Hathaway Manor Extended Care
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in New Bedford, Massachusetts.
- Location
- 863 Hathaway Road, New Bedford, Massachusetts 02740
- CMS Provider Number
- 225366
- Inspections on file
- 29
- Latest survey
- March 17, 2026
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 1
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Hathaway Manor Extended Care during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with multiple chronic conditions and numerous scheduled medications had incomplete and inaccurate documentation of morning medication administration. Facility policy required nurses to document all administered or withheld medications in the electronic MAR immediately, including reasons when doses were not given. On one day, a day-shift nurse administered the resident’s morning medications but left mid-shift without documenting them in the MAR, although the controlled substance log showed morphine as given. When a later-shift nurse encountered red indicators in the MAR showing no documentation, she recorded the morning medications as held due to the prior nurse not completing documentation. This resulted in discrepancies between the electronic MAR and the controlled substance register and a medical record that did not accurately reflect what medications were or were not administered.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment experienced a significant delay in receiving dental services for lost dentures. Despite the need being identified in May, a referral was not made until September, and a dental consult occurred in November. The delay was attributed to staff changes and lack of follow-up, contrary to the facility's policy requiring prompt action.
A facility failed to obtain consent from a legal guardian for a resident with Alzheimer's and dementia before administering Sertraline, an antidepressant. Despite having a court-appointed guardian, the resident signed the consent form themselves. Staff interviews revealed confusion about consent procedures, with the Administrator acknowledging the guardian should have signed the form.
A facility failed to document a discharge summary for a resident admitted for respite care, as required by policy. The resident's medical record lacked a recapitulation of their stay, which should have been completed upon discharge. The DON confirmed the oversight after reviewing the closed medical record.
A resident with a G-tube did not receive the physician-ordered amount of tube feeding, and staff failed to document administration properly. Observations showed discrepancies in the amount of formula administered, and interviews revealed inconsistencies in checking residuals and administering water flushes. The facility's documentation practices were inadequate, with missing intake records and unclear orders for water administration.
A resident with dementia experienced significant weight loss, which was not addressed by either the former or new primary physician. The facility failed to ensure timely physician visits and communication regarding the resident's condition, leading to an oversight in care.
A facility failed to ensure a resident was seen by a physician every 60 days, resulting in a 147-day gap between visits. The resident's primary physician did not visit residents timely, leading to a termination notice and reassignment to a new physician. The DON confirmed the lack of visits and acknowledged the situation as unacceptable.
The facility failed to follow food safety standards by not properly dating and storing food items in three kitchenettes. Opened containers of thickened liquids were found without proper labeling, leading to potential foodborne illness risks. Staff misunderstood labeling practices, and the Administrator confirmed the need for compliance with food storage policies.
Incomplete and Inaccurate MAR Documentation for Morning Medications
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to maintain a complete and accurate medical record for one resident when nursing documentation in the Electronic Medication Administration Record (MAR) and the Controlled Substance Register was incomplete and inconsistent. Facility policies required nurses to document the time and date of all medications administered in the MAR immediately after administration, and to document when medications were withheld or not given, including the reason. Despite these policies, the resident’s February MAR showed multiple morning medications on a specific date coded as held (H) due to the previous shift nurse not having documented administration. The resident, admitted in December 2023, had multiple diagnoses including Parkinson’s disease, atherosclerotic heart disease, hypercholesterolemia, hypertension, dysphagia, rheumatic aortic insufficiency, malignant neoplasm of the breast, and thyroid disorder. Active orders for February included several scheduled medications such as antihypertensives (amlodipine, losartan), aspirin, carbidopa-levodopa, letrozole, hyoscyamine, Miralax, senna, Colace, atropine drops, Lexapro, albuterol, and morphine sulfate solution. On the date in question, the MAR indicated that the morning doses of atropine, hyoscyamine, Miralax, Lexapro, morphine, and multiple 9:00 A.M. medications were all marked as held because the prior nurse had not completed documentation, even though the Controlled Substance Register showed morphine as administered that morning, creating a discrepancy between records. Interviews clarified the sequence of events leading to the incomplete and inaccurate documentation. The ADON, who relieved the morning nurse partway through the day, observed that the resident’s morning medications were not signed off in the Electronic MAR and confirmed with the morning nurse that the medications had been administered but not documented. The ADON stated that the nurse went home without signing off the medications. A nurse on the later shift reported that when she began her medication pass, the Electronic MAR for the resident’s morning medications was in red, indicating no documentation of administration, and she then documented the medications as held due to the previous nurse not completing documentation so she could proceed with her own medication administration. The morning nurse later acknowledged by telephone that she had administered the resident’s morning medications but failed to sign them off in the Electronic MAR before leaving, contrary to facility policy and the DON’s stated expectations.
