A central Iowa care facility has been cited by the state for an unrepaired roof and longstanding structural issues that have reportedly left rainwater leaking into the building over the past two years.
Bishop Drumm Retirement Center in Johnston was recently cited by the state for 18 state and federal health care violations. The Iowa Department of Inspections, Appeals and Licensing fined the home a total of $500.
State inspectors visited the 110-resident facility in June and reported that the facility’s roof had not been fixed since it was damaged in the derecho of August 2020. The air vents, ceiling tiles, fire sprinklers, duct work and cupboards in hallways and inside resident rooms were marked by “a black substance,” the inspectors reported. Ceiling tiles in the dining room were wet with rain from days before, and in the activities room, buckets had been deployed to capture rainwater for the past two years, and the ceiling above the nurses’ station was bowed.
People are also reading…
“A strong, musty, damp odor was smelled throughout the facility,” inspectors reported. “Dried water marks were identified throughout the facility walls.”
According to inspectors, the facility’s own records indicated the walls of the care facility were 100% saturated with water, with wood wall joists “sitting in water” along with wet insulation. The inspectors observed a black substance on the ceiling in one room and on duct work in another, and noted that each of the two rooms housed two residents.
When asked about the state of the building, the home’s administrator allegedly told inspectors the air quality in the home was good and the structure was “just fine.”
However, the facility’s maintenance manager reported he had been working on bids to repair the 43-year-old roof for all of the two years he had been employed there. The facility had received “multiple bids” to have the work performed, inspectors said, but hadn’t contracted with anyone. In addition, inspectors said, emails showed the maintenance manager had informed the administrator that the building was in very poor condition and that a contractor needed to be hired to address the structural damage.
Bishop Drumm’s activities director allegedly told inspectors that at one point she had asked the maintenance staff who was going to fix the problems and was told that no one was going to do it. When one walked across the activities room, she told inspectors, the floor was so wet it would “squish” underfoot.
In addition to the structural issues, Bishop Drumm was cited for insufficient nursing staff, failure to develop comprehensive care plans for residents, failure to deliver the minimum quality of care, failure to keep the home free of accident hazards, failure to provide food that is palatable and at the appropriate temperature, inadequate infection control and several other violations.
One resident complained that after she returned to the home from a hospital stay in January, an aide told her that she was at Bishop Drumm to die and needed to “get the job done.” In speaking to inspectors, the director of nursing reported the aide admitted telling the woman that if she tried to lie down, she shouldn’t expect any help getting back up. Another resident tearfully told inspectors that a worker made her feel like a burden and said she was afraid to complain for fear of retaliation.
With regard to the citation for insufficient staff, residents reported their call lights went unanswered for 90 minutes to two hours. Inspectors reported the facility’s director of nursing told them the home does not create or maintain electronic reports that document the length of time call lights remain unanswered.
The home was also cited for 90-degree temperatures in one of the dining rooms, with the staff explaining the air conditioner had been broken since the summer of 2022.
No fines were imposed for the violations related to insufficient staff or the structural issues. The $500 fine is tied to the home’s failure to report to the state a major injury sustained by a resident. A resident of the home had fallen out of her wheelchair while being transported back to the care facility after a dialysis appointment and had sustained a broken leg.
Bishop Drumm’s administrator, Adam Braden, could not be reached for comment Friday.
The home is operated by CHI Living Communities, an Ohio nonprofit that runs care facilities in seven states and generated $69 million in revenue last year. The organization is the senior living division of CommonSpirit Health, the largest Catholic health care system in the United States.
Tax records show CHI’s president, Prentice Lipsey, was paid $256,414 in 2022, and CommonSpirit’s president, Marvin O’Quinn, collected roughly $7 million in compensation from CommonSpirit and related organizations. Calls and emails to CHI and CommonSpirit were not returned on Friday.
Counties with the most bridges in dire need of repair in Iowa
Counties with the most bridges in dire need of repair in Iowa
Stacker investigated which counties in Iowa have the most bridges in dire need of repair using data from the Federal Highway Administration. The data is accurate as of June 15, 2022. Counties are ranked by percent of bridges in “poor” condition and ties are broken by percent square meters of bridges in poor condition. Counties that have no bridges or have no bridges in poor condition are excluded from the list.
