Anchorage Rehabilitation And Wellness Center
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Salisbury, Maryland.
- Location
- 105 Times Square, Salisbury, Maryland 21801
- CMS Provider Number
- 215339
- Inspections on file
- 20
- Latest survey
- March 20, 2026
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 28
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Anchorage Rehabilitation And Wellness Center during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with multiple chronic conditions, including morbid obesity, DM II, Stage 5 CKD, prior CVA with left-sided weakness, dementia, and other comorbidities, experienced a significant weight loss of 7.9% in one month as documented in the EMR. Facility policy required immediate notification of the resident, the practitioner, and the resident’s representative for significant changes in condition, such as this weight loss. The EMR generated a significant weight change alert, but another staff member cleared the alert, and department managers and the resident’s physician were not promptly informed of the change, resulting in a failure to provide required notification.
A resident with multiple comorbidities and an order for weekly skin assessments developed a new open area under the left great toenail that was initially identified and reported, with wound care orders put in place. However, required follow-up assessment tools were not completed, weekly skin integrity reviews for several weeks documented either no skin issues or lacked any detailed assessment of the toe wound, and the care plan was not updated to address the non-pressure wound. Later, an RN found the toe swollen, red, warm, tender, with the toenail and surrounding skin detached and dark discoloration of the toes; a CRNP then assessed a full-thickness infected wound with exposed subcutaneous tissue and moderate serosanguineous drainage. The resident was transferred to the hospital, where the wound was associated with MRSA bacteremia and the resident subsequently underwent a left below-knee amputation.
The facility failed to maintain firmly secured handrails on two of four floors, despite a maintenance policy and a high-priority work order noting needed repairs. Surveyors observed long sections of hallway handrails on the second floor detached from the wall and additional unsecured and missing handrails on the third floor. A CMA and the Resident Council President reported the handrails had been unrepaired for several months and noted that some residents rely on them for safety. The Maintenance Director and NHA both acknowledged awareness of the problem, with the NHA citing delays in obtaining materials as a reason repairs had not been completed.
A resident with acute and chronic respiratory failure, OSA, and severe obesity was readmitted from the ED after severe hypoxia requiring BIPAP and aggressive diuresis. The facility physician documented the need for pulmonary follow-up and possible PFT and CPAP, and later stated he had communicated to nursing that the resident required a pulmonary test and CPAP. The resident’s care plan addressed altered respiratory status and OSA and directed staff to report abnormal findings and monitor vitals. However, due to miscommunication between the physician and nursing staff, no CPAP order was written or processed, despite facility policy requiring timely handling of physician orders. The resident’s cause of death was recorded as congestive heart failure.
A cognitively intact resident with an order for turning and repositioning every 2 hours for wound management had multiple missed entries on the TAR where the intervention was not signed as completed. The care plan required encouraging or assisting the resident to turn and reposition and ensuring this was done. The resident reported prior concerns about not being turned every 2 hours. An LPN and an RN stated they performed the turning and repositioning but forgot to document it, and the DON and Administrator confirmed that staff were expected to document treatments and interventions at the time of care.
A resident with an abnormally high WBC count and on an NPO diet was not properly monitored or reported when a change in condition and an incident occurred. The facility failed to notify the physician and resident representative, and did not document the events as required by policy.
A resident with swallowing difficulties and on an NPO diet was found with a grape ice pop in their mouth, but staff did not document a change in condition or monitor for aspiration. Additionally, an abnormally high WBC count was not addressed or followed up with appropriate documentation or assessment.
