Valley View Home
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Glasgow, Montana.
- Location
- 1225 Perry Ln, Glasgow, Montana 59230
- CMS Provider Number
- 275091
- Inspections on file
- 20
- Latest survey
- January 29, 2026
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 13
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Valley View Home during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
The facility did not maintain a designated full-time DON for an extended period, leaving the position vacant while DON responsibilities were informally divided among the IDT. Emails from the administrator showed that the previous DON had left and that a job posting was created, but there was no documentation that the DON’s duties were specifically reassigned to an RN or multiple RNs during the vacancy. A later email documented the start date of a new DON, confirming a gap of several weeks without a formally designated DON.
A resident with dementia, a trauma history, hallucinations, and longstanding behavioral symptoms such as wandering into other rooms, verbal and physical aggression, and disrobing experienced two separate sexual incidents with male residents. In one event, a male was found in the resident’s room with his hands down her pants while she verbally rejected him; in another, staff found a male without pants lying on top of the fully clothed resident on his bed while she yelled for him to get off. Staff interviews and records showed that, although non-pharmacologic interventions (snacks, showers, one-on-one, aroma therapy, warm towels) and multiple psychotropic medication changes were used, the facility did not develop or document a defined monitoring and supervision program specifying the level, duration, or methods of oversight to address the resident’s wandering, entry into other rooms, and sexually related interactions after these incidents, nor were the sexual encounters incorporated as identified triggers in the care plan.
The facility failed to report a resident-to-resident abuse incident to the State Survey Agency within the required 24-hour timeframe. Staff reported that incidents must be reported within 24 hours, with 2-hour reporting for serious bodily injury and investigation results due within 5 days, and the facility’s written policy reflected these requirements. However, an altercation between two residents was reported more than 24 hours after it occurred, contrary to the facility’s mandatory reporting policy and the timelines described by staff.
The facility failed to screen visitors for COVID-19 symptoms during an outbreak, neglected to post transmission-based precaution signage for COVID-19 positive residents, and did not practice proper hand hygiene during a laundry pass. Additionally, enhanced barrier precautions were not followed for residents with indwelling medical devices, increasing the risk of infection spread.
The facility did not document declinations or provide education on the COVID-19 vaccine for two residents whose representatives refused the vaccine. Staff confirmed the absence of signed declinations and educational documentation, contrary to facility policy requiring such records in the medical file.
A resident at nutritional risk experienced a severe weight loss due to the facility's failure to implement care plan interventions. Observations showed the resident's meals were left untouched, and staff did not provide necessary encouragement or cueing during mealtimes. The resident's weight was not monitored weekly as required by facility policy, contributing to a 9.2% weight loss over three months.
The facility failed to label and date food items in the resident nourishment refrigerator, as observed with an unlabeled Tupperware containing an unknown substance. A staff member indicated that housekeeping was responsible for cleaning these refrigerators and noted that family members often placed items without staff knowledge. The facility's policy required all prepared food to be labeled, dated, and consumed within three days.
A facility failed to ensure a resident received the pneumococcal vaccine series. The resident's immunization record showed they received one vaccine in 2018, but the type was unspecified. Consent for further vaccination was given in 2024, but a staff member admitted to not arranging a vaccination clinic and being behind on immunization reviews. Facility policy required assessment for vaccine eligibility within five days of admission, which was not followed.
A cognitively impaired resident with a history of elopement attempts left a facility unsupervised, reaching a nearby school playground. The resident's care plan included interventions to prevent elopement, but several staff members were unaware of these measures. The facility's elopement book was not easily accessible, and communication about elopement risks was insufficient, contributing to the incident.
Failure to Maintain a Designated Full-Time DON
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to designate a full-time DON as required, leaving the position vacant for 37 days. During interviews, staff members B and C reported that the facility had been without a DON for a little over a month and that DON tasks were divided among the IDT during this period. An email from staff member A dated 9/8/25 showed an advertisement posting for the DON position and indicated that the IDT took over DON tasks after the previous DON left, but there was no documentation that the prior DON’s duties were specifically reassigned to an RN or multiple RNs. Another email from staff member A on 9/8/25 confirmed that the previous DON no longer worked at the facility, and a subsequent email dated 10/16/25 documented that staff member B started as the new DON on that date, confirming the facility was without a designated DON from 9/8/25 through 10/16/25. No residents or specific patient conditions were mentioned in the report, and the deficiency centers solely on the lack of a designated full-time DON and the absence of documented reassignment of DON responsibilities to an RN during the vacancy period.
