Below average — CMS composite of the measures below.
The next survey window likely opens around April 2027
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of July 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Briarcliff Nursing And Rehabilitation Center during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Failure to provide privacy during medication administration: A medication aide kept the door and curtain open while checking BP and administering meds, including eye drops, for multiple residents. The MA said she forgot to close the door and curtain, while the ADON and DON gave differing statements about privacy expectations, though the DON stated privacy should be provided to promote resident dignity.
Pest control program failed to keep resident areas free of roaches. A live roach was observed in a restroom shared by two residents, both of whom had significant cognitive and medical diagnoses including dementia, psychosis, dysphagia, HTN, and muscle wasting. Staff and the Maintenance Director stated pest control came monthly and that sightings were documented in a binder, but the administrator said there was no pest control policy, only a contract. Logbooks showed multiple roach sightings in rooms and halls, and the pest control invoice documented treatment of several areas and exterior bait station replacement.
Failure to Provide Oral Care and Maintain Dignity: A resident with severe cognitive impairment, hospice status, and total dependence for oral hygiene was observed unresponsive with a crusted substance covering his tongue and lips. Two CNAs said hospice was responsible for oral care, but they did not know the hospice nurse or company, and they noted the resident's mouth did not look like it had been cleaned for a while.
A resident with intact cognition and multiple chronic conditions had a glass bottle of olive oil removed from his grocery bag without his consent or prior notice after the facility posted a prohibited items list. He said he was not informed about the list before the item was taken, would have wanted to be present during the search, and would have refused permission for staff to go through his belongings.
A resident with moderate cognitive impairment and ADL deficits had a toilet found with black spots, yellow stains, hair, and a missing bolt cover. He said the toilet had not been cleaned for about a week and that he had already complained to housekeeping, but the issue continued. A CNA, housekeeper, housekeeping supervisor, and administrator all acknowledged the restroom should be cleaned and disinfected daily, and the facility's housekeeping procedure included cleaning and disinfecting the toilet as part of the routine process.
A resident’s MDS assessment was not accurately coded for Hospice Care. The resident had Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, diabetes, HTN, anxiety, and mood disorders, and the care plan and order summary both reflected hospice services, but the MDS nurse confirmed the hospice item was left unmarked on the assessment. The DON stated hospice services had been discussed prior to admission and that the MDS should be completed accurately.
Missing Controlled Substance Count Signature at Shift Change: The facility failed to ensure accurate controlled medication accountability when an LVN did not sign the narcotic count sheet during shift change for a medication cart binder. The LVN stated she was responsible for signing on and off the count sheet when controlled meds were received and handed off, and the DON and ADON confirmed staff were required to complete and sign the controlled substance count in each other's presence per facility policy.
Expired and unlabeled medications were found in the 500 Hall med cart, the 500 Hall med storage room, and the 600 Hall med storage room. An OTC anti-acid bottle had an old open date, a lidocaine vial lacked an open or expiration date, expired meds awaiting disposal were left in an unlocked cabinet, and two opened OTC products had no open dates. RNs and the ADON stated meds should be dated, checked routinely, and kept locked when awaiting disposal.
Infection control lapses were observed during peri care and device handling for two residents. CNAs did not perform hand hygiene before donning PPE, did not change gloves between dirty and clean tasks, and continued care while wearing soiled gloves. One resident’s unsheathed O2 tubing was on the floor, the humidifier bottle was unlabeled and undated, and the Foley bag was on the floor. Another resident’s Foley collection bag was also found on the floor, with the privacy bag hanging on the bed rail and visible from the hallway.
A resident with dementia, diabetes, prior stroke, heart disease, and a documented DNR status in the care plan and physician orders had an OOH-DNR form that was not fully executed because the attending physician had not signed the required sections. The social worker obtained the family’s signature and forwarded the form per facility practice, and another staff member reported emailing the physician for signature, but the physician’s signature was delayed and remained missing at the time of review. This was inconsistent with the facility’s policy and the OOH-DNR instructions, which require the attending physician to sign and document the order in the medical record.
Surveyors found that two residents with dementia-related diagnoses were routinely given antipsychotic medications (including Lurasidone, Haldol Decanoate, and Seroquel) based on orders citing unspecified psychosis, without adequate indication documented in the clinical record. Care plans and MARs showed ongoing use of these psychotropics with black box warnings, while the facility’s own policy required that such drugs be used only for clearly diagnosed and documented conditions and not as chemical restraints. In interviews, a MHNP defended broad antipsychotic use in dementia, an LVN acknowledged limited understanding of appropriate indications and reliance on provider orders and consents, and the DON confirmed that psychosis is not an appropriate indication for antipsychotics in residents with Alzheimer’s or dementia but stated staff still administered medications even when indications were inappropriate.
Multiple residents with severe cognitive and behavioral impairments engaged in physical altercations, resulting in injuries such as lacerations and abrasions. Despite known risks and care plans addressing wandering and aggression, staff did not consistently prevent residents from entering others' rooms or intervening before altercations occurred. There was also inconsistency in recognizing and reporting these incidents as abuse.
The facility did not report a resident-to-resident altercation resulting in minor injuries to local law enforcement and failed to report an allegation of staff-to-resident verbal abuse within the required two-hour timeframe. In both cases, staff either did not recognize the incidents as reportable or assumed others would report them, leading to delays in notifying authorities as required by facility policy and regulations.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and urinary issues exhibited behaviors of urinating in inappropriate areas, such as trash cans and the floor, over several months. Despite staff awareness and evidence of the behavior, the care plan did not document these behaviors or interventions until after surveyor inquiry. This omission resulted from a lack of timely updates and communication among the interdisciplinary team, contrary to facility policy and training requirements.
A CNA slapped a resident with severe cognitive impairment and a history of aggression after the resident became agitated and struck the CNA during care. The incident was witnessed by staff, confirmed through investigation, and determined to be abuse, placing the resident in Immediate Jeopardy.
Three residents were found to have bathroom sinks with hot water temperatures exceeding the required range, with readings as high as 124°F, while a shower bed used for bathing was observed to have frayed mesh and visible residue. Staff interviews revealed that water temperature checks were performed randomly and documented weekly, but did not identify the elevated temperatures in these rooms. The shower bed's poor condition had not been reported by staff prior to the surveyor's findings.