Failure to Notify Physician and Representative of Significant Weight Loss
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to immediately notify a resident’s physician and representative after a significant change in condition, specifically a significant weight loss. The facility’s policy on Notification of Change in Condition requires informing the resident, consulting with the resident’s medical practitioner, and/or notifying the resident’s representative or authorized family member when there is a significant change in the resident’s physical, mental, or psychosocial condition, including deterioration in health or clinical complications. During a complaint survey, it was determined that this policy was not followed for one resident. The complaint alleged that this resident was not provided with quality of care, prompting review of administrative documents, a closed medical record, and staff interviews. The resident involved had multiple diagnoses, including morbid obesity, Type II diabetes, Stage 5 chronic kidney disease, prior stroke with left-sided weakness, polyneuropathy, anemia in chronic kidney disease, hyperlipidemia, dementia, Vitamin D deficiency, GERD, and arthritis due to Lyme disease. A BIMS score obtained earlier showed severe cognitive impairment (6/15). Review of the resident’s record showed a weight of 199.3 pounds in early December and 183.0–183.5 pounds in early January, representing a 7.9% (15.8-pound) weight loss in one month. The facility dietician stated that the electronic medical charting system generates alerts to department managers for significant changes in condition, and that significant weight loss is an alert item. The resident’s significant weight loss was identified and confirmed, but another staff member cleared the weight loss alert, and as a result, department managers and the resident’s physician were not immediately made aware of the significant change in condition, constituting the cited deficiency.
Failure to Assess and Monitor Non-Pressure Toe Wound Leading to Infection and Amputation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide updated non-pressure wound assessments and failed to identify and monitor a new wound on a resident’s left great toe, resulting in delayed treatment for an infected wound. The resident had multiple diagnoses including morbid obesity, Type II diabetes, Stage 5 chronic kidney disease, stroke with left-sided weakness, and dementia, and had a physician order for weekly skin assessments to be documented every Monday. On 12/30/2025, a staff member alerted the unit manager LPN to a 0.5 cm open area under the resident’s left great toenail; the LPN observed the wound, documented the change in condition, and notified the physician and family. The physician ordered lab work, a venous doppler, and dressing care with betadine wet-to-dry dressings every shift. An assessment form completed that morning triggered a skin change in condition and indicated that a Braden Observation tool, Pain Observation tool, and Skin Grid (Pressure and Non-Pressure) tool should be completed and placed in the record, but there was no evidence that any of these three assessment tools were completed. Subsequent documentation failed to reflect ongoing assessment or monitoring of the left great toe wound. The doppler results reported on 12/31/2025 showed mild peripheral vascular disease in the left lower extremity without occlusion. However, review of the January Weekly Skin Integrity Reviews revealed no mention of the left great toe wound’s status, including any measurements or descriptions, for several weeks. On 01/05/2026, an LPN documented there were no skin areas; on 01/12/2026, another LPN documented there were no skin areas since the last skin check; and on 01/19/2026, an RN documented there was a skin area but did not attach an assessment of the left great toe. During this period, the resident’s care plan, which had previously identified risk for skin integrity issues, was not updated and no new care plan was initiated related to the non-pressure wound of the left great toe first identified on 12/30/2025. On 01/26/2026, an RN documented that the resident’s left great toe was swollen, red, warm, and tender, with the toenail no longer attached and the surrounding skin off, and areas of dark discoloration around the left toes. The RN notified the skin and wound consultant CRNP, who assessed the wound the same day. The CRNP documented that neither the resident nor facility nursing staff knew when the left great toe wound first appeared or what caused it, and described the toe as having the toenail removed with a large sheet of skin peeled off the entire distal toe. The CRNP’s wound assessment identified cellulitis and a new full-thickness wound measuring 2.1 cm x 6 cm x 0.3 cm with exposed dermis and subcutaneous tissue, unattached wound edges, and moderate serosanguineous drainage, though the resident denied pain. The CRNP cleansed and dressed the wound in preparation for transfer to the hospital, where the resident was later admitted for MRSA bacteremia secondary to a left foot wound and ultimately underwent a left below-knee amputation.
