OAK CREST HEALTH & WELLNESS

325 SELMA ROAD, BESSEMER, AL 35020 (205) 428-9383
For profit - Limited Liability company 79 Beds ARABELLA HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT Data: November 2025 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
26/100
#174 of 223 in AL
Last Inspection: February 2023

Over 2 years since last inspection. Current conditions may differ from available data.

Overview

Oak Crest Health & Wellness has received a Trust Grade of F, which indicates significant concerns about the facility's quality of care. Ranked #174 out of 223 in Alabama, they fall in the bottom half of nursing homes in the state and #17 out of 34 in Jefferson County, meaning only a few local options are worse. The facility's performance is worsening, with the number of issues increasing from 1 in 2019 to 6 in 2023. Staffing is a concern, with a rating of 2 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 64%, significantly higher than the state average. They also face $27,279 in fines, which is higher than 92% of Alabama facilities, indicating repeated compliance problems. In terms of RN coverage, they provide an average level of care, which is not ideal since more RN coverage can catch issues that CNAs might miss. Specific incidents include a critical failure to properly respond to a resident who was found unresponsive, where CPR was not conducted according to the required standards, and concerns in the kitchen regarding cleanliness that could affect residents' meals. Overall, while there are some strengths, such as a high rating for quality measures, the weaknesses significantly overshadow them, raising concerns for families considering this facility.

Trust Score
F
26/100
In Alabama
#174/223
Bottom 22%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
1 → 6 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
64% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
$27,279 in fines. Lower than most Alabama facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 31 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Alabama. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
○ Average
8 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2019: 1 issues
2023: 6 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Below Alabama average (2.9)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Staff Turnover: 64%

18pts above Alabama avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $27,279

Below median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

Chain: ARABELLA HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is elevated (64%)

