Arbors At Pomeroy
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Pomeroy, Ohio.
- Location
- 36759 Rocksprings Road, Pomeroy, Ohio 45769
- CMS Provider Number
- 365450
- Inspections on file
- 26
- Latest survey
- August 12, 2025
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 2 (1 serious)
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Arbors At Pomeroy during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A certified medication aide/tech who had not completed required training administered narcotic medication and insulin to two residents with complex medical histories. Facility records, interviews, and policy review confirmed the aide/tech was not qualified to give these medications, in violation of facility policy requiring administration by licensed or legally authorized staff.
Thirteen residents were taken on an outdoor outing during high temperatures, resulting in two residents becoming unresponsive and requiring hospitalization for heat stroke. Despite complaints of discomfort and visible signs of overheating, staff continued the outing and did not adequately address the risks posed by the heat or consult with a physician regarding the residents' participation. The bus used for transportation was not properly cooled, and residents were exposed to excessive heat for extended periods, leading to actual harm.
A facility failed to develop a baseline care plan for a resident's orthotic splint, despite physician orders to monitor the splint and check skin integrity. The resident, with multiple diagnoses including osteoarthritis and Kienbock's disease, reported discomfort and tightness from the splint, which was observed to cause edema. The facility's policy required such a plan, but it was not implemented, leading to a deficiency.
The facility failed to update care plans for two residents regarding ADL and palliative care. One resident required extensive assistance with ADLs, but the care plan was not revised to reflect this need. Another resident's care plan did not accurately reflect their current hospice provider. These deficiencies were confirmed through interviews with facility staff.
A resident with multiple medical conditions and a self-care performance deficit did not receive the required nail care as per physician orders. Despite a standing order for weekly nail trimming, observations and interviews confirmed that the resident's nails were long, jagged, and dirty, indicating non-compliance with the facility's nail care policy.
The facility failed to provide routine palliative care visits for a resident with a terminal prognosis and did not adequately monitor another resident's orthotic splint, leading to increased edema. The palliative care visits were missed due to external factors, while the splint was not adjusted despite the resident's complaints of tightness and swelling. These deficiencies were identified through observations, record reviews, and interviews.
Two residents in the facility did not receive routine podiatry services, leading to deficiencies in their care. One resident, with a complex medical history, was not seen by a podiatrist during scheduled visits, resulting in long and curving toenails. Another resident, diagnosed with neurocognitive disorder, also did not receive podiatry services since admission, with observations showing long and thick toenails. The facility's policy on nail care was not followed, and there was a lack of documentation regarding consent or refusal of podiatry services.
The facility failed to implement fall prevention interventions for three residents, leading to deficiencies in care. A resident was found without non-skid socks and a bed in the lowest position, another was missing an anti-rollback bar on their wheelchair, and a third had an unpadded footboard despite orders. Staff interviews revealed a lack of awareness of these interventions.
The facility failed to timely address pharmacy recommendations for two residents, leading to deficiencies in medication management. A resident's GDR was not justified by the physician, and another resident's medication adjustment was delayed beyond policy guidelines. Staff confirmed the lack of timely response, contrary to facility policy.
A facility failed to obtain physician-ordered laboratory testing for a resident with severe cognitive deficits and multiple diagnoses, including Alzheimer's and dementia. Despite a pharmacy recommendation and a physician's order to check the resident's A1C yearly due to the risk of adverse metabolic effects from antipsychotic and antidepressant medications, no A1C results were found in the medical record. The DON confirmed the absence of these results.
The facility failed to notify the local Ombudsman of transfers for two residents, one with complex medical issues and another with multiple sclerosis and cellulitis, to the emergency room. Despite documentation of the transfers and provision of bed hold policies, there was no evidence of Ombudsman notification, confirmed by facility staff.
Unqualified Staff Administered Narcotics and Insulin
Penalty
Summary
Certified Medication Aide/Tech #3 administered narcotic medication and insulin to two residents without being qualified or trained to do so. One resident, with multiple diagnoses including diabetes, cerebrovascular disease, and cognitive impairment, received hydrocodone-acetaminophen, a class II narcotic, on two occasions as documented in the medication administration record and controlled drug log. Another resident, with a history of diabetes, COPD, hemiplegia, and other conditions, received insulin aspart via Flex pen on two separate occasions, also administered by the same unqualified staff member. Documentation confirmed that the aide/tech had not completed the required training and was not authorized to administer these medications at the time of administration. Interviews with facility staff, including the administrator and a registered nurse, confirmed that the aide/tech was unqualified to administer narcotics and insulin. Review of the personnel file showed no evidence of completed training or qualification for medication administration. Facility policy requires that medications be administered by licensed nurses or staff legally authorized to do so, which was not followed in these instances. The deficiency was identified through review of records, interviews, and policy documents, affecting two residents out of 32 with narcotic and/or insulin orders.
