Regency at the Park

Although we did not have many favorable things to say about this facility's overall score, it did receive a respectable nursing score of B-. Our nursing grade features a host of datapoints. The most important one is the number of hours nurses spend with residents. This place provides only 0.4 hours of nursing care per patient on a daily basis. This is a somewhat concerning figure as it is well below the national average. Despite having low quantities of nursing care, this place surprisingly fared better in some of the quality-based metrics we looked at. In fact, it scored well in the area of minimizing its residents' pressure ulcers and major falls. Many consider these areas to be indicators of the quality of nursing care. In some cases, the quality of nursing care is as important as the quantity of hours of care provided.

The second best category we gave this facility in any category came in the category of short-term care, where we gave it a grade of B-. Short-term care grades are based on the facility's quantity of skilled nursing services. This means a wide range of nursing services, spanning from registered nurses to physical and speech therapists, as well as other types of therapy. We found that this facility was below average in the two key staffing areas we assessed. In fact, it supplied fewer registered nurse and physical therapist hours per resident than most other nursing homes. It is still important to determine whether this also correlates to a lower quality of care. Lastly, we assessed the number of residents who were able to return to the community from this facility. We found that 5.2 percent of this facility's residents returned home. At most nursing homes, closer to half of their residents are able to return home so this figure is below average.

This facility earned slightly below average government inspections in recent years. We gave them a C in this area. We take several aspects of a facility's inspection report into consideration in determining our inspection grades. One of those factors is health deficiencies. You should keep in mind that the severity of deficiencies is arguably more meaningful than the quantity of deficiencies, as some of these end up being quite minor. This facility had 3 deficiencies on its inspection report, but fortunately none were in any of the categories labeled G through L. This tells you that inspectors didn't deem any of the deficiencies to present an imminent threat to patient health or safety. Finally, CMS cited this nursing home for possible abuse or neglect. Hopefully, its performance improves in the future, but until then we simply can't recommend this facility.

The last area we graded is long-term care. In this category, we gave this facility a C. Our long-term care scores are more critical for those in need of more conventional assistance related to personal care. After assessing the amount of care provided by aids and other staff, we turned to the nursing home's vaccination data. This nursing home vaccinated 93.24324 percent of its residents against pneumonia, which happens to be somewhat below what we expected but still a reasonably acceptable figure. Fortunately, this nursing home was able to limit hospitalizations. It had less than one hospitalization per 1,000 long-term resident days, which is an impressively low number.