Strongsville Healthcare And Rehabilitation
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Strongsville, Ohio.
- Location
- 18936 Pearl Road, Strongsville, Ohio 44136
- CMS Provider Number
- 366491
- Inspections on file
- 15
- Latest survey
- September 27, 2025
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 2
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Strongsville Healthcare And Rehabilitation during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with multiple complex medical conditions, who was cognitively intact and dependent on staff for transfers, was not consistently offered assistance to get out of bed according to her preferences. Staff interviews confirmed that offers were not routinely made due to a perceived history of refusals, and refusals were not documented as required. This resulted in the facility failing to reasonably accommodate the resident's needs and preferences.
The facility failed to provide sufficient staffing, resulting in delayed call light responses and inconsistent showering for residents. Several residents experienced significant delays, with some waiting up to 49 minutes for assistance. Staff interviews confirmed that the workload was often too much, leading to incomplete tasks. The facility's one-star staffing rating was linked to the use of agency staff, and despite administrative claims of staffing adjustments, there was a disconnect between management and staff experiences.
A resident with Multiple Sclerosis and paralysis was unable to use a call light due to functional limitations, despite being cognitively intact and having a care plan that included the use of assistive devices. The facility's policy required an environment that met residents' needs, but the Administrator was unaware of the issue until it was highlighted during an investigation.
The facility failed to consistently provide showers to three residents as per their care plans and facility policy. A resident had not received a shower since admission, another had discrepancies in records regarding shower provision, and a third reported receiving showers less than once per week. Staff interviews confirmed the inconsistency, and the Director of Nursing acknowledged the documentation issues.
The facility failed to respond to call lights in a timely manner, affecting five residents with various medical conditions. Observations showed call lights remained unanswered for 19 to 49 minutes, despite the policy requiring responses within 10 to 15 minutes. Staff interviews confirmed the delays, and the Administrator acknowledged the expectation for quicker responses.
A resident with dementia and severe cognitive impairment eloped from the facility after a visiting family member let him out without notifying staff. The resident was found confused and injured on a nearby street. The facility failed to provide adequate supervision and did not respond to a door alarm, contributing to the incident.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and multiple diagnoses, including dementia, eloped from the facility and was found outside by a concerned citizen. The resident was taken to the ER for evaluation. Despite the incident, the facility did not report the potential neglect to the State Survey Agency, as required by their policy. The Administrator, following corporate guidance, believed elopements were not reportable, leading to a deficiency in reporting requirements.
A cognitively impaired resident was physically abused by a CNA during care, as captured on video surveillance. The resident, with Alzheimer's and dementia, was hit in the bathroom and again in bed, causing emotional distress. The abuse was reported by the resident's family, leading to the CNA's arrest and termination. The CNA had not received dementia training.
A resident with Alzheimer's and dementia, identified as an elopement risk, left the secured memory care unit unsupervised. Despite interventions in place, the resident exited through an egress door and was outside for thirteen minutes before being found by a staff member. The facility did not document the incident or conduct an investigation, failing to follow its elopement policy.
A facility failed to ensure a resident had an adequate supply of oxygen for an outside doctor's appointment. The resident's daughter reported the oxygen tank was empty, and an LPN delivered a new tank to the doctor's office. The resident was not in distress, and the doctor's office had oxygen available. The facility's policy required necessary equipment to be sent with residents, which was not followed.
Failure to Honor Resident's Preferences for Getting Out of Bed
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to honor a resident's preferences for getting out of bed, as evidenced by medical record review, resident interview, and staff interview. The resident, who was cognitively intact and had multiple complex diagnoses including heart failure, COPD, respiratory failure, and major depressive disorder, required substantial assistance for bed mobility and was dependent on staff for transfers. Her care plan documented her right to make decisions regarding her daily lifestyle and directed staff to make every reasonable effort to meet her stated preferences. However, there was no documentation in her progress notes or behavior logs to support that she refused to get out of bed, nor was there evidence that staff consistently offered her the opportunity to get out of bed as per her preferences. During interviews, the resident confirmed she was never offered assistance to get out of bed and often had to request it herself, leading to frustration and at times choosing not to ask. A CNA acknowledged that staff likely did not offer to assist the resident out of bed as often as they should, citing her history of refusals, and also confirmed that refusals were not documented. This lack of consistent offering and documentation resulted in the facility's failure to reasonably accommodate the resident's needs and preferences regarding getting out of bed.