Failure to Implement Adequate Supervision and Monitoring After Resident Sexual Incidents
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to identify and implement necessary and beneficial supervision and monitoring interventions for a cognitively impaired resident with a history of trauma and significant behavioral symptoms, including wandering into other residents’ rooms and sexually related interactions with male residents. Interviews with multiple staff members confirmed that the resident frequently wandered the halls, entered other residents’ rooms, displayed verbal and physical aggression, yelled, ran on the unit, and sometimes removed her clothing or kept her hands in her pants. Staff were aware that the resident had a trauma history, including being locked in her room by a family member prior to admission, and that she had auditory and visual hallucinations, paranoia, and worsening behaviors around menstruation. Despite this, the care plan and behavior documentation did not clearly link her behaviors to the sexual interactions with male residents or identify new contributing factors after those events. The record shows two separate sexual incidents involving the resident and male residents. In the first incident, documented in the nursing notes, a male resident was found in the resident’s room with his hands down the front of her pants while she stated, "I don't like you." The male was redirected, and the provider adjusted medications, but documentation only stated that staff were to monitor the resident for increasing behaviors without specifying how long, what level of monitoring, or how staff were to keep her safe. In the second incident, staff heard the resident yelling "help me" and "get off" and found her fully clothed, lying crossways on a bed in a male resident’s room, with the male resident on top of her without pants and making thrusting movements. Staff separated the residents and returned her to her room, and again documentation only referenced closer monitoring without defining duration, intensity, or specific safety measures. Behavior review notes from several months showed persistent and escalating behaviors: wandering, pacing, entering other residents’ rooms, refusing redirection, yelling, crying, verbal hallucinations, paranoia, refusing medications and care, physical and verbal aggression toward staff, slamming and banging on doors, furniture, and walls, and attempts to pull her pants down in common areas. After the sexual incidents, new behaviors such as having her hands in her pants and attempting to remove clothing in public areas appeared, along with increased agitation, refusal of meals and medications, and statements that people were trying to kill or be mean to her. The behavior review identified triggers such as incontinence, reportable events, shingles, dental pain, clothing preferences, and phone calls with family, and listed non-pharmacologic interventions like snacks, one-on-one time, walking with staff, back rubs, aroma therapy, warm towels, and use of different staff. However, the care plan and behavior documentation did not incorporate the sexual encounters as triggers, did not identify prior sexual abuse as a trauma factor, and did not specify any enhanced supervision or monitoring level to protect the resident from further harm related to her wandering and sexually related interactions. The care plan for cognitive loss/dementia and psychosocial well-being included general interventions such as providing consistent caregivers, encouraging expression of feelings, and assisting the resident to avoid trauma triggers, with trauma history listed as car accidents, fires, heart attacks, deaths in the family, and the murder of an aunt. There was no mention of sexual trauma or the recent sexual incidents as part of her trauma profile. Behavioral symptom interventions, many of which were not initiated until after the period of escalating behaviors, focused on pain assessment, use of different staff, aroma therapy, warm towels, and recognition that menstruation worsened behaviors. Medication reviews showed multiple antipsychotic and psychotropic adjustments, including Abilify, Seroquel at various doses, Haloperidol, and PRN Ativan, with documentation that Seroquel changes had little to no effect on her behaviors. Despite ongoing documentation of high-risk behaviors and two documented sexual encounters with male residents, the facility did not develop or document a clear, individualized monitoring and supervision program specifying the level, duration, and methods of oversight needed to maintain the resident’s safety in relation to her wandering and sexual encounters.
Failure to Timely Report Resident-to-Resident Abuse Incident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to report an incident of suspected abuse within 24 hours as required by its policy and staff-stated procedures. During interviews, staff members B and C stated that incidents must be reported within 24 hours and that investigations begin as soon as a reportable event is known, with annual abuse training and additional in-services on abuse and reporting timelines. Staff member A stated that the administrator, DON, and Social Services are responsible for obtaining statements from staff and residents, and confirmed that the time frames for reporting to the State Survey Agency are 2 hours for incidents involving serious bodily injury and 24 hours for incidents without serious bodily injury, with investigation findings due within 5 days. Record review showed that an incident of resident-to-resident abuse involving an altercation between residents #8 and #10, which occurred on 8/16/25, was not reported to the State Survey Agency until 8/18/25, exceeding the 24-hour reporting requirement. Review of the facility’s policy titled “Mandatory Reporting for Montana Nursing Facilities” confirmed that resident-to-resident abuse must be reported within 24 hours of discovery, that there is a 2-hour reporting requirement for crimes resulting in serious bodily injury, and that investigation results must be sent to the state agency within 5 working days of receipt of the abuse report. Despite these established policies and staff awareness of the required timelines, the facility did not submit the abuse incident involving residents #8 and #10 within the mandated 24-hour period from the date of the incident.
Inadequate Infection Control Measures During COVID-19 Outbreak
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement adequate infection prevention and control measures during a COVID-19 outbreak. Observations revealed that visitors were not screened for COVID-19 symptoms upon entering the building, despite the presence of a sign-in log and N-95 masks at the entrance. Staff member J confirmed that no screening was in place, contrary to the facility's policy requiring active or passive screening. Additionally, transmission-based precaution signage was absent on the doors of COVID-19 positive residents, which led to staff being unaware of the specific precautions required. The facility also failed to practice proper hand hygiene during a laundry pass. Staff member G was observed distributing clothing to residents without performing hand hygiene before entering or after exiting resident rooms. Despite being educated on hand hygiene practices, staff member G admitted to forgetting the protocol. This oversight was in violation of the facility's hand hygiene policy, which mandates hand hygiene before and after entering resident rooms. Furthermore, the facility did not follow enhanced barrier precautions for residents with indwelling medical devices. Observations showed that resident #42, who had a foley catheter, did not have the required signage or personal protective equipment in place. Staff members were unsure why the necessary indicators were missing, despite the facility's policy and CDC guidelines requiring enhanced barrier precautions for residents with such medical devices.