16 points above Alabama average of 48%

The Ugly 8 deficiencies on record

2 life-threatening
Feb 2023 6 deficiencies 2 IJ (1 facility-wide)
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0678 (Tag F0678)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interviews, and review of a facility policy titled Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR), the Emergency Me...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interviews, and review of a facility policy titled Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR), the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) run report, and the American Heart Association (AHA) Adult Basic Life Support (ABLS) Algorithm for Health Care Providers, the facility failed to ensure CPR response was provided in accordance with facility policy and in accordance with the AHA ABLS Algorithm for Health Care Providers for Resident Identifier (RI) #58 on [DATE], when Employee Identifier (EI) #4, a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), found RI #58 unresponsive and alerted the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), EI #3, around 9:59 PM. EI #3, the LPN, without knowing RI #58's code status, said he began chest compressions and continued, without providing rescue breaths, until about 10:14 PM, when he stopped to go find out RI #58's code status and to make phone calls to the resident's representative and the Director of Nursing (DON). EI #3 failed to call out for assistance from other staff who were in the building, including EI #5, Registered Nurse (RN)/House Supervisor, who was on duty at the time of the occurrence. EI #3 further failed to call EMS until 10:44 PM, approximately 45 minutes after RI #58 was found unresponsive. No code was ever announced and the facility crash cart was not utilized. EMS arrived at the facility at 10:52 PM. RI #58 was pronounced deceased on [DATE] at 11:12 PM after EMS interventions. This deficient practice placed RI #58, one of three sampled residents reviewed for the provision of CPR, in immediate jeopardy, as it was likely to result in serious injury, serious harm, serious impairment or death. On [DATE] at 6:49 PM, EI #1, the facility Administrator; EI #2, the DON; EI #14, the [NAME] President of Clinical Operations; and EI #15, the Director of Operations were given a copy of the Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) template and notified of the findings of substandard quality of care at the IJ level in the area of Quality of Life, at F678-Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR). Findings include: On [DATE] the State Survey Agency received a third-party complaint involving concerns with inconsistencies in the timeline of events related to RI #58's death. Per the complainant, there was a delay in contacting EMS after RI #58 was found unresponsive on [DATE]. A facility policy titled, Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR), last revised [DATE], documented: Policy: It is the policy of this facility to adhere to residents' rights to formulate advance directives. In accordance to these rights, this facility will implement guidelines regarding cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 1. The facility will follow current American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines regarding CPR a. Verify scene safety b. Check for responsiveness c. Call out for staff assistance d. Call 9-1-1 2. If a resident experiences a cardiac arrest, facility staff will provide basic life support, including CPR, prior to the arrival of emergency medical services, and: a. In accordance with the resident's advance directives, or b. In the absence of advance directives or a Do Not Resuscitate order . The American Heart Association (AHA) Adult Basic Life Support (ABLS) Algorithm for Health Care Providers, dated 2020, documents the following sequence of response should be initiated in the event Health Care Providers respond to a person in need of CPR and EMS: . Verify scene safety. Check for responsiveness. Shout for nearby help. Activate emergency response system via mobile device (if appropriate). Get . emergency equipment (or send someone to do so). Look for no breathing or only gasping and check pulse (simultaneously). No breathing or only gasping, pulse not felt . By this time in all scenarios, emergency response system or backup is activated . and emergency equipment are retrieved or someone is retrieving them. Start CPR Perform cycles of 30 compressions and 2 breaths . Check . (for a pulse if no AED). Resume CPR immediately . Continue until ALS (advanced life support) providers take over or victim starts to move. RI #58 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses to include: Congestive Heart Failure, Dementia, Stage 3 Chronic Kidney Disease, Peripheral Vascular Disease, Coronary Artery Disease, and Physical Debility. RI #58's admission RECORD documented the following: . ADVANCE DIRECTIVE Code Status: Full Code . RI #58's undated OAK TRACE RESIDENT CARE GUIDE and December Medication Administration Record (MAR) also documented RI #58's code status was Full Code. RI #58's Progress Notes contained the following entries: -On [DATE] at 10:38 PM EI #3, the LPN, documented that RI #58 expired around 10:15 PM, and the facility physician, DON, resident representative, and 911 were called. - A Late Entry note dated [DATE] at 3:51 AM was made by EI #2, the DON. This note documented that the nurse was called to RI #58's room by a CNA who stated RI #58 did not look good. Further, the note indicated the nurse (EI #3) entered RI #58's room at approximately 9:50 PM and found RI #58 unresponsive with no pulse, so CPR was started, 911 was called, and EMS arrived and pronounced RI #58 deceased around 10:15 PM. - Another Late Entry note dated [DATE] at 1:28 PM was made by EI #3, LPN. This note indicated RI #58 was found unresponsive on [DATE], CPR was performed with no positive response, 911 was called and the local EMS team responded and performed CPR until around 11:00 PM, when they gave the official call for expiration (time of death). RI #58's Patient Care Record (run report) from the Local EMS response team documented the following: . Chief Complaint: cardiac arrest Duration: 50 minutes . Narrative Pt. (patient) lying supine (lying on back) in bed on arrival Pt was last known alive at 2130 (9:30 PM) according to nursing home staff . NH (nursing home) staff states patient is a full code . Cardiac Arrest: Yes, Prior to EMS Arrival Estimated time of Arrest: (greater than) 20 Minutes Est (estimated) Time Collapse to 911 (the approximate time from nursing staff finding resident unresponsive until the time 911 was called) : 35 Minutes . Est Time Collapse to CPR (the approximate time from nursing staff finding the resident unresponsive until the time CPR was initiated): 50 Minutes . CPR Initiated by: EMS Time 1st CPR: 22:54 (10:54 PM) [DATE] Incident Times . Call Received 22:44:44 (10:44 PM) At Patient 22:54:00 (10:54 PM) . This run report did not indicate facility staff were performing CPR upon EMS arrival. Further, the report documented an in-field pronouncement of time of death as [DATE] at 11:12 PM. On [DATE] at 5:54 PM an interview was conducted with EI #3, the LPN/Charge Nurse, assigned to RI #58 on [DATE] on the 3 PM-11 PM shift. EI #3 was asked about the incident on [DATE] when RI #58 was found unresponsive. EI #3 said, RI #58's vital signs were taken by EI #4, the CNA, prior to medication pass and they were within normal limits. EI #3 said, when he initially tried to administer RI #58's medications, RI #58 refused. EI #3 went back within approximately 30 minutes and RI #58 accepted them just before 9:29 PM. EI #3 said EI #4, the CNA, came to him about twenty to thirty minutes later (9:49 PM to 9:59 PM) when he was at the nurse's station charting vital signs to tell him RI #58 did not look good. EI #3 said he got up, and they went down to the resident's room. EI #3 said RI #58's head of the bed was elevated about 30-45 degrees and RI #58 was sitting face-forward, eyes closed, with a small drop of foam at the right corner of his/her mouth. EI #3 said he immediately checked for respirations, then a carotid, apical and wrist pulse and there was nothing on all four. EI #3 claimed at that point, he told the CNA, EI #4, to go call 911 as he started CPR. EI #3 said EI #4 then left the room while he did chest compressions. He indicated he did sets of 30 chest compressions, with no rescue breaths. EI #3 further stated he did not call a code. EI #3 said while doing the compressions, he could not remember if RI #58 was a full code or DNR, so he stopped CPR to go to the nurse's desk to check. EI #3 said RI #58 was listed as a full code. EI #3 indicated while he was at the desk he made calls to 911, RI #58's family, and the DON. When asked why no other nursing staff were involved in the resuscitation efforts for RI #58, EI #3 said he just went with what he needed to do, rather than for him to go look for people that he may or may not have found. When asked what he meant by people he may or may not have found, EI #3 said they could have been on lunch, outside, or the intercom may not have worked. EI #3 was asked when the crash cart was brought to the room. EI #3 answered, it was not taken to the room. EI #3 was asked where the backboard was. EI #3 answered, it was on the crash cart. EI #3 was asked why it was not utilized. EI #3 said, because he was by himself. When asked what other nurses and CNAs were on duty at the time of the incident, EI #3 said he did not know. EI #3 was asked why he did not use the call light to get assistance. EI #3 said, he did not think of it. EI #3 alleged he returned to RI #58's room after making his phone calls and continued CPR until EMS arrived and took over. On [DATE] at 10:09 AM a follow-up interview was conducted with EI #3. EI #3 was asked what the CPR guidelines were from the American Heart Association. EI #3 said check to see if they are breathing, check for a pulse, check for any obstruction (in the airway), call their names, shake them or rub their chest, if no response, start CPR, call for assistance, and call 911. EI #3 was asked when no one else came, why he did not yell out for help. EI #3 said he thought the CNA was getting help. EI #3 was asked why he did not redirect the CNA to call for help. EI #3 said it did not occur to him, because he was continuing CPR. EI #3 said after everything was over, EI #4, the CNA, told him she never heard him tell her to get help or call 911. On [DATE] at 9:39 AM another follow-up interview was conducted with EI #3 regarding discrepancies on the timeline of events on [DATE]. EI #3 was asked what was done between approximately 9:50 PM and 10:50 PM (during this event on [DATE]). EI #3 said he did not just stand around, that he did CPR and called 911, the resident's family and the DON. When asked about the call placed to 911, EI #3 said he told them they had an unresponsive resident, gave them the room number and the facility's address. EI #3 further claimed he was unable to contact 911 from his personal cell phone he had with him because he did not have 911 capabilities on it, so he called from the facility's phone at the desk. EI #3 was asked if he followed the proper protocol for CPR for an unresponsive resident. EI #3 admitted he did not call for additional help. When asked at what point he contacted 911, EI #3 said around 10:15 PM. EI #3 was asked why he did not give other CPR certified nurses in the building the opportunity to assist him with efforts to revive RI #58. EI #3 answered, he was nervous and he was working with what he had on his own. EI #3 was asked why he did not instruct EI #4 to call a code, and he said he guessed it slipped his mind. EI #3 was asked what training he had received that indicated he should pause CPR for a nonresponsive resident to call the DON, EMS and the family. EI #3 said, there was not any that dictated that. EI #3 was asked how could that affect the outcome for the resident. EI #3 said, it could result in being unable to revive the person. EI #3 was asked if calling 911, getting the crash cart and assisting with the CPR would be some things another staff member could have done, if he had called for help. EI #3 acknowledged the