Below average — CMS composite of the measures below.
Past the typical resurvey interval — a standard survey could occur at any time
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of July 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Briarfield Manor during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Surveyors determined that the facility failed to consistently follow its policy requiring two nurses to count and sign for controlled substances at shift change. Review of narcotic count sheets for several medication stations over multiple weeks showed repeated instances where a second nurse’s signature was missing, indicating that the required dual-nurse verification of narcotic counts was not documented. This issue involved all residents receiving narcotic medications during the review period and was confirmed by the facility Administrator.
A resident with small B-cell lymphoma and intact cognition had physician orders for nightly Ibrutinib capsules, including a specified hold period. Review of MARs showed that several doses were not administered on multiple days outside the ordered hold period, and there was no documentation in the record explaining the missed doses. The DON later reported that the pharmacy did not have the medication and believed the oncologist had stopped it, but this was not supported by any written orders or documentation, resulting in a significant medication error.
The facility did not follow its policy requiring daily temperature checks of medication refrigerators, with multiple days lacking documented temperatures across several nursing stations and an entire month of logs missing. The Administrator confirmed the missing entries, and the DON reported that prior month temperature logs could not be located. This failure in monitoring and documentation affected the storage conditions of medications for all residents whose drugs were kept in these refrigerators.
A resident with multiple complex medical conditions received a dose of oxycodone with acetaminophen that was later wasted by an LPN, who forged another nurse's initials on the controlled drug record instead of obtaining a proper witness signature as required by policy. This resulted in inaccurate documentation of the destruction of a controlled substance.
A deficiency was cited due to the facility not ensuring an area was free from accident hazards and not providing adequate supervision to prevent accidents. The report highlights insufficient safety measures and lack of proper oversight, but does not specify individual residents or staff involved.
The facility failed to provide adequate pain management for two residents, resulting in actual harm. One resident, admitted with chronic pain, did not receive their prescribed opioid medication, leading to severe pain and limited functional abilities. Another resident with a history of cerebral infarction experienced inadequate pain assessments and inconsistent medication administration, limiting their functional activities. The facility's pain policy was not followed, resulting in prolonged discomfort for the residents.
The facility did not follow the planned dinner menu, omitting bread and margarine for residents on regular and mechanical soft diets. Several residents expressed a desire for bread with their meal, and the Food and Nutrition Services Manager confirmed the oversight. This affected residents with various medical conditions, who were on specific diets and at nutritional risk.
The facility failed to provide substantial evening snacks to residents when the time between dinner and breakfast exceeded 14 hours. Observations and interviews revealed that only residents with labeled snacks received them, and several residents expressed hunger and a desire for snacks. The Food and Nutrition Services Manager confirmed the extended meal span and lack of routine snack offerings.
The facility failed to ensure clean and sanitary conditions for tube feeding and IV poles, affecting five residents. Observations showed dried tube feed or debris on the poles, confirmed by staff who were unsure of cleaning responsibilities. Residents requiring enteral feeding or IV therapy were affected, with poles showing significant dirt and rust, indicating a lack of proper maintenance.
The facility did not provide an alternative vegetable for residents who disliked Brussel sprouts during a dinner service, affecting nine residents. Observations confirmed that no substitute was prepared, and interviews revealed residents were left without a vegetable and felt hungry. The facility's menu cycle lacked alternative vegetable options, contrary to policy.
A resident with Alzheimer's and impaired cognition experienced a skin tear during a transfer, which was not communicated to her family. The LPN involved did not recall notifying the family, and the progress notes lacked documentation of such notification. The resident's daughter confirmed she was unaware of the injury.
The facility failed to implement grooming care plans for two residents, resulting in unkempt fingernails and inadequate hygiene. Despite care plans requiring assistance, staff did not document attempts to provide nail care or notify relevant parties of refusals. Observations revealed long, dirty fingernails, indicating a lapse in adherence to care plans and documentation practices.
The facility failed to administer treatments according to physician orders for two residents and did not document vital signs for another resident, leading to hospitalization. A resident with chronic heart failure did not receive prescribed Tubi grips due to incorrect documentation, while another with respiratory failure had no vital signs recorded during a change in condition. Additionally, a resident with chronic kidney disease did not receive necessary Lasix doses despite significant weight increases.