Two residents did not have comprehensive, person-centered care plans that addressed their specific needs. One resident with severe cognitive impairment required total assistance with feeding, but this was not reflected in her care plan. Another resident with advanced dementia and PTSD did not have identifiable triggers for PTSD documented in his care plan, nor a statement indicating the absence of such triggers. Staff interviews and record reviews confirmed these omissions, resulting in care plans that were not consistent with the residents' current needs.
A resident with moderate cognitive impairment and a need for assistance with personal care was found to have a disposable razor on his sink and a bag of new razors in his dresser drawer, despite facility policy requiring razors to be kept under lock and key. Staff interviews revealed a lack of awareness and adherence to the protocol regarding sharps, resulting in the resident having unsupervised access to razors.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and multiple comorbidities was receiving oxygen therapy via nasal cannula, but staff failed to post the required oxygen sign on the door to indicate oxygen was in use. Nursing staff acknowledged responsibility for posting the sign and confirmed it was not done due to oversight, despite facility policy and professional standards requiring such signage for safety.
Staff failed to follow infection prevention protocols during care for two residents, including an LVN who did not sanitize hands after touching potentially contaminated surfaces before administering G-tube medications, and a CNA who did not change gloves or perform hand hygiene between catheter care and cleaning a bowel movement. Both staff acknowledged the lapses, and facility policies required proper hand hygiene and glove use.
A resident with cerebral infarction and aphasia reported being hit by nephews while on a pass, but the CNA failed to report the allegation immediately. The delay in reporting violated the facility's protocols, placing the resident in Immediate Jeopardy. Despite training on abuse reporting, the CNA only informed the facility upon returning to work, leading to a police investigation that found no crime.
A CNA in a long-term care facility verbally abused a resident by using a derogatory term in Spanish during a greeting. The resident, who had a history of dementia and was non-verbal, was unable to express if she was offended. The CNA admitted to using the term in a joking manner, but the facility's policy defines such language as verbal abuse.
The facility failed to accurately document significant health events in the MDS for two residents. One resident's fall was not recorded, and another resident's unstageable pressure ulcer was omitted from the discharge MDS. Staff acknowledged these oversights, noting that the MDS was primarily used for billing, while care plans were updated through other assessments. The discrepancies did not have immediate negative outcomes, but could affect communication if residents were transferred.
The facility failed to adhere to physician's orders for oxygen therapy for two residents, leading to incorrect oxygen settings. One resident with COPD had oxygen set at 3 liters per minute instead of the prescribed 2 liters, while another with hypoxia had it set at 1.5 liters per minute. Staff interviews revealed a lack of adherence to orders and absence of a specific policy on oxygen administration.
A resident on anticoagulant therapy experienced a fall, but the facility failed to accurately document the medication and neurological checks. LVN inaccurately noted the resident was not on an anticoagulant, and inconsistent neurological findings were not reported to the NP. The DON acknowledged the documentation errors and potential negative outcomes.
The facility failed to document the risk of elopement and secure unit placement in the care plans of three residents with severe cognitive impairments. Despite being placed in a secure unit due to their conditions, the care plans did not reflect these risks, potentially leading to inadequate care. Errors in completing a new wandering evaluation form led to the resolution of these care plans, removing critical information about the residents' needs.
The facility's pest control program was ineffective, leading to a roach infestation in resident rooms, hallways, and the dining room. Despite monthly pest control services and staff efforts to document and address sightings, roaches were frequently observed alive. Delays in pest control services and insufficient fumigation contributed to the ongoing issue, with residents and staff expressing concerns about the pest presence.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and diabetes did not receive necessary podiatry services, resulting in overgrown toenails. Despite having an order for podiatry care, the resident was not added to the podiatrist's list, and staff were unaware of the issue until it was highlighted by an investigator. The facility lacked a specific foot care policy, leading to a deficiency in maintaining the resident's foot health.
Failure to Provide Privacy During Medication Administration
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure resident privacy during medical treatment for 4 of 7 residents reviewed for resident rights. During observations on 05/13/2026, MA A administered medications and checked blood pressures for Resident #156, Resident #52, Resident #71, and Resident #133 while keeping the door and curtain open. For Resident #71, MA A checked blood pressure and then administered medications that included ophthalmic medication. For Resident #133, MA A also checked blood pressure and then administered medications with the door and curtain open. During an interview on 05/13/2026 at 8:00 a.m., MA A stated she was supposed to close the door and curtain before checking blood pressures and administering medications to the four residents, and said she forgot to do so. She stated that closing the door and curtain was important to provide privacy. In later interviews, the ADON stated staff did not need privacy for blood pressure checks and did not believe the door or curtain needed to be closed for oral medications, but acknowledged privacy should have been provided, especially for eye drops, and that privacy was important to promote resident dignity. The DON stated staff should have closed the door, curtain, and blinds prior to administering medications unless the resident requested otherwise, and noted that privacy should have been provided to promote dignity.
Pest Control Program Failed to Keep Resident Areas Free of Roaches
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program and failed to keep the facility free of roaches for two residents reviewed for pests. During an observation, a live roach was seen on the floor in the restroom shared by Resident #83 and Resident #57. The roach was pointed out to an LVN, and by the time she reached the restroom it was no longer visible. Resident #83 was an [AGE] year-old female admitted with diagnoses including Alzheimer's Disease, Dementia, Major Depressive Disorder, Senile Degeneration of Brain, Dysphagia, Unspecified Psychosis, Legal Blindness, Delusional Disorders, Hypertension, and muscle wasting and atrophy. Resident #57 was an [AGE] year-old female admitted with diagnoses including Alzheimer's Disease, Vascular Dementia, Radiculopathy Lumbar Region, Depression, Unspecified Psychosis, Dysphagia, Hypertension, and muscle wasting and atrophy. Staff interviewed stated they had not seen roaches during their shifts, although one CNA recalled seeing roaches when she first started working at the facility about five years earlier. The Maintenance Director stated pest control services came monthly and treated the inside and outside of the building, and that staff were responsible for documenting pest sightings in the pest control binder. The administrator stated the facility did not have a pest control policy, only the contract. Record review of the pest control sighting logbooks showed two entries on 05/11/2026 for a roach in a room and a roach in the 500-shower room, and seven entries in April 2026 noting roaches in multiple rooms and halls. The pest control invoice dated 04/02/2026 documented regular pest service, treatment of several rooms and common areas, and exterior treatment with bait station replacement. The pest control sales agreement listed covered pests as cockroaches, rats, mice, and ants.