Failure to Document COVID-19 Vaccine Declinations and Education
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to document resident declinations and provide education regarding the COVID-19 vaccine for two of the five sampled residents. Resident #11 and Resident #27's preventive health care reports indicated that their resident representatives refused the administration of the COVID-19 vaccination. However, the facility did not provide signed declinations for these residents when requested during the survey. Additionally, staff member J confirmed that there were no signed declinations or documentation of education provided to the resident representatives for these residents. The facility's policy requires that if a resident or responsible party refuses an immunization, it must be documented in the permanent medical record, and the resident or responsible party should be provided with an education program and offered the immunization annually.
Failure to Implement Nutritional Interventions for Resident at Risk of Weight Loss
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to follow outlined interventions for a resident who was at nutritional risk for weight loss. Observations revealed that the resident was not consuming meals provided, with a full breakfast tray left untouched and later removed while the resident was asleep. On another occasion, the resident was seen pushing food around without eating and later left her lunch untouched without any staff present to encourage or cue her to eat. The resident's care plan indicated she required encouragement during mealtimes and preferred finger foods due to her short attention span and frequent ambulation. The resident experienced a severe weight loss of 9.2% over three months, dropping from 106.4 lbs to 96.6 lbs. The facility's policy required weekly weight monitoring for residents with weight loss, but the resident's weight was only recorded monthly. A staff member mentioned that a new biweekly Resident at Risk meeting had identified the resident's significant weight loss, but the interventions were not effectively implemented, as evidenced by the observations of the resident's meal consumption.
Failure to Label and Date Food in Resident Refrigerator
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that food items placed in the unit's nourishment refrigerator were properly dated and labeled with a resident's name. During an observation, an unlabeled and undated Tupperware container was found in the resident nourishment refrigerator, containing a homemade, unknown yellow liquid substance. There was no indication of which resident the food belonged to or how long it had been in the refrigerator. In an interview, a staff member stated that it was the responsibility of housekeeping to clean refrigerators in the resident common areas and mentioned that family members often placed items in the refrigerator without staff knowledge. The facility's policy on the use and storage of food brought in by family or visitors required all prepared food items to be labeled with content and dated, and consumed within three days, or else discarded by facility staff.
Failure to Administer Pneumococcal Vaccine
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident received, or had the opportunity to receive, the pneumococcal vaccine series. The immunization record for the resident showed that they had received one pneumococcal vaccine in 2018, but it did not specify the type of vaccine administered. A document titled 'Pneumococcal Vaccine Informed Consent/Decline' indicated that the resident's representative had consented for the resident to receive pneumococcal vaccines in 2024. During an interview, a staff member admitted that the facility did not keep pneumococcal vaccines in-house and had not yet arranged a vaccination clinic, citing being behind on reviewing immunizations. The facility's policy stated that residents should be assessed for vaccine eligibility within five working days of admission and offered the vaccine, but this was not adhered to in this case.
Failure to Monitor Cognitively Impaired Resident Leads to Elopement
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adequately monitor a cognitively impaired resident with a known history of elopement attempts, resulting in the resident leaving the building unsupervised. The incident was reported to the State Survey Agency after the resident was found alone at a nearby school playground. Staff interviews revealed that the resident was not residing in a secure unit, and there was a lack of awareness among staff members about the resident's elopement risk and the interventions in place to prevent such incidents. The resident in question had a history of wandering and required continuous supervision due to cognitive impairments, including fetal alcohol syndrome, schizophrenia, and moderate intellectual disability. The resident's care plan included interventions such as providing education on the importance of not leaving the facility, using verbal cues and gentle touch to redirect exit-seeking behaviors, and ensuring the resident did not accidentally follow visitors or pets out of the building. Despite these measures, several staff members were unaware of the resident's risk and the necessary interventions. Interviews with staff members indicated a lack of communication regarding residents at risk of elopement and their specific interventions. The facility had an elopement book intended to inform staff of at-risk residents, but it was not easily accessible, and several staff members were unaware of its contents. Additionally, the facility had not yet implemented an elopement huddle in morning meetings to improve communication about elopement risks, contributing to the oversight that allowed the resident to leave the facility unsupervised.
Latest citations in Montana
A resident with a history of hematuria, renal failure, anemia, and recent blood transfusions was readmitted from the hospital with discharge instructions to pause apixaban, but the facility failed to obtain admission orders and did not clarify the incomplete anticoagulant order. The resident’s care plan did not address anticoagulant use or monitoring, and staff administered multiple doses of apixaban after readmission. Nursing notes documented blood in the nephrostomy drainage bag on two days without provider notification or intervention, followed by worsening weakness, poor intake, and hypoxia that led to hospital transfer. Hospital records showed the resident had gross hematuria, hypotension, respiratory distress, acute kidney injury, and a critically low Hgb requiring transfusion, and a late entry note acknowledged that the discharge order to hold apixaban had been overlooked.
