Villa Crest Nursing And Retirement Center
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Manchester, New Hampshire.
- Location
- 1276 Hanover Street, Manchester, New Hampshire 03104
- CMS Provider Number
- 305079
- Inspections on file
- 13
- Latest survey
- July 31, 2025
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 12
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Villa Crest Nursing And Retirement Center during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Staff failed to ensure proper sanitization of dishes when dietary aides used a low-temperature chemical sanitizing dishwasher without verifying chlorine levels, resulting in no detectable chlorine during multiple tests. Facility procedures and manufacturer instructions requiring specific sanitizer concentrations and temperature were not followed.
A resident with dementia and no recent psychiatric or behavioral concerns continued to receive an antipsychotic medication without an attempted gradual dose reduction (GDR), despite facility policy and regulatory requirements. Staff confirmed no GDR was attempted and no clinical contraindication was documented, with the decision influenced by the resident's DPOA refusing GDR.
The facility did not ensure that laundry staff wore gowns when handling soiled linen, contrary to CDC guidelines and facility policy. Observations and interviews revealed that gowns were not available or used in the laundry room, and there was a discrepancy between the facility's expectations and actual practices regarding gown usage.
A facility failed to follow professional standards when administering insulin to a resident. An LPN was observed holding a Lantus Glargine insulin pen for only 4 seconds, instead of the recommended 10 seconds, as per the manufacturer's instructions. This was confirmed by the LPN during an interview.
The facility failed to limit PRN psychotropic drugs to 14 days for two residents. One resident received Lorazepam Intensol for anxiety/restlessness without a 14-day stop date or evaluation for continued use. Another resident had a similar PRN order for restlessness/agitation, which was not used, but also lacked a 14-day stop date or evaluation. The facility's policy requires documentation for extending PRN orders beyond 14 days, which was not followed.
Failure to Sanitize Dishes per Manufacturer's Instructions in Kitchen
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that dishes were sanitized according to the manufacturer's instructions in the kitchen. During an observation, two dietary aides were seen using a low-temperature chemical sanitizing dishwasher. When the Dietary Services Director tested the chemical sanitizer (chlorine) with a test strip, the strip did not change color, indicating a lack of chlorine. The Director stated that the sanitizer needed to be replaced as it was low, and confirmed that the dietary aides had not checked the chemical sanitizer before washing dishes. After a new sanitizer bottle was attached and the dishwasher was put back into use, a retest still showed no chlorine present, and the aides had not retested the chlorine before resuming dishwashing. A review of the facility's procedures indicated that staff were required to ensure detergent and sanitizer dispensers were properly loaded and to check and record chemical concentrations, following manufacturer recommendations. The manufacturer's instructions for the dishwasher specified a minimum temperature of 120 degrees Fahrenheit and a required 50 parts per million (ppm) of available chlorine rinse. These requirements were not met during the observed dishwashing process.
Failure to Attempt Gradual Dose Reduction of Psychotropic Medication
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency was identified when a resident with a diagnosis of dementia with psychotic disturbance was maintained on Risperdal (an antipsychotic) for an extended period without a documented attempt at gradual dose reduction (GDR), as required. The resident had been stable, with no acute concerns or documented psychiatric or behavioral issues, and nursing progress notes did not indicate any behaviors that would contraindicate a GDR. Despite this, the resident's Durable Power of Attorney (DPOA) consistently refused attempts at GDR, and the facility did not document any clinical contraindication for not attempting a reduction. Interviews with facility staff confirmed that no GDR had been attempted and that the resident had not exhibited psychotic or hallucinatory episodes. The facility's own policy requires consideration of medication tapering when a resident's condition is stable, and mandates GDR for residents on psychotropic medications unless clinically contraindicated. The lack of documented clinical justification for not attempting a GDR constituted a failure to comply with both facility policy and regulatory requirements.