Failure to Provide Oral Care and Maintain Dignity
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to treat a resident with respect and dignity and to provide oral care on a regular basis. Resident #2 was a male with diagnoses including encephalopathy, altered mental status, high blood pressure, abdominal mass, kidney failure, left kidney cancer, urine retention due to obstruction, prostate enlargement, and diabetes. His quarterly MDS also reflected stroke, spinal cord and brain dysfunction, progressive neurological conditions, fractures and multiple trauma, cancer, anemia, dementia, depression, and malnutrition, and his BIMS score of 01 indicated severe cognitive impairment. His care plan stated he was admitted to hospice on 04/04/26, had a goal of focusing on quality of life, and was dependent on staff for oral hygiene and required total assistance from one staff member for personal hygiene and oral care. During observation on 05/11/26, the resident was not responsive to voice, had his eyes closed, was on humidified oxygen at 2 liters per minute via nasal cannula, and had his mouth partially open with a crusted clear/brown substance over his tongue and connecting his upper and lower lips. Two CNAs stated hospice came in daily and that the hospice nurse was responsible for oral care, but they did not know the hospice nurse, the hospice company, or what time hospice had been at the facility that day. After looking at the resident's mouth, they said it did not look like it had been cleaned for a while, and one CNA said they thought they should clean his mouth before then stating the CNAs should clean mouths. The facility policy stated residents unable to carry out ADLs would receive necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene.
Unauthorized Search and Removal of Personal Property
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a resident’s right to be treated with respect and dignity when it searched his personal belongings and removed an item from his grocery bag without his consent or prior notice. Resident #28 was a cognitively intact male with diagnoses including diabetes, hypertension, morbid obesity, diabetic eye problems, urinary retention due to obstruction, and prostate enlargement. His care plan noted that he received frequent packages from an online store and that his preferences were to be respected, while also noting that he sometimes refused room safety checks or staff going through his belongings. The event involved a glass bottle of olive oil that was found in a plastic grocery bag delivered to the resident. The assistant administrator removed the bottle because glass items were considered prohibited for safety reasons, and the resident stated he was not told about the prohibited items list before his item was taken. He reported that he was bed bound when the list was posted and that no one gave him a copy or informed him in advance. He also stated he would have wanted to be present during the search and would have refused permission for staff to search his bags. The resident later voiced concern during a care plan meeting that the bottle had been confiscated in early March without notification. Facility records showed a prohibited items list that included glass items and stated staff would notify the responsible party when prohibited items were removed. The resident’s grievance and interviews reflected that the item was removed from his grocery bag without asking his permission first, which was the basis for the dignity and respect deficiency.
Dirty Resident Toilet and Incomplete Housekeeping
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment when Resident #11's toilet was found to have black spots around the rim, yellow stains on one side of the base, hair, and a missing bolt cover. Resident #11, a male resident with diagnoses including metabolic encephalopathy, type 2 diabetes, and glaucomatous optic atrophy, had a BIMS score of 12 on his quarterly MDS, reflecting moderately impaired cognition. His care plan identified an ADL self-care performance deficit related to confusion, weakness, a history of falls, and osteopathy due to a history of polio to the left leg, and noted that he required supervision or touching assistance for personal hygiene. During interview, Resident #11 said his toilet had not been clean for about a week and that he had already complained to housekeeping, but the problem continued. He said it frustrated him to see the toilet dirty. The CNA stated she checked residents' restrooms during two-hour rounds and would ensure the toilet bowl and floor were clean, but when she inspected the toilet she called housekeeping to clean it. The housekeeper said she had been assigned to the hall on both days, had just cleaned the room, but did not clean the restroom because the resident was asleep and she did not want to wake him; she also said she might have forgotten to clean the toilet on both days. The housekeeping supervisor and administrator stated that resident rooms were to be cleaned and disinfected daily, and the facility's housekeeping procedure included cleaning and disinfecting the toilet as part of the 7-step cleaning process.
MDS Assessment Not Coded for Hospice Care
Penalty
Summary
Resident #84’s MDS assessment was not accurately coded for Hospice Care. Record review showed the resident was a female admitted to the facility with diagnoses including Alzheimer’s disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, unspecified dementia, anxiety disorder, and mood disorders. The comprehensive MDS assessment dated 03/09/2026 showed a BIMS score of 00, indicating severely impaired cognition, but Section O0110 for special treatments, procedures, and programs did not mark Hospice Care as being received. Record review showed Resident #84’s care plan initiated on 03/06/2026 reflected that she was under Hospice Care, with interventions addressing coping strategies, respecting resident wishes, consulting with the physician and social services for hospice care in the facility, and encouraging support from family and friends. The order summary also reflected an order for Hospice Care dated 03/06/2026. During interview, the MDS nurse who completed the assessment confirmed Hospice Care was not marked on the MDS and stated it was an oversight. The DON stated hospice services were discussed prior to admission and that the MDS assessment should be completed accurately.
Missing Controlled Substance Count Signature at Shift Change
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services for 1 of 6 controlled medication binders reviewed when LVN Q did not sign the narcotic medication count sheet during the 2 p.m. to 10 p.m. shift change on 05/12/2026. The record review of the 200-hall medication aide cart-controlled substance binder showed the missing signature on the count sheet at 3:30 p.m. that day. During an interview on 05/12/2026 at 3:40 p.m., LVN Q stated she was responsible for signing on and off the narcotic count sheet at the beginning and end of her shift when controlled medications were received and handed off. She stated that two nurses were required to sign during shift change to verify reconciliation of the controlled medication count, and she confirmed her signature was missing because she forgot to sign it. She also stated that the signatures were important to show accountability and verification that the controlled medications were counted by both the oncoming and off-going nurses. In interviews on 05/13/2026, ADON B and the DON stated that staff were instructed to count controlled medications before accepting the medication cart and that the nurse taking over responsibility for the cart was required to sign the controlled medication book when taking over and handing off the cart. The facility policy titled Documentation of Controlled Substance, dated 10/01/2019, stated that two licensed nurses or a licensed nurse and medical aide were responsible for completing a count of all controlled substances at change of shift and that both staff members would count and sign the Controlled Substances Record in each other's presence.