A resident who was cognitively intact but dependent for bowel and bladder care and limited in ROM reported that a specific staff member repeatedly left call lights unanswered for extended periods, causing the resident to soil briefs and then be pressured to ambulate to the bathroom and sign refusal-of-care forms. A family member corroborated long call-light waits and rude interactions, and staff noted the resident became anxious and displayed behaviors when care was forgotten or incomplete. Despite verbal reports, emails, and documentation at a care conference describing long call-light waits, incontinence episodes, and refusal forms used at night, no grievance was filed and the alleged neglect was not reported or investigated. The resident also developed unaddressed skin issues on the heels, coccyx, and ears, and +2 pitting edema in both feet and ankles, with offloading devices found unused in the room and no related wound orders or documented weekly skin assessments.
Multiple residents experienced inadequate pressure ulcer and skin care when staff failed to perform timely and accurate skin assessments, obtain and follow wound care orders, and implement appropriate care plan and nutritional interventions. One resident admitted with multiple skin issues developed a large, foul-smelling coccyx ulcer that was not promptly evaluated, lacked early wound orders, and was not reflected in the care plan or consistently documented on the TAR. Another resident with a coccyx pressure injury and a spinal incision had delayed wound measurements, late dietitian notification, missed daily wound treatments, and late addition of protein supplementation to the care plan. A resident using oxygen had painful, reddened ears and heel/eschar issues that were not captured in admission documentation, lacked wound orders, and had no subsequent skin assessments recorded. A further resident with a coccyx pressure ulcer had conflicting MDS staging and "present on admission" coding, along with numerous days where ordered daily wound care was undocumented or absent. Staff interviews revealed inconsistent weekly skin checks, missed admission skin evaluations due to EHR changes, limited dietitian availability, and wound care being performed by staff without formal wound training, all contrary to the facility’s own skin integrity policy.
The facility failed to thoroughly investigate, monitor, and document multiple abuse allegations involving staff-to-resident and resident-to-resident incidents. In one case, a resident reported that a staff member blew marijuana vape smoke in his face, but there was no related nursing documentation or post-incident monitoring. In another case, a resident reported being hit by another resident, was found with a red mark on the head, and was sent to the ER, yet nursing notes for both residents lacked documentation of the incident and follow-up monitoring. In a third case, a cognitively impaired resident with developmental delay was found in another resident’s room while that resident’s hands were being removed from inside the resident’s pants and shirt, after which the resident complained of pain and was sent to the ER; again, nursing notes for both residents contained no documentation of the event or post-incident monitoring, and the investigator did not fully interview or obtain written statements from all involved as required by facility policy.
The facility failed to thoroughly investigate multiple allegations of abuse and neglect, including one resident’s report that a staff member was verbally demeaning and rushed her during oral care, and another resident’s report of inadequate ADL care with prolonged call light response times and being left in a soiled brief. A staff member admitted not reporting or investigating the latter allegation, and no related documentation was produced. In a separate incident, a resident alleged a CNA turned off the call light and refused requested personal care; the facility interviewed only the involved staff and did not interview other residents who might also have experienced call lights being turned off without care being provided, despite a witness stating this was a common practice by multiple staff. Additional requested interviews and information were not provided to surveyors.
Surveyors found that the facility failed to complete timely and comprehensive baseline care plans for three newly admitted residents. One resident with multiple serious conditions and a coccyx wound had no baseline care plan addressing wound care, pain, or chronic conditions for several days after admission. Another resident with dysphagia, dementia, and documented skin issues on the buttocks, heels, and knee had a baseline care plan that did not identify pressure wounds or related treatments. A third post‑surgical resident with a Stage 3 pressure ulcer and a lumbar incision had a baseline care plan that omitted wound management and post‑operative pain control. A staff member reported that baseline care plans are only generated after the admission nursing assessment is completed and locked, and acknowledged they are not always completed on time.
A resident’s long-time friend, a former employee previously terminated over an abuse allegation, was barred from entering the facility when she attempted to visit, and was told law enforcement would be called if she returned. Another individual confirmed awareness of the restriction, expressed no concern about the friend abusing the resident, and stated that the facility did not offer supervised or common-area visits. A staff member reported that any former employee terminated for an abuse allegation was categorically prohibited from returning to the building, without considering the resident’s relationship with the visitor, despite a visitation policy stating residents have the right to receive visitors of their choice and allowing only limited or supervised access when abuse is suspected or found.
The facility failed to follow its grievance policy by not documenting or investigating a grievance request from a resident and family member alleging that a CNA ignored call lights for extended periods, failed to provide timely ADL care, forced ambulation to the bathroom at night, and pressured the resident to sign refusal-of-care forms, causing the resident to feel afraid and neglected. In a separate case, the facility did not adequately investigate or document a grievance from a dependent, mobility-impaired resident who reported that a male CNA was rough and refused to reposition his contracted legs for comfort, and the staff member assigned to the investigation did not identify the CNA involved or record her explanation of the situation on the grievance form.
