Arbor Walk Healthcare Center
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Greenville, Mississippi.
- Location
- 570 North Solomon Street, Greenville, Mississippi 38703
- CMS Provider Number
- 255219
- Inspections on file
- 22
- Latest survey
- January 12, 2026
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 2
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Arbor Walk Healthcare Center during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A cognitively intact male resident inappropriately touched a severely cognitively impaired female resident, including rubbing her thigh and side of her breast while visiting another resident in the same room. The female resident reported telling him to stop, and another cognitively impaired resident in the room reported witnessing the touching in the groin area. A CNA observed the male resident with his hand in the female resident’s brief and his mouth on her breast but did not immediately report the incident, and the ADM did not receive the allegation until several days later, resulting in a failure to protect the resident from sexual abuse and a delay in initiating an investigation.
A staff member engaged in a loud, profane verbal exchange with a resident in the dining room, witnessed by several staff members. The staff member responded to the resident's profanities with identical language, despite the resident's severe cognitive impairment and the facility's policy prohibiting verbal abuse.
Two residents experienced verbal abuse from nursing staff, including being yelled at and spoken to in a threatening or disrespectful manner when requesting pain medication or assistance with personal care. These incidents were witnessed by staff and reported by a resident's representative, indicating a failure to protect residents from abuse as required by policy.
A resident's diet was changed to pureed after a speech therapist identified swallowing difficulties and entered a new order. The resident's representative was not notified of this change and only became aware during a visit. Staff interviews confirmed that the notification did not occur, and the DON stated that the nurse confirming the order should have informed the representative.
The facility failed to notify the NP of significant weight loss in a resident and a change in condition in another. Despite the RD's recommendations and the Dietary Manager's notification to the DON, there was no documentation that the NP or physician was informed of the weight loss. Additionally, the NP was not notified of a resident's lethargy, which led to the holding of Ativan doses. Interviews confirmed the lack of communication and documentation.
A resident experienced significant weight loss due to the facility's failure to implement care plan interventions. Despite recommendations from the RD to adjust tube feeding, the care plan was not updated, leading to a decrease in weight from 172 lbs to 127.4 lbs. The DON confirmed the lack of intervention implementation.
A resident experienced significant weight loss due to the facility's failure to implement the Registered Dietitian's recommendations. Despite the RD's assessment and suggested changes to the resident's tube feeding regimen, the Director of Nursing did not communicate these recommendations to the physician or obtain necessary orders. As a result, the resident's weight continued to decline significantly over a 30-day period.
Failure to Protect Resident From Sexual Abuse and Delay in Reporting Incident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a resident’s right to remain free from sexual abuse when one cognitively intact male resident engaged in inappropriate physical contact with a severely cognitively impaired female resident. On the afternoon of 12/27/25, while visiting another resident in the same room, the male resident rubbed the female resident across her thigh and belly. The female resident, who had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 4 indicating severely impaired cognition and a diagnosis of schizophrenia, later reported that he rubbed her leg on the outside of her thigh and the side of her breast, and that she told him to stop, at which point he stopped and left the room. She denied any skin-to-skin contact. Another severely cognitively impaired resident in the room reported witnessing the male resident rubbing the female resident and pointed to her groin area. The male resident, who had a BIMS score of 15 indicating no cognitive deficits, acknowledged rubbing the female resident across the thigh and belly. The incident was not reported to facility administration at the time it occurred. A CNA observed the male resident in the female resident’s room with his hand in her brief and his mouth on her breast on the afternoon of 12/27/25 but did not immediately report this allegation of sexual abuse. The Administrator did not receive the allegation until 12/31/25 at approximately 3:00 PM, at which time the investigation was initiated. The delay in reporting and response, combined with the observed and reported inappropriate physical contact between the residents, constituted the failure to protect the resident from sexual abuse as required by the facility’s abuse prohibition policy.
