Not rated by CMS — ratings are suppressed for new or low-volume facilities.
Past the typical resurvey interval — a standard survey could occur at any time
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of June 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Complete Care At Kimberly Hall North during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Two cognitively impaired residents on a locked dementia unit, both with severely impaired BIMS scores and care plans noting dementia-related cognitive decline, were left unsupervised for about 15–20 minutes after breakfast while staff assisted other residents. During this interval, staff discovered the two residents in a bed, prone and partially unclothed, with one on top of the other and lower garments removed or unfastened. Both residents were documented as not responsible for themselves, had no prior sexual disinhibition behaviors, and later demonstrated lack of recall or misperception of the event. The facility’s sexual expression policy applied only to residents with intact decision-making capacity, and there was no prior consent from responsible parties for sexual activity, resulting in a failure to protect these residents from sexual abuse through adequate supervision and interventions.
A resident with seizure disorder, dementia, and multiple comorbidities experienced repeated failures in timely medication administration and documentation. Required scheduled doses of gabapentin and acetaminophen were not documented as given at the ordered time, despite an RN later stating they had been administered. On another day, an RN documented a set of 9:00 AM medications, including anticonvulsants, antihypertensives, anticoagulant, antidepressant, and laxative, more than four hours late, while another RN administered evening anticonvulsant, analgesic, muscle relaxant, anticoagulant, sleep aid, antidepressant, and neuropathy medications more than two to three hours earlier than scheduled. One RN reported routinely delaying electronic documentation until after completing the full med pass due to EMR issues and workload, contrary to the facility’s one-hour administration window and immediate documentation standard.
A resident with dementia and dysphagia, fully dependent on staff for feeding, was not fed in a dignified manner. Video evidence showed a nursing assistant feeding the resident rapidly with large spoonfuls of food, not allowing time to swallow between bites, and letting food drip onto the resident's chin. Staff interviews confirmed the feeding did not follow the care plan or facility policy, which required slow, attentive feeding and ensuring swallowing between bites.
A nurse aide failed to follow proper feeding techniques for a resident with dementia and dysphagia, providing large spoonfuls of food too quickly and not ensuring the resident had swallowed before offering more, despite documented competency and clear care plan instructions. Video evidence and staff interviews confirmed the feeding was too rapid and did not adhere to protocols for safe feeding of residents with swallowing difficulties.
A resident with severe cognitive and physical impairments was subjected to abuse when a nursing assistant forcefully fed them despite clear signs of resistance, contrary to the care plan that required redirection and postponement of care. The incident was captured on video and confirmed through facility documentation and interviews.
A resident with dementia, dysphagia, and severe cognitive impairment, who was dependent on staff for eating, did not receive appropriate feeding interventions as outlined in their care plan. Video evidence showed a nursing assistant disregarding the resident's attempts to block feeding, continuing to feed, and failing to use redirection or re-approach techniques, resulting in improper care.
A resident with dementia and abnormal gait, who was independent with ambulation, tripped over an electrical cord stretched across a hallway while housekeeping was cleaning. Despite caution signs being present, the resident fell and sustained a laceration to the lip requiring sutures. Facility policy prohibited cords from crossing open areas, but this was not followed, resulting in the incident.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and total care needs did not receive the required two-person assistance for bed mobility, as specified in their care plan and aide Kardex. Instead, a nurse aide provided care alone during an overnight shift, despite being aware of the two-person requirement. The resident was later found to have a right shoulder dislocation, and facility documentation confirmed the care plan was not followed.
The facility failed to protect residents from physical mistreatment, as evidenced by incidents involving two residents who were physically abused by other residents. One resident, diagnosed with Alzheimer's and anxiety disorder, was hit by another resident with a history of aggressive behavior. Another resident, diagnosed with dementia and anxiety, was bitten and knocked down by a resident with impulse disorder. The facility's policies and procedures were insufficient in preventing these incidents, highlighting a failure to ensure a safe environment.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment was admitted with a stage 3 pressure ulcer, which deteriorated to stage 4 after admission. The facility failed to update the care plan to reflect this change, incorrectly indicating the ulcer was present on admission. Staff interviews confirmed the ulcer was facility-acquired, highlighting a deficiency in care planning.
