Aristocrat Berea Healthcare And Rehabilitation
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Berea, Ohio.
- Location
- 255 Front Street, Berea, Ohio 44017
- CMS Provider Number
- 365608
- Inspections on file
- 33
- Latest survey
- January 27, 2026
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 5
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Aristocrat Berea Healthcare And Rehabilitation during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Multiple areas of the facility were found to be unclean or unsanitary, including a dining room with food debris, a laundry room with soot from a previous dryer fire, and a resident's room with a strong odor due to refusal to bathe. Staff confirmed delays in cleaning and repairs, and residents reported unaddressed maintenance issues.
The facility did not report an allegation of misappropriation involving possible forged signatures on narcotic logs for two cognitively intact residents receiving oxycodone. An LPN raised concerns to management, and the DON conducted an internal investigation, including drug testing of staff, but did not notify the State Agency as required by policy and regulation.
The facility did not fully investigate allegations of misappropriation involving two cognitively intact residents with orders for oxycodone. The DON confirmed that only face-to-face interviews with nurses were conducted, with no written statements or resident interviews documented, contrary to facility policy requiring comprehensive interviews and documentation.
A resident with a history of psychiatric and behavioral issues made an allegation that staff twisted her arm, but later retracted the claim and apologized. Despite internal investigation and staff belief that the allegation was false, the facility did not report the abuse allegation to the State agency as required by policy, resulting in noncompliance.
The facility failed to accommodate residents' dietary preferences, consistently serving Kool-Aid as the only drink option with meals, despite residents' complaints and preferences for alternatives like orange juice, tea, and coffee. Staff interviews and observations confirmed the lack of drink options, and the Dietary Manager acknowledged the issue, noting that other options were available but not provided.
The facility failed to maintain comfortable temperature levels, affecting multiple residents across two units. Observations revealed cold air circulating in the 1 East Unit, with residents expressing discomfort due to the cold temperatures. Interviews with residents and staff confirmed the issue, with reports of cold air blowing from vents. The Maintenance Director was unaware of the temperature concerns and confirmed the findings during a tour, with temperature readings below the facility's policy range.
A facility failed to maintain a Hoyer lift, affecting a resident who required it for transfers. The resident was confined to bed due to the broken lift, and staff were unable to manually transfer her. Interviews with staff confirmed the lift's broken state, and the Maintenance Director was aware but unsure of repair timelines. The facility's policy on maintaining mechanical lifts was not implemented effectively.
The facility failed to maintain cleanliness and proper water temperatures, affecting residents across multiple units. Observations showed dirty rooms with stained linens and inadequate housekeeping. Water temperatures in shower rooms were below the required range, and the Maintenance Director was unaware of these issues, lacking a log of temperature checks. The facility did not implement its policies on cleanliness and water temperature testing.
A resident with cognitive impairment and dietary restrictions did not receive her lunch meal on time, causing distress and a lack of dignity. The CNA discovered the kitchen had forgotten to prepare the meal, resulting in a 19-minute delay before the Regional Culinary Director delivered the tray. This incident violated the facility's policy on resident rights.
A facility failed to maintain a resident's privacy and confidentiality by disclosing hospital admission details to family members, despite the resident's power of attorney requesting that information be shared only with her. The resident had severe cognitive impairment and various behavioral symptoms.
The facility failed to maintain its ice machines in a sanitary condition, affecting all residents. The main ice machine was out of service, and the second-floor machine had mold and a musty smell. The Dietary Manager confirmed the unsanitary condition, indicating a lapse in following the facility's cleaning policy.
The facility failed to maintain a sanitary environment, affecting residents using showers and dining areas. Observations revealed unsanitary conditions, including feces in shower rooms, broken tiles, and soap scum. In the dining room, gnats and spilled milk were noted, and gnats were also found in a resident's room. Staff verified these conditions during the survey.
The facility failed to assess the risks and benefits of bed rail removal, affecting several residents who relied on them for mobility. Staff interviews revealed that residents became dependent on staff for assistance, and reassessment was delayed. Additionally, a resident developed incontinence dermatitis due to inadequate care, with staff acknowledging the rash had been present for some time. The Director of Nursing was unaware of the issue, and the Nurse Practitioner confirmed the dermatitis was due to poor care.
