Bay Terrace Rehabilitation And Health Center
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Dover, Delaware.
- Location
- 889 South Little Creek Road, Dover, Delaware 19901
- CMS Provider Number
- 085019
- Inspections on file
- 19
- Latest survey
- April 23, 2026
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 4 (1 serious)
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Bay Terrace Rehabilitation And Health Center during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident reported an allegation of physical abuse by a CNA during the night shift, which was documented in the clinical record. Facility policy required that all alleged violations be reported to the Administrator, state agency, APS, and other required agencies immediately but no later than two hours after the allegation. Instead, the allegation was reported to the state agency approximately nine hours after it was made. An RN acknowledged not reporting the allegation right away and waiting for the day shift, and the DON confirmed that the reporting timeframe was not followed.
A resident with dementia and a care plan for false accusations alleged physical abuse by a CNA. Facility policy required staffing or room changes to protect residents from an alleged perpetrator, but the CNA remained on duty providing care to other residents for the rest of the shift. An LPN and an RN confirmed that the CNA continued working with residents, with the CNA only being stopped from caring for the accusing resident’s room, resulting in a failure to fully implement the abuse protection policy.
A resident with CHF and kidney disease requiring dialysis was admitted and assessed as having congestive heart failure, but the baseline care plan lacked CHF-related interventions and there was no timely physician order for fluid restriction despite a nutrition assessment referencing a 1500 mL limit. A physician note identified the resident as high risk for rehospitalization and called for strict I&O and daily weights, yet a formal fluid restriction order was not entered until several days later, only after the responsible party requested it. The next day, the resident was sent to the hospital from dialysis for chest pain and shortness of breath. In interviews, the MD, RN, and DON all confirmed the resident should have been placed on fluid restriction and monitoring upon admission and that this was not done in a timely manner.
A resident with significant upper extremity weakness and recent surgery was discharged home to a multi-story residence without confirmed DME delivery, home health services, or caregiver support. Although referrals for home health, skilled nursing, and DME were made and family attended a discharge care plan meeting, staff did not verify that services were active, did not set or confirm a start-of-care date with the agency, and did not confirm delivery of a hospital bed. The resident, who lived alone and could not manage fine motor tasks, arrived home without in-home assistance, reported difficulty with eating and self-care, and was later found by an HHA RN in unsafe conditions, unable to access food or medications, leading to emergency transport back to the hospital.
A resident with multiple chronic conditions did not receive appropriate bowel management after several days without a bowel movement, resulting in the need for fecal disimpaction during hospitalization. The facility also failed to obtain ordered STAT labs, provide nebulizer treatments due to lack of equipment, and secure IV access for fluids. Additionally, supplemental oxygen was administered and titrated without a corresponding physician order, and required documentation and reports were missing.
A resident with significant medical needs, whose care plan specified a preference for showers on certain days, was only provided bed baths throughout the month. Despite documentation of the resident's preference and total dependence on staff for bathing, CNAs consistently recorded that only bed baths were given, and no showers were provided as preferred.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment was admitted with an advanced directive specifying DNR status, but facility staff initially documented her as Full Code. Despite the resident's daughter providing updated DNR documentation, the change was not effectively communicated to providers, resulting in multiple provider encounters listing the resident as Full Code. During a medical emergency, staff were unable to promptly confirm the resident's code status, leading to confusion among EMS and facility staff.
A resident who was fully dependent on staff for activities of daily living did not receive adequate grooming and oral hygiene, as evidenced by poor physical condition upon hospital admission, including dirty linens, unclean catheter site, and poor oral care. Staff interviews revealed confusion and lack of access to functional shower beds, contributing to the failure to maintain the resident's hygiene.
Failure to Timely Report Allegation of Staff-to-Resident Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure immediate reporting of an allegation of staff-to-resident physical abuse in accordance with its abuse policy and regulatory time frames. The facility’s abuse policy, last updated January 2026, required that all alleged violations be reported to the Administrator, state agency, adult protective services, and other required agencies immediately but no later than two hours after the allegation is made. On 6/12/25 at 3:31 AM, an incident note in the clinical record documented that resident R83 alleged physical abuse by a CNA (E8). However, the allegation was not reported to the State Agency until 11:21 AM the same day, approximately nine hours after the allegation was made, exceeding the required reporting timeframe. During an interview on 4/23/26 at 11:06 AM, an RN (E6) confirmed that the allegation was not immediately reported and stated that the DON later informed her it should have been reported right away rather than waiting for day shift. In a separate interview at 11:14 AM, the DON (E2) confirmed these findings. The deficiency centers on the delayed reporting of the abuse allegation to the State Agency despite clear policy requirements for immediate notification. The survey findings were reviewed with the Nursing Home Administrator (E1), the DON (E2), and others at the exit conference on 4/23/26 at 3:00 PM.