A facility failed to implement timely fall prevention interventions for a resident with a history of falls and multiple medical conditions. Despite ordering a perimeter mattress to prevent further falls, observations revealed that the mattress was not placed on the resident's bed after delivery. Interviews with staff confirmed the oversight, contributing to the deficiency in ensuring a safe environment for the resident.
A resident with a femur fracture and incontinence issues was not provided timely incontinence care as per the scheduled toileting program. Despite being on a schedule, staff interviews and observations revealed that the resident was not toileted or checked according to the plan, and care was often provided only upon request. The resident was unaware of the schedule, and staff admitted to not adhering to it, leading to a deficiency in care.
The facility failed to monitor and document fluid restrictions for two residents, compromising their nutritional management. One resident with chronic kidney disease and CHF had no documentation of nursing-provided fluids, while another resident with heart failure was unaware of their fluid restriction, and nursing staff did not document fluid intake. This deficiency resulted from the lack of adherence to facility policy requiring documentation of fluid allotments.
A facility failed to ensure proper communication with a dialysis center for a resident requiring dialysis services. Despite having a care plan that included monitoring for dialysis complications, the facility did not consistently receive communication sheets from the dialysis center after treatments. Staff interviews revealed that while attempts were made to obtain missing information, these were not always documented. The resident's medical records showed missing communication sheets for numerous sessions over nearly three months.
A facility failed to maintain accurate infection control logs and implement appropriate isolation precautions for a resident with MRSA. Despite orders for Vancomycin and enhanced barrier precautions due to a central line IV catheter, no isolation signs were posted, and staff were unaware of necessary precautions. The infection control log inaccurately recorded the resident's condition, leading to a deficiency in infection prevention and control.
Failure to Consistently Complete Dual-Nurse Narcotic Count Verification
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors found that the facility did not consistently ensure proper reconciliation of narcotic medications in accordance with its Controlled Substance Shift to Shift Count Policy, which required all narcotic medications to be counted and verified by two nurses at each shift-to-shift handoff, with both nurses signing the count sheet. Review of narcotic Controlled Substance Count Sheets for multiple medication stations over a period from early February to late March showed missing second nursing signatures on several dates, indicating that the required dual-nurse verification was not documented. Specifically, Station #1’s count sheet lacked a second nurse signature on one date, Station #2’s count sheet lacked a second nurse signature on three dates, and Station #4’s count sheet lacked a second nurse signature on three dates. This deficiency had the potential to affect 17 residents who received narcotic medications from the facility. During an interview, the Administrator confirmed these findings. No additional resident-specific medical histories or conditions related to this deficiency were described in the report.
Failure to Administer Ordered Cancer Medication and Document Missed Doses
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a resident was free from significant medication errors when ordered doses of Ibrutinib, a targeted cancer medication for lymphoma, were not administered and lacked documented justification. The resident, who had intact cognition and diagnoses including small B-cell lymphoma, difficulty in walking, need for assistance with personal care, and cardiomegaly, was admitted and later discharged in January. Physician orders directed Ibrutinib 140 mg, three capsules by mouth at bedtime, with one order active from early January until mid-January and a subsequent order active from mid-January with a specified hold period and later discontinuation. Review of the MARs showed that Ibrutinib was not given on multiple dates outside the ordered hold period, and the medical record contained no evidence explaining these missed doses. In an interview, the DON stated that the pharmacy did not have the medication available and that she believed the oncologist had stopped it, but she confirmed that this information was not documented in the medical record, contrary to the facility’s policy requiring medications to be administered in accordance with written prescriber orders. This deficiency was cited as non-compliance under Complaint Numbers 2786595 and 2704190.
Failure to Perform and Document Daily Medication Refrigerator Temperature Checks
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure medication refrigerators were monitored and maintained according to its policy requiring daily temperature checks for all medication storage refrigerators. Review of the Station #1 Unit Temp Log Check form for 03/01/26 to 03/20/26 showed no documented refrigerator temperatures on 03/05/26, 03/13/26, and 03/19/26. Review of the Station #2 Unit Temp Log Check form for the same period showed no documented refrigerator temperatures on 03/02/26, 03/03/26, 03/04/26, 03/05/26, 03/07/26, 03/08/26, 03/09/26, 03/10/26, 03/12/26, and 03/13/26. Review of the Station #4 Unit Temp Log Check form for 03/01/26 to 03/20/26 showed no documented refrigerator temperature on 03/17/26. The Administrator confirmed these missing temperature checks during an interview, and the DON confirmed that the refrigerator temperature logs for 02/01/26 to 02/28/26 were missing and could not be located. The undated Medication Refrigerator Temperature Check Policy stated that all medication refrigerators were to be checked daily to ensure they remained within the proper temperature range. This deficiency had the potential to affect all 78 residents in the facility and was investigated under Complaint Number 2786595. No specific residents, medical histories, or clinical conditions were identified in the report; the deficiency related broadly to the management and monitoring of medication refrigerator temperatures for all residents whose medications were stored in these units.