A resident with schizophrenia and mobility issues experienced a fall after the facility removed her bedside rails, which were not included in her care plan. The removal followed an external survey, and the care plan was not updated to reflect this change, leading to the resident's increased dependency on staff for mobility.
Two residents experienced falls due to inadequate safety measures and supervision. One resident fell after bed rails were removed without proper assessment, while another fell while running in a wet hallway without staff intervention. Both incidents highlight deficiencies in the facility's fall prevention practices.
A resident with cognitive impairment was pushed by another resident, resulting in fractures to the left humerus and right wrist. Both residents had histories of aggressive behaviors and cognitive issues, but no prior incidents of abuse were documented. The facility's investigation confirmed the injuries were due to the altercation, highlighting a failure to protect residents from abuse.
Failure to Maintain Clean and Sanitary Environment
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a clean and sanitary living environment, as evidenced by multiple observations and interviews. On one occasion, food, dirt, and dust were found in the first floor dining room during breakfast service, and two residents were told by a staff member that the dining room was closed, requiring them to eat in their rooms. In the main laundry room, black soot was observed on several ceiling tiles, a result of a dryer fire that had occurred approximately three months prior. The Housekeeping and Laundry Director confirmed the presence of soot and stated that replacement of affected items was pending insurance approval. Additionally, water damage was observed on two ceiling tiles above a resident's bed, and the resident reported that she had requested replacement but it had not yet occurred. Another deficiency was noted in a resident's room, which had a strong odor attributed to poor personal hygiene. Staff interviews confirmed that the resident was capable of bathing independently but consistently refused to do so, having only accepted one shower in the past three months. The strong odor in the room was acknowledged by both the LPN and CNA, who attributed it to the resident's refusal to bathe. These findings were substantiated through direct observation and staff and resident interviews.
Failure to Report Alleged Misappropriation of Resident Narcotics
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to report an allegation of misappropriation of resident property to the State Agency as required by regulation and facility policy. Specifically, concerns were raised regarding the administration of oxycodone to two cognitively intact residents with complex medical histories, including conditions such as cerebral infarction, congestive heart failure, multiple sclerosis, and various psychiatric and pain disorders. An LPN reported to nursing management that another nurse may have been forging signatures on narcotic logs related to the administration of oxycodone for these residents. This concern was based on observations and reports from other nurses, including suspicions of signature forgery. Despite these allegations, the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed that an internal investigation was conducted, which included requiring all nurses in the affected area to undergo drug testing. However, the DON did not consider the situation to be an allegation of misappropriation and therefore did not report it to the State Agency, as required by both facility policy and state regulations. The facility's policy clearly states that all incidents and allegations of misappropriation must be reported immediately to the administrator or designee and to the state department of health within two hours if abuse or serious bodily injury is alleged. The failure to report the incident constituted non-compliance with regulatory requirements.
Failure to Properly Investigate Alleged Misappropriation of Resident Property
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to fully investigate allegations of misappropriation involving two residents who were both cognitively intact and had physician orders for oxycodone for pain management. For one resident, the medical record showed an admission with multiple complex diagnoses, including dementia, heart failure, and chronic pain, while the other had a history of conditions such as antiphospholipid syndrome, depression, and fibromyalgia. Both residents had ongoing orders for oxycodone, and their Minimum Data Set assessments confirmed cognitive intactness at the time of the events. The Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed that an investigation was conducted regarding a nurse and the administration of narcotics, but no written statements were obtained from staff or residents. The DON stated that only face-to-face interviews were conducted with the nurses involved, and no documentation of interviews or statements from any potential resident victims was completed. This approach was not in accordance with the facility's policy, which requires interviews with the resident, the accused, and all witnesses, as well as documentation of the investigation. The lack of proper documentation and failure to interview residents directly led to the deficiency.