Staff Member Engages in Verbal Abuse Toward Resident
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when a staff member engaged in a loud, profane verbal exchange with a resident in the dining room, violating the resident's right to be free from verbal abuse. The incident was witnessed by multiple staff members, including the Maintenance Director, Housekeeping Supervisor, Activities Director, and a Certified Nursing Assistant. The staff member, a housekeeper, responded to the resident's profanities by repeating the same profane language back to the resident in a public area. The Administrator overheard the exchange but was initially unaware that an employee was involved. The resident involved had a history of Focal Traumatic Brain Injury and Pseudobulbar Affect, with a documented severe cognitive impairment as indicated by a BIMS score of 4. The facility's policy clearly prohibits all forms of abuse, including verbal abuse, and mandates that residents be protected from such treatment. Despite this, the staff member's actions constituted verbal abuse as defined by facility policy and were validated by the facility's internal investigation.
Failure to Prevent Verbal Abuse of Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect residents from verbal abuse, as evidenced by multiple incidents involving two residents. In one case, a resident with a diagnosis of pain and a BIMS score indicating cognitive intactness requested pain medication from a CNA, after which an RN entered the room and yelled at the resident, stating she was always asking for pain medicine and would receive it only when the RN was ready. The RN was also reported to have made threatening remarks such as, 'You better be good today or else.' Multiple staff members, including the Corporate Nurse and MDS Nurse, overheard the RN speaking loudly and rudely to the resident, with statements like, 'We not gonna do this today. I always give you your pain medicine, but today you gonna learn. I will give it to you when I get ready,' and, 'You're in pain, you gonna stay in pain. You gonna be nasty to me, I'll be nasty to you.' These interactions were corroborated by witness statements and interviews. In another incident, a resident's representative reported overhearing a nurse respond disrespectfully after the resident, who required assistance with personal care, used the call light without response and soiled herself. The nurse reportedly told the resident, 'I heard you calling, but you can just sit in it.' This complaint was documented in the facility's grievance log. Both incidents demonstrate a failure to ensure residents were free from verbal abuse, as required by facility policy and resident rights regulations.
Failure to Notify Resident Representative of Change in Diet Order
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to notify the resident representative (RR) of a change in condition for one resident. Specifically, the resident's diet was changed to pureed following an evaluation by a speech therapist due to episodes of coughing and vomiting while being fed. The speech therapist documented the swallowing impairment and recommended the diet change, which was then ordered and entered into the system. However, the RR was not informed of this change and only discovered it during a visit when he noticed the resident was receiving a pureed diet. Interviews with facility staff confirmed that the RR had not been notified of the diet change or the reason for it. The speech therapist stated that it was not facility practice for therapists to notify families, and the DON explained that the nurse who confirms the order is responsible for notifying the RR. Due to subsequent clarifications in the order, the original confirming nurse could not be identified. The resident involved had a history of cerebral infarction, dysphagia, and seizures, and was admitted with these diagnoses.
Failure to Notify Nurse Practitioner of Resident Changes
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to notify the Nurse Practitioner (NP) of significant weight loss in a resident and a change in condition in another resident. For the first resident, the Registered Dietitian (RD) noted a significant weight loss from 172 pounds to 127.4 pounds over a period of time. Despite the Dietary Manager notifying the Director of Nursing (DON) about the weight change, there was no documentation that the NP or physician was informed. Interviews confirmed that the NP was not notified of the weight loss, and the DON acknowledged the lack of documentation. For the second resident, the facility did not notify the NP of the resident's lethargy, which led to the holding of Ativan doses on two occasions. The resident had an order for Ativan 0.5 mg twice a day, and the lethargy was noted on two separate dates. The NP confirmed she was not informed of the resident's condition, and the DON verified the absence of documentation regarding the notification. The Administrator expected that the staff would have notified the NP of these changes in the resident's status.
