EAST GLEN

53 MEDICAL PARK DRIVE EAST, BIRMINGHAM, AL 35235 (205) 833-1777
For profit - Corporation 108 Beds NOLAND HEALTH Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
41/100
#157 of 223 in AL
Last Inspection: March 2023

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

Overview

East Glen nursing home in Birmingham, Alabama, has received a Trust Grade of D, indicating below-average performance with several concerns. Ranking #157 out of 223 facilities in Alabama places it in the bottom half, and #14 out of 34 in Jefferson County means only 13 local options are better. The facility has remained stable over recent years, with 4 issues identified in both 2019 and 2023, but it has a concerning staff turnover rate of 67%, which is significantly higher than the state average. While the nursing home has average RN coverage, it has incurred $14,521 in fines, which is above what 87% of Alabama facilities face, suggesting compliance issues. Specific incidents include a critical failure to initiate CPR for an unresponsive resident and lapses in food safety and cleanliness, indicating both strengths in staffing and quality measures, but serious weaknesses in emergency response and maintenance practices.

Trust Score
D
41/100
In Alabama
#157/223
Bottom 30%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Holding Steady
4 → 4 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
67% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
○ Average
$14,521 in fines. Higher than 74% of Alabama facilities. Some compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 35 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
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2019: 4 issues
2023: 4 issues

The Good

  • 4-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: 67%

20pts above Alabama avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $14,521

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Chain: NOLAND HEALTH

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is elevated (67%)

19 points above Alabama average of 48%

The Ugly 8 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening
Jun 2023 1 deficiency 1 IJ
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) Compression Airwa...

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) Compression Airway Breathing (CAB), The American Heart Association (AHA) current website for CPR & First Aid Emergency Cardiovascular Care, and the AHA Adult Basic Life Support (ABLS) Algorithm for Health Care Providers the facility failed to initiate CPR in accordance with facility policy and in accordance with the AHA, ABLS for Resident Identifier (RI) #1 on [DATE], when Employee Identifier (EI) #4, a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), determined RI #1 was unresponsive and had no palpable pulse upon returning to the facility. On [DATE], RI #1 was transferred by a transport van contracted by the facility to and from a medical appointment. RI #1's spouse and transport van driver stated RI #1 slid onto the van's floor from his/her wheelchair. The van driver informed RI #1's spouse that she needed to pull over and assess RI #1 but was directed by the spouse to continue driving to the facility. The van driver stated while driving she called the facility to alert them what occurred. Upon arrival to the facility, EI #4, LPN responded and observed RI #1 lying on his/her back with his/her legs between driver seat and passenger seat. EI #4 stated he assessed RI #1 and found him/her to be unresponsive and without a carotid pulse. EI #4 stated he provided sternal rub but failed to initiate CPR, activate Emergency Medical System (EMS), or summon additional assistance from facility staff. EI #4 stated he instructed the van's driver to transport RI #1 to the emergency room across the street instead of immediately performing CPR. Upon arrival at the emergency room (ER) RI #1 was found to be apneic and without a pulse. The ER staff performed Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) for twenty (20) minutes but was unsuccessful in reviving RI #1. The ER pronounced the death of RI #1 at 6:13 PM. This deficient practice placed RI #1, 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 had the potential to affect 18 full code residents of 26 residents under the care of EI #4 on [DATE]. On [DATE] at 3:37 PM, EI #1, the facility Administrator and EI # 2, the Director of Nursing (DON) 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). The immediate jeopardy began on [DATE] and continued until [DATE] when the facility implemented corrective actions to address the identified deficient practice, including ongoing monitoring; thus, immediate jeopardy past noncompliance was cited. Findings include: On [DATE] the State Survey Agency received an Online Incident Reporting System from East Glen Nursing Facility at 4:11 PM. East Glen submitted to the Alabama State Survey Agency an allegation labeled as other. The report identified, Resident left the facility with (spouse) in transport van, for a follow up appointment transported by (name) transportation. During the return trip driver reports resident slid out of chair. Upon return to facility resident was assessed in the van and noted to be unresponsive and without pulse. Nurse prompted (spouse) and driver to take resident to the emergency room . The facility timeline dated [DATE] for RI #1 identified the following: Approximately 2:45 pm (RI #1) left facility with (Name) Transport, accompanied by (his/her) spouse to go to a scheduled follow-up appointment . Approximately 5:36 pm (Name) Transport service called (EI #3, Director of Admissions) and informed her that RI #1 had slid out of (his/her) chair and they were pulling up to East Glen. Approximately 5:37 pm (EI #4) received phone call from (Name) Transport letting him know (RI #1) was unresponsive and could not wake (him/her) up and they were outside at front. (EI #4) immediately gathered staff and went to assess (RI #1). (RI #1) was found lying in the floor of van . (EI #4) went in the van and checked pulse. After not finding a pulse (EI #4) instructed the driver transport (RI #1) across the street to (Name of hospital) for evaluation . The facility's policy titled Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR)/Compression Airway Breathing (CAB), dated 03/2016, documented: PURPOSE: To circulate oxygenated blood through the body until advanced medical support arrives. STANDARD: CPR is initiated when indicated on residents who do not have DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) orders. PROCESS: (Some of these actions may occur simultaneously and / or by persons other than the first person responding to the scene) 1. Assess the resident's breathing and pulse. 