Expired and Unlabeled Medications Found in Carts and Storage Rooms
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals were labeled and stored in accordance with accepted professional principles in the 500 Hall Medication Cart, the 500 Hall Medication Storage Room, and the 600 Hall Medication Storage Room. During observation and interview, a bottle of OTC anti-acid tablets was found in the 500 Hall Medication Cart with an open date of 05/02/25, and RN D stated medication carts should not contain expired medications and should be checked at the beginning and end of each shift. In the same cart, a vial of lidocaine was found without an open date or expiration date, and RN D stated it should have been placed in a labeled box or clear bag. In the 500 Hall Medication Storage Room, an unlocked cabinet contained expired medications that were awaiting disposal. RN D stated the medications were expired and needed to be disposed of, and also stated medications were supposed to be locked but did not know why they were not in the indicated locked cabinet. In the 600 Hall Medication Storage Room, an open box of OTC sore throat lozenges and an open box of OTC anti-diarrhea tablets were found without open dates. RN E stated he was unaware of the opened boxes and stated open dates were needed to know the shelf life of the medication. During interview, ADON C stated she oversaw Hall 500 and Hall 600, that OTC anti-acids were good for one year after opening, and that all medications for destruction had to be under lock and key. ADON C also stated all medications had to have an open date when opened, and that medication carts and medication rooms were checked weekly. The DON stated medication carts and medication rooms were constantly being checked, that the pharmacist and pharmacist technician also assisted, and that in-services had already been started on checking for expired medications and ensuring medications were properly labeled. Facility policy required medications to have expiration or beyond-use dates clearly stated, multi-dose vials to be dated and initialed when opened, expired medications not to be administered, and medications awaiting disposal or return to be stored in a locked secure area.
Infection Control Lapses During Peri Care and Device Handling
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program for two residents during observed care and room checks. One resident had diagnoses including encephalopathy, altered mental status, kidney failure, diabetes, dementia, malnutrition, MRSA, and a Foley catheter, and was on Enhanced Barrier Precautions. During observed incontinent care, two CNAs did not perform hand hygiene before donning gowns and gloves, did not change gloves between dirty and clean tasks, and continued care while wearing soiled gloves. The resident was turned, peri care was provided, a soiled brief was removed, a clean brief was placed, and the resident was repositioned while the staff remained in the same gloves. During the same observation, the resident’s oxygen tubing was unsheathed and lying on the floor attached to the nasal cannula. The oxygen concentrator had a humidification bottle that was not labeled, dated, or initialed. The resident’s Foley catheter bag was also lying on the floor next to and slightly under the bed. In interview, the CNAs stated they should have changed gloves and acknowledged the Foley bag and oxygen tubing were not handled as expected, but they did not verbalize the process required for peri care. A second resident had urine retention and an indwelling Foley catheter, with physician orders to keep the collection bag off the floor and below bladder level. During observation in the resident’s room, the Foley catheter collection bag was lying on the floor and the privacy bag was hanging on the siderail of the bed, with the collection bag visible from the hallway. The resident was also receiving IV antibiotics for an upper respiratory infection and antibiotics via PEG for a UTI. The ADON/ICP stated oxygen should never be on the floor, should always have a sheath, and should always be labeled and dated, and that staff should change gloves between clean and dirty areas.
Failure to Obtain Physician Signature on OOH-DNR for a Resident with DNR Status
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure a resident’s Out-of-Hospital Do-Not-Resuscitate (OOH-DNR) order was properly completed in accordance with the resident’s advance directive and the facility’s own policy. The resident was an elderly female with dementia, Type 2 diabetes mellitus, orthopedic aftercare following a nondisplaced fracture of the left femur, cerebral infarction affecting the right dominant side, and heart disease. Her Quarterly MDS showed a BIMS score of 03, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Her comprehensive care plan documented an advanced directive with a DNR code status, including interventions such as ensuring a signed DNR in the medical record, not calling 911 or initiating CPR in the event of cardiac arrest, keeping the resident comfortable, sending a copy of DNR paperwork upon transfer, and consulting social services if the family wished to change code status. The physician’s orders also reflected a DNR status. Record review of the resident’s OOH-DNR form showed that it had been executed by the resident’s adult child as a qualified relative in Section C, but the attending physician had not signed in Section E (Physician’s Statement) or Section F (acknowledgment that the document was properly completed). The OOH-DNR instructions specified that the attending physician must document the existence of the order in the medical record and sign the appropriate sections of the form, along with the required witnesses. Despite the care plan directive to ensure a signed DNR in the medical record, the physician’s signature was missing from the OOH-DNR form at the time of the survey. Interviews with staff clarified the internal process and where it broke down. The social worker stated she was responsible for reviewing advance directives with the family, obtaining the family’s signature, and then giving the OOH-DNR to another staff member, who was responsible for obtaining the physician’s signature. That staff member reported that the social worker would scan OOH-DNRs to her, and she would email the physician for signature, and that the physician typically signed within a day or two; she stated that in this case the physician’s signature was delayed by the physician’s office. The DON acknowledged that the resident’s DNR had been care planned and ordered, but the OOH-DNR form itself had not been signed by the physician as required, despite the facility’s policy to support and facilitate residents’ rights to formulate and implement advance directives and to place copies of existing directives in the chart and communicate them to staff.