Failure to Implement Care Plan Interventions for Weight Loss
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement care plan interventions to prevent significant weight loss for a resident. The resident was admitted with diagnoses including attention to gastrostomy and gastroparesis. A review of the resident's weight records showed a significant decrease from 172 lbs to 127.4 lbs over a period of approximately one month. The Registered Dietitian (RD) assessed the resident and recommended changes to the tube feeding regimen due to a significant weight loss of 6.98% since admission. However, these recommendations were not implemented in the resident's care plan. The care plan for the resident included interventions such as serving a renal diet, obtaining weight per facility protocol, monitoring meal intakes, and allowing ample time to finish meals. Despite these interventions, the facility did not update the care plan with new interventions after the RD identified the significant weight loss. An interview with the Director of Nursing confirmed that the facility failed to implement necessary care plan interventions to address the resident's weight loss.
Failure to Implement Dietary Recommendations for Weight Loss
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement interventions for a resident who experienced significant weight loss. The resident, who was on a renal diet and received enteral nutrition via a PEG tube, showed a weight loss of 6.98% since admission. The Registered Dietitian (RD) recommended changes to the resident's tube feeding regimen to address the weight loss, but these recommendations were not communicated to the resident's physician or implemented. The resident's weight continued to decline, with a documented loss of 20.38% over 30 days. Interviews with facility staff revealed that the Director of Nursing (DON) was responsible for notifying the physician of the RD's recommendations and obtaining necessary orders, but this was not done. The RD and other staff members confirmed that the recommendations were not followed up on, and there was no documentation indicating that the resident's care providers were informed of the dietary recommendations. The facility's failure to act on the RD's recommendations resulted in continued weight loss for the resident.
Latest citations in Mississippi
A resident with advanced dementia and severe cognitive impairment sustained a bruised left eye and facial bruising after being struck by a CNA. The CNA initially claimed the injury occurred accidentally while pushing the resident to a dining table and denied hitting the resident, but an LPN and another CNA reported that the resident stated she had hit the CNA and was hit back in the eye, demonstrating a slapping motion. Nursing documentation described left orbital ecchymosis, bruising along the bridge of the nose and cheek, tenderness, minimal edema, and the resident’s complaint of soreness, confirming a significant injury resulting from the physical abuse.
The facility failed to protect residents’ right to a dignified and comfortable environment when it did not effectively manage one cognitively impaired resident’s ongoing nighttime yelling, which repeatedly disrupted the sleep of two cognitively intact residents. Staff, including a CNA, the DON, and the Administrator, were aware that this resident, diagnosed with dementia and psychosis, frequently yelled and screamed at night while often sleeping during the day. Progress notes documented nighttime hollering, and interviews confirmed that the disruptive behavior persisted over time, interfering with other residents’ ability to rest.
Surveyors found that the facility failed to protect two residents’ rights to dignity and privacy during routine care. One resident, with moderate cognitive impairment and dependent for toilet hygiene, was observed receiving incontinence care while uncovered, with the room door open and the privacy curtain only partially drawn, allowing visibility into the hallway despite facility policy requiring full privacy. Another resident, dependent for eating and with hemiplegia after a stroke, was assisted with lunch by a CNA who stood over the resident instead of sitting at eye level as required by the facility’s feeding skills checklist. Staff interviews, including with CNAs, an LPN, the DON, and the Administrator, confirmed that existing policies and in-service training directed staff to provide privacy during incontinence care and to sit beside residents when assisting with meals to ensure dignified care.
A resident with epilepsy, skin infection, an upper arm wound, gastrostomy status, and moderate cognitive impairment was observed twice resting in bed with a lunch tray while the call light was not within reach—once on the floor under the bed and once hanging behind the mattress, out of sight. The resident reported being able to use the call light but not knowing where it was. Staff, including CNAs, an LPN, the DON, and the Administrator, stated that call lights are expected to be left within residents’ reach and that training and competencies address this requirement, but there was no specific written policy on call light placement.