AHA guidelines instructed to call for assistance, but said everything was happening so fast it slipped his mind. EI #3 was again asked what he did between 10:14 PM when he made his phone calls and when EMS arrived, and he stated he was in the room with RI #58 providing CPR. EI #3 was then asked how he could have documented a nurses note at 10:38 PM if he was performing chest compressions. EI #3 said, he just did not know. EI #3 was asked if other people were in the facility, why he would not have called for assistance. EI #3 again said he was very nervous. EI #3 was asked, when he found RI #58 without respirations or a pulse at 9:59 PM, why the EMS run report documented they were not called until 10:44 PM. EI #3 said he did not recall; it was all from memory. On [DATE] at 3:41 PM, during a phone interview with the Captain of the local EMS response team, the Captain confirmed the call to 911 was received from EI #3 at Oak Trace Care and Rehabilitation Center on [DATE] at 10:44 PM, as listed on the run report (referenced above). He also confirmed no other calls came in from the facility on this date. An interview was conducted on [DATE] at 3:36 PM with EI #4, the CNA assigned to care for RI #58 on [DATE] on the 3PM-11PM shift. EI #4 was asked what she could tell the surveyor about the night RI #58 was found unresponsive. EI #4 said after finishing rounds, she went to check in on RI #58 around 10:00 PM and found that he/she did not look to be breathing, so she notified EI #3, her Charge Nurse. EI #4 said she then went back down to RI #58's room with EI #3, who shook RI #58's arm and called the resident's name a couple of times. EI #4 also reported that EI #3 checked for a pulse and did not find one. EI #4 said at that point, she left the room because she smelled feces. When asked what EI #3 did for RI #58, EI #3 said she did not know because she left the room to get supplies to clean up the bowel movement. EI #4 was asked if she ever witnessed EI #3 performing CPR. EI #4 said, she did not witness him performing CPR. EI #4 said the next time she saw EI #3, he was standing behind EMS while they performed CPR for RI #58. On [DATE] at 8:14 PM EI #5, the Registered Nurse (RN)/House Supervisor on [DATE] on the 3P-11P evening shift, was asked about RI #58 being found unresponsive on [DATE]. EI #5 said RI #58 expired that night. EI #5 said she never heard a code called, and when she found out about it, EMS was already there and RI #58 was expired. When asked how she would ordinarily hear a code called, EI #5 said over the intercom or someone hollers out for help. When asked who assisted with the resuscitation efforts for RI #58, EI #5 stated nobody but EI #3. EI #5 said, the House Supervisor's responsibility when a full code resident becomes unresponsive is to assist with the code, get the crash cart, start chest compressions, get the ambu-bag, call 911, and assist in the efforts to revive the resident. EI #5 said, that was why they needed to announce the code because they need all the help they can get. EI #5 said, EI #3 should have hollered and someone would have heard him. EI #5 further stated no one can perform a code by themselves. An interview was conducted on [DATE] at 10:56 AM with EI #2, the DON. EI #2 was asked what process was followed the night RI #58 coded. EI #2 answered, she did not know what steps were taken, she just asked if they did CPR. EI #2 then showed the surveyor EI #3's name and phone number on caller ID of a voicemail he left her on [DATE] at 10:14 PM. EI #2 was asked the purpose of the AHA guidelines referenced in the facility's CPR policy. EI #2 said these were guidelines on how to respond in situations in which CPR is necessary or a resident is unresponsive. EI #2 was asked which of those steps were followed for RI #58. She said EI #3 told her he called 911 and that was all that she was aware of. EI #2 reported EI #3 was involved in the resuscitation efforts on [DATE] for RI #58. EI #2 said all the nurses and CNA should have been involved as support. EI #2 said EI #3 and EI #4 did not notify anyone. EI #2 was asked who called for help, and she said no one. EI #2 was asked who should have called for help, and she said the nurse. EI #2 was asked how should the nurse have called a code. She said he could have hollered out, paged over the intercom or sent someone to do it. EI #2 was unsure why EI #3 never called a code to alert the other staff in the building. On [DATE] at 10:38 AM a follow-up interview was conducted with EI #2, the DON. EI #2 reported EI #3 called 911 around 10:45 PM and they arrived at 10:52 PM. When EI #2 was asked what time EI #3 started CPR, she responded he did not give her a time that he started CPR, but he told her that RI #58 was dead at approximately 10:15 PM when he called her. This deficient practice was cited as a result of the investigation of complaint/report number AL00043033. ***************************************************************************** On [DATE] at 4:52 PM, the facility submitted the following acceptable Removal Plan addressing F678: Removal Plan 678 On [DATE], an audit was performed by the Director of Nursing on 2 crash carts to ensure and are complete with an Ambu bag. Crash carts are fully stocked, and accessible to all staff. On [DATE], education was provided to the Administrator, Director of Nursing, by the Corporate Consultant, Regional Director of Operations, regarding emergency procedures, code blue drill, crash cart locations and cardio-pulmonary resuscitation. Education provided: How to do a code blue drill - simulation of a resident in need of cardiopulmonary resuscitation Where the crash carts are located and what belongs on the crash carts Who needs to be part of the code blue drills - all team members Drills will be completed on a Quarterly basis - this is a plan, not policy The Director of Nursing did a return demonstration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation policy was reviewed. Where the code status is found in PCC on the resident dashboard and on the resident face sheet This information will be disseminated through the mock codes to all team members On [DATE] the Director of Nursing, corporate nurse, and Director of Operations performed a mock code at 7:17pm to assess the staff response. Team members 17 (LPN- 3, RN- 2, CNA- 3, Other- 9)-responded to the code blue drill and received a copy of the Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation policy and were trained on the Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation policy, and crash cart location by the Director of Nursing. Education Provided: How to do compressions How to use Ambu bag Where to find crash carts Where to find code status in PCC on the resident dashboard Where on the face sheet the code status is found How to call for help - yell for help When to call 911 - call nurse if nurse not available call 911 yourself On [DATE] the Director of Nursing performed a mock code drill at 6:00 am to assess the staff response. Team members 7 (LPN- 0, RN-1, CNA- 4, Other-2) responded to the code blue drill and received a copy of the Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation policy and were trained on the Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation policy and crash cart location by the Director of Nursing. Education Provided: How to do compressions How to use Ambu bag Where to find crash carts Where to find code status in PCC on the resident dashboard Where on the face sheet the code status is found How to call for help - yell for help When to call 911 - call nurse if nurse not available call 911 yourself On [DATE] the Director of Nursing performed a mock code drill at 9:31 am to assess the staff response. Team members 20 (LPN- 0, RN-2, CNA- 6, Other-12) responded to the code blue drill and received a copy of the Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation policy and were trained on the Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation policy and crash cart location by the Director of Nursing. Education Provided: How to do compressions How to use Ambu bag Where to find crash carts Where to find code status in PCC on the resident dashboard Where on the face sheet the code status is found How to call for help - yell for help When to call 911 - call nurse if nurse not available call 911 yourself On [DATE] the center had an independent contractor for the American Heart Association trainer on site that is training all nursing staff on American Heart Association Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation. On that date 12 nurses, 8 CNAs and 13 non-licensed staff members were either certified or re-certified in accordance with American Heart Association guidelines and requirements, to include a skills check-off and return demonstration. On [DATE] the administrator, Director of Nursing, corporate nurse, and the regional director of operations developed the Communication of Code Status policy and reviewed and adopted it and reviewed the Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation policy. On [DATE], the DON utilized the Communication of Code Status policy and provided education to 7 nurses, 11 CNA, and 30 non licensed. There are 28 total staff members, 7 - nurses, 10- CNAs and 11- non licensed that still need to be trained on the Communication of Code Status policy. [DATE] - 7 CNAs, 8 LPNs, 1 RN and 7 non-licensed staff were educated, On [DATE] - 2 CNAs, 5 LPNs, and 18 non-licensed. The intention is that this policy be in-serviced to all licensed and non-licensed staff. No staff will be allowed to work [DATE] in the facility until they have received the training on the new policy. An employee list is being used to ensure all staff are participating in mock code blue drills. To ensure all team members are trained, the schedule is being used to make sure anyone that is coming into work gets training prior to starting their shift. We are utilizing the employee list of all staff to confirm who has been trained and who not been trained. The Administrator, Director of Nursing and the staff development coordinator will be available at the start of each shift ensure this education is completed prior to staff starting their shift. No nurses will work in the center without current Americana Heart Association Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation card. and will have been trained on the facility Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation policy by the Director of Nursing. All licensed nurses have current cardiopulmonary resuscitation cards with hands on training verified by the administrator on [DATE]. Copies supplied. On [DATE] The DON identified the LPN had not followed facility policy and terminated this nurse. The Director of Nursing will perform mock code blue drill on each shift every week for 4 weeks to ensure staff are following the facility policy on cardiopulmonary resuscitation. An employee list is being used to ensure all staff are participating in mock code blue drill. To ensure all team members are trained, the schedule is being used to make sure anyone that is coming into work gets training prior to starting their shift. We are utilizing the employee list of all staff to confirm who has been trained and who not been trained. The Administrator, Director of Nursing and the staff development coordinator will be available at the start of each shift ensure this education is completed prior to staff starting their shift. An ad hoc quality assurance performance improvement meeting was held on [DATE], that included Dr., Administrator, Director of Nursing, corporate nurse, and regional director of operations. The root cause of the incident was noncompliance of one licensed practical nurse. Contents will be completed and the immediacy will be removed on [DATE]. **************************************************************** After reviewing the facility's information provided in their Removal Plan and verifying the immediate actions had been implemented, the scope/severity level of F678 was lowered to a D level on [DATE], to allow the facility time to monitor and/or revise their corrective actions as necessary to achieve substantial compliance.
CRITICAL (L) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0726 (Tag F0726)