Failure to Remove Accused Staff From Resident Care After Abuse Allegation
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to protect a resident from further potential abuse by not immediately removing an accused staff member from resident care following an allegation of physical abuse. The facility’s abuse policy, updated January 2026, states that room or staffing changes are to be made as necessary to protect residents from the alleged perpetrator. On 6/12/25 at 11:21 AM, the facility reported an allegation of staff-to-resident physical abuse involving resident R83 and CNA E8. Record review of E8’s timesheet showed that after this allegation, E8 remained in the facility working with residents until 7:05 AM. During interview, LPN E7, who was assigned to R83’s unit at the time, confirmed that E8 continued caring for residents after R83’s accusation and stated that R83 had dementia and a care plan for false accusations, and that E8 was only stopped from caring for R83’s room for the rest of the shift. RN E6 also confirmed that E8 continued caring for residents after the allegation and stated that she instructed E8 to care for other patients. These findings were reviewed with the NHA (E1) and DON (E2) during the exit conference. The resident involved, R83, had dementia and a documented care plan for false accusations, which influenced staff’s decision to limit E8’s contact only with R83 rather than removing E8 from all resident care. Despite the facility’s written policy requiring protective staffing or room changes to safeguard residents from an alleged perpetrator, E8 remained on duty providing care to other residents for the remainder of the shift after the allegation of physical abuse was made.
Failure to Implement Timely Fluid Restriction and Monitoring for Resident With CHF and Dialysis
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide appropriate care and monitoring consistent with professional standards of practice for a resident admitted with congestive heart failure and kidney disease requiring dialysis. The resident was hospitalized for multiple conditions, including heart failure, and then admitted to the facility with diagnoses of congestive heart failure and kidney disease. An admission assessment by an RN documented congestive heart failure, but the baseline care plan did not include any interventions related to this diagnosis. A nutrition assessment documented that the resident was on a therapeutic meal plan with a 1500 mL fluid restriction and indicated ongoing monitoring of oral intake, weight, skin integrity, and labs, yet the physician’s orders and dietary intake records did not contain an order for fluid restriction. A physician progress note documented that the resident had multiple complex comorbidities, including heart failure, and was at high risk for rehospitalization without proper care, specifying a plan for strict intake and output and daily weights. An admission MDS later confirmed that the resident was cognitively intact, experiencing shortness of breath, and had an active diagnosis of heart failure. A physician’s order for a 1500 mL fluid restriction was not written until several days after admission, at the request of the resident’s responsible party. The following day, nursing documentation showed the resident was sent to the hospital from dialysis for chest pain and shortness of breath. In interviews, the MD, the admitting RN, and the DON all confirmed that the resident should have been placed on a fluid restriction and monitoring upon admission, and the DON acknowledged that the fluid restriction order was not implemented in a timely manner.
Failure to Ensure Safe Discharge with Confirmed Home Services and Support
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure that a resident’s discharge home included confirmed durable medical equipment (DME), home health services, and adequate caregiver support. The resident was admitted with spinal stenosis, cervical disc disorder, muscle weakness, carpal tunnel syndrome, and a recent post-fasciotomy to the right arm, and was documented as cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 14/15. Despite these physical limitations, the facility discharged the resident home in the evening via medical transport to a three-story residence, where no caregiver support was present. The facility’s own policy required a post-discharge plan of care developed with the resident and representative, and orientation to ensure a safe and orderly transfer or discharge, but the record lacked evidence that services were confirmed as in place prior to discharge. Prior to discharge, the social worker documented that the resident would have a safe discharge home with services and supports in place, and that referrals for home health care, skilled nursing services, and DME had been made, with family members in attendance at the discharge care plan. However, the clinical record did not contain confirmation that these services were actually arranged and active before the resident left the facility. The resident was discharged with medications called to the pharmacy for home delivery, but there was no documentation that the hospital bed had been delivered or that home health nursing, therapy, or home health aide services were scheduled to start at the time of discharge. The social worker later acknowledged not informing the agency of a specific start-of-care date, assuming the agency and VA would contact the resident, and confirmed not calling to verify delivery of the hospital bed. After discharge, it was discovered that the hospital bed ordered days earlier was not delivered until the morning after the resident arrived home, and that therapy, RN, and HHA services had not yet begun or contacted the resident by the time the facility followed up. The resident reported living alone, being unable to use their hands, needing a caretaker, and having to rely on a sister-in-law for limited assistance with hygiene, meals, and rearranging furniture for the bed that arrived later. The significant other confirmed that no one lived with the resident, that they had their own health issues, and that neither they nor their son stayed with the resident after discharge. When a home health RN eventually visited, the resident was found sitting on a couch in minimal clothing, reporting not having eaten adequately for two days, having little or no accessible food, and being unable to open medications or bottles due to impaired fine motor skills. The RN observed the resident’s inability to grip or perform fine motor tasks, assisted with toileting, and then contacted the agency director and emergency services due to the unsafe conditions in which the resident had been left. These events led surveyors to determine that the facility failed to ensure services and caregiver support were in place prior to discharge, resulting in an immediate jeopardy situation.
