stated they would report broken items via a work order book or text to maintenance, but one housekeeper, who cleaned the 400 unit daily, denied noticing stains or biohazard-like materials on walls and door frames despite the surveyors’ observations. Review of facility documents showed that the housekeeper job description required staff to maintain assigned work areas in a clean, safe, comfortable, and attractive manner and to report maintenance problems noted during cleaning. A facility policy titled "Policies and Practices - Control" stated that the facility must maintain a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment for personnel, residents, visitors, and the public. The DON stated that blinds had been changed out and new cabinets and door handles purchased, and that staff were directed to use standard precautions when cleaning rooms, but also stated there was no policy specific to cleaning the environment. These observations and interviews demonstrated that the facility did not maintain sanitary, orderly, and comfortable interior conditions, did not adequately control offensive odors, and did not ensure that the physical environment, including resident rooms, bathrooms, and outdoor areas, was maintained in a safe, clean, and homelike condition as required by regulation.
Failure to Maintain Adequate Hot Water Temperatures at Resident Hand Sinks
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure residents had access to safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable handwashing facilities in their rooms. A resident reported that there was no warm water in the hand sinks in residents’ bedrooms and that they often had to wash their hands with cold water, which made their hands feel cold. The resident also stated they felt the facility did not take the cold water issues seriously and expressed a desire to have warm water available to wash their hands and face. Surveyor observations confirmed that the hot water in two resident rooms remained cold even after running the water for several minutes. Subsequent temperature checks with a thermometer at the shared hand sinks in these rooms showed water temperatures of 73.6°F and 70.5°F on the hot water side, which were below the facility’s stated expected range of 100–110°F for resident room sinks. During a later observation with the Maintenance Director (MD), the hot water at one shared hand sink again measured 70°F on the hot side, and when the cold side was turned on, the water became warm, with a measured temperature of 100°F, indicating the hot and cold valves had been transposed after a plumbing repair. In interviews, the MD stated he was responsible for ensuring adequate water temperatures and that he conducted weekly spot checks of shared hand sinks, maintaining temperature logs, but he was not aware of any recent issues or reports regarding water temperatures. The Administrator (ADM) confirmed that the MD was responsible for water temperatures and that the expected range was 100–110°F, and acknowledged that a recent toilet repair in one of the rooms could have resulted in the hot and cold valves being transposed. The DON stated the MD was responsible for regular water temperature checks and repairs, was not aware of any concerns about hot water temperatures, and was unsure of the required temperature range. When the facility’s maintenance request policy was requested from the ADM on two occasions, it was not provided.
Inadequate Shower Function and Hot Water Temperatures
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for residents, staff, and the public by not maintaining functioning showers and adequate hot water temperatures in resident rooms and shower areas. The deficiency involved 2 of 3 showers, identified as Magnolia and Wildflower, and 2 of 12 rooms. The Magnolia shower had been out of order for approximately 4 months, with an undated sign on the shower door stating, "DO NOT USE." During observation, the Magnolia shower had inconsistent water pressure and the handheld shower head only trickled water. Staff interviews confirmed the shower had been out of service since at least February 2026 and that residents were being directed to use another unit's shower instead. Resident and staff interviews described ongoing problems with shower access and water temperature. A resident stated the Magnolia shower had not been working for a while, showers were sometimes delayed, and the water was not always warm because other residents had used the same shower. CNA and LVN interviews confirmed residents on Magnolia were using showers on another hall and that hot water had been an issue throughout the facility. The DON stated the importance of hot water and a functioning shower was for residents to be comfortable, clean, and to decrease infection risk. The ADM stated the hot water concerns had started the prior week and that the facility had approved repair of the tankless water heater. Record review showed repeated water temperature readings below the facility's stated range for resident rooms and shower areas. In Magnolia unit rooms, documented hot water temperatures included readings such as 93.6 F, 92.4 F, 86.2 F, 83.4 F, 89.6 F, 83.7 F, and 90.3 F. In the Magnolia shower, documented temperatures included 95.1 F, 99.6 F, 93.8 F, 95.4 F, and 93.7 F, and later observation showed 70.4 F. In the Wildflower shower, observation showed 95.3 F. A confidential resident council interview included 9 residents stating the water did not get hot enough during showers. Facility policy stated water heaters serving resident rooms, bathrooms, common areas, and tub/shower areas were to be set to no more than 110-115 F or the maximum allowable temperature per state regulation, and maintenance staff were responsible for checking and recording water temperatures.