Someone could have died · This affected most or all residents

⚠️ Facility-wide issue

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, review of the Director of Nursing's (DON's) job description, and review of a facility policy titled, Compet...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, review of the Director of Nursing's (DON's) job description, and review of a facility policy titled, Competency Evaluation, Employee Identifier (EI) #2, the DON, failed to have a system in place to ensure nursing services personnel were competent and able to demonstrate timely and appropriate response, in accordance with facility policy, for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) in the event of residents becoming unresponsive and requiring CPR. On [DATE] at approximately 9:59 PM, EI #4, a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), found Resident Identifier (RI) #58 unresponsive and alerted the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), EI #3. Without knowing RI #58's code status, EI #3 said he began chest compressions and continued, without providing rescue breaths, until about 10:14 PM, when he stopped to go find out RI #58's code status and to make phone calls to the resident's representative and the DON. EI #3 failed to call out for assistance from other staff who were in the building, including EI #5, Registered Nurse (RN)/House Supervisor, who was on duty at the time of the occurrence. EI #3 further failed to call EMS until 10:44 PM, approximately 45 minutes after RI #58 was found unresponsive. No code was ever announced and the facility crash cart was not utilized. EMS arrived at the facility at 10:52 PM. RI #58 was pronounced deceased on [DATE] at 11:12 PM after EMS interventions. This deficient practice placed RI #58, one of three sampled residents reviewed for the provision of CPR, in immediate jeopardy, as it was likely to result in serious injury, serious harm, serious impairment or death. This deficient practice also had the potential to affect any other resident in the facility who may be found unresponsive. The facility's Form CMS-672 Resident Census and Conditions of Residents reflected a census at the time of the survey of 52. On [DATE] at 3:59 PM, EI #1, the facility Administrator; EI #2, the DON; EI #14, the [NAME] President of Clinical Operations; and EI #15, the Director of Operations were given a copy of the immediate jeopardy (IJ) template and notified of the IJ findings in the area of Nursing Services, at F726-Competent Nursing Staff. Findings include: During the survey concerns were identified regarding staff response after finding RI #58 unresponsive on [DATE] at approximately 9:59 PM. EI #3, the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) who responded, gave chest compressions only, with no rescue breaths. Further, EI #3 did not call for assistance or initiate a code. The facility crash cart was not utilized, and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) was not contacted until 10:44 PM. Cross Reference F678. A review of the Director of Nursing's Job Description (EI #2) that was signed on [DATE] revealed, . Job Description Director of Nursing Qualifications . Basic Job Responsibilities 1. To adhere to American Health Corporation's Philosophy, objective, policies, and procedures with direct responsibility to the Administrator. 2. To ensure that the Nursing Service Department is in compliance with rules and regulations of Federal, state and local authorities. 3. The primary purpose of the position is to plan, organize, develop, and direct the overall operation of the Nursing Service Department to ensure the highest degree of quality care is maintained at all times. 5. You are responsible for carrying out the resident care policies established by the Corporation. Responsibilities . 2. Plan, develop, organize, implement, evaluate, and direct nursing service department, as well as its programs and activities, in accordance with current rules, regulations, and guidelines that govern the long term care facility. 4. Implements policies and procedures with follow-up and supervision of staff to ensure compliance. 18. Monitors the nursing service department to ensure nursing service personnel are performing their work assignments in accordance with acceptable nursing standards and Corporate policies and procedures. Ensures positive outcomes are accomplished for residents; . 21. Ensures medical record documentation and that the care planning process is interdisciplinary, consistent, timely, and reflective of resident needs and in compliance with regulations at all times. Marginal Responsibilities 1. Participates in the identification of staff educational needs. Policies . 2. Procedures are completed according to methods outlined in procedure manuals and/or standards of practice. A review of a facility policy titled, Competency Evaluation, with a revision dated of [DATE], revealed: . Policy: It is the policy of this facility to evaluate each employee to assure appropriate competencies and skills for performing his or her job and to meet the needs of facility residents. 5. A variety of methods may be used to evaluate learning and/or skills competency. e. Review of the employee's documentation. g. Review of adverse events or other data. An interview was conducted on [DATE] at 10:56 AM with EI #2, the DON. EI #2 was asked what process was followed the night RI #58 coded. She said she was not there, so she did not know what steps were taken. EI #2 further stated EI #3 was the only staff involved in efforts to revive RI #58. EI #2 admitted all nurses and CNAs should have been involved. EI #2 said no one else was involved in the resuscitation efforts because EI #3 and EI #4 did not notify anyone. EI #2 said the nurse could have hollered out, paged on the intercom or instructed someone to get additional assistance. EI #2 said EI #3 told her he performed CPR, so she was under the assumption he had called the code. EI #2 was unaware EI #3 had not called for assistance. EI #2 admitted she should have known the steps taken during the code. On [DATE] at 2:11 PM, EI #2 denied gathering any information after RI #58, a full code resident, expired in the facility. When EI #2 was asked what oversight she gave to ensure the protocol was followed for the full code resident that expired, she said she asked the nurse if he performed CPR and notified the Physician and family. EI #2 was asked if she did not interview, review the process that occurred and determine what failures might have occurred, how she could prevent these errors from happening in the future. EI #2 said she could not. A follow-up interview was conducted on [DATE] at 10:38 AM with EI #2, the DON. EI #2 acknowledged she had no knowledge of any conflicting information in RI #58's record, including time of death, until [DATE]. EI #2 was asked why someone had not reviewed RI #58's record for accuracy to identify these discrepancies. EI #2 said she went by what EI #3 told her on the phone. EI #2 acknowledged EMS was called at approximately 10:45 PM and arrived to the facility at 10:52 PM. EI #2 further stated EI #3 told her RI #58 was deceased when he called her at approximately 10:15 PM. On [DATE] at 4:10 PM, another follow-up interview was conducted with EI #2. EI #2 stated when a resident expires, she reviews the documentation in the chart. EI #2 further stated she would want to know the details of the event when a full code resident expired. EI #2 said she did not ask details about RI #58's code to discover the concerns related to the events of [DATE]. She further stated she did not ask the Supervisor on duty [DATE] on the 3 PM to 11 PM shift about the events. EI #2 said the usual process when there was an unusual occurrence in the facility was that they find out what happened or caused the unusual occurrence. EI #2 acknowledged she should have been aware of the concerns regarding RI #58's code. EI #2 said if she had been aware of the discrepancies, she would have followed up, interviewed staff and tried to establish a root cause. EI #2 was asked what she did to provide oversight of Nursing Services to ensure CPR guidelines and the facility policy were followed. EI #2 answered she did none. EI #2 said she does not monitor staff to ensure they are aware of the policies. EI #2 was asked what system was in place to ensure that staff knew what to do in the event of a nonresponsive resident who was a full code. EI #2 said, nothing. EI #2 said the facility would need to educate, in-service and practice mock codes or drills to ensure staff respond in accordance with CPR guidelines and facility policy. On [DATE] at 10:54 AM a follow-up interview was conducted with EI #2. EI #2 said a mock code was when you go through all the steps of how staff should respond in the event of a code. EI #2 was asked who does the mock codes. EI #2 answered there were no designated mock codes performed and she did not know when the last mock code was performed. EI #2 was asked when they were done, and she answered they have not been done. EI #2 said the mock code entailed an unresponsive resident found (pretend), check for pulses and respirations, call for help, verify the code status, begin CPR, have someone call the code, direct staff to get the crash cart if they have not already done so, have someone to call 911, tell someone to document the times and steps. When asked how she expected staff to know what to do in the event of a code if she was not doing all these things, she answered she could not expect them to. EI #2 was asked why there was not a system in place to ensure that staff knew what to do in the event of a non-responsive resident who is a full code. She answered that she thought it was just an oversight. This deficient practice was cited as a result of the investigation of complaint/report number