Failure to Use Gowns in Laundry Department
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adhere to infection control and prevention guidelines by not ensuring that laundry staff wore gowns when handling soiled linen and clothing. Observations revealed that no gowns were available in the main laundry room for staff to use when sorting and loading soiled laundry into the washing machine. Interviews with laundry aides and the housekeeping supervisor confirmed that it was not the facility's practice to use gowns, except when handling linen from residents on transmission-based precautions. This practice was contrary to the facility's policy and CDC guidelines, which require the use of personal protective equipment, including gowns, when handling potentially contaminated laundry. Further interviews with the infection preventionist and the director of nurses highlighted a discrepancy between the facility's expectations and actual practices. The director of nurses expected laundry staff to wear gowns when handling contaminated linen, while the infection preventionist stated that gowns were only necessary for residents on transmission-based precautions. The corporate director of nurses indicated that the facility follows CDC guidelines, yet the lack of gown usage in the laundry department suggests a failure to implement these guidelines effectively.
Failure to Follow Insulin Administration Guidelines
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adhere to professional standards of quality in the administration of insulin for one resident. During an observation, a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) was seen administering insulin using a Lantus Glargine insulin pen. The LPN held the pen for only 4 seconds after pressing the injection button, contrary to the manufacturer's instructions, which specify that the button should be held down until the dose window returns to 0, and the user should count to 10 before removing the pen to ensure the full dose is delivered. This deviation from the manufacturer's guidelines was confirmed by the LPN during an interview conducted at the time of the observation.
Failure to Limit PRN Psychotropic Drugs to 14 Days
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that as needed (PRN) psychotropic drugs were limited to 14 days for two residents. For Resident #112, a PRN order for Lorazepam Intensol 0.5 mg by mouth every 4 hours for anxiety/restlessness was initiated on 5/28/2024. A review of the June Medication Administration Record (MAR) showed that three doses were administered in June. An interview with the Director of Nursing (Staff B) confirmed that there was no 14-day stop date or evaluation for continued use since the origination date, which should have been conducted. Similarly, for Resident #11, a PRN order for Lorazepam Intensol 0.5 mg every 4 hours for restlessness/agitation was initiated on 5/10/2024. Although the medication was not used, the same issue was identified: there was no 14-day stop date or evaluation for continued use. Staff B confirmed this oversight during an interview. The facility's policy on psychotropic medication, dated 9/2022, requires documentation of rationale and duration if a PRN order is to be extended beyond 14 days, which was not adhered to in these cases.
Latest citations in New Hampshire
The facility failed to meet professional standards of quality by not documenting required post-fall assessments for two residents. In one case, a resident was found on the floor with head and leg pain, a lump on the head, and later increased right leg pain after being moved to bed; although an RN reported performing an assessment, there was no documentation of that assessment, no recorded VS, and no neuro checks despite the resident remaining in the facility for hours before ER transfer. In the second case, a resident was found on the floor after attempting an independent transfer, noted as having no skin issues and moved to a w/c, with an IDT note later referencing a full body assessment by the unit manager; however, no detailed assessment, VS, or injury documentation was found in the record. These omissions conflicted with facility policies requiring documentation of the resident’s condition, assessment data, VS, and interventions after a fall.
The facility failed to immediately report multiple alleged abuse incidents to the State Survey Agency as required by its abuse policy. In one case, an LNA was seen holding a resident off the ground with the resident’s back against the LNA’s chest while moving the resident. In another case, a resident was found with unexplained facial scratches and blood, which was reported internally but not to the state. In a third incident, an RN observed an LNA yelling at a resident to get into bed and then picking the resident up from the floor and forcefully placing the resident onto the bed. In each situation, leadership, including the Administrator and DON, were informed, but the allegations were not reported to the state within the required timeframes.
Two residents were involved in separate alleged abuse incidents by the same LNA that were not investigated as required by facility policy. In one case, an LNA reported witnessing another LNA hold a resident with the resident’s back against the LNA’s chest and the resident’s feet off the ground while being moved. In the other case, an RN reported seeing a resident screaming beside the bed while an LNA yelled at the resident to get into bed, then picked the resident up off the floor and forcefully placed the resident onto the bed. The administrator and DON acknowledged being informed of these allegations but did not initiate investigations or remove the alleged perpetrator from duty, contrary to the facility’s abuse, neglect, and exploitation policy that mandates immediate, thorough investigation and documentation of all alleged violations.