2. Activate EMS system-call 911. 3. Begin compressions at a rate of 100 to 120 per minute at a depth of approximately 2 inches. Avoid excessive chest compressions depths of more than 2 inches. 4. Give 2 rescue breaths after 30 compressions. 5. Notify physicians/family/sponsor. 6. Continue compressions/breath cycle until EMS arrives or resident regains consciousness . 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. The AHA current website for CPR & First Aid Emergency Cardiovascular Care documents Science-based Guidelines . All recommendations below are based on the AHA Guidelines Update for CPR and Emergency Cardiovascular Care (ECC) . CPR . is an emergency lifesaving procedure performed when the heart stops beating. Immediate CPR can double or triple chances of survival after cardiac arrest . RI #1 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including: Metabolic Encephalopathy, Altered Mental Status, and Malignant Neoplasm. A review of RI #1's Physician Orders for the month of [DATE] revealed an order dated [DATE] for FULL CODE STATUS. A review of the facility's NON-WITNESS STATEMENT . dated [DATE] completed by EI #4 (LPN) identified that . At 5:46 PM the . driver called my personal phone and stated the Resident was unresponsive and not moving, and she was parked in the front of the facility. I then called both of my CNAs .and told them we have an emergency .I then went into the van to assess the resident. (He/She) was lying on (his/her) back with .legs in between the driver and passenger seat . Resident was pale in color .I checked the carotid for pulse and couldn't find one a sternal rub was performed also; I then instructed the driver to take (him/her) across the street to the Hospital . An interview was conducted on [DATE] at 10:30 AM with RI #1's spouse who reported he/she accompanied RI #1 to an appointment. RI #1's transportation was scheduled by the facility with a contracted company for non-emergency van transport. After the appointment and during the transport back to the facility he/she (spouse) was sitting behind RI #1. The resident's spouse said halfway to East Glen RI #1 slid out of the wheelchair onto the floor of the minivan. The spouse said when they arrived at the facility things happened quite fast. He/she continued to say several staff came to the van and a nurse assessed RI #1, but the nurse did not do anything and said take him/her to the ER. RI #1's spouse said the nurse did not perform CPR. RI #1's spouse was asked, did he/she agree that RI #1 needed to be transported to the ER in the van. He/she replied that he/she did not but what else was he/she going to do; it was out of his/her hands and sounded like the appropriate thing to do. RI #1's spouse said it took three to four minutes to transport RI #1 to ER from facility. An interview was conducted on [DATE] at 11:55 AM with the contracted van transport driver. The van driver reported when she picked up RI #1 from the doctor's appointment, he/she looked asleep and tired. The van driver said during the return trip RI #1 did not say anything and RI #1 kept sliding down in the chair. The van driver said RI #1 slid out of the wheelchair to the van's floor before arriving at the facility. The van driver said when they arrived at the facility it took staff about five to ten minutes to respond to their arrival. The van driver said staff got into the van and just stood there looking. The nurse said RI #1 was pale and instructed her to take RI #1 to the hospital. The van driver said she took RI #1 to the ER. When she arrived at the ER several staff came out and a nurse started CPR. The van driver said then ER staff brought a stretcher, removed RI #1 from the van, and continued CPR. The van driver stated that she was CPR certified and thought EI #4 should have at least entered the van and started CPR. An interview with EI #4 (LPN) was conducted on [DATE] at 1:00 PM. EI #4 was asked how he knew when to start CPR/BLS (Basic Life Support) for a resident. EI #4 replied, he would check for carotid pulse, rise and fall of chest, whether the skin color was normal, talked with patient to make sure patient could not respond. EI #4 said, he would check the airway and pulse, and if absent CPR would definitely be started. EI #4 was asked, what happened when RI #1 arrived at the facility in the transport van. EI #4 said the van driver called to report she could not wake RI #1 and RI #1 was not moving. EI #4 said he immediately summoned two CNAs, went out to the van, and then got into the van to assess RI #1. EI #4 said he performed a sternal rub with no response and was unable to palpate the carotid pulse. EI #4 said he told the van driver that RI #1 was in very critical condition, and she needed to get RI #1 to the hospital. EI #4 stated he did not know how long RI #1 had been non-responsive. EI #4 stated in an emergency response his role was to take the crash cart and perform CPR. EI #4 was asked, according to BLS and facility policy, what actions should have been taken based on his assessment. EI #4 stated, when breathing and pulse were not present, CPR should have been initiated. EI #4 stated he did not activate EMS and made the decision to send RI #1 to the ER. An interview was conducted on [DATE] at 6:10 PM with EI #8, CNA. EI #8 said EI #4 said he needed her because RI #1 was not responding. EI #8 said they went to the van. EI #8 said RI #1 was lying flat on his/her back wedged between the driver seat and the passenger seat. EI #8 stated the van driver said, (she/he) been down there for a while. EI #8 