Inadequate Indications for Antipsychotic Use and Chemical Restraint Concerns
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure residents were free from chemical restraints and unnecessary psychotropic medications, specifically antipsychotics with black box warnings, for two residents reviewed. For one resident with dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, hypertension, and Type 2 diabetes, the facility administered Lurasidone 40 mg daily based on a physician order that cited “unspecified psychosis not due to a substance or known physiological condition (F29)” as the indication. The resident’s care plan documented use of antipsychotic medications for mood disorder and psychosis and included monitoring for adverse reactions and black box warnings, but the record did not show an adequate indication for the use of Lurasidone in the context of dementia-related psychosis. The medication was administered routinely over several days as reflected on the MAR. For another resident with early-onset Alzheimer’s disease, heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, hypertension, bipolar disorder with psychotic features, intermittent explosive disorder, mood disorder due to a known physiological condition, and unspecified intellectual disabilities, the facility administered two antipsychotics—Haldol Decanoate and Seroquel—without an adequate indication documented in relation to dementia. The care plan identified the use of Seroquel and Haldol for psychosis with targeted behaviors of agitation, yelling, and grabbing at others. Physician orders directed monthly intramuscular injections of Haldol Decanoate 50 mg and oral Seroquel 300 mg tablets, initially two tablets at bedtime and later one tablet daily in the morning, all tied to a diagnosis of unspecified psychosis (F29). MARs showed consistent administration of these medications over multiple months. The orders and associated black box warnings noted increased mortality in elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis, yet the indication remained psychosis in residents with dementia diagnoses. Interviews with facility staff and prescribers further illustrated the circumstances leading to the deficiency. A mental health nurse practitioner stated that psychosis was a proper diagnosis for many dementia residents and asserted that more than half of dementia residents in nursing homes are psychotic and need antipsychotics, expressing disagreement with CMS concerns about antipsychotic use and black box warnings. An LVN reported that staff called the provider for behaviors such as crawling on the floor, yelling, aggression, or agitation, and that the provider would order medication; he acknowledged sometimes needing to ask for the indication and stated he did not know that psychosis was not an appropriate indication for an antipsychotic in residents with dementia or Alzheimer’s, adding that nurses followed provider orders as long as consents were signed. The DON confirmed there were numerous active antipsychotic orders, acknowledged that psychosis was not an appropriate indication for antipsychotic use in residents with Alzheimer’s or dementia, and stated that when a doctor or NP wrote an order, staff could not refuse to give the medication even if the indication was inappropriate. The facility’s own psychotropic drug use policy required that psychotropics be used only to treat specific, diagnosed, and documented conditions and not as chemical restraints, underscoring the discrepancy between policy and practice in these cases. The facility’s policy on psychotropic drug use defined chemical restraint as any drug used for discipline or staff convenience and not required to treat medical symptoms, and emphasized that psychotropic medications should only be used when nonpharmacological interventions are clinically contraindicated and when a practitioner determines the medication is appropriate for a specific, diagnosed, and documented condition. Despite this, the records for the two residents showed routine administration of antipsychotics with black box warnings based on indications of unspecified psychosis in the presence of dementia diagnoses, without adequate documentation that the medications were necessary to treat clearly defined medical symptoms as required by the policy. This mismatch between documented indications, resident diagnoses, and policy requirements formed the basis of the cited deficiency.
Failure to Prevent Resident-to-Resident Abuse Resulting in Injuries
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that residents were protected from abuse, resulting in multiple resident-to-resident altercations involving five residents. Several incidents occurred where residents with severe cognitive impairments and behavioral issues engaged in physical altercations, leading to injuries such as facial lacerations, abrasions, and scratches. For example, one resident with Alzheimer's disease and severe cognitive impairment wandered into another resident's room, resulting in a physical confrontation where both parties sustained injuries. Another incident involved two residents in a hallway altercation, where one attempted to grab the other, leading to a physical response that caused further injury. The residents involved had significant medical and behavioral histories, including diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease, dementia, mood disorders, and psychosis. Many required extensive assistance with activities of daily living and exhibited behaviors such as wandering, aggression, and rejection of care. Despite these known risks, the facility did not consistently prevent residents from entering others' rooms or from coming into close contact in common areas, which contributed to the altercations. Staff interviews confirmed that some residents were known to wander and had a history of confusion regarding room locations, yet interventions to prevent these interactions were not always effective or timely. Documentation and interviews revealed that staff were aware of the behavioral risks and had care plans in place, but these interventions did not prevent the incidents from occurring. In some cases, staff were not able to intervene before physical contact was made, and there was inconsistency in reporting incidents to local authorities. The facility's approach to determining whether an incident constituted abuse varied, with some staff not initially recognizing resident-to-resident altercations as abuse. This lack of consistent prevention and recognition of abuse led to multiple residents sustaining injuries as a result of altercations.
Failure to Timely Report Alleged Abuse and Resident Altercations
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure timely reporting of alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, or exploitation, as required by regulations. Specifically, the facility did not report a resident-to-resident physical altercation to local law enforcement, nor did it report an allegation of staff-to-resident verbal abuse within the mandated two-hour timeframe. These failures were identified through interviews and record reviews for two residents out of ten reviewed for abuse/neglect reporting. In the first incident, a male resident with severe cognitive impairment and multiple psychiatric diagnoses was involved in a physical altercation with another male resident who had moderate cognitive impairment. The altercation resulted in minor injuries, including discoloration to the hands and an abrasion to the chin. Although the incident was documented and the residents were monitored, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) did not report the event to local authorities, stating she did not consider it abuse due to both residents' mental illnesses and the belief that the act was not willful. There was no evidence or case number to show that the incident had been reported as required. In the second incident, a female resident with intact cognition and hemiplegia was subjected to inappropriate comments by a nursing assistant, including remarks about her weight and sexual orientation. The certified nursing assistant who witnessed the event did not report it immediately, assuming another staff member present would do so. The Director of Nursing and Administrator confirmed that the incident was not reported to the state agency until several days later, after the ombudsman became involved. The facility's policy requires immediate reporting of all alleged violations, but this protocol was not followed in these cases.
Failure to Include Resident Behaviors in Comprehensive Care Plan
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive, person-centered care plan that addressed all identified needs for a resident with severe cognitive impairment and multiple medical diagnoses, including vascular dementia and urinary retention. Specifically, the care plan did not include documentation or interventions related to the resident's behavior of urinating in inappropriate areas, such as trash cans or the floor, despite evidence of this behavior occurring over a period of approximately six months. The omission was identified during a review of the resident's records and interviews with facility staff, who acknowledged awareness of the behavior but had not ensured it was reflected in the care plan. Interviews with the DON, SW, and ADON revealed that although the behavior had been discussed among leadership and was known to staff, it was not documented in the care plan until after the surveyor's inquiry. The DON confirmed that the behavior should have been included to ensure all staff were aware and could implement appropriate interventions, and that the facility's policy required care plans to be updated as needed to reflect changes in resident behavior. The ADON and SW also indicated that the behavior had not been reported or observed directly, but evidence such as urine in trash cans and odor was present, and the issue had been discussed in meetings. The facility's policy and in-service training required comprehensive care plans to describe all services necessary to maintain the resident's highest practicable well-being, including behavioral interventions. However, the failure to update the care plan as required resulted in a lack of communication among staff regarding the resident's behaviors and the necessary interventions, as confirmed by staff interviews and record reviews.
