Oaks on Parkwood: Abuse Protection Failures - AL
The nursing assistant, identified in inspection records as NAT #17, returned to the facility the following three evenings. She clocked in at 2:51 p.m. on May 5, again at 2:59 p.m. on May 6, and again at 2:57 p.m. on May 7. She worked until nearly 11 p.m. each night. She worked with the same residents.
The resident she had abused, identified as RI #137, remained in the building the entire time.
The coworker who witnessed the abuse, CNA #16, worked a 3-to-11 shift alongside NAT #17 on May 4. She came back in the morning of May 5. She did not work May 6. She returned on May 7, clocked in at 6:57 a.m., and at some point that morning told someone what she had seen the night of May 4.
That was the first anyone in management heard of it.
The facility's executive director acknowledged the gap directly when federal inspectors interviewed him on September 25, 2025, more than a year after the incident. He said CNA #16 should have reported it immediately. He said that if any time had lapsed, the facility was not in compliance. He said they needed to keep the resident safe and have effective reporting.
He said all of this in the past tense, describing a failure that had already happened.
NAT #17 was suspended on May 7, 2024, the same day CNA #16 finally came forward. The suspension notice cited violation of abuse policy, inappropriate and unprofessional behavior toward a resident. She was terminated a week later, on May 14.
By then she had worked three additional shifts after the abuse. She had been inside the building, with residents, for portions of three separate evenings totaling roughly 24 hours of contact time, all while the facility had no idea anything had happened.
NAT #17 had been hired on February 21, 2024. She completed abuse training on February 27, less than a week after starting. She had been on staff for roughly ten weeks when she verbally abused RI #137.
The inspection that uncovered this was a complaint investigation, completed September 28, 2025. Inspectors reviewed personnel files, timecards, and conducted interviews with facility leadership. What the timecards revealed complicated the executive director's initial account.
In his first interview with inspectors, on September 25 at 2:53 p.m., the executive director described the incident as CNA #16 witnessing abuse "the night prior" to her May 7 report — placing the abuse on May 6. But CNA #16 did not work on May 6. The timecards showed she had not clocked in that day at all.
Inspectors returned to the executive director that same evening. In a follow-up interview at 6:05 p.m., he said he had reviewed the timecards again and should have checked them more carefully. He walked back his earlier account. The only date in May that CNA #16 and NAT #17 had worked the same shift together was May 4. The abuse, he now said, had to have occurred that night.
The revision mattered. It meant the gap between the witnessed abuse and the report was not one night. It was three days.
What CNA #16 did in those three days is not described in the inspection record. Whether she weighed reporting it, whether she feared something, whether she simply did not understand what was expected of her — none of that is documented. What the record shows is that she came in on the morning of May 5, worked her shift, and said nothing. She did not work May 6. She came back May 7 and eventually told someone.
The executive director said the Director of Nursing conducted a one-on-one with CNA #16 about reporting abuse. That was the disciplinary response. A conversation.
The inspection report classifies the deficiency under F0607, which covers the requirement that facilities have and implement written policies prohibiting abuse and ensuring it is reported. The level of harm is listed as minimal harm or potential for actual harm. The number of residents affected is listed as few.
RI #137 is not described further in the portion of the inspection record provided. Their age, diagnosis, and condition at the time are not included in the available narrative. What the record establishes is that they were present in the facility during the three days NAT #17 continued working, and that no one with authority to act knew what had happened to them until May 7.
The facility is located at 2625 Laurel Oak Drive in Bessemer. It carries the CMS provider identification number 015369. The inspection was completed September 28, 2025, and the report was printed April 13, 2026.
The executive director's own words, offered to inspectors more than a year after the fact, are the clearest summary of what went wrong. Any time lapsed, he said, meant they were not in compliance. They needed to keep the resident safe.
NAT #17 clocked out at 10:55 p.m. on May 6, 2024. Nobody had said a word.
Full Inspection Report
The details above represent a summary of key findings. View the complete inspection report for Oaks On Parkwood Skilled Nursing Facility from 2025-09-28 including all violations, facility responses, and corrective action plans.
Additional Resources
Data source: Official federal inspection data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).
Editorial process: AI-synthesized regulatory data, reviewed for accuracy by our editorial team.
Professional review: All content reviewed by Christopher F. Nesbitt, Sr., NH EMT & BU-trained Paralegal.
Last verified: August 4, 2026 · Our methodology
OAKS ON PARKWOOD SKILLED NURSING FACILITY in BESSEMER, AL was cited for abuse-related violations during a health inspection on September 28, 2025.
The nursing assistant, identified in inspection records as NAT #17, returned to the facility the following three evenings.
Health inspections identify deficiencies that facilities must correct. Violations range from minor documentation issues to serious safety concerns. Review the full report below for specific details and facility response.