Nans Pointe Rehabilitation And Nursing
NANS POINTE REHABILITATION AND NURSING in SUFFOLK, VA — inspection on October 23, 2025.
Found 5 citations. Severity: Standard violations.
Health inspections identify deficiencies that facilities must correct within required timeframes. Violations range from minor documentation issues to serious safety concerns and are subject to follow-up verification.
Inspection Findings
agencies.
staff failed to post the most recent survey results in a place readily accessible to residents, family
sign was observed in the facility lobby that read: A copy of the most recent Virginia Department of Health inspection report is available upon request.On 10/22/25 during the course of the survey on this day, no posting of survey results were observed, but the above information was listed. On 10/23/25 at approximately 10:30 am., a brief encounter was made by the administrator near the lobby concerning the survey results book.
The administrator said that the book was located in a drawer by the receptionist. A pre-exit interview was conducted on 10/23/25 at approximately 1:30 pm., the above findings were shared with the Administrator, The Corporate Consultant and the DON (Director of Nursing) and [NAME] President of Clinical Services. An opportunity was offered to the facility's staff to present additional information, but no additional information was provided.
Any deficiency statement ending with an asterisk (*) denotes a deficiency which the institution may be excused from correcting providing it is determined that other safeguards provide sufficient protection to the patients. (See instructions.) Except for nursing homes, the findings stated above are disclosable 90 days following the date of survey whether or not a plan of correction is provided.
For nursing homes, the above findings and plans of correction are disclosable 14 days following the date these documents are made available to the facility. If deficiencies are cited, an approved plan of correction is requisite to continued program participation.
LABORATORY DIRECTOR'S OR PROVIDER/SUPPLIER TITLE (X6) DATE REPRESENTATIVE'S SIGNATURE
495247 10/23/2025
Nans Pointe Rehabilitation and Nursing 200 West Constance Road Suffolk, VA 23434
During the tour on 10/21/25 at approximately 12:33 PM, a Contact Precautions sign was observed above the room number where Resident #2 resided. An interview was conducted with the Unit Manager (UM) at 12:05 PM on 10/22/25.
The UM stated that the resident's right foot wound presented with increased edema and purulent drainage; therefore, the wound care Nurse Practitioner (NP) obtained a specimen for analysis on 10/15/25.The UM further stated the resident's lab results were sent to the facility on [DATE], and Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus faecalis, and Staphylococcus epidermidis were growing in the right foot wound.
The assessment based on the wound care NP's progress note, dated 10/20/25 at 12:48 PM, stated that the resident's right foot wound was deteriorating.
The note stated that the right foot plantar wound measured 2.1 cm x 1.5 cm x 0.7 cm, had new tunneling 0.9 cm at 6 o'clock, and heavy sanguineous drainage was noted.
The right foot had various tissues, including dermis (30%), granulation tissue (60%), and epithelium (10%).The UM stated that on 10/20/25, after the NPs reviewed the lab report and collaborated about the resident's right foot wound, orders were given to start the resident on an intravenous (IV) antibiotic (Linezolid 600 mg BID for 3 days, followed by 300 mg BID as recommended by pharmacist given patient's renal function (Creatinine Clearance, 27), and to obtain a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to rule out osteomyelitis. On 10/22/25 at 12:05 PM, during the interview with the UM she stated that the resident had not received any doses of the IV antibiotic.
The recount revealed that Linezolid Intravenous Solution 600 MG/300ML (Linezolid) Was Used 600 mg intravenously twice daily for a foot infection for 3 Days.
This dose was scheduled to start at 8:00 AM on 10/21/25 and end at 8:00 PM on 10/23/25.
The UM confirmed that on 10/21/25 at 8:00 AM, the resident had IV access, and the medication was available for administration.