AL00043033. ***************************************************************************** On [DATE] at 4:52 PM, the facility submitted the following acceptable Removal Plan addressing F726: Removal Plan for 726 On [DATE], education was provided to the Administrator, Director of Nursing, by the Corporate Consultant, Regional Director of Operations, regarding emergency procedures, code blue drill, crash cart locations and cardio-pulmonary resuscitation. Education provided: How to do a code blue drill - simulation of a resident in need of cardiopulmonary resuscitation Where the crash carts are located and what belongs on the crash carts Who needs to be part of the code blue drills - all team members Drills will be completed on a Quarterly basis - this is a plan, not policy The Director of Nursing did a return demonstration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation policy was reviewed. Where the code status is found in PCC on the resident dashboard and on the resident face sheet This information will be disseminated through the mock codes to all team members On [DATE] the Director of Nursing, corporate nurse, and Director of Operations performed a mock code at 7:17 pm to assess the staff response. Team members 17 (LPN- 3, RN- 2, CNA- 3, Other- 9)-responded to the code blue drill and received a copy of the Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation policy and were trained on the Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation policy, and crash cart location by the Director of Nursing. Education Provided: How to do compressions How to use Ambu bag Where to find crash carts Where to find code status in PCC on the resident dashboard Where on the face sheet the code status is found How to call for help - yell for help When to call 911 - call nurse if nurse not available call 911 yourself On [DATE] the Director of Nursing performed a mock code drill at 6:00 am to assess the staff response. Team members 7 (LPN- 0, RN-1, CNA- 4, Other-2) responded to the code blue drill and received a copy of the Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation policy and were trained on the Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation policy and crash cart location by the Director of Nursing. Education Provided: How to do compressions How to use Ambu bag Where to find crash carts Where to find code status in PCC on the resident dashboard: Where on the face sheet the code status is found How to call for help - yell for help When to call 911 - call nurse if nurse not available call 911 yourself On [DATE] the Director of Nursing performed a mock code drill at 9:31 am to assess the staff response. Team members 20 (LPN- 0, RN-2, CNA- 6, Other-12) responded to the code blue drill and received a copy of the Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation policy and were trained on the Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation policy and crash cart location by the Director of Nursing. Education Provided: How to do compressions How to use Ambu bag Where to find crash carts Where to find code status in PCC on the resident dashboard Where on the face sheet the code status is found How to call for help - yell for help When to call 911 - call nurse if nurse not available call 911 yourself On [DATE] the center had an independent contractor for the American Heart Association trainer on site that is training all nursing staff on American Heart Association Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation. On that date 12 nurses, 8 CNAs and 13 non-licensed staff members were either certified or re-certified in accordance with American Heart Association guidelines and requirements, to include a skills check-off and return demonstration. On [DATE] the administrator, Director of Nursing, corporate nurse, and the regional director of operations developed the Communication of Code Status policy and reviewed and adopted it and reviewed the Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation policy. On [DATE], the DON utilized the Communication of Code Status policy and provided education to 7 nurses, 11 CNA, and 30 non licensed. There are 28 total staff members, 7 - nurses, 10- CNAs and 11- non licensed that still need to be trained on the Communication of Code Status policy. [DATE] - 7 CNAs, 8 LPNs, 1 RN and 7 non-licensed staff were educated, On [DATE] - 2 CNAs, 5 LPNs, and 18 non-licensed. The intention is that this policy be in-serviced to all licensed and non-licensed staff. No staff will be allowed to work [DATE] in the facility until they have received the training on the new policy. An employee list is being used to ensure all staff are participating in mock code blue drills. To ensure all team members are trained, the schedule is being used to make sure anyone that is coming into work gets training prior to starting their shift. We are utilizing the employee list of all staff to confirm who has been trained and who not been trained. The Administrator, Director of Nursing and the staff development coordinator will be available at the start of each shift ensure this education is completed prior to staff starting their shift. No nurses will work in the center without current Americana Heart Association Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation card. and will have been trained on the facility Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation policy by the Director of Nursing. All licensed nurses have current cardiopulmonary resuscitation cards with hands on training verified by the administrator on [DATE]. Copies supplied. The DON identified the LPN had not followed facility policy and terminated this nurse on [DATE]. On [DATE] the [NAME] President of Clinical Operations, educated the Director of Nursing on ensuring all nursing staff are competent and able to demonstrate timely and appropriate response to a resident in need of cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The in-service also included the importance of investigating fully, perform necessary staff interviews, and pursue any unusual occurrences as suspicious, any resident that is a full code or who either experiences a code blue situation, or expires and is a full code, to ensure all incidents and accidents have the correct documentation and have a legible timeline to ensure accuracy of the chain of events and documentation. This education was completed in a written document. On [DATE] the system was implemented that all new hire licensed nursing staff will meet for a one-on-one session with the Director of Nursing before working on the unit, this session will include: Review the cardiopulmonary resuscitation policy and get a return demonstration. The new hire will be shown where to find the code status in PCC on the resident dashboard and the face sheet. The new hire knows to yell for help if she finds a resident unresponsive. Ensure nurse knows that incidents must be documented completely and accurately. The Director of Nursing will perform mock code blue drill on each shift every week for 4 weeks to ensure staff are following the facility policy on cardiopulmonary resuscitation. An employee list is being used to ensure all staff are participating in mock code blue drill. The Administrator will review all occurrences/incidents investigated by the Director of Nursing to ensure it is complete and through. An ad hoc quality assurance performance improvement meeting was held on [DATE], that included Dr., Administrator, Director of Nursing, corporate nurse, and regional director of operations. The root cause of the incident was Director of Nursing is new to her role at the center. Contents will be completed and the immediacy will be removed on [DATE]. **************************************************************** After reviewing the facility's information provided in their Removal Plan and verifying the immediate actions had been implemented, the scope/severity level of F726 was lowered to a F level on [DATE], to allow the facility time to monitor and/or revise their corrective actions as necessary to achieve substantial compliance.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, interview, and review of a document provided by the facility titled NURSING HOME RESIDENTS' RIGHTS, the facility failed to ensure mini blinds in Room Locators (RLs) #3, RL #4, R...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interview, and review of a document provided by the facility titled NURSING HOME RESIDENTS' RIGHTS, the facility failed to ensure mini blinds in Room Locators (RLs) #3, RL #4, RL #5 and RL #6 were not torn during observations made on 02/07/2023, 02/08/2023, and 02/09/2023. This affected four of four RLs observed with torn blinds. Findings Include: A review of a facility document titled NURSING HOME RESIDENTS' RIGHTS, revealed: . Right to a Dignified Existence . A home-like environment . On 02/07/2023 at 6:15 PM the surveyor observed torn blinds in RL #3, RL #4,RL #5, and RL #6. On 02/08/2023 at 7:00 PM the surveyor observed torn mini blinds, with multiple broken slats, in RL #3, RL #4, RL #5, and RL #6. On 02/09/2023 at 8:15 AM an observation was made with Employee Identifier (EI) #10, the Maintenance Assistant. EI #10 was asked to observe RL #3 and was asked what concern he saw with the mini blinds. EI #10 said they were torn and needed to be replaced. An observation was made of RL #4 with EI #10 and he was asked what concern he saw with the mini blinds. EI #10 said they were torn. EI #10 also observed and confirmed the mini blinds in RL #5 and RL #6 were also torn. EI #10 said the blinds should not be torn. EI #10 was asked what the concern was in the mini blinds being torn. EI #10 said, they would not look good or may not be considered homelike.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record reviews, review of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Long-Term Care Facility Resident Asse...