A resident with dementia and Alzheimer's was not provided with a Kennedy cup as required by their care plan during mealtime. Despite the care plan and meal ticket indicating the need for adaptive equipment, the resident was observed using a regular cup. Interviews revealed that the kitchen was responsible for providing the equipment, but it was not included on the tray until after surveyor inquiry.
A facility failed to monitor behaviors for a resident on psychotropic medications, leading to undocumented administration. Another resident with a knee brace order was not wearing it due to improper documentation and lack of care planning for refusal. Additionally, a resident with edema did not receive prescribed Ace wraps due to oversight and lack of supplies, with no documentation of refusals.
A facility failed to provide adequate supervision during dining for six residents with cognitive impairments, leaving them unsupervised while eating. Observations and staff interviews confirmed that an LPN left the dining area to administer medications, resulting in residents being unattended. The ADNS acknowledged the lapse in supervision, which was contrary to the residents' care plans requiring assistance.
The facility failed to ensure staff competencies for IV therapy and the use of Low Air Loss (LAL) mattresses. Seventeen licensed staff lacked documented IV therapy competencies, and a resident's LAL mattress was incorrectly set due to inadequate staff training. The ADNS confirmed the absence of in-service training or facility policy on the specific LAL mattress used, leading to confusion among staff.
A resident with dysphagia was served a dinner roll despite being on a chopped diet, contrary to dietary guidelines. Staff interviews revealed a lack of understanding and communication about dietary restrictions, and the facility's policy to inspect food trays was not effectively implemented.
A resident with dementia and other health issues was served a meal that did not match their dietary preferences as indicated on their lunch ticket. Staff interviews revealed that dietary trays were served without verifying the meal against the ticket, contrary to facility policy. The Director of Dietary confirmed that a staff member is supposed to ensure meals meet dietary restrictions and preferences, but this was not done.
A facility failed to follow infection control procedures during wound care for a resident with a stage 4 pressure ulcer. An LPN handled wound supplies with dirty gloves and placed a trash bag on a nonsterile surface. Enhanced barrier precautions were not followed, as staff did not wear gowns and were unaware of the requirement, despite a sign outside the resident's door. PPE carts were located in the hall, shared among residents, but not immediately available near the resident's room.
The facility did not provide a homelike dining environment for memory unit residents, serving meals on dietary trays to prevent food sharing, as observed and confirmed by the Administrator.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment experienced a breach of dignity when a medical doctor made an inappropriate comment about a disciplinary sign in the resident's room. The comment, although not directed at the resident, was overheard by staff and considered unprofessional. The facility's policy on resident rights was not upheld, leading to a deficiency in maintaining the resident's dignity.
A resident with anxiety and depression was verbally abused by a nursing assistant (NA) who accused them of being a troublemaker and lying. The incident was confirmed by a facility investigation, which found that the NA's actions constituted verbal abuse as per the facility's policy. The NA's employment was subsequently terminated.
Failure to Protect Cognitively Impaired Residents From Sexual Abuse Due to Inadequate Supervision
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to protect two cognitively impaired residents from sexual abuse by not ensuring adequate supervision and interventions on a locked dementia unit. One resident had Alzheimer’s dementia with behavioral disturbance, was oriented only to self, and had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 5, indicating severely impaired cognition. This resident’s care plan identified impaired cognitive function and thought processes related to dementia, with interventions focused on assisting with decision-making, using cues, and redirecting as needed. The other resident had frontotemporal neurocognitive disorder and dementia, a conservator of person, and a BIMS score of 6, also indicating severely impaired cognition. This second resident’s care plan identified risk for elopement and wandering, as well as impaired cognitive function, with interventions including engagement in tailored activities, redirection when wandering or intrusive, and communication strategies adapted to cognitive deficits. On the day of the incident, both residents were on a locked dementia unit and were described as not responsible for themselves. Breakfast was served on the unit, and one resident ate in the dining room while the other ate in their room. After breakfast trays were picked up, there was an interval of approximately 15–20 minutes between the last observation of the residents and the discovery of the incident. During this time, staff were engaged in feeding and assisting other residents. A nursing assistant entered one resident’s room to feed that resident and found the two residents lying prone in bed, partially clothed, with one resident on top of the other. Clothing for both residents was displaced or removed from the lower body. Staff statements and clinical evaluations documented that both residents had severe cognitive impairments and limited orientation, with no prior documented sexual disinhibition behaviors. The assistant and a certified occupational therapy assistant both described finding one resident on top of the other, with pants and undergarments removed or unfastened. Subsequent interviews with clinical staff indicated that one resident did not recall the incident, and the other misidentified the peer as someone from their past and believed they were rekindling a relationship. The facility’s policy on sexual expression specified that it applied to individuals with intact cognitive decision-making capacity, and there was no indication that either resident had such capacity or that consent for sexual activity with other residents had been obtained from their responsible parties prior to the incident. The combination of severe cognitive impairment, lack of capacity to consent, and the lapse in supervision on the locked dementia unit led to the failure to protect these residents from sexual abuse.