Failure to Maintain Secure Handrails on Resident Hallways
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency related to unsecured and missing handrails on two of the facility’s four floors. The facility’s own “Policy for Facilities Maintenance Program” dated 8/12/2025 stated its purpose was to ensure a well-structured preventative maintenance program to promote safety and functionality. A work order created on 1/18/2026 by the administrator documented that handrails on the second floor needed attention and were assigned a high priority. Despite this, observations on 2/17/2026 and 2/20/2026 showed approximately a twelve-foot section of handrails on the second floor detached and unsecured from the wall. Further observation on the third floor showed an additional approximately five-foot section of unsecured and missing handrails. A CMA reported in interview that the handrails had not been repaired for several months and described them as a safety hazard. The Resident Council President stated the facility was aware the handrails had not been repaired for several months and explained that some residents depend on securing their hands on the handrails for safety. The Maintenance Director reported noticing the inoperable handrails upon being hired on 1/23/2026 and confirmed the facility was aware the second- and third-floor handrails were not secured, without knowing why repairs had not been completed. The Nursing Home Administrator acknowledged awareness that the handrails needed repair and stated that the supplier was taking too long to deliver the materials.
Failure to Obtain CPAP Order After Hospital Readmission for Respiratory Failure
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure that a physician’s recommended respiratory treatment, specifically a CPAP, was ordered and implemented for a resident readmitted from the hospital. The facility’s policy on General Physician Services states that the attending physician is responsible for managing the resident’s medical care and that care is based on the physician’s orders, including treatments and services. The resident was admitted with diagnoses of acute and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, obstructive sleep apnea, and obesity, and was dependent on staff for ADLs but cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 15/15. Nursing documentation shortly after admission noted diminished lung sounds bilaterally and that the resident preferred the head of the bed elevated to avoid shortness of breath, though no shortness of breath or need for supplemental oxygen was recorded at that time. The facility physician documented that the resident had presented to the ED with shortness of breath, was severely hypoxic, required BIPAP and aggressive diuresis, and was later transitioned to nasal cannula. In that same note, the physician concluded that the resident needed follow-up with pulmonary for possible PFT and possible CPAP. The resident’s care plan identified altered respiratory status related to respiratory failure and obstructive sleep apnea and directed staff to report abnormal findings to medical providers and monitor vitals. During interviews, the physician stated that, after reviewing the medical record and communicating with nursing staff, he informed nursing that the resident required a pulmonary test and a CPAP, and acknowledged that an order for CPAP should have been issued. The DON also stated there was miscommunication regarding the order and that the physician did not write it, despite facility policy requiring physician orders to be addressed in a timely manner. The resident’s cause of death was documented as congestive heart failure.
Failure to Accurately Document Turning and Repositioning on TAR
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to maintain accurate and complete documentation on the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for a resident who was readmitted to the facility and was coded as cognitively intact on a quarterly MDS. The resident had an order in January for turning and repositioning every 2 hours for wound management. Review of the January TAR showed multiple instances where this ordered intervention was not signed as completed, specifically on 01/02/2026 at 4:00 AM and 6:00 AM, 01/06/2026 at 6:00 PM, 01/10/2026 at 6:00 PM, and 01/28/2026 at 6:00 PM. The resident’s care plan dated 02/01/2026 included interventions to encourage or assist the resident to turn and reposition and to ensure the resident was turned and repositioned. During interviews, the resident reported having concerns in the past about not being turned and repositioned every 2 hours, although they stated that this had improved. An LPN and an RN who provided care to the resident each stated that they did turn and reposition the resident every 2 hours during their shifts, but both acknowledged they forgot to document these interventions on the TAR, with the LPN attributing this to getting busy with another resident. The DON confirmed that staff did reposition the resident every 2 hours but did not sign the TAR, and stated that staff were expected to document when treatments or interventions were completed. The Administrator also stated that the expectation was to document at the time of care so it would not be missed.