A resident with moderate cognitive impairment, dependent for toilet hygiene and with multiple medical conditions, was observed receiving incontinent care in which a CNA removed a urine-soaked brief, changed the bed sheet, and applied a clean brief without performing any required perineal cleansing of the front or back. Facility policy and the peri-care skills checklist specified that male residents must have the perineal area, including the penis, scrotum, and inner thighs, washed, rinsed, and dried during incontinent care. The CNA later acknowledged having been trained and competency-checked on this procedure and knowing cleansing was required. Other staff, including a CNA supervisor, an LPN, the DON, and the Administrator, confirmed that proper incontinent care includes full perineal cleansing in addition to brief changes, establishing that the observed omission did not follow facility policy or professional standards intended to prevent UTIs.
Surveyors found that staff failed to follow infection control practices during PEG tube and wound care. Two residents with PEG tubes had sites with visible brown, crusted or yellowish drainage that had not been cleaned for several days, despite physician orders for daily cleansing and, when indicated, dressings. In another case, a CNA provided peri-care for stool and then assisted with a stage IV sacral pressure ulcer dressing change without changing gloves or performing hand hygiene, contrary to facility policy and staff expectations for aseptic technique.
Surveyors found that the facility failed to maintain a safe, clean, and homelike environment when a resident’s room contained odorous soiled linens left on the floor and later placed on furniture with clean clothing, and the bed was made with torn linens exposing the mattress. Other residents reported that housekeeping did not clean under beds, and multiple large dead roaches were repeatedly observed under several beds, with one resident stating he often disposed of dead roaches himself. Residents also reported refusing to use the north shower room due to dirty clothing, feces, and residue on shower chairs and floors; an observation confirmed the presence of soiled clothing, a soiled brief, and unidentified substances on the shower chair and floor, despite staff acknowledging that CNAs were expected to clean and sanitize the shower room after each use.
The facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program, as evidenced by repeated observations of roaches and other insects in multiple resident rooms and common areas. Surveyors found gnats and dead roaches under beds, while several residents reported seeing roaches on ceilings, walls, and floors, including roaches falling onto them at night and having to remove dead roaches themselves. A family member reported bringing her own roach spray due to concerns about roaches in a loved one’s room. During a Resident Council meeting, roaches were seen crawling across the floor, and residents stated that roaches were commonly observed throughout the building. Although the contracted pest control provider reported monthly service focused mainly on entry points and exterior areas and facility staff described processes for reporting pests, the persistent roach activity showed the program was not effectively preventing or controlling pests.
A resident with multiple chronic conditions, who relied on phone contact with a seriously ill significant other, lost access to private communication after her personal cell phone was broken and sent out for repair. Facility policy guarantees residents access to a telephone and private communication, but there was no cordless phone available on the relevant hall, and staff, including the DON, SSD, and Administrator, confirmed there was no convenient method for residents on that hall to make private calls without arranging to use a staff office. This resulted in the resident having no readily available, private telephone option.
A resident with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, hypertension, moderate cognitive impairment, and total dependence on staff for personal and toilet hygiene reported difficulty obtaining assistance with ADLs. Observation revealed the resident had ten long, dirty fingernails extending several millimeters beyond the fingertips with black material underneath, and the resident stated they needed cleaning and cutting. An LPN confirmed the nails were too long and dirty, acknowledged that nursing staff were responsible for daily and weekly fingernail checks and for providing fingernail care as part of ADLs, and noted that such nails could cause skin damage or scratches. The DON and Administrator both confirmed that personal hygiene and grooming are part of ADLs and are expected to be provided for all residents dependent on staff.