Resident Slapped by CNA Following Agitation and Aggression
Penalty
Summary
A certified nursing assistant (CNA) failed to ensure a resident's right to be free from abuse when she slapped a resident on the face. The incident occurred while two CNAs were attempting to provide care to a resident with severe cognitive impairment, Alzheimer's disease, and a history of physical aggression and agitation. During the care attempt, the resident became agitated and struck the CNA, who then responded by slapping the resident in return. This act was witnessed by another CNA and a registered nurse (RN), who immediately intervened. The resident involved was an elderly female with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, cognitive communication deficit, and dementia, requiring moderate assistance with all activities of daily living and exhibiting daily wandering behavior. At the time of the incident, the resident was severely cognitively impaired, as indicated by a BIMS score of 00, and had a documented history of combative behavior toward staff and other residents. The incident was confirmed through interviews, written statements, and review of the facility's incident report, which documented the abuse. The facility's investigation confirmed that the CNA's action constituted abuse. The event was witnessed by staff, and the CNA involved admitted in a written statement to having hit the resident in response to being struck. The incident was reported to the facility administration and was determined to have placed the resident in an Immediate Jeopardy situation.
Removal Plan
- Resident #101 was immediately protected by RN J, who separated Resident #101 and CNA H, instructed CNA H to exit the memory unit and report to the Administrator's office, performed a head-to-toe assessment for any physical injuries, and reported the incident to the Administrator.
- CNA H was immediately removed from the facility, suspended, and terminated.
- A head-to-toe assessment was conducted on Resident #101, revealing no physical harm, pain, or mental anguish.
- The facility's social worker assessed Resident #101 for signs of psychosocial harm and referred Resident #101 for counseling evaluation.
- Staff were in-serviced on the topics of Dealing with challenging residents and Abuse Prohibition Policy.
- All residents in the memory unit were interviewed and observed for abuse with no concerns mentioned.
- Staff in the memory unit were interviewed and all were familiar with the facility's protocol when dealing with residents with cognitive impairment and aggressive behaviors and abuse prohibition policy.
Failure to Maintain Safe Water Temperatures and Shower Bed Condition
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for three residents and one shower bed, as evidenced by observations of excessively high hot water temperatures in resident bathroom sinks and a shower bed in poor condition. During an observation, the hot water temperatures in the bathroom sinks of three occupied rooms were found to be above the facility's required range, with readings of 124, 118, and 116 degrees Fahrenheit. The maintenance director and assistant confirmed that water temperatures are checked daily in one room per hall and documented, but the process did not identify or address the elevated temperatures in these specific rooms. The facility's logs showed that temperatures were generally within range, but the specific rooms in question were not flagged prior to the surveyor's findings. The residents affected included individuals with severe cognitive impairment and limited mobility, as well as a resident with intact cognition but requiring assistance with personal care. Interviews with these residents revealed that they used the sinks regularly but had not sustained burns. Staff interviews indicated that the maintenance team relied on random daily checks and weekly documentation, with alerts set for out-of-range temperatures. However, the system did not prevent the occurrence of excessively hot water in the rooms observed by surveyors. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure that the shower bed in one hall was in good condition. The shower bed was observed to have a white and black film, frayed and worn mesh, and water residue. Staff, including the Central Supply Director and DON, acknowledged the poor condition of the shower bed upon inspection, noting that it needed to be sanitized or replaced. The CNA responsible for using the shower bed stated she had not noticed the need for repair but was trained to report such issues. The facility did not have a policy related to shower beds, and no staff had reported the condition prior to the surveyor's observation.
Failure to Develop and Implement Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Plans
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive, person-centered care plans for two residents, as required by policy. For one resident, an elderly female with diagnoses including vascular dementia and Alzheimer's disease, the care plan did not address her need for assistance with feeding. Despite documentation and staff interviews confirming that she required total assistance with feeding at all meals due to severe cognitive impairment, her care plan was not updated to reflect this need. Staff members, including CNAs and nurses, were aware of her dependency but the MDS nurse and DON were not informed, resulting in the care plan lacking accurate and current interventions for feeding assistance. For another resident, an elderly male with multiple psychiatric and cognitive diagnoses including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), bipolar disorder, and advanced dementia, the care plan did not address identifiable triggers for his PTSD. Although the resident had a history of behavioral issues and a complex psychiatric background, staff interviews and record reviews indicated that no specific triggers had been identified or documented in his care plan. The care plan lacked a statement regarding the absence of identifiable triggers, despite staff monitoring his behaviors and acknowledging his advanced dementia and inability to communicate. Observations and interviews with staff revealed gaps in communication and documentation regarding both residents' needs. The facility's policy required care plans to include measurable objectives and timeframes based on comprehensive assessments, but these requirements were not met for the two residents. The lack of accurate and individualized care planning could result in residents not receiving necessary care or services tailored to their specific needs.
Failure to Secure Disposable Razors in Resident Room
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency was identified when a resident with moderate cognitive impairment, epilepsy, and a need for assistance with personal care was found to have a disposable razor in his restroom and a bag of 18 new disposable razors in his dresser drawer. The resident, who required partial or moderate assistance for personal hygiene due to weakness, history of spinal fractures, and poor balance, stated that he sometimes preferred to shave himself and that CNAs would provide him with a new disposable razor from his drawer when he wished to shave. During observation, a disposable razor was found on the resident's sink, and staff interviews revealed uncertainty about who placed it there and a lack of awareness of the facility's protocol regarding sharps. Further interviews with CNAs and nursing staff confirmed that facility policy required razors to be kept under lock and key in the shower room or medication cart, and that residents were not permitted to keep razors in their rooms. Despite this, the resident had access to multiple razors in his room, and staff were unaware of their presence. The DON and RN both acknowledged that the presence of razors in resident rooms was against facility policy and could result in harm if not properly controlled.
Failure to Post Oxygen Signage for Resident Receiving Oxygen Therapy
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when a resident with a history of acute and chronic respiratory failure, congestive heart failure, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, peripheral vascular disease, and type 2 diabetes mellitus was not provided with appropriate respiratory care signage. The resident, who was severely cognitively impaired, had an active order for oxygen therapy via nasal cannula at 2 liters per minute as needed for hypoxia. During observation, the resident was found receiving oxygen therapy, but there was no oxygen sign posted on the outside of the resident's door or doorframe to indicate oxygen was in use in the room. Interviews with nursing staff, including an LVN, the ADON, and the DON, confirmed that it was the responsibility of nursing staff to post the oxygen sign as soon as possible after receiving the oxygen order. The LVN acknowledged forgetting to post the sign due to being busy, and both the ADON and DON emphasized the importance of the sign for alerting staff and for safety reasons. Review of facility policy and professional standards also indicated the need to post no smoking signs when oxygen is in use.
