VS

Home > Nursing Homes USA > HAPPY SIESTA NURSING HOME

HAPPY SIESTA NURSING HOME

Details Rankings Comparisons Related
Compare with other Nursing Homes USA
 Compare
HAPPY SIESTA NURSING HOME VS
All other Nursing Homes USA
General
City REMSEN   vs 0% Nursing Homes USA have REMSEN
State attribute explanation IA   vs 2.7% Nursing Homes USA have IA
Street 423 ROOSEVELT STREET  
Zip Code 51050  
Phone 7127861117  
Overall Star Rating
(1.11 lower than average)
vs
3.11

Health Inspections Star Rating
(0.83 lower than average)
vs
2.83

Quality Measures Star Rating
(1.31 lower than average)
vs
3.31

Number of Certified Beds
78  (30.94 lower than average)
vs
108.94

Total Number of Residents
48  (43.25 lower than average)
vs
91.25

Percent of Occupied Beds
62 % (21.65 % lower than average)
vs
83.65 %

Health Survey Date 6/15/2012  
Fire Survey Date 6/18/2012  
Sprinkler Status Fully Sprinklered  vs 90.2% Nursing Homes USA have Fully Sprinklered
Program Participation Medicare And Medicaid  vs 91.5% Nursing Homes USA have Medicare and Medicaid
Type of Ownership Non Profit - Corporation  vs 18.7% Nursing Homes USA have Non profit - Corporation
Located Within a Hospital? No  vs 93.6% Nursing Homes USA don't have Located Within a Hospital?
Multi Nursing Home Ownership? No  vs 45.1% Nursing Homes USA don't have Multi Nursing Home Ownership?
Resident and Family Councils RESIDENT   vs 66% Nursing Homes USA have RESIDENT
Continuing Care Retirement Community? No  vs 90.9% Nursing Homes USA don't have Continuing Care Retirement Community?
Quality Indicator Survey? No  vs 68.7% Nursing Homes USA don't have Quality Indicator Survey?
Special Focus Facility? No  vs 99% Nursing Homes USA don't have Special Focus Facility?
Civil Money Penalty Count
(57.16 lower than average)
vs
58.16

Total Enforcement Actions Count
(55.31 lower than average)
vs
56.31

# of deficiencies
12  (4.52 higher than average)
vs
7.48

Staff Information
Number of Residents
48  (43.38 lower than average)
vs
91.38

Environmental Deficiencies
Deficiency #1 Scope: Some
level Of Harm: 2
deficiency: Make Sure That The Nursing Home Area Is Safe, Easy To Use, Clean And Comfortable For Residents, Staff And The Public.
survey Date: 11/23/2009
date Of Correction: 12/23/2009 

Deficiency #2 Scope: Few
level Of Harm: 3
deficiency: Make Sure That The Nursing Home Area Is Free From Accident Hazards And Risks And Provides Supervision To Prevent Avoidable Accidents.
survey Date: 11/23/2009
date Of Correction: 12/23/2009 

Deficiency #3 Scope: Few
level Of Harm: 3
deficiency: Make Sure That The Nursing Home Area Is Free From Accident Hazards And Risks And Provides Supervision To Prevent Avoidable Accidents.
survey Date: 08/25/2009
date Of Correction: 09/14/2009 

Deficiency #4 Scope: Few
level Of Harm: 2
deficiency: Make Sure That The Nursing Home Area Is Free From Accident Hazards And Risks And Provides Supervision To Prevent Avoidable Accidents.
survey Date: 05/06/2009
date Of Correction: 06/02/2009 

Resident Rights Deficiencies
Deficiency #1 Scope: Few
level Of Harm: 2
deficiency: Immediately Tell The Resident, The Resident's Doctor And A Family Member Of The Resident Of Situations (injury/decline/room, Etc.) That Affect The Resident.
survey Date: 11/23/2009
date Of Correction: 12/23/2009 

Deficiency #2 Scope: Few
level Of Harm: 2
deficiency: Honor All Of The Resident's Rights As A Resident Of The Nursing Home, Free Of Coercion And Reprisal, And As A Citizen Or Resident Of The United States.
survey Date: 11/23/2009
date Of Correction: 12/23/2009 