A resident was manually restrained and moved by an LNA, who held the resident from behind with the resident’s back against the LNA’s chest and feet off the ground after the resident reportedly became combative and struck the LNA. Another LNA witnessed the incident and later reported it. Review of the medical record showed no documentation of behaviors or use of a manual restraint around the time of the incident, no related entries on the Treatment Administration Report, and no care plan interventions for manual behavior management. The DON confirmed these findings and that the facility lacked a policy governing the use of manual physical restraints.
The facility failed to follow its abuse, neglect, and exploitation policy by not promptly investigating or reporting multiple abuse-related incidents to the SSA. In one case, an LNA was observed holding a resident off the ground while moving the resident; in another, an RN reported that an LNA yelled at a resident and then picked the resident up from the floor and forcefully placed the resident in bed. A separate resident was found with facial scratches and blood of unknown origin, and this was reported internally but not to the SSA. Additionally, the LNA involved lacked a documented criminal background check, and several staff members had not received the required annual abuse-prevention education, despite policy requirements for pre-employment screening and ongoing staff training.
A resident developed new LUE swelling and was evaluated by a PA, who noted edema with minimal erythema, warmth, and tenderness, and arranged an emergent hospital transfer to rule out DVT. The hospital identified a closed radial head (elbow) fracture, and an RN received a verbal report from the ED about the fracture before the resident returned. Despite this information and a written policy requiring investigation and timely reporting of injuries of unknown source to state and local authorities, including submission of findings within five working days, the DON acknowledged that no report was made to the State Survey Agency for this fracture.
A resident developed new LUE swelling and was evaluated by a PA, who noted edema with slight tenderness and concern for possible DVT, leading to an emergent hospital transfer. Hospital records showed a closed radial head (elbow) fracture, but the DON reported that no investigation was conducted into the cause of this injury. This failure occurred despite a facility policy requiring that injuries of unknown source be entered into the risk management system and investigated within 24 hours to determine whether abuse or neglect occurred and to identify causative factors.
A resident with severe hypoalbuminemia developed new LUE swelling and was emergently transferred to the hospital for evaluation of possible DVT, where an elbow fracture with radial head fracture was diagnosed. Review of the medical record showed that no Notice of Transfer/Discharge or bed-hold notification was completed or filed for this unplanned, acute hospital transfer, despite facility policy requiring verbal and written notification to the resident and representative and placement of the completed transfer form in the chart. The DON confirmed that the required transfer notice was not provided.
A resident with LUE swelling was evaluated by a PA, who documented concern for possible DVT and arranged an emergent hospital transfer; the hospital later diagnosed a closed radial head (elbow) fracture and provided instructions for follow-up, arm elevation, and ice application. However, nursing staff did not document when the resident left for the hospital or when they returned, and there was no record of a post-return nursing assessment or review and implementation of hospital recommendations, contrary to the facility’s nursing documentation policy.
A resident admitted with a right groin wound did not receive physician-ordered wound care because no treatment orders were transcribed or implemented at admission. The wound went untreated for seven days, resulting in deterioration and subsequent hospitalization for surgical debridement.
Failure to Document Post-Fall Assessments and Vital Signs for Two Residents
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure that services met professional standards of quality by not documenting required post-fall assessments for two residents. For Resident #1, a registered nurse (Staff C) reported that after a fall on 1/21/26, the resident was found on the floor leaning against the wall, complaining of head pain and groin pain. Staff C stated the resident had a lump on the back of the head and groin sensitivity, and that the resident was transferred from the floor to a chair with a licensed nursing assistant and then to bed with assistance from Staff B. Once in bed, the resident had increased right leg pain. Staff C acknowledged performing an assessment after the fall but did not document any of these findings in the medical record. Record review for Resident #1 showed a progress note by Staff B at 1:50 p.m. stating the resident was found on the floor complaining of severe pain in the right parietal scalp and right leg/hip/pelvis, unable to extend the leg due to pain, and that the provider was notified and the resident sent to the ER. An IDT note the following day stated the resident had a small abrasion on the right side of the head, a full body assessment was done with no other injuries noted, the resident would not extend the leg straight, and pain prevented assessment of the right lower extremity for shortening or rotation; x‑rays were ordered but not completed due to pain, and the resident was sent to the ER. Despite these narrative notes, there was no documentation of vital signs, no neurological checks, and no documentation by Staff C of the assessment performed while the resident was on the floor, even though the resident remained at the facility for approximately two hours before hospital transfer. The DON confirmed the absence of documented vital signs and neuro checks and stated the resident should not have been moved while complaining of pain. For Resident #2, the medical record contained a progress note dated 1/19/26 indicating the resident was found on the floor next to the bed, stated they did not want to wait for help, had no skin issues, and was moved from the floor to a wheelchair. An IDT note dated 1/20/26 documented that the resident had a fall in the room while trying to transfer from bed to chair, that no injuries were noted on a full body assessment by the unit manager, and that the resident was assisted back to bed. There were no additional progress notes or documentation of the resident’s assessment after the fall, and Staff B confirmed there was no documentation of the full body assessment referenced in the IDT note. Review of facility policies on assessing falls and accident/incident reporting showed that post-fall documentation was required to include assessment data, vital signs, obvious injuries, and the condition of the resident, which was not completed for these two residents.