Failure to Notify Physician and Resident Representative of Change in Condition and Incident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to notify the physician and the resident's representative of a significant change in condition and an incident that potentially required physician intervention. Specifically, a resident had an abnormally high white blood cell (WBC) count, which was not reported to the physician or the resident's representative, and no change of condition report was initiated. Additionally, the resident, who was on an NPO (nothing by mouth) diet due to difficulty swallowing, was found with a grape ice pop in hand and a large piece in the mouth. This incident was not documented as a change in condition or incident, and neither the physician, nurse practitioner, nor the resident representative was notified. A review of the facility's policies indicated that nurses are responsible for reviewing and reporting abnormal lab results and significant changes in condition to the appropriate parties, including the physician and resident representative. The Director of Nursing confirmed that these notifications and required documentation were not completed for the resident in question. The failure to follow established protocols for notification and documentation led to the deficiency identified during the complaint survey.
Failure to Address Abnormal Lab Result and Monitor NPO Resident After Oral Intake
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to address an abnormal laboratory result and did not monitor a resident for signs of aspiration following an incident that may have required physician intervention. Specifically, a resident with a history of difficulty swallowing and who was on an NPO (nothing by mouth) diet was found with a grape ice pop in their hand and a large piece in their mouth. Despite this, there was no documentation of a change in the resident's condition or initiation of monitoring for aspiration. Additionally, the resident's medical record showed an abnormally high white blood cell (WBC) count, which is significant for identifying infection or inflammation, but the facility did not document any response to this abnormal result or a change in the resident's condition. The lack of documentation and monitoring occurred despite the resident's known risk factors and the presence of clinical indicators that warranted further assessment.
Latest citations in Maryland
The facility did not ensure that its Infection Preventionist (IP) met required qualifications for managing the Infection Prevention and Control Program. The DON reported serving as the IP but acknowledged lacking the specialized infection control training required for the role, and confirmed that no other staff member was currently qualified. Records showed that the previously qualified IP left several months earlier, and the Administrator and DON confirmed they were still seeking a replacement, leaving the infection control program without a properly trained leader.
Staff failed to consistently secure medications and medical supplies across three units, including an oxygen tank left on the floor behind a resident’s bed without a supporting device, a treatment cart with Collagenase Santyl cream left on top while two residents in power wheelchairs passed by, an unattended and unlocked treatment cart at a nursing station, and another treatment cart with Diclofenac gel and dressings left on top, indicating repeated lapses in maintaining locked and secure storage for drugs, biologicals, and related supplies.
The facility failed to provide sufficient dietitian coverage and timely nutritional assessments for several residents with significant dietary needs. A resident admitted for diabetic management with a high A1C was placed on a regular diet instead of the recommended carb-controlled diet and had only one weight taken in the first two weeks, with no dietitian review of the record. Another resident with prior significant weight loss had no documented dietitian follow-up despite continued weight loss, and a resident admitted with severe protein-calorie malnutrition experienced further significant weight loss without any dietitian assessment. The dietitian reported working limited hours and prioritizing certain high-risk cases, resulting in delayed or missed evaluations for new admissions and residents with ongoing nutritional concerns.
The facility failed to maintain adequate linen and incontinence supplies and did not keep resident care areas in good repair, resulting in delays and alterations in incontinence care and substandard environmental conditions. Staff reported that towels and washcloths were used instead of wipes and then discarded due to heavy soiling, and that linen deliveries to units were late, leaving residents waiting for care. Observations showed very limited numbers of clean washcloths and other linens on units and in the laundry, with no stock of disposable wipes or backup washcloth supply despite repeated reports to housekeeping. Additional observations revealed recliner chairs blocking a dining-area handwashing sink and kitchenette, multiple resident and shared bathrooms with unfinished spackle, chipped paint, musty odors, black substances near showers, missing threshold molding, exposed cracks and nails, and eroded, rusted baseboard heaters. Hallway handrails on both units were worn, chipped, and splintered, and a shower room contained fecal odors, dried brown stains on the toilet, and deteriorated fixtures, all contributing to a failure to provide a safe, clean, and homelike environment.
Facility staff did not thoroughly investigate two separate abuse allegations involving a resident and an injury of unknown origin involving another resident. In both cases, investigations focused on the directly affected resident and included staff interviews, but there were no interviews of other residents on the unit or documented assessments of those residents for signs of abuse or injuries of unknown origin, including residents unable to communicate due to cognitive status.