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record reviews, review of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument and review of a facility policy titled ICD-10 Coding Integrity, the facility failed to ensure Resident Identifier (RI) #2's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], RI #3's Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] and RI #8's Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] were accurately coded to reflect RI #2's, RI #3's and RI #8's active diagnoses. This affected three of twenty-two sampled residents. Findings include: Review of a facility policy titled, ICD-10 (International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision) Coding Integrity, with an implementation date of 01/01/2023, revealed: .Policy: It is the policy of this facility to report accurate diagnosis codes using ICD-10. Review of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 User's Manual Version 1.17.1, dated October 2019, revealed: . SECTION I: ACTIVE DIAGNOSES Intent: The items in this section are intended to code diseases that have a direct relationship to the resident's current functional status, cognitive status, mood or behavior status, medical treatments, nursing monitoring, or risk of death. One of the important functions of the MDS assessment is to generate an updated, accurate picture of the resident's current health status . RI #2 was admitted to the facility 02/22/2018 and readmitted [DATE]. A review of RI #2's Diagnosis Information listed on RI #2's admission RECORD revealed a diagnosis of Pneumonia as an inactive diagnosis, with an onset date of 04/11/2022. RI #2's quarterly MDS with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 11/18/2022 documented an active diagnoses of Pneumonia. In an interview on 02/09/2023 at 2:17 PM, Employee Identifier (EI) #11, Registered Nurse (RN)/MDS Coordinator, reported pneumonia was not a current diagnosis for RI #2. EI #11 stated RI #2's current MDS, dated [DATE], was coded that the resident had an active diagnosis of Pneumonia. EI #11 stated it was coded in error. EI #11 stated it should not have been coded if the resident did not have pneumonia. EI #11 stated the concern with the resident's MDS being coded inaccurately for active diagnoses was the provider would not get a complete picture of what was going on with the resident at that time. RI #3 was admitted to the facility 02/15/2007. A review of RI #3's Diagnosis Information listed on RI #3's admission RECORD revealed diagnoses of Pneumonia and Sepsis as inactive diagnoses, with onset dates of 09/22/2021. RI #3's quarterly MDS with an ARD of 01/13/2023 documented active diagnoses of Pneumonia and Septicemia. In an interview on 02/09/2023 at 2:17 PM, EI #11, RN/MDS Coordinator, reported Pneumonia and Sepsis were not current diagnoses for RI #3. EI #11 stated RI #3's current MDS, dated [DATE], was coded that the resident had active diagnoses of Pneumonia and Sepsis. EI #11 stated Pneumonia and Sepsis should not have been coded if the resident did not have Pneumonia or Sepsis. EI #11 stated the concern with the resident's MDS being coded inaccurately for active diagnoses was the provider would not get a complete picture of what was going on with the resident at that time. RI #8 was admitted to the facility 02/18/2022. A review of RI #8's Diagnosis Information listed on RI #8's admission RECORD revealed diagnoses of Pneumonia and Sepsis as inactive diagnoses, with onset dates of 02/18/2022. RI #8's quarterly MDS with an ARD of 11/21/2022 documented active diagnoses of Pneumonia and Septicemia. In an interview on 02/09/2023 at 2:17 PM, EI #11, RN/MDS Coordinator, reported Pneumonia and Sepsis were not current diagnoses for RI #8. EI #11 stated RI #8's current MDS, dated [DATE], was coded that the resident had active diagnoses of Pneumonia and Sepsis. EI #11 stated Pneumonia and Sepsis should not have been coded if the resident did not have Pneumonia or Sepsis. EI #11 stated the concern with the resident's MDS being coded inaccurately for active diagnoses was the provider would not get a complete picture of what was going on with the resident at that time.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interviews and review of a facility policy titled Handling Clean Linen, the facility failed to ensure laundry staff transported, distributed, handled, and carried clean resident ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interviews and review of a facility policy titled Handling Clean Linen, the facility failed to ensure laundry staff transported, distributed, handled, and carried clean resident clothing in a manner to prevent the spread of infection. On 02/07/2023 Employee Identifier (EI) #8, Laundry staff, was observed transporting uncovered clean clothing items and delivering them to residents. EI #8 carried items into five resident rooms, and was observed placing clean clothing under his arm while placing another resident's clothing in their closet. This had the potential to affect five of five residents whose clothing was delivered. Findings include: A review of a facility policy titled Handling Clean Linen with a date of 1/1/23 revealed, Policy: It is the policy of this facility to handle, store, process and transport clean linen in a safe and sanitary method to prevent contamination of the linen, which can lead to infection. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: . 2. can become contaminated with pathogens from contact with intact skin or body substances, or from environmental contaminates or contaminated hands. 5. a. Clean linen shall be delivered to resident care units on covered carts. 6. Carry clean linen with clean hands away from your body. On 02/07/2023 at 1:31 PM EI #8, a laundry staff member, was observed delivering resident clothing to the halls, pushing the clean clothing cart with resident clothing uncovered. On the cart was shirts, pants, and socks. EI #8 was observed delivering clothing to five different residents. EI #8 placed clothing from one hand under his left arm, then placed the clothing from the other hand in a resident closet. EI #8 was also noted carrying clothing into rooms that the clothing items did not belong in, then delivering them to other rooms. On 02/07/2023 at 4:12 PM, EI #8 was asked when should clean resident clothing touch his clothing. EI #8 said never. EI #8 was asked when should more than one resident's clothing be taken into another resident's room. EI #8 said, it should not. When EI #8 was asked why he took multiple residents' clothing in multiple rooms, he answered, to save time. EI #8 was asked what would the harm be in taking several residents' clothing into multiple rooms and letting clean residents' clothes touch against his clothes. EI #8 said, it would spread bacteria and be cross contamination. On 02/09/2023 at 10:50 AM EI #9, Housekeeping and Laundry Supervisor, was asked what the policy was for handling and delivering residents' clean clothing to the unit and rooms. EI #9 said, it should be transported on a clean covered cart. EI #9 was asked how should laundry staff transport clean resident clothing to the unit and room. EI #9 said, in or on a covered cart. EI #9 was asked when should the laundry staff take several residents' clothing into other residents' rooms. EI #9 answered, they should not. EI #9 was asked when should laundry staff place and carry resident clothing under their arm, take it into another resident's room, then deliver the clothes to the resident. EI #9 said, they should only take one resident's clothing at a time, unless they have two residents in that same room. EI #9 was asked what would the harm be in transporting residents' clean clothing uncovered. EI #9 said, the risk was contamination. EI #9 was asked what would be the harm in the laundry staff taking several residents' clothes in multiple rooms. EI #9 replied, cross contamination. EI #9 was asked what would the harm be in the laundry staff placing the clean clothing under his arm. EI #9 said, cross contamination because clean clothes or linens should never touch a staff clothing.
CONCERN (F)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observations, interviews and review of the 2017 Food Code, the facility failed to ensure: 1. two ovens were not found with a heavy build-up of what appeared to be food crumbs in the bottoms a...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews and review of the 2017 Food Code, the facility failed to ensure: 1. two ovens were not found with a heavy build-up of what appeared to be food crumbs in the bottoms and in the crevice between the oven floor and the oven door; 2. a heavy amount of a grease-like build-up was not observed on eight of ten stove top grates; and 3. pots were not stacked on a shelf with crumbs and dust. This had the potential to affect all 52 residents who received meals from the kitchen. Findings Include: The 2017 Food Code of the U.S. (United States) Public Health Service and the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) included the following: . 4-601.11 Equipment, Food-Contact Surfaces, Nonfood-Contact Surfaces, and Utensils. . (C) Non FOOD-CONTACT SURFACES of EQUIPMENT shall be kept free of an accumulation of dust, dirt, FOOD residue, and other debris. 4-903.11 Equipment, Utensils, Linens, . and Single-Use Articles. (A) . cleaned EQUIPMENT and UTENSILS, . shall be stored: (1) In a clean, dry location; (2) Where they are not exposed to splash, dust, or other contamination . An observation was made during the initial tour of the kitchen on 02/06/2023 at 6:26 PM of the following: 1. the left and right ovens had a heavy build-up of what appeared to be food crumbs in the bottom and at the door, 2. a heavy build-up of what appeared to be grease and food cooked onto eight of ten stove top grates, and 3. the shelf that pots were stored on was found with crumbs and dust. An interview was conducted on 02/06/2023 at 6:56 PM with EI #16, the Dietary Manager. She was asked to describe what she saw on the cloth after one wipe across the shelf that pots were stored on. EI #16 described it as crumbs and dust. When asked how she could ensure that the dust and crumbs would not blow up onto the pots, EI #16 said she could not. EI #16 said the build-up on the stove top grates was related to them being due to be cleaned the next day. EI #16 was asked if a heavy build-up that appeared to be greasy with food particles had to wait until a designated day to be cleaned and she said no. EI #16 admitted they needed to be cleaned. EI #16 reported the bottom of the ovens and doors was from spillage/use that had not yet been cleaned. An interview was conducted on 02/11/2023 at 12:12 PM with EI #17, the Registered Dietitian. EI #17 said the concern of pots being found on a shelf with crumbs and dust was the potential for physical contamination. EI #17 said the concern of both ovens being found with a heavy buildup of what appeared to be food crumbs and particles in the bottom of the oven and at the bottom of the inside of the door was that they were supposed to be clean. EI #17 was asked what was the concern of a heavy build-up of what appeared to be grease and food cooked onto eight of ten stove top grates. She said everything is supposed to be maintained and cleaned.
