O'neill Healthcare Lakewood
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Lakewood, Ohio.
- Location
- 13900 Detroit Ave, Lakewood, Ohio 44107
- CMS Provider Number
- 365267
- Inspections on file
- 23
- Latest survey
- February 18, 2026
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 4
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at O'neill Healthcare Lakewood during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A cognitively impaired resident with a history of dementia and other medical conditions was sent alone to an outside VA medical appointment without an escort or spokesperson, despite facility practice of normally sending escorts with such residents. The facility had no documentation of the outing, did not maintain records of assigned escorts for past appointments, and the resident was unable to meaningfully participate in the visit, being oriented only to name and unaware of the reason for the appointment. Facility leadership and nursing staff confirmed the lack of escort and the resident’s limited cognition, leading to the cited deficiency.
Surveyors found that the facility failed to follow its infection prevention and control program when a resident with confirmed Influenza A, on droplet precautions and with cognitive impairment, was sent unaccompanied to a VA appointment without advance verbal notice to the receiving provider of the resident’s flu and isolation status, contrary to facility policy to limit transport for residents on droplet precautions. In a separate incident, another resident with stage 4 pressure injuries under ordered enhanced barrier precautions had wound care performed by an LPN who did not wear a gown during the high-contact dressing change, despite posted EBP signage and a written policy requiring gown and glove use for wound care.
Two residents with complex medical conditions experienced acute changes in condition and were not provided with appropriate CPR according to facility policy and AHA guidelines. In one case, a nurse performed only chest compressions without rescue breathing and stopped before EMS arrived. In the other, staff failed to provide ventilations due to a missing Ambu bag on the crash cart, and chest compressions were initially performed incorrectly. Both cases involved lapses in emergency response and equipment readiness.
A resident with dementia and incontinence did not receive proper incontinence care when a CNA used only water and towels, omitting soap or approved cleansers as required by facility policy. The CNA incorrectly believed the resident had allergies to soap, but no such restriction was documented in the medical record.
A resident's advance directives were not concise or readily retrievable for staff, resulting in conflicting documentation between hospital paperwork and facility records. The resident's chart included both a Full code status from the hospital and an undated DNRCCA form signed by a physician, leading to confusion among staff and family regarding the resident's code status.
A resident with moderate cognitive impairment had her blood drawn in the hallway instead of her room, violating privacy and infection control protocols. The phlebotomist misunderstood the RN's instructions, leading to the inappropriate location for the procedure.
The facility failed to complete an accurate admission assessment for a resident, missing documentation on an abdominal wound, colostomy site, and skin assessment despite complaints of pain. The interim care plan and MDS assessment were also incomplete, and the responsible nurse was no longer employed. This deficiency was identified during a complaint investigation.
The facility failed to provide a diet order or baseline height and weight for a resident with multiple diagnoses, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder and end stage renal disease. The resident was admitted without a diet order, and the physician's orders and admission assessment lacked necessary dietary and measurement information. Interviews confirmed the absence of an official diet order and baseline measurements, and the facility's policy was not followed.
The facility failed to provide wound physician follow-up for a resident with a complicated abdominal wall wound as ordered on admission. Despite the resident's history of severe medical conditions and the need for wound care, the facility did not arrange for necessary follow-up appointments, and an order for wound care assessment was canceled without explanation.
Failure to Escort Cognitively Impaired Resident to Outside Medical Appointment
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide appropriate supervision and support for a cognitively impaired resident during an outside medical appointment. The resident, admitted with diagnoses including prostate cancer and neuromuscular bladder, had a minimum data set assessment identifying moderate cognitive impairment. There was no facility documentation of the resident going out to an appointment on 12/31/25. Despite this cognitive status, the resident was sent alone to a Veterans Affairs (VA) appointment without an escort or spokesperson. VA staff, including a social worker and RN, reported that the resident arrived unaccompanied, was oriented only to name, did not know why he was there, and was unable to participate in conversation or answer questions beyond his name. Interviews with facility staff, including unit managers, the DON, and the Administrator, confirmed that the resident had limited cognition, that the facility normally sent escorts with cognitively impaired residents, and that no escort accompanied this resident to the appointment. Facility staff also stated they did not maintain a record of assigned escorts for past appointments. VA documentation, including a physician note and social worker note, identified the resident as having a history of dementia and described the appointment as ineffective due to the resident’s inability to exchange substantial information. The Administrator verified that the resident was sent to the appointment with limited cognition and no escort, resulting in the cited deficiency.
