Morningside Center

In the surveyor’s words

From the most serious findings on record at Morningside Center, in the surveyor’s own words.

• Actual harm, isolatedF600Jan 14, 2026

  Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to protect one resident's (Resident #2) right to be free from physical abuse when Resident #1 slapped Resident #2 on the cheek. The facility census was 52. Review of the facility's Abuse and Neglect Policy undated., showed:- The purpose is to ensure that the residents of Morningside Center are protected from any mistreatment, neglect or all types of abuse;- Alleged violation is defined as a situation or occurrence that is observed or reported by staff, resident, relative, visitor or others but has not yet been investigated and, if verified, could be noncompliance with the Federal requirements related to mistreatment, exploitation, neglect, or abuse;- Abusers may include facility staff, other residents;- Abuse is defined as any… […]

• No harm, potential for more than minimal, widespreadF812Jun 2, 2023

  Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain the kitchen in a sanitary manner, failed to ensure food items were properly labeled and dated, failed to enter temperatures on the temperature logs and failed to ensure the walk in freezer did not have ice buildup. These all have the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility. The facility census was 55. The facility did not provide any policies. Record review of the walk in freezer temperature log showed: - No entries in the morning on ,d+[DATE], ,d+[DATE], ,d+[DATE], ,d+[DATE], ,d+[DATE], ,d+[DATE], ,d+[DATE], ,d+[DATE], ,d+[DATE], ,d+[DATE], ,d+[DATE], ,d+[DATE], ,d+[DATE] and no entries in the evening on ,d+[DATE], ,d+[DATE], ,d+[DATE], ,d+[DATE]. […]

• No harm, potential for more than minimal, patternF578Mar 20, 2026

  Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Do Not Resuscitate Order's (DNR, medical order that instructs the health care provider not to do resuscitative measures if a person's heart stops) for Resident #29, Resident #13 and Resident #21 were correct when the Durable Power of Attorney's (DPOA) a legal document that authorizes a designee to manage financial or medical affairs if the person became incapacitated, name was printed on the DNR instead of the name of the resident on Resident #29's DNR, and when the facility failed to ensure that two residents (Resident #13 and Resident #21) had physician letters of incapacitation prior to the Power of Attorney designee making decisions for him/her. […]

• No harm, potential for more than minimal, patternF636Mar 20, 2026

  Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident assessments were completed accurately for two of 14 sampled residents (Resident #1 and Resident #7) when the facility failed to accurately document a diagnosis of Resident #1 and failed to accurately document a Urinary Tract Infection (UTI) for Resident #7. The facility census was 56.The facility did not provide a resident assessment or Minimum Data Set (MDS) policy. MDS is a federally mandated assessment completed by facility staff in accordance with specified formats and timelines in conducting comprehensive assessments as part of an ongoing process through which the facility identifies preferences and goals of care, functional and health status, strengths and needs. 1. […]

• No harm, potential for more than minimal, patternF656Mar 20, 2026

  Based on interview and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the resident rights that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment. When facility staff did not address UTI (urinary tract infection) with antibiotic usage for two residents (Resident #25 and Resident #14), did not address use of anticoagulant medication or therapeutic activities for one resident (Resident #52) and when dementia care had not been cared planned for one resident (Resident #29 & Resident #52). This affected four of the 14 sampled residents. […]