said EI #4 climbed into the van, assessed RI #1, and realized he/she did not have a pulse. EI #8 said RI #1 was very pale as white as a piece of paper. EI #8 said EI #4 told the van driver to take the resident to the hospital immediately and said RI #1 did not have a pulse. EI #8 said the driver asked where was the hospital; EI #8 and EI #4 pointed across the street. An interview was conducted on [DATE] at 3:25 PM with the emergency room physician who provided care to RI #1. The emergency room physician stated RI #1 arrived at the ER near 6:00 PM and did not have a pulse. He stated that the ER staff performed 20-30 minutes of ACLS according to protocol before death was pronounced. The ER physician stated when a resident was found to be pulseless nursing staff should immediately initiate CPR. An interview was conducted on [DATE] at 1:00 PM with EI #2 (Director of Nursing). EI #2 stated the code status for all residents was documented on the front of the resident's chart and in the Electronic Health Record (EHR). EI #2 stated the steps in determining if a resident requires CPR was to check code status, once identified if the resident was a full code status, then CPR would be initiated by assessing breathing and pulse. EI #2 stated when a resident was without a pulse, the nurse should initiate CPR and activate EMS. EI #2 stated EI #4 did not initiate CPR according to facility policy. EI #2 stated it was not standard policy and procedure to send a resident to ER without initiating CPR. EI #2 stated all licensed nurses were CPR certified. An interview was conducted on [DATE] at 11:45AM with EI #1, Administrator who stated all licensed staff (LPN's and RN's) were trained on BLS through AHA and they know what to do in emergency. EI #1 stated she was told RI #1 went out to a medical appointment and on the way back to the facility he/she slid out of the wheelchair. EI #1 stated the van driver called the facility and notified the nurse RI #1 slid out of the chair. EI #1 stated when the van arrived, RI #1 was on the floor of van according to the nurse's statement. EI #1 stated EI #4, LPN assessed RI #1 and immediately sent him/her to the emergency room across the street. EI #1 stated according to facility policy, staff should have verified code status and initiated CPR. EI #1 stated that a resident requiring emergency care prior to the arrival of emergency medical personnel should receive basic life support, including CPR. EI #1 stated on [DATE] RI #1 was assessed by EI #4 to be pulseless and was not provided CPR by EI #4 nor was emergency services contacted. EI #4 instructed the van driver to take RI #1 to the ER by non-emergent transport. This deficient practice was cited as a result of the investigation of complaint/report number AL00044244 ****************************************************************** The facility took the following immediate action to correct the deficient practice; thus, past non-compliance was cited: 1) Reported the incident to ADPH Online Reporting System on [DATE] and investigation completed. 2) Notified Medical Director, audit conducted on all resident's code status and care plans on [DATE]. 3) Terminated contract with transport company on [DATE]. 4) Held a QA held and QAPI (Quality .) on [DATE]. 5) On [DATE] EI #4 was provided 1:1 education/in-servicing on the facility CPR policy and code status. 6) Completed in-servicing for all licensed staff on Code Status and performance of CPR on [DATE]. 7) Completed Mock Codes on [DATE] and [DATE]. 8) Completed audit for licensed staff to verify CPR on [DATE]. 9) DON monitoring all unusual occurrences beginning on [DATE].
Mar 2023 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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** RI #7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of RI #7's physician orders revealed, . Compassus Hospice to evaluate an...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** RI #7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of RI #7's physician orders revealed, . Compassus Hospice to evaluate and admit . on 11/09/2022. RI #7's quarterly MDS with an ARD of 02/12/2023 was not coded to reflect RI #7 received hospice services. In an interview on 03/16/2023 at 10:48 AM, EI #3, RN/MDS Coordinator, stated RI #7 received hospice at the time of the most current MDS. EI #3 stated the MDS was not coded for hospice. EI #3 stated the MDS should have been coded for receiving hospice while a resident. EI #3 stated the risk of the MDS not being coded correctly was, it would not reflect the care of the resident. On 03/16/23 at 02:41 PM, an interview was conducted with EI #2, RN/Director of Nursing (DON). EI #2 was asked, what was the procedure when a resident was placed on hospice. EI #2 replied, an order was obtained for a consult, the resident was evaluated and the service was added to the care plan and the MDS assessment. EI #2 was asked, where should hospice have been addressed on the MDS dated [DATE]. EI #2 replied, Section O, Letter K. EI #2 was asked, what was the risk of hospice not being addressed on the MDS. EI #2 replied, the information was needed to appropriately update the care plan according to the needs. EI #2 was asked, when was the order for RI #7's hospice written. EI #2 replied, 11/09/2022. EI #2 was asked, where was hospice coded on RI #7's MDS for 02/12/2023. EI #2 replied, it was not coded. Based on interviews, resident record reviews, and review of the Centers for Medicare & (and) Medicaid Services Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 User's Manual, the facility failed to ensure Resident Identifier (RI) #24's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 01/17/2023 was accurately coded for Dialysis and Oxygen Therapy and RI #7's quarterly MDS with an ARD of 02/12/2023 was accurately coded for Hospice services. This affected two of 18 sampled residents for whom MDS assessments were reviewed. Findings Include: The Centers for Medicare & (and) Medicaid Services Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 User's Manual Version 1.17.1, dated October 2019, documented: . SECTION O: SPECIAL TREATMENTS, PROCEDURES, AND