Failure to Prevent Heat Stroke During Outdoor Activity
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate and proper interventions to prevent heat stroke during an outdoor activity, resulting in actual harm to residents. Thirteen residents were taken on a planned outing to the zoo on a day when the outside temperature reached 88 degrees Fahrenheit with a heat index of 90. Despite some residents expressing discomfort and complaints of being hot, the outing continued as scheduled, and residents remained outside and on a bus for extended periods. The bus used for transportation was not pre-cooled, and after leaving the zoo, residents stayed on the warm bus while meals were provided at a fast-food restaurant. The bus was described as being very hot inside, and residents were exposed to high temperatures for several hours. Two residents became unresponsive during the return trip, requiring emergency medical intervention. One resident was found to have a temperature of 105.7 degrees Fahrenheit and was transferred to the hospital, placed on a ventilator, and treated for heat stroke. Another resident was also unresponsive with a temperature of 104 degrees Fahrenheit and was admitted to the hospital for heat stroke. Both residents had significant medical histories, including cerebral infarction, hemiplegia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, and other chronic conditions. Other residents on the outing also experienced symptoms of overheating, with some refusing assessment or treatment by EMS, and several being recommended for emergency room evaluation but declining. Staff interviews and documentation revealed that the decision to proceed with the outing was made despite prior discussions about the high temperature and concerns raised by staff. There was no evidence that the physician was consulted regarding the appropriateness of the outing for the residents given the weather conditions and their medical statuses. The facility did not ensure that outdoor activities were planned and provided to meet the safety and total care needs of the residents, and interventions such as increased fluids, sunblock, and access to shaded or air-conditioned areas were ineffective in preventing harm. The lack of adequate planning and response to residents' needs during the outing directly resulted in heat-related illnesses and hospitalizations.
Failure to Implement Baseline Care Plan for Orthotic Splint
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop and implement a baseline plan of care for a resident's orthotic splint, which was necessary to address the resident's immediate needs upon admission. The resident, who was admitted with multiple diagnoses including osteoarthritis, osteonecrosis, and Kienbock's disease, had a right orthotic brace that was not addressed in the nursing admission evaluation. Despite the presence of physician orders to monitor the splint and check skin integrity, these instructions were not incorporated into a baseline care plan. The resident reported discomfort and tightness from the orthotic splint, which was observed to cause edema around the brace. The Senior Director of Nursing confirmed that the baseline plan of care did not include the necessary instructions for managing the orthotic splint, as required by the facility's policy. This oversight affected the resident's care and highlighted a deficiency in the facility's adherence to its own policies for developing baseline care plans.
Failure to Update Care Plans for ADL and Palliative Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to review and revise the care plans for two residents in the areas of activities of daily living (ADL) and palliative care. For Resident #5, the care plan did not reflect the resident's current need for extensive assistance with ADLs, despite documentation indicating this requirement from early January to early February 2025. The resident, who has a severe cognitive deficit and multiple complex medical conditions including cerebrovascular accident with hemiplegia and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, was noted to require extensive assistance, yet the care plan was not updated to reflect these needs. This was confirmed during an interview with the Senior Director of Nursing. For Resident #46, the care plan did not accurately reflect the resident's current hospice care provider. The resident, who has a terminal prognosis and is receiving palliative care for conditions including severe morbid obesity and chronic respiratory failure, was documented to be under the care of Compass Palliative Care. However, an interview with a Registered Nurse revealed that the resident's current hospice provider was Buckeye Hospice. The facility's policy requires that comprehensive care plans be reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each comprehensive and quarterly MDS assessment, which was not adhered to in these cases.
Failure to Provide Adequate Nail Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate nail care for a resident who was dependent on staff assistance, as per physician orders. The resident, who had a range of medical conditions including diabetes mellitus, polyneuropathy, and congestive heart failure, was admitted with a self-care performance deficit. The resident's care plan required staff assistance for personal hygiene, including nail care. Despite a physician's order for the resident's nails to be trimmed every Monday, the facility did not comply with this order. Observations and interviews revealed that the resident's nails were long, jagged, and dirty, indicating that they had not been trimmed as required. The resident confirmed that their nails were not cut on the specified date, and the Regional Director of Clinical also acknowledged the condition of the resident's nails. The facility's policy on nail care, which emphasizes routine cleaning and inspection during activities of daily living, was not followed, leading to this deficiency.
Failure to Provide Routine Palliative Care and Monitor Orthotic Splint
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident received routine palliative care visits. Resident #46, who had a terminal prognosis and was admitted to Compass Palliative Care with a diagnosis of COPD, had not received a visit from the contracted palliative care service since December 14, 2024. Despite being scheduled, the visits were missed due to a snowstorm and sickness at the provider's company, as revealed in an interview with the Director of Nursing. The facility's policy requires coordination with hospice staff to promote the resident's well-being, which was not adhered to in this case. Additionally, the facility failed to monitor another resident's orthotic splint, leading to increased edema. Resident #116, who had multiple diagnoses including osteoarthritis and Kienbock's disease, was at risk for impaired skin integrity due to a splint on the right hand. The resident's plan of care included monitoring the splint and skin integrity every shift. However, the resident reported that the brace felt tight and had not been adjusted, which was confirmed by RN #111. The resident's hand was observed to be swollen, with indents from the brace, indicating that the splint was too tight. The lack of routine palliative care visits for Resident #46 and inadequate monitoring of Resident #116's orthotic splint represent deficiencies in the facility's care. These issues were identified through observations, record reviews, and interviews, highlighting a failure to adhere to care plans and facility policies designed to ensure residents' well-being.