Two residents who were dependent on staff for oral care, including one with a tracheostomy, were observed with thick, white or milky substances coating their mouths and teeth, indicating inadequate oral hygiene. One resident communicated that staff did not brush their teeth and that staff "need to." In another case, despite oral care supplies being present in the room, the resident’s mouth and teeth remained unclean on multiple observations, with a thick milky substance caking the teeth and stringing between them when the resident tried to open their mouth. These findings showed that staff did not consistently provide oral care to residents who relied on them for this ADL.
Staff failed to maintain complete and accurate medical records for multiple residents, including missing and inconsistent documentation of wound care, delayed pain assessment after discovery of an injury of unknown origin in a cognitively impaired resident, and inaccurate recording of a PPD test result that was documented as negative despite no evidence the injection was administered and no supporting nurse’s note. Residents reported not receiving certain treatments, while MAR entries either lacked signatures for completion or contained conflicting information about whether care was provided.
Surveyors found that the facility failed to consistently implement and communicate correct transmission-based precautions and PPE use. One resident with a Foley catheter related to wounds had no precaution signage posted, while another resident in a double room had a contact precautions sign at the door, yet the NP entered without PPE and the GNA provided high-contact care wearing only gloves. Staff in that room stated the resident was not on contact precautions and later reversed the sign to show no PPE requirement. Therapy staff reported they rely solely on posted signs to determine PPE, and surveyors identified broader issues with inaccurate signage and staff awareness of which residents required contact precautions.
Surveyors found that MDS assessments were inaccurately coded for two residents. In one case, a resident sustained a femoral neck fracture after a fall, but the subsequent significant change MDS did not code the fall as a major injury and failed to capture prn Tylenol use documented on the MAR within the look-back period. In the other case, a quarterly MDS indicated opioid use for a resident, but the MAR for the same period showed no prescribed opioid, indicating incorrect coding of high-risk drug classes.
A resident who had recently been admitted and experienced a fall received multiple doses of the narcotic analgesic Tramadol, but the facility failed to accurately document all administered doses on the Medication Administration Record (MAR). Review showed only one Tramadol dose recorded on the MAR, while the Controlled Drug Receipt/Record/Disposition Form on the med cart reflected three doses given over two days. In interview, the DON stated staff are expected to document narcotic administration on the MAR and confirmed that two administered doses were not recorded there, resulting in an incomplete and inaccurate medical record.
Unqualified Infection Preventionist Overseeing Infection Control Program
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that its designated Infection Preventionist (IP) met the mandatory qualifications for overseeing the Infection Prevention and Control Program. During an interview on 3/24/26 at 10:00 AM, the DON confirmed that she/he was serving as the facility’s IP but had not completed the specialized training in infection control required for the position. The DON further stated that no other staff member currently met the qualifications to serve as IP. Record review showed that the previously qualified IP left the facility in October 2025, and as of the survey date, the position remained unfilled by a qualified individual. At 1:30 PM on the same day, the Administrator and DON confirmed they were still in the process of finding a qualified IP for the facility, leaving the Infection Prevention and Control Program without a properly trained and qualified leader. No specific residents, medical histories, or clinical conditions were described in relation to this deficiency.
Unsecured Medications, Treatment Carts, and Oxygen Equipment
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to ensure that drugs, biologicals, and related medical supplies were securely stored and properly maintained on multiple units. On one unit, an oxygen tank assigned to a resident was observed sitting on the floor behind the resident’s bed without any supporting device. On another unit, a treatment cart was observed with a tube of Collagenase Santyl cream labeled for a specific resident left on top of the cart, while residents in power wheelchairs passed by and staff were present at the nursing station. These observations showed that medications and oxygen equipment were not consistently secured as required. Further observations on additional units revealed an unattended and unlocked treatment cart at a nursing station, and on a separate occasion, a treatment cart with Diclofenac gel labeled for a resident left on top along with multiple packs of dressings. These incidents occurred across three units and on more than one date, demonstrating repeated failures to keep medications and treatment supplies in locked compartments or otherwise secured from unauthorized access.