Failure to Ensure Integrity and Accurate Documentation of Controlled Substance Destruction
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the integrity and security of controlled substances and did not maintain accurate narcotic destruction records as required. Specifically, an LPN forged another nurse's initials on a controlled drug record when wasting a dose of oxycodone with acetaminophen for a resident. The incident occurred when the LPN wasted the medication and, instead of having another nurse physically witness and sign the destruction as required by policy, entered the other nurse's initials at the latter's verbal request. This action resulted in inaccurate documentation of the controlled substance destruction process. The resident involved had multiple complex medical conditions, including a recent hip fracture, joint replacement, malignancies, diabetes with neuropathy, and impaired cognition. The resident was dependent on staff for mobility and had frequent incontinence. The medication in question was prescribed for pain management and was discontinued later in the month. The facility's policy required that the destruction of controlled substances be witnessed and properly documented, including signatures of both the nurse performing the destruction and the witness, which did not occur in this instance.
Failure to Maintain Safe Environment and Adequate Supervision
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency was identified in the facility's failure to ensure that an area was free from accident hazards and that adequate supervision was provided to prevent accidents. The report notes that the environment did not meet safety standards, and supervision was insufficient to prevent potential incidents. Specific actions or omissions by staff or management that led to the deficiency are not detailed in the report, nor are any particular residents or their medical histories mentioned.
Inadequate Pain Management for Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate pain management for two residents, resulting in actual harm. Resident #273 was admitted with a history of chronic pain and an active order for Norco, an opioid pain medication, from a previous facility. However, upon admission, the facility did not continue the Norco order, and the resident was not evaluated by a physician in a timely manner. As a result, the resident experienced severe, constant pain that limited his functional abilities and participation in therapy. Despite expressing pain and refusing Tylenol, which was ineffective, the resident did not receive appropriate pain management until several days later when Tramadol was prescribed. Resident #66, who had a history of hemiplegia and other conditions following a cerebral infarction, also experienced inadequate pain management. The resident's care plan included interventions for pain, but there were multiple instances where pain assessments were not conducted, and pain medication was not administered as needed. The resident's pain was documented during therapy sessions, where it was noted to limit functional activities, yet the facility failed to consistently address and manage the pain effectively. Observations revealed the resident exhibited signs of pain during transfers and therapy, but these were not adequately documented or addressed by the nursing staff. The facility's failure to implement a comprehensive and individualized pain management program for these residents was evident in the lack of timely physician evaluation, inadequate pain assessments, and inconsistent administration of pain medication. The facility's pain policy, which required assessments and interventions for identified pain, was not followed, leading to prolonged discomfort and limited functional abilities for the affected residents.
Failure to Follow Planned Menu for Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to follow the planned menu for dinner on February 25, 2025, affecting all residents on a regular texture and mechanical soft diet. The menu was supposed to include cheese tortellini with marinara sauce, steamed Brussel sprouts, a slice of bread with margarine, and a piece of chocolate cream cake. However, observations revealed that no bread or margarine was provided to these residents, except for one resident who had a special preference for bread and margarine. This oversight was confirmed by the Food and Nutrition Services Manager, who admitted to missing the inclusion of bread and margarine on the menu. Interviews with several residents, including those with various medical conditions such as diabetes mellitus, hypertension, dysphagia, and others, indicated that they would have liked to receive bread with their meal. These residents were on specific diets, such as No Concentrated Sweets (NCS) and No Added Salt (NAS), and were at nutritional risk due to their medical conditions. The facility's policy required that menus be planned and choices offered, but this was not adhered to, leading to the deficiency noted in the report.
