Sacred Heart Nursing Home
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in New Bedford, Massachusetts.
- Location
- 359 Summer Street, New Bedford, Massachusetts 02740
- CMS Provider Number
- 225389
- Inspections on file
- 20
- Latest survey
- August 28, 2025
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 3
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Sacred Heart Nursing Home during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
The facility failed to maintain food safety and sanitation standards in three out of four kitchenettes, with issues such as rusted microwaves and improper storage of food items under sinks. Dietary staff were responsible for cleaning and stocking but did not adequately perform these tasks, leading to potential foodborne illness risks.
The facility failed to implement an effective antibiotic stewardship program by not performing or documenting required antibiotic time outs (ATOs) for two residents who were prescribed antibiotics despite not meeting infection criteria. The Infection Preventionist and Director of Nurses acknowledged the oversight, indicating a lapse in following the facility's policy.
The facility failed to ensure a safe environment by not replacing sharps containers when full, as required by policy. Observations showed containers overfilled on two units, increasing the risk of needlestick injuries. Staff interviews revealed confusion about the replacement process, and maintenance did not perform weekly checks due to staffing issues.
The facility failed to develop and implement person-centered care plans for two residents with trauma histories, leading to a deficiency in addressing their mental health needs. One resident, with a history of robbery and sexual assault, had no trauma-related care plan, leaving staff unaware of potential triggers. Another resident, diagnosed with PTSD, also lacked a care plan addressing their trauma, despite receiving psychotherapy. The facility's oversight in creating trauma-informed care plans was acknowledged by the Director of Social Services and the DON.
A resident with an unstageable DTI on the left heel did not receive wound care according to the physician's orders. The nurse failed to cleanse the wound with normal saline and pat dry before applying a new foam dressing, as observed by a surveyor. The resident was at risk for pressure ulcers and dependent on staff for mobility. The DON and ADON confirmed the need for adherence to the physician's orders for dressing changes.
Two residents with existing pressure injuries did not receive care consistent with physician's orders at a facility. One resident's heels were not offloaded, and the LAL mattress was incorrectly set to static mode. Another resident's LAL mattress settings were not adjusted to their weight, and the static mode was left on. Staff interviews revealed a lack of understanding of proper mattress settings and interventions, leading to inadequate care.
The facility failed to identify and document potential triggers for two residents with a history of trauma, risking re-traumatization. One resident, with Parkinson's disease, reported past trauma and specific triggers, but these were not documented in their care plan. Another resident, with schizoaffective disorder and PTSD, also lacked a care plan reflecting their trauma history and triggers. Staff interviews revealed a lack of awareness and documentation, and the facility lacked a policy on trauma-informed care.
A resident, who was alert and frequently incontinent, requested to be put on a bedpan. A CNA told the resident to defecate in their pants and that they would be cleaned later. The resident was found soiled and distressed, and the CNA admitted to making the degrading statement. The facility failed to uphold its policy on resident rights.
A resident reported an inappropriate statement made by a CNA, but the facility failed to follow its Abuse Policy by not immediately notifying the Administrator or DON. The written statement was left in the DON's mailbox for 36 hours, causing a delay in addressing the abuse allegation.
Food Safety and Sanitation Deficiencies in Kitchenettes
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adhere to professional standards of food safety and sanitation, which could potentially lead to the spread of foodborne illnesses among residents. The surveyor observed several deficiencies in three out of four kitchenettes, including rusted and peeling microwaves with food particle spatter and stains, and improper storage of food items under sinks next to plumbing piping. These observations were made on different units, including the Third Floor Unit, Saint Michael's Unit, and Saint Joseph's Unit. Interviews with the Unit Manager and Food Service Director revealed that dietary staff were responsible for cleaning and stocking the kitchenettes, but they failed to notice or report the rusted microwaves and improper storage practices. The Unit Manager and Food Service Director acknowledged the issues upon observation and noted that the microwaves needed replacement and that no items should be stored under the sink due to contamination risks. The dietary staff were expected to clean and sanitize the microwaves daily and ensure proper storage, but these tasks were not adequately performed.