Insufficient Dietitian Coverage and Delayed Nutritional Assessments
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to employ sufficient food and nutrition staff, including adequate dietitian coverage, to ensure timely assessment and appropriate diets for residents with significant nutritional and diabetic needs. A resident admitted over two weeks earlier with multiple comorbidities and an A1C of 11.5% had a hospital discharge recommendation for a carbohydrate-controlled diet, but was placed on a regular diet at admission with no acknowledgment of the recommended diet until one week later, when the resident requested larger portions. As of the survey date, the dietitian had not yet seen or reviewed this resident’s medical record, and the resident reported not having seen a dietitian and being very frustrated with the meals. During the first two weeks after admission, only one weight was obtained for this resident, despite physician notes stating the resident’s weight was “stable.” Further review of other residents showed additional failures in timely dietitian assessment and follow-up. One resident, readmitted in January and previously seen by the dietitian in September for a 6.4 lb weight loss over 30 days, had no documented follow-up despite continued weight loss totaling 22 lbs since the last dietitian review. Another resident admitted at the end of February with severe protein-calorie malnutrition had not been seen by the dietitian after about a month in the facility, despite a documented 14 lb (7%) weight loss over two weeks. The dietitian reported working only 12 hours per week at the facility and stated that she must prioritize which residents to see, focusing first on residents with tube feedings and those identified in risk meetings, resulting in delayed or absent assessments for new admissions and residents with ongoing weight loss and malnutrition diagnoses.
Linen Shortages and Poor Environmental Maintenance Compromise Resident Care and Comfort
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to maintain an adequate supply of clean linens and appropriate incontinence wipes, resulting in delays and alterations in residents’ incontinence care, as well as the use of towels and washcloths in place of disposable wipes. During the initial tour, the surveyor observed that the linen supply on one nursing unit hallway was low. Complaint reviews included concerns about delays in incontinence care and bed linens not being changed regularly, with residents left without clean bedding. A complainant reported that there was not enough clean linen available for residents. Staff interviews confirmed that towels, sheets, and washcloths were being used to wipe residents for incontinence care due to the absence of wipes, and that many of these linens were being thrown away when soiled. Staff also reported a shortage of linen, that linen deliveries to the units were late, and that residents who preferred to get up before breakfast had to wait for care when linen was delayed. Further observations showed that the clean supply room contained no disposable wipes or cloths for incontinence care, and a resident reported that staff did not use wipes, that the resident had to purchase their own, and that heavily soiled towels or washcloths were discarded. A tour of all nursing unit linen carts and closets revealed only six clean washcloths and limited supplies of towels, gowns, and bed linens. In the laundry room, only three washcloths were present, and the laundry assistant stated that there were only three washcloths available for each nursing unit that morning, that the facility was short on linen supply, and that these concerns had been repeatedly reported to the Director of Housekeeping over the preceding month and again that morning. The laundry assistant confirmed there was no additional laundry in process. The DON stated that wipe squares should be used for incontinence care, but no such wipes were found in the clean medical supply room, and no backup supply of washcloths was present in the emergency linen supply. The Director of Housekeeping confirmed there was no backup supply of washcloths. The deficiency also includes environmental and maintenance issues affecting resident bathrooms, handrails, and common areas. In the main dining area, a recliner chair was observed positioned directly in front of the handwashing sink, and two recliner chairs were stored in front of the nutrition area kitchenette. Multiple resident bathrooms and shared bathrooms were repeatedly observed over several days with unfinished spackle on walls that needed resurfacing and painting, chipped paint around sinks, uneven boards nailed to walls under sinks that appeared to partially cover holes, musty odors, black substances between shower bases and walls, missing threshold transition molding exposing cracks, missing tiles, and a nail, as well as eroded and chipped paint on baseboard heaters with exposed dark brown metal and rust-like material. Hallway handrails on both nursing units were observed to be worn, with chips, splintering, holes, and areas where the wood finish had worn off. A shower room was observed with a foul fecal odor, dried brown stains on the back of the toilet seat and in the toilet bowl, and a baseboard heater with eroded, chipped paint and rust-like material, along with chipped paint on the handrail. These conditions were acknowledged by the Director of Maintenance and other leadership, and some areas were noted to be in the process of renovation, but the observed deficiencies remained present during the survey period. Overall, the facility did not maintain a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment in good repair across both nursing units and the dining area. The lack of adequate linen and incontinence supplies, combined with the poor condition of resident bathrooms, handrails, and certain common areas, constituted the basis for the cited deficiency. The observations and staff and resident reports consistently described shortages of essential hygiene supplies, delayed care related to linen availability, and multiple unresolved environmental and maintenance issues in resident care areas and shared spaces.