Medication Administration Timing and Documentation Deficiencies
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure medications were administered within acceptable time frames and documented at the time of administration for a resident with seizure disorder, anxiety, and dementia. The resident was identified as severely cognitively impaired and required assistance with activities of daily living. The resident’s care plan noted risk for seizure activity with interventions to medicate as ordered and monitor for effectiveness and side effects. Physician orders included gabapentin every eight hours for neuropathy and acetaminophen every eight hours for pain. On one date in March, the Medication Administration Record showed that the resident’s scheduled 2:00 PM doses of gabapentin and acetaminophen were not documented as given. The nurse supervisor for that shift stated in interview that these medications were administered at 2:00 PM but acknowledged failing to document the administration, despite facility policy requiring documentation at the time medications are given. Additional deficiencies were identified when review of the March Medication Administration Record showed that multiple scheduled medications were administered significantly outside the facility’s standard one-hour before to one-hour after window. On one date, a nurse documented a group of 9:00 AM medications, including brivaracetam, ferrous sulfate, baclofen, carvedilol, losartan, apixaban, amlodipine, duloxetine, senna, and lorazepam, as administered at 1:32 PM, more than four and a half hours late. On the same date, another nurse administered 9:00 PM medications, including brivaracetam, diclofenac gel, baclofen, melatonin, apixaban, mirtazapine, lorazepam, and acetaminophen, between 6:32 PM and 6:33 PM, over two hours early, and a 10:00 PM gabapentin dose at 6:34 PM, more than three hours early. One nurse reported documenting medications only after all assigned residents had received their medications, citing electronic record issues and workload, which conflicted with the facility’s standard of practice and policy requiring immediate documentation and adherence to the one-hour administration window.
Failure to Feed Dependent Resident in a Dignified Manner
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when a resident who was dependent on staff for all activities of daily living, including eating, was not fed in a dignified manner. The resident had significant medical conditions, including dementia, dysphagia, mood disorder, and lack of coordination, and was on a dysphagia puree diet with nectar thick liquids. Care plans and physician orders specified that the resident should be fed slowly, with small bites and sips, and that staff should ensure the resident swallowed each mouthful before offering more food. However, video evidence showed that a nursing assistant fed the resident rapidly, placing multiple heaping spoonfuls of oatmeal into the resident's mouth without waiting for the resident to swallow, and allowed food to drip onto the resident's chin before using the spoon to remove it. Interviews with facility staff confirmed that the feeding was not performed according to the resident's care plan or facility policy, which emphasized slow feeding and ensuring swallowing between bites. The nursing assistant acknowledged not realizing how quickly she was feeding the resident and recognized that she should have paused between spoonfuls. The Director of Nursing Services also confirmed that the feeding was too fast and did not meet the required standards for dignified care. Facility documentation and policies reviewed supported the expectation for dignified, slow, and attentive feeding practices for residents with similar needs.
Improper Feeding Technique for Dependent Resident with Dysphagia
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when a nurse aide failed to use the proper feeding technique for a resident who was dependent on staff for feeding and had significant medical conditions, including dementia, dysphagia, and impaired cognitive and physical abilities. The resident was on a dysphagia puree diet with nectar thick liquids and required slow feeding with small bites, alternating solids and liquids, and monitoring for signs of aspiration. Despite documented competency validation and clear care plan instructions, video evidence showed the nurse aide feeding the resident too quickly, providing large spoonfuls of food without ensuring the resident had swallowed before offering more, and not pausing between bites as required. Interviews with facility staff, including the nurse aide, speech and language pathologist, and director of nursing, confirmed that the feeding was performed too rapidly and did not follow the established protocols for safe feeding of residents with swallowing difficulties. The facility's competency validation form also specified the need to ensure the resident's mouth was empty before the next bite, which was not followed in this instance. The facility was unable to provide a specific policy for feeding residents when requested.