A resident reported that a former staff member repeatedly left the call light unanswered for extended periods, did not provide needed ADL assistance, and encouraged the resident to sign refusal-of-care forms, resulting in the resident soiling briefs before being asked to ambulate to the restroom. Another staff member stated that no care concerns had been brought to their attention and acknowledged that the alleged abuse and neglect were not reported. When surveyors requested IDT notes, root cause analysis, reporting, and investigation documents related to the staff member and this resident, the facility was unable to provide any documentation, indicating the allegation was not timely reported to the State Survey Agency or investigated.
Surveyors found that several residents did not receive appropriate ADL and hygiene assistance or accurate documentation of those services. A dependent resident reported inconsistent help with meals, only sponge baths instead of showers for several weeks, lack of shaving, and prior grievances about staff not assisting with a urinal or repositioning his legs. Another cognitively intact resident, dependent for oral care and dressing, stated he was not offered mouthwash or a warm washcloth, and staff confirmed they had never offered mouthwash despite charting that personal hygiene was provided. A third resident, largely independent with self-care, reported that washcloths were not available unless requested, and no washcloths were seen in the room, while documentation showed staff performing most of her personal hygiene. These findings showed failures to offer basic hygiene items and to accurately document ADL care provided.
Failure to Clarify Anticoagulant Orders Leads to Unnecessary Drug Administration and Hospitalization
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure a resident’s drug regimen was free from unnecessary drugs when nursing staff did not clarify and correctly implement anticoagulant orders upon the resident’s readmission. The resident had been hospitalized for hematuria, renal failure, and anemia, received multiple blood transfusions, and was discharged back to the facility with an After Visit Summary instructing that apixaban (an anticoagulant) be paused, with no restart date specified. Despite this, the facility’s admission documentation for the readmission date showed no admission orders, and the apixaban order was not clarified with the physician. The medication was restarted and administered after readmission, even though the hospital documentation indicated it was to be paused and later discontinued. Following readmission, the resident’s Medication Administration Record showed that seven doses of apixaban were given. The resident’s care plan, initiated on the readmission date, did not identify any problems, goals, or interventions related to anticoagulant use, safety, or monitoring for side effects. Nursing progress notes documented that the resident had a right-sided nephrostomy with yellow urine drainage on the day of readmission, and then documented blood in the nephrostomy drainage bag on two consecutive days. However, there was no documentation that the provider was notified about the hematuria or that any action was taken in response to this change. Subsequently, nursing notes described the resident as weak, not eating, unable to maintain a sitting position, and having low oxygen saturation that did not adequately improve with increased supplemental oxygen, leading to transfer to the emergency department. Hospital records from that visit showed the resident presented with hypoxia, hypotension, profound weakness, respiratory distress, gross hematuria, acute kidney injury, and a critically low hemoglobin of 6.9 g/dL, and that the resident had received an anticoagulant and required blood transfusions. A late entry nursing note at the facility later documented that the hospital discharge summary had been overlooked, the order to hold apixaban was not implemented, and the resident continued to receive apixaban until readmission to the hospital. The facility’s root cause analysis attributed the event to ambiguity in discharge communication and medication reconciliation workflow and noted that the apixaban order was incomplete and not clarified before administration.
Failure to Identify and Address Neglect, Call-Light Delays, and Skin Concerns
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to identify, report, and address neglect of care concerns for a cognitively intact resident who was dependent on staff for bowel and bladder care and had range of motion limitations in both upper and lower extremities. The resident reported that a specific staff member (NF7) repeatedly left his call light on for extended periods, often over 45 minutes and up to hours at night, resulting in him soiling his brief with bowel and bladder incontinence while waiting for assistance. When staff eventually responded, NF7 would attempt to have the resident ambulate to the restroom despite the resident already being incontinent, and would then encourage him to sign refusal of care forms when he declined. The resident described being upset, anxious, and irritable, and stated he usually “peed” and “soiled” his pants and developed skin issues from sitting so long without being cleaned. A family member (NF6) corroborated concerns about long call light response times, stating the resident’s call light was left on for over an hour, leading to incontinence episodes, and that NF7 spoke to the resident in a rude and angry manner. NF6 reported these concerns in person, by phone, and by email to facility staff, including staff members A and C. Staff member O reported that the resident had anxiety and behaviors that were exacerbated when staff forgot about him or failed to perform all required care. Despite these reports and the resident’s expressed fear and anxiety when NF7 was working, no staff member asked the resident if he felt safe or explored what had occurred on nights with or without NF7, and the alleged neglect was not reported or investigated by facility leadership. The resident also had unaddressed skin concerns and edema that were not properly identified or managed. Staff member B stated weekly skin assessments should have been done but that wound care staff were unaware of any ear or coccyx issues, and the physician orders lacked wound orders for the resident’s left heel. On assessment, staff member P observed eschar on the left heel that appeared to need debridement, redness and cracking on the right heel, pink coccyx, and reddened ears, with delayed capillary refill on one ear, as well as +2 pitting edema in both feet and ankles that had developed during the resident’s stay. Posey boots intended to offload the heels were found in the resident’s cabinet, and staff member P stated she had never seen them used on the resident. Additionally, at a care conference documented and signed by staff member C, the resident reported waiting 20–40 minutes for call lights at night, having accidents while waiting, and being made to sign refusal papers when he declined to go to the bathroom after already being wet. Despite this documentation of neglect-related concerns, no grievance was filed, and staff members B and C stated they were unaware of or did not report or investigate any alleged abuse or neglect for this resident.