Failure to Timely Report Multiple Alleged Abuse Incidents to State Agency
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to immediately report multiple alleged abuse incidents to the State Survey Agency (SSA) as required by its abuse, neglect, and exploitation policy. For one resident, a licensed nursing assistant (Staff D) reported witnessing another licensed nursing assistant (Staff C) holding the resident with the resident’s back against Staff C’s chest, arms around the resident, and the resident’s feet off the ground while being moved to another area. This incident occurred on or around January 1, 2026, but was not reported by Staff D until January 14, 2026. The Administrator (Staff A) confirmed awareness of this allegation as of January 14, 2026, and acknowledged that it was not reported to the SSA. For another resident, the Unit Manager (Staff I), who was on call, was notified on the night of November 19, 2025, that the resident was found with scratches and blood on the face, with staff unable to explain how the injuries occurred. Staff I reported this to both the Administrator (Staff A) and the Director of Nursing (Staff B), and Staff A confirmed awareness of the incident on that date but did not report it to the SSA. In a separate incident involving a third resident, an email from an RN (Staff G) to the DON (Staff B) described observing the resident standing beside the bed screaming while an LNA (Staff C) yelled at the resident to get into bed; when the resident did not comply, Staff G observed Staff C pick the resident up off the floor and forcefully place the resident onto the bed. Staff B confirmed being informed of this incident on January 1, 2026, and Staff A confirmed that this allegation also was not reported to the SSA. These failures occurred despite a written facility policy requiring all alleged violations to be reported to the Administrator, state agency, adult protective services, and other required agencies within specified timeframes.
Failure to Investigate Alleged Abuse Incidents Involving Two Residents
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure that alleged violations of abuse were thoroughly investigated for two residents. For the first resident, a licensed nursing assistant (LNA), identified as Staff D, reported that he/she witnessed another LNA, identified as Staff C, holding the resident with the resident’s back against Staff C’s chest and arms around the resident, with the resident’s feet off the ground while being moved to another area. Staff D stated this incident occurred on or around January 1, 2026, and was reported on January 14, 2026. The Administrator, identified as Staff A, confirmed awareness of this incident as of January 14, 2026, and confirmed that the incident was not investigated. For the second resident, an email from a registered nurse (RN), identified as Staff G, to the Director of Nursing (DON), identified as Staff B, described an incident in which the RN opened the door to a resident’s room and observed the resident standing beside the bed screaming while LNA Staff C was yelling at the resident to get into bed. When the resident did not comply, the RN reported observing Staff C pick the resident up off the floor and forcefully place the resident onto the bed. Staff B confirmed receiving this email and stated that they did not remove Staff C from working and did not investigate the incident when notified. Review of the facility’s Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation policy showed that it requires an immediate investigation of any suspicion or report of abuse, including identifying responsible staff, preserving evidence, interviewing all involved persons, determining if abuse occurred, and providing complete documentation, which was not carried out in these cases.