Delayed Dental Services for Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide timely dental services for a resident who was severely cognitively impaired, as indicated by a BIMS score of 3 out of 15. The resident's need for new dentures was identified by a Registered Dietitian on May 22, 2024, but a referral for dental services was not initiated until September 11, 2024, which was 112 days later. The resident's Health Care Proxy signed a consent for dental services on September 4, 2024, and a dental consult was completed on November 5, 2024, in response to the September request. The delay in initiating the replacement of the resident's lost dentures was attributed to changes in facility staff and a lack of follow-up. Interviews with the resident's Health Care Proxy and facility staff revealed that the dentures had been missing for over nine months without resolution. The Health Care Proxy expressed frustration over the lack of progress despite raising the issue at care conferences and initiating a grievance form. The Social Worker, who started working at the facility in April 2024, acknowledged the longstanding issue but was unsure why the referral was delayed. The Unit Manager and Administrator also could not provide explanations for the delay, citing staff changes as a possible reason. The facility's policy required a referral for dental services within three days of confirming lost dentures, which was not adhered to in this case.
Failure to Obtain Legal Guardian Consent for Psychotropic Medication
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a legal guardian was fully informed and provided consent for the use of psychotropic medication for a resident who was deemed incapacitated and had a court-appointed legal guardian. The resident, diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease, major depressive disorder, and dementia, was admitted to the facility with a legal guardian appointed to make healthcare decisions. Despite this, the resident signed the consent form for Sertraline, an antidepressant, without the involvement of the legal guardian. Interviews with facility staff revealed confusion regarding who should sign the consent form, as the resident appeared alert and oriented. The Unit Manager believed the resident could sign their own paperwork, while the Social Worker acknowledged the resident's legal guardian should have been the one to provide consent. The Administrator confirmed that the consent form should have been reviewed and signed by the legal guardian before administering the medication.
Failure to Document Discharge Summary for Respite Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to document a recapitulation of a resident's stay, including the course of illness and treatment, at the time of discharge. This deficiency was identified during a review of the closed medical record for a resident who was admitted for a brief respite stay. The facility's policy requires a discharge summary to be completed for all discharged residents, including those admitted for respite care. However, the medical record for this resident did not contain the necessary documentation. Interviews with the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed that a discharge summary with a recapitulation of the resident's stay should have been completed. Despite the resident's discharge being uneventful, the absence of this documentation indicates a failure to adhere to the facility's discharge procedures. The DON acknowledged the oversight after reviewing the resident's closed medical record and confirmed that the required documentation was missing.
Deficiency in G-tube Feeding Administration
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide appropriate care and services for a resident with a Gastrostomy tube (G-tube), leading to a deficiency in the administration of tube feeding. The resident, who was admitted with a diagnosis of status post cerebral infarction and dysphagia, was dependent on the G-tube for nutrition. The facility's policy required documentation of the physician's order for enteral feeding, including the amount of formula and water administered. However, the resident did not receive the physician-ordered amount of tube feeding, and staff administering the feedings were not signing off on the administration. Additionally, there were no physician's orders specifying the amount of water to administer with and between medications. Observations and interviews revealed discrepancies in the administration of the tube feeding. On multiple occasions, the surveyor observed that the resident received significantly less Jevity 1.5 formula than ordered. For instance, on one day, the resident should have received 510 ml by a certain time but had only received 200 ml, a difference of 310 ml. Similar discrepancies were noted on subsequent days, with no documentation indicating that the tube feeding was held for any reason. Interviews with nursing staff revealed inconsistencies in the process of checking residuals and administering water flushes, with some nurses unsure of the specific orders or procedures to follow. Further investigation showed that the facility's documentation practices were inadequate. The January 2025 Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated that the order for the tube feeding was only signed off by the day shift, and there were no recordings of intake for the resident. The Registered Dietitian confirmed that the resident had received less nutritional feed and water than ordered over a three-day period. The Assistant Director of Nurses acknowledged the lack of specific orders for checking residuals and administering water with medications, and the Director of Nurses noted that the orders needed clarification to include flushes and holding time.
Failure to Address Significant Weight Loss in Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that the total program of care for a resident with dementia was reviewed by a physician, resulting in a significant oversight regarding the resident's weight loss. The resident experienced a weight loss of over 10% in six months, which was not addressed by either the former or new primary physician. The resident's care plan included interventions for nutritional risk, such as weekly weights and notifying the physician and dietitian of persistent weight loss, but these measures were not effectively implemented. The resident's former primary physician stopped visiting the facility, and the resident was assigned a new primary physician in October 2024. However, the new physician did not evaluate the resident's significant weight loss during visits in November and December 2024. Interviews with facility staff revealed that the previous physician did not conduct timely visits, and there was a lack of communication between the registered dietitian and the physicians regarding the resident's condition. The Medical Director acknowledged the oversight and indicated that the weight loss might be related to the resident's dementia, but further evaluation was needed.