Failure to Provide Evening Snacks
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that residents were offered a substantial evening snack when the time between dinner and breakfast exceeded 14 hours. This deficiency was identified through observations, record reviews, and interviews. The facility's Fall and Winter menu for 2024 to 2025 did not list an evening snack, and the time span between the last dinner tray and the first breakfast tray was approximately 15 hours. Interviews with several residents revealed that they were not offered snacks in the evening, and some residents expressed that they were hungry and would have liked to receive snacks. A Certified Nursing Assistant confirmed that only residents with labeled snacks received them, and there was no routine offering of snacks to other residents. The Food and Nutrition Services Manager (FNSM) confirmed that the time between dinner and breakfast was greater than 14 hours and that only labeled snacks were provided to select residents. The resident council meeting minutes did not document any agreement from residents to have a meal span greater than 14 hours. Observations of snack deliveries showed that only labeled snacks were provided, with no extra snacks available for other residents. The facility's document on meal times indicated a scheduled time span of 14 hours and 45 minutes between dinner and breakfast, which was not adhered to.
Unsanitary Conditions of Feeding and IV Poles
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain clean and sanitary conditions for tube feeding and intravenous (IV) poles, affecting five residents. Observations revealed that the poles used for tube feeding and IV therapy were covered with dried tube feed or debris. This was confirmed by staff members, including a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) and a Social Services Designee (SSD), who were unsure of the cleaning responsibilities for these poles. Resident #13, who required enteral feeding due to conditions such as gastrostomy and dysphasia, was observed with a tube feeding pole that had a large amount of dried tube feed on its base. Similarly, Resident #43, who also required enteral feeding, had a pole with dried tube feed on both the pole and its base. The SSD confirmed the observation and mentioned that an outside company was responsible for cleaning the equipment. Resident #57, who was receiving IV therapy for an acute infection, had an IV pole with dried debris. Resident #226, who was at risk for nutritional issues and received supplemental tube feedings, had a tube feed pole with dried feed on it. Lastly, Resident #52, who had multiple diagnoses including diabetes and dementia, had a pole with dried tube feed and rust, which required significant cleaning effort by a housekeeper. The lack of clarity regarding cleaning responsibilities contributed to the unsanitary conditions observed.
Failure to Provide Alternative Vegetable for Residents Disliking Brussel Sprouts
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide a nutritionally equivalent alternative for residents who disliked Brussel sprouts during a dinner service. This deficiency affected nine residents who had expressed a dislike for Brussel sprouts. On the specified dinner menu, residents were supposed to receive cheese tortellini with marinara sauce, steamed Brussel sprouts, bread with margarine, and chocolate cream cake. However, for those who disliked Brussel sprouts, no alternative vegetable was provided, leaving them without a vegetable portion for their meal. Observations during the dinner service confirmed that Brussel sprouts were the only vegetable option available, and no substitutes were prepared for those who had Brussel sprouts listed as a dislike. Interviews with several residents revealed dissatisfaction with the meal, as they did not receive a vegetable and felt hungry afterward. The facility's menu cycle did not list alternative vegetables, and the facility's policy indicated that choices should be offered, but this was not adhered to in practice.
Failure to Notify Family of Resident's Skin Tear
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to notify the representative of a resident with Alzheimer's, dementia, and muscle weakness about a new skin impairment. The resident, who had self-care deficits and impaired cognition, experienced a skin tear on her right wrist during a transfer to the toilet. This incident occurred when the resident had difficulty standing and fell back into her wheelchair, resulting in a skin tear that was treated with normal saline and a foam dressing. However, the progress note documenting the incident did not include any notification to the resident's family. An observation revealed the resident in a wheelchair with a foam bandage on her right wrist, and an interview with the resident showed she was confused and unaware of how the injury occurred. The LPN involved in the incident confirmed that she did not recall notifying the resident's daughter about the skin tear, and a review of the progress notes confirmed the lack of documentation regarding family notification. A telephone interview with the resident's daughter further confirmed that she was unaware of the injury, highlighting the facility's failure to communicate significant changes in the resident's condition to her family.
