Marion Nursing & Rehab
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Marion, Ohio.
- Location
- 175 Community Drive, Marion, Ohio 43302
- CMS Provider Number
- 365329
- Inspections on file
- 38
- Latest survey
- February 23, 2026
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 1
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Marion Nursing & Rehab during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
The facility failed to prevent accidents for two residents. One resident with multiple chronic conditions and identified fall risk was placed in a new bariatric bed without grab bars, and staff did not ensure the call light was within reach as care planned. The resident raised the bed to a high level and fell while reaching for an out-of-reach call light and bedside table; the DON later confirmed the new bed had not been assessed and the call light was not within reach at the time of the fall. Another resident with Alzheimer’s and dementia on a secured memory care unit, who had been observed pacing halls, pressing on locked doors, and calling others to get him out, was allowed by a unit manager to leave the locked unit with a male visitor to go to the parking lot. Staff did not verify authorization with the POA, did not immediately recognize that the resident had not returned, and did not know his whereabouts for a period of time before learning he had left the property with the visitor and was later taken to a hospital for aggressive behavior after being removed from the locked unit against the POA’s wishes.
The facility's front entrance doorbell was found to be nonfunctional, with no cover plate and no sound when pressed, and there was no posted signage with a phone number for entry assistance. Multiple staff, including the Administrator, DON, and LPNs, were unaware of the issue, and the Director of Maintenance had not included the doorbell in routine checks. There was also no consistent policy or practice for locking the front entrance door at night.
A significant portion of residents were left without a functioning call light system, with some relying on hand bells or phone calls to request assistance. Staff and administration confirmed the system had been nonfunctional or intermittent for weeks, and while hand bells and increased rounding were used as interim measures, there was no clear documentation of repair efforts or frequency of staff checks. Facility policies lacked specific guidance on maintaining or repairing the call light system.
The facility failed to maintain crash carts with non-expired medical devices, affecting all 69 residents. An LPN confirmed that the crash cart in the skilled nursing area contained expired syringes, angiocaths, intravenous start kits, and blood glucose test strips. The dementia unit's cart also had expired suction catheter kits and a providone swab stick. The facility's policy required replacement of expired items.
The facility failed to properly clean a glucose monitor device after use, affecting three residents directly and potentially impacting 15 others. An LPN used an incorrect substance to clean the device, and another LPN did not clean the device between testing two residents. The facility's policy required the device to be disinfected with an EPA-registered healthcare disinfectant after each use.
A resident with cognitive impairment and multiple diagnoses developed a rash that was reported to staff but not documented or assessed until two days later. The facility failed to follow its policies on notifying physicians and documenting changes in the resident's condition, leading to a delay in treatment.
The facility failed to ensure food was served at safe holding temperatures, with observed temperatures for meatballs, vegetables, and rice below the required 135 degrees Fahrenheit. Interviews revealed a lack of awareness and training regarding appropriate hot holding temperatures.
