Woodstock Nursing & Rehab Center

Although we didn't rate this facility well overall, we want to note that it received a B- for short-term care. This isn't a bad score In calculating our short-term care grades, we look at the nursing home's skilled nursing services, such as those performed by registered nurses, occupational therapists, physical therapists and other types of therapists. Our goal is to formulate a tool for sizing up the rehabilitation services of various nursing homes. We found that this nursing home was below average in the two key staffing areas we focus on. It offered fewer registered nurse and physical therapist hours per resident than most other facilities. It is still important to determine whether this is adversely impacting the quality of care. Lastly, we looked at the percentage of patients who were able to return to the community from this nursing home. We found that 5.2 percent of this facility's patients returned home. At most nursing homes, closer to half of their residents are able to return home so this figure is below average.

This nursing home's second highest area ended up being long-term care. In that area, we gave this facility a B-. For prospective residents looking for a permanent place to live rather than skilled nursing, long-term care grades are a key measure. In addition to assessing the volume of care provided by aids and other staff, we looked at the number of residents vaccinated for pneumonia. Thankfully, this facility administered the vaccine to 98.96641 percent of its patients, which is an above average datapoint. This facility was able to keep its residents out of the hospital. It had only 0.02 hospitalizations per 1,000 long-term resident days, which is an impressively low figure.

This facility earned mediocre government inspections in recent years. We gave them a grade of C in this area. We take several aspects of a facility's inspection report into consideration in determining these inspection ratings. One critical factor is deficiencies. It should be noted that the severity of deficiencies is arguably more meaningful than the quantity of deficiencies, as some of these end up being relatively minor. This place had 5 deficiencies on its inspection report, but fortunately none were in any of the categories labeled G through L. This means that it dodged the more ominous categories of deficiencies. Finally, this facility was cited by CMS for possible abuse or neglect. We would not recommend this facility under any circumstance.

The final category we looked at is nursing, which was a low point for this nursing home. We awarded this nursing home a D for nursing. Our nursing rating is based on the nursing home's level of nurse staffing. We consider both the levels of skill of those nurses and the number of hours spent with residents. With only 0.3 hours of nursing care per patient per day, this place's nurse staffing levels were quite a bit below the national average. On top of being below average in nursing hours per resident, this nursing home also had poor scores in the quality-based metrics we looked at in computing our nursing scores. We looked at the percentage of residents experiencing major falls and pressure ulcers. This facility was at about 150 percent of the national average in both of these data points. This is a bad sign when you consider that many falls and bed sores are preventable with better nursing care. These metrics pulled down this nursing home's nursing rating significantly.