Staffing Deficiencies Lead to Delayed Care and Inconsistent Showers
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure sufficient staffing to meet the needs of its residents, as evidenced by multiple instances of delayed response to call lights and inconsistent provision of showers. The report highlights that several residents experienced significant delays in having their call lights answered, with some waiting as long as 49 minutes. This delay in response was confirmed by staff interviews, where it was acknowledged that call lights should be answered in less than 15 minutes. The lack of timely response was attributed to insufficient staffing, which also impacted the ability to complete daily tasks such as showers. Residents with varying degrees of cognitive impairment and physical needs were affected by the staffing deficiencies. For instance, a resident with severe cognitive impairment and incontinence issues did not receive showers consistently, receiving only bed baths instead. Another resident, who was moderately cognitively impaired and at risk for falls, experienced a 21-minute delay in call light response during mealtime, a time identified as particularly challenging due to staffing shortages. These instances were corroborated by staff interviews, which revealed that the workload was often too much for the available staff, leading to incomplete tasks. The facility's payroll-based journal data indicated a one-star staffing rating, which was attributed to the use of agency staff at the time. Staff interviews revealed that employees often worked past their scheduled hours and through breaks to manage their workload, yet still struggled to meet the residents' needs. The facility's administration claimed to adjust staffing based on census and acuity, but there was a disconnect between administrative perceptions and the experiences reported by staff and residents. The deficiency was investigated under specific complaint numbers, indicating ongoing concerns about staffing levels.
Resident Unable to Use Call Light Due to Functional Limitations
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident, identified as Resident #76, had access to a call light within their functional abilities. Resident #76, who was admitted with diagnoses including Multiple Sclerosis, paralysis of the left side, tremors, and depression, was cognitively intact but required varying levels of assistance for daily activities. The care plan for Resident #76 included interventions to consider the need for assistive devices and encourage the use of the call light for staff assistance. However, during an interview and observation, it was revealed that Resident #76 had a call light pad lying on her chest but was unable to push it or activate the call light to call for assistance. A Certified Nursing Assistant confirmed that Resident #76 could not use the call light, and there was no documented evidence of her ability to use it in the past. The facility's policy on the Resident Call System, dated March 2023, stated that the facility would provide an environment to meet residents' needs, including responding to call lights. Despite this policy, the Administrator was unaware of Resident #76's inability to use the call light pad until the issue was brought to her attention. This deficiency was investigated under Complaint Number OH00161454 and affected one resident directly, with the potential to affect six others identified by the facility as using a modified call light.
Inconsistent Shower Provision for Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that three residents consistently received showers as required by their care plans and facility policy. Resident #6, who was severely cognitively impaired, had not received a shower since admission and only received bed baths, despite his and his son's preference for showers. Resident #74, who was moderately cognitively impaired, had inconsistencies in the records regarding whether he received showers or refused them, with discrepancies noted between the shower sheets and CNA tasks. Resident #76, who was cognitively intact, reported receiving showers less than once per week, contrary to her preference for showers over bed baths. Interviews with staff, including a CNA and the Director of Nursing, confirmed that showers were not consistently provided as per the facility's policy, which stated that residents should be offered a shower or bath twice a week and as needed. The Director of Nursing acknowledged the inconsistencies in the documentation and was unable to verify the accuracy of the records. This deficiency was investigated under a specific complaint number, indicating noncompliance with the facility's bathing and personal care policy.
Delayed Response to Call Lights
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that call lights were answered in a timely manner, affecting five residents out of six reviewed for this issue. The residents involved had various medical conditions, including cellulitis, amputations, obesity, heart failure, dementia, and arthritis, among others. Observations and interviews revealed that call lights for these residents remained unanswered for periods ranging from 19 to 49 minutes, despite the facility's policy and staff expectations that call lights should be answered within 10 to 15 minutes. For instance, Resident #1's call light was unanswered for 19 minutes, while Resident #8's call light was unanswered for 49 minutes. The deficiency was confirmed through interviews with staff members, including a Registered Nurse and a Certified Nursing Assistant, who acknowledged the delays in responding to call lights. The facility's policy, dated March 2023, stated that call lights should be responded to in a timely manner, yet the observations indicated otherwise. The Administrator also confirmed that the expectation was for call lights to be answered in approximately 10 minutes, highlighting a discrepancy between policy and practice. This deficiency was investigated under Complaint Number OH00161454.