Unclean Lab Specimen Refrigerator Compromises Environmental Cleanliness
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency related to the resident’s right to a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment when the lab specimen refrigerator was found to be unclean. During an observation of the refrigerator, brown stains were noted on the door shelf and bottom shelf, and multiple small dead bugs were present on the door shelf. In a subsequent interview, the Infection Prevention Nurse acknowledged that the lab specimen refrigerator was dirty. These conditions demonstrated that the facility failed to maintain a clean environment in the area where lab specimens are stored.
Failure to Maintain Clean, Safe, and Homelike Environment Throughout Facility
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment as required by its Safe, Homelike Environment policy dated October 2007. Surveyors observed multiple shower rooms with cleanliness and maintenance issues, including black hair and dark residue in shower drains, broken and missing tiles with jagged-edged holes, cracks in tiles, dark residue in grout, and small round holes in shower stall walls. In one resident room, a prior night’s dinner tray with dishes and a full bowl of vegetables was left sitting on the resident’s bed the following morning. Additional observations included missing floor tiles and dark black residue debris between shower floor tiles in another shower room, and a shower drain with brown formed matter and dark strands of hair in a different hall’s shower room. Surveyors also observed disrepair and unclean conditions in resident rooms and common areas. One bathroom had two metal bars sticking out of the wall near the commode, a bathroom door with a missing 3 x 2 inch piece of wood by the hinges, and a vent with a thick gray substance. Another room had a hole on the outside of the bathroom door, and a separate room had two large holes in the wall and no bathroom door; the resident in that room stated the holes and lack of bathroom door had been present since moving in. In the dining room, vents and ceiling areas had thick gray substances and long cobwebs, and vents on the east hall ceiling also had a gray substance. In the kitchen, the ceiling, pipes, and vents were observed with a thick, gray, fuzzy substance. The Maintenance Supervisor and Administrator acknowledged that tiles, vents, doors, and other areas should have been repaired or cleaned and that certain areas were not included in existing cleaning schedules.
Failure to Maintain Clean Curtains, Flooring, and PTAC in a Resident Room
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to maintain a safe, clean, and comfortable environment in one resident’s room, including failure to properly clean window curtains, flooring under medical equipment, and the PTAC unit. The resident involved had a quarterly MDS indicating severe cognitive impairment. On multiple observations over three consecutive days, surveyors noted two window curtains with scattered red stains, two pools of dried brown liquid on the floor underneath the tube feeding pole near the head of the bed, and dust-like black bits, fragments, and pieces on and inside the PTAC near the filter insertion site. These conditions remained unchanged across observations on 4/27, 4/28, and 4/29. Housekeeper #1, primarily assigned to that hall and to the resident’s room on two of the three days, stated that housekeeping duties included trash removal, sweeping, mopping if there was a spill, bathroom cleaning, changing hand sanitizer, and replenishing bathroom supplies, and that housekeeping was responsible for identifying stained window curtains and PTAC cleaning. During an in-room interview, Housekeeper #1 confirmed the stained curtains, dried brown liquid on the floor, and dusty black substance on and inside the PTAC, and reported she had attempted but failed to remove the hardened brown liquid and had not notified the Housekeeping Manager/Maintenance Director about the stained window curtains. She also stated she had not been instructed to inspect window curtains and had confused them with privacy curtains. Housekeeper #2, who cleaned the room on the intervening day, reported focusing only on trash and flooring and stated everything looked fine. The Housekeeping Manager/Maintenance Director and Administrator both acknowledged that the cleanliness issues in the room should have been identified and addressed, and that the window curtains were old and in the process of being replaced.
Trusted data from CMS and state health departments
Every citation, penalty and Plan of Correction is sourced from public CMS records (latest release June 24, 2026) and official state health department websites — never guesswork.
Trusted by long-term care providers and associations.