Failure to Ensure Timely Physician Visits for a Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident was seen by a physician every 60 days, as required. The resident was admitted to the facility in August 2020. According to the Physician's Progress Notes, the resident was last seen by a doctor on June 7, 2024, and was not seen again until November 1, 2024, resulting in a gap of 147 days between visits. During an interview, the Director of Nurses confirmed that there were no additional physician visits for the resident between June and November 2024. The Director also mentioned that the resident's primary physician had not been visiting residents in a timely manner, leading to the issuance of a termination notice and the assignment of a new physician at the end of October 2024. The Director acknowledged that it was unacceptable for the resident to go without a physician visit for such an extended period.
Failure to Properly Date and Store Food Items
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adhere to professional standards of practice for food safety, specifically in the proper dating and storage of food items in three kitchenettes. The surveyor observed multiple instances where opened containers of thickened liquids were not labeled with the date they were opened, which is a requirement according to the facility's policy and the FDA Food Code. This oversight was noted in the Unit 1, Unit 2, and Unit 3 kitchenette refrigerators, where several containers were either undated or incorrectly dated, potentially leading to the use of expired products. During interviews, it was revealed that there was a misunderstanding among staff regarding the labeling of thickened liquid containers. A Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) indicated that they relied on the kitchen's labeling for expiration dates, but the Food Service Director clarified that the dates written on the containers were meant for product rotation and not for indicating expiration or use-by dates. The Food Service Director confirmed that the facility's policy required containers to be dated with the opening date, and the manufacturer's instructions specified that the liquids were safe for seven days after opening. The Administrator acknowledged that staff were expected to label all open food and beverages with the date they were opened, in accordance with the facility's food storage policies. This failure to properly label and date food items could lead to the potential spread of foodborne illness among residents, who are at high risk. The deficiency highlights a lapse in following established food safety protocols, which are crucial for maintaining sanitary conditions and preventing foodborne illnesses.
Latest citations in Massachusetts
A resident with metabolic encephalopathy, cardiac disease, a G-tube, and an indwelling urinary catheter had a urine culture and sensitivity ordered, with preliminary results reported to a provider who chose to wait for final results. The final culture showed two bacterial organisms and listed effective antibiotics, but nursing staff did not notify a physician, PA, or NP of these abnormal results or document any notification, despite facility policy requiring such communication and documentation. The PA later stated she was never informed of the results, and the NP reported that during an examination she was not told about the culture findings. Antibiotic orders and administration did not occur until several days after the abnormal results were available, causing a delay in treatment.
A resident with severe dementia and significant anxiety and depression, who was fully dependent on staff for ADLs, verbally said “no” and “stop” during morning dressing care. A CNA floated from another unit continued providing care in an abrupt manner despite these refusals, and the resident appeared anxious, later repeating that she hurt and that the CNA was bad. Two nurses and a weekend supervisor, all familiar with the resident, observed the resident’s anxious behavior and heard her complaints, and the CNA later admitted she did not stop care when the resident told her to stop, contrary to staff expectations that care be stopped when a resident resists or refuses.
A resident with sacral and buttock pressure injuries had physician orders for daily wound care and was assessed by a wound NP, who documented specific wound measurements, drainage, odor, and worsening status over time. However, review of the TAR showed that, although daily dressing changes were recorded, nursing staff did not document required wound characteristics such as appearance, measurements, drainage type and amount, or odor with each treatment, despite an EMR template and standard practice calling for this level of detail. The DON acknowledged that staff should have documented these wound details at each dressing change and noted that EMR order modifications had removed the supplemental documentation prompts, resulting in noncompliance with professional standards and facility policy.
A resident with an unstageable sacral pressure injury, chronic kidney disease, and polyosteoarthritis repeatedly reported and exhibited pain that interfered with participation in PT, including verbal pain ratings of 5–7/10, agitation, tension, and refusal to get out of bed. PT staff documented that the resident was in pain and at times noted the resident was premedicated and that nursing was aware, but the MAR showed no administration of ordered PRN acetaminophen during the period when pain was repeatedly observed. The NP, who documented increased tenderness at the sacral ulcer and noted the resident’s refusal to get out of bed due to hip pain, was unaware of the ongoing pain during therapy sessions and that nursing had not given Tylenol. The DON stated that departments should communicate about pain and document such communication, but there was no documented follow-through by nursing despite the resident’s ongoing verbal and non-verbal indicators of pain.