Quality Care Deficiencies
Deficiency #1 Scope: Some
level Of Harm: 2
deficiency: Provide Activities To Meet The Interests And Needs Of Each Resident.
survey Date: 11/23/2009
date Of Correction: 12/23/2009 

Deficiency #2 Scope: Some
level Of Harm: 2
deficiency: Have Enough Nurses To Care For Every Resident In A Way That Maximizes The Resident's Well Being.
survey Date: 08/25/2009
date Of Correction: 09/14/2009 

Deficiency #3 Scope: Few
level Of Harm: 3
deficiency: Provide Necessary Care And Services To Maintain The Highest Well Being Of Each Resident .
survey Date: 08/25/2009
date Of Correction: 11/03/2009 

Deficiency #4 Scope: Few
level Of Harm: 2
deficiency: Make Sure Services Provided By The Nursing Facility Meet Professional Standards Of Quality.
survey Date: 08/25/2009
date Of Correction: 11/03/2009 

Resident Assessment Deficiencies
Deficiency #1 Scope: Few
level Of Harm: 2
deficiency: Make Sure Each Resident Receives An Accurate Assessment By A Qualified Health Professional.
survey Date: 05/06/2009
date Of Correction: 06/02/2009 

Administration Deficiencies
Deficiency #1 Scope: Some
level Of Harm: 2
deficiency: Operate And Provide Services According To Federal, State, And Local Laws And Professional Standards.
survey Date: 02/18/2011
date Of Correction: 03/18/2011 

Quality Measures Q1
Percent of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication
45.7 % (20.61 % higher than average)
vs
25.09 %

Percent of long-stay residents who lose too much weight
75.2 % (63.37 % higher than average)
vs
11.83 %

Percent of long-stay residents who have had a catheter inserted and left in their bladder
7.4 % (8.23 % lower than average)
vs
15.63 %

Percent of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection 19.4:1 % 
Percent of long-stay residents who have depressive symptoms
2.8 % (25.58 % lower than average)
vs
28.38 %

Percent of long-stay residents who were physically restrained
11.1 % (32.58 % lower than average)
vs
43.68 %

Percent of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication
75.2  (29.3 higher than average)
vs
45.90

Percent of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury
2.8 % (12.72 % lower than average)
vs
15.52 %

Quality Measures Q3
Percent of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication
46.8 % (21.41 % higher than average)
vs
25.39 %

Percent of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased
75.2 % (51.5 % higher than average)
vs
23.70 %

Percent of long-stay residents who self-report moderate to severe pain
11.2-20 % (2.9 % lower than average)
vs
14.10 %

Percent of long-stay high-risk residents with pressure ulcers
4.5 % (4.72 % lower than average)
vs
9.22 %

Percent of long-stay residents who lose too much weight
6.3 % (2.2 % lower than average)
vs
8.50 %

Percent of long-stay low-risk residents who lose control of their bowels or bladder
50 % (6.62 % higher than average)
vs
43.38 %

Percent of long-stay residents who have had a catheter inserted and left in their bladder
6 % (4.65 % lower than average)
vs
10.65 %

Percent of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection
21.6 % (12.02 % higher than average)
vs
9.58 %

Percent of long-stay residents who have depressive symptoms
4.6 % (15.26 % lower than average)
vs
19.86 %

Percent of long-stay residents who were physically restrained
8.8 % (29.73 % lower than average)
vs
38.53 %

Percent of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury
27.4 % (16.67 % higher than average)
vs
10.73 %

Percent of short-stay residents who self-report moderate to severe pain
4.8 % (19.96 % lower than average)
vs
24.76 %

Percent of short-stay residents assessed and given, appropriately, the seasonal influenza vaccine
45.3 % (36.14 % lower than average)
vs
81.44 %

Percent of short-stay residents with Pressure ulcers that are new or worsened
75 % (0.25 % higher than average)
vs
74.75 %

Percent of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication
9.1 % (8.24 % lower than average)
vs
17.34 %



Scroll To Top

saved