Oct 2019 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the nurse transcribed Resident Identifier (RI) #71's treatme...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the nurse transcribed Resident Identifier (RI) #71's treatment change order onto the Physician's Orders after receiving a treatment change order from the wound specialist. This affected RI #71, one of four residents sampled for pressure ulcers. Findings include: RI #71 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. The resident had a diagnosis of Pressure Ulcer of Sacral Region. RI #71's WOUND EVALUATION & MANAGEMENT SUMMARY, dated 9/17/2019, documented the following: . DRESSING TREATMENT P LAN Primary Dressing(s) Alginate calcium w/ (with) silver apply three times per week for 30 days . On 9/18/19, Employee Identifier (EI) #2, Licensed Practical Nurse/Wound Care Nurse, documented the following in RI #71's Departmental Notes: . Treatment changed back to Silvercel (Alginate calcium w/ (with) silver) . 3 x (times) weekly . According to RI #71's Treatment Administration Records (TARs), RI #71's wound treatment was changed from Silvercel to collagen on 9/13/19, and then changed back to Silvercel on 9/18/19. However, review of RI #71's printed October 2019 Physician Orders, revealed the treatment order had not been updated to reflect the change back to Silvercel. The orders still reflected a daily treatment of collagen. On 10/16/19 at 1:39 PM, an interview was conducted with EI #2, Wound Care Nurse. EI #2 explained RI #71 should be receiving the calcium alginate with silver treatment three times a week, but said the orders in the medical record still reflected an order for collagen daily and as needed. EI #2 was asked why the order on the chart was different from the care RI #71 was receiving. EI #2 replied, it was a mistake; they were given a verbal order by the doctor, wrote it on the TAR, but then forgot to transfer/transcribe it to RI #71's orders.
Oct 2018 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and review of facility policies titled, Personal Protective Equipment - Gloves, Handwashing/Ha...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and review of facility policies titled, Personal Protective Equipment - Gloves, Handwashing/Hand Hygiene, and Oral Inhalation, the facility failed to ensure: 1. the licensed nurse did not retrieve medications spilled on top of the medication cart and place them back in the medication cup for ingestion by Resident Identifier (RI) #34. Further, the nurse failed to wash her hands when changing gloves while administering medications to RI #34; and 2. the licensed nurse washed her hands when removing gloves during medication administration for RI #10. Further, the nurse failed to clean RI #10's inhaler mouthpiece before storing the inhaler back in the medication cart. These deficient practices affected RI #34 and RI #10, two of four residents observed during medication pass observations, and two of four nurses observed performing medication administration. Findings Include: A review of a facility policy titled, Personal Protective Equipment - Gloves, with an Effective Date of January 1, 2016, documented: .8. Wash your hands after removing gloves. A review of a facility policy titled, Handwashing/Hand Hygiene, Revised 04/01/2016, revealed: .7. Hand hygiene is the final step after removing and disposing of personal protective equipment. 8. The use of gloves does not replace hand washing/hand hygiene. Integration of glove use along with routine hand hygiene is recognized as the best practice for preventing healthcare-associated infections. .Applying and Removing Gloves 1. Perform hand hygiene before applying non-sterile gloves. .3. When removing gloves . 5. Perform hand hygiene. 1.) RI #34 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with a diagnosis of Pain. On 10/31/18 at 7:39 a.m., during medication administration, Employee Identifier (EI) #2, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), was observed retrieving two pills from the top of the medication cart and placing them back into a medication cup. EI #2 entered RI #34's room with the medication cup and handed the medication to RI #34 for ingestion. The surveyor then observed EI #2 apply gloves and administer RI #34's nasal spray, remove those gloves, and then, without washing hands or using hand sanitizer, put on clean gloves and applied RI #34's Lidoderm pain patch. On 10/31/18 at 8:02 a.m., an interview was conducted with EI #2, LPN. EI #2 was asked what she did with the two pills that were spilled on top of the medication cart. EI #2 said she put them back in the medication cup. EI #2 was asked what was the concern with placing the medications back in the cup for consumption after them being spilled on top of the cart. EI #2 replied, contamination. EI #2 was asked when should she wash her hands when wearing gloves. EI #2 said, before and after. EI #2 was asked did she wash or sanitize her hands after she administered RI #34's nasal spray before she applied clean gloves to administer RI #34's Lidoderm patch. EI #2 replied, no. EI #2 was asked what was the concern with placing potentially contaminated medication back in the medication cup and not washing her hands appropriately when using gloves. EI #2 answered contamination and infection control. 2.) A review of a facility policy titled, Oral Inhalation, dated 05/16, documented: .Procedures .17.wash and thoroughly dry mouthpiece. RI #10 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE], with a diagnosis of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Without Complications. On 10/31/18 at 8:14 a.m., during medication administration, Employee Identifier (EI) #3, LPN, was observed administering RI #10's nasal spray, removing her gloves and applying clean gloves without washing her hands or using hand sanitizer prior to administering RI #10's insulin injection. EI #3 then removed her gloves and applied clean gloves to administer RI #10's inhaler without washing her hands or using hand sanitizer. Upon completion of medication administration for RI #10, EI #3 was observed storing RI #10's inhaler in the medication cart without cleaning the inhaler. On 10/31/18 at 8:35 a.m., an interview was conducted with EI #3, LPN. EI #3 was asked when she should wash her hands when using gloves. EI #3 said, before and after. EI #3 was asked did she wash her hands or use hand sanitizer before and after applying gloves to administer RI #10's nasal spray, insulin injection and his/her inhaler. EI #3 replied, no. EI #3 was asked did she clean the inhaler before storing it back in the medication cart. EI #3 stated she did not clean it. EI #3 was asked what was the concern with not washing her hands appropriately during medication administration, especially during multiple routes. EI #3 answered, infection control and cross contamination. On 10/31/18 at 4:45 p.m., an interview was conducted with EI #1, Registered Nurse (RN)/Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON)/ Infection Control Coordinator (ICC). EI #1 was asked should a nurse pick up medications that were spilled on top of the medication cart and put them back in the medication cup for a resident to ingest. EI #1 said, no. EI #1 was asked when should a nurse wash her hands when using gloves. EI #1 replied, before donning and after removing them. EI #1 was asked should a nurse wash or sanitize her hands after removing her gloves and applying clean gloves with multiple medication routes such as an inhaler, injection, nasal spray, and pain patch. EI #1 said yes. EI #1 was asked what was the concern with those issues. EI #1 answered, infection control.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
  • "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 life-threatening violation(s), $27,279 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 8 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $27,279 in fines. Higher than 94% of Alabama facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
  • • Grade F (26/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 26/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Oak Crest Health & Wellness's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns OAK CREST HEALTH & WELLNESS an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within Alabama, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.