A resident with chronic kidney disease, polyosteoarthritis, and an unstageable sacral pressure injury had inconsistent and inaccurate wound documentation, with nursing admission records and the TAR reflecting pressure injuries on the right and left buttocks while the wound NP identified a single sacral wound. Despite NP orders and notes recommending q2h repositioning and strict adherence to pressure injury prevention protocols, CNA flow sheets contained no documentation that the resident was repositioned every two hours. Staff interviews confirmed reliance on flow sheets for repositioning documentation and revealed that the option to record q2h repositioning had been missing from the CNA documentation for this resident.
A resident with dysphagia and a physician order for a house diet with ground texture and nectar thick liquids was served a regular-texture lunch tray containing chicken cut into pieces instead of ground. While eating in a secondary dining room, the resident began choking and was observed using the universal choking sign; an RN performed the Heimlich maneuver, successfully expelling a piece of chicken and stabilizing the resident. Post-incident review showed that the tray did not match the diet order, the dietary department had sent the wrong texture, and nursing staff had not checked this or any other lunch trays against meal tickets as required by facility policy, despite their acknowledged responsibility to verify diet accuracy before meal service.
A resident with dysphagia, parkinsonism, and a physician order for a house diet with ground texture and nectar-thick liquids was served a regular texture lunch including whole chicken instead of the ordered ground diet. The dietary aide reported that he likely called out the wrong diet order to the cook and did not verify the plated meal against the resident’s meal ticket before placing it on the tray, contrary to facility procedure. Nursing staff, who were responsible for checking trays against meal tickets before service, also did not verify the meal. During lunch, the resident began choking, was observed using the universal choking sign, and a nurse performed the Heimlich maneuver, expelling a piece of chicken. Review of the diet order and the facility’s internal report confirmed that the meal had not been prepared or checked according to the resident’s prescribed ground diet.
A resident with multiple fractures and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, who was cognitively intact and dependent on staff, was standing in the bathroom holding a grab bar when the resident reported being unable to continue standing due to knee weakness. A CNA lowered the resident to the floor, then independently lifted the resident, placed the resident in a wheelchair, and transferred the resident back to bed before notifying nursing staff, despite facility policy requiring a nursing assessment for injury before moving a resident found on the floor. Nursing staff later learned of the event only after the resident was back in bed and initially were informed only of a skin tear sustained during a transfer, not that the resident had been lowered to the floor, resulting in the resident not being assessed by a nurse prior to being moved.
Two severely cognitively impaired residents with dementia and impaired decision-making were found by a CNA engaged in sexual touching in a bedroom where one did not reside. The CNA immediately removed one resident and reported the incident to a nurse, but the nurse delayed notifying the DON for several hours and the DON and Administrator did not become aware until many hours later. The facility’s written abuse policy referenced a two-hour internal notification timeframe and a 24-hour reporting timeframe to the state, which did not align with current expectations that abuse allegations be reported immediately to administration and to the State Agency within two hours, contributing to delayed reporting of this resident-to-resident sexual abuse allegation.
Two cognitively impaired residents were found by a CNA engaging in sexual contact in a resident’s room, with one resident touching the other’s genital area while reciprocal touching occurred. The CNA immediately removed one resident and informed an RN, but the RN delayed effectively notifying the DON and administration, and the ADON reported no recollection of being informed. As a result of these delays, administrative staff did not become aware of the allegation until many hours later, and the incident was not reported to the State Survey Agency within the required two-hour timeframe, contrary to facility policy requiring prompt reporting of suspected abuse.
Failure to Promptly Notify Provider of Abnormal Urine Culture Results
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure prompt notification of abnormal laboratory results to a provider for a resident who required a urine culture and sensitivity test. The resident, admitted in January 2026 with diagnoses including metabolic encephalopathy, atherosclerotic heart disease, a gastrostomy tube, and urinary retention with an indwelling urinary catheter, had an order for a urinalysis with culture and sensitivity on 01/19/26. Nursing progress notes on 01/21/26 documented that urinalysis and preliminary culture results were obtained and reported to the in-house provider, who chose to wait for the final culture and sensitivity results. The urine culture and sensitivity report dated 01/23/26 showed two types of bacteria and listed effective antibiotics for treatment of a urinary tract infection. From 01/21/26 through 01/28/26, there was no documentation in the nursing progress notes that a physician, PA, or NP was notified of the final culture and sensitivity results, despite the facility’s policy requiring nurses to contact the physician about abnormal test results and document the notification and response. The first antibiotic orders for ciprofloxacin and nitrofurantoin were not written until 01/28/26, and the MAR showed the first doses were administered that day at 5:00 p.m., five days after the abnormal culture and sensitivity results were available. The PA stated she was not notified of the abnormal results, and the NP reported that when she examined the resident on 01/26/26, nursing staff did not inform her of the culture and sensitivity findings. The DON acknowledged awareness of the prolonged period between availability of the urine culture results and initiation of treatment and stated that nurses were responsible for following up on lab results, which did not occur in this case, resulting in a delay in treatment.