#20. Jasper County
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/11bf6/11bf69ee60e3f89724df4fd4247ec8c7186fd456" alt="#20. Jasper County"
– Bridges in poor condition: 30.4% (116 of 381 bridges)
– Square meters of bridges in poor condition: 12.5% (13,612 of 108,958 square meters of bridges)
#19. Clarke County
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e152f/e152f1e463e5a3aaeddb4c82dcfc3aaf7d401771" alt="#19. Clarke County"
– Bridges in poor condition: 30.8% (52 of 169 bridges)
– Square meters of bridges in poor condition: 15.0% (5,690 of 37,903 square meters of bridges)
#18. Buena Vista County
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/62f73/62f7306b1e464d848f2f08b6bb3eca4d74eb0b60" alt="#18. Buena Vista County"
– Bridges in poor condition: 31.0% (49 of 158 bridges)
– Square meters of bridges in poor condition: 21.7% (5,492 of 25,296 square meters of bridges)
#17. Winnebago County
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/547ce/547ce10f36630ed1f5a8fe7476e8529078d7fa40" alt="#17. Winnebago County"
– Bridges in poor condition: 31.7% (19 of 60 bridges)
– Square meters of bridges in poor condition: 16.4% (2,176 of 13,286 square meters of bridges)
#16. Union County
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3e179/3e179cb74d674d8d7b83f0fac45b546c180659a3" alt="#16. Union County"
– Bridges in poor condition: 31.8% (55 of 173 bridges)
– Square meters of bridges in poor condition: 12.4% (4,837 of 39,144 square meters of bridges)
#15. Sac County
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d805d/d805d484d12e58815eeabb0f5051682d07b07f18" alt="#15. Sac County"
– Bridges in poor condition: 33.0% (75 of 227 bridges)
– Square meters of bridges in poor condition: 18.3% (10,943 of 59,657 square meters of bridges)
#14. Lucas County
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f19b8/f19b81eb073abeacb73a23af709f6efd197e22cd" alt="#14. Lucas County"
– Bridges in poor condition: 33.2% (65 of 196 bridges)
– Square meters of bridges in poor condition: 16.9% (7,413 of 43,984 square meters of bridges)
#13. Cherokee County
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6f0c1/6f0c1baa8ae34fbfa68d2a19d1027480cef78467" alt="#13. Cherokee County"
– Bridges in poor condition: 33.3% (82 of 246 bridges)
– Square meters of bridges in poor condition: 21.0% (10,985 of 52,336 square meters of bridges)
#12. Appanoose County
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/81747/8174734c09e78008f5147f97f60428a488d9853d" alt="#12. Appanoose County"
– Bridges in poor condition: 33.5% (62 of 185 bridges)
– Square meters of bridges in poor condition: 26.7% (10,555 of 39,544 square meters of bridges)
#11. Tama County
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d96ba/d96ba02098607fa9cf25b6ffc099106af49cbf7a" alt="#11. Tama County"
– Bridges in poor condition: 33.6% (114 of 339 bridges)
– Square meters of bridges in poor condition: 25.9% (22,629 of 87,388 square meters of bridges)
#10. Cass County
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fdeb8/fdeb8deefe92a8ef38eed9e1ac36ee23cb790b27" alt="#10. Cass County"
– Bridges in poor condition: 34.4% (101 of 294 bridges)
– Square meters of bridges in poor condition: 20.6% (18,843 of 91,597 square meters of bridges)
#9. Guthrie County
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d3af7/d3af795952bd6ca80aaa28562e0daf92a7e9cc16" alt="#9. Guthrie County"
– Bridges in poor condition: 35.4% (93 of 263 bridges)
– Square meters of bridges in poor condition: 25.5% (15,353 of 60,263 square meters of bridges)
#8. Mahaska County
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/cb77c/cb77cf2d32e71148539e58bcfd7b10e5162eff62" alt="#8. Mahaska County"
– Bridges in poor condition: 37.9% (86 of 227 bridges)
– Square meters of bridges in poor condition: 19.1% (12,796 of 67,008 square meters of bridges)
#7. Madison County
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/18f26/18f26b4a7d523883a6c699277c8e211c11a3cc72" alt="#7. Madison County"
– Bridges in poor condition: 38.2% (86 of 225 bridges)
– Square meters of bridges in poor condition: 26.3% (13,097 of 49,778 square meters of bridges)
#6. Taylor County
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9afe9/9afe9038ce66fb69de13753f84ab7eb6843afa55" alt="#6. Taylor County"
– Bridges in poor condition: 38.5% (87 of 226 bridges)
– Square meters of bridges in poor condition: 27.8% (12,786 of 46,008 square meters of bridges)
#5. Decatur County
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/dda8b/dda8ba31184bb7132defd28b1781025666409b93" alt="#5. Decatur County"
– Bridges in poor condition: 40.7% (83 of 204 bridges)
– Square meters of bridges in poor condition: 26.8% (17,358 of 64,720 square meters of bridges)
#4. Marshall County
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a3e9e/a3e9e622c19f7378b706a82327e97cd4a2d06472" alt="#4. Marshall County"
– Bridges in poor condition: 41.4% (126 of 304 bridges)
– Square meters of bridges in poor condition: 25.3% (29,461 of 116,356 square meters of bridges)
#3. Poweshiek County
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f6cb5/f6cb5529ae729359ac25d696ef735265787771af" alt="#3. Poweshiek County"
– Bridges in poor condition: 42.3% (104 of 246 bridges)
– Square meters of bridges in poor condition: 26.7% (15,440 of 57,785 square meters of bridges)
#2. Adams County
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ee16a/ee16aa5d3884931217038d9c3b8e64c2a1d78941" alt="#2. Adams County"
– Bridges in poor condition: 42.5% (79 of 186 bridges)
– Square meters of bridges in poor condition: 28.2% (10,689 of 37,855 square meters of bridges)
#1. Ringgold County
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a1426/a1426db65af789386135c8651d333d7e3d5981f2" alt="#1. Ringgold County"
– Bridges in poor condition: 43.8% (98 of 224 bridges)
– Square meters of bridges in poor condition: 31.0% (13,280 of 42,869 square meters of bridges)