Sanfield Rehab & Living Center

In the surveyor’s words

From the most serious findings on record at Sanfield Rehab & Living Center, in the surveyor’s own words.

• No harm, potential for more than minimal, patternF637Jul 23, 2025

  Based on interview and record reviews, the facility failed to complete a significant change in status Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS 3.0) assessment within 14 days of a resident's admission to hospice services, for 2 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #10 [R10] and R9). 1.Review of the RAI (Resident Assessment instrument) manual directs that a significant change MDS ARD (assessment reference date) date is no later than 14th calendar day after determination that significant change occurred. Completion is the 14th calendar day after determination. On 7/22/25 at 12:16 p.m., a review of R10's clinical record was completed. R10 was admitted to Hospice on 6/27/25 and a Significant Change MDS was initiated with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 7/3/25 but was not completed. […]

• No harm, potential for more than minimal, patternF640Jul 23, 2025

  Based on record reviews, Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) reviews and interviews, the facility failed to electronically submit discharge MDS data to the State MDS database within 14 days after completion for 4 of 12 residents MDS's reviewed (Resident #2 [R2], R3, R19, R21).1. On 7/21/25, a review of R2's clinical record indicated that R2 was discharged on 6/5/25. A review of R2's discharge MDS with an ARD date of 6/5/25 indicated that assessment was due to be completed by 6/19/25 and was required to be electronically submitted to the State MDS database within 14 days after completion (7/3/25) but had not been submitted at time of review. 2, On 7/21/25, a review of R3's clinical record indicated that R3 was discharged on 6/6/25. […]

• No harm, potential for more than minimal, patternF656Jul 23, 2025

  Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that a care plan was developed in the area of Hospice care for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for Hospice (Resident #10 [R10] and R9). 1. Review of R10's clinical record stated he/she was admitted into Hospice on 6/27/25. The clinical record lacked evidence that a comprehensive care plan had been developed in the area of Hospice care that included goals and interventions. On 7/22/25 at 12:30 p.m., during an interview with the Director of Nursing the surveyor confirmed the above finding. 2. On 7/22/25, R9's clinical record was reviewed indicated R9 was admitted on Hospice on 6/22/25. […]

• No harm, potential for more than minimal, patternF565Aug 24, 2022

  Based on interviews and record review the facility failed to assist residents to organize and hold monthly Resident Council meetings for 3 of 20 residents reviewed for Resident Council. This has the potential to affect all residents in the facility. Findings: During an interview on 8/22/22 at 11:09 a.m. Resident #19 indicated that he/she does not know if the facility is having a Resident Council and has not been invited but would like to attend. Review of clinical record indicated he/she was admitted on [DATE]. During an interview on 8/22/22 at 11:45 a.m., Resident #18 indicated that he/she has never been invited to a Resident Council meeting but would attend. […]

• No harm, potential for more than minimal, patternF572Aug 24, 2022

  Based on review of resident council meeting minutes and interview, the facility failed to inform residents of his or her rights on an ongoing basis after admission for 3 of 20 Residents reviewed for Resident Rights. (#19, #18, #12) Findings: During an interview on 8/22/22 at 11:09 a.m. Resident #19 indicated that he/she has not been informed of her rights as a resident since his/her admission and does not know where to find them. Review of clinical record revealed he/she was admitted [DATE]. During an interview on 8/22/22 at 11:45 a.m., Resident #18 indicated that resident rights were given to him/her on admission but does not know where they are. […]