Failure to Honor Resident’s Verbal Refusal of Care During ADL Assistance
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure a resident was treated with respect and dignity by honoring the resident’s verbal refusals of care. The facility’s Resident Rights policy, revised 10/04/23, requires that each resident be treated with respect and dignity and that their rights be protected and promoted. On 02/28/26, after receiving care, Resident #1 repeatedly stated that a CNA had hurt her and referred to the CNA as “bad.” The resident was known to have unspecified dementia with psychotic disturbance, generalized anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder, and a recent MDS dated 02/17/26 documented severe cognitive impairment (BIMS score of 3/15) and dependence on staff for ADLs such as dressing, bathing, and hygiene. On the morning of 02/28/26, CNA #1, who had been floated from another unit, entered Resident #1’s room to provide care. Nurse #1, who knew the resident well, went to the room to check on CNA #1 and observed CNA #1 trying to put a shirt on the resident in an abrupt manner, noting that the resident had an anxious facial expression. Nurse #1 intervened, took over dressing the resident, and was able to put the shirt on without issue. After briefly leaving to speak with another nurse and the Weekend Supervisor about her concerns regarding the interaction, Nurse #1 returned to the room and found the resident seated at the edge of the bed, appearing anxious and repeating the words “stop, don’t hurt me.” Nurse #1 and CNA #1 then assisted the resident into a wheelchair and brought the resident to the nurses’ station. Nurse #2, who also knew the resident well, reported that around this time CNA #1 wheeled the resident to the nurses’ station and parked the resident next to her medication cart. The resident repeatedly said “I hurt, I hurt” while hugging herself and was unable to clearly express what was upsetting her, consistent with her usual difficulty expressing herself and tendency to speak in “word salad.” The Weekend Supervisor later attempted to speak with the resident and observed the resident with arms crossed, appearing anxious, and saying something like “she hurt me.” During the subsequent interview with the DON and Weekend Supervisor, CNA #1 acknowledged that while providing care that morning the resident said “no” and “stop,” and that she did not stop providing care at that time. Multiple nursing staff stated that the expectation is that when a resident resists care or verbally says to stop, staff are to stop what they are doing, regardless of the resident’s dementia status.
Failure to Document Wound Characteristics and Treatment Effectiveness
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure that wound care services met professional standards of quality for a resident with pressure injuries. The facility’s wound care policy required documentation of the type of wound care given, date and time, resident position, detailed wound assessment data (including wound bed color, size, drainage), any change in condition, and how the resident tolerated the procedure. The resident was admitted with an unstageable pressure injury on the right buttock and another pressure injury on the left buttock, and had physician’s orders for daily and as-needed wound care, including cleansing, application of calcium alginate, and foam dressing. Subsequent wound nurse practitioner assessments documented an unstageable sacral wound with specific measurements, moderate serosanguineous drainage, and later worsening status with increased size, malodor, and continued moderate serosanguineous drainage, with treatment changes recommended. Despite these orders and assessments, review of the Treatment Administration Records for January and February showed that while nurses documented that daily dressing changes were performed, they did not document the wound’s appearance, measurements, drainage amount and type, or odor during those dressing changes. Interviews with two nurses confirmed that standard practice and the electronic TAR template called for documenting wound description, including appearance, drainage, odor, and whether the wound had improved or worsened, with each dressing change. The DON also stated that nursing staff should have been documenting the appearance and specific characteristics of the wounds with each dressing change and identified that when nursing staff modified the wound care order in the electronic medical record, the supplemental documentation prompts were mistakenly removed, contributing to the lack of required wound documentation.