Failure to Protect Cognitively Impaired Resident From Physical Abuse by CNA
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to protect a resident from abuse, resulting in the resident being struck in the eye by a CNA. Facility records show that a CNA reported to an LPN that the resident had a bruised left eye and initially stated the injury may have occurred while pushing the resident to the dining table due to the resident’s short, stooped posture. The CNA also reported that the resident used a racial slur toward her and that she verbally responded but denied striking the resident. However, subsequent interviews and the facility’s investigation determined that the resident’s injury was not caused by accidental contact with the dining table. Interviews with staff revealed conflicting accounts that led to the conclusion that the resident had been hit. An LPN stated that the resident reported being hit in the eye by the CNA and that another CNA heard a commotion and later observed bruising to the resident’s left eye. When this second CNA asked what happened, the resident reported that she hit the CNA and was hit back in the eye, while making a motion consistent with a slap. The LPN confirmed that the resident gave a similar account to her, indicating that the CNA had physically struck the resident. The resident involved was admitted to the Memory Care Unit with diagnoses including Alzheimer’s disease, cognitive communication deficit, and unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbance, and had a BIMS score of 5 indicating severe cognitive impairment. A nursing progress note documented an acute follow-up assessment of left orbital ecchymosis, describing a dark red circular bruise to the left eye region, dark purple bruising along the lateral bridge of the nose extending to the superior left cheek, tenderness on palpation, minimal edema, and the resident’s complaint that the area was sore. Due to advanced Alzheimer’s disease, the resident was unable to reliably express additional symptoms, but the documented physical findings supported that the resident sustained a significant injury to the eye area as a result of being struck by the CNA.
Failure to Protect Residents’ Right to Rest Due to Unmanaged Nighttime Yelling
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure a dignified and comfortable environment by not effectively addressing ongoing disruptive nighttime behaviors of one resident that interfered with other residents’ ability to rest. Resident #1, admitted with diagnoses including Psychosis and Dementia and a BIMS score of 4 indicating severely impaired cognition, had documented episodes of hollering and yelling during nighttime hours, as noted in progress notes on 3/12/26 and 3/13/26. Interviews with cognitively intact residents, Resident #2 and Resident #3 (both with BIMS scores of 15), revealed that they frequently experienced disrupted sleep due to Resident #1 yelling loudly at night, while the environment was generally quiet during the day. Staff interviews confirmed awareness of the pattern of behavior. CNA #1, who worked both day and night shifts, reported that Resident #1 frequently yelled and screamed at intervals throughout the night and was generally quiet and often slept during the day, with staff assisting the resident out of bed into a geri-chair during both day and nighttime hours. The DON acknowledged the facility was aware of Resident #1’s increased nighttime yelling and extended daytime rest, attributing it to the resident’s Dementia and Psychosis, and stated that interventions such as monitoring, repositioning, offering care, and attempts at redirection had not stopped the behaviors. The Administrator also confirmed awareness of concerns that nighttime noise from Resident #1 affected other residents’ ability to rest. Despite this awareness and ongoing complaints from other residents, the disruptive nighttime yelling continued, resulting in a failure to uphold residents’ rights to a dignified existence and a comfortable environment.
Failure to Ensure Privacy and Dignified Care During Incontinence Care and Feeding
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure residents were treated with dignity and provided privacy during care, as required by resident rights policies and skills checklists. The facility’s Nursing Facility Resident Rights policy guaranteed residents the right to be treated with dignity, courtesy, and respect, and to have privacy during personal care. Facility skills checklists for feeding and peri/incontinent care specified that staff should sit facing residents at eye level when feeding and provide privacy by drawing curtains and closing doors during incontinence care. For Resident #2, surveyors observed a CNA providing incontinent care without closing the resident’s room door and with the privacy curtain only partially drawn. From the surveyor’s position at the bottom right corner of the bed, it was possible to see into the hallway while the resident was uncovered and exposed. Resident #2’s records showed admission with diagnoses including epilepsy, infection of the skin and subcutaneous tissue, an open wound of the left upper arm, and gastrostomy status. A recent MDS assessment documented a BIMS score of 11, indicating moderate cognitive impairment, and that the resident was dependent for toilet hygiene. The CNA later confirmed awareness that incontinence care required provision of privacy and that she had been trained and competency-checked on this requirement. For Resident #3, surveyors observed a CNA assisting the resident with eating while standing over the resident rather than sitting beside her, contrary to the facility’s feeding skills checklist and training. The DON intervened during the observation and instructed the CNA that staff were to sit next to residents while assisting with eating. The CNA stated she had forgotten to sit beside the resident. Resident #3’s records showed recent admission with diagnoses of cerebral infarction (stroke), anemia, and hemiplegia and hemiparesis affecting the right dominant side, and a baseline care plan indicating the resident was dependent for eating. Other staff interviews, including with a CNA supervisor, an LPN, the DON, and the Administrator, confirmed that staff were trained at least monthly on residents’ rights, respectful and dignified care, provision of privacy during incontinence care, and the expectation that staff sit beside residents when assisting with eating.