Failure to Implement Grooming Care Plans for Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement care-planned interventions for grooming for two residents, Resident #52 and Resident #66, who were unable to perform activities of daily living independently. Resident #66, who was admitted with conditions including hemiplegia, aphasia, and vascular dementia, had a care plan that required assistance with grooming and hygiene. Despite being cognitively intact and dependent on staff for personal care, there was no documented evidence that staff attempted to trim Resident #66's fingernails or encouraged him to allow nail care, even though his nails were observed to be long, yellow, and dirty. The facility did not document any refusal of care by Resident #66 during the assessment period, and there was no evidence that the physician or responsible party was notified of the refusal. Resident #52, admitted with diagnoses including diabetes mellitus and dementia, also had a care plan indicating a self-care deficit and required substantial assistance with personal hygiene. Observations revealed that Resident #52 had long, dirty fingernails, with some nails being too thick to cut. Although Resident #52 nodded in agreement when asked if his nails could be trimmed, there was no evidence that the facility ensured regular nail care was provided. The facility's failure to maintain the residents' grooming and hygiene as per their care plans was evident in the observations and interviews conducted. The deficiency in providing adequate grooming care for these residents highlights a lapse in the facility's adherence to care plans and documentation practices. The lack of documented attempts to provide nail care or notify relevant parties of refusals indicates a failure to ensure the residents' dignity and hygiene needs were met. This affected the quality of care provided to the residents, as evidenced by the observations of their unkempt fingernails and the lack of follow-through on care-planned interventions.
Failure to Administer Treatments and Document Vital Signs
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to administer treatments according to physician orders for two residents. Resident #40, who has chronic heart failure, hypertension, and muscle weakness, was ordered to wear Tubi grips on her lower extremities while out of bed. However, she reported not receiving these compression stockings for about a week, and observations confirmed she was not wearing them, resulting in swollen legs. The issue was traced back to incorrect documentation in the computer system, which did not indicate the need for daily application of the Tubi grips. Resident #57, diagnosed with respiratory failure, COPD, and hypertension, experienced a change in condition with unstable vital signs and confusion, leading to hospitalization. However, there was no documentation of the resident's vital signs on the day of the incident. The LPN involved could not recall the specific abnormal vital signs and admitted to not recording them in the electronic medical records. Resident #58, with chronic kidney disease, CHF, and atherosclerotic heart disease, had physician orders for Furosemide and Lasix to manage fluid overload. Despite significant weight increases on several occasions, indicating the need for an additional dose of Lasix, the medication was not administered. The LPN responsible for inputting the resident's weight did not realize the order required administering Lasix for weight gains over two pounds in 24 hours, resulting in missed doses.
Failure to Implement Timely Fall Prevention Interventions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that fall prevention interventions were in place as ordered for a resident, identified as Resident #56, in a timely manner. Resident #56 had a history of falls and was at moderate risk for falls due to multiple medical conditions, including hemiplegia, hypotension, and a history of falling. The resident's care plan included interventions such as bed and chair alarms, a low bed, and a floor mat to prevent falls. Despite these measures, the resident experienced multiple falls, including incidents on January 11, February 17, and February 24, where the resident was found on the floor after falling out of bed. Following the falls, the facility's clinical team reviewed each incident and identified new interventions to prevent further falls. After the fall on February 24, a perimeter mattress was ordered to provide additional safety for the resident. However, observations on February 26 and 27 revealed that the perimeter mattress had not been placed on the resident's bed, despite being delivered to the facility. Instead, the mattress was found in a plastic bag leaning against a chair in the resident's room. Interviews with facility staff, including a Registered Nurse and a Licensed Practical Nurse, confirmed that the perimeter mattress had not been installed on the resident's bed. The LPN acknowledged that the mattress should have been put in place immediately after delivery but was not prioritized. This inaction contributed to the facility's failure to implement timely fall prevention interventions as ordered, resulting in a deficiency in ensuring a safe environment for the resident.
Failure to Provide Timely Incontinence Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide timely incontinence care for a resident who was admitted with a displaced intertrochanteric fracture of the left femur and was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. The resident was on a scheduled toileting program with specific times outlined for toileting, but staff interviews and observations revealed that the schedule was not consistently followed. The resident expressed that she was unaware of the scheduled toileting program and reported that staff provided incontinence care only when she requested it. Observations confirmed that the resident was not toileted or checked according to the schedule, and incontinence care was often provided while the resident was in bed rather than being taken to the bathroom. Interviews with staff, including CNAs and a COTA, indicated a lack of adherence to the scheduled toileting program. The CNAs admitted to not following the toileting schedule and instead provided care based on the resident's requests. The COTA mentioned that therapy was aware of the toileting program but was not working on it specifically. The LPN confirmed that the toileting schedule was marked as complete in the resident's records, but the actual practice did not align with the documented schedule. This inconsistency in following the toileting program led to the deficiency in providing appropriate incontinence care for the resident.