Failure to Provide Routine Podiatry Services
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide routine podiatry services to two residents, leading to deficiencies in their care. Resident #24, who has a complex medical history including diabetes mellitus, polyneuropathy, and congestive heart failure, was not seen by a podiatrist during scheduled visits on 11/01/24 and 01/08/25. Despite having a care plan that addressed self-care performance deficits, there was no documented evidence that the resident refused podiatry care. Observations revealed that the resident's right great toenail was long and curving under, indicating a lack of routine nail care as per the facility's policy. Resident #50, diagnosed with neurocognitive disorder with Lewy Bodies and other conditions, also did not receive podiatry services since her admission. Her care plans did not address the need for podiatry care, and there were no physician's orders or consents for such services. Observations showed that her toenails were long and growing out diagonally, with the left great toenail being particularly thick. Interviews with staff confirmed that the resident was a total assist for ADLs and that podiatry services were not provided. The facility's policy on nail care, which includes routine cleaning, trimming, and filing, was not adhered to for these residents. The absence of podiatry services and lack of documentation regarding consent or refusal of such services contributed to the deficiency. Interviews with the Regional Director of Clinical Operations and other staff highlighted the oversight in ensuring that residents received necessary podiatry care, as evidenced by the condition of the residents' toenails.
Failure to Implement Fall Prevention Interventions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement fall prevention interventions for residents with a history of falls, affecting three residents. Resident #29, who had a history of falls and was at risk due to various medical conditions including dementia and muscle weakness, was observed in bed without the bed being in the lowest position as ordered. Additionally, the resident was not wearing non-skid socks, which were part of her fall prevention plan. The registered nurse interviewed was unaware of the specific fall prevention interventions in place for the resident and acknowledged the oversight. Resident #50, who had a history of falls and was at risk due to conditions such as neurocognitive disorder and a previous hip fracture, was observed in a wheelchair missing an anti-rollback bar, which was part of her fall prevention plan. The certified nursing assistant and registered nurse interviewed were unaware of the missing anti-rollback bar and the presence of disposable gloves in the resident's room, which were supposed to be removed as part of the fall prevention strategy. The oversight was confirmed during the survey. Resident #37, who had a history of skin injuries and was at risk due to conditions such as cerebrovascular accident and diabetes, was found to have a footboard that was not padded as ordered by the physician. The licensed practical nurse confirmed the absence of the padding, which was intended to prevent further skin injuries. The facility's failure to adhere to the prescribed interventions for fall and injury prevention was evident in the observations and interviews conducted during the survey.
Delayed Response to Pharmacy Recommendations in LTC Facility
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to address pharmacy recommendations in a timely manner for two residents, leading to deficiencies in medication management. For Resident #5, the pharmacist recommended a gradual dose reduction (GDR) for several medications, including Remeron, Depakote, and Risperdal. The physician addressed the recommendation but did not provide a rationale for declining the GDR, and no progress note was documented to justify the decision. This oversight occurred despite the resident's complex medical history, which included conditions such as cerebrovascular accident, schizophrenia, and dementia. Resident #24 also experienced a delay in addressing a pharmacy recommendation. The pharmacist suggested a reduction in Omeprazole dosage, but the physician did not act on this recommendation until more than 30 days later, which was beyond the facility's policy timeframe. The resident's medical history included diagnoses such as diabetes mellitus, anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder, and the resident was receiving multiple medications, including antianxiety and antidepressant drugs. Interviews with facility staff, including the Director of Nursing and the Regional Director of Clinical, confirmed the lack of timely response to pharmacy recommendations. The facility's policy required medication regimen reviews to identify irregularities and respond promptly to prevent adverse drug events, but this was not adhered to in these cases.
Failure to Obtain Ordered Laboratory Testing for a Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to obtain physician-ordered laboratory testing for a resident, leading to a deficiency. The resident, who was admitted with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, Crohn's disease, dementia, delusional disorders, hallucinations, unspecified psychosis, anxiety disorder, and depression, had a severe cognitive deficit as indicated by a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 03. The resident had been receiving antipsychotic and antidepressant medications, which posed a risk of adverse metabolic effects. A pharmacy recommendation dated 07/25/24 advised checking a fasting lipid panel, fasting glucose level, and A1C yearly. Subsequently, a physician's order dated 07/29/24 was made to check the resident's A1C yearly. However, a review of the medical record revealed no A1C results, and the Director of Nursing confirmed the absence of these results during an interview on 02/06/25.
Failure to Notify Ombudsman of Resident Transfers
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to notify the local Ombudsman of resident transfers as required, affecting two residents. Resident #57, who had a complex medical history including acute on chronic respiratory failure, seizures, and diabetes, was transferred to the emergency room due to seizure activity and low oxygen saturation. Despite the transfer being documented in the resident's medical record and a bed hold policy being provided, there was no evidence that the local Ombudsman was notified of the transfer. The facility attempted to confirm notification with the Ombudsman's office but was unable to obtain confirmation. Similarly, Resident #65, who had diagnoses including multiple sclerosis and cellulitis, was transferred to the emergency room for an infection in the right lower extremity. The facility also failed to provide evidence that the Ombudsman was notified of this transfer. Interviews with the Senior Director of Nursing and the Regional Director of Operations confirmed the lack of notification to the Ombudsman for both residents' transfers.
Latest citations in Ohio
A resident with intact cognition receiving Medicare Part A skilled services for metabolic encephalopathy had services discontinued while benefit days remained, but the facility did not issue the required Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice (SNF ABN). The Social Services Director later confirmed that no SNF ABN was provided and reported she believed only a Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) was needed when all skilled services were stopped. This practice conflicted with the facility’s written policy, which required SNF ABNs to be issued when extended care items or services were initiated, reduced, or terminated due to expected non-coverage by Medicare.
