The Shores Post-Acute

Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure two of two residents (Resident 1 and Resident 2) had preventative measures in place to prevent elopement when:An elevator that led to the facility basement was easily accessible to residents. Certified nursing assistant (CNA) 5 did not know what a Code [NAME] (emergency plan when a resident goes missing) was. The Exit Monitoring Logs were not consistently completed once a shift by maintenance staff. The Safety and Security Reminder In-service dated 6/30/26 had inaccurate information. Q (every)15-30-minute elopement monitoring logs for Resident 1 had missing documentation. [...]

Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop a resident-specific care plan for one of four residents (Resident 3) when the interdisciplinary team (IDT) did not identify Resident 3's areas of incompatibility with potential roommates. As a result of this deficient practice, Resident 3 and Resident 4 (who were roommates) were verbally aggressive with each other which then led to a physical altercation.

Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to honor the rights for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) when the facility would not accept Resident 1 back after a visit to the Emergency Department. This failure violated Resident 1's rights per facility policy, and had the potential for Resident 1 to not receive continuity of care.

Inspectors wroteBased on the interview and record review, the facility failed to report to the Department an unusual occurrence when a resident was known to had Legionnaires' disease (LD- a serious lung infection) for one of the three sampled residents (Resident 1). This failure resulted in a delay by the Department in beginning their investigation.

Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, the facility failed to use the correct Personal Protective Equipment (PPE- specialized clothing or gear worn by healthcare workers to protect themselves and patients from infections and hazards) for one (Resident 10) of 12 sampled residents on contact/droplet precautions for Influenza (a contagious respiratory infection). This failure had the potential to spread Influenza virus to staff and residents.

Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's right to access and manage their personal funds for one of one resident (Resident 1) when money entrusted to the facility for safekeeping was reported missing. This failure resulted in Resident 1 being unable to access their own money and placed all residents at risk for financial loss due to inadequate protections. FINDINGSOn 3/4/26 8:50 A.M., a joint interview was conducted with the Administrator (ADM) and Director of Nursing (DON). The ADM stated that Resident 1 had deposited $1000 cash into the safe on 9/25/25 through the social services office. The ADM stated the money was logged in correctly. The ADM stated that when Resident 1 went to withdraw his money from the safe on 2/17/26, the money was missing and there was no documentation that a withdrawal of the money had been made. [...]

Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to develop a baseline care plan (detailed plan with information about a resident's treatment, goal, and interventions) for one of one sample resident related to a resident's (Resident 1) high risk of wandering/ elopement (when a resident leaves the facility without staff knowledge or supervision). As a result, the lack of a resident centered care plan with interventions had Resident 1 successfully eloped and unsafely wandered out of the facility on 11/5/25. Cross Reference: F 689Findings: On 11/5/25, the Department received a facility reported incident related to quality of care and resident safety. On 11/6/25, an unannounced onsite to the facility was conducted. On 11/6/25, a review of Resident 1's clinical record was conducted. [...]

Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure adequate supervision during an outpatient appointment for one of one sample resident (Resident 1) when: 1. A Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1 did not set eyes on a resident (Resident 1) while escorting the resident on 11/5/25 to her outpatient appointment. Resident 1 was under conservatorship (when a judge appoints another person to act or make decisions for the person who needs help), who was placed in a lock unit (a locked, secure area designed specifically for residents with a risk of wandering) in the skilled nursing facility (SNF). Resident 1 wandered out of the SNF and was not found for more than 24 hours. 2. [...]

Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure documents were entered into residents' medical records in a timely manner when coordination of care was not documented for one of three residents (Resident 1) reviewed for discharge process. These failures had the potential to result in an ineffective transition of care between facilities.

Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement an effective discharge planning process for one of three residents (Resident 1) reviewed for discharge. As a result, Resident 1 was re-hospitalized due to ineffective discharge planning and care-giver support related to care.

Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement care plans for four of 38 sampled residents (264, 283, 95, 145) when: 1. A care plan for potential fluid overload (when a resident has too much fluid in their system) was not developed for a resident who was on fluid restrictions; 2. A care plan for safe smoking was not developed; 3. A medication patch was not removed before applying a new patch; 4. A pressure relieving mattress was not set to the correct setting; and 5. A personalized care plan for activities was not developed. These failures had a potential for inconsistent care, while approaches for interventions were not being conducted by staff.

Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure safe food handling practices when: 1. Fruit was not labeled and dated when prepared and placed in one of four refrigerators (reach-in refrigerator #1); 2. Food was not labeled and dated when placed in one of five resident refrigerators (Station 5); 3. A temperature log for one of five resident refrigerators (Station 3) was incomplete; and, 4. Dishwasher (DSWH) 1 and DSWH 2 did not perform hand hygiene after disposing trash. These failures had the potential to cause food-borne illness to residents.

Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain infection prevention practices for six of 38 sampled residents (218, 75, 65, 8, 147, 448) when: 1. Resident 218's urinary catheter tubing was in contact with the floor; 2. A wrist splint for Resident 75 was not maintained in a sanitary manner; 3. Oxygen tubings were undated for Residents 65 and 8; 4. Disposable gowns were not used for direct care of residents (147, 448) who were on Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP, infection control measures to reduce the spread of germs). These failures had the potential to spread germs to residents and staff.

Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure dignity related to the use of a urinary catheter bag (a flexible, plastic tube inserted into the body, in order to drain urine to an external collection bag) was maintained for one of three residents' (Resident 218) reviewed for dignity and resident rights. This failure had the potential for Resident 218, to feel embarrassed or humiliated when the draining urine was visible to others.

Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a written notice of transfer to a resident's responsible party (RP) and the Long-Term Care Ombudsman for one of three residents (Resident 296) reviewed for closed records. This deficient practice had the potential for the Resident 296's RP to not be aware of the resident's rights pertaining to transfers.

Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to report one of one resident's (Resident 75) sampled for a Significant Change of Condition to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS, a federal health care agency). This failure had the potential for CMS to not be informed of Resident 75's current health status.

Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to update a care plan to include a positioning aide to prevent falls for one of 38 sampled residents (273). As a result, the positioning aide may not have been used consistently among staff caring for Resident 273.

Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a low air loss (LAL) mattress (a specialized mattress designed to prevent and treat pressure related wounds) for one of two residents (Resident 105) reviewed for pressure injuries (injury to the skin caused by pressure, usually over bony areas). As a result, there was a potential for Resident 105 to develop new wounds and/or for his pressure injuries to become worse.

Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to complete a quarterly safe Smoking Assessment, and ensure a resident's meal was set to ensure safety while eating, for two of 38 sampled resident's (283, 259). As a result, residents were placed at an increased risk of injury.

Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a physician's order was followed for one of four residents observed during medication administration, when Resident 58's medication was held (not administered) without an order. This failure had the potential for Resident 58's needs to go unmet.

Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of 38 sampled residents' (145) medication was properly stored when a medication was left unattended at the bedside. This failure had the potential for medication misuse and/or unauthorized person to have access, take/use the medication wrongfully.

Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide food that accommodated resident's preferences for one of 38 sampled residents (51). This failure resulted with Resident 51 receiving coffee which was listed as a food the resident disliked.

Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to accurately document a resident's current status for two of 38 sampled residents (183, 105) when: 1. A post (after) dialysis (a procedure that removes toxins from the blood since the kidneys are unable to provide that function) assessment did not accurately reflect Resident 183's access site (a surgically created connection to the blood stream that allowed blood to be cleaned and returned to the body during dialysis), when reviewed for dialysis; 2. A low air loss mattress (pressure relieving mattress) was not accurately documented on the electronic medication administration record (eMAR) (Resident 105); This failure had to potential to not accurately represent the residents' (183, 105) current medical record.

Inspectors wroteBased on observation, and record review, the facility failed to provide at least 80 sq. ft. (square feet) per resident in 113 of 148 multiple resident rooms.

Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure facility policy related to elopement (leaving; wandering off without notice) was implemented (followed) when one resident (1) eloped from the facility. As a result, a facility-wide emergency to locate Resident 1 was not initiated immediately upon finding out that Resident 1 was missing. This failure had the potential to affect Resident 1's health and safety.

Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately transcribe an admission order for an intravenous (IV-medication given through a vein) antibiotic for one of three residents (Resident 1). This failure had the potential to result in a medication error for Resident 1.

Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide accurate dispensing of medication and controlled-drug reconciliation for two of three residents (Resident 76 and Resident 288) when: 1. Resident 76's Controlled Drug Record for Norco (a narcotic pain medication) did not match with the resident's medication administration record (MAR). 2. Resident 288 medication was not administered as ordered by the physician. These failures had the potential for loss, drug diversion (the illegal distribution or abuse of prescription drugs or their use for purposes not intended by the prescriber) and medication errors for Resident 76. In addition, Resident 288 had the potential to not receive the therapeutic level (dosage range for effectiveness) of the medication.

Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide food that was palatable, attractive, and appetizing to Resident 236, 14 confidential residents, and to 8 of 9 residents interviewed during a confidential group meeting. As a result, residents stated they did not like the food which had the potential to cause weight loss and to effect the residents' quality of life.

Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to implement their Facility Assessment (determines the resources and training necessary to care for residents competently during the day-to-day operations) as written when training on how to care for residents with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD: mental health condition triggered by a terrifying event, causing flashbacks, nightmares and severe anxiety) was not provided to all staff. This failure had the potential to affect the staff's ability to effectively identify the needs of residents with PTSD and provide the necessary care.

Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure licensed nurses (LNs) accurately documented the monitoring of potential side effects for anti-hypertensive medications (drugs used to control high blood pressure) for three of three residents (Resident 59, 131, and 236) when it had been documented that the residents were monitored for pregnancy and fetal toxicity (affects the development of a fetus potentially causing fetal death) and this had not been done. As a result, the resident's medical records did not accurately reflect care/treatment that had been provided.

Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a Minimum Data Set (MDS- an assessment tool) was accurately coded for one of eight residents (Resident 127) reviewed for MDS assessments. Resident 127's MDS did not indicate a fall had occurred. This failure had the potential for Resident 127 to receive inappropriate care due to inaccurate assessment. Findings. A review of Resident's admission Record indicated that Resident 127 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Unspecified Psychosis (an individual with thinking disorders characterized by a disconnection from reality), Dementia (a condition characterized by progressive or persistent loss of intellectual functioning), and History of falling. [...]

Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident-specific care plans were developed for two of 35 residents (Resident 131 and Resident 59) when: 1. Resident 131 did not have a written care plan developed to address his behavior of disruptive yelling. 2. Resident 59 did not have a written care plan developed to address her risk of wandering and elopement (leaving the premises unauthorized). In addition, Resident 59's elopement risk had not been assessed quarterly. As a result of this deficient practice, there was the potential for residents to not receive individualized care that met their needs.

Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a low air loss mattress (LAL - mattress that helps reduce and prevent skin breakdown by relieving pressure to skin) was set according to the physician's order for one of four residents (Resident 602) reviewed for pressure ulcers. This failure increased the risk of skin breakdown to Resident 602.

Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide an environment that promotes the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being and develop a person-centered care plan for one of six sampled residents (Resident 169) with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD: mental health condition triggered by a terrifying event, causing flashbacks, nightmares, and severe anxiety). This failure had the potential to cause Resident 169 emotional distress, and affect her physical, mental and psychosocial well-being.

Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD: mental health condition triggered by a terrifying event, causing flashbacks, nightmares, and severe anxiety) training to all staff. This failure had the potential to affect the provision of care to meet the needs of residents with PTSD.

Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of five residents (Resident 59) was free from unnecessary psychotropic medications (used to control mood, behavior, and thoughts) when: 1. Resident 59's quetiapine (a psychotropic medication, specifically an antipsychotic medication used to treat mental illness) was continued upon the resident's return from the acute care hospital without re-evaluating the appropriateness of its continued use. 2. Non-pharmacological interventions were not documented as having been attempted to manage Resident 59's behaviors related to the use of quetiapine. 3. Behavior monitoring (identified behaviors to justify the continued use of a psychotropic medication) for quetiapine was inappropriate and did not support Resident 59 in exercising her resident right to refuse care. [...]

Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that one of three sampled residents (Resident 74) received an antiarrhythmic (medication used to treat abnormal heart rhythms that are usually too fast or irregular) medication as ordered by the physician. This failure had the potential for Resident 74 to experience life threatening cardiac (heart) complications such as heart attack (the heart stops beating and is unable to supply blood flow throughout the body) or stroke (a brain attack resulting from poor blood flow to the brain).

Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review and document review, the facility failed to practice effective infection control for one of 36 sampled residents (Resident 251), when Resident 251's bathroom floor was soiled with feces (bowel movement) for approximately five to six hours. This failure had the potential to spread infection amongst residents, staff, and facility visitors.

Inspectors wroteBased on observation, and record review, the facility failed to provide at least 80 sq. ft.(square feet) per resident in 113 of 148 multiple resident rooms.

Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a safe, functional, and sanitary environment for residents who receive food from the kitchen, and all staff who access the kitchen when a sewage backflow flood was observed in the kitchen. The facility prepared and served resident breakfast meals from the kitchen during the sewage flood backflow in the basement, which affected the kitchen. The facility's failure to ensure safe and sanitary conditions in the kitchen due to plumbing backflow sewage flood, had the likelihood for contaminated microorganisms (tiny bacterial organisms) to come into contact with the residents' food and could have led to widespread foodborne illnesses for 247 residents who received food prepared in the kitchen.

Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure overall systematic operations was effectively executed for its food and nutrition services department when: 1. A resident with a 10.4% significant weight loss in six months was not consistently monitored. 2. Facility Menus were not approved by the RD, and the emergency menus and recipes were not followed as printed. (fortified diet) 3. Evening nourishments were not consistently offered to all residents at bedtime. 4. The kitchen environment was unsanitary and unsafe with open ceiling holes and uncovered and broken floor tiles were exposed in the walk in refrigerator and Pots & pans, 5. Kitchen staff competence issues- thermometer calibration, dish machine and red bucket sanitizer strength levels. [...]

Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and facility document review, the facility failed to ensure the competency of the Food and Nutrition Services Director (FNDS) and Registered Dietitian 1 (RD 1) when multiple issues relating to a safe and sanitary kitchen environment, serving food preferences and appropriate texture of food, and staff competency for using the dish machine were identified. This failure had the potential for decreased nutrient intake for 2 residents; as well as the potential for contamination of food, equipment, utensils leading to food borne illness and/or spread of disease for 264 residents who received food from the kitchen out of a facility census of 267.

Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen staff carried out the tasks of the food and nutrition services department in accordance with the standard of practice for the following kitchen competencies: 1. Kitchen staff did not know how to calibrate food thermometers. 2. Kitchen staff did not follow the facility policy and procedure for fortifying resident diets. 3. Kitchen staff did not follow the facility policy and procedure for liquefied pureed diet for residents. 4. Kitchen staff did not know the quaternary ammonium concentration of the kitchen sanitizer buckets. 5. Kitchen staff did not wash cantaloupe in a safe manner prior to serving. 6. A kitchen dishwasher did not know how to correctly test PPM concentration of the dishwashing solution with the chlorine test strip. [...]

Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interviews, and record review, the facility failed to follow the recipes and therapeutic menus as planned and printed, according to facility policy. This failure had the potential to result in weight loss of 247 of 258 residents who consumed food from the kichen due to reduced food intake, which could have resulted in a decline in activities of daily living, and may have further compromised their nutritional status.

Inspectors wroteBased observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure proper safe and sanitary food practices, storage, and sanitation requirements were met when: 1. The walk-in freezer had 10 ice cream boxes stacked directly onto the floor area 2. The walk-in refrigerator #2 had a circulation fan unit detached from the ceiling and had unidentifiable black substance mixed with rust; an exposed piece of pipe connected to the ceiling with rust on it; exposed open ceiling holes without covering; 2 large holes open uncovered by the entrance door and freezer entrance door; and several dirty clear plastic cool air strips laying on top of a food cart. 3. No air gaps under the Food prep /produce wash sink or under the three compartment sinks in pots and pans room. 4. [...]

Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance (QA) committee failed to identify, develop, and implement plan of action related to infection control practices between the green zone (unit for unaffected residents with no COVID-19 (a highly contagious virus) exposure, and red zone (unit for residents with positive COVID-19) (Refer to F880). This failure had the potential to put residents and staff at risk for COVID-19 infections.

Inspectors wrote2. Resident 27 was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included end stage renal disease (inability for the kidneys to filter blood) with dependence of renal dialysis (a machine which filters the blood of toxins and fluid), per the facility's admission Record. On 2/14/22 at 8:56 A.M., an observation was conducted in the facility's north/west hallway. Resident 27's room was at the end of the hallway, close to an exit door, labeled for dialysis transport. Resident 27's room had a bright yellow cart outside the door entrance, which contained three drawers of PPE supplies. A sign was posted on the outside door frame indicating what PPE was required when entering the room. The required equipment had check marks next to face mask, face shield, gown, and gloves. On 2/14/22 at 8:57 A.M., an interview was conducted with Resident 27 in her room. [...]

Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure all residents were consistently offered evening bedtime nourishments and snacks according to facility policy. This failure had the potential to negatively affect nutrition status and wellbeing of all residents. The facility census was 258.

Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to implement their policy and procedure related to food brought from the outside to residents for 2 of 5 residents' refrigerators when the food inside the refrigerators were not labeled or dated, and expired food was not discarded. This failure had the potential to expose the facility's residents to unsafe food storage practices which could lead to foodborne illness.

Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure privacy and dignity was provided to three of five residents when: 1. Resident 188 did not have shower as scheduled; 2. CNA 12 did not knock or announce herself before entering the residents' room (86); and 3. Resident 59 was provided personal care while in the dining room with others present. These failures had the potential to lower the self esteem and self-worth for Resident 188, Resident 86, and Resident 59.

Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure three of five residents (59) reviewed for privacy, was provided with privacy, when Resident 59's personal care was conducted in the dining room in front of other residents. This failure had the potential to devalue the resident's self-esteem and self-worth.

Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure two of 38 sampled residents (218, 59) care plans were implemented related to: 1. Resident 218's turning, and repositioning; and 2. Resident 59's privacy related to blowel and bladder care. These failures had the potential for decline in skin prevention for Resident 218 and a decline in toilet training for Resident 59.

Inspectors wrote2. Resident 224 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including diabetes (abnormal blood sugar), unspecified open wound on resident's scrotum, cellulitis (skin infection) of the buttocks, per the facility's admission Record. Resident 224's clinical records was reviewed. The MDS (an assessment tool), dated 2/5/22, under Skin Conditions indicated there was an unhealed Stage II pressure ulcer (characterized by partial-thickness loss of dermis presenting as a shallow open ulcer with a red-pink wound bed without slough) on admission, open lesions, and Moisture Associated Damage (MASD), and that the resident needed pressure ulcer care. Per the physicians order, May have LAL for wound management/preventative measures. Check placement and functionality, every shift . [...]

Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive and effective systematic approach was implemented to monitor and maintain acceptable parameters of nutritional status for one of 38 sampled resident's (Resident 39's) when: 1. The facility failed to implement a physician's order for fortified milk, health shake, yogurt (those were food items used as nutritional interventions for weight loss) and 2 bowls of soup. 2. The facility failed to ensure a resident with significant unplanned weight loss was monitored effectively as per facility Policy and standard of care. Resident 39 experienced unplanned 20.17 percent weight loss in a year that was not monitored effectively as per facility Policy and standard of care. As a result, Resident 39 had an unplanned significant weight loss.

Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of two sampled residents (39) were free from unnecessary drugs. This failure had the potential to negatively impact the resident's well-being.

Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that there was adequate indication for the use of a psychotropic medication (used to stabilize or improve mood, mental, status, or behavior) for one of five residents (Resident 95) reviewed for unnecessary use of medication. This failure had the potential for Resident 95 to be exposed to the psychotropic medication side effects which could adversely affect the Resident 95's behavior and well-being.

Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the appropriate food textures were provided when one of 4 residents (Residents 39) with Fortified liquefied pureed diet order (a diet in liquid form that requires no chewing for one who has difficulty chewing and/ or swallowing) had lumps in their breakfast oatmeal, Chocolate chip bar dessert and pudding. This failure had the potential to place the resident at risk of choking and aspiration and decrease nutritional status.

Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and facility document review, the facility failed to: 1. provide a substitute entree of similar nutritive value and provide a vegetarian diet when a resident (Resident 1) had a documented preference for a vegetarian diet; and 2. serve the proper consistency food and preference of food to 1 resident (Resident 2). This failure had the potential for two residents (Resident 1 and 2) to consume fewer nutrients than indicated for the approved menu and for one resident (Resident 2) to not tolerate the consistency of food provided resulting in choking, out of 264 residents who received food from the kitchen.

Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of one sampled resident (218) turning, and repositioning was accurately documented in the resident's medical record. These failures had the potential to cause miscommunication of the care provided to Resident 218 and to the other health care providers.

Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a hospice calendar was in the resident's hospice binder for one of five residents (20) reviewed for hospice. This failure had the potential for miscommunication and lack of collaboration with the hospice agency related to Resident 20's care.

Inspectors wroteBased on observation, and record review, the facility failed to provide at least 80 sq. ft.(square feet) per resident in 113 of 148 multiple resident rooms.