Removal Plan
- Audited discharge documentation related to home health services, appropriate caregiver/family support, and any necessary services to meet residents' care needs to determine if any residents were affected.
- Reviewed planned discharges by the Administrator, DON, Director of Social Services, and Director of Rehabilitation to ensure home health services, appropriate caregiver/family support, and necessary services to meet the resident's care needs are in place before discharge.
- Completed a root cause analysis identifying failure to have a robust discharge care plan meeting with the interdisciplinary team (IDT), resident, and resident representative.
- Reviewed the procedure for safe and effective discharge planning with the IDT.
- Re-educated the discharge planning IDT on the discharge policy and procedure to ensure sufficient preparation and orientation for a safe discharge.
- Implemented review of residents scheduled to be discharged to ensure appropriate discharge planning is in place.
- Implemented review of residents scheduled for discharge to ensure ADL support is in place, durable medical equipment is available prior to or on the discharge date, medications are available upon discharge, and identified needs/support are available.
- Implemented review of residents scheduled for discharge to ensure safe discharge planning is in place and to address any issues identified.
- Implemented oversight during utilization review by the NHA/designee to ensure discharge planning preparation and services are in place prior to discharge.
- Initiated audits and educational in-services to the IDT team and conducted staff interviews to confirm education received regarding discharge to the community and/or transfers to other facilities.
Failure to Provide Bowel Management, Timely Labs, and Ordered Treatments
Penalty
Summary
A resident with a history of diabetes, stroke with left-sided weakness, constipation, dementia, and a PEG feeding tube was admitted to the facility and was on a bowel protocol and prescribed daily laxatives. Despite this, the facility failed to initiate the bowel protocol after the resident went three days without a bowel movement, as required by facility policy. There was no documentation of additional bowel or laxative medication being ordered or administered after nine shifts without a bowel movement, and nursing notes lacked evidence of abdominal assessment or bowel sound documentation during this period. The resident ultimately required a fecal disimpaction procedure during a subsequent hospitalization, with hospital records confirming a large fecal stool burden and moderate fecal retention. In addition to the failure to manage the resident's bowel function, the facility did not obtain ordered blood work in a timely manner. Although STAT labs were ordered, there was no evidence that the facility had a plan to obtain the labs after initial attempts were unsuccessful, and the contracted laboratory was unable to obtain the samples. The facility also failed to provide a nebulizer treatment as ordered due to the unavailability of a nebulizer machine, resulting in missed doses of prescribed medication. Documentation showed that the facility did not have a plan to address the lack of equipment necessary to administer the ordered treatment. Furthermore, the facility failed to obtain peripheral intravenous access for the administration of ordered IV fluids and did not enter a supplemental oxygen order from the time oxygen was initiated during a respiratory crisis until the resident was transferred to the hospital. During this period, the resident's supplemental oxygen was titrated without a corresponding physician order in the medical record. The facility was also unable to provide evidence of required documentation and reports related to bowel management and clinical meetings, particularly over the weekend when the protocol should have been triggered.
Failure to Honor Resident's Shower Preference for Personal Hygiene
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency was identified when a resident with multiple medical conditions, including diabetes, stroke with left-sided weakness, dementia, and a PEG feeding tube, did not receive personal hygiene services in accordance with their stated preferences. The resident, who is nonverbal, had their spouse respond to the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, indicating that it was very important for the resident to choose between a tub bath, shower, bed bath, or sponge bath. The resident's care plan specified a preference for showers on Sundays and Thursdays during the evening shift, with bed baths on other days unless otherwise specified. Despite this documented preference, review of the resident's care records for the entire month of November showed that the resident was only provided bed baths on all scheduled shower days. Documentation by multiple CNAs consistently indicated that the resident, who was totally dependent and required assistance from one or more staff, did not receive a shower at any point during the month. The findings were reviewed with facility leadership during the exit conference.