Failure to Report Resident Abuse Allegation as Required
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to report an allegation of abuse as required by its policy and regulatory standards. A resident with a history of schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, anxiety, depression, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease made an allegation that staff twisted her arm behind her back. The resident's statements about the incident changed multiple times, and she later retracted her allegation and apologized to staff. Despite this, the facility's policy required all allegations of abuse to be reported to the State agency immediately, but the facility did not do so. The investigation was documented in a soft file, and the interdisciplinary team determined the allegation was false based on witness statements, a timeline, behavioral history, and a head-to-toe assessment. Interviews with facility staff, including the DON, administrator, and CNAs, confirmed that the allegation was not reported to the State agency because the resident retracted her statement and was known for making false allegations. The administrator stated that the incident was investigated internally, but not reported externally as required. The facility's policy clearly stated that all allegations, regardless of perceived credibility or retraction, must be reported to the State agency within two hours, and the results of the investigation must be reported within five days. This failure to report the allegation constituted noncompliance with both facility policy and regulatory requirements.
Failure to Accommodate Dietary Preferences
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure dietary preferences were followed, affecting all residents except one who was NPO. Multiple interviews with residents and staff revealed that residents consistently received Kool-Aid as their drink with meals, including breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Residents expressed dissatisfaction with this practice, preferring options like orange juice, tea, and coffee. Staff interviews confirmed that Kool-Aid was often the only drink available, leading to resident complaints. Observations in the dining room corroborated these findings, showing a lack of alternative drink options. The Dietary Manager acknowledged the issue, stating that residents had complained about receiving Kool-Aid with breakfast meals and that he had informed his staff that this was unacceptable. Despite having other drink options available, such as orange juice, apple juice, and cranberry juice, these were not being offered to residents. The facility's policy on Resident's Rights, which mandates reasonable accommodations for individual needs and preferences, was not implemented in this case, leading to the deficiency.
Facility Fails to Maintain Comfortable Temperature Levels
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain comfortable temperature levels, affecting multiple residents across two units. Observations revealed cold air circulating in the 1 East Unit, with residents expressing discomfort due to the cold temperatures. Residents were observed wearing multiple layers and using extra blankets to keep warm. Interviews with residents and staff confirmed the issue, with reports of cold air blowing from vents and a general consensus that the building was cold. The Maintenance Director, responsible for maintaining a target temperature of 74 degrees Fahrenheit, was unaware of the temperature concerns and confirmed the findings during a tour. Temperature readings during the tour showed levels below the facility's policy range of 71 to 81 degrees Fahrenheit, with readings as low as 66 degrees Fahrenheit in some rooms. The facility's policy, dated March 2019, was not implemented effectively, leading to non-compliance with the requirement to provide a safe and comfortable environment. This deficiency was investigated under Master Complaint Number OH00161301.
Failure to Maintain Hoyer Lift Affects Resident Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain equipment necessary for resident care, specifically a Hoyer lift required for transferring residents. This deficiency affected one resident directly and had the potential to impact five additional residents who also required the use of a mechanical lift. The issue was identified through a combination of record reviews, observations, and interviews with residents and staff. The facility's policy required that mechanical lifting devices be accessible, maintained regularly, and kept in proper working order, but this policy was not implemented effectively. Resident #17, who was dependent on staff for activities of daily living and required a Hoyer lift for all transfers, was directly affected by the broken lift. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with being confined to bed due to the malfunctioning equipment, which had been broken for at least a week. Attempts to manually transfer the resident were unsuccessful due to her weight, and the facility had not taken steps to repair or replace the lift, leaving the resident unable to leave her bed. Interviews with staff, including an LPN, CNAs, and the Maintenance Director, confirmed the broken state of the Hoyer lift designated for the 1 East Unit. The Maintenance Director acknowledged the issue and mentioned a work order was in place, but was unsure of the timeline for repairs. The facility's work order report showed two related entries, but no resolution was evident. The deficiency was identified during a complaint investigation, highlighting the facility's failure to adhere to its own mechanical lift policy.