Failure to Notify Receiving Provider of Influenza Status and Improper Use of Enhanced Barrier Precautions
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to implement its infection prevention and control program by not appropriately notifying an outside provider of a resident’s infectious status and not following enhanced barrier precautions during wound care. One resident with prostate cancer, neuromuscular bladder, moderate cognitive impairment, and a documented positive nasal swab for Influenza A was placed on droplet precautions per facility orders. Despite this, the resident was sent unaccompanied to a Veterans Affairs (VA) appointment while still on droplet isolation, with no advance verbal notice to VA staff that he had tested positive for Influenza A. VA staff reported that they were not informed of the resident’s flu status until after the appointment, and facility leadership confirmed that it was not their process to call report before sending residents out and that the resident was sent with paper orders only. The facility’s droplet isolation policy required limiting unnecessary transport of residents on droplet precautions and using masks during essential transport, but there was no documentation of the appointment in the facility record and no evidence that the VA was notified in advance of the resident’s isolation status. A second deficiency involved the facility’s failure to follow its own enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) policy during wound care for a resident with prostate cancer, cerebral palsy, and two stage four pressure sores present on admission that had improved and had no documented current infection. The resident had EBP ordered, and a sign on the door instructed staff to wear a gown and gloves for high-contact activities, including wound care. During an observed wound care procedure, an LPN performed the entire dressing change, including removal of old dressings, wound cleansing, and application of new dressings, without wearing a gown. The LPN confirmed this practice during interview. The facility’s EBP policy required the use of gowns and gloves during high-contact care activities for residents under EBP, including wound care for pressure sores, but this was not followed during the observed procedure.
Failure to Provide Appropriate CPR and Emergency Response for Full Code Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide appropriate care for acute changes in condition for two residents who were full code and subsequently died. In the first case, a resident with multiple complex medical conditions, including end-stage renal disease, congestive heart failure, and chronic respiratory failure, was found unresponsive by a CNA. The RN assessed the resident, found no pulse or vital signs, and initiated chest compressions. However, the RN performed only three rounds of compressions, did not provide rescue breathing, and stopped CPR before EMS arrived, contrary to both facility policy and American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines, which require continuous CPR with compressions and ventilations until advanced help arrives or the resident is pronounced dead by a physician. The RN stated she learned the method of three rounds of compressions from a journal, and the LPN who assisted did not provide rescue breathing either. EMS arrived to find the resident cold, pulseless, and with rigor mortis, and did not initiate further resuscitation. In the second case, another resident with significant comorbidities, including heart failure, COPD, and dependence on dialysis and supplemental oxygen, was found unresponsive by a CNA. The nurse assessed the resident, confirmed the absence of pulse and breathing, and called a code. Staff responded, chest compressions were initiated, and the AED was applied. However, no ventilations were provided during CPR because the crash cart was missing an Ambu bag, which is required for providing manual ventilation. Multiple staff members noted that one LPN was performing compressions incorrectly over the left breast instead of the sternum, and other staff had to take over. The AED advised no shock, and CPR continued until EMS arrived and took over, but the resident could not be revived. Interviews revealed that the crash cart was not fully stocked as required, and staff were unaware of the missing Ambu bag until the code event. Both incidents demonstrated failures to follow established CPR protocols and facility policies, including the requirement for continuous compressions and ventilations for full code residents, proper stocking of emergency equipment, and correct technique during resuscitation. Staff interviews and documentation confirmed that these deficiencies occurred, and that the facility's policies and AHA guidelines were not followed during the response to both residents' acute changes in condition.
Failure to Provide Proper Incontinence Care per Facility Policy
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency was identified when a certified nurse aide (CNA) provided incontinence care to a resident with significant cognitive impairment, dementia, diabetes, and who was always incontinent. During the observed care procedure, the CNA used only water to wet towels and wiped the resident’s perineal area without using any soap or approved cleansing product, contrary to the facility’s incontinence care policy. The CNA then used the dry half of the same towel to dry the area and repeated the process on the resident’s backside. Upon interview, the CNA stated she believed the resident had allergies and could not use soap, but a review of the resident’s chart confirmed there were no listed allergies or orders restricting the use of soap for incontinence care. The facility’s policy required staff to wash affected areas with body wash, cleanser, or soap and water after each incontinence episode, which was not followed in this instance.
