Jamestown Place Health And Rehab
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Jamestown, Ohio.
- Location
- 4960 Us 35 East, Jamestown, Ohio 45335
- CMS Provider Number
- 365368
- Inspections on file
- 22
- Latest survey
- January 27, 2026
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 38
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Jamestown Place Health And Rehab during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Multiple areas of the facility, including hallways, the dining room, and kitchen, were found with stained and bulging ceiling tiles, active leaks, and dirty air vents containing dust and debris. Staff interviews confirmed ongoing water damage and unaddressed leaks, with damaged wallboard and open areas around plumbing. These conditions did not meet the facility's policy for a safe and clean environment and had the potential to affect all residents.
Multiple residents experienced persistent environmental issues, including leaking faucets, inadequate hot water, and noisy bathroom lights, with staff aware but not resolving the problems. Additional hazards such as cracked parking lots and broken sidewalks were observed, and maintenance staff confirmed the concerns. The facility did not provide a specific maintenance policy when requested.
The facility did not ensure that multiple residents, including those with cognitive impairment and significant medical needs, received the required two showers per week. Medical records, staff and resident interviews, and observations confirmed that several residents missed scheduled showers, with some citing insufficient aide staffing as a reason. Facility policy requires regular bathing for cleanliness and comfort, but this standard was not met.
Surveyors found that several residents did not receive fresh water throughout the day, with staff only providing water upon request rather than routinely. In addition, a resident with significant weight loss did not receive a prescribed nutritional supplement at lunch because staff were unaware of the order. These deficiencies were confirmed through observations, interviews, and record reviews.
Three residents with significant cognitive or physical impairments were not promptly assisted with eating during a meal service. One resident waited 45 minutes before being served and assisted, another waited to be fed, and a third was not seated properly and needed repeated cues to eat. Only one CNA was present to assist multiple residents, resulting in delays and a lack of dignified care, contrary to facility policy.
The facility did not resolve repeated resident council complaints about cracks and holes in the driveway, resulting in incidents where residents in wheelchairs became stuck. Despite ongoing reports to administration and staff, concerns were not addressed in a timely manner, and residents felt their issues were ignored.
A resident with cognitive impairment and a history of elopement left the facility unsupervised, traveled to a nearby gas station, and was returned after intervention by a third party. Despite care plan interventions and facility policy requiring timely reporting, the administrator did not file a Self-Reported Incident with the state agency.
The facility did not ensure meaningful activities were provided as scheduled, with several activities not occurring and limited variety offered. Multiple cognitively intact residents expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of daily and weekend activities, and the Activity Director confirmed the absence of a formal activity policy and insufficient staffing contributed to the deficiency.
A resident with dementia, seizure disorder, and schizophrenia, who was identified as an elopement risk and had a wander guard device in place, was able to leave the facility undetected. Staff heard the door alarm but did not see the resident exit, and the wander guard alarm was only partially functional. The resident was later found at a nearby gas station and safely returned. The deficiency resulted from inadequate supervision and a malfunctioning wander guard alarm system.
A shortage of nursing staff resulted in delays and inadequate assistance for several residents who required help with eating. On the day reviewed, only one CNA was present in the dining area to assist residents, while others were occupied elsewhere, leading to prolonged wait times and improper positioning for residents dependent on staff for feeding. Staff confirmed that this staffing issue was a daily problem.
Failure to Maintain Safe and Clean Environment Due to Water Damage and Unclean Air Vents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a safe and clean environment, as evidenced by multiple observations of water damage, staining, and debris throughout various areas. Surveyors observed stained and bulging ceiling tiles, active leaks, and water dripping in the dining room, kitchen, and hallways. Air vents in several hallways were found to be dirty, with dust and debris present, and some ceiling tiles were bulging or had visible water damage. Staff interviews confirmed the presence of these issues, including active leaks in the kitchen and dining room, as well as ongoing water damage in the administrator's office. The wallboard under the kitchen sink was also damaged with open areas around the sink pipe. Review of facility policies indicated that residents are to be provided with a safe, clean, and comfortable environment, and have the right to a dignified existence. However, the observed conditions did not meet these standards, potentially affecting all 30 residents in the facility. The findings were corroborated by staff members, including CNAs, a physical therapy assistant, a dietary aide, an LPN, and the administrator, who all verified the ongoing issues with leaks, water damage, and unclean air vents.