Surveyors identified that the facility exceeded the acceptable medication error rate when two residents with type 2 DM received insulin doses that were not administered according to orders or manufacturer instructions. In two separate observations, an LPN administered Novolog and another LPN administered insulin glargine and insulin lispro without priming the insulin pens, and the insulin lispro and Novolog were given after the residents had already consumed a significant portion of their breakfast meals, despite orders for administration before meals. Manufacturer information for both insulin products required priming before each injection to ensure accurate dosing, and facility policy required medications, including insulin, to be administered safely, timely, and in accordance with prescriber orders and specified time frames.
Surveyors found that the facility failed to document tray line food temperatures for multiple meals served from two dining room kitchenettes, despite having a “Trayline Taste & Temperature Log” and a policy requiring food to be stored, prepared, distributed, and served according to professional food safety standards. Review of logs showed repeated missing entries for breakfast, lunch, and dinner services in both the Harrison and McClellan dining areas, and the Senior Director of Culinary Services confirmed that temperatures had not been recorded for those meals, potentially affecting all residents receiving meals from those kitchenettes.
The facility failed to conduct and document required periodic care conferences for two residents, despite multiple comprehensive, quarterly, and significant change MDS assessments and a policy requiring periodic care conferences with resident and/or family participation. One resident with Parkinson’s disease, post-stroke hemiplegia, TIA, DMII, and depression had only two documented care conferences over a year, while another resident with aphasia, cerebrovascular disease, DMII, gait difficulty, coagulation defect, depression, and muscle weakness had no documented care conferences in the past year, aside from a declined invitation to the representative. The UCC confirmed that care conferences were expected to occur quarterly and that no additional documentation existed for either resident.
A resident with Alzheimer's disease and type II DM, who required extensive assistance with ADLs and was receiving scheduled Lantus and sliding-scale Humalog, experienced a severely elevated blood glucose level. The on-call provider was notified and ordered an additional dose of lispro insulin with a directive to recheck the blood glucose after administration. Nursing staff administered the extra insulin but did not document any follow-up blood glucose check, and the DON confirmed that this reevaluation was required by the facility's abnormal blood glucose policy and was not completed or documented.
A resident with Parkinson’s disease, dementia, and hypothyroidism was prescribed levothyroxine once daily along with other medications. A consultant pharmacist’s monthly drug regimen review recommended that levothyroxine be given in the morning on an empty stomach, 30–60 minutes before food, per manufacturer instructions. The medical record contained no documented physician response to this recommendation, and the MAR showed the drug scheduled for morning administration while the resident was observed eating breakfast and receiving the medication at the same time. An LPN confirmed administering levothyroxine during the meal, and the DON verified there was no documentation explaining whether or why the pharmacist’s recommendation was or was not followed, resulting in a failure to act on and document the identified irregularity.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment, multiple comorbidities, documented gait and balance abnormalities, and a high fall risk was care planned and assessed by therapy to require contact guard assistance and use of a gait belt for transfers and ambulation. While being assisted by a CNA from a recliner to the bathroom with a walker, the CNA did not apply a gait belt, even though the resident had a known tendency to lean backward when standing. As the CNA reached to open the bathroom door, the resident lost balance and fell backward, striking the back of the head, and was later found by an LPN without a gait belt in place, contrary to the facility’s gait belt policy and the resident’s assessed needs.
A resident with CKD stage five requiring peritoneal dialysis (PD) was admitted with pre-admission physician orders for three daily PD exchanges and monitoring for peritonitis (fever, abdominal pain, cloudy effluent), but these monitoring orders were not entered into the facility’s physician orders. The care plan referenced PD and general monitoring but did not specifically address peritonitis monitoring. Paper PD flowsheets showed incomplete and inconsistent documentation of exchanges and resident condition, including missing condition/comments for individual treatments and no record of one ordered PD exchange. The PD cycler flowsheet lacked effluent descriptions on multiple days. The PD nurse reported facility staff were expected to monitor effluent and symptoms, and the DON confirmed the absence of specific peritonitis monitoring orders, lack of an order for the PD cycler, and documentation gaps, despite a facility policy requiring ongoing assessment and monitoring for complications before, during, and after dialysis treatments.
A nurse was observed preparing multiple oral medications for a resident with depression, traumatic brain injury, anxiety, and impaired cognition by pushing tablets and capsules from unit-dose cards directly into her ungloved hand and then using her fingers to place them into a medication cup. In a follow-up interview, the RN confirmed this practice and acknowledged that the correct procedure is to dispense medications directly from the card into the cup, contrary to the facility’s medication administration policy requiring adherence to good nursing principles and practices.
A resident with Alzheimer’s disease, diabetes, anxiety, significant ADL dependence, and behavioral symptoms was observed seated in a chair positioned against the nursing station with a locked wheelchair placed directly in front, also against the nursing station, effectively restricting movement. An LPN confirmed both wheelchair wheels were locked and that it should not have been placed there, while a CNA stated she had positioned the wheelchair to prepare for lunch, was unable to complete the transfer, and left it in place, acknowledging this was wrong. This arrangement conflicted with the facility’s restraint policy, which prohibits physical restraints except when alternatives are ineffective for treating a medical symptom and defines restraints as devices adjacent to the body that cannot be easily removed and that restrict freedom of movement or access to the body.