PROGRAMS Intent: The intent of the items in this section is to identify any special treatments, procedures, and programs that the resident received during the specified time periods. O0100C, Oxygen therapy Code continuous or intermittent oxygen administered via mask, cannula, etc., delivered to a resident to relieve hypoxia in this item. O0100J, Dialysis Code peritoneal or renal dialysis which occurs at the nursing home of at another facility . O0100K, Hospice care Code residents identified as being in a hospice program for terminally ill persons where an array of services is provided for the palliation and management of terminal illness and related conditions. RI #24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted [DATE] with diagnoses to include Chronic Respiratory Failure with Hypoxia, Stage Four (4) Chronic Kidney Disease, and Shortness of Breath. RI #24's March 2023 physician orders documented an order dated 01/10/2023 instructing that RI #24 was to receive Oxygen (02) at three (3) liters per minute (l/m) by nasal cannula (n/c) for Shortness of Breath and low oxygen saturation. Another physician order dated 01/10/2023 documented RI #24 was to receive Dialysis on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. RI #24's quarterly MDS with an ARD of 01/17/2023 was not coded to reflect RI #24 received Dialysis Treatments or Oxygen Therapy in the last 14 days. In an interview on 03/15/2023 at 3:10 PM, Employee Identifier (EI) #3, a Registered Nurse (RN)/MDS Coordinator, stated RI #24 received dialysis at the time of the most current MDS. EI #3 stated the MDS was not coded for dialysis. EI #3 stated the MDS should have been coded for receiving dialysis while a resident. EI #3 stated the MDS was not complete and accurate. EI #3 stated the MDS should be an accurate reflection of the resident. In a follow-up interview on 03/16/2023 at 02:32 PM, EI #3, RN/MDS Coordinator, stated RI #24 received oxygen therapy at the time of the most current MDS. EI #3 stated the MDS indicated the resident was not receiving oxygen therapy. EI #3 stated the MDS should have been coded that the resident was receiving oxygen therapy. EI #3 stated RI #24's MDS was not complete and accurate. EI #3 stated the MDS did not capture the full picture of the resident's care.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, resident record review, and review of [NAME] and [NAME], Fundamentals of Nursing, NINTH EDITI...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, resident record review, and review of [NAME] and [NAME], Fundamentals of Nursing, NINTH EDITION, the facility failed to ensure licensed staff, Employee Identifier (EI) #10, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)/Wound Care Nurse, followed physician orders for treatment for Resident Identifier (RI) #24. This was observed on 03/16/2023 when dressings on RI #24's legs had not been changed the night before as ordered. This deficient practice had the potential to affect RI #24, one of three residents for whom wound treatments were reviewed. Findings Include: A review of [NAME] and [NAME]'s 2017, Fundamentals of Nursing, NINTH EDITION, Chapter 23, Legal Implication in Nursing Practice, page 311, revealed the following: . Health Care Providers' Orders. The health care provider (physician or advanced practice nurse) is responsible for directing medical treatment. Nurses follow health care providers' orders unless they believe the orders are in error, . or are harmful to the patient. RI #24 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses to include: Peripheral Vascular Disease, Swelling of Bilateral Lower Legs, and Chronic Peripheral Venous Insufficiency. RI #24's March 2023 physician orders documented an order dated 01/31/2023 for RI #24's legs to be wrapped with Ace wrap (elastic bandage) twice a day for swelling. On 03/14/2023 at 8:20 AM RI #24 was observed sitting in a wheelchair in his/her room. RI #24 said, he/she had cellulitis in his/her legs, and venous stasis in his/her feet. RI #24 said, he/she was supposed to have his/her legs wrapped, but the facility had not been doing that as ordered, and only sometimes he/she got them wrapped. RI #24's legs were observed not wrapped, and blisters were observed on each leg, weeping fluid onto the floor. On 03/15/2023 at 9:26 AM RI #24 was up in a wheelchair and RI #24's legs were covered with Ace wrap. Later that same day, 03/15/2023 at 5:35 PM, RI #24 marked the Ace bandages with a yellow X on the left lower leg. The next morning, on 03/16/2023 at 7:46 AM, an observation was made of Ace wraps on RI #24's legs with the yellow X mark on the left lower leg, that RI #24 had placed there the previous day. RI #24 said, the staff had not changed the Ace bandages since yesterday morning. RI #24's March 2023 Electronic Medication Administration Record (EMAR) documented both of RI #24's legs were to be wrapped with Ace wrap twice a day for swelling. The EMAR documented the wraps were to be done at 9:00 AM and 9:00 PM. The EMAR documented the treatment entry on 03/15/2023 at 9:00 PM as N, which meant RI #24's legs had not been wrapped by the nurse at that time. The entry was documented by EI #10 LPN. On 03/16/2023 at 11:19 AM EI #10, the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)/Treatment Nurse was asked, how often were the Ace wraps ordered to be changed for EI #24. EI #10 replied, 9:00 AM and 9:00 PM. EI #10 was asked, why she charted N for the Ace wrap changes on 03/15/2023. EI #10 replied, because RI #24 was sitting up and she asked RI #24 to lie down, and RI #24 was not ready to lie down. EI #10 was asked, what did N mean on the EMAR. EI #10 answered, it meant EI #10 did not administer the treatment. EI #10 was asked, what she should have done. EI #10 replied, she could have called the Director of Nursing (DON) and let her know that RI #24 would not get in the bed. EI #10 was asked, how many times on her shift did the Ace wrap get changed. EI #10 replied, none. EI #10 was asked, what was the risk of not following physician orders. EI #10 replied, it all depended on what the order was. On 03/16/2023 at 12:37 PM, RI #24 was observed still wearing