Deficiencies in Cleanliness and Water Temperature
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a clean environment and ensure water temperatures were at a comfortable level, affecting multiple residents across different units. Observations revealed that several rooms were consistently dirty, with stained bed linens, dust, and debris present. Interviews with residents and staff confirmed that housekeeping was inadequate, with rooms not being cleaned daily or thoroughly. Additionally, the water temperature in the shower rooms on the 2 East Unit and the third floor was found to be cold, with readings of 95 degrees Fahrenheit, which is below the facility's policy requirement of 105 to 120 degrees Fahrenheit. The Maintenance Director was unaware of the water temperature issues and could not produce a log of temperature checks, despite the facility's policy requiring weekly testing. The facility's housekeeping policy, dated April 2018, was also not implemented, as rooms and common areas were not maintained as required. These deficiencies were identified during a survey, and the facility was found to be non-compliant with its policies, as documented under Master Complaint Number OH00161301.
Resident Dignity Compromised Due to Meal Service Delay
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident was treated with dignity, as evidenced by an incident involving Resident #8. The resident, who had cognitive impairment and required assistance for eating, was admitted with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, schizoaffective disorder, and hypothyroidism. On the day of the incident, Resident #8 did not receive her lunch meal tray while seated with other residents who were served their meals. The CNA responsible for distributing the trays discovered that the kitchen had forgotten to prepare Resident #8's meal, leading to a delay in service. During the delay, Resident #8 became visibly upset, yelling, screaming, and crying while pacing the dining room, unable to be redirected. Approximately 19 minutes later, the Regional Culinary Director arrived with the resident's meal. The facility's policy on resident rights, which mandates treating residents with courtesy, respect, and dignity, was not implemented in this instance, as confirmed by the CNA and the facility's documentation. This deficiency was identified during a complaint investigation.
Breach of Resident Privacy and Confidentiality
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain the privacy and confidentiality of a resident's personal and medical records. Resident #3, who had diagnoses including psychosis, impulse disorder, and alcohol dependence with alcohol-induced dementia, was involved in this incident. The resident had severely impaired cognition and exhibited various behavioral symptoms. The facility's administrator posted on the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) screen that the resident's daughter, who was also the power of attorney, requested that no information be shared with family members except for her. Despite this request, when a large group of family members visited the facility while the resident was hospitalized, they were informed by the facility about the resident's hospital admission and the reason for it. This breach of confidentiality was verified through interviews with the Director of Nursing and the resident's daughter.
Unsanitary Ice Machine Conditions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain its ice machines in a clean and sanitary condition, which had the potential to affect all residents. During an observation, it was noted that the main ice machine had been out of service since June, and the facility was using an alternative machine on the second floor. Upon inspection, the second-floor ice machine was found to have a large area of slimy brown and green mold on its top portion and emitted a musty smell when opened. The Dietary Manager confirmed the unsanitary condition of the ice machine at the time of observation. The facility's policy on cleaning schedules, dated October 2021, indicated that the culinary manager or a designee is responsible for monitoring the sanitation of the department and assigning corrections as needed. However, the presence of mold and the musty smell in the ice machine suggest that these procedures were not adequately followed, leading to the deficiency.
Facility Fails to Maintain Sanitary Environment
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a safe and sanitary environment for its residents, affecting 68 residents who used the showers and 21 residents who ate in the third-floor dining room. Observations revealed unsanitary conditions in the shower rooms, including feces left by a resident with a colostomy bag, towels and blankets on the floor, a toothbrush in the shower stall, and broken tiles. Additionally, the third-floor shower room had a malfunctioning shower head and unsecured drain cover, with soap scum present on the walls and floor. These conditions were verified by staff members during the survey. In the dining room, approximately 12 gnats were observed flying around, and a large amount of spilled milk was found between a tray and a cart. In a resident's room, gnats were seen crawling on a washcloth and lying in a box on the floor. Despite the presence of gnats, the resident expressed no concern. Staff members, including a State Tested Nurse Assistant (STNA) and a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), confirmed these observations. The deficiency was investigated under Complaint Numbers OH00156449 and OH00155557.