Improper Use of Manual Physical Restraint Without Assessment or Care Plan
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the appropriate use and documentation of a physical restraint for one resident when a staff member used a manual hold to control and move the resident without any corresponding assessment or care plan interventions. On or around January 1, 2026, a licensed nursing assistant (Staff C) reported that the resident had been combative and had struck Staff C in the nose and genitals, after which Staff C approached the resident from behind, put their arms around the resident’s shoulders, and moved the resident approximately four to five feet, with another licensed nursing assistant (Staff D) observing the resident’s back against Staff C’s chest, Staff C’s arms around the resident, and the resident’s feet off the ground while being moved. Staff C stated they believed the resident was a danger to self and others and that no one else wanted to intervene. Record review showed no progress notes around that date documenting behaviors or the use of a manual method to restrain the resident, no documented behaviors on the Treatment Administration Report from late December 2025 through mid-January 2026, and no care plan interventions addressing the use of a manual method for behavior management. The Director of Nursing confirmed these findings and also confirmed there was no facility policy for the use of physical restraint by manual method.
Failure to Report, Investigate, Screen, and Train Regarding Allegations of Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to implement its abuse, neglect, and exploitation policy for reporting and investigating allegations of abuse, as well as failure to ensure required staff screening and abuse training. For one resident, a licensed nursing assistant (LNA) reported witnessing another LNA holding the resident with the resident’s back against the staff member’s chest, arms around the resident, and the resident’s feet off the ground while being moved to another area. This incident reportedly occurred on or around January 1, 2026, but was not reported by the witness until January 14, 2026. The administrator confirmed awareness of the allegation as of that date and acknowledged that the allegation was neither investigated nor reported to the State Survey Agency (SSA), contrary to the facility’s written abuse policy requiring immediate investigation and timely reporting. A second allegation involved another resident, where an RN emailed the DON describing an event in which the RN opened a resident’s room door and observed the resident standing beside the bed screaming while an LNA yelled at the resident to get into bed. When the resident did not comply, the RN reported that the LNA picked the resident up off the floor and forcefully placed the resident onto the bed. The DON confirmed being notified of this incident on the date it occurred and acknowledged that the incident was not investigated and not reported to the SSA, despite the facility’s policy requiring immediate investigation and reporting of alleged abuse within specified timeframes. A third incident involved a resident who was found with scratches and blood on the face, with staff unable to explain how the injuries occurred. The unit manager, who was on call, reported this to both the administrator and the DON. The administrator confirmed that this incident, involving injuries of unknown origin, was not reported to the SSA. In addition, review of the human resources file for the LNA implicated in the above allegations showed no criminal background check, despite the facility’s policy requiring background, reference, and credential checks for potential employees and documentation that screening occurred. Review of staff education files for multiple staff members showed that required annual abuse education had not been provided since 2021 or 2023, contrary to the facility’s policy that existing staff receive annual training on abuse prohibition, recognition, and reporting.
Failure to Report Injury of Unknown Source to State Survey Agency
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to report an injury of unknown source to the State Survey Agency as required by its abuse prohibition policy. A resident was evaluated on-site by a physician assistant for new left upper extremity (LUE) swelling, with findings of edema, minimal erythema/warmth, slight tenderness, and concern for possible LUE deep vein thrombosis (DVT). The provider documented that the swelling was most consistent with dependent edema in the setting of severe hypoalbuminemia and the resident’s report of sleeping on the left side, and ordered an emergent transfer to the hospital for a Doppler study to rule out DVT. Hospital documentation for that visit identified a closed fracture of the radial head (elbow fracture). A registered nurse reported receiving a phone call and verbal report from the hospital emergency room, prior to the resident’s return, that the resident had a fracture. The DON confirmed that the facility did not submit a report to the State Survey Agency for this elbow fracture, which constituted an injury of unknown origin. Review of the facility’s Abuse Prohibition policy showed that injuries of unknown source are to be investigated and reported to appropriate state and local authorities, including reporting allegations involving neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment (including injuries of unknown source) within specified time frames, and reporting findings of completed investigations within five working days, which did not occur in this case.