How is Oak Crest Health & Wellness Staffed?

CMS rates OAK CREST HEALTH & WELLNESS's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 64%, which is 18 percentage points above the Alabama average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 67%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Oak Crest Health & Wellness?

State health inspectors documented 8 deficiencies at OAK CREST HEALTH & WELLNESS during 2018 to 2023. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 6 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Oak Crest Health & Wellness?

OAK CREST HEALTH & WELLNESS is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by ARABELLA HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 79 certified beds and approximately 59 residents (about 75% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in BESSEMER, Alabama.

How Does Oak Crest Health & Wellness Compare to Other Alabama Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Alabama, OAK CREST HEALTH & WELLNESS's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (64%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Oak Crest Health & Wellness?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the facility's high staff turnover rate, and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Oak Crest Health & Wellness Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, OAK CREST HEALTH & WELLNESS has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Alabama. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Oak Crest Health & Wellness Stick Around?

Staff turnover at OAK CREST HEALTH & WELLNESS is high. At 64%, the facility is 18 percentage points above the Alabama average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 67%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Oak Crest Health & Wellness Ever Fined?

OAK CREST HEALTH & WELLNESS has been fined $27,279 across 6 penalty actions. This is below the Alabama average of $33,352. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Oak Crest Health & Wellness on Any Federal Watch List?

OAK CREST HEALTH & WELLNESS is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.