Failure to Document and Communicate Resident's Code Status Change
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when the facility failed to have a process for documenting and communicating a resident's code status decision to staff and providers. The resident, who had a history of dementia and a severe cognitive impairment as indicated by a low BIMS score, was admitted with an advanced directive specifying Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) status. Despite this, upon admission, facility staff had the resident complete a resuscitation policy form marking her as Full Code, and this was entered into the electronic medical record (EMR). The resident's daughter, who was the power of attorney (POA), later provided the advanced directive and completed a facility form indicating DNR, but this change was not effectively communicated to the providers responsible for the resident's care. Throughout the resident's stay, multiple provider notes and orders continued to list the resident as Full Code, even after the DNR documentation was uploaded into the EMR. There were at least twelve provider encounters, many with the daughter/POA present, where the code status could have been clarified, but the providers were not notified of the updated DNR status. The facility's process for handling code status orders was inconsistent, with responsibilities shifting between guest services, nursing, and social work, and there was no clear mechanism to ensure that changes in code status were communicated to all relevant staff and providers. The lack of communication and documentation led to confusion among staff and emergency medical services (EMS) regarding the resident's code status during a medical emergency. When EMS arrived, the nurse was unsure of the resident's code status and was unable to immediately provide the correct documentation. The resident was wearing a hospital DNR wristband, but the facility's records still indicated Full Code. This confusion persisted until EMS was eventually provided with the correct DNR documentation signed by the daughter. Interviews with staff and the resident's family confirmed that the facility did not have a reliable process to ensure that the resident's wishes regarding life-sustaining treatment were consistently documented and communicated.
Failure to Provide Adequate Hygiene and Grooming for Dependent Resident
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency was identified when a resident, who was dependent on staff for all activities of daily living due to multiple medical conditions including diabetes, stroke with left-sided weakness, dementia, a PEG feeding tube, and a suprapubic catheter, did not receive adequate grooming and oral hygiene care. Documentation in the resident's clinical record and Minimum Data Set (MDS) indicated complete dependence on staff for oral hygiene, bathing, and personal hygiene. Despite this, photographic evidence taken upon the resident's hospital admission showed poor hygiene, including crusty, dark debris around the suprapubic catheter, greasy hair, stained linens, cracked and flaking lips, a tongue with dry white patches, and teeth with plaque buildup. The resident's back was also observed to have hyperpigmented, scaly, and rough skin patches consistent with poor hygiene. Interviews with facility staff revealed confusion and lack of awareness regarding the availability and functionality of shower beds necessary for bedbound residents. Some staff stated that shower beds were unavailable, broken, or could not fit into the shower rooms due to structural barriers, while others noted drainage issues when using the available equipment. The nurse practitioner confirmed that the resident was not being properly cleaned, as the skin condition observed should have been removable with basic hygiene measures. These findings demonstrate that the facility failed to provide the necessary services to maintain the resident's grooming and oral hygiene.
Latest citations in Delaware
Three residents who were dependent on staff for bed mobility and transfers did not receive adequate supervision and safe handling during care and transfers, resulting in serious injuries. A resident who was totally dependent for bed mobility slid from the bed to the floor while a CNA focused on gathering supplies during care, later being found to have an ankle fracture. Another resident with a prior brain bleed, craniotomy, and left-sided paralysis, requiring a mechanical lift with two staff, sustained a head injury when a Hoyer lift was improperly positioned or controlled during transfer from a shower bed to a wheelchair, causing the lift bar to strike the top of the head and leading to ongoing head and neck pain. A third resident needing extensive assistance fell between a shower bed and her regular bed when a CNA attempted to transfer her without locking the shower bed wheels, resulting in acute L2–L3 compression fractures confirmed by CT.
A resident who required set-up assistance for eating spilled coffee onto bare upper thighs while being prepared for morning care, initially resulting in nonblanchable redness with intact skin and no reported pain. During later incontinence care, staff identified a broken blister on the resident’s right upper thigh, cleansed the area, and applied skin prep, but did not notify the MD until more than a day after the blister was first noted. An NP confirmed that although she had been informed of the coffee spill itself, there was no documentation that the subsequent change in skin condition had been communicated to a provider, resulting in a failure to promptly notify the on-call provider of the new skin alteration.
A resident with significant neurologic impairment and multiple contractures slid from bed and was assisted to the floor during the night shift, but an RN did not complete the initial post-fall assessment until the following day shift. An LPN documented that the resident was seated after the event, denied pain, had ROM and VS assessed, and was assisted back to bed with a CNA. The DON later reported that the CNA and LPN did not report the event as a fall because the resident was assisted down, and the LPN stated she relied on the CNA’s account when completing the incident report and was unsure if the RN had been notified.
A resident reported an allegation of physical abuse by a CNA during the night shift, which was documented in the clinical record. Facility policy required that all alleged violations be reported to the Administrator, state agency, APS, and other required agencies immediately but no later than two hours after the allegation. Instead, the allegation was reported to the state agency approximately nine hours after it was made. An RN acknowledged not reporting the allegation right away and waiting for the day shift, and the DON confirmed that the reporting timeframe was not followed.