the Ace wraps with the yellow X mark on the left leg. RI #24 told the surveyor, no one had been in his/her room to change the wraps and no one had asked about changing the Ace wraps, and they wraps had been on RI #24's legs since yesterday morning around 8:00 AM. A phone interview was conducted on 03/16/2023 at 8:29 AM with EI #8, Certified Registered Nurse Practitioner (CRNP). EI #8 was asked, what she been told about RI #24's skin. EI #8 replied, RI #24 had weeping legs. EI #8 said, RI #24 had orders for his/her legs to be wrapped two times a day because of the weeping to keep them as dry as possible. EI #8 said if RI #24's legs were not wrapped twice a day there was a risk of the areas on RI #24's legs turning into cellulitis. EI #8 stated, she would like for RI #24's legs to be wrapped twice a day. On 03/16/2023 at 2:25 PM a follow up phone interview with EI #8 was conducted. EI #8 was asked about the purpose of the Ace wraps for RI #24 legs. EI #8 replied, to help control the moisture. EI #8 said other types of dressings could get wet and soggy. EI #8 was asked what the risk would be of Ace wraps being left on for over 24 hours without being changed. EI #8 replied, the bandages could be wet. EI #8 said if the Ace wraps were kept on too long, it would keep in moisture and could cause skin breakdown. On 03/16/2023 at 2:41 PM an interview was conducted with EI #2 RN/DON (Director of Nursing). EI #2 was asked, who should have been wrapping RI #24's legs. EI #2 replied, the nurse. EI #2 was asked, what was her concern of RI #24's legs having the same Ace wraps on since around 8:00 AM on 03/15/2023. EI #2 replied, RI #24's wraps needed to be changed. When asked about why it would the required for RI #24 to be back in the bed to have the wraps changed, EI #2 replied, it was not a requirement, but it would be easier for the nurse and the resident.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0919 (Tag F0919)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, resident record review, and review of a facility policy titled Call Light, the facility faile...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, resident record review, and review of a facility policy titled Call Light, the facility failed to ensure Resident Identifier (RI) #41's call light was positioned within reach of the resident on 03/14/2023 while RI #41 was in a wheelchair in his/her room. This affected one of 18 sampled residents. Findings include: A facility policy titled Call Light effective 12/2016, documented: . PURPOSE: Call lights serve as notice to the staff the resident has a need or request. Prompt answering of call lights provides a sense of security to the resident. 4. Place the call light within reach of the resident before leaving the room. RI #41 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. On 03/14/2023, the surveyor made the following observations of RI #41: At 8:56 AM RI #41 was sitting in a wheelchair in his/her room. RI #41 had finished the breakfast meal and said, he/she wanted to get back in bed. RI #41 said, he/she could not reach his/her call light to call for staff assistance. At 9:03 AM Employee Identifier (EI) #6 Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) went into RI #41's room to pick up the breakfast tray and RI #41 asked for assistance to get back in the bed. EI #6 told RI #41, she would be right back. At 9:04 AM another staff member went into RI #41's room, picked up a cup, and came out of the room. At 9:09 AM RI #41 still in the wheelchair, did not have a call light within reach, and was still requesting to get into bed. At 9:23 AM RI #41 began yelling out for help. At 9:26 AM RI #41 yelled out nurse, nurse, help, help. At 9:27 AM RI #41 yelled out help, help. At 9:28 AM a staff member walked by RI #41's room and did not look into RI #41's room as RI #41 called out for help. At 9:33 AM RI #41 called out, help, while EI #7 Registered Nurse (RN), was at the medication cart in the hallway. At 9:34 AM EI #7 pushed the medication cart in front of RI #41's room, entered RI #41's room, and told RI #41 someone would come to assist him/her. At 9:37 AM staff went to assist RI #41. On 03/14/2023 at 9:42 AM EI #6 CNA was asked where RI #41's call light was. EI #6 said, it was on RI #41's bed under RI #41's blanket. EI #6 said, RI #41's call light was too far from RI #41, out of RI #41's reach. EI #6 said, the risk of RI #41's call light being out of reach was that RI #41 could have fallen, and RI #41, not being able to reach the call light, could not call for help. EI #6 said, the policy for call lights was to make sure the call light was within reach for residents to be able call for help. EI #6 was asked, why she did not check RI #41's call light placement when she went in the room to pick up the breakfast tray. EI #6 replied, she was in a rush to pick up the trays. EI #6 said, she was supposed to check on the resident's call light positioning whenever she went in the room. On 03/14/2023 at 9:47 AM EI #7 RN was asked why she entered RI #41's room. EI #7 said, she heard RI #41 asking for help. When asked where RI #41's call light was, EI #7 said, she did not notice. When asked if RI #41 uses the call light, EI #7 answered, RI #41 uses the call light. When asked what the risk was of a resident not having the call light within reach, EI #7 said, not receiving care in a timely manner or the resident could fall. When asked the reason she did not check to see where RI #41's call light was, EI #7 said, she was doing her medication pass and she heard RI #41 call out so she checked on him/her. When asked where RI #41's call light should have been, EI #7 said, always within reach. On 03/16/2023 at 2:41 PM EI #2, Director of Nursing (DON) was asked what her concern was of a resident's call light not being within reach. EI #2 said, if the call light was not in reach it would make it difficult for the resident to notify staff if they needed something or if they had an emergency. EI #2 said, if the staff went into the resident's room because the resident was yelling, the staff should have placed the call light in reach of the resident before they left the room.