Failure to Maintain Safe and Homelike Environment Due to Environmental Deficiencies
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for its residents, as evidenced by multiple environmental deficiencies observed and reported. In several resident rooms, bathroom lights made loud screeching noises, faucets leaked, and hot water temperatures were consistently below acceptable levels, ranging from 82.7 to 88.3 degrees Fahrenheit. Residents reported that these issues had persisted for several days to weeks, with staff aware of the problems but no effective resolution. Residents described receiving lukewarm washcloths for care due to the lack of hot water, and staff apologized for the inconvenience. The maintenance staff member confirmed the environmental concerns upon his return from a two-week absence, acknowledging he had received messages about the water temperature issues but could not recall to whom he reported them. Additional environmental hazards were identified in the facility's common areas, including cracks in the blacktop parking lot and broken, uneven sidewalks with loose chunks of cement, creating potential safety risks. The corporate RN verified the presence of these hazards and acknowledged that the parking lot and sidewalk conditions should have been addressed. The facility did not provide a specific policy regarding environmental maintenance, stating only that they follow standard protocol, which was not produced upon request. These findings affected all 11 residents reviewed for environmental conditions, with a total facility census of 34.
Failure to Provide Required Bathing Frequency
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that residents received two showers per week as required, affecting five residents reviewed for bathing. Medical record reviews, observations, and interviews revealed that several residents, including those with severe cognitive impairment, dependence for activities of daily living, and significant medical conditions such as encephalopathy, dementia, end stage renal disease, and aftercare for fractures, did not receive the required number of showers. For example, one resident received only two showers out of eight opportunities, while another received only two out of eleven, with some refusals documented but most missed showers unexplained. Residents were not out to the hospital during these periods, indicating the missed showers occurred while in the facility. Interviews with residents and staff confirmed the lack of adequate bathing, with one resident reporting that showers were missed due to insufficient aide staffing, particularly at night, and being observed with an odor of urine and unkempt appearance. Review of facility policy indicated that bathing is intended to promote cleanliness, comfort, and skin observation, but documentation and staff interviews verified that the required bathing frequency was not maintained for the affected residents.
Failure to Provide Adequate Hydration and Nutritional Supplements
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that residents received adequate hydration and nutritional supplements as ordered. Observations and interviews revealed that multiple residents did not have fresh water provided throughout the day. Specifically, four residents were found with either empty or outdated water cups in their rooms, and staff confirmed that water was only provided upon resident request rather than routinely. Residents reported that their water cups had not been refilled daily, and staff interviews corroborated that water was not consistently passed out unless specifically asked for by the resident. Additionally, the facility failed to provide a prescribed nutritional supplement to a resident with significant weight loss. The resident, who was severely cognitively impaired and dependent for eating, had a physician's order for a magic cup supplement to be given at lunch. Observations during a lunch meal showed that the supplement was not present on the resident's tray, and both the assigned CNA and the Dietary Manager were unaware of the order to provide the supplement at lunch. This oversight was confirmed through staff interviews and review of the resident's care plan and dietary orders. The deficiencies were identified through medical record reviews, resident and staff interviews, direct observations, and policy review. The facility's own policies required hydration support and implementation of interventions for weight loss, but these were not followed for the affected residents. The findings were documented under a specific complaint investigation, and the facility census at the time was 34.
Failure to Ensure Dignity and Timely Assistance During Meals
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that residents who required assistance with eating were treated with dignity and respect. Three residents with significant cognitive and physical impairments were observed during a lunch period where their needs were not promptly or appropriately addressed. One resident, who was severely cognitively impaired and dependent for eating, was brought to the dining room but was not served lunch or assisted to eat until 45 minutes later. Another resident, who was cognitively intact but physically dependent for eating, was left waiting to be fed after being brought to the dining room. A third resident, with moderate cognitive impairment and requiring setup and cues for meals, was not seated close enough to the table and had to be prompted and physically moved to access her meal. A CNA confirmed she was the only aide present in the dining area and had to assist multiple residents with eating, resulting in delays and a lack of dignified care. The facility's policy required all employees to treat residents with kindness, respect, and dignity, but these standards were not met during the observed meal service. The findings were based on direct observation, staff interview, and policy review.
Failure to Address Resident Council Concerns About Unsafe Driveway
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to address and resolve concerns raised by the resident council regarding the condition of the facility driveway, which was repeatedly reported as having cracks and holes. Resident council meeting minutes documented ongoing complaints over several months about the driveway's poor condition, including specific incidents where residents in wheelchairs became stuck in the cracks. Residents expressed frustration that their concerns were not being addressed or resolved by administration, despite being reported multiple times. Interviews with residents and staff confirmed that complaints submitted to the administration were not answered in a timely manner, if at all. The Activity Director, who facilitated the council meetings, stated that she relayed concerns to the Administrator but acknowledged that responses were lacking. The facility's policy indicated that resident council feedback should be reviewed by the QAPI committee, but there was no evidence that the concerns about the driveway were resolved or appropriately addressed.