Failure to Implement Antibiotic Stewardship Program
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement an effective antibiotic stewardship program as required by their policy. The policy mandates an antibiotic review process, known as an antibiotic time out (ATO), to reassess the need for antibiotics when the clinical picture becomes clearer. However, the facility did not perform or document ATOs for residents who were prescribed antibiotics despite not meeting the infection criteria as per the McGeer guidelines. Specifically, Resident #73 was prescribed antibiotics for a skin concern that did not meet infection criteria, and Resident #106 was prescribed antibiotics for a urinary issue that also did not meet infection criteria. In both cases, there was no documentation of an ATO being performed, which is a requirement of the facility's policy. Interviews with the Infection Preventionist (IP) and the Director of Nurses revealed that the facility was aware of the requirement to perform and document ATOs for residents on antibiotics who do not meet infection criteria. Despite this awareness, the facility failed to adhere to its policy, as evidenced by the lack of ATO documentation in the medical records of Residents #73 and #106. The Director of Nurses acknowledged that residents on antibiotic therapy are discussed daily in morning meetings, but the policy was not being followed as required at the time of the survey.
Failure to Properly Manage Sharps Containers
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a functional, safe, and clean environment on two of its four units, specifically regarding the management of sharps containers. The facility's policy required that sharps containers be replaced when they are two-thirds to three-quarters full to prevent needlestick injuries and exposure to bloodborne pathogens. However, during a survey, it was observed that sharps containers in several rooms on the 2PY and 3PY units were filled above the three-fourths full line, posing a potential hazard. The facility's policy also mandated weekly checks of these containers by the maintenance department, but there was no evidence of such checks being conducted since May 2024. Interviews with staff revealed a lack of clarity and consistency in the process for replacing full sharps containers. Nurses and CNAs were unsure of the procedure, with some indicating that they verbally informed maintenance or filled out repair slips when containers needed replacing. The Maintenance Director confirmed that the maintenance department did not routinely check the containers weekly due to staffing constraints, relying instead on nursing staff to notify them when replacements were needed. This lack of adherence to the facility's policy and the absence of a systematic approach to managing sharps containers contributed to the deficiency identified by the surveyors.
Failure to Implement Trauma-Informed Care Plans
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop and implement a person-centered care plan for two residents who had experienced trauma, leading to a deficiency in addressing their mental health needs. Resident #120, who was admitted with Parkinson's disease, had a history of being robbed and sexually assaulted, which was not reflected in their care plan. Despite being cognitively intact and having shared this trauma with the facility, staff members, including CNAs and nurses, were unaware of the resident's trauma history or any potential triggers that could lead to re-traumatization. The care plan for Resident #120 did not include any mention of the trauma or strategies to avoid potential triggers, which was acknowledged as an oversight by the Director of Social Services. Similarly, Resident #30, who had diagnoses including schizoaffective disorder and PTSD, also had a history of trauma that was not adequately addressed in their care plan. The resident had reported a history of trauma during a recent hospitalization and was receiving psychotherapy for PTSD. However, the care plan failed to document the trauma history or identify triggers to prevent re-traumatization. Staff members, including nurses, were not informed of the resident's trauma or potential triggers, despite the resident's ongoing psychiatric treatment and history of paranoia and suspicious demeanor. The Director of Social Services and the Director of Nurses both acknowledged the lack of appropriate care plans for residents with known trauma histories. The facility did not have care plans in place to alert staff to the residents' trauma histories or to guide them in avoiding potential triggers, which could lead to negative reactions or behaviors. This deficiency highlights a significant gap in the facility's approach to person-centered care for residents with trauma histories.
Failure to Follow Wound Care Protocol for Resident with DTI
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide services that met professional standards of practice for a resident with an unstageable deep tissue injury (DTI) on the left heel. The resident, who was admitted with diagnoses including peripheral vascular disease and bilateral paralytic syndrome following cerebral infarction, was at risk for developing pressure ulcers and was dependent on staff for mobility. The resident's care plan included applying an Allevyn foam dressing to the left heel as ordered by the physician. However, during a surveyor's observation, it was noted that Nurse #5 did not follow the physician's order to cleanse the wound with normal saline and pat dry before applying the new foam dressing. The surveyor observed that the nurse removed the old dressing and applied a new foam dressing without cleansing the wound, as required by the physician's order. The nurse acknowledged the oversight during an interview and stated that she should have followed the order. The Director of Nursing and the Assistant Director of Nursing, who is also the facility's wound care nurse, confirmed that the resident was at risk for pressure injuries and that dressing changes should be performed according to the physician's orders. This failure to adhere to the prescribed wound care protocol resulted in a deficiency in meeting professional standards of quality care.