Failure to Maintain Infection Prevention and Control Program
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain an effective Infection Prevention and Control Program, as evidenced by improper hand hygiene and glove use by staff during resident care. In one instance, an LVN washed her hands before administering G-tube medications to a female resident with a history of cerebral infarction, dysphagia, and diabetes, but then touched the privacy curtain and bed remote before donning gloves and proceeding with medication administration without sanitizing her hands. The LVN acknowledged the importance of hand hygiene, especially given the resident's G-tube as a potential entry point for infection, but did not follow proper protocol after touching potentially contaminated surfaces. In another case, a CNA provided catheter care to a male resident with chronic kidney disease and an indwelling urinary catheter. After performing initial hand hygiene and donning gloves, the CNA completed catheter care and then, without changing gloves or performing hand hygiene, proceeded to clean a bowel movement and apply a clean brief. The CNA later recognized that gloves should have been changed and hand hygiene performed between these tasks to minimize infection risk, and the DON confirmed that this was the expected standard of care. Record reviews confirmed that the facility's policies required staff to perform hand hygiene in accordance with established procedures and to adhere to standard precautions during resident care. Both staff members involved acknowledged their lapses in following these protocols during interviews, and facility leadership reiterated the importance of proper hand hygiene and glove use as outlined in their infection prevention policies.
Failure to Report Alleged Abuse in a Timely Manner
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that residents were free from verbal abuse, specifically in the case of a resident who was reviewed for abuse. The incident involved a resident who had been admitted with diagnoses including cerebral infarction, aphasia, and mild intellectual disabilities. The resident reported to a CNA that she had been hit by her nephews while out on a pass with her sister. However, the CNA did not report this allegation immediately, as required by the facility's policies. The CNA, who was responsible for the resident's care, did not communicate the resident's allegation of abuse to the appropriate authorities or facility staff in a timely manner. The CNA stated that she was busy and forgot to report the incident, and she was off work following the day of the incident. It was only upon her return to work that she reported the allegation to a nurse, who then informed the facility's Social Services and Administrator. This delay in reporting the allegation of abuse was a significant failure in the facility's duty to protect the resident from potential harm. Interviews with facility staff, including the Social Services, LVN, DON, and Administrator, revealed that the facility had protocols in place for reporting abuse, but the CNA did not follow these procedures. The facility had conducted training on abuse, neglect, and exploitation, emphasizing the importance of immediate reporting. Despite these measures, the CNA's failure to report the allegation promptly placed the resident in an Immediate Jeopardy situation, although no crime was discovered upon investigation by the police.
Verbal Abuse Incident Involving CNA
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that residents were free from verbal abuse, as evidenced by an incident involving a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) who verbally abused a resident. The CNA referred to the resident using a derogatory term in Spanish, which translates to 'my stupid pretty,' during a greeting. This incident was reported anonymously to the facility's compliance line, prompting an investigation. The resident involved in the incident was a female with a history of vascular dementia, Parkinson's disease, major depressive disorder, and schizophrenia. She was non-verbal and rarely understood others, as indicated by her quarterly MDS assessment. During an observation, the resident was seen lying in bed, listening to the radio, and not responding to questions, showing no facial expression. The investigation revealed that the CNA admitted to using the derogatory term in a joking and loving manner, believing it was well-received by the resident. However, the facility's policy defines verbal abuse as the use of disparaging and derogatory terms, regardless of the resident's ability to comprehend. The CNA's behavior was deemed inappropriate, and the facility confirmed the allegations of abuse.
Inaccurate MDS Assessments for Two Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure accurate assessments for two residents, leading to deficiencies in their care documentation. Resident #4, a male with a history of intervertebral disc disorders, Alzheimer's disease, muscle wasting, and osteoporosis, experienced a fall on 2/28/24. However, this fall was not recorded in the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, which inaccurately reflected zero falls since admission. The MDS coordinator acknowledged the oversight, stating that the fall should have been documented, although it did not affect the resident's care plan or payment level. The Director of Nursing (DON) noted that the MDS was not the primary driver for care plans, but acknowledged that missing information could impact communication if the resident was transferred to another facility. Resident #6, who was admitted with chronic kidney disease, acute pulmonary edema, and vascular dementia, had an unstageable pressure ulcer on the sacrum that was not documented in the discharge MDS. The MDS/LVN responsible for the assessment admitted to omitting this information, explaining that the MDS was primarily used for billing purposes and that the care plan was updated based on other assessments. The DON confirmed the presence of the pressure ulcer, which was attributed to constant diarrhea and skin excoriation, and noted that the facility did not have a specific policy for MDS documentation. The report highlights the facility's failure to accurately document significant health events in the MDS, which could potentially affect resident care and communication between facilities. The discrepancies in the MDS assessments for both residents were acknowledged by the staff involved, but were not seen as having immediate negative outcomes due to the presence of other care planning processes.
Failure to Adhere to Physician's Orders for Oxygen Therapy
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide appropriate respiratory care for two residents, as observed during a survey. Resident #2, diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), was found with her oxygen set at 3 liters per minute via nasal cannula, contrary to the physician's order of 2 liters per minute. Similarly, Resident #3, who has hypoxia, was observed with his oxygen set at 1.5 liters per minute instead of the prescribed 2 liters per minute. These discrepancies were noted during observations and confirmed through interviews with nursing staff, who acknowledged the deviations from the physician's orders. Interviews with the nursing staff, including an RN, LVN, ADON, and DON, revealed a lack of adherence to the physician's orders for oxygen settings. The RN admitted to noticing the incorrect settings since starting at the facility but was told by a training nurse that it was acceptable. The LVN and ADON confirmed that nurses were responsible for checking oxygen settings at the beginning and end of each shift, yet the facility lacked a specific policy on oxygen administration. The DON also confirmed the absence of a policy and emphasized the importance of following physician orders to prevent adverse reactions. The facility's medication reconciliation policy was reviewed, but it did not specifically address oxygen administration.