Failure to Assess Bed Rail Removal and Provide Timely Incontinence Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure timely assessment of residents and review of the risks and benefits of bed rails after removing all bed rails that were in use. This affected six residents who were previously using side rails and grab bars for mobility and transfers. Interviews with staff revealed that the removal of bed rails left residents dependent on staff for mobility, making it more difficult for both residents and staff. The facility had an outside company survey the facility, which led to the directive to remove all bed rails, but residents were not reassessed for bed mobility until over a month later. Several residents expressed their dissatisfaction with the removal of bed rails, stating that they felt safer and more independent with the rails in place. For instance, one resident reported that she was able to get in and out of bed independently with the grab bars, but now required staff assistance. Another resident mentioned spending more time in bed due to the increased difficulty in performing bed mobility tasks without the rails. The lack of timely reassessment and communication with residents about the removal of bed rails contributed to the deficiency. Additionally, the facility failed to provide timely incontinence care for a resident, resulting in incontinence dermatitis. The resident's medical record indicated a potential for pressure ulcer development, but documentation showed inconsistent incontinence care. Observations revealed a red rash covering the resident's peri-area, which staff acknowledged had been present for some time. The Director of Nursing was unaware of the rash, and the Nurse Practitioner confirmed the dermatitis was due to poor incontinence care. This deficiency was investigated under multiple complaint numbers.
Failure to Update Care Plan Following Removal of Bedside Rails
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for a resident regarding the use of bedside rails, which were essential for the resident's bed mobility and independence in getting in and out of bed. The resident, who had diagnoses including schizophrenia and unsteadiness on feet, was admitted with a care plan that did not include the use of side rails or grab bars, despite their importance for her daily living activities. The resident's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment indicated she had intact cognition and required assistance for certain movements, but the care plan lacked specific interventions related to the use of side rails. An incident occurred where the resident was found on the floor after attempting to use the removed side rails, which she relied on for mobility. The facility had removed all bed side rails and grab bars following an external survey, without updating the resident's care plan to reflect this change or providing alternative solutions. Interviews with staff and the resident confirmed that the removal of the side rails directly contributed to the resident's fall, as she was previously able to get in and out of bed independently with their assistance.
Failure to Prevent Falls and Ensure Resident Safety
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the safety of residents by not adequately assessing and managing the removal of bed rails, which led to a fall incident involving Resident #133. This resident, who had diagnoses including schizophrenia and unsteadiness on feet, was found on the floor after attempting to use bed rails that had been removed without proper assessment of her ability to exit the bed safely. The resident had previously used the bed rails for mobility and had no falls prior to their removal. Interviews with staff revealed that the removal of bed rails left residents dependent on staff for mobility, contributing to the fall incident. Additionally, the facility did not provide adequate supervision to prevent accidents for Resident #135, who was severely cognitively impaired and at moderate risk for falls. The resident was observed sprinting in a hallway that was wet due to floor cleaning activities, with staff present but not intervening to prevent the hazardous situation. The resident fell after running alongside an activities worker, who confirmed the events. The facility's fall policy emphasizes the need for proper review and intervention to prevent falls, which was not adhered to in this case.
Resident-to-Resident Physical Abuse Incident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect Resident #143 from an incident of resident-to-resident physical abuse, resulting in actual harm. On June 18, 2024, Resident #143, who was cognitively impaired but independent with activities of daily living (ADLs), was pushed by Resident #109, leading to a fall. This incident resulted in Resident #143 sustaining a left humerus fracture and later a right wrist fracture, which significantly impacted his independence in ADLs. The facility's investigation confirmed that both fractures were a result of the incident on June 18, 2024. Resident #143 had a history of aggressive behaviors and cognitive impairment, as noted in his care plan dated March 24, 2024. Similarly, Resident #109, who was also cognitively impaired, had a history of delusions and physically aggressive behaviors. Despite these histories, there were no documented incidents of resident-to-resident abuse between them prior to the incident. The facility's self-reported incident (SRI) and subsequent investigation revealed that Resident #109 initially denied but later admitted to pushing Resident #143 due to delusional thoughts involving a non-existent wife. The facility's policy on abuse, neglect, and exploitation defines physical abuse as any demeaning physical contact, which was violated in this case. The incident was reported to the state agency, and the facility's investigation included witness statements and medical record reviews. Despite the lack of prior incidents, the physical altercation between the residents resulted in significant injuries to Resident #143, highlighting a failure in ensuring resident safety and protection from abuse.
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.