Resident Elopement Due to Inadequate Supervision
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent a resident with dementia, PTSD, and severe cognitive impairment from leaving the facility without staff knowledge. The incident occurred when the resident was seen on camera standing inside the facility in front of the main door. A visiting family member entered from outside, punched in the door code, and let the resident out without notifying staff. The resident's whereabouts remained unknown for approximately one hour and 45 minutes until a concerned citizen found him sitting on the curb of a heavily traveled street. The resident was found confused and with an abrasion on his left hand due to a fall. He was transported to the emergency room for further evaluation. The facility's staff was unaware of the resident's absence until notified by the local police department. The door alarm had sounded, but a staff member did not respond, assuming it was activated by another staff member retrieving food. The facility had identified 20 residents at risk for elopement, but the most recent elopement assessment did not identify this resident as being at risk. The care plan for the resident included interventions for wandering, but these were not sufficient to prevent the elopement. The facility's failure to supervise adequately and respond to the door alarm contributed to the resident's unsupervised exit.
Removal Plan
- The facility was alerted by the local police department Resident #37 was missing from the facility
- The door alarms were checked by LPN #500.
- RDCS #300 reviewed the facility elopement policy with no changes being made to the policy.
- The Administrator and DON were re-educated on the facility elopement policy by RDCS #300.
- Upon return from the local ER, Resident #37 was placed on 1:1 supervision with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #581.
- Resident #37 was assessed by the DON upon his return from the local ER.
- Resident #37's care plan was updated by Registered Nurse (RN) Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator #350. The update included the addition of 1:1 supervision.
- Resident #37's 1:1 supervision was discontinued, and the resident was transferred to the facility secured memory care unit.
- Elopement risk assessments were completed on all 89 residents who resided in the facility. The assessments noted 20 residents were identified at high risk for elopement. All residents at high risk of elopement resided on the secured memory care unit. Subsequent elopement assessments would be completed on a quarterly and as-needed basis by the nursing leadership team.
- The Administrator re-educated all staff on the facility's elopement policy and procedure.
- Residents at high risk of elopement were listed in an elopement binder kept at the front desk. The binder was updated. The binder included the resident's demographics, including a photograph. The elopement binder would be reviewed 5 times weekly and updated as needed by the Administrator or designee.
- The front door entrance code was changed by Maintenance Director #499. The facility implemented a plan for the door code to be changed weekly for six months, then as needed to address family members having the access codes.
- Resident #37's daughter and Visiting Family Member #375 were re-educated on the facility's elopement policy, visitation, and door access by the Administrator.
- An elopement drill was completed. This was coordinated by Director #499.
- The facility implemented a plan for ongoing elopement drills to be completed to verify staffs understanding and implementation of the facility elopement policy on alternate shifts monthly for six months, then quarterly thereafter. This would be completed by Maintenance Director #499 and overseen by the Administrator.
- Signage was placed at the front entrance for families, visitors, and residents stating, Visiting Hours are 8am-8pm. Doors are locked in off-hours to ensure the safety of our residents. Call [PHONE NUMBER] for after-hour assistance. Questions may be directed to the Administrator. This was completed by the Administrator.
- An ad hoc Quality Assessment and Performance Improvement (QAPI) meeting was held. The Administrator presented the QAPI Team with investigation and all findings for discussion and review. Discussion included an action plan from the (elopement) incident involving Resident #37. Staff in attendance included the Administrator, DON, RN Unit Manager #524, RN MDS Coordinator #350, Social Service Designee (SSD) #710, Therapy Director #715, Activity Director #720, Maintenance Director #499, Housekeeping/Laundry Director #730, Food Service Director #735, Medical Director #765, Human Resources Director #755, Business Office Manager (BOM) #740, Admissions Coordinator #745, Pharmacy Consultant #760, and Scheduler #750.
- The facility implemented a plan for ongoing audits to monitor elopement risk to be completed on each unit and include a random sample of 3-5 residents weekly for four weeks, then randomly thereafter. The audits would include monitoring for residents who were exhibiting signs or symptoms which could be indicative of an increased elopement risk such as residents wandering aimlessly, with cognitive impairments, behavior patterns, packed belongings, statements of wanting to leave the facility, and/or staying near an exit door as well as auditing door codes and staff response time for door alarms. The audits would be completed by the Administrator, DON, or designee. The results of the audits would be reviewed in QAPI.
- The facility implemented a plan for all new employees to receive education on the facility's elopement policy upon hire during orientation by HR Director #755 or designee, then annually and as needed thereafter.
Failure to Report Resident Elopement and Potential Neglect
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to report an incident of potential neglect involving a resident with severe cognitive impairment and multiple diagnoses, including dementia and PTSD. The resident, identified as an elopement risk, was found outside the facility by a concerned citizen and was subsequently taken to the emergency room for evaluation. The incident occurred when a visiting female opened the lobby door, allowing the resident to exit the building. Despite the resident's elopement and subsequent injury, the facility did not report the incident to the State Survey Agency as required by their policy. The facility's policy mandates that all alleged violations involving neglect must be reported immediately or within 24 hours if no serious bodily injury occurs. However, the Administrator, following corporate guidance, did not complete a Self-Reported Incident (SRI) report, believing that elopements were not reportable. This oversight was discovered during an investigation of a separate complaint, revealing a deficiency in the facility's adherence to reporting requirements for potential neglect incidents.