Failure to Assess, Document, and Treat Pressure Ulcers and Related Skin Conditions
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to implement and maintain an effective system for pressure ulcer prevention, identification, assessment, and treatment for multiple residents. For one resident admitted with existing skin issues on the buttocks, both heels, and a right knee wound, nursing notes documented a silicone foam dressing on the coccyx that was saturated with foul-smelling brown-yellow drainage, and a non-stageable pressure ulcer with slough, black eschar, and a large reddened border. This was the first detailed description of the coccyx pressure ulcer, and there were no wound care orders in the chart at that time. A subsequent weekly skin evaluation described a large, deep coccyx wound with copious foul-smelling drainage and extensive slough and granulation tissue, but incorrectly listed that date as the first observation despite the wound being identified nine days earlier. Wounds on the left heel, right outer ankle, and right knee were not evaluated until several days after admission, and the right heel was never evaluated during the stay. The resident’s care plan did not identify pressure ulcers as a problem and contained no interventions for pressure ulcer care or nutrition to support wound healing, and the treatment administration record showed wound treatments were not ordered until several days after admission and were then not consistently documented as completed. Another resident was admitted with a coccyx area that was open and possibly caused by pressure, and a late entry note identified a Stage 3 pressure ulcer to the coccyx from admission. However, the nutrition evaluation form later indicated “no” to the presence of a pressure injury and instead listed “other skin condition,” even though coccyx wound care was ordered. The weekly skin evaluation documented the first observation and measurements of the coccyx wound two weeks after admission, and the dietitian was not notified until several days after that. The treatment record showed that daily wound care orders for both the coccyx pressure ulcer and a surgical spine incision were not carried out on at least two days. Nutritional interventions to support wound healing, including a protein supplement, were not added to the care plan until more than two weeks after the wound was identified. Staff interviews revealed that the dietitian was only present in the facility limited hours on two days per week, that residents admitted later in the week might not be assessed nutritionally until the following week, and that a fourteen-day delay in nutritional assessment, while allowed, was acknowledged as not best practice for residents with wounds. A third resident using oxygen reported pain behind both ears, and observation showed that oxygen tubing protectors had slid out of place, leaving the ears unprotected. The right ear was red where the tubing rested, and the left ear was very red with a whitish substance in the crease. Staff later described this resident’s skin as having eschar on the left heel that appeared to need debridement, a red and cracked right heel, a pink coccyx, and reddened ears, with the left ear showing slower capillary refill. The facility’s records contained no wound orders for the left heel, no skin assessments since the most recent readmission, and an admission nursing evaluation that documented the skin as warm, dry, intact, and without wounds. A fourth resident had a coccyx pressure ulcer that was present on admission and gradually decreasing in size according to wound assessments. However, MDS assessments contained inconsistent documentation: one assessment showed no unhealed pressure ulcers on admission, a later discharge assessment documented a Stage IV pressure ulcer present on admission, and a subsequent quarterly assessment documented a Stage III pressure ulcer not present on admission. Treatment administration records showed no coccyx wound treatment in one month, initiation of daily wound care late in the following month with at least one missed documented treatment, and in the next month, daily wound care orders with more than half of the scheduled treatments lacking documentation of completion. In the subsequent month, the TAR failed to show any wound care performed for the coccyx pressure ulcer. Staff interviews indicated that weekly skin checks were the facility practice but were not consistently completed, that nurses were not always coding or documenting wounds correctly, and that admission skin evaluations were sometimes not done due to issues with a new computer system. A staff member performing wound care on one resident’s coccyx reported having no formal wound training and described a wound bed fully covered with thick yellow-tan slough, which, according to the cited National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel guideline, could not be accurately staged, despite the facility’s practice of staging it as a Stage III pressure ulcer. The facility’s own Skin Integrity policy required that upon admission, the licensed nurse establish a plan of care based on risk factors or presence of wounds, conduct ongoing weekly full-body skin audits, document new skin impairments with detailed characteristics and measurements, record qualifying wounds on the weekly skin evaluation form, notify the medical provider and obtain treatment orders, notify the resident or representative, notify the registered dietitian, and implement and document appropriate care plan interventions. The findings across these residents showed that these policy steps were not consistently followed: admission and weekly skin evaluations were missed or delayed, wounds were not accurately or timely documented or staged, treatment orders were delayed or not consistently carried out, nutrition and care plan interventions for wound healing and prevention were not promptly implemented, and staff responsible for wound care sometimes lacked formal wound training.