Failure to Maintain Accessible Call Light for a Resident
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure a resident’s call light was maintained within reach as required by the facility’s feeding skills checklist. The skills checklist for feeding a resident specifies that staff must leave the call light within the resident’s reach after feeding. For Resident #2, surveyors observed on two separate occasions that the call light was not accessible. On one observation, the resident was awake in bed with a lunch tray on the overbed table, and the call light was found lying on the floor under the head of the bed. The resident stated he could use his call light but did not know where it was. On a subsequent observation, Resident #2 was again in bed with a lunch tray in front of him, and the call light was hanging behind the mattress at the head of the bed, out of his sight and reach. The resident again stated he could use the call light but did not know where it was. Record review showed the resident had epilepsy, an infection of the skin and subcutaneous tissue, an open wound of the left upper arm, gastrostomy status, and a BIMS score of 11 indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Staff interviews with CNAs, an LPN, the DON, and the Administrator confirmed that call lights were expected to be within residents’ reach and answered timely, and that staff had received in-service training and competency checks on leaving call lights within reach. The Administrator also confirmed there was no specific written policy regarding call light placement.
Failure to Provide Required Perineal Cleansing During Incontinent Care
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide incontinent care in accordance with its own peri-care policy and professional standards of practice for a male resident who was dependent for toilet hygiene. The facility’s written policy for peri/incontinent care for male residents, revised in January 2023, required cleansing of the perineal area starting at the urethra and working outward, including washing and rinsing the penis, scrotum, inner thighs, and perineal area front and back, followed by thorough drying. Record review showed the resident had diagnoses including epilepsy, infection of the skin and subcutaneous tissue, an open wound of the left upper arm, and gastrostomy status, and a Quarterly MDS with a BIMS score of 11 indicating moderate cognitive impairment, with the resident assessed as dependent for toilet hygiene. On the observed date and time, CNA #1 provided incontinent care to this resident by removing a wet urine-soaked brief, changing the fitted sheet, and applying a clean, dry brief without cleansing the resident’s perineal area, front or back, contrary to facility policy. During a subsequent interview, CNA #1 acknowledged she had received in-service training and competency check-offs on peri-care and knew she was supposed to cleanse the perineal area but did not do so, stating she was nervous. Additional interviews with CNA #2 (CNA supervisor and scheduler), an LPN, the DON, and the Administrator confirmed that staff were trained using the Peri Care–Incontinent Care Skills Checklist and that proper incontinent care includes cleansing the perineal area, front and back, in addition to changing the brief. The failure to perform the required cleansing during incontinent care constituted the cited deficiency related to prevention of urinary tract infections.