Inaccurate Documentation of Anticoagulant and Neurological Checks
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain complete and accurate clinical records for a resident, specifically regarding the documentation of anticoagulant medication and neurological checks following a fall. The resident, an elderly female with vascular dementia, hypertension, muscle wasting, and atrial fibrillation, was on anticoagulant therapy with Xarelto. However, LVN A inaccurately documented that the resident was not on an anticoagulant, which was contrary to the resident's care plan and medication administration records. Following an unwitnessed fall, LVN A documented the resident's neurological checks inaccurately, noting that the resident's pupils were not reactive to light initially, but later documented them as reactive. This inconsistency was not reported to the nurse practitioner, NP C, who stated that had she been informed of the resident being on an anticoagulant, she would have sent the resident to the emergency room for further evaluation. The documentation errors and lack of communication could have led to a failure in providing appropriate care. The Director of Nursing (DON) acknowledged the discrepancies in documentation and the potential negative outcomes due to poor documentation practices. The facility's policy requires accurate and timely documentation, which was not adhered to in this case. The DON admitted to not following up on the documentation regarding abnormal findings, which could have resulted in neurological damage to the resident.
Failure to Document Elopement Risks in Care Plans
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive person-centered care plans for three residents, which did not include measurable objectives and timeframes to address their risk of elopement and wandering. These residents, all with severe cognitive impairments and diagnoses such as dementia and Alzheimer's, were placed in a secure unit due to their behaviors and conditions. However, their care plans did not reflect this placement or the associated risks, which could lead to inadequate care and services. Resident #2, a female with severe cognitive impairment and a history of wandering, was placed in a secure unit due to her dementia-related behaviors. Despite meeting the criteria for secure unit placement, her care plan did not document the risk of elopement or her secure unit status. Similarly, Resident #3, also with severe cognitive impairment and a history of wandering, was placed in the secure unit, but her care plan lacked documentation of her elopement risk and secure unit placement. Resident #10, with Alzheimer's and a history of exit-seeking behaviors, was also in the secure unit, but her care plan did not reflect her risk of wandering or her secure unit status. Interviews with facility staff, including CNAs, RNs, and administrative personnel, revealed that the care plans were not updated correctly due to errors in completing a new wandering evaluation form. This form, when filled out incorrectly, resolved the care plans, removing the documentation of the secure unit placement and elopement risks. Staff acknowledged the importance of having these interventions documented in the care plans to ensure that all staff members were aware of the residents' needs and how to care for them appropriately.
Ineffective Pest Control Program Leads to Roach Infestation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program, resulting in the presence of roaches in multiple areas, including resident rooms, hallways, and the dining room. Interviews with residents and staff revealed that roaches were seen alive in various locations, and although some staff attempted to address the issue by killing the roaches and documenting sightings, the problem persisted. The pest control company was contracted to service the building monthly, but there were delays in service, and not all areas were fumigated as needed. Residents reported seeing roaches in their rooms and common areas, with some sightings occurring as recently as a week before the survey. Staff interviews indicated that while there was a process for logging pest sightings, there was uncertainty about the frequency of pest control visits and the effectiveness of the measures taken. Housekeeping staff cleaned daily, but the presence of food and crumbs in resident rooms contributed to the pest issue. The pest control program specifications outlined monthly services for interior and exterior areas, with emergency services available. However, the facility's documentation showed numerous pest sightings over several months, indicating that the pest control measures were insufficient to eradicate the problem. The lack of a comprehensive facility policy for pest control and reliance on a contracted company that did not always respond promptly contributed to the ongoing issue.
Failure to Provide Adequate Foot Care for Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate foot care for a resident, leading to a deficiency in maintaining the resident's foot health. The resident, an elderly female with severe cognitive impairment and multiple diagnoses including diabetes, had an order for podiatry services that was not fulfilled. Her toenails were observed to be overgrown, approximately an inch longer than the nailbed, indicating a lack of proper foot care. Despite having an order for podiatry services, there was no record of the resident being added to the podiatrist's visit list or consent being obtained for such services. Interviews with staff revealed a lack of awareness and communication regarding the resident's need for podiatry services. The CNA assisting the resident with bathing and dressing was unaware of the resident's diabetic condition and had not noticed the overgrown toenails. Similarly, the LVN and other nursing staff did not observe the long toenails and were unsure about the podiatrist's schedule or whether the resident had been added to the list for podiatry care. The ADON and DON acknowledged the oversight and confirmed that the resident's toenails were excessively long, but no action had been taken until the issue was brought to their attention by an investigator. The deficiency was further compounded by the absence of a specific policy for foot care, although the facility's ADLs policy included grooming and nail care. The DON admitted that the resident's foot care needs were missed due to a lack of communication and coordination among staff. The resident's toenails were eventually trimmed by an LVN after the issue was identified, but the initial failure to provide timely podiatry services and foot care represents a significant lapse in the facility's duty to maintain the resident's health and well-being.
What surveyors are citing around you — mapped
All 10 risk areas, ranked with evidence
Repeat citations, what's rising near you, and quality measures — ranked so department heads know exactly where to look first.
Illustrative
What surveyors actually found near you
We read the 169 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 8 immediate-jeopardy cases — and tell you exactly what happened, in plain English, matched to your record.
Resident with a documented fall history left unattended on the patio; found on the ground with a hip fracture.
Walk-in cooler logs missing for 12 days; expired supplements in the medication room fridge.
Illustrative
A prioritized, do-first checklist
Every risk area becomes concrete audit steps drawn from real citations at facilities like yours — run them this week, before your window opens.
Illustrative
Risk indicators are statistical estimates from public CMS data — not predictions, findings, or compliance advice.
Nursing homes near Mcallen
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Village Healthcare And Rehabilitation | 1.6 mi | ★★★★★ | 2 | 0 |
| Windsor Nursing And Rehabilitation Center Of Mcall | 3.2 mi | ★★★★★ | 5 | 0 |
| Mcallen Nursing Center | 3.3 mi | ★★★★★ | 4 | 0 |
| Grand Terrace Rehabilitation And Healthcare | 3.3 mi | ★★★★★ | 7 | 0 |
| Colonial Manor Advanced Rehab & Healthcare | 4.1 mi | ★★★★★ | 6 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Briarcliff Nursing And Rehabilitation Center.
100% money-back within 48 hours.
Trusted data, never guesswork. Every citation, penalty, rating and Plan of Correction on this page is sourced from public CMS records (latest release July 2026) and official state health department websites.