Still, she was unable to state why the medication was not administered. A further review revealed that on 10/21/25, the 8:00 PM dose of Linezolid was not administered because the IV had been dislodged. On 8/22/25 at 8:00 AM, the resident did not receive the antibiotic because the IV access remained dislodged. An IV was inserted on 10/22/25 at 10:32 AM, but the antibiotic was not given. A 10/22/25 nurse's note at 1:00 PM stated the resident was to start the antibiotic that day, but it was not administered. On 10/23/25, a nurse's note at 1:30 PM stated that a consulting physician recommended discontinuing the antibiotic at that time and obtaining blood cultures and labs (ESR, CRP, arterial PVLs).A final interview was conducted on 10/23/25 at approximately 1:30 PM, and the above findings were shared with the Administrator, the Director of Nursing, a Corporate Consultant, and the [NAME] President of Operations.
They had no comments and voiced no concerns regarding the above information.
495247 10/23/2025
Nans Pointe Rehabilitation and Nursing 200 West Constance Road Suffolk, VA 23434
During the tour on 10/21/25 at approximately 12:33 PM, a Contact Precautions sign was observed above the room number where Resident #2 resided. An interview was conducted with the Unit Manager (UM) at 12:05 PM on 10/22/25.
The UM stated that the resident's right foot wound presented with increased edema and purulent drainage; therefore, the wound care Nurse Practitioner (NP) obtained a specimen for analysis on 10/15/25.The UM stated the resident's lab results were sent to the facility on [DATE], and Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus faecalis, and Staphylococcus epidermidis were growing in the right foot wound.
The UM further stated that the NP was not notified of the lab results until 10/20/25, for an unknown reason.
The UM stated that the lab results are supposed to be viewable on the Point-Click-Care system dashboard, and the results should have been reported to the provider on the day they arrived at the facility.
The UM also stated that, as a backup system to prevent missing labs and other pertinent information, the overnight shift is responsible for conducting a 24-hour chart check to identify oversights.
Still, the oversight was not recognized until 10/20/25.The UM stated that after the NPs reviewed the lab report, an order was given to start the resident on intravenous (IV) antibiotics and to obtain a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to rule out osteomyelitis.A final interview was conducted on 10/23/25 at approximately 1:30 PM, and the above findings were shared with the Administrator, the Director of Nursing, a Corporate Consultant, and the [NAME] President of Operations.
They had no comments and voiced no concerns regarding the above information.
The facility's policy titled Culture and Sensitivity Lab Results, which was revised on 12/1/2022, stated at number 4b., that the 24-hour shift report may be used by nursing staff, nurse leaders, and the Infection Preventionist to identify residents who have pending lab results . 4d., report positive culture results to the physician/practitioner, including the antibiotics to which the identified pathogen is susceptible.
495247 10/23/2025
Nans Pointe Rehabilitation and Nursing 200 West Constance Road Suffolk, VA 23434
were observed entering the resident's room with a Hoyer Lift to get resident up with her wheelchair
receive a Physical Therapy (PT) evaluation on 9/19/25 and Occupational Therapy (OT) on 9/22/25.
in his August 2025 calendar indicating there were PT, OT and ST evaluations.On 10/22/25 1:15 pm., an interview was conducted with the Business Office Manager (BOM) concerning the residents' insurance.
The BOM said that the resident has had Medicare Part B. since 9/01/22, which was her therapy payor source but was pending Medicaid when she was first admitted to the facility.On 10/22/25 at approximately 2:20 pm., an interview was conducted with Minimum Data Set Coordinator (MDSC).
The MDSC said this was a standing order from 8/25/25 and that Our therapy department screens everyone that's admitted .
The MDSC also said that therapy was decided by the resident's family.On 10/22/25 at approximately 4:15 pm., an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON).
The DON said that the standing order was an admissions order that would normally be discussed in our daily meetings.
The DON also said that therapy is given if necessary and usually once a resident is admitted they are evaluated for therapy in 7-10 days.On 10/23/25 at approximately 12:45 pm., a brief meeting was conducted with the administrator, BOM, The Social Services Coordinator and with the Corporate [NAME] President of Operations (VPOO).
