Life Care Center Of Nashoba Valley
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Littleton, Massachusetts.
- Location
- 191 Foster Street, Littleton, Massachusetts 01460
- CMS Provider Number
- 225569
- Inspections on file
- 17
- Latest survey
- August 20, 2025
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 8
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Life Care Center Of Nashoba Valley during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and multiple chronic conditions did not have a comprehensive, individualized care plan addressing all ADL needs. The care plan and Kardex lacked specific interventions and did not specify the required level of assistance for eating, despite staff observations and interviews confirming the resident's dependence on staff for several ADLs.
A resident with atrial fibrillation and hypertension had their anticoagulant medication changed from Coumadin to Eliquis, but the care plan was not updated to reflect this change. Despite two MDS assessments occurring after the medication switch, the care plan continued to reference the discontinued medication and related monitoring, and staff confirmed that the care plan should have been revised.
A licensed pharmacist did not complete the required monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, and the facility did not follow its own irregularity reporting guidelines as outlined in policy and procedure.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment was found to have a large tube of hemorrhoid cream left unsecured on a bureau in their room for several days. Facility policy requires all medications, including external treatments, to be stored in locked compartments. Staff confirmed the medication was not ordered for the resident and should not have been accessible, indicating a failure to follow proper medication storage procedures.
The facility failed to maintain resident dignity during dining in the Dementia Special Care Unit. Staff were observed conversing with each other about a resident's need for physical therapy, rather than engaging with the residents they were assisting. Additionally, staff were standing while assisting residents with eating, contrary to the facility's policy of sitting at eye level to promote dignity.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and PICA was observed wearing a one-piece outfit with a back zipper, intended to prevent harmful behaviors. The facility did not assess whether the outfit constituted a physical restraint, as the resident could not remove it independently. Staff viewed the outfit as a behavior intervention, but no restraint assessment was documented in the resident's medical record.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment was transferred to the hospital without the necessary information being conveyed to the receiving provider. Despite standard procedures requiring the transmission of a face sheet, medication orders, and an e-interact form, the facility failed to provide these documents. Interviews with staff confirmed the absence of the required documentation, and the Director of Nursing acknowledged the oversight.
A resident in an LTC facility received medications without a proper physician order, and their spouse administered the medications without a self-administration assessment. The nurse failed to verify the order for Flonase nasal spray, and the facility's policy requiring nurses to stay with residents during medication administration was not followed.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and physical limitations was not provided with the necessary supervision during breakfast meals, as required by their care plan. Observations showed the resident struggling to eat without staff assistance, despite needing supervision and setup help. Staff were not consistently present to provide the required support, and the Director of Nursing acknowledged the oversight.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and a high risk for falls was observed without a functioning bed alarm, despite care plans and physician orders requiring its use. The bed alarm cord was found unplugged and stored in a drawer, indicating a failure to follow prescribed safety interventions.
During a lunch meal service, a cook failed to change gloves after opening the oven door, leading to food contamination. The cook handled fish, meatloaf, and a hot dog roll with the same gloves, which were deemed contaminated. The Food Service Director confirmed the need for glove changes after touching non-food surfaces.
Failure to Develop Comprehensive Person-Centered ADL Care Plan
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive, person-centered care plan with individualized interventions for a resident with significant ADL (Activities of Daily Living) needs. The resident, admitted with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, COPD, and type 2 diabetes, was assessed as having severe cognitive impairment and required varying levels of assistance for oral hygiene, eating, toileting, dressing, personal hygiene, and was dependent for bathing. Observations showed staff assisting the resident with meal preparation but the care plan and Kardex did not specify the required level of assistance for eating. Interviews with staff confirmed reliance on the Kardex for guidance and acknowledged the resident's dependence on staff for multiple ADLs. Review of the resident's clinical record revealed a care plan that lacked specific, person-centered interventions for all ADL needs, only noting general deficits and some preferences. The care plan did not detail the level of assistance required for each ADL, such as eating, despite the resident's documented needs. Staff interviews further confirmed that the care plan was insufficiently detailed to inform staff of the resident's specific care requirements.