Failure to Issue Required SNF ABN When Discontinuing Medicare Part A Services
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to issue a Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice (SNF ABN) when Medicare Part A services were discontinued for a resident who still had available benefit days. The resident was admitted with a diagnosis of metabolic encephalopathy and had intact cognition per the Minimum Data Set assessment. The facility’s own SNF Beneficiary Notification Review documented that Medicare Part A skilled services began on 02/11/26 and the last covered day was 03/11/26, and that the facility initiated discharge from Medicare Part A services before the resident’s benefit days were exhausted. Despite this, no SNF ABN was provided to the resident or the resident’s representative. During interviews, the Social Services Director stated that the SNF ABN was issued hours prior to the last covered day but, upon reviewing her files, confirmed that no SNF ABN had actually been issued for this resident. She further explained that she believed an SNF ABN was only required if one skilled service remained and that if all skilled services were being discontinued, only the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) needed to be issued. The Administrator, however, stated that a resident should always receive both a SNF ABN and a NOMNC when Medicare Part A services are discontinued and benefit days remain. Review of the facility’s written policy dated 03/28/23 showed that the facility was required to issue SNF ABNs for initiation, reduction, or termination of extended care items or services when Medicare payment was not expected, which did not occur in this case.
Plan Of Correction
This Plan of Correction is submitted as required under State and Federal law. This Plan of Correction does not constitute an admission on the part of the Facility that the findings cited are accurate, that the findings constitute a deficiency or that the scope and severity regarding the deficiency cited are correctly applied. Any changes to the Facility's policies and procedures should be inadmissible in any proceeding on that basis. Without admitting or denying the validity or the existence of the alleged noncompliance, the Facility submits this Plan of Correction with the intention that it be inadmissible by any third party in any civil or other action against the facility or any employee, agent, officer, director or shareholder of the Facility. The Facility is utilizing this Plan of Correction as its allegation of substantial compliance as of 05/29/2026 F-0582 Corrective action for resident/s: On 5/14/26 Resident #34 was informed of rights and responsibilities related to Advanced Beneficiary Notice and voiced understanding of information for future reference by administrator. Identification of other residents who may be affected: Any resident receiving skilled services from nursing or therapy services. The Administrator audited all residents who were discharged from skilled services in the past 30 days to ensure they were issued a Notice of Non-Coverage and Advanced Beneficiary Notice on 5/29/26. No non-compliance was noted. Measures for systemic change: On 5/14/2026 Business Office Manager, Director of Rehab, Minimum Data Set nurse, Director of Nursing and Social Services Director were educated on proper procedure of issuing of Notice Of Medicare Non Coverage and Advanced Beneficiary Notice by administrator. All upcoming discharges from skilled services will be reviewed weekly at Utilization Review meeting to ensure notices will be delivered timely. How Corrective Action will be monitored: Administrator or designee to complete audits of all residents being discharged from skilled services to ensure they were issued a Notice of Non-Coverage and Advanced Beneficiary. This audit will be completed weekly x 4 weeks, then monthly x 2 months. Corrective action will be initiated for any noted non-compliance. Audit findings will be reviewed as part of the monthly quality assurance process to determine the need for further monitoring. Date of Compliance 5/29/26
Insulin Administration Errors and Failure to Prime Insulin Pens
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to maintain a medication error rate below 5%, with surveyors identifying 3 errors out of 28 medication administration opportunities, resulting in a 10.71% error rate. For one resident with type 2 diabetes mellitus and moderate cognitive impairment, the physician’s order directed Novolog insulin 10 units via subcutaneous pen-injector to be given before meals. During an observed medication pass, the LPN administered 10 units of Novolog insulin without priming the pen and did so after the resident had already consumed approximately 50% of the breakfast meal. The LPN later confirmed she did not prime the pen and acknowledged that the insulin was ordered to be administered prior to meals. Manufacturer instructions for the Novolog FlexPen specified that an air shot (priming) must be performed before each injection to ensure proper dosing. Another resident, also diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus and with intact cognition, had orders for insulin glargine 35 units subcutaneously twice daily and insulin lispro 20 units subcutaneously before meals, plus 12 units subcutaneously if blood glucose was between 251 mg/dL and 300 mg/dL. During an observed medication administration, an LPN administered 35 units of insulin glargine and 32 units of insulin lispro without priming the insulin pens and after the resident had consumed approximately 90% of the breakfast meal, despite orders for insulin lispro to be given before meals. The LPN later stated she could not remember if she had primed the pen and acknowledged that the insulin was ordered to be administered prior to meals. Manufacturer information for insulin lispro stated that the pen must be primed before each injection to confirm insulin delivery and remove air, and that failure to prime could result in too much or too little insulin. The DON confirmed the expectation that insulin be administered as ordered, including priming each pen with two units before dialing the prescribed dose, and facility policy required medications, including insulin, to be administered safely, timely, and in accordance with prescriber orders and required time frames.