Failure to Prevent Fall and Elopement for High-Risk Residents
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to maintain an environment free from accident hazards and to provide adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for two residents. For one resident with diagnoses including congestive heart failure, COPD, obesity, depression, diabetes type 2, and anxiety, the quarterly MDS showed intact cognition, a need for two-person assistance with ADLs, and a risk for falls. The resident’s care plan identified fall risk and included an intervention that the call light be kept within reach, wrapped around the transfer handle on the bed. After the resident experienced an unwitnessed fall in his room, the fall investigation documented that he had been found on the floor on his left side, with the bed in a raised position, and that he reported falling while reaching for his call light, which was out of reach. The DON confirmed that at the time of the fall the resident had been placed in a new bariatric bed without grab bars and that no bed rail assessment had been completed for the new bed until nearly two weeks later. Subsequent observation showed the resident in bed with the bed elevated and the call light clipped to the bed sheet at the head of the bed, rather than wrapped around a transfer handle as care planned. The resident reported that when he first received the new bed, it did not have the two transfer bars attached for the first few days, that he had raised the bed to a high level, and that he rolled out of bed while trying to reach a call light and bedside table that were out of reach. He stated he had been educated not to raise the bed to the highest level but preferred it raised despite the fall risk, and he believed the fall was partly due to his own actions and partly due to staff not placing the call light within reach and not applying the grab bars on the new bed. An LPN stated the resident was non‑compliant with keeping the bed low, that staff had left the bed in a low position, and that the resident raised it after they left; the LPN could not recall whether the call light had been left within reach. The DON verified that the call light was not within reach at the time of the fall and that the new bed had not been assessed before use. The deficiency also involves the facility’s failure to ensure the safety and security of a newly admitted resident with Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, diabetes, and hypertension, who resided on a secured memory care unit and was an elopement risk. On admission, an elopement assessment scored the resident as low risk, and no further elopement assessments were completed through the time of the incident. The resident’s care plan initially addressed impaired cognition and dementia but did not identify elopement risk until later; progress notes documented that the resident’s daughter/POA requested removal of the resident’s cell phone because he was calling the police and repeatedly calling about getting out of the facility. Staff interviews revealed that the resident had been observed walking the halls and pressing on locked exit doors and that he later left the locked memory care unit with a male visitor who was not an approved contact, carrying a duffle bag of belongings, after the unit manager allowed the visitor to take him to the parking lot to exchange items. CNAs and nursing staff reported that the resident did not return, that staff did not know his whereabouts for an estimated 30–60 minutes before they began searching, and that they discovered he had left the property with the visitor. Multiple staff members, including an LPN and CNAs, stated that residents from the memory care unit should not be allowed off the unit or off the property with anyone other than the POA or approved individuals, and that staff should check the medical record to verify who is authorized to take a resident out. The LPN and CNAs considered the event an elopement because staff did not know where the resident was for a period of time and he had expressed a desire to leave. The facility’s internal timeline indicated that a friend asked to accompany the resident outside to gather laundry, that the unit manager agreed, and that the resident got into the friend’s vehicle without notifying staff. Social Services staff reported seeing the resident, known to be from the memory care unit, get into a car with a male visitor and the resident’s wife and drive out of the parking lot, but did not inform unit staff. Hospital records from that day documented that the resident was removed from a locked Alzheimer’s unit with a friend against the POA’s wishes, taken home, became increasingly agitated, and made suicidal statements, leading to his transport to the emergency department. Interviews with facility leadership confirmed that the resident was out of the facility for about 12 hours, that the elopement assessment and care plan were not updated when the resident began exhibiting behaviors such as pressing on doors, pacing the halls, and calling others to get him out, and that interventions related to elopement risk were not initiated until after the incident.
Nonfunctional Front Entrance Doorbell and Lack of Entry Assistance
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the front entrance doorbell was functional, which had the potential to affect all 77 residents. Observations revealed the doorbell was missing a cover plate and did not ring when the button was pressed. There was also no signage posted with the facility telephone number to obtain assistance for entry. Multiple staff, including the Administrator, DON, and LPNs, were unaware that the doorbell was not working. The Director of Maintenance had not included the doorbell in routine checks and only became aware of the issue about a week prior, but no maintenance work order had been submitted. Staff interviews indicated inconsistent practices regarding locking the front entrance door at night, and there was no policy requiring the door to be locked during specific hours. The job description for the Plant Operations Manager required maintenance of facility equipment, but the doorbell had not been checked or repaired as part of these duties. The deficiency was identified through observation, staff interviews, and review of facility procedures.
Failure to Maintain Functioning Call Light System for Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that the call light system was functioning for all residents, resulting in 23 out of 77 residents being affected. Nine residents had no functioning call light, while an additional fourteen experienced intermittent functionality. Residents without working call lights were provided with hand bells as an alternative means of summoning assistance. Staff reported increasing the frequency of rounding for these residents, but there was no clear documentation on how often these rounds occurred. Several residents described having to rely on hand bells or even calling the facility by telephone to request help, with some stating that their call lights had been nonfunctional for weeks or even months. Interviews with staff, including LPNs, CNAs, and the Director of Maintenance, confirmed that the call light system on the north end of the building had not been working for approximately two and a half weeks, with some rooms experiencing intermittent issues. The Administrator acknowledged the problem and stated that service providers had been contacted for repair or replacement quotes, but no written documentation of these quotes was available. The maintenance staff indicated that the system was old and had a power issue, and some vendors reportedly refused to provide written estimates due to the age of the system. Policy and job description reviews revealed that while maintenance staff were responsible for keeping equipment in working order and obtaining contractor quotes, the facility's policies lacked specific guidelines for maintaining or repairing the call light system when it was not functioning. The policies only addressed providing hand bells and increasing staff rounds as interim measures, without detailing steps for timely repair or replacement of the system.