Failure to Monitor and Document Fluid Restrictions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to accurately and consistently monitor and record physician-ordered fluid restrictions for two residents, leading to a deficiency in maintaining their nutritional health. Resident #58, who had chronic kidney disease and congestive heart failure, was on a 2,000 ml fluid restriction. However, the facility did not document the actual fluid amounts offered and consumed from the nursing portion of the restriction. Interviews with staff revealed that while they were aware of the fluid restriction, there was no documentation on the Medication Administration Record (MAR) to track the nursing-provided fluids, making it impossible to determine adherence to the restriction. Similarly, Resident #29, who had heart failure and was on a fluid restriction, did not have accurate documentation of fluid intake. The MAR only had check marks indicating the nurse had signed off each shift without recording the actual fluid amounts consumed. Interviews revealed that the resident was not aware of the fluid restriction, and the nursing staff did not have a system to document the fluids provided during each shift. This lack of documentation prevented effective monitoring of the fluid restriction. The facility's policy on fluid restriction required the total fluid amount to be divided between nursing and dietary, with the nursing allotment documented on the MAR. However, the failure to document the nursing-provided fluids for both residents resulted in a deficiency in monitoring and adhering to the prescribed fluid restrictions, compromising the residents' nutritional management.
Failure in Communication with Dialysis Center
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure proper communication between the long-term care facility and the dialysis center for a resident who required dialysis services. The resident, who was the only one receiving dialysis at the facility, had multiple diagnoses including end-stage renal disease and diabetes mellitus. The care plan for the resident included monitoring for complications from dialysis and ensuring communication with the dialysis center. However, the facility did not consistently receive communication sheets from the dialysis center after each treatment, which was a requirement as per the compliance agreement between the facility and the dialysis center. Interviews with staff revealed that when communication sheets were not sent back with the resident, staff would call the dialysis center to obtain the necessary information, but this was not always documented in the resident's medical record. The medical records showed missing communication sheets for numerous dialysis sessions over a period of nearly three months. The facility's administrator confirmed that the normal procedure was to receive communication from the dialysis center, and if not received, to contact the center to obtain it. Despite this procedure, there was no documentation in the progress notes indicating that the facility had reached out to the dialysis center when communication sheets were missing.
Inaccurate Infection Control Logs and Isolation Precautions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure accurate infection control logs and appropriate isolation precautions for a resident diagnosed with Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). The resident, who had impaired cognition and was dependent on staff for toileting and personal hygiene, was receiving intravenous (IV) therapy for an acute infection. Despite physician orders for Vancomycin and enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) due to a central line IV catheter, observations revealed no signs indicating isolation precautions at the entrance of the resident's room. Additionally, the infection control logs inaccurately recorded the resident's condition as osteomyelitis instead of MRSA. Interviews with staff, including a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) and the Director of Nursing (DON)/infection preventionist, confirmed the oversight. The LPN was unaware of any isolation precautions for the resident, and the DON acknowledged the inaccuracy in the infection control log. The facility's policy required contact isolation precautions for residents with MRSA, which were not implemented, leading to a deficiency in infection prevention and control measures.
What surveyors are citing around you — mapped
All 10 risk areas, ranked with evidence
Repeat citations, what's rising near you, and quality measures — ranked so department heads know exactly where to look first.
Illustrative
What surveyors actually found near you
We read the 558 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 8 immediate-jeopardy cases — and tell you exactly what happened, in plain English, matched to your record.
Resident with a documented fall history left unattended on the patio; found on the ground with a hip fracture.
Walk-in cooler logs missing for 12 days; expired supplements in the medication room fridge.
Illustrative
A prioritized, do-first checklist
Every risk area becomes concrete audit steps drawn from real citations at facilities like yours — run them this week, before your window opens.
Illustrative
Risk indicators are statistical estimates from public CMS data — not predictions, findings, or compliance advice.
Nursing homes near Youngstown
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Briarfield At Ashley Circle | 1.4 mi | ★★★★★ | 6 | 0 |
| Aventura At Humility House | 1.9 mi | ★★★★★ | 5 | 0 |
| Austinwoods Rehab Health Care | 2.1 mi | ★★★★★ | 3 | 0 |
| Austintown Healthcare Center | 2.7 mi | ★★★★★ | 11 | 0 |
| Omni Manor Nursing Home | 3.3 mi | ★★★★★ | 1 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Briarfield Manor.
100% money-back within 48 hours.
Trusted data, never guesswork. Every citation, penalty, rating and Plan of Correction on this page is sourced from public CMS records (latest release July 2026) and official state health department websites.