A resident with dementia and a care plan for false accusations alleged physical abuse by a CNA. Facility policy required staffing or room changes to protect residents from an alleged perpetrator, but the CNA remained on duty providing care to other residents for the rest of the shift. An LPN and an RN confirmed that the CNA continued working with residents, with the CNA only being stopped from caring for the accusing resident’s room, resulting in a failure to fully implement the abuse protection policy.
A resident with CHF and kidney disease requiring dialysis was admitted and assessed as having congestive heart failure, but the baseline care plan lacked CHF-related interventions and there was no timely physician order for fluid restriction despite a nutrition assessment referencing a 1500 mL limit. A physician note identified the resident as high risk for rehospitalization and called for strict I&O and daily weights, yet a formal fluid restriction order was not entered until several days later, only after the responsible party requested it. The next day, the resident was sent to the hospital from dialysis for chest pain and shortness of breath. In interviews, the MD, RN, and DON all confirmed the resident should have been placed on fluid restriction and monitoring upon admission and that this was not done in a timely manner.
Surveyors found that dietary staff repeatedly failed to wear required hair and beard restraints while preparing food, washing dishes, and serving meals, and the Dietary Manager acknowledged that restraints should be worn at all times but that the facility had run out of them. These unsanitary practices occurred during routine kitchen operations and affected nearly all residents who received meals from the kitchen, with only two residents receiving nutrition via feeding tubes.
Surveyors found that medication carts were left unlocked and unattended in two separate locations. One cart on a hall outside a resident room was left unlocked while an LPN was inside the room with the privacy curtain pulled and unable to see the cart, with only a CNA present further down the hall. Another cart at the nurses’ station, shared by nurses on two halls, remained unlocked while the ADON walked past it twice and then left the area, leaving no one at the station until returning several minutes later to lock it. Facility policy required all medication and treatment carts to be locked when not in use and not left unattended while unlocked.
The facility did not provide required written information on advance directives and the right to accept or refuse medical and surgical treatment to two residents, one cognitively intact and one with moderately impaired cognition, as confirmed by EMR review showing no such documentation. The SSD reported having no written materials explaining types of advance directives or any signature page confirming verbal explanations or resident understanding. The AD stated the admission packet only asked whether a resident had or wanted an advance directive and did not include written definitions or explanations. The Administrator acknowledged being unaware of regulatory requirements and of the facility policy, which states that residents have the right to formulate an advance directive and to accept or refuse treatment, and that written information must be provided in an easily understood manner.
A cognitively intact resident with mild cognitive impairment reported to her son that a male CNA entered her room at night to provide incontinent care, which she refused, and that he returned and made an inappropriate sexualized remark when she again refused care. The son called the facility to report the concern, and the Admissions Director stated she immediately informed the DON, in line with protocol to notify leadership of abuse-related grievances. However, the DON reported she did not recall receiving the grievance and only became aware of the allegation when law enforcement arrived several days later after receiving a family complaint. The DON confirmed that the SSA was not notified of the abuse allegation until four days after the initial grievance, despite facility policy and leadership acknowledging that alleged abuse must be reported to the SSA within two hours.
Failure to Provide Adequate Supervision and Safe Transfers Resulting in Resident Injuries
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure adequate assistance and supervision to prevent accidents for three residents who were dependent on staff for mobility and transfers. One resident with anoxic brain injury, multiple contractures, abnormal posture, and idiopathic progressive neuropathy was documented on multiple MDS assessments as requiring substantial/maximal assistance for bed mobility and was described by nursing and therapy staff as totally dependent and unable to move or roll in bed without physical assistance. During nighttime care, a CNA entered the room in response to a call light, found that the resident had vomited, and focused on looking for towels while standing on one side of the bed. The CNA reported that the resident then began sliding off the opposite side of the bed; the CNA ran around the bed but was unable to prevent the resident from sliding off, and instead lowered the resident to the floor in a seated position. Subsequent imaging confirmed a stable right ankle fracture, and interviews with the NP, OT, LPN, and other CNAs confirmed that the resident was dependent for bed mobility and could not independently roll or slide out of bed, indicating that the resident did not receive the level of hands-on assistance and supervision consistent with their documented needs. A second resident with a history of brain bleed, seizure disorder, craniotomy, and left-sided paralysis had a care plan and therapy determination requiring a mechanical (Hoyer) lift with two staff for all transfers and was completely dependent on staff for bathing and transfers. During a transfer from a shower bed back to a wheelchair using a mechanical lift, the resident reported that the hooks of the lift were not properly attached to the bars, causing the front of the lift to become unbalanced and tilt backward, dropping the resident into the chair and allowing the lift bars to strike the top of the resident’s head at the craniotomy site. The resident stated that the lift was not moving when staff attempted to place him in the chair and that this type of incident had not occurred during prior showers, when he was typically returned to his room on the shower bed and transferred in bed. One CNA described that while assisting with the transfer, the lift appeared stuck and positioned sideways over the wheelchair; when she voiced concern and attempted to correct the position, the lift rose and the bar hit the resident’s head. The other CNA involved stated that as she operated the lift controls, the resident’s weight shifted, the lift tipped back, and the bar struck the top of his head. The physician documented a head strike from the Hoyer lift with subsequent head and neck pain, and the resident required repeated PRN pain medication for ongoing head and neck pain. A third resident with cerebral infarction and rheumatoid arthritis had orders and MDS documentation indicating a need for extensive to maximal assistance with bed mobility and dressing. After receiving a shower, this resident was brought back to the room on a shower bed. The facility’s incident report documented that the CNA lowered the side rail of the shower bed, pushed the shower bed against the resident’s bed, turned the resident on her side, removed the bath sheet, and began pushing the Hoyer pad underneath. During this process, the resident rolled and fell between the two beds to the floor, becoming very anxious and crying. A subsequent CT scan at the hospital revealed acute L2 and L3 vertebral compression fractures. In a later interview, the CNA acknowledged that she must have forgotten to lock the wheels on the shower bed before attempting the transfer, and described that when she rolled the resident to place the Hoyer pad, the shower bed separated from the resident’s bed, allowing the resident to fall between them. These events demonstrate that the resident did not receive adequate supervision and safe handling during the transfer process, despite her documented need for extensive assistance with mobility.
Failure to Timely Notify Provider of New Skin Blister After Coffee Spill
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to promptly notify a provider of a change in a resident’s skin condition following a coffee spill incident. The resident was admitted earlier in the month, and the admission MDS documented that the resident required set-up assistance for eating. On the morning of 3/30/26, a nurse documented that the resident placed a cup of coffee on the bed railing, and when he let go, the cup fell onto his lap, spilling hot coffee onto his bilateral upper thighs while he was not wearing pants and was about to receive morning care. At that time, the nurse documented nonblanchable redness on both upper thighs with all skin intact, and later that day a wound care RN documented that there was no scalded skin present and the resident denied pain. A late entry nurse’s note documented that during incontinence care on 3/31/26, a broken blister on the resident’s right upper thigh was identified, cleansed with saline, patted dry, and skin prep applied. Review of incident documentation showed that the physician was not notified of this blister until 4/1/26 at 8:38 AM, more than 24 hours after the blister was first identified. During interview, the NP stated she had been notified of the coffee spill on 3/30/26 but, upon reviewing the physician binder, confirmed there was no evidence that the change in skin condition noted on 3/31/26 had been communicated to a provider at that time. The facility therefore failed to notify the on-call provider when the resident experienced a change in skin condition after the coffee spill incident.
Failure to Obtain Timely RN Post-Fall Assessment After Assisted Descent to Floor
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that an RN performed and documented an initial post-fall assessment for a resident who slid off the bed and was lowered to the floor during the 11 PM–7 AM shift. The resident had significant medical conditions including anoxic brain injury, abnormal posture, multiple contractures of the upper and lower limbs, and idiopathic progressive neuropathy. A facility-reported incident documented that the resident sustained a fall with later complaint of ankle pain, with an X-ray obtained and results unclear, and a repeat film obtained two days later. The clinical record showed that the initial post-fall assessment was not completed by an RN until 8:34 AM on the 7 AM–3 PM shift by the ADON, and there was no evidence of an RN assessment during the overnight shift when the fall occurred. A witness summary completed by an LPN documented that the resident was in a seated position after the fall, denied pain, had range of motion assessed, denied pain again, had vital signs taken, and was assisted by a CNA back to bed. During interviews, the DON stated that the fall was not reported by the CNA and the LPN because they did not consider it a fall since the resident was assisted to the floor. In a phone interview, the LPN confirmed being called by the CNA about the fall, stated that care and an assessment were provided, and indicated uncertainty about whether the RN was notified, noting that the written incident report was based on what the CNA reported and that the LPN was not present at the time of the fall.
