Kimwell Nursing And Rehabilitation
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Fall River, Massachusetts.
- Location
- 495 New Boston Road, Fall River, Massachusetts 02720
- CMS Provider Number
- 225194
- Inspections on file
- 32
- Latest survey
- October 7, 2025
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 1
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Kimwell Nursing And Rehabilitation during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Two CNAs transferred a resident from the floor to the toilet after the resident became unsteady and was lowered to the floor, without first notifying a nurse or having the resident assessed for injury. The resident, who had multiple comorbidities and cognitive impairment, subsequently exhibited severe pain and was later found to have sustained a hip fracture. Facility policy required nurse notification and assessment after any fall or being lowered to the floor, which was not followed in this incident.
The facility failed to maintain safe water temperatures in resident bathrooms and shower rooms, with temperatures recorded as high as 158F, exceeding the safe range of 110F to 120F. Residents and staff reported concerns about excessively hot water, and the Director of Maintenance admitted to not checking temperatures for two weeks. The facility's inconsistent monitoring and adjustment of water temperatures led to this deficiency.
The facility failed to administer Pneumococcal and Influenza vaccines as consented for three residents. A resident consented to the Pneumococcal vaccine but did not receive it, while another resident consented to both vaccines but was not offered them. A third resident received the Influenza vaccine twice due to a lack of review of previous records, and their eligibility for additional Pneumococcal vaccines was not assessed.
A facility failed to void a MOLST form after a court-appointed guardian revoked the previous HCP for a resident with dementia. The MOLST, signed by the resident's sister, remained active despite the guardian lacking authority for advanced directives. Staff were unclear about guardianship rules, and attempts to contact the guardian were unsuccessful.
A facility failed to complete a required Level 1 PASARR for a resident with mental health diagnoses, including bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. Despite these conditions being documented in the resident's medical records, the PASARR was not found, as confirmed by the DON and the responsible social worker.
A resident with COPD and pneumonia was observed receiving oxygen therapy at 5 liters per minute, contrary to the physician's order of 2 liters per minute. Despite fluctuating oxygen saturation levels, the incorrect setting persisted over several days. The nurse responsible confirmed the error, and the DON acknowledged the need to follow physician orders.
The facility failed to maintain the required RN coverage for at least eight consecutive hours a day, seven days a week, as identified in the PBJ Staffing Data Report for Quarter 4 of 2024. On four specific days, there was no RN coverage, placing residents at risk of unmet clinical needs. The facility's management acknowledged the deficiency and confirmed the absence of staffing waivers.
A facility failed to provide comprehensive social services to a resident with dementia, resulting in a deficiency. The resident's social history was incomplete, lacking details about family relations and substance use disorder. The social worker copied previous assessments without verifying information, leading to a lack of awareness about the resident's true social situation. Interviews revealed the resident was married, had estranged children, and a history of alcohol abuse, which was not documented. The facility's oversight in obtaining a complete social history contributed to the deficiency.
The facility failed to issue the NOMNC and SNF ABN to certain residents as required. A resident was not given the NOMNC before discharge, and another continued to stay without receiving it. Two residents were not issued the SNF ABN, leaving them uninformed about potential financial liabilities. The Administrator and Social Worker acknowledged the inability to locate the required notices.
A resident with an activated Health Care Proxy experienced an unwitnessed fall, but the facility failed to notify the Health Care Agent as required by policy. The incident was not documented by the nurse on duty, and the Director of Nursing confirmed the lapse in following procedures.
A resident with multiple health conditions experienced an unwitnessed fall, but the incident was not documented in their medical record as required by the facility's policies. The nurse on duty believed she had documented the fall but could not explain the absence of documentation. The Director of Nursing confirmed the lack of documentation, which was inconsistent with the facility's policies.
Failure to Notify Nurse and Assess Resident After Fall Leads to Undetected Hip Fracture
Penalty
Summary
Staff failed to provide care consistent with professional standards when, after a resident became unsteady during a transfer and was lowered to the floor by a CNA, two CNAs transferred the resident from the floor to the toilet without first notifying a nurse or having the resident assessed for injury. Both CNAs stated in interviews that they did not consider the incident a fall and therefore did not call for the nurse before moving the resident. Facility policy and CNA job descriptions require that all changes in a resident's condition, including falls or being lowered to the floor, be reported to the nurse immediately and that staff follow established procedures for such events. The resident involved had significant medical conditions, including dementia, cognitive communication deficit, bone disorders, rheumatoid arthritis, and hypertensive heart disease, and was assessed as severely cognitively impaired and at moderate risk for falls. After being transferred to the toilet by the CNAs, the resident exhibited a sudden change in condition, including pallor, diaphoresis, and severe pain, prompting the CNAs to then call for the nurse. Upon assessment, the nurse found the resident in significant distress and unable to identify the location of pain, leading to a decision to send the resident to the hospital. Subsequent hospital evaluation revealed that the resident had sustained an acute comminuted left femoral intertrochanteric fracture. Interviews with the nurse and the Director of Nursing confirmed that the CNAs did not follow facility policy, which defines being lowered to the floor as a fall and requires nurse assessment before moving the resident. The deficiency was the failure of staff to notify and involve nursing assessment prior to moving a resident after a fall or being lowered to the floor, resulting in delayed identification of a serious injury.