Plan Of Correction
This Plan of Correction is submitted as required under State and Federal law. This Plan of Correction does not constitute an admission on the part of the Facility that the findings cited are accurate, that the findings constitute a deficiency or that the scope and severity regarding the deficiency cited are correctly applied. Any changes to the Facility's policies and procedures should be inadmissible in any proceeding on that basis. Without admitting or denying the validity or the existence of the alleged noncompliance, the Facility submits this Plan of Correction with the intention that it be inadmissible by any third party in any civil or other action against the facility or any employee, agent, officer, director or shareholder of the Facility. The Facility is utilizing this Plan of Correction as an allegation of substantial compliance as of 5/29/2026. F-0759 Corrective action for resident/s: Residents #21 and #22 were assessed and evaluated by nurse and Director of Nursing 5/14/26. Resident #21 and #22 both denied any adverse effects and none were noted upon assessment by the Director of Nursing on 5/14/2026. Notification made to physician on 5/14/2026. LPN # 2 competency Eval on insulin administration with the Director of Nursing completed 5/14/2026. Identification of other residents who may be affected: Diabetic residents on assignment of LPN #2/station 2 have the potential to be affected and were assessed by the DON/Designee on 5/14/26 and found to be within normal limits. Measures for systemic change: All Nurses were educated by the Director of Nursing on the steps for Insulin administration per competency, diabetes clinical protocol policy, Medication and treatment orders policy, administering medications policy, and Obtaining fingerstick Glucose Level policy On 5/14/2026. How Corrective Action will be monitored: Director of Nursing and Assistant Director of Nursing will complete insulin administration audits on 5 nurses. This audit will be completed weekly x 4 weeks, then monthly x 2 months. Corrective action will be initiated for any noted non-compliance. Audit findings will be reviewed as part of the monthly quality assurance process to determine the need for further monitoring. Date of Compliance: 5/29/2026
Failure to Document Tray Line Food Temperatures in Dining Room Kitchenettes
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to document tray line food temperatures for meals served from the Harrison and McClellan Dining Room kitchenettes, as required by professional standards for food service safety and the facility’s own policy. Review of the “Trayline Taste & Temperature Log” (revised September 2018) showed missing temperature documentation for multiple meals from the Harrison Dining Room kitchenette, including dinner on 03/30/26 and 03/31/26, lunch and dinner on 04/01/26 and 04/02/26, dinner on 04/07/26, and lunch and dinner on 04/08/26 and 04/10/26. The Senior Director of Culinary Services confirmed during interview that tray line food temperatures were not documented on the log for these meals. Similarly, review of the same log for the McClellan Dining Room kitchenette revealed that tray line food temperatures were not documented for dinner on 04/01/26, breakfast and lunch on 04/02/26, and lunch and dinner on 04/07/26. The Senior Director of Culinary Services also verified these omissions during interview. The facility census at the time was 27 residents, and the governing “Food and Nutrition” policy, approved on 09/07/21, stated that the facility must store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety.
Plan Of Correction
F812 The facility will continue to ensure food temperatures are completed before meals are served for all residents. To ensure compliance with this standard the following measures have been taken: 1. Immediately 4/15/26 culinary supervisor #224 was re-educated by Dietary Manager to this standard and policy "Food and Nutrition" which includes documentation of food temperatures. 2. All dietary staff have been re-educated to the standard and policy "Food and Nutrition" during the month of April 2026. 3. Audits of food temperature documentation to be completed by Dietary Manager 4 x per week for 4 weeks then weekly for 4 weeks. 4. Administrator to validate audits/compliance and provide additional training as needed. Administrator will present to QAPI committee for ongoing monitoring and further direction.
Failure to Conduct and Document Required Care Conferences
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to complete and document comprehensive care conferences at required intervals in accordance with care plan regulations and facility policy. For one resident with Parkinson’s disease with dyskinesia, cognitive communication deficit, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction, transient cerebral ischemic attack, type II diabetes mellitus, and major depressive disorder, the record showed multiple MDS assessments over a one-year period, including annual, quarterly, and significant change assessments. However, only two care conferences were documented during the last 12 months, despite the expectation that care conferences be conducted quarterly with the resident and family when possible. The Unit Care Coordinator confirmed that no additional care conference documentation existed for this resident beyond the notes dated 04/21/25 and 01/02/26. A second resident, with diagnoses including aphasia following cerebrovascular disease, cerebral infarction, type II diabetes mellitus, unsteadiness on feet, difficulty in walking, coagulation defect, depression, and muscle weakness, also had multiple MDS assessments completed over the review period, including quarterly and annual assessments. The record contained a note that a care conference was offered to the resident’s representative, who declined to attend, but there was no documentation of any care conferences for the most recent 12 months. The Unit Care Coordinator confirmed that no other care conference documentation was available for this resident. Facility policy stated that periodic care conferences involving the resident, family, and the interdisciplinary team are part of the care planning process, but the required periodic care conferences and corresponding documentation were not completed for these two residents.
Plan Of Correction
THIS PLAN OF CORRECTION SERVES AS BERKELEY SQUARE'S CREDIBLE ALLEGATION OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE AS OF June 1, 2026. Without admitting or denying the validity or existence of the alleged deficiencies, Berkeley Square provides the following Plan of Correction: F657 The facility will continue to document completion of care conferences at the required intervals for all residents, including residents #04 & #15. To ensure compliance with this standard the following measures have be taken: 1. The social service designee and the inter- disciplinary team were re-educated by the administrator to the facility policy "Care Conference" on 4/29/26 and verbalized understanding. 2. Care conferences for resident #04 and resident #15 were conducted on or before 4/29/2026 by the interdisciplinary team. 3. Review of all other residents was conducted by the social service designee to validate and ensure that care conference schedule is up to date with timely care conferences scheduled for them on 4/15/2026. Audits of care conferences to be completed weekly for four weeks and then monthly after that by the social service designee. Documentation of the care conference including any identified concerns in the medical record. Administrator to validate audits/compliance and provide additional training as needed. Administrator will present results of these audits to QAPI committee for ongoing monitoring and further direction.