Failure to Investigate Injury of Unknown Source After Elbow Fracture
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to investigate an injury of unknown source for a resident who was evaluated for left upper extremity (LUE) swelling. On 12/8/25, a progress note by a physician assistant documented that nursing had requested an evaluation for new LUE edema. The assessment indicated swelling most consistent with dependent edema in the setting of severe hypoalbuminemia and the resident’s report of sleeping on the left side, with some non-pitting swelling, minimal erythema/warmth, and slight tenderness. Although cellulitis was doubted, there was concern for a possible LUE DVT, and the resident was transferred emergently to the hospital for a Doppler study to rule out DVT. Hospital documentation from the same date showed the resident was diagnosed with a closed fracture of the radial head (elbow fracture). During an interview, the DON stated that the facility did not conduct an investigation regarding this elbow fracture. This inaction occurred despite the facility’s Abuse Prohibition policy, which requires that injuries of unknown source be investigated to determine if abuse or neglect is suspected, that allegations be entered into the facility’s risk management portal, and that an investigation be initiated within 24 hours focusing on whether abuse or neglect occurred, causative factors, and interventions to prevent further injury, with thorough documentation of the investigation and interviews in the risk management system.
Failure to Provide Required Hospital Transfer and Bed-Hold Notice
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide required notice of transfer and bed-hold to a resident or the resident’s representative when the resident was sent to the hospital. Record review showed that the resident was evaluated on 12/8/25 by a physician assistant for new left upper extremity (LUE) swelling, with findings most consistent with dependent edema in the setting of severe hypoalbuminemia and the resident sleeping on the left side. Due to concern for possible LUE deep vein thrombosis (DVT), the provider ordered an emergent transfer to the hospital for a Doppler study to rule out DVT. Hospital documentation indicated that the resident was seen for a closed fracture of the radial head and elbow fracture. Review of the resident’s medical record revealed that no Notice of Transfer/Discharge was completed for this hospital transfer. The Director of Nursing confirmed that the notice was not provided. The facility’s own “Discharge and Transfer” policy, revised 6/11/25, states that for unplanned, acute transfers, the patient and representative will be notified verbally prior to transfer, followed by written notification using the Notice of Hospital Transfer or state-specific form, and that a copy of this form will be placed in the medical record; this documentation was absent for the resident’s transfer.
Incomplete Documentation of Hospital Transfer and Return
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a complete and accurately documented medical record for one resident related to an episode of left upper extremity (LUE) swelling and subsequent hospital transfer. On 12/8/25 at 11:26 a.m., a progress note by a physician assistant documented that nursing had requested an evaluation for LUE swelling. The assessment indicated new LUE edema, thought most consistent with dependent edema in the setting of severe hypoalbuminemia and the resident sleeping on the left side, but also noted minimal erythema, warmth, slight tenderness, and concern for possible LUE DVT, leading to a decision to transfer the resident emergently to the hospital for a Doppler study. Hospital documentation dated 12/8/25 at 11:02 a.m. showed the resident was seen for a closed fracture of the radial head (elbow fracture) with instructions for orthopedic and family medicine follow-up in two days, arm elevation, and use of ice packs. Despite this episode of care, the resident’s medical record lacked nursing documentation of when the resident was transferred to the hospital and when they returned. Upon the resident’s return, there was no documentation that the resident was assessed or that the hospital’s recommendations were reviewed or implemented. The only hospital paperwork in the record was the Patient Visit Information summarizing the diagnosis and basic follow-up instructions, with no additional hospital documents present. The DON confirmed there was no nursing documentation regarding the emergency room visit or return on 12/8/25. These omissions were inconsistent with the facility’s Nursing Documentation policy, which requires timely entries specifying patient status, nursing assessments, interventions, and all relevant patient information to be documented or entered in the clinical record following established guidelines.
Failure to Obtain and Implement Admission Orders for Wound Care
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when a resident was admitted with a puncture wound to the right groin, but no physician's orders for wound treatment were obtained at the time of admission. The resident's clinical admission assessment documented the presence of the wound, and the hospital discharge summary included instructions for daily wound care. However, a review of the admission orders and the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) showed that no wound treatment orders were transcribed or carried out for the right groin wound. As a result, the resident went seven days without any wound treatment after admission. During a vascular surgery follow-up appointment, it was noted that the dressing had not been changed, and the wound had deteriorated, showing signs of dehiscence, maceration, slough, and seroma drainage. This led to the resident being hospitalized for surgical debridement. The Director of Nursing confirmed that the wound had not been treated during this period.
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.