Unsafe Water Temperatures in Resident Areas
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain safe water temperatures in resident bathrooms and shower rooms, leading to potential scalding hazards. During an environmental tour, surveyors found water temperatures in several rooms and shower areas significantly exceeded the safe range, with temperatures recorded as high as 158F. The facility's policy requires water temperatures to be maintained between 110F and 120F to prevent scalding, but these limits were not adhered to, posing a risk to residents. Interviews with residents and staff revealed that the issue of excessively hot water was known but not adequately addressed. A resident expressed concern about the water being too hot and potentially unsafe, while CNAs reported variability in water temperatures and attempts to mitigate the risk by filling basins before the water became too hot. The Director of Maintenance (DOM) admitted to not checking water temperatures for the past two weeks, despite the facility's policy requiring regular monitoring and adjustments to ensure safety. The DOM's practice of maintaining the boiler temperature at 135-140F and the house mixing valve at 140F contributed to the unsafe water temperatures. The DOM acknowledged that the water temperatures were too high and expressed surprise at the readings. The facility's logs showed inconsistencies in monitoring and adjusting water temperatures, with the last recorded check being 13 days prior to the survey. This lack of consistent monitoring and adjustment led to the deficiency in maintaining a safe environment for residents.
Failure to Administer Vaccines as Consented
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide the Pneumococcal and Influenza immunizations as requested or consented for three residents. Resident #94 was admitted in October 2024 and had consented to the Pneumococcal vaccine but declined the Influenza vaccine. However, the electronic medical record incorrectly indicated that the resident declined both vaccines, and there was no documentation of the Pneumococcal vaccine being administered. The Infection Control Preventionist was unsure if the vaccine was offered and acknowledged the lack of documentation. Resident #90, also admitted in October 2024, consented to both the Influenza and Pneumococcal vaccines, but the electronic medical record showed a declination for both, and neither vaccine was administered. The Infection Control Preventionist admitted to missing the consent form and failing to offer the vaccines. Resident #11, admitted in November 2024, had consented to the Influenza, Pneumococcal, and COVID-19 booster vaccines. While the Influenza vaccine was administered at the facility, the resident's eligibility for additional Pneumococcal vaccines was not assessed, and the PCV 20 vaccine was not administered. Additionally, the resident received the Influenza vaccine twice due to a lack of review of the discharge paperwork from the previous facility.
Failure to Void MOLST Form After Guardianship Change
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adhere to a court order regarding the guardianship of a resident diagnosed with dementia. The court had appointed a professional guardian for the resident, revoking the previous Health Care Proxy (HCP) held by the resident's sister. However, the facility did not void the Massachusetts Medical Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (MOLST) form, which was signed by the previous HCP. The court order did not grant the guardian authority to make advanced directive decisions, yet the MOLST form remained active, indicating the resident was not to be resuscitated, intubated, or transferred to the hospital. Interviews with facility staff revealed a lack of clarity and communication regarding the guardianship and the validity of the MOLST form. The Social Worker was unfamiliar with guardianship rules and could not confirm the validity of the MOLST form. The Director of Nurses (DON) assumed the MOLST was valid because it was signed by the previous HCP, despite the court's revocation of the HCP's authority. Attempts to contact the professional guardian for clarification were unsuccessful, and the facility's legal counsel later advised that the MOLST should have been voided when the permanent guardianship was established.
Failure to Complete Required PASARR for Resident with Mental Condition
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a required Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) was completed for a resident with a diagnosed mental condition. The resident was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including bipolar disorder, anxiety, depression, and schizophrenia. Despite these active diagnoses being documented in the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment and the physician's progress notes, the medical record did not contain a completed Level 1 PASARR. Interviews with facility staff revealed that the Director of Nurses confirmed the absence of a completed Level 1 PASARR in the resident's medical record. The social worker responsible for completing PASARR forms since November 2024 acknowledged that she was unable to find a completed Level 1 PASARR for the resident and admitted that it was probably never completed. This oversight indicates a lapse in the facility's adherence to its policy on behavioral assessment, intervention, and monitoring.
Failure to Administer Oxygen Therapy as Ordered
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to administer oxygen therapy according to the physician's orders for a resident diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and pneumonia. The resident was admitted with an order for oxygen at 2 liters per minute via nasal cannula. However, during the survey, the oxygen concentrator was observed set at 5 liters per minute on multiple occasions. Nurse #3, who was responsible for the resident's care, confirmed the physician's order for 2 liters per minute but did not notice the incorrect setting during her rounds. The discrepancy was observed over several days, with the resident's oxygen saturation levels fluctuating. Despite the resident's oxygen saturation levels being documented at various percentages, the oxygen concentrator remained incorrectly set at 5 liters per minute. The Director of Nurses acknowledged that the physician's orders should be followed and that any changes should be communicated with the physician. The failure to adhere to the prescribed oxygen therapy regimen was identified as a deficiency during the survey.