Failure to Reevaluate Blood Glucose After Treatment for Hyperglycemia
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident with diabetes received treatment in accordance with professional standards of practice when nursing staff did not reevaluate the resident's blood glucose after treatment for severe hyperglycemia. The resident, admitted with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, type II diabetes mellitus, and depression, had physician orders for Humalog insulin on a sliding scale before meals, Lantus insulin 25 units daily, and lisinopril 5 mg daily. The resident required extensive assistance with activities of daily living, including transfers, toileting hygiene, eating, and bathing. On the evening in question, the resident's blood glucose was documented as 532 mg/dL, and the on-call provider was notified. The provider gave a new order to administer an additional 8 units of lispro (Humalog) and to recheck the blood glucose in 30 minutes. The electronic medication administration record showed that the blood glucose of 532 mg/dL was obtained at 9:00 p.m. and that the additional 8 units of lispro were administered at 9:21 p.m. However, there was no documentation in the resident's chart that the blood glucose was rechecked after the additional insulin was given. In an interview, the DON confirmed there was no evidence of reevaluation and verified that, according to the facility's "Abnormal Blood Glucose Procedure" policy, the resident should have been reevaluated and that the evaluation step should have been included in the progress note documentation.
Plan Of Correction
F684 The facility will continue to ensure all residents, including #03, receive treatment in accordance with professional standards of practice and reevaluated for hyperglycemia. To ensure compliance with this standard the following measures have been taken: 1. The director of nursing assessed resident #03, reviewed documentation and orders and found no ill effects immediately 4/16/26. 2. All licensed nurses were re-educated to facility policy "Blood Glucose Monitoring" by the Director of Nursing/designee in April 2026. 3. Audits of like-residents that require blood sugar checks to be completed by the director of nursing/designee two times a week for 4 weeks and then monthly after that to validate correct follow through when there is abnormally high blood glucose result. The Administrator will bring results of these audits to the QAPI committee for ongoing monitoring and further direction.
Failure to Act on Pharmacist Drug Regimen Recommendation for Thyroid Medication
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure that pharmacy recommendations from the monthly drug regimen review were acted upon and documented for a resident. The resident was admitted with diagnoses including Parkinson’s disease, dementia, and hypothyroidism, and had current physician orders for levothyroxine 150 mcg once daily, buspirone 50 mg twice daily, and losartan 100 mg once daily. A medication regimen review dated 11/25/2025 included a consultant pharmacist recommendation that levothyroxine be administered consistently in the morning on an empty stomach, at least 30–60 minutes before food, per manufacturer instructions. There was no specific physician response in the medical record to this recommendation, and the facility’s policy stated that consulting pharmacist reviews are sent to nursing and addressed with the primary care provider or consulting specialist for review and follow-up. Review of the resident’s medication administration record for April 2026 showed levothyroxine scheduled for 9:00 a.m. On observation, the resident was seen eating breakfast in the dining area at 8:03 a.m., and an LPN reported administering the levothyroxine 150 mcg to the resident while the resident was in the dining area eating breakfast. The DON confirmed there was no evidence in the resident’s medical record explaining why the consultant pharmacist’s recommendation from 11/25/2025 was or was not acted upon. This lack of documented physician review and action on the pharmacist’s identified irregularity constituted noncompliance with the drug regimen review requirements.
Plan Of Correction
F756 The facility will continue to ensure the pharmacy recommendations from the monthly drug regimen review by a licensed pharmacist are acted upon for all residents, including #08. To ensure compliance with this standard the following measures have been taken: 1. Resident #08 was assessed by the registered nurse and med review completed by 4/28/26. After review of resident's drug regime's, it was discovered that resident #8 had 2 separate medication recommendations on the same form, to be reviewed by two separate practitioners, pharmacy has been instructed and agreed to separate meds on individual forms. 2. Licensed nurses re-educated to facility policy "Drug Regimen Review" by Director of nursing/designee in April 2026 and no later than 5/8/26. Licensed nurses are responsible for ensuring the reviews and recommendations are given to the physician for timely review. 3. Review of all other current residents Drug Regimen orders completed by Director of nursing/designee on 4/16/26 to ensure recommendations were followed up on/reviewed by the physician and address concerns if needed. 4. Audit of drug regime recommendations, pharmacy recommendations, and physician follow up to be completed weekly for four weeks by the Director of nursing/designee. Administrator will present results of these audits to the QAPI committee for ongoing monitoring and further direction.
Failure to Use Required Gait Belt During Ambulation Resulting in Resident Fall
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure that a required gait belt was used while assisting a high fall‑risk resident with ambulation, resulting in a fall with head injury. The resident had multiple diagnoses including metabolic encephalopathy, hypertension, osteoarthritis, muscle weakness, gait and mobility abnormalities, major depressive disorder, anxiety, and visual hallucinations. Admission and subsequent MDS and fall risk assessments documented that the resident was severely cognitively impaired, required moderate to maximal assistance with transfers and ambulation, could not independently come to a standing position, exhibited loss of balance while standing, used an assistive device, and had decreased muscle coordination. The resident had a history of falls prior to admission and was assessed as being at high, later moderate, risk for falls. The resident’s fall care plan identified her as at risk for falls and included interventions such as providing maximum to moderate assistance with transfers and walking short distances, use of a walker and wheelchair, and following the facility’s fall protocol. Therapy notes and care conference documentation indicated that the resident leaned backwards when standing, required contact guard to minimal assistance for bed mobility and transfers, and needed constant verbal cueing for safe sequencing during toilet transfers. The physical therapist confirmed that the resident was to use a gait belt with staff when ambulating, and the DON verified that therapy had assessed the resident as requiring contact guard assistance and a gait belt for ambulation and transfers. On the day of the incident, a CNA was assisting the resident from her recliner to the bathroom using a walker. The CNA walked beside the resident, providing guidance and support, and reported having a hand on the resident while assisting her. As they approached the bathroom door, the CNA reached for the doorknob to open it, and at that moment the resident began to lose her balance and fell backwards to the floor, striking the back of her head. The nurse who responded found the resident on her back at the foot of the bed with her feet near the bathroom, noted a red raised area on the back of the head, and documented that the resident was not wearing a gait belt and that the gait belt was on the dresser. In the facility’s investigative summary and in interviews, the CNA acknowledged that she did not have a gait belt on the resident while ambulating her, despite the resident’s assessed need for hands‑on assistance and gait belt use per facility policy and the resident’s care and therapy plans.