Expired Medical Devices on Crash Carts
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that the crash carts, intended for emergency use, were stocked with non-expired medical devices, potentially affecting all 69 residents. During an observation with an LPN, it was found that the crash cart located in the nurses' station on the skilled nursing side contained expired items, including four 10 milliliter syringes, three 22 gauge angiocaths, two 20 gauge angiocaths, five intravenous start kits, and a sealed bottle of blood glucose test strips. Additionally, the crash cart in the locked dementia unit contained expired suction catheter kits and a sealed providone swab stick. The LPN verified these findings during the observation. The facility's undated policy on Emergency Crash Cart and Automated External Defibrillators stated that expired items should be replaced when applicable. This deficiency was investigated under Complaint Number OH00157697.
Improper Cleaning of Glucose Monitor Device
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure proper cleaning of a glucose monitor device after use, affecting three residents directly and potentially impacting 15 others. During an observation, an LPN used an alcohol swab, which was not the correct substance, to clean the glucose monitor after testing a resident. In another instance, an LPN did not clean the device between testing two residents. The facility's policy, which was undated, stated that the glucometer should be cleaned and disinfected after each use with a wipe pre-saturated with an EPA-registered healthcare disinfectant. This deficiency was investigated under a specific complaint number.
Failure to Assess and Treat Resident's Rash
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to properly assess and treat a resident's rash, affecting one out of three residents reviewed for a change in condition. The resident, who was admitted with diagnoses including dementia, anxiety, depression, hypertension, muscle weakness, and a need for assistance with personal care, was identified as cognitively impaired and required staff assistance for all activities of daily living. Despite the rash being reported to the unit managers on 09/06/24, there was no documentation or assessment regarding the rash in the medical record for 09/06/24 and 09/07/24. It was only on 09/08/24 that the nurse on duty noted the rash and notified the on-call provider, who ordered Acyclovir medication. The Director of Nursing confirmed that the rash was reported to an LPN on 09/06/24, who then reported it to an LPN Supervisor, and subsequently to the DON. However, there was no documentation to support that the facility had identified, assessed, or obtained treatment orders for the rash until 09/08/24. The facility's policies on Notification of Changes and Change in a Resident's Condition or Status required notifying the resident's physician and documenting changes in the resident's condition, which were not followed in this case. This deficiency was investigated under Complaint Number OH00157697.
Failure to Maintain Safe Food Holding Temperatures
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure food was served at safe holding temperatures, potentially affecting all 63 residents receiving food from the kitchen. During an observation of the tray line, it was noted that the meatballs were at 150 degrees Fahrenheit, the capris vegetables at 127 degrees Fahrenheit, and the white rice at 130 degrees Fahrenheit. These temperatures were below the required 135 degrees Fahrenheit for hot holding as per the facility's policy. The test tray left the kitchen and was later observed to have even lower temperatures, with the meatballs at 127 degrees Fahrenheit, the capris vegetables at 129 degrees Fahrenheit, and the white rice at 132 degrees Fahrenheit. Interviews with the Dietary Manager and District Manager revealed a lack of awareness and training regarding the appropriate hot holding temperatures. The Dietary Manager admitted to not knowing the required temperatures and needing to ask, while the District Manager acknowledged that they had not yet trained the Dietary Manager on conducting test trays. The facility's policy, dated February 2023, clearly stated that all foods should be held at temperatures greater than 135 degrees Fahrenheit for hot holding, which was not adhered to in this instance.
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.