Failure to Thoroughly Investigate Abuse Allegations and Injuries of Unknown Origin
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to thoroughly investigate allegations of potential abuse involving one resident and an injury of unknown origin involving another resident. For one resident, there were two separate allegations of abuse occurring on different days in early February. The facility’s investigation packets included interviews with staff who cared for or were scheduled to work with this resident on the days of the alleged incidents, and the investigations focused solely on this resident. However, there were no interviews conducted with other residents on the unit to inquire about abusive or neglectful treatment by the staff who were working during the times of the allegations. The surveyors noted that, although the allegations were not validated, there was no documentation that other residents were interviewed, if able, or assessed for signs or symptoms of injury. In a separate incident, another resident was identified on March 4 with a new bruise on the right eye, documented as a change in condition at 4:09 AM. This resident had a BIMS score of 99, indicating the resident was unable to complete an interview and therefore could not report how the injury occurred. The facility’s investigation identified a potential cause of the injury but did not reach a definitive resolution. Additionally, there were no interviews of other residents on the unit regarding possible abuse, nor were there documented assessments of other residents for injuries of unknown origin, particularly for those unable to speak for themselves, as in this resident’s case.
Failure to Provide Oral Care to Dependent Residents
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide oral care to residents who were dependent on staff for activities of daily living, specifically oral hygiene. One resident with a tracheostomy was observed with a thick, sticky white substance in the mouth and was noted to intermittently chew on nearby bedding. This resident made good eye contact and, when asked if staff brushed their teeth, shook their head no and mouthed that staff “need to.” According to the resident’s Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated 2/11/26, the resident was dependent on staff for oral care. Another resident, also dependent on staff for oral care per the 3/11/26 MDS, was observed sitting propped up in bed and able to respond with smiles. During the initial observation, the inside of this resident’s lips and upper and lower teeth had a thick, clear, white milky substance visible when the resident tried to open their mouth to smile. Oral care supplies were present in the nightstand, but the resident’s mouth and teeth were not clean. On a subsequent observation with the DON, NHA, and Corporate VP of clinical services, the same resident again had a thick, clear, milky substance between the lips and caking the teeth, which would string between the teeth when the resident attempted to open their mouth, demonstrating a lack of consistent oral care for residents dependent on staff for this ADL.
Incomplete and Inaccurate Medical Record Documentation for Treatments and Assessments
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to maintain complete and accurate medical records and documentation for multiple residents. For one resident with wound care needs, review of the MAR showed that wound care and related treatments were signed as completed on the dates initially reported, despite the resident’s ongoing complaints that wound dressings were not being changed. When additional dates were reviewed, there were missing staff signatures for wound care on two specific dates, as well as three instances where application of A&D ointment to the resident’s feet was not signed off out of 24 days reviewed. Another resident with severe cognitive impairment, as evidenced by a BIMS score of 00, was found to have an injury of unknown origin (a bruise on the left hand). Documentation showed that a change in condition was initiated late in the morning, but a formal pain evaluation was not initiated and completed until that night, and the resident was unable to explain how the injury occurred or verbalize pain using a standard pain scale. For a third resident, documentation related to the admission PPD test was inconsistent and incomplete. The MAR contained an entry indicating “9” for the administration date, meaning “see nurse’s note,” but there was no corresponding nurse’s note. Despite the absence of a signed administration of the PPD injection, staff documented the PPD result as “negative” on the scheduled read date. The resident reported never receiving the PPD injection, and the DON confirmed that the facility had been out of PPD solution at the time, so the test would not have been administered. These findings demonstrate failures in accurate documentation of treatments and assessments, including wound care, pain assessment, and TB screening, as well as missing or incomplete supporting notes in the medical record.