Failure to Implement PD Orders and Monitor Resident Receiving Peritoneal Dialysis
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to implement pre-admission physician orders for peritoneal dialysis (PD) and to provide ongoing monitoring for a resident with chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage five who required PD. Pre-admission orders dated 11/14/25 specified three daily PD exchanges at 6:00 A.M., 2:00 P.M., and 10:00 P.M., and directed staff to monitor for signs and symptoms of peritonitis, including fever, abdominal pain, and cloudy effluent. These monitoring orders were not entered into the facility’s physician orders. The resident’s care plan noted the need for PD and included general monitoring interventions (labs, signs of bleeding, bacteremia, septic shock, and significant vital sign changes), but did not specifically address the ordered monitoring for peritonitis. Review of PD documentation showed incomplete and inconsistent charting of treatments and resident condition. The paper peritoneal flowsheet had columns for time of PD and condition/comments, including instructions to call the nurse immediately for cloudy fluid, abdominal pain, or fever. However, the first entry on 11/15/26 at 2:00 P.M. only noted that the PD nurse completed the exchange, and the 10:00 P.M. entry that day had no condition/comment documentation. Subsequent days (11/16/25, 11/17/25, and 11/18/25) contained only one condition/comment entry per day rather than for each exchange, and there was no documentation that the 6:00 A.M. PD on 11/18/25 was completed. The PD cycler flowsheet starting 11/19/25 lacked any description of the effluent on multiple days. The PD nurse from the dialysis company stated facility staff were expected to monitor effluent for cloudiness and assess for abdominal pain and fever, and the DON confirmed there was no electronic physician order for peritonitis monitoring or for use of the PD cycler, that the paper charting did not allow for effluent description or symptom documentation for each treatment, and that PD was not documented at one ordered time. The facility’s dialysis policy required ongoing assessment and monitoring for complications before, during, and after treatments, which was not reflected in the documentation for this resident.
Improper Infection Control During Medication Administration
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency in infection prevention and control related to medication administration for Resident #29. The resident was admitted on 02/28/14 with diagnoses including depression, traumatic brain injury, and anxiety, and had impaired cognition per a quarterly MDS assessment. During an observation on 03/25/26 at 6:58 A.M., RN #281 prepared the resident’s medications by removing an Amoxicillin-Pot Clavulanate tablet from the medication card and pushing it directly into her ungloved hand, then using her fingers to place the pill into a medication cup. The same process was observed for multiple other medications, including Escitalopram Oxalate, Furosemide, Sennosides, Lyrica, and Vitamin D, each being pushed from the card into the RN’s ungloved hand and then transferred by her fingers into the medication cup before administration to Resident #29. In a subsequent interview at 7:27 A.M. the same day, RN #281 confirmed she had placed each medication into her ungloved hands prior to administration and acknowledged that the proper procedure was to push the pills directly from the card into the medication cup. Review of the facility’s “Medication Administration – General guidelines” policy, revised 10/08/25, stated that medications are to be administered in accordance with good nursing principles and practices. This practice failure was cited as a deficiency under Complaint Number 2681777.
Improper Use of Wheelchair as a Physical Restraint
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency related to the facility’s failure to ensure a resident was free from physical restraints. Resident #7, admitted with diagnoses including Alzheimer’s disease, diabetes mellitus, and anxiety disorder, was documented on a recent MDS as rarely understood and dependent for ADLs except eating. The resident ambulated independently on the unit without an assistive device and had documented verbal and other behaviors occurring one to three days during the look-back period. The care plan noted the resident had potential to be physically aggressive, chase staff, throw objects, and be combative with care, with interventions such as offering choices, administering medications as ordered, and intervening early when agitation occurred. During an observation and interview, Resident #7 was found sitting in a chair with the right arm of the chair positioned against the nursing station and a wheelchair placed directly in front of him. The left arm of the wheelchair was also against the nursing station, and both wheelchair wheels were locked, creating a barrier that appeared to restrain the resident, who was sleeping with his knees touching the locked wheelchair. An LPN confirmed both wheelchair wheels were locked and that the wheelchair should not have been placed in front of the resident. A CNA reported she had placed the wheelchair there in preparation to get the resident up for lunch, was unable to transfer him, and left the wheelchair in that position, acknowledging it was wrong to keep it there. The facility’s physical restraint policy stated that physical restraints are not used except when alternatives are not appropriate or effective for treating a medical symptom and defined physical restraints as any device attached or adjacent to the body that the individual cannot easily remove and that restricts freedom of movement or access to the body.
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.