The VPOO said they missed the order to pick her up. A pre-exit interview was conducted on 10/23/25 at approximately 1:30 pm., the above findings were shared with the Administrator, The Corporate Consultant and the DON (Director of Nursing) and [NAME] President of Clinical Services. An opportunity was offered to the facility's staff to present additional information, but no additional information was provided.
495247 10/23/2025
Nans Pointe Rehabilitation and Nursing 200 West Constance Road Suffolk, VA 23434
During the tour on 10/21/25 at approximately 12:33 PM, a Contact Precautions sign was observed above the room number where Resident #2 resided. An interview was conducted with the Unit Manager (UM) at 12:05 PM on 10/22/25.
The UM stated that the resident's right foot wound presented with increased edema and purulent drainage; therefore, the wound care Nurse Practitioner (NP) obtained a specimen for analysis on 10/15/25.
The UM further stated the resident's lab results were sent to the facility on [DATE], and Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus faecalis, and Staphylococcus epidermidis were growing in the right foot wound. Resident #2 had a roommate with a PEG tube, but no signage was posted for Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) for this resident.
The UM was asked whether the two residents were cohorted in accordance with recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and she answered yes.
The UM offered no reason for not posting Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) signage for the roommate who had a PEG tube. EBP signage is required in nursing homes to alert staff to wear gowns and gloves when performing high-contact care activities with all residents who are at higher risk of acquiring or spreading an MDRO.
These include the following residents: residents known to be infected or colonized with an MDRO; residents with an indwelling medical device, including a central venous catheter, urinary catheter, feeding tube (PEG tube, G-tube), tracheostomy/ventilator regardless of their MDRO status, and residents with a wound, irrespective of their MDRO status. (PowerPoint Presentation). On 10/22/25 at approximately 1:40 PM, the UM stated that she had made a mistake and that, after speaking with the Infection Preventionist (IP) about the two residents' cohorting, the IP stated that they should not remain together.
The UM stated that Resident #2 should have been isolated; therefore, they had moved the roommate to another room and placed an EBP sign at his door.A final interview was conducted on 10/23/25 at approximately 1:30 PM, and the above findings were shared with the Administrator, the Director of Nursing, a Corporate Consultant, and the [NAME] President of Operations.
They had no comments and voiced no concerns regarding the above information. In an age of increasing antimicrobial resistance, evidence shows that the traditional use of contact precautions in nursing homes is not reasonable for most residents to prevent multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) transmission.
Contact precautions require room restrictions and are generally intended to be time-limited.
Citing the inability to restrict residents to their rooms and negatively impacting their quality of life, the Health?care Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee published a white paper, Consideration for the Use of Enhanced Barrier Precautions in Skilled Nursing Facilities.1 Released in June 2021; the report noted that more than 50% of nursing home residents may be colonized with an MDRO. (Updated CMS Recommendations for Infection Prevention in Long-Term Care | Infection Control Today)The facility's Infection Prevention and Control policy, with a revision date of 12/1/2022, stated at number 2 that all staff are responsible for following all policies and procedures related to the program.
Frequently Asked Questions
More Reports
Source: This inspection report was downloaded directly from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) via Medicare.gov. CMS releases nursing home inspection reports in bulk. The findings reflect what state surveyors documented in the official Form CMS-2567 Statement of Deficiencies on the date of the inspection.
Plan of correction not included: The CMS report we receive does not include the facility's plan of correction. Facilities submit plans of correction separately to their state survey agency and those responses may not appear in CMS public data at the time of release. The absence of a plan of correction in this report does not mean one was not filed. Readers who want information about corrective steps taken by the facility are encouraged to contact the facility or their state survey agency directly.
Corrections may have been made: This report reflects conditions observed on the date of the survey. The facility may have implemented staffing changes, additional training, policy revisions, or other corrective actions since this report was issued. We publish what CMS provides and encourage readers to seek current information from the facility.