Failure to Protect Resident from Abuse During Feeding
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when a resident with dementia, dysphagia, mood disorder, and severe cognitive and physical impairments was not protected from abuse during mealtime assistance. The resident required total assistance with eating and was to be fed slowly, with cues and redirection if resistive. During a breakfast meal, video footage showed a nursing assistant (NA) attempting to feed the resident, who raised their hands to block their face. Instead of stopping or redirecting as care plans directed, the NA moved the resident's hands away and forcefully placed a spoonful of oatmeal into the resident's mouth, causing the resident's head to jerk. The NA then verbally accused the resident of kicking, despite no evidence of such behavior, and abruptly ended the feeding by throwing the spoon and leaving the room. Facility documentation and interviews confirmed that the NA did not follow the resident's care plan, which required postponing and reapproaching care if the resident became resistive. The actions observed in the video were identified by facility leadership as mistreatment and not in accordance with established policies to prevent abuse. The incident was substantiated through direct observation and review of the resident's care requirements and staff responsibilities.
Failure to Implement Feeding Interventions for Dependent Resident
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when staff failed to implement appropriate interventions for a resident who was dependent on staff for eating and had multiple diagnoses, including dementia, dysphagia, mood disorder, lack of coordination, and difficulty waking. The resident's care plan and Kardex directed staff to assist or feed as needed, use a slow approach with cues, encourage fluid intake, and, if the resident became resistive, to postpone care and re-approach after allowing time to regain composure. Physician orders specified a dysphagia puree diet with nectar thick liquids, and the resident was documented as having severely impaired cognitive skills, being dependent for all ADLs, and being non-ambulatory. On the date in question, video footage showed a nursing assistant feeding the resident and, when the resident attempted to block their face, the assistant moved the resident's hands away and continued feeding, ultimately pushing a spoon further into the resident's mouth and causing the resident's head to jerk. The assistant then abruptly ended the feeding and left the room. The Director of Nursing confirmed that the assistant should have stopped feeding, attempted redirection, and re-approached the resident as per the care plan. This failure to follow the established interventions and care plan led to the deficiency.
Resident Fall Due to Electrical Cord Hazard in Hallway
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when a resident with Alzheimer's Disease and abnormal gait, who was independent with ambulation but had poor memory recall, tripped over an electrical cord that was stretched across a hallway. The resident was identified as being at risk for falls due to dementia, and the care plan included interventions to keep areas clutter-free and provide handheld assistance when redirecting. On the day of the incident, the resident was observed ambulating independently in the hallway, where four wet floor caution signs were present, and an electrical cord was running across the hall as housekeeping staff were buffing rooms. Despite the caution signs, the resident tripped over the cord and fell, sustaining a laceration to the inner lower lip that required sutures and hospital evaluation. Facility policy for floor care specifically directed staff not to stretch equipment cords across open common areas to prevent trip hazards. Interviews with staff confirmed that the cord was running across the hallway at the time of the fall, and the housekeeper acknowledged plugging the machine into a hallway outlet, causing the cord to cross the hall. The Director of Housekeeping confirmed that staff had previously been in-serviced on this policy, and the housekeeper involved had attended the training. The failure to follow facility policy and ensure the hallway was free from environmental hazards directly led to the resident's fall and injury.
Failure to Provide Required Two-Person Assistance for Bed Mobility
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when a resident with severe cognitive impairment, dementia, osteoarthritis, and osteoporosis, who required total assistance for activities of daily living (ADLs), did not receive care in accordance with their established care plan. The resident's care plan and aide care card/Kardex both specified that two staff members were required to assist with bed mobility. Despite this directive, a nurse aide provided care and repositioned the resident alone during an overnight shift, as there was only one aide assigned to the unit at that time. The nurse aide was aware of the two-person assist requirement but proceeded without additional help. Subsequently, the resident was observed with facial grimacing and later diagnosed with a right shoulder dislocation. Facility documentation and interviews confirmed that the required two-person assistance was not provided during the relevant shift, and the LPN on duty did not assist or receive reports of pain from the aide. The facility's policy required the care plan to describe the services to be furnished, but the care plan was not followed, resulting in the resident not receiving the level of assistance specified.