Failure to Report Resident Elopement to State Agency
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to report an incident of resident elopement to the state agency as required. A resident with diagnoses including non-Alzheimer's dementia, seizure disorder, and schizophrenia, who had a documented history of elopement and was identified as an elopement risk, left the facility without staff knowledge. The resident was supposed to be monitored with a wander guard device and redirected from exit areas, according to the care plan. Despite these interventions, the resident exited the facility, traveled to a nearby gas station, and entered a vehicle with a man known to the station manager. The manager, upon realizing the resident was from the facility, arranged for the resident to be returned. The administrator confirmed during an interview that a Self-Reported Incident (SRI) was not filed because she did not believe neglect had occurred, even though the resident was cognitively impaired and had left the facility unsupervised. Facility policy required reporting of such incidents within federally mandated timeframes, but this was not followed. The deficiency was identified during a complaint investigation and was based on medical record review, staff interview, and policy review.
Failure to Provide Meaningful and Scheduled Activities for Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide meaningful activities as scheduled for its residents, as evidenced by a review of the activity calendar, direct observation, staff and resident interviews, and medical record review. On the observed date, scheduled activities such as mail delivery and manicures did not occur, and bingo was conducted by a resident rather than staff. The activity calendar showed repetitive and limited activities, with mail delivery listed daily as an activity, which the Activity Director acknowledged was not meaningful. The Activity Director also confirmed that activities were not completed as scheduled due to the absence of an activity helper, and that weekends lacked any activities for residents. Three residents reviewed for activities, all of whom were cognitively intact, expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of variety and frequency of activities, particularly on weekends. One resident, who was dependent for most activities of daily living, wished for more than two days of activities per week. Another resident, who served as the council president and bingo caller, stated that more activities were needed and noted the recent absence of an activity helper. The facility did not have a formal activity policy and relied on standard practice, which contributed to the deficiency.
Failure to Prevent Elopement Due to Inadequate Supervision and Faulty Wander Guard Alarm
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when the facility failed to provide adequate interventions and supervision to prevent an elopement by a resident who was assessed as being at risk for elopement. The resident, who had diagnoses including non-Alzheimer's dementia, seizure disorder, and schizophrenia, had a documented history of eloping from home. Physician orders were in place for the resident to wear a wander guard alarming device, with instructions for staff to check its placement and function regularly. The care plan also included interventions such as monitoring the device, redirecting the resident from exit doors, and providing redirection when visitors were present. On the day of the incident, the resident was found to be missing from the facility. Staff statements indicated that the door alarm was heard and subsequently disarmed, but the resident was not immediately located. The wander guard alarm was reportedly only functioning on one side of the door, and staff did not hear it activate. The resident was later found at a nearby gas station and was being transported across town by an acquaintance when the gas station manager recognized the resident and contacted the facility. The resident was returned without injury. Documentation and interviews revealed that while the door alarm was functioning, the wander guard alarm was not fully operational at the main entrance and employee entrance. Staff were engaged in other duties at the time of the incident and did not immediately respond to the alarm or notice the resident's absence. The facility's policy required identification of residents at risk for elopement and implementation of safety interventions, but these measures were not sufficient to prevent the resident's elopement in this instance.
Insufficient Staffing Led to Delays in Resident Feeding Assistance
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide sufficient nursing staff to meet the daily needs of all residents, specifically in assisting residents with eating. On the date reviewed, staffing records showed only two nurses and three CNAs were available to care for 34 residents, with one CNA out of the building accompanying a resident to dialysis. Observations and interviews confirmed that only one CNA was present in the dining area to assist residents who required help with eating, while other aides were occupied feeding residents in the hallways. This resulted in delays and inadequate assistance for residents who were dependent on staff for eating. Three residents were directly affected by this staffing shortage. One resident with severe cognitive impairment and total dependence for eating was not served or assisted with lunch until 45 minutes after being brought to the dining room. Another resident, who was cognitively intact but fully dependent for eating, waited in the dining room before being fed. A third resident with moderate cognitive impairment required cues and physical assistance to eat, but was not positioned properly at the table and had to wait until staff could help her. Staff interviews confirmed that insufficient staffing was a daily occurrence, impacting the timely feeding and care of residents.
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.