Nov 2019 4 deficiencies
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 interview, record review, review of Fundamentals of Nursing, Ninth Edition, and review of a facility policy titled, Gui...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, review of Fundamentals of Nursing, Ninth Edition, and review of a facility policy titled, Guidelines Wound Management, the facility failed to ensure Employee Identifier (EI) #11, the Treatment Nurse, did not document a wound assessment for Resident Identifier (RI) #393 on 10/2/19 without indicating it was for a prior assessment date. This affected one of five residents sampled for pressure ulcers. Findings include: Review of Fundamentals of Nursing, Ninth Edition, copyright 2017, Chapter 26 Documentation and Informatics, page 362, revealed the following: GUIDELINES FOR QUALITY DOCUMENTATION .Current Timely entries are essential in patient's ongoing care. Delays in documentation lead to unsafe patient care . Review of the facility policy titled Guidelines Wound Management with an effective date of 1/2017 revealed the following: . DOCUMENTATION . Update wound assessment module weekly . RI #393 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with Pressure Ulcer of the Sacral Region. Review of RI #393's admission BODY AUDIT form, dated 9/20/19, revealed an open area to the sacrum. Review of RI #393's wound assessments revealed EI #11, Registered Nurse/Wound Treatment Nurse, failed to document a weekly assessment of RI #393's wound in the wound assessment module between 9/20/19, the day RI #393 was admitted to the facility and the date the wound was identified, and 10/2/19. The first documented Wound Assessment Report listed a Date of Assessment of 10/2/19, but indicated the wound was identified on 9/20/19. On 10/31/19 at 12:30 PM, EI #11, Treatment Nurse, provided an undated handwritten wound report with RI #393's name and a measurement. EI #11 was asked when the measurement was taken. EI #11 said, he did not know. On 11/01/19 at 9:21 AM, EI #11 was asked what training he received on the documentation process for the electronic system for wounds. EI #11 stated, wounds must be updated weekly. EI #11 was asked why it was important to assess and document the details of the wound, with measurements and a description. EI #11 said, to know the baseline of the wound and a proper assessment was the foundation of accurate treatment. When asked how he was assessing and documenting if he was not using the wound assessment manager, EI #11 said, he would handwrite notes about the wounds, and then later went in and entered the information into the system on 10/2/19. When asked why his assessments were not documented in the resident's record prior to 10/2/19, EI #11 replied, the demand for treatment superseded the demand for documentation. On 11/02/19 at 1:51 PM, EI #11 was asked how he would record a nursing entry for a previous date. EI #11 said, it would be a late entry. EI #11 was asked why he did not document a late entry for the documentation of the wound assessment for RI #393 that was entered into the system on 10/2/19. EI #11 said, it was difficult learning to integrate clinical treatments and clerical technical documentation.