Failure to Prevent Resident-to-Resident Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect residents from physical mistreatment, as evidenced by incidents involving Resident #76 and Resident #122. Resident #76, who was severely cognitively impaired and diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease and anxiety disorder, was hit in the back by Resident #139 while both were ambulating in the hallway. Resident #139, who had a history of aggressive behavior and was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease, depression, and aphasia, was observed to be agitated and throwing objects prior to the incident. Despite being redirected by staff, Resident #139 managed to hit Resident #76, indicating a lapse in supervision and intervention. In another incident, Resident #122, who was severely cognitively impaired and diagnosed with dementia, anxiety, and depression, was physically abused by Resident #10. Resident #122 was bitten on the forearm by Resident #10 after holding onto Resident #10's wheelchair. Later, Resident #122 was knocked down by Resident #10, resulting in a bruise. Resident #10, diagnosed with dementia, schizoaffective disorder, and impulse disorder, was known to express frustration with other residents and had previously bitten Resident #122. The facility's failure to effectively supervise and redirect Resident #122, who exhibited wandering behaviors, contributed to these altercations. The facility's policies and procedures were insufficient in preventing these incidents of resident-to-resident abuse. Staff interviews revealed that Resident #139 and Resident #10 had histories of aggressive behavior, yet interventions to manage their behaviors were inadequate. The Director of Nursing Services acknowledged the challenges in redirecting Resident #139 and the ineffectiveness of stop signs in preventing Resident #122 from entering other residents' rooms. These deficiencies highlight the facility's failure to ensure a safe environment for its residents, free from abuse and mistreatment.
Failure to Update Care Plan for Pressure Ulcer
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to update the care plan for a resident with a pressure ulcer when there was a change in the wound's status. The resident, who was severely cognitively impaired, was admitted with a stage 3 pressure ulcer on the sacral region. The wound was initially assessed as unstageable due to necrosis and was debrided by a consulting wound physician. Subsequent evaluations revealed that the wound deteriorated to a stage 4 pressure ulcer. Despite these changes, the care plan was not updated to reflect the new status of the wound. The care plan, initiated after the wound was confirmed as stage 4, incorrectly indicated that the pressure ulcer was present on admission. Interviews with facility staff, including the ADNS and RN responsible for MDS assessments, confirmed that the wound had deteriorated from stage 3 to stage 4 after admission, making it a facility-acquired pressure ulcer. The failure to update the care plan to reflect the accurate status of the wound represents a deficiency in the facility's care planning process.
Failure to Provide Adaptive Equipment at Mealtime
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adaptive equipment at mealtime for a resident diagnosed with dementia, muscle weakness, and Alzheimer's disease. The resident was identified as severely cognitively impaired and required supervision with transfers and bed mobility but was independent with eating when provided with adaptive equipment. The care plan specified the use of a Kennedy cup to assist the resident in feeding themselves, which was also noted in the dietician's assessment and the meal ticket. On a specific observation date, the resident was found drinking from a regular cup instead of the prescribed Kennedy cup. Interviews with the nursing assistant and the Director of Dietary revealed that the kitchen was responsible for providing adaptive equipment, but the Kennedy cup was not included on the resident's tray. The following day, after inquiry by the surveyor, the resident was provided with the Kennedy cup. The facility's policy directed nursing staff to ensure assistive devices were available as needed, which was not adhered to in this instance.
Deficiencies in Medication Monitoring, Assistive Device Application, and Edema Management
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to monitor the behaviors associated with psychotropic medications for a resident diagnosed with major depressive disorder, history of suicidal ideation, and cerebral vascular disease. The care plan required behavior monitoring, but there were omissions in documentation on specific shifts, and psychotropic medications were administered without documented behaviors. Interviews revealed that the nursing staff did not document behaviors prior to administering medications, contrary to the facility's policy. Another deficiency involved a resident with polyosteoarthritis and dementia, who had a physician's order for a knee brace. Observations showed the resident was not wearing the knee brace on multiple occasions, and interviews indicated the resident frequently removed it. The care plan did not reflect the resident's refusal to wear the brace, and the order was not properly documented in the facility's system, leading to a lack of application. The facility also failed to manage edema for a resident with localized edema and hypertension. The resident was observed without Ace wraps on multiple occasions, despite physician orders to apply them daily. Nursing staff did not apply the wraps due to a lack of supplies and assistance, and there was no documentation of refusals or rationale for not applying the wraps. The Director of Nursing Services expected the staff to follow physician orders, but the task was not completed.