Failure to Maintain Clear and Accessible Advance Directives
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident's advance directives were clear and easily accessible to staff. Specifically, the medical record for a resident with a history of kidney transplant complications, end stage kidney disease, and diabetes mellitus showed inconsistencies regarding code status. The hospital paperwork indicated the resident was to be Full code, while the advance directive form in the facility's records had DNRCCA selected and was signed by a physician but not dated. Additionally, the form had a hospital sticker, further complicating the clarity of the resident's code status. Interviews with staff and the resident's family confirmed the confusion, as the Corporate Registered Nurse acknowledged the presence of both a Full code hospital document and an undated DNRCCA form. The facility's policy required staff to check the chart for code status, but the lack of a dated, clearly documented directive led to uncertainty. This deficiency was identified during a complaint investigation and affected one resident out of three reviewed for advance directives.
Failure to Maintain Resident Privacy During Blood Draw
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure Resident #9 had her blood drawn in a private area, compromising infection control and resident dignity. Resident #9, who has diagnoses including Parkinsonism, low back pain, cognitive communication disorder, and bipolar disorder, was observed having her blood drawn in the hallway in front of the nurse's station. This action was contrary to the facility's protocol, which mandates that blood draws occur in the resident's room. The phlebotomist involved misunderstood the instructions given by the RN, leading to the blood draw being conducted in an inappropriate location. Resident #9, who has moderate cognitive impairment and requires extensive assistance for daily activities, confirmed the blood draw occurred in the hallway but was unsure why. The RN clarified that she only helped the phlebotomist identify the resident and did not authorize the blood draw in the hallway. This incident was identified during a complaint investigation and highlights a lapse in maintaining resident privacy and infection control protocols.
Incomplete Admission Assessment for Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to complete an accurate admission assessment for Resident #97. Upon review of the closed medical record, it was found that the admission assessment did not document the resident's abdominal wound, colostomy site, or a skin assessment despite complaints of pain in the buttocks/coccyx area. Additionally, no height or weight was obtained or documented. The interim care plan noted risks for falls and skin impairment but lacked further details. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment also failed to assess the resident's cognition and detailed the resident's extensive assistance needs for bed mobility, eating, and toileting, as well as incontinence and ostomy for bowel elimination. The nurse responsible for the incomplete assessment was no longer employed by the facility at the time of the interview with Corporate RN #623, who confirmed the deficiencies in the admission assessments. The facility's policy on admitting residents required all observed assessment data to be documented, including the resident's height and weight. The failure to adhere to this policy resulted in incomplete and inaccurate documentation for Resident #97, who had significant medical conditions including an unspecified open wound of the abdominal wall, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, type two diabetes mellitus, and hypertensive chronic kidney disease with stage five end stage renal disease. This deficiency was identified during an investigation under Complaint Number OH00153495.
Failure to Provide Diet Order and Baseline Measurements for Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide a diet order or baseline height and weight for Resident #97 during his stay. Resident #97, who had multiple diagnoses including an unspecified open wound of the abdominal wall, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, type two diabetes mellitus, and hypertensive chronic kidney disease in stage five end stage renal disease, was admitted without a diet order from the hospital. The physician's orders for January 2024 also did not include any diet orders, and the admission assessment lacked height and weight measurements. The interim care plan and dietary communication form listed a regular diet with regular texture and thin liquids, but these were not based on a physician's order. The resident required extensive one-person assistance for eating, as noted in the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment. Interviews with the Administrator, Corporate Registered Nurse (RN) #623, and Dietary Manager #531 confirmed the absence of an official diet order and baseline height and weight for Resident #97. The facility's policy required the charge nurse to notify the dietary manager of any new admissions and their diet type, but this was not followed. The nurse who authored the dietary communication form without a physician's order was no longer employed by the facility. The deficiency was investigated under Complaint Number OH00153495.
Failure to Provide Wound Physician Follow-Up
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide wound physician follow-up for a complicated abdominal wall wound for Resident #97 as ordered on admission. Resident #97 had a history of an unspecified open wound of the abdominal wall, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, type two diabetes mellitus, and hypertensive chronic kidney disease in stage five end stage renal disease. The resident was admitted to the facility with a wound vac to his abdominal wall surgical site, which was later found to be infected and treated with antibiotics. Despite the discharge orders including oral antibiotics and no incision care orders, the facility did not arrange for follow-up appointments with a wound care physician as required. The admission assessment initially indicated no wound issues, but a subsequent skin assessment revealed an abdominal surgical incision that required evaluation by the wound care team. An order was placed for the wound care physician to assess the resident on 01/15/24, but this order was canceled on 01/16/24 without explanation. The facility's policy on wound care was not followed, as the resident did not receive the necessary wound care interventions or referrals to a wound care specialist. The deficiency was confirmed through interviews with the Administrator and Corporate RN, who acknowledged the lack of follow-up and the cancellation of the wound care order prior to the resident's discharge on 01/16/24.
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.