Inadequate Pressure Ulcer Care for Two Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate care and treatment to prevent and promote the healing of pressure injuries for two residents, Resident #57 and Resident #96. Resident #57, who was admitted with a left heel unstageable deep tissue injury (DTI), did not consistently receive care as per physician's orders. The orders included offloading the heels and adjusting the low air loss (LAL) mattress settings. Observations revealed that the resident's left heel was in contact with the mattress, and the LAL mattress was set to static mode, contrary to the physician's instructions. Interviews with staff indicated a lack of awareness and understanding of the correct mattress settings and the importance of offloading the heels. Resident #96, who had an unstageable DTI on the coccyx, also did not receive care in accordance with physician's orders. The LAL mattress settings were not adjusted to the resident's weight, and the static mode button was left on, which was against the prescribed care plan. Observations showed discrepancies in the mattress weight settings, and staff interviews revealed a lack of knowledge about the correct settings and interventions required to prevent further pressure injuries. The facility's policies on wound and skin care and the use of LAL mattresses were not effectively implemented, leading to inconsistencies in care. The Director of Nursing (DON) and Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) acknowledged the deficiencies in care and the failure to adhere to physician's orders. The lack of proper training and communication among staff contributed to the inadequate care provided to the residents, putting them at risk for further complications related to pressure injuries.
Failure to Identify and Document Trauma Triggers for Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to identify and document potential triggers for two residents with a history of trauma, which could help prevent potential re-traumatization. Resident #120, who was admitted in March 2024 with Parkinson's disease, reported a past trauma involving robbery and sexual assault. Despite being cognitively intact and expressing concerns about specific triggers, such as being approached from behind, the facility did not document these triggers in the resident's care plan. Interviews with staff, including CNAs and nurses, revealed a lack of awareness regarding the resident's trauma history and potential triggers, indicating a gap in communication and documentation. Similarly, Resident #30, admitted in November 2019 with schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, and generalized anxiety, also had a history of trauma. Despite receiving psychotherapy and having a diagnosis of PTSD, the resident's care plan did not reflect their trauma history or potential triggers. Interviews with nursing staff and the Director of Social Services highlighted a lack of updated social history assessments and care plans that should have included the resident's trauma and triggers. The facility's failure to reassess and update care plans contributed to the oversight. The Director of Social Services acknowledged the errors in documentation and the absence of a care plan addressing the residents' trauma and triggers. The facility's Director of Nursing confirmed the lack of a policy on trauma-informed care and recognized the need for reassessment to identify any new or existing triggers. The absence of a structured approach to trauma-informed care and the failure to document and communicate residents' trauma histories and triggers were central to the deficiency identified by the surveyors.
Resident Dignity and Respect Violation
Penalty
Summary
The Facility failed to ensure that a resident was treated in a dignified and respectful manner. The resident, who was alert, oriented, and frequently incontinent but able to make their needs known, requested to be put on a bedpan. In response, a Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) told the resident to defecate in their pants and that the CNA would clean them later. This incident was corroborated by another CNA who found the resident's bed soiled with urine and feces, with dried feces on the resident's skin, causing redness and irritation. The resident was distressed and cried when recounting the incident, expressing that they did not want to get the CNA in trouble and felt they were paying a lot of money for such treatment. The CNA involved admitted to making the degrading statement to the resident. The incident was reported to the nursing staff, and an internal investigation was initiated. The resident's condition and the inappropriate response from the CNA were documented by multiple staff members, including another CNA and a nurse. The facility's policy on resident rights was not upheld, as the resident was not treated with the respect and dignity they deserved, and their request for assistance was met with an inappropriate and disrespectful response from the CNA.
Failure to Follow Abuse Reporting Procedures
Penalty
Summary
The Facility failed to ensure staff implemented and followed their Abuse Policy when a resident, who was cognitively intact, reported an inappropriate and insulting statement made by a CNA. The resident informed a CNA and a nurse about the incident, and although the nurse reported it to her supervisor and provided a written statement, the supervisor did not immediately notify the Administrator or the Director of Nurses. Instead, the written statement was placed in the DON's mailbox, where it remained unnoticed for approximately 36 hours. This delay in reporting violated the Facility's Abuse Prohibition Policy, which mandates immediate reporting of abuse allegations to the Administrator and DON. The resident, who had diagnoses including hemiplegia and hemiparesis following a non-traumatic intracranial hemorrhage, reported that the CNA told him/her to defecate in his/her pants and that the CNA would clean him/her later. This incident caused the resident significant distress, as evidenced by the resident crying and complaining about the treatment. The failure to promptly report and address the allegation of abuse highlights a significant lapse in following established procedures designed to protect residents from abuse and neglect.
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.
