Resident 37 voiced concern during a September 29 interview that she "did not always receive" her scheduled showers. Facility shower sheets confirmed her complaint. Between September 1 and September 29, she received showers on only September 5 and September 19, with one documented refusal on September 23.
The Director of Nursing acknowledged the documentation gaps during her own interview with inspectors. She confirmed Resident 37 should receive bathing assistance twice weekly but admitted the facility records showed only three completed showers and one refusal across the entire month.
A second resident faced similar hygiene neglect. Resident 92, admitted in January with necrotizing fasciitis and other serious medical conditions, required substantial to maximum staff assistance with bathing according to his August assessment. Despite being cognitively intact, he depended entirely on staff for toilet hygiene and needed significant help with transfers.
His shower schedule fell apart in August. Documentation showed he missed his scheduled August 7 shower because the facility was "short staffed." When inspectors interviewed him on September 22, he confirmed the ongoing problems.
"He didn't get his showers as scheduled and they don't shave his face with showers," according to the inspection report. The resident told inspectors "his face had not been shaved in several days."
Inspectors observed facial hair stubble during their interview, confirming his account. The facility's shower sheets contained no documentation about whether staff had shaved Resident 92 at all.
The Director of Nursing confirmed to inspectors three days later that Resident 92 had indeed missed his scheduled August 7 shower.
Both violations occurred despite the facility's written policy promising comprehensive hygiene care. The Activities of Daily Living policy stated that residents unable to carry out tasks independently "would receive the services necessary to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene."
The policy specifically defined hygiene to include "bathing, dressing, grooming, and oral care."
The inspection was part of a complaint investigation that encompassed eight separate complaint numbers filed against the facility. Federal inspectors classified the hygiene violations as causing "minimal harm or potential for actual harm" to residents.
Resident 92's medical complexity made the hygiene lapses particularly concerning. His diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, left spastic hemiplegia from cerebral infarction, and bipolar disorder in addition to the necrotizing fasciitis that brought him to the facility.
The August quarterly assessment had documented his cognitive abilities as intact, meaning he was fully aware of the missed showers and inadequate grooming care he was receiving.
For Resident 37, the shower documentation revealed an inconsistent pattern stretching across weeks. Her September 5 shower was followed by a two-week gap before her September 19 shower. The September 23 refusal was noted, but no makeup shower was documented despite facility policy requirements.
The staffing shortage cited for Resident 92's missed August shower highlighted broader operational issues. Short staffing affected direct resident care, leaving cognitively intact residents aware they weren't receiving promised services.
Both residents' experiences illustrated how documentation gaps often reflect actual care failures. The shower sheets that should have tracked regular hygiene care instead revealed weeks-long interruptions in basic services.
The investigation found that promised twice-weekly showers became sporadic events, with residents going extended periods between baths. For Resident 92, the lack of shaving documentation suggested grooming care had essentially stopped.
When inspectors observed his facial stubble during the September 22 interview, they were seeing the visible result of systemic hygiene neglect that had persisted for days.
The facility's hygiene policy promised services to maintain good grooming and personal care for residents unable to perform these tasks independently. Both Resident 37 and Resident 92 required substantial staff assistance, making them entirely dependent on facility compliance with its own standards.
Instead, they experienced missed showers, inadequate grooming, and the daily reality of unmet basic needs that their assessments had identified as requiring consistent staff support.
Full Inspection Report
The details above represent a summary of key findings. View the complete inspection report for New Lebanon Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center from 2025-09-30 including all violations, facility responses, and corrective action plans.
Additional Resources
- View all inspection reports for New Lebanon Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center
- Browse all OH nursing home inspections