Failure to Maintain Infection Control Practices During PEG Tube and Wound Care
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to implement its infection prevention and control program by not maintaining aseptic technique and not providing ordered dressing changes for residents with PEG tubes and a sacral pressure injury. Facility policies on infection control and clean dressing changes required wound care to be provided in a manner that decreases the potential for infection and cross-contamination, including removal of soiled dressings with gloves, discarding gloves, performing hand hygiene, and donning clean gloves before continuing care. The peri-care audit tool also required glove removal, hand hygiene, and re-gloving after peri-care. These standards were not followed during multiple observed care episodes. For one resident with a PEG tube and diagnoses including Alzheimer’s disease, functional quadriplegia, and gastrostomy status, surveyors observed the PEG tube site without a dressing and with a yellowish-brown substance beneath and around the external skin disk extending about one-fourth inch onto surrounding skin. A CNA and an LPN both confirmed there was no dressing in place and acknowledged the drainage at the site. The LPN stated PEG tube site care should be completed daily and as needed for increased drainage and acknowledged that, with no dressing and the amount of drainage present, there was no way to tell when the site was last cleaned. Record review showed a physician order, effective several months prior, for daily cleansing of the PEG tube stoma with normal saline, patting dry, and applying a dry drain dressing to avoid skin breakdown. For another resident with severe protein-calorie malnutrition and gastrostomy status, the PEG tube site was observed with thick brown, crusted substance beneath the external skin disk extending approximately one-half to three-fourths of an inch to the surrounding area. The resident reported the site had not been cleaned in about three days and later stated they might have to clean it themselves. Follow-up observations confirmed the site remained unclean with visible drainage, and an LPN and the DON both confirmed the presence of thick, brown drainage and that the site had not been cleaned in several days, despite an order for daily cleansing with soap and water, rinsing, patting dry, and leaving open to air or applying a dry dressing if drainage was present. In a separate observation involving a resident with a stage IV sacral pressure ulcer and severe cognitive impairment, a CNA provided peri-care for stool soiling, then immediately assisted with wound care using the same gloves worn during peri-care, without performing hand hygiene or changing gloves. The CNA, treatment nurse, DON, and ADON all acknowledged that hand hygiene and glove change should have occurred between peri-care and wound care and that this represented an infection control concern.
Failure to Maintain Clean Resident Rooms and Shower Facilities
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, as required by its Resident Rights & Quality of Life Policy. For one resident, surveyors observed a bag of odorous soiled linens resting on the floor of the room, and the resident’s bed was made with a bedspread that had a football-sized hole exposing the mattress. The resident, who was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 14 and had Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, reported that it was not unusual for bags of soiled linens to be left on the floor and for bedding to be damaged. A CNA confirmed that soiled linens were commonly left in bags on the floor after morning care and that torn bedding should not be used, and later placed the bag of soiled linens on the resident’s furniture where his clean clothing was hanging. The resident remained upset the following day, and a dead roach was observed under his bed near the headboard. Additional deficiencies were identified in other resident rooms. One resident with End Stage Renal Disease and a severely impaired cognition (BIMS score of 5) reported that housekeeping did not clean under the bed; surveyors observed three large dead roaches under the bed, which remained there the following day. When the Housekeeping Supervisor later observed the room, five dead roaches were present under the bed, and he stated the area should not have been in that condition. Another resident, with a diffuse traumatic brain injury and a moderately impaired cognition (BIMS score of 10), reported frequently picking up and disposing of dead roaches himself because staff did not remove them, and a large dead roach was observed under his bed. The facility also failed to maintain a clean and sanitary north shower room. During a Resident Council interview, multiple cognitively intact and moderately impaired residents reported refusing to use the shower room due to cleanliness concerns, including observations of dirty clothing, feces, and residue on shower chairs and floors. A housekeeper stated that while she cleaned the shower rooms multiple times a day, CNAs were responsible for cleaning and sanitizing the shower room after each use and that she had observed occasions when CNAs failed to do so. A subsequent observation of the north shower room revealed soiled clothing, including a soiled brief, on a shower chair, a yellow fluid-like substance on the floor and shower chair, and a white powdery substance on the floor, with no staff present. The Social Services Assistant, DON, and Administrator each acknowledged that staff were expected to clean and sanitize the shower room after each use.