Failure to Thoroughly Investigate and Document Multiple Abuse Allegations
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to complete thorough investigations, monitoring, and documentation for multiple abuse allegations. In one incident, a resident reported that a staff member blew marijuana vape smoke in his face. The staff member later admitted to vaping marijuana in the resident’s room. Despite this, the resident’s nursing progress notes for the period following the incident contained no documentation of the event or any post-incident monitoring, and the psychosocial impact assessment tool indicated that no ALERT charting had been done by nursing or social services. In a second incident, a resident sitting in a wheelchair by the nurse’s station told a staff member that another resident had hit him; assessment revealed a red mark on the resident’s head, and the resident was sent to the emergency room at the family’s request. However, nursing progress notes for both the alleged victim and the alleged aggressor for the days following the incident contained no documentation of the incident or any post-incident monitoring. The staff member responsible for the investigation stated that he relied on video footage and interviews with the two residents, but these interviews were only documented in the incident report, and no other staff or residents on shift were interviewed. In a third incident, staff found one resident in another resident’s room and observed the second resident removing his hands from inside the first resident’s pants and shirt; the first resident later stated, “It hurts down there,” and was sent to the emergency room. The first resident had diagnoses including unspecified symptoms involving cognitive functions and awareness, anxiety, depression, cerebral infarct, and was described as having a developmental delay with the mentality of an 8-year-old, while the second resident was cognitively intact based on a BIMS score of 14. Nursing progress notes for both residents for the days following the incident contained no documentation of the event or any post-incident monitoring. The staff member overseeing the investigation acknowledged that he did not document his post-incident checks, did not interview staff on shift or other residents, and no abuse education or protective measures for staff were documented, contrary to the facility’s abuse prevention policy that requires interviews with all involved, retrieval of written statements, and documentation of assessments and monitoring.
Failure to Thoroughly Investigate Allegations of Abuse and Neglect
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to fully investigate multiple allegations of abuse and neglect, including not identifying all potentially affected residents. One resident reported that a staff member (NF8) was “nasty and pushy” while assisting with oral care, telling her she should not take so long brushing her teeth because she only had eight teeth and making her hurry without giving her the time she needed. When the facility questioned NF8 about this incident, he resigned from his position. Review of the facility-reported incident showed no staff interviews were completed as part of the investigation, despite the importance of such interviews in understanding the incident and identifying root causes. Another resident reported inadequate ADL care by staff member NF7, including long call light response times and being left in a soiled brief for hours, and stated he had reported these concerns to facility staff. A staff member later stated they were unaware of any concerns from the resident or his family regarding NF7 and acknowledged they did not report or investigate the alleged abuse or neglect. When surveyors requested documentation such as interdisciplinary team notes, root cause analysis, reporting, and investigation related to concerns with NF7, none was provided. In a separate facility-reported incident, a resident alleged a CNA turned off the call light and refused to provide requested personal care. The facility interviewed only the staff involved that night and did not interview other residents who might have been affected by staff turning off call lights without providing care. A witness (NF5) reported that it was the facility’s usual practice to turn off call lights without providing help, that staff often told the resident they would return but did not always do so, and that multiple staff engaged in this behavior. Despite a request from surveyors, the facility did not provide additional resident interviews or information regarding this allegation by the end of the survey.
Failure to Complete Timely Baseline Care Plans for Wounds and Pain Management
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to complete timely and comprehensive baseline care plans that provided instructions for resident-centered care for three residents. One resident was admitted with multiple serious diagnoses, including acute kidney failure, anemia, atrial fibrillation, chronic respiratory failure, hypertension, a right femur fracture, morbid obesity, and muscle weakness. A nurse progress note documented a coccyx wound described as stage I open on the day of admission, yet no baseline care plan was initiated to direct staff in caring for the wound, managing pain, or addressing the resident’s chronic medical conditions. A care plan was not started until several days later, and when it was initiated, it only addressed advanced directives, oral/dental health problems, loneliness, and discharge planning, without including wound or pain management. Another resident was admitted with dysphagia, dementia, behaviors, a history of falls, and a urinary tract infection. Nursing progress notes documented skin issues on the buttocks, both heels, and the right knee, but the baseline care plan initiated the same day did not identify pressure wounds or any treatment for those wounds. A third resident, admitted after surgical repair of a lumbar 4 compression fracture, had a documented Stage 3 pressure ulcer and a lower back incision with intact staples on the admission nursing evaluation. However, the baseline care plan for this resident did not include wound management interventions or pain management for post-operative pain. During an interview, a staff member explained that the baseline care plan is triggered when the admitting nurse completes and locks the admission nursing assessment, and acknowledged that when assessments are not locked, baseline care plans are not completed and are not always done on time.
Failure to Honor Resident’s Right to Chosen Visitor
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to honor a resident’s right to receive visitors of her choosing. A long-time friend of the resident, identified as NF1, reported that when she first attempted to visit the resident after the resident’s admission, staff member B escorted her out of the building and told her that law enforcement would be called if she returned. NF1 had previously been employed by the facility approximately four years earlier and had been terminated due to an allegation of abuse toward a resident. The facility did not allow her to visit the resident in any capacity. Another individual, NF2, stated he was aware that the facility was not allowing NF1 to visit the resident and that he knew about the prior abuse allegation but was not concerned about NF1 abusing the resident. NF2 stated he wanted NF1 to be allowed to visit and that the facility did not offer supervised visits or visits in a common area. He was hesitant to raise the visitation issue with the facility because he was concerned it might change how the resident was treated. Staff member B confirmed that any employee terminated due to an abuse allegation was not allowed to return to the building for any reason, and that this restriction was applied without considering the resident’s history with the visitor. The facility’s visitation policy stated residents have the right to receive visitors of their choice and that limitations may include denying or limiting access to individuals suspected of abuse until an investigation is completed or abuse is found, but the facility applied a blanket prohibition in this case.