Failure to Maintain Required RN Coverage
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to comply with the regulatory requirement of having a Registered Nurse (RN) on duty for at least eight consecutive hours a day, seven days a week. This deficiency was identified through a review of the Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) Staffing Data Report for Quarter 4 of 2024, which indicated that there were four days within the quarter where no RN hours were recorded. Specifically, the facility did not have RN coverage on August 3, August 4, August 25, and September 21, 2024. The absence of RN coverage on these days placed all residents at risk of not having their clinical needs met, either directly by an RN or indirectly through oversight of Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs) and Certified Nurse Aides (CNAs). During interviews, the facility's Administrator and Director of Nurses confirmed that no staffing waivers were in place to justify the lack of RN coverage. The Human Resource Manager acknowledged awareness of the PBJ report's findings and confirmed the absence of RN coverage on the specified days before submitting the data. The Administrator also acknowledged the requirement for RN coverage and mentioned that on-call coverage was available from the nurse management team for clinical needs, but admitted that the facility did not meet the required RN coverage.
Failure to Provide Comprehensive Social Services
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide medically related social services to a resident, resulting in a deficiency in maintaining the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. The resident, who was admitted with a diagnosis of dementia and had a court-appointed guardian, did not have a comprehensive social history completed upon admission. The social service assessments conducted were inadequate, as they did not capture critical information such as the resident's marital status, family relations, and history of substance use disorder. The assessments were based solely on information from the resident, who had severe cognitive impairment, and were not updated with input from family members or other sources. The social worker responsible for the resident's assessments admitted to copying information from previous assessments without verifying or updating the details. This oversight led to a lack of awareness about the resident's true social situation, including estranged family members and a history of alcohol abuse. The social worker also demonstrated a lack of understanding regarding the resident's guardianship status and the validity of the MOLST form, which was signed by the resident's sister before the appointment of a professional guardian. Interviews with the resident's sister revealed that the resident was still married, had two estranged children, and a history of alcohol abuse, information that was not previously documented in the facility's records. The sister also expressed confusion about her role in making medical decisions due to the appointment of a professional guardian. The facility's failure to obtain a complete social history and accurately document the resident's social and medical background contributed to the deficiency in providing appropriate social services.
Failure to Provide Required Medicare Notices
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to issue the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) and the Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice (SNF ABN) to certain residents as required. Specifically, the NOMNC, which is Form CMS-10123, was not provided to two residents who were receiving Medicare Part A services. One resident was not given the NOMNC before being discharged to the community, and another resident continued to stay at the facility after the last covered day without receiving the NOMNC. Additionally, the SNF ABN, which is Form CMS-10055, was not issued to two residents who continued services that might not be covered under Medicare, leaving them uninformed about potential financial liabilities. During interviews, the facility's Administrator acknowledged the inability to locate the required notices for two of the residents. The Social Worker admitted to providing the NOMNC to one resident's representative but failed to issue the SNF ABN. The Social Worker also confirmed that notices for the other two residents could not be found. This lack of documentation and failure to provide necessary notifications resulted in the deficiency identified during the Beneficiary Protection Notification Review.
Failure to Notify Health Care Agent After Resident's Fall
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to promptly notify the Health Care Agent (HCA) of a resident who had an activated Health Care Proxy (HCP) after the resident experienced an unwitnessed fall. On the specified date, the resident was found sitting on the floor against the bed at approximately 5:00 A.M. following the fall. Despite the facility's policy requiring immediate notification of the resident's representative in such incidents, there was no documentation indicating that the HCA was informed. Nurse #3, who was on duty at the time, could not recall notifying the HCA and admitted that if it was not documented, it likely did not occur. The resident involved had multiple diagnoses, including a fracture of the right pubis, osteoarthritis, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and other conditions. The Health Care Proxy for this resident was invoked prior to the incident. The Director of Nurses (DON) confirmed the lack of documentation regarding the fall and acknowledged that Nurse #3 did not adhere to the facility's policies. The failure to notify the HCA was inconsistent with the facility's established procedures for handling changes in a resident's condition or status and for investigating and reporting accidents and incidents.
Failure to Document Resident Fall
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain complete and accurate medical records for a resident who experienced an unwitnessed fall. The resident, who had multiple diagnoses including a fracture of the right pubis, osteoarthritis, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and other conditions, was found sitting on the floor against the bed after the fall. Despite the facility's policy requiring documentation of all incidents, there was no nursing documentation in the resident's medical record regarding the fall. Nurse #3, who was on duty at the time, believed she had documented the incident but could not explain the absence of documentation. The facility's policies, titled 'Charting and Documentation' and 'Accidents and Incidents - Investigating and Reporting,' require that all accidents and incidents be documented in the resident's medical record. However, the Director of Nurses confirmed that there was no documentation of the fall in the resident's medical record, which was inconsistent with the facility's policies. The Director of Nurses expected that Nurse #3 should have documented the incident in a progress note, but this was not done, leading to a deficiency in maintaining accurate medical records.
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.