Ongoing Roach Activity Demonstrates Ineffective Pest Control Program
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program as required by its pest control policy dated 9/1/2014, which states the center will maintain an ongoing program to keep the building free of insects and rodents. Surveyors observed multiple instances of roach and insect activity in resident rooms and common areas. In one cognitively intact resident’s room, gnats were seen flying and a dead roach was later found under the bed near the headboard. Another resident’s room contained three large dead roaches under the bed on two consecutive days; this resident reported that roaches were regularly seen in the room, especially at night, crawling on the ceiling and falling onto him and his roommate, and that staff had been notified but he had not seen staff respond to assess or treat the issue. A third resident reported seeing roaches on the ceiling and under the bed and stated he often removed dead roaches himself because staff did not; a large dead roach was observed under his bed. A family member of another resident reported feeling it was necessary to bring her own roach spray due to concerns about roaches in the resident’s room and stated she was told she could not keep the spray in the room, expressing concern that the roach problem needed to be addressed. During a Resident Council meeting, two large roaches were observed crawling across the floor, and residents reported that roaches were commonly seen in rooms and common areas, including on walls, ceilings, and floors, particularly at night. The contracted pest control provider reported he provides monthly services, focusing on different areas each visit, primarily treating entry points and exterior areas, and stated he had not personally observed roaches and received only occasional complaints. Facility leadership, including the housekeeping supervisor, DON, and Maintenance Director, described expectations that staff report pest sightings and that pest control services are available monthly and as needed, but the ongoing presence of roaches and dead insects in resident rooms and common areas demonstrated that the pest control program was not effectively preventing or controlling pests.
Failure to Ensure Resident Access to Private Telephone Communication
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a resident’s right to reasonable access to and privacy in the use of a telephone for communication. Facility policy on Resident Rights, revised December 2016, states that residents are guaranteed access to a telephone, mail, and email, and the ability to communicate in person and by mail, email, and telephone with privacy. Resident #1 was admitted on 12/18/24 with diagnoses including Sjogren syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis, chronic kidney disease, and morbid obesity. During an interview, the resident reported that she had dropped and broken her personal cellular telephone, which she had used for private communication, and that the facility did not have any telephone that was convenient for her to use privately. She stated that no staff had offered her the use of a staff office or any other mechanism for private communication, and she was upset because she relied on telephone contact with her significant other, who had cancer and was unable to visit. Observations and staff interviews confirmed the lack of accessible, private telephone options for residents on South Hall. An observation on the 100 Hall revealed there was no cordless telephone available for resident use. The DON confirmed that the facility did not have a method to provide residents on South Hall with private communication without first making arrangements or an appointment to use a staff office, and that the cordless telephones in the facility did not have sufficient range to reach South Hall. The SSD confirmed there were no cordless telephones at the South Hall nurses’ station that could be taken to residents’ rooms and acknowledged that Resident #1’s cell phone had been broken and sent out for repair. The Administrator also confirmed that residents on South Hall did not have a method for private communication without prior arrangements and acknowledged that access to private communication is a guaranteed resident right.
Failure to Provide Adequate ADL Assistance for Personal Hygiene
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide necessary assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs) to maintain personal hygiene for one resident who was dependent on staff for care. Facility policy on ADLs, revised March 2018, stated that residents unable to carry out ADLs independently would receive services necessary to maintain good grooming and personal and oral hygiene. Record review showed the resident was admitted with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and hypertension, had a BIMS score of 12 indicating moderate cognitive impairment, was always incontinent of bowel and bladder, and required substantial/maximal assistance for personal hygiene and was dependent for toilet hygiene. A complainant reported that the resident had expressed difficulty getting staff to provide assistance with ADLs. During an observation and interview with the resident, accompanied by an LPN, the resident reported ongoing difficulty obtaining assistance with ADLs. The surveyor observed that the resident had ten long, dirty fingernails protruding 3.0 to 3.5 millimeters past the fingertips, with a black substance beneath all fingernails; the resident stated they needed cleaning and cutting and were too long. The LPN described the fingernails as too long and dirty, confirmed that nursing staff were responsible for checking fingernails daily during care and weekly during body audits, and acknowledged that staff were responsible for providing fingernail care as part of ADLs. The LPN also confirmed that long, dirty, unkempt fingernails had the potential to cause damage or scratches to the resident’s skin. The DON stated she was not aware of any complaints from the resident but confirmed her expectation that ADLs for residents dependent on staff for personal hygiene would be maintained and provided as needed, and that licensed nurses trimmed fingernails for some residents while any nursing staff could clean under fingernails. The Administrator confirmed that personal hygiene and grooming were part of resident ADLs and were expected to be provided for all dependent residents.
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.