CNA Abuses Cognitively Impaired Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect a cognitively impaired resident from abuse by a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA). The incident occurred when the CNA physically abused the resident while providing care, as captured on video surveillance. The video showed the CNA hitting the resident in the bathroom, resulting in the resident crying out in distress. The abuse continued when the CNA hit the resident in the face after returning to the bed, causing further emotional distress. The resident involved had a history of Alzheimer's disease with late onset and unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbance. The resident's care plan noted behavior problems such as resistance to care and rummaging through things, but there were no documented incidents of aggressive behavior towards staff or others on the day of the incident. The resident required assistance with toilet hygiene and was occasionally incontinent of urine. The abuse was discovered when the resident's family viewed the surveillance footage and reported it to the police. The police arrested the CNA, who was later terminated by the facility. Interviews with staff revealed that the CNA was not a full-time staff member on the secured memory care unit and had not received the facility's dementia training. The facility's abuse policy emphasized the right of residents to be free from abuse, neglect, and corporal punishment.
Removal Plan
- CNA #813 was taken into police custody by the police department. CNA #813's employment was terminated.
- Resident #1 was assessed by RN Unit Manager (UM) #808.
- Resident #1's care plans were reviewed and updated by RN Minimum Data Set (MDS) #914 to include new behavioral focus interventions.
- RN UM #808 assessed all residents on the SMCU for evidence of abuse which included skin checks and pain assessments.
- All residents, including the 23 residents on the SMCU, were reviewed by RN MDS #914 to ensure they were accurate to meet the residents' needs.
- The facility abuse policy was reviewed by RN CDCS #920 with no updates or changes being made.
- RN CDCS #920 re-educated the Administrator and the DON on the facility abuse policy and procedure.
- A new procedure was developed by the DON: Residents on the SMCU Become a Two-Person Assist During an Episode of Combative Behavior.
- The Administrator re-educated all staff on the Abuse Policy and the new procedure for Residents on the SMCU Become a Two-Person Assist During an Episode of Combative Behavior.
- All current staff were educated on facility's dementia-focus program, Compass Training, by the Administrator.
- The Administrator presented the QAPI team with the abuse investigation and all findings were discussed and reviewed.
- An audit was completed by the Administrator and DON to monitor compliance of the abuse education.
- The facility implemented a plan for the Administrator, DON and/or designee to conduct an audit on three to five residents per week for four weeks, and randomly thereafter.
Failure to Implement Elopement Prevention Measures
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident's care plan interventions were implemented to prevent elopement. The resident, who was admitted with Alzheimer's disease and dementia, was identified as an elopement risk due to cognitive status and disorientation. Despite having interventions in place to manage wandering behavior, the resident was able to leave the secured memory care unit unsupervised. On the day of the incident, the resident was observed on surveillance video leaving the unit through a 15-second egress door. A registered nurse noticed the door open but did not follow the resident outside, assuming other staff were attending to the resident. The resident was outside the building for approximately thirteen minutes before being found by a laundry aide who was leaving for the day. The facility did not document the elopement in the resident's medical record or the incident/accident log, and no investigation was conducted. The facility's elopement policy, which outlines steps to be taken in such situations, was not followed. The Director of Nursing confirmed the lack of documentation and investigation, acknowledging that the staff failed to ensure the resident's safety as per the policy.
Failure to Provide Adequate Oxygen Supply for Resident's Appointment
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident had an adequate supply of oxygen to attend an outside doctor's appointment. Resident #88, who had chronic respiratory failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, was admitted to the facility and required oxygen at two liters via nasal cannula to maintain oxygen saturation above 92%. On the day of the appointment, the resident's daughter called the facility to report that the resident's oxygen tank was empty. The facility staff, including an LPN, confirmed that the resident's oxygen was ordered as needed and that the daughter would often adjust the oxygen flow despite the resident's needs. The LPN immediately delivered an oxygen tank to the doctor's office, which was approximately 15 minutes away, and found the resident not in distress upon arrival. The doctor's office also had oxygen available, as confirmed by the resident's daughter. The resident experienced no further complications related to oxygen through discharge to another facility at the request of the daughter. The facility's policy required that appropriate equipment be sent with residents during appointments, 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.