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 observation, interview, the 2017 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Code, and the facility's Food and Nutrition Department cleaning logs for AM Cook, PM Cook, AM Aide, AM Dining Room (DR...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, the 2017 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Code, and the facility's Food and Nutrition Department cleaning logs for AM Cook, PM Cook, AM Aide, AM Dining Room (DR) Aide, PM Aid, PM DR Aid, Part Time (PT) Aide, and Helper for the week of 10/27/2019, the facility failed to ensure: 1.) the dishwashing machine drainpipe did not extend into the floor drain by three inches and thereby create the potential for backflow, 2.) the standing table mixer was clean and without any dried chocolate-colored residue, 3.) the floors in the dry storeroom, behind the trayline's reach-in cooler, and between the backs of the major pieces of cooking equipment were clean, 4.) the interior of the trayline's reach-in cooler was clean and dry, 5.) the ice cream was frozen solid in the ice cream freezer, 6.) there was not a dark residue build-up on the two water spray heads and the interior housing of the coffee machine, 7.) the convection oven did not have a heavy build-up of dark residue inside the oven, and 8.) the griddle drip pan was not one-third full of grease. This had the potential to affect all residents receiving meals from the kitchen, 101 of 103 residents in the facility. Findings include: 1.) The 2017 FDA Food Code included the following: . 5-402.11 Backflow Prevention. (A) . a direct connection may not exist between the SEWAGE system and a drain originating from EQUIPMENT in which FOOD, portable EQUIPMENT, or UTENSILS are placed. On 10/29/19 at 10:47 AM, an observation was made of the dishwashing machine drainpipe extending down into the floor drain with Employee Identifier (EI) #2, the Registered Dietitian (RD)/Director of Food and Nutrition, and EI #4, the Director of Maintenance/Housekeeping. EI #4 was asked if he could measure the drain. EI #4 said yes and went to get a measuring device. On 10/29/19 at 10:48 AM, EI #2 was asked what was the concern with the drain from the dishwasher extending into the floor drain. EI #2 said Backflow. On 10/29/19 at 10:49 AM, EI #4 measured the metal dishwasher drainpipe from the top of the floor drain to the end of the drainpipe. EI #4 said it extended three inches into the floor drain. EI #4 agreed that backflow could be a concern since the drainpipe extended into the floor drain. 2.) The 2017 FDA Food Code included the following: . 4-601.11 Equipment, Food-Contact Surfaces, Nonfood Contact Surfaces, and Utensils. (A) . EQUIPMENT FOOD-CONTACT SURFACES and UTENSILS shall be clean to sight and touch. (B) . The FOOD-CONTACT SURFACES of cooking EQUIPMENT and pans shall be kept free of encrusted grease deposits and other soil accumulations. During a kitchen observation on 10/29/19 at 10:35 AM, the mixer was seen covered with a plastic bag. When asked if that meant the mixer was clean, EI #2, the RD/Director of Food and Nutrition, said yes. When the mixer was uncovered, dried spots of chocolate-colored residue were observed underneath the top frame of the mixer and on the cage above the mixer bowl. EI #7, a Dietary Aide who was also present, was asked when was the last time the mixer was cleaned. EI #7 stated it was possibly cleaned last weekend. EI #2 stated it should have been cleaned on Sunday (10/27/19) after they made brownies. When asked if the mixer was clean, EI #2 said it had debris on it and it was not clean. During an interview on 10/30/19 at 4:27 PM, EI #2 was asked what was the potential concern with the mixer being left dirty with dried spots of chocolate-colored residue underneath the top frame of the mixer and on the cage above the mixer bowl. EI #2 replied debris, bacteria, food borne illness, and pests. 3.) The 2017 FDA Food Code included the following: . 6-501.12 Cleaning, Frequency and Restrictions. (A) PHYSICAL FACILITIES shall be cleaned as often as necessary to keep them clean. On 10/29/19 at 10:57 AM, the floor to the dry storage room was observed dirty, with more than a 24-hour accumulation of debris, especially under the shelving areas. In one section of the storeroom, under the shelving, there was an area of dark residue where the wall and floor met. EI #2, the RD/Director of Food and Nutrition, was asked how often the storeroom was swept and mopped. EI #2 went to check the posted cleaning logs for the week of 10/27/19 and then said the staff had not been signing off on them. Seven of eight cleaning logs included the task of Floor area-swept and cleaned. Only one cleaning log had anything initialed as being done, and that was the PM Cook's cleaning log for duties completed on 10/28/19 (Monday). On 10/29/19 at 11:05 AM, an observation was made of the reach-in cooler for the line. Something had leaked from the reach-in cooler onto the floor behind it. On 10/29/19 at 11:14 AM, an observation was made of the floor between the backs of the convection oven, the stove, and the other major cooking equipment. The floor was very dirty with debris and had a build-up of dark, grease-like residue. On 10/30/19 at 9:37 AM, an observation again revealed a buildup of debris on the floor behind and between the backs of the pieces of major cooking equipment, which were the stove, the ovens, the steamer, the fryers, and the tilt skillet. On 10/30/19 at 9:43 AM, there was a dried spill observed behind the reach-in cooler. During an interview on 10/30/2019 at 4:27 PM, EI #2 was asked if the cleaning logs were properly completed for AM [NAME] Cleaning, AM Aide Cleaning, AM DR Aide Cleaning, Helper Cleaning, PT Aide Cleaning, PM DR Aid Cleaning, and PM Aide Cleaning for 10/27/19 (Sunday) through 10/28/19 (Monday). At this time, EI #2 was shown copies of the cleaning logs, which she had provided on 10/29/19. EI #2 replied no. When asked what does not completing the logs indicate and why is that a concern, EI #2 said it indicated no one did their cleaning assignments and the concern was not having a clean and sanitized kitchen and the potential for food borne illness. When asked what was the potential problem with the floors in the dry storage room accumulating dust and being dirty, EI #2 said attracting pests. EI #2 was asked what was the potential problem with drainage of fluid on the floor behind the reach-in cooler being present on 10/29/19 and 10/30/19. EI #2 said significant debris, bacteria, and pests. When asked what was the potential concern with a buildup of grease and debris on the floor between the cooking equipment, EI #2 said cleanliness and attracting pests. 