Greenway Manor: Abuse Response Violations - WI

A certified nursing assistant at Greenway Manor, identified in inspection records as CNA D, stood accused of abusing a resident during whirlpool baths. The facility had learned of it. They had pulled CNA D from the floor. They had talked to a few people. And then, according to the Director of Nursing's own account to a federal surveyor on December 23, 2025, they had not reported it to state authorities within the two-hour window that the Director of Nursing herself acknowledged was required.

The surveyor asked DON B directly: when should the allegation have been reported to the state?

"The day it occurred within two hours," DON B said.

It had been three weeks.

The inspection that day, a complaint survey, pulled back the curtain on what Greenway Manor's investigation actually looked like — and what it didn't. The picture that emerged was of a facility that had done the minimum visible steps, the ones that look like a response, while leaving the most protective measures undone.

CNA D had been removed from the floor. Two residents had been interviewed: the resident at the center of the allegation, identified as R1, and one other resident on the same hall, R2. The Director of Nursing told the surveyor those were the only two residents on that hall capable of communicating who had received whirlpool baths from CNA D. The surveyor asked whether all residents should have been interviewed anyway. DON B said yes.

They hadn't been.

The surveyor asked whether all staff should have been interviewed. DON B's answer was narrower: the facility had only spoken with CNAs who had direct knowledge of the alleged incident. Not the broader staff. Not the people who might have seen something adjacent to it, or heard something, or noticed a change in a resident's behavior or condition.

Then came the question about education. After an allegation of abuse surfaces in a facility, staff are supposed to be educated on abuse reporting. The surveyor asked DON B whether that education had been provided to all staff. DON B said it had been done verbally.

There was no documentation.

DON B did not try to argue around that. "If not documented," DON B told the surveyor, "it was not done."

That sentence, offered by the facility's own Director of Nursing, became the inspection report's quiet center of gravity. It was an acknowledgment that the education, whatever form it took, left no trail. No sign-in sheets. No training records. Nothing a surveyor, a family member, or a future investigator could point to and say: on this date, these staff members were told what to do when they witness or suspect abuse.

The surveyor then asked about skin checks. When a resident is alleged to have been abused, a facility should conduct a full sweep, examining residents for signs of injury. DON B confirmed that skin checks had been completed, but described them as the residents' routine weekly assessments, not a targeted house-wide review triggered by the allegation. The surveyor asked specifically: had a house sweep of skin assessments been completed on all residents after the abuse allegation came in?

DON B said no.

That gap matters. Whirlpool baths involve physical contact, undressing, and positioning. If CNA D had abused one resident in that setting, the question of whether other residents had been harmed was not abstract. It was the central protective question the investigation existed to answer. A targeted skin assessment sweep is one of the basic tools for answering it. Greenway Manor had not used it.

The Nursing Home Administrator, NHA A, was interviewed the same afternoon. His account of what a proper investigation requires was, on its surface, reasonable. Report to the state within two hours. Complete the investigation and submit it within five days. Interview staff who are aware of what happened. Interview a sample of residents.

But the surveyor pressed him on the scope. NHA A drew a distinction between general allegations and specific ones. For a general allegation, he said, the facility would interview all residents. For a specific allegation, the approach would be narrower, more targeted to the staff involved, the resident named, and the area of the facility.

The surveyor also asked about education. NHA A said education would be provided to the staff involved in the investigation.

Not all staff. The staff involved in the investigation.

That is a narrower circle than the one DON B had described as the standard, and narrower still than what a facility-wide abuse response typically demands. If the goal of post-allegation education is to reinforce that every employee has an obligation to report what they see, limiting that education to the people already caught up in one specific incident leaves most of the building untouched.

The inspection report's finding was unambiguous: Greenway Manor failed to provide evidence that it had taken steps to prevent further abuse to R1 and other residents. The investigation was incomplete. The reporting was late. The documentation of staff education did not exist.

What the report does not answer, and cannot, is what CNA D actually did.

The inspection narrative identifies the allegation, describes the facility's response, and catalogs the failures in that response. It does not describe the nature of the alleged abuse, the condition of R1, or what R1 said when interviewed. That information sits somewhere in the investigation Greenway Manor conducted, an investigation the surveyor found to be incomplete, and in whatever records the state received, if the five-day submission deadline was met at all.

What the record does show is the shape of how the facility handled the moment when a resident's safety was most at stake. CNA G had told someone. The facility found out. Three weeks passed. A surveyor arrived on a complaint inspection and started asking questions. The Director of Nursing, to her credit, answered them honestly, including the admissions that hurt most: that not all residents had been interviewed, that not all staff had been interviewed, that the education couldn't be proven, that the skin sweep hadn't happened.

Those admissions are not nothing. Facilities under inspection sometimes deflect, qualify, and contest. DON B did not. She described the standard, acknowledged the facility had fallen short of it, and said plainly that undocumented education is the same as no education.

But honest answers about failures after the fact are not the same as a functioning system of protection before and during. R1 was still a resident at Greenway Manor. Other residents who had received whirlpool baths from CNA D had not all been interviewed. Their skin had not all been assessed in response to the allegation. The staff who bathed them, fed them, and turned them in the night had not all been told, in any documented way, what they were required to do if they saw something wrong.

The surveyor closed the interview and the inspection report recorded a deficiency at the F0610 level, a citation for failure to report and investigate allegations of abuse properly. The level of harm was assessed as minimal harm or potential for actual harm. A few residents were affected.

R1 was one of them.

Full Inspection Report

The details above represent a summary of key findings. View the complete inspection report for Greenway Manor from 2025-12-23 including all violations, facility responses, and corrective action plans.

Additional Resources

• View all inspection reports for Greenway Manor
• Browse all WI nursing home inspections