Failure to Manage and Document Pain for Resident With Pressure Injury
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide adequate pain management for a resident admitted with an unstageable sacral pressure injury and multiple pain-related diagnoses, including chronic kidney disease and polyosteoarthritis. The facility’s pain policy required staff to identify signs and symptoms of pain, consider cognitive and behavioral indicators, and anticipate pain related to conditions such as pressure ulcers and interventions such as wound care, ambulation, and repositioning. The resident’s MDS showed moderate cognitive impairment, and the resident had PRN acetaminophen orders for pain, as well as a recently discontinued scheduled methocarbamol due to lethargy. Physical therapy documentation over several days showed the resident repeatedly reporting and exhibiting pain that interfered with participation in therapy. On multiple PT treatment dates, the resident declined to get out of bed, reported being “too sore,” and rated pain levels between 5/10 and 7/10, describing pain in the lower back, bilateral hips, and “all over,” with behaviors such as agitation, tension, and avoidance of touch. PT notes indicated the resident was premedicated prior to some sessions and that nursing was aware of the pain, yet the Medication Administration Record for the same period showed no documentation that any analgesics were administered from 02/06/26 through 02/12/26. Interviews with staff further demonstrated a lack of effective pain management and communication. The PTA stated she reported the resident’s pain to nursing and believed the resident was given Tylenol, and she documented that the resident was premedicated on one date because she thought it had occurred. The Nursing Supervisor reported that if therapy staff informed him of pain, he would assess and medicate, but he could not recall giving pain medication and none was documented on the MAR. The Nurse Practitioner, who noted increased tenderness at the sacral ulcer and the resident’s refusal to get out of bed due to bilateral hip pain, was unaware that the resident had been reporting pain during several PT visits and that nursing had not administered Tylenol. The DON acknowledged that departments should communicate about pain and that such communication should be documented, but there was no documentation of follow-through when the resident displayed ongoing verbal and non-verbal indicators of pain.
Inaccurate Wound Documentation and Missing Repositioning Records
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to maintain an accurate and complete medical record for a resident with pressure injuries, specifically regarding wound location and repositioning frequency. The resident, admitted with diagnoses including chronic kidney disease, polyosteoarthritis, and an unstageable pressure injury of the sacral region, was documented on the nursing admission assessment as having an unstageable pressure injury on the right buttock and an unstaged pressure injury on the left buttock. A subsequent wound NP assessment identified a single unstageable wound on the sacrum, but the Treatment Administration Record for the following month continued to show nursing staff signing off wound care for unstageable pressure injuries on the right and left buttocks. In interviews, a nurse described the wounds as being on the coccyx or buttocks area, and the DON acknowledged that nursing documentation listed the wounds on the right and left buttocks despite the NP’s identification of the sacrum as the anatomical site. The facility also failed to ensure documentation of the recommended repositioning frequency for the same resident. The wound NP’s progress notes included recommendations to offload pressure and reposition the resident every two hours, and later emphasized strict adherence to pressure injury prevention protocols, including frequent repositioning. However, review of CNA flow sheets for the months in question showed no documentation supporting that the resident was repositioned every two hours as recommended. A CNA reported that the resident required assistance with repositioning and that staff were supposed to document repositioning on the flow sheet. The DON stated that the option to document every two-hour repositioning was not automatically appearing on the CNA flow sheets and had been missed for this resident.
Choking Incident Due to Failure to Provide Ordered Ground Diet and Verify Meal Tray Accuracy
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure a resident with dysphagia remained as free from accident hazards as possible when the resident was served a meal inconsistent with ordered diet texture, resulting in a choking episode that required staff intervention. The resident had diagnoses including dysphagia, parkinsonism, dysarthria, cerebral infarction, hyperlipidemia, and anxiety, and was assessed as moderately cognitively impaired with a BIMS score of 12. Physician’s orders and the lunch meal ticket for the resident specified a house diet with ground texture and nectar thick liquids. Despite these orders, the facility’s lunch menu for the day included chicken parmesan, spaghetti noodles, cauliflower, and a garlic bread knot, and the resident was served chicken that was cut into pieces rather than ground. At approximately 12:15 p.m., while the resident was eating lunch in the secondary dining room/dayroom with another resident, another resident asked if the resident was choking. Nursing staff at the nearby nurses’ station (Nurse #1, Nurse #2, and Nurse #3) heard this and observed the resident performing the universal choking sign. Nurse #3 immediately entered the room, confirmed by nod that the resident was choking, and performed the Heimlich maneuver, expelling a piece of chicken from the resident’s mouth. After the intervention, the resident was able to breathe, speak in full sentences, and was assessed with normal breathing, warm, dry, pink skin, and stable vital signs. Subsequent review by nursing staff and facility leadership determined that the resident’s lunch tray did not match the ordered ground diet texture. Nurse #3 reported that upon checking the diet order after the incident, she found the resident had an order for a ground diet but had been given a regular texture diet, with chicken cut into pieces rather than ground. Nurse #1 confirmed that the resident had an order for a ground diet and that the chicken on the plate was cut up, not ground. Nurse #1 and Nurse #2 both acknowledged that nurses were responsible for checking all residents’ meal trays against their meal tickets to ensure correct diet texture, but each stated they had not checked this resident’s tray or any other residents’ trays that day. The former Administrator and the DON both stated that nurses were supposed to check all meal trays for accuracy prior to being served, and it was also identified that the Dietary Department had sent the wrong diet texture for the resident’s meal, resulting in the resident being served an incorrect meal texture that contributed to the choking incident. Additional staff interviews further described the breakdown in the tray-checking process. CNA #1, who helped pass lunch trays, could not recall whether nurses had checked the trays before they were passed. CNA #2, who was behind on morning care when the food trucks arrived, reported helping pass trays and stated that when she asked CNA #1 and CNA #3 if the nurses had checked the trays, both CNAs said yes. The former Administrator’s investigation concluded that the nurses on the unit had not checked the resident’s tray or any other trays at lunch prior to service, and he could not determine which staff member actually handed the tray to the resident. The DON stated that the Dietary Department had sent the wrong diet texture and that nursing staff had not checked the tray against the meal ticket before the meal was served, contrary to facility expectations and policy that require food and nutrition services staff and nursing staff to ensure that each resident receives the correct meal according to their diet orders.