Failure to Document and Investigate Resident Grievances Alleging Neglect and Inadequate Repositioning
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to follow its grievance policy and to ensure residents could voice grievances related to alleged abuse and neglect without discrimination or reprisal. One resident reported that a specific CNA (NF7) left his call light on for hours, did not assist with ADLs, and that this led to bowel and bladder incontinence while he waited for help at night. The resident stated that when the CNA finally responded, the CNA would force him to ambulate to the restroom instead of cleaning him in bed, and when the resident refused to ambulate, the CNA told him to sign a refusal of care form. The resident reported being afraid of this CNA and feeling neglected in his care, and he stated he reported these concerns to staff member C. An external email from NF6 to staff member C documented that the resident was afraid of NF7, described NF7’s statements about his job duties, and explicitly requested to file a grievance and have NF7 kept away from the resident. Additionally, a care conference note signed by staff member C documented the resident’s report of being made to sign refusal sheets at night and waiting 20–40 minutes for call lights to be answered. Despite this, staff member C, identified as the grievance official, stated there were no concerns brought forth from the resident or family regarding NF7, and no grievance was completed for this abuse/neglect allegation as required by the facility’s grievance policy. The deficiency also includes the facility’s failure to thoroughly investigate and document findings for another resident’s grievance regarding care. This resident, who had impaired mobility in both upper and lower extremities and was dependent for all ADLs except eating, reported that a night CNA was rough and refused to reposition his legs, and he stated he had complained to the facility but the issue continued. A written grievance from this resident documented that a male CNA would not readjust his legs for comfort. The grievance form’s investigative findings did not show any attempt to identify the specific night CNA involved or to clarify what care was being refused. Staff member E, who was responsible for investigating this grievance, could not recall details of the investigation and acknowledged she did not attempt to identify the accused CNA, characterizing the issue as a recurrent complaint and a miscommunication about repositioning due to the resident’s leg contractures. She stated she had encouraged the resident to be more specific about the repositioning requested but could not explain why this was not documented on the grievance form. The facility’s grievance policy required that grievances, including those involving abuse or neglect, be documented on a grievance form and investigated, but this was not done in accordance with policy for these residents’ complaints.
Failure to Timely Report Alleged Abuse and Neglect to State Agency
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to timely report an allegation of abuse and neglect to the State Survey Agency involving one sampled resident, identified as resident #47. During an interview, resident #47 reported that a specific former staff member, NF7, would leave his call light on for hours, fail to assist with ADL care, and this lack of response resulted in the resident soiling his brief with bowel and bladder because he waited so long for help. The resident further stated that NF7 would encourage him to sign a refusal of care form and then expect him to ambulate to the restroom after he had already gone in his brief. In a separate interview, staff member B stated that no care concerns from the resident or family had been brought to their attention and acknowledged that they did not report the alleged abuse or neglect of care. A request by surveyors for documentation related to resident #47’s interdisciplinary team notes, any identified root causes, reporting, and investigation of concerns involving NF7 and resident #47 yielded no documentation by the end of the survey, demonstrating a lack of evidence that the allegation was reported or investigated as required.
Failure to Provide and Accurately Document ADL and Hygiene Assistance
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified that the facility failed to provide and accurately document assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs) for multiple residents. One resident, who was assessed on the MDS as dependent for all ADLs except eating (requiring only partial to moderate assistance with eating), reported not always receiving help with meals, having only sponge baths for several weeks instead of showers, and needing a shave while observed lying in bed in a hospital gown with several days of facial hair growth. This same resident had previously filed a grievance stating that a night nurse would not assist with use of a urinal despite his inability to do this himself, and that a male CNA would not readjust his legs for comfort. These findings showed a lack of consistent ADL assistance for a resident documented as dependent. Surveyors also found failures related to personal hygiene supplies and documentation for two other residents. One cognitively intact resident, dependent for oral hygiene and dressing, stated he had not been offered mouthwash or a warm washcloth to wash his face that day, and no mouthwash was present in his room; staff later confirmed they had never offered him mouthwash, despite documentation that personal hygiene was offered and that staff did most of the activity. Another resident, who stated she could wash her face, brush her teeth, and comb her hair mostly independently, reported that washcloths were never available unless she specifically asked staff, and on observation there were no washcloths in her room. Her EHR documentation showed staff did most of her personal hygiene activity, while staff later stated she was generally independent and that they had not been giving her a daily washcloth. These discrepancies demonstrated inaccurate ADL documentation and failure to routinely offer basic hygiene items such as washcloths and mouthwash.
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.