Care Plan Not Updated to Reflect Change in Anticoagulant Medication
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident's care plan was revised to accurately reflect the current anticoagulant medication regimen. Specifically, a resident with a history of hypertension and atrial fibrillation was initially on Coumadin therapy, which was discontinued in January 2025. The resident was subsequently prescribed Eliquis for anticoagulation, as indicated by physician orders dated February 2025. Despite these changes, the care plan continued to reference Coumadin therapy and related monitoring, such as INR and Protime, and was not updated to reflect the new medication regimen. Review of the resident's records showed that two Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were completed after the medication change, but the care plan was not revised accordingly. Interviews with facility staff confirmed that the care plan should have been updated during routine quarterly reviews and that nursing staff are responsible for making updates between MDS assessments. The discrepancy was identified during a review of the care plan and physician orders, and staff acknowledged that the care plan did not accurately reflect the resident's current anticoagulant therapy.
Failure to Ensure Monthly Pharmacist Drug Regimen Review
Penalty
Summary
A licensed pharmacist did not perform a monthly drug regimen review, including a review of the medical chart, as required. The facility also failed to follow its established policies and procedures for reporting irregularities identified during the drug regimen review process. This deficiency was identified through surveyor observation and documentation review.
Unsecured Medication Left in Resident Room
Penalty
Summary
A medication used to treat hemorrhoids was observed unsecured on a bureau in a resident's room over a period of three days. The facility's policy requires that all medications, including those for external use, be securely stored in a locked cabinet, cart, or medication room inaccessible to residents or visitors. The resident involved had severe cognitive impairment, as indicated by a low score on the Brief Interview of Mental Status, and was admitted with diagnoses including unspecified dementia, mixed incontinence, and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Multiple observations by the surveyor confirmed the presence of the large tube of hemorrhoid cream in the resident's room, and review of the resident's physician's orders did not show an order for this medication. Interviews with facility staff, including the Unit Manager and Assistant Director of Nursing, confirmed that all medications and treatments should be kept in locked storage and not in resident rooms, regardless of whether the medication is facility stock or brought in by family. Staff acknowledged that the tube of hemorrhoid cream was left out in the open and should have been removed, and that the resident did not have an order for its use. The failure to secure the medication and ensure it was not accessible to the resident constituted a violation of the facility's medication storage policy and professional standards of practice.
Failure to Maintain Resident Dignity During Dining
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain resident dignity during dining in the Dementia Special Care Unit. Observations revealed that staff members were conversing with each other across the room about a resident's need for physical therapy, rather than engaging with the residents they were assisting. This conversation occurred in the presence of approximately 20 residents, potentially compromising the privacy and dignity of the individuals involved. Additionally, staff were observed discussing concerns about another resident openly, which is against the facility's policy of maintaining resident dignity and privacy. Furthermore, staff members were observed standing while assisting residents with eating, rather than sitting at eye level as required by the facility's policy. This was noted during both breakfast and lunch meals, with one CNA admitting to standing while feeding residents due to the need to assist multiple individuals at different tables. The facility's policy emphasizes the importance of promoting resident independence and dignity during meals, which includes staff being at eye level with residents and engaging in conversation with them rather than with other staff members.
Failure to Assess Potential Restraint Use for Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to assess a resident for the use of a possible physical restraint. The resident, who has severe cognitive impairment and requires substantial assistance with daily activities, was observed wearing a snug-fitting one-piece outfit with a zipper at the back. This outfit was provided by the resident's family and was intended to prevent the resident from accessing their incontinence brief and ingesting non-food items due to PICA. However, the facility did not conduct a restraint assessment to determine if the outfit restricted the resident's freedom of movement, as the resident could not remove the outfit independently. Interviews with staff, including a CNA, an Activity Assistant, a Nurse, and the Unit Manager, revealed that the one-piece outfit was used as a behavior intervention to prevent the resident from engaging in harmful behaviors. Despite this, the staff did not consider the outfit as a potential restraint, and there was no documentation of a restraint assessment in the resident's medical record. The Director of Nursing acknowledged that the outfit was viewed as a behavior intervention rather than a restraint, indicating a lack of proper assessment and documentation in line with the facility's policy on physical restraint use.