Inadequate Supervision During Dining
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate supervision during dining for six residents, all of whom had varying degrees of cognitive impairment and required assistance with eating. Observations revealed that these residents were left unsupervised in the dining room while still eating, contrary to their care plans which specified the need for supervision and assistance. For instance, Resident #9, who was severely cognitively impaired and required supervision for eating, was left alone with food items on the table. Similarly, Resident #116, who needed extensive assistance for eating, was observed holding a bowl of food without staff presence. The lack of supervision was confirmed by staff interviews, where an LPN assigned to supervise the dining room admitted to leaving the area to administer medications, leaving residents unattended. The ADNS acknowledged that residents should not have been left alone and mentioned a rotating schedule for supervising the dining room, which was not adhered to in this instance. The absence of staff during dining posed a risk to residents who required assistance, as evidenced by Resident #116's statement about needing to yell for help in an emergency.
Deficiencies in Staff Competencies for IV Therapy and LAL Mattress Use
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that nursing staff had current competencies for the provision of Intravenous Therapy (IV) and the use of Low Air Loss (LAL) mattresses. A review of staff competencies revealed that 17 out of 47 licensed staff members did not have documented competencies for IV therapy. The Assistant Director of Nursing Services (ADNS) confirmed that competencies for IV therapy were reviewed with staff only when a resident was prescribed IV therapy, despite the facility's policy requiring these competencies to be completed upon hire and annually. Additionally, the facility did not ensure that staff were trained in the use, settings, and maintenance of LAL mattresses, as evidenced by the case of a resident with a stage 4 pressure ulcer. The resident's care plan required the LAL mattress to be set according to the resident's weight, which was 80 pounds. However, observations showed the mattress was incorrectly set at 260 pounds. Interviews with staff revealed confusion regarding the correct settings, and the ADNS admitted there was no in-service training or facility policy on the specific LAL mattress used. Manufacturer guidelines contradicted the care plan instructions, leading to further confusion among staff.
Failure to Serve Correct Diet to Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that food was served in the correct form for a resident on a mechanically altered diet. The resident, who had diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, dysphagia, and hypertension, was prescribed a regular diet with chopped texture and thin consistency. Despite this, during a lunch meal observation, the resident was served a dinner roll, which was not allowed on a chopped diet. The resident's care plan and dietary guidelines clearly indicated the need for a chopped diet, yet the dietary staff did not adhere to these requirements. Interviews with staff revealed a lack of understanding and communication regarding dietary restrictions. A nursing assistant admitted to not knowing which foods were allowed on a chopped diet and assumed the food on the tray was correct. The Food Service Director acknowledged that a dinner roll was not appropriate for a chopped diet and was unsure why the resident received incorrect food items. The Speech Language Pathologist confirmed that a dinner roll should not have been served and expected staff to be aware of dietary needs. The facility's policy required food trays to be inspected to ensure correct meals were provided, but this was not effectively implemented.
Failure to Honor Resident's Food Preferences
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to honor a resident's food preference, as observed during a dining review. Resident #90, who has diagnoses including dementia, hypertension, and muscle weakness, was identified as severely cognitively impaired but independent with eating. The resident's care plan included providing food and beverage choices, and a physician's order specified a regular diet with regular texture. However, during an observation, the resident was served an egg salad sandwich and macaroni salad instead of the assorted cold cereals indicated on their lunch ticket. Interviews with staff revealed that Nurse Aides served dietary trays as they were received from the kitchen without verifying the meal against the ticket. The Director of Dietary stated that a staff member is responsible for ensuring meals meet dietary restrictions and preferences before being placed on meal trucks. Despite this, the facility's Food and Nutrition Services policy, which requires inspection of food trays to ensure correct meals are provided, was not followed. The Nutrition Assessments policy also mandates interviews with residents or families to assess food preferences, which was not adhered to in this instance.