Failure to Timely Report Allegation of Staff-to-Resident Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure immediate reporting of an allegation of staff-to-resident physical abuse in accordance with its abuse policy and regulatory time frames. The facility’s abuse policy, last updated January 2026, required that all alleged violations be reported to the Administrator, state agency, adult protective services, and other required agencies immediately but no later than two hours after the allegation is made. On 6/12/25 at 3:31 AM, an incident note in the clinical record documented that resident R83 alleged physical abuse by a CNA (E8). However, the allegation was not reported to the State Agency until 11:21 AM the same day, approximately nine hours after the allegation was made, exceeding the required reporting timeframe. During an interview on 4/23/26 at 11:06 AM, an RN (E6) confirmed that the allegation was not immediately reported and stated that the DON later informed her it should have been reported right away rather than waiting for day shift. In a separate interview at 11:14 AM, the DON (E2) confirmed these findings. The deficiency centers on the delayed reporting of the abuse allegation to the State Agency despite clear policy requirements for immediate notification. The survey findings were reviewed with the Nursing Home Administrator (E1), the DON (E2), and others at the exit conference on 4/23/26 at 3:00 PM.
Failure to Remove Accused Staff From Resident Care After Abuse Allegation
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to protect a resident from further potential abuse by not immediately removing an accused staff member from resident care following an allegation of physical abuse. The facility’s abuse policy, updated January 2026, states that room or staffing changes are to be made as necessary to protect residents from the alleged perpetrator. On 6/12/25 at 11:21 AM, the facility reported an allegation of staff-to-resident physical abuse involving resident R83 and CNA E8. Record review of E8’s timesheet showed that after this allegation, E8 remained in the facility working with residents until 7:05 AM. During interview, LPN E7, who was assigned to R83’s unit at the time, confirmed that E8 continued caring for residents after R83’s accusation and stated that R83 had dementia and a care plan for false accusations, and that E8 was only stopped from caring for R83’s room for the rest of the shift. RN E6 also confirmed that E8 continued caring for residents after the allegation and stated that she instructed E8 to care for other patients. These findings were reviewed with the NHA (E1) and DON (E2) during the exit conference. The resident involved, R83, had dementia and a documented care plan for false accusations, which influenced staff’s decision to limit E8’s contact only with R83 rather than removing E8 from all resident care. Despite the facility’s written policy requiring protective staffing or room changes to safeguard residents from an alleged perpetrator, E8 remained on duty providing care to other residents for the remainder of the shift after the allegation of physical abuse was made.
Failure to Implement Timely Fluid Restriction and Monitoring for Resident With CHF and Dialysis
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide appropriate care and monitoring consistent with professional standards of practice for a resident admitted with congestive heart failure and kidney disease requiring dialysis. The resident was hospitalized for multiple conditions, including heart failure, and then admitted to the facility with diagnoses of congestive heart failure and kidney disease. An admission assessment by an RN documented congestive heart failure, but the baseline care plan did not include any interventions related to this diagnosis. A nutrition assessment documented that the resident was on a therapeutic meal plan with a 1500 mL fluid restriction and indicated ongoing monitoring of oral intake, weight, skin integrity, and labs, yet the physician’s orders and dietary intake records did not contain an order for fluid restriction. A physician progress note documented that the resident had multiple complex comorbidities, including heart failure, and was at high risk for rehospitalization without proper care, specifying a plan for strict intake and output and daily weights. An admission MDS later confirmed that the resident was cognitively intact, experiencing shortness of breath, and had an active diagnosis of heart failure. A physician’s order for a 1500 mL fluid restriction was not written until several days after admission, at the request of the resident’s responsible party. The following day, nursing documentation showed the resident was sent to the hospital from dialysis for chest pain and shortness of breath. In interviews, the MD, the admitting RN, and the DON all confirmed that the resident should have been placed on a fluid restriction and monitoring upon admission, and the DON acknowledged that the fluid restriction order was not implemented in a timely manner.
Failure to Ensure Dietary Staff Used Required Hair and Beard Restraints During Food Service
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves failure to maintain sanitary conditions in the kitchen, specifically related to staff not using required hair and beard restraints during food service activities. During an observation and interview with the Dietary Manager (DM) on 03/29/26 from 9:25 AM to 10:28 AM, two Dietary Aides (DA1 and DA2) were seen engaged in food preparation and dishwashing without wearing beard or hair restraints, which the DM confirmed. In a subsequent observation and interview with the DM on 03/31/26 from 8:55 AM to 11:36 AM during the meal serving line, DA1 and DA3 were again observed not wearing beard or hair restraints, and the DM stated that such restraints should be worn at all times and acknowledged the facility was out of beard/hair restraints. These conditions affected 78 residents who received meals from the kitchen, out of a total census of 80 residents, with 2 residents receiving nutrition via feeding tubes. The observations document that multiple dietary staff members repeatedly failed to use required protective restraints while handling food and dishes, and that the facility lacked an adequate supply of beard/hair restraints, as confirmed by the DM. The report specifies that this failure occurred during both food preparation and meal service times and applied to nearly all residents receiving meals from the kitchen.