4.) The 2017 FDA Food Code included the following: . 4-601.11 Equipment, Food-Contact Surfaces, Nonfood Contact Surfaces and Utensils. (C) . NONFOOD FOOD CONTACT SURFACES of EQUIPMENT shall be kept free of an accumulation of dust, dirt, FOOD residue, and other residue. On 10/29/19 at 11:05 AM, an observation made of the reach-in cooler for the tray line revealed something was leaking and had pooled at the base of the interior of the cooler. It had not been cleaned, but rags were soaking up the leak inside the cooler. There were pink and yellow stains on the rags. The fluid had dripped down the front interior of the cooler and onto the interior gasket of the cooler door. EI #2, the RD/Director of Food and Nutrition, was interviewed on 10/30/19 at 4:27 PM. EI #2 was asked what was the potential problem with the reach-in cooler for the tray line having pooled liquid at the base of the interior of the cooler, having rags soaking up the liquid inside the cooler that were stained pink and yellow, and having fluid which had dripped down the front interior of the cooler and onto the interior gasket of the cooler door. EI #2 said issues with cleanliness, potential for bacteria, and potential for pests. 5.) The 2017 FDA Food Code included the following: . 3-501.11 Frozen Food Stored frozen Foods shall be maintained frozen. On 10/29/19 between 10:57 AM and 11:11 AM , the ice cream inside the chest freezer was mushy/soft when squeezed and was not frozen solid. Both sides of the chest freezer had mushy ice cream, including containers in a box that had not been previously opened. On 10/30/19 at 9:42 AM , the ice cream was checked and was again found to not be frozen solid. During an interview on 10/30/2019 at 4:27 PM, EI #2, the RD/Director of Food and Nutrition, was asked what was the problem with the ice cream not being frozen solid. EI #2 replied it's not at temp (temperature), so that means it could potentially be in the danger zone. 6.) The 2017 FDA Food Code included the following: . 4-601.11 Equipment, Food-Contact Surfaces, Nonfood Contact Surfaces and Utensils. (C) . NONFOOD FOOD CONTACT SURFACES of EQUIPMENT shall be kept free of an accumulation of dust, dirt, FOOD residue, and other residue. On 10/29/19 at 11:11 AM , a buildup of dark residue was observed on and around the two water spray heads on the interior housing of the coffee maker over each of the coffee filter baskets/pots. During an interview on 10/30/2019 at 4:27 PM, EI #2, the RD/Director of Food and Nutrition, was asked what was the potential concern with built up dark residue around the two water spray heads and on the interior housing of the coffee maker. EI #2 said significant buildup leads to significant bacteria, which can lead to food borne illnesses. 7.) The 2017 FDA Food Code included the following: . 4-601.11 Equipment, Food-Contact Surfaces, Nonfood Contact Surfaces and Utensils. (C) . NONFOOD FOOD CONTACT SURFACES of EQUIPMENT shall be kept free of an accumulation of dust, dirt, FOOD residue, and other residue. On 10/29/19 at 11:13 AM , the convection oven was observed with a buildup of dark, heavy residue over entire interior of the oven. EI #6, the AM Relief Cook, was asked who cleaned the ovens. EI #6 shook her head and said they did not have anyone. EI #2, the RD/Director of Food and Nutrition, was interviewed on 10/30/2019 at 4:27 PM. EI #2 was asked which oven or ovens were supposed to be cleaned per the PM [NAME] cleaning log, which documented there was to be a monthly cleaning of the oven, oven racks, and a deep cleaning of the stove eyes. EI #2 said if it did not specify, it should be all three ovens, to include the convection oven and the stove range ovens. When asked how did she ensure this happens, EI #2 said she would have to follow up with the Dining Service Manager (EI #3) to ensure he was monitoring if the responsible staff members were doing their cleaning assignments. EI #2 was asked what was the potential problem with the convection oven having buildup of dark residue inside and not being cleaned on a regular basis. EI #2 said if there is buildup, there is more than likely bacteria growing which is going to lead to food borne illness and also attract pests. On 10/30/19 at 5:02 PM, EI #3, the Dining Service Manager, was interviewed. EI #3 was asked how he monitored to see if the oven had been cleaned. EI #3 said they wiped down the outside surfaces every day, but a good job was not done inside the ovens. When asked how long it had been since the inside of the ovens were cleaned, EI #3 said it had been several months. 8.) The 2017 FDA Food Code included the following: . 4-601.11 Equipment, Food-Contact Surfaces, Nonfood Contact Surfaces and Utensils. (C) . NONFOOD FOOD CONTACT SURFACES of EQUIPMENT shall be kept free of an accumulation of dust, dirt, FOOD residue, and other residue. On 10/29/19 at 11:14 AM, the stove griddle's drip pan was observed to be at least one-third full of grease and it appeared to be more than a 24-hour accumulation. During an interview on 10/30/2019 at 4:27 PM, EI #2, the RD/Director of Food and Nutrition, was asked how often should the griddle drip pan be emptied and cleaned. EI #2 said they should do it everyday after significant spills and after production. When asked if it was acceptable for the griddle drip pan to be one-third full of grease, EI #2 said no. Upon being asked the potential concern, EI #2 said significant buildup leads to significant bacteria