Incorrect Diet Texture Served to Dysphagic Resident Resulting in Choking Episode
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure that a resident with dysphagia received food prepared in the correct texture as ordered by the physician. The resident had diagnoses including dysphagia, parkinsonism, dysarthria, cerebral infarction, hyperlipidemia, and anxiety, and had a physician’s order for a house diet with ground texture and nectar-thick liquids. On the date of the incident, the lunch menu included chicken parmesan with spaghetti noodles, cauliflower, and a garlic bread knot. The resident’s lunch meal ticket correctly reflected a house diet with ground texture and nectar-thick liquids, but the meal actually prepared and served to the resident was a regular texture diet, including a whole piece of chicken that had not been ground. According to interviews, the facility’s process required a dietary aide to call out each resident’s diet order, restrictions, allergies, and preferences from the meal ticket to the cook, who then prepared the plate and handed it back to the dietary aide. The dietary aide was responsible for double-checking that the meal on the plate matched the resident’s meal ticket before covering the plate and placing it on the tray. On the day in question, the dietary aide assigned to the food truck stated that the lunch meal was chicken parmesan with spaghetti noodles and acknowledged that the resident was on a ground diet. He reported that he must have read the wrong resident’s diet order for a regular diet to the cook and then placed the regular diet plate on this resident’s tray without checking the plate against the meal ticket as required. Nursing staff were also responsible for checking residents’ meal trays against the meal tickets before meals were passed. On the day of the incident, a nurse sitting at the nurses’ station near the dining room heard another resident ask if the affected resident was choking. The nurse observed the resident performing the universal choking sign, confirmed the resident was choking, and performed the Heimlich maneuver, after which a piece of chicken was expelled from the resident’s mouth. The nurse then checked the resident’s diet order and discovered that the resident had an order for a ground diet but had been given a regular texture diet. The facility’s own report through the Health Care Facility Reporting System documented that the lunch meal was not prepared according to the resident’s diet, that nursing staff had not checked the meal tray for accuracy against the meal ticket, and that the resident was served the incorrect meal texture.
Failure to Obtain Nursing Assessment After Resident Lowered to Floor
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure that a dependent resident received care and treatment consistent with professional standards and the facility’s fall assessment policy after being lowered to the floor in the bathroom. The resident, admitted with diagnoses including non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a left femur fracture, and a pelvic fracture, was cognitively intact and dependent on staff for care. On the date of the incident, the resident reported standing in the bathroom holding a grab bar while a CNA provided care, then telling the CNA that the resident’s knee was giving out and that they could not continue standing. The resident stated the CNA told them to hold on, but because the resident could not stand any longer, the CNA had to lower the resident to the floor, after which the resident cried due to right knee pain. According to the incident report and staff interviews, CNA #1 confirmed lowering the resident to the floor, then independently lifting the resident, placing them in a wheelchair, and transferring them back to bed before notifying any nurse. The facility’s policy on assessing falls requires that when a resident has fallen or is found on the floor, staff must evaluate for possible injuries to the head, neck, spine, and extremities before moving the resident. Multiple nurses and the nursing supervisor reported that CNA #1 did not inform them of the resident being lowered to the floor until after the resident had been moved back to bed, and some were only told about a skin tear sustained during a transfer, not that the resident had been on the floor. The DON and nursing supervisor both stated that being lowered to the floor is considered a fall and that a nurse should have assessed the resident for potential injury before the resident was moved, which did not occur in this case.
Failure to Timely Report Resident-to-Resident Sexual Abuse Allegation and Maintain Current Abuse Policy
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure timely internal and external reporting of an allegation of resident-to-resident sexual abuse, and failure to maintain an abuse policy aligned with current reporting requirements. The facility’s written policy, dated June 2022, stated that any complaint, observation, or suspicion of abuse, neglect, mistreatment, or misappropriation of resident property would be reported to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Division of Health Care Quality and other appropriate agencies in accordance with state and federal law. The policy further indicated that the Unit Manager/Supervisor would notify the DON and Administrator within two hours after an allegation if there was abuse or bodily harm, and that the Administrator and DON would be notified immediately based on CMS and State time frames, with a report to the Department of Public Health within 24 hours if abuse was suspected or confirmed. However, the Administrator later acknowledged that the policy had not been fully updated to accurately reflect current requirements that allegations of abuse be reported immediately to administration and to the State Agency within two hours. The incident involved two severely cognitively impaired residents. Resident #2 had diagnoses including dementia, aphasia, conversion disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder, with an MDS showing he/she rarely/never made him/herself understood or understood others and had severely impaired cognitive skills for daily decision making. Resident #2’s care plan indicated wandering behavior with potential intrusion on others’ privacy, with interventions to distract with pleasant diversions and structured activities. Resident #3 had vascular dementia, with an MDS indicating he/she usually made him/herself understood and usually understood others, but had severely impaired cognitive patterns, and a care plan noting impaired cognitive function or thought processes due to dementia, with interventions to cue, reorient, and supervise as needed. On the evening in question, CNA #2 observed Resident #2, known to wander, in the dining room and later found Resident #2 in Resident #3’s room, seated on Resident #3’s bed, although Resident #2 did not reside there. CNA #2 entered and saw Resident #3 lying in bed with no clothing covering the genital area, while Resident #2 was touching Resident #3’s genital area with one hand; one of Resident #3’s hands was over Resident #2’s hand and the other was touching Resident #2’s chest under the shirt. CNA #2 removed Resident #2 from the room and immediately reported the incident to Nurse #1. Nurse #1 stated she reported the incident to the ADON (who did not recall being informed) and texted the DON sometime after 11:00 P.M., approximately four hours after the incident, acknowledging she should have called immediately but was distracted by other tasks. The DON did not see the text until about 5:00 A.M. the following morning, nearly 11 hours after the incident, and the Administrator was not notified until around 8:00 A.M., almost 14 hours after the incident. The facility’s report to the State Agency via the Health Care Facility Reporting System was created the following afternoon, and the Administrator later stated that allegations of abuse were expected to be reported immediately to administration and to the State Agency within two hours, which was not reflected in the written policy or in the staff’s actions.
Failure to Timely Report Resident-to-Resident Sexual Abuse Allegation
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure that staff immediately reported an allegation of resident-to-resident sexual abuse to administrative staff so it could be reported to the State Survey Agency within the required two-hour timeframe. Facility policy dated June 2022 required that any complaint, observation, or suspicion of resident abuse, neglect, mistreatment, or misappropriation of resident property be reported to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Division of Health Care Quality, and other appropriate agencies in accordance with state and federal law. On the evening of 03/04/26, CNA #2 observed Resident #2, who did not reside in Resident #3’s room, seated on Resident #3’s bed while Resident #3 lay in bed with no clothing covering the genital area. CNA #2 saw Resident #2 touching Resident #3’s genital area with one hand, while Resident #3’s hand covered Resident #2’s hand and the other hand touched Resident #2’s chest under the shirt. CNA #2 immediately removed Resident #2 from the room and reported the incident to Nurse #1. Resident #2 had diagnoses including dementia, aphasia, conversion disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder, and an annual MDS dated 02/25/26 showed severely impaired cognitive skills and that the resident rarely or never made self understood or understood others. Resident #3 had vascular dementia, and a quarterly MDS dated 02/17/26 indicated severely impaired cognitive patterns despite usually being able to make self understood and understand others. After CNA #2’s report, Nurse #1 acknowledged that around 6:15 P.M. on 03/04/26 she was informed of the residents’ sexual activity and stated she contacted the ADON by telephone or email and later texted the DON sometime after 11:00 P.M., approximately four hours after the incident. The ADON did not recall being informed, and the DON reported she did not become aware of the incident until seeing Nurse #1’s text at about 5:00 A.M. on 03/05/26, nearly 11 hours after the event, at which time she notified the Administrator. The Administrator stated he first learned of the allegation when the DON texted him the morning of 03/05/26 as he arrived at 8:00 A.M., and confirmed the incident was not reported to the State Agency within two hours, with the Health Care Facility Reporting System submission created on 03/05/26 at 1:29 P.M., more than 18 hours after the alleged incident occurred.
Trusted data from CMS and state health departments
Every citation, penalty and Plan of Correction is sourced from public CMS records (latest release May 27, 2026) and official state health department websites — never guesswork.
Trusted by long-term care providers and associations.