Infection Control Deficiency During Wound Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adhere to proper infection prevention and control procedures during wound care for a resident with a stage 4 pressure ulcer on the sacral region. The resident, who was severely cognitively impaired, was observed receiving wound care where the charge nurse, an LPN, placed the old dressing on the resident's top sheet before discarding it into a trash bag. The LPN then handled the resident's wound supply bag with dirty gloves, prompting the unit manager, an RN, to instruct the LPN to wash hands and apply new gloves. Despite this intervention, the LPN placed the trash bag on a television stand on top of an open nonsterile package of 4x4 dressings before washing hands. Additionally, the facility did not follow enhanced barrier precautions as required for the resident. The ADNS/IP/wound nurse noted that a gown should have been worn during the procedure, but the staff did not see the sign indicating enhanced barrier precautions outside the resident's door. The PPE carts were located in the hall, shared among residents requiring PPE, but no cart was outside the room. The facility's policy on hand hygiene and enhanced barrier precautions was not followed, as gowns and gloves were not immediately available near the resident's room, and the staff was unaware of the need for a gown during the procedure.
Failure to Provide Homelike Dining Environment in Memory Unit
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide a homelike environment for residents in the memory unit during meal times. Observations on multiple occasions revealed that 30 residents were served their lunch meals on dietary trays. This practice was intended to act as a barrier to prevent residents from taking food from others, as confirmed by an interview with the Administrator.
Failure to Maintain Resident Dignity Due to Unprofessional Staff Comments
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that staff comments within the hearing of a resident were respectful, which led to a deficiency in honoring the resident's right to a dignified existence. The incident involved a resident with severe cognitive impairment and dementia, who was admitted with diagnoses including loss of movement on both sides of the body after a stroke. The resident's care plan included interventions to explain procedures clearly and slowly, using short phrases that required yes or no answers. However, a grievance was filed by the resident's conservator after observing a video where a medical doctor (MD) made an inappropriate comment in the resident's room. The comment was related to a sign about camera usage and potential staff discipline, and although it was not directed at the resident, it was deemed unprofessional. The incident occurred when the MD noticed a sign in the resident's room that mentioned disciplinary actions for staff if the camera was obstructed. The MD found the sign offensive and made a comment to a vendor outside the room, questioning whether the discipline would involve a thrashing or spanking. This comment was overheard by staff who laughed, and although the MD provided care to the resident afterward without any noted unusual behaviors, the comment was considered unprofessional and inappropriate for the setting. The facility's policy on resident rights emphasizes the importance of treating residents with respect and dignity, which was not upheld in this instance.
Verbal Abuse Incident Involving Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect Resident #2 from verbal abuse by a nursing assistant (NA #1). Resident #2, who was admitted with anxiety and major depression, reported an incident where NA #1 accused them of being a troublemaker and making up stories. This incident occurred after a disagreement about a linen hamper and was witnessed by another staff member, LPN #1. The facility's investigation confirmed that NA #1 made disparaging remarks to Resident #2, which constituted verbal abuse as defined by the facility's policy. The facility's investigation revealed that NA #1 had a confrontation with Resident #2, during which NA #1 accused the resident of lying and causing trouble. This interaction was distressing for Resident #2, who was already identified as at risk for mood disturbances due to their mental health conditions. The facility's policy on abuse, neglect, and misappropriation clearly defines verbal abuse as the use of language that includes disparaging and derogatory terms, which NA #1's actions met. As a result of the investigation, NA #1's employment was terminated.
What surveyors are citing around you — mapped
All 10 risk areas, ranked with evidence
Repeat citations, what's rising near you, and quality measures — ranked so department heads know exactly where to look first.
Illustrative
What surveyors actually found near you
We read the 508 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 7 immediate-jeopardy cases — and tell you exactly what happened, in plain English, matched to your record.
Resident with a documented fall history left unattended on the patio; found on the ground with a hip fracture.
Walk-in cooler logs missing for 12 days; expired supplements in the medication room fridge.
Illustrative
A prioritized, do-first checklist
Every risk area becomes concrete audit steps drawn from real citations at facilities like yours — run them this week, before your window opens.
Illustrative
Risk indicators are statistical estimates from public CMS data — not predictions, findings, or compliance advice.
Nursing homes near Windsor
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Complete Care At Kimberly Hall-south | 0 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| Seabury | 2.1 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| Touchpoints At Bloomfield | 2.2 mi | — | 19 | 0 |
| Autumn Lake Healthcare At Windsor | 2.2 mi | — | 48 | 0 |
| Bloomfield Center For Nursing & Rehabilitation | 2.6 mi | — | 2 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Complete Care At Kimberly Hall North.
100% money-back within 48 hours.
Trusted data, never guesswork. Every citation, penalty, rating and Plan of Correction on this page is sourced from public CMS records (latest release August 2026) and official state health department websites.