Failure to Convey Necessary Information During Resident Transfer
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to convey necessary information to the receiving provider when transferring a resident to the hospital. Resident #75, who was admitted to the facility in January 2021, has a medical history that includes depression, unspecified dementia, delusional disorder, transient ischemic attack, and cerebral infarction. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment indicated that the resident has severely impaired cognition and requires substantial assistance for daily care. On 7/24/24, the resident was sent to the hospital following a medical doctor's recommendation for assessment, but the facility did not provide the required written conveyance of information to the hospital. Interviews with facility staff revealed that the standard procedure involves sending a face sheet, medication orders, advanced directive information, and an e-interact form with the resident. However, Unit Manager #3 could not find any documentation or e-interact form that was sent with the resident. The Director of Nursing confirmed that the only documentation in the medical record was a behavior note, and acknowledged that the nursing staff should have completed and sent the e-interact form to the hospital.
Failure to Follow Medication Administration Protocols
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adhere to professional standards of practice in medication administration for a resident, leading to a deficiency. Specifically, a nurse prepared and attempted to administer medications to a resident without verifying a physician's order for Flonase nasal spray, which was not found in the resident's medical record. The nurse acknowledged that the order might have dropped off and proceeded with the administration process without confirming the order's existence. Additionally, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the medication administration process, indicating that their spouse typically administered the medications once brought to the room by the nurses. Further investigation revealed that the resident had not been assessed for self-administration of medication, and there was no documentation supporting such an assessment. The resident's spouse confirmed that she had been administering the medications, including eye drops, due to the nurses' time constraints. Interviews with the nurse, unit manager, and director of nursing confirmed that the facility's policy required nurses to remain with residents during medication administration unless a self-administration assessment had been completed, which was not done in this case.
Failure to Provide Supervision During Meals
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate supervision and assistance to a resident during breakfast meals, as required by the resident's care plan. The resident, who was admitted in December 2022, has severe cognitive impairment and requires supervision or touching assistance while eating. Observations on multiple occasions revealed that the resident was left alone with their breakfast tray, struggling to eat without staff assistance. Despite having a care plan that specified the need for supervision and setup help, staff were not present to provide the necessary support, leaving the resident to attempt eating independently with difficulty. The resident's medical records and care plan indicated a need for supervision during meals due to cognitive impairment and physical limitations. However, staff failed to consistently provide this supervision, as evidenced by the resident's incomplete meals and lack of staff presence during meal times. Interviews with staff confirmed that the resident requires cueing to eat, yet observations showed that staff only briefly checked in without providing sustained assistance. The Director of Nursing acknowledged that the resident should have been provided with the required supervision and assistance.
Failure to Implement Bed Alarm for High-Risk Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement interventions in accordance with the medical plan of care for a resident identified as high risk for falls. The resident, admitted in March 2021, has diagnoses including osteoporosis, unspecified dementia, and a history of repeated falls. The Minimum Data Set assessment indicated severe cognitive impairment and the need for substantial assistance with daily activities, with a bed alarm used daily as part of the care plan. Despite a physician's order and care plan specifying the use of a bed alarm at bedtime, observations on two occasions revealed that the bed alarm was not in use while the resident was in bed. On two separate observations, the bed alarm cord was found not plugged into the alarm box, rendering it non-functional. During an interview, a nurse confirmed the resident's care plan included the use of bed and chair alarms. The Unit Manager, upon entering the resident's room, also observed the bed alarm cord not connected to the alarm box, which was found in the resident's bedside drawer. This oversight indicates a failure to adhere to the prescribed safety interventions for the resident, who is at high risk for falls.
Improper Glove Use During Meal Service
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain sanitary conditions during the lunch meal service, as observed on 7/31/24. The cook, while wearing gloves, opened the oven door and then proceeded to handle food items, including fish, meatloaf, and a hot dog roll, without changing the gloves. This action led to the contamination of the food being served. The Food Service Director was informed of the improper glove use and acknowledged that the cook should have changed gloves after touching the oven door.
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.