Unattended, Unlocked Medication Carts Left Accessible in Two Locations
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to keep medication carts locked and secured when not in use, as required by facility policy and professional standards. During an early morning observation on 04/01/26 at 4:53 AM, a medication cart on the [NAME] Hall in front of room W102 was found unlocked while an LPN was inside the resident’s room with the privacy curtain pulled. The medication cart was not visible from inside the room, and the only other staff member in the area, a CNA, was further down the hall delivering linen to another room. At 4:59 AM, the LPN returned to the cart and locked it, confirming that it had been left unlocked and out of her line of sight. A second unsecured cart was observed on 04/01/26 at 5:56 AM at the nurses’ station, where the medication cart shared by nurses on the [NAME] and East Halls was left unlocked. The ADON walked past this unlocked cart twice and then left the nurses’ station to go down the East Hall at 6:00 AM, leaving the cart unattended and still unlocked. At 6:05 AM, the ADON returned and locked the cart. In an interview at that time, the ADON stated that it was the expectation that all medication and treatment carts be kept locked when not in use. Review of the facility’s “Storage of Medication” policy, revised November 2020, confirmed that compartments containing drugs and biologicals are to be locked when not in use and that unlocked carts should not be left unattended.
Failure to Provide Required Written Information on Advance Directives and Treatment Rights
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide written information regarding advance directives and the right to accept or refuse medical and surgical treatment to two residents reviewed for advance directives. One resident was admitted with hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebrovascular disease and major depressive disorder and had a BIMS score of 15/15, indicating intact cognition. Review of this resident’s EMR, including the admission record and MDS, showed no evidence that written information on advance directives had been provided. A second resident was re-admitted with heart failure, stage three chronic kidney disease, malignant neoplasm of the upper lobe of the left bronchus, and pain, and had a BIMS score of 12/15, indicating moderately impaired cognition. Review of this resident’s EMR also revealed no evidence that written information regarding advance directives had been provided. During interviews, the SSD stated she did not have any written information to provide residents about the distinct types of advance directives and that there was no signature page to indicate a verbal explanation was provided or that residents understood their right to accept or refuse medical and surgical treatments. The AD reported that the admission packet contained only one page asking if a resident had an advance directive or wished to formulate one, and that she did not have written information defining the types of advance directives to give residents on admission. The Administrator stated she was not aware of the regulatory guidance requiring written information on advance directives and the right to accept or refuse medical and surgical treatment, and was unaware that the facility’s own policy required this. The facility’s “Advanced Directives” policy, revised November 2025, stated that residents have the right to formulate an advance directive, including the right to accept or refuse medical or surgical treatment, and that written information must be provided in a manner easily understood by the resident or representative.
Failure to Timely Report Allegation of Sexual Abuse to SSA
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to timely report an allegation of sexual abuse to the State Survey Agency (SSA) within the required two-hour timeframe. A cognitively intact resident, admitted with cognitive communication deficit and mild cognitive impairment and having a BIMS score of 15/15, was the subject of an allegation reported by her son. On a grievance/concern form dated 09/18/25, the son reported that a male aide entered the resident’s room in the middle of the night stating he needed to check if she was wet; the resident refused, and the aide returned later, at which time the resident again refused. The facility’s investigation report dated 09/22/25 documented that the assigned CNA made an inappropriate verbal remark to the resident, stating, “you don’t know what you are missing,” when she refused incontinent care. An incident tracking form dated 09/22/25 at 8:21 PM showed that a police officer came to the facility and informed staff that they had received a complaint from the resident’s family alleging the resident had been spoken to in a manner that made her uncomfortable, and that the male staff assigned to her care made the same remark when she refused care. The Admissions Director stated she received the telephone call from the resident’s son on 09/18/25 describing the male staff entering the room, the resident’s refusals of care, and the uncomfortable comment, and that she immediately informed the DON of the concern, consistent with facility protocol to notify the Administrator and DON of all grievance and abuse concerns. The DON stated she did not remember receiving the grievance/concern form and reported that she first learned of the alleged abuse on 09/22/25 when a police officer came to the facility after receiving an allegation of abuse. The DON confirmed that the SSA was notified of the abuse allegation on 09/22/25, four days after the son’s grievance, and acknowledged that the SSA should have been notified on 09/18/25. The Administrator/Abuse Coordinator, who was out on leave at the time and unaware of the grievance, confirmed that alleged violations involving abuse should be reported to the SSA within two hours after the allegation is made. The facility’s written policy on abuse, neglect, exploitation, mistreatment, and misappropriation of property, dated 06/15/25, states that alleged violations involving abuse are to be reported to the SSA within two hours after the allegation is made, which did not occur in this case.
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.