Failure to Implement and Communicate Correct Transmission-Based Precautions
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency in the facility’s infection prevention and control program related to inconsistent and incorrect implementation of transmission-based precautions and PPE use. During a complaint investigation focused on residents on transmission-based precautions, one resident with a visible Foley catheter was observed in the room with physical therapy, but there were no signs posted indicating any need for PPE, despite the resident being a new admission with a Foley catheter placed related to wounds. In another double-occupancy room, a contact precautions sign was posted at the doorway, but the nurse practitioner was in the room on a personal phone with no PPE, and the assigned GNA was repositioning the resident in bed while wearing only gloves. When questioned, the NP, RN, and GNA all stated that the resident in the room was not on contact precautions, and the GNA reported that signs were hanging at all doors and that this particular resident’s sign was “just wrong.” The surveyor observed the GNA later return to the room and turn the sign around to indicate no PPE requirement. Subsequent interviews revealed that therapy staff relied on posted signage to determine PPE use and that if the sign was wrong, the PPE used would be wrong. Overall, surveyors found problems with signage accuracy and staff awareness of which residents required contact precautions, as well as observed failures to follow appropriate PPE use for residents who should have been on contact precautions.
Inaccurate MDS Coding for Falls, Pain Management, and High-Risk Medications
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to ensure Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were accurately coded for two residents reviewed during a complaint survey. For one resident, a facility-reported incident showed that the resident was found seated on the floor beside the bed and was diagnosed with a non-displaced femoral neck impaction fracture of the left hip following an x-ray. Despite this fall with a major injury, the subsequent significant change MDS dated 11/4/25 did not code the fall with major injury in Section J1900C. Review of the resident’s Medication Administration Records for October and November 2025 showed administration of Tylenol on 10/31/25 at 9:30 PM, which fell within the 5-day look-back period for the MDS, but Section J0100 (prn pain) of the same significant change MDS did not capture the use of Tylenol. For another resident, review of a quarterly MDS with an assessment reference date of 10/15/25 showed that Section N0415 (High-Risk Drug Classes) documented the use of an opioid medication. However, review of the resident’s October 2025 Medication Administration Record did not show that the resident had been prescribed an opioid during that period. In both cases, MDS staff later confirmed that these were errors in MDS coding, demonstrating that the assessments did not accurately reflect the residents’ clinical status and medication use as documented in their medical records.
Incomplete Documentation of Narcotic Administration on MAR
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain complete and accurate medical records in accordance with accepted professional standards for one resident receiving narcotic medication. The resident, admitted in March 2026, had a fall on 3/6/26 and was sent to the hospital on 3/9/26. Review of the March 2026 Medication Administration Record (MAR) showed documentation of a single 25 mg dose of Tramadol administered on 3/8/26 at 9:23 AM. However, review of the resident’s Controlled Drug Receipt/Record/Disposition Form, kept on the nurse’s medication cart and not in the medical record, showed that Tramadol 25 mg was administered three times between 3/8/26 and 3/9/26: at 11:00 AM and 9:00 PM on 3/8/26, and at 9:00 AM on 3/9/26. In interview, the DON stated that staff are expected to document narcotic administration on the MAR and confirmed that only one of the three Tramadol doses reflected on the controlled drug record was documented on the resident’s MAR. This discrepancy between the controlled substance record and the MAR, with missing documentation of two administered doses of Tramadol on the official medical record, constituted the failure to maintain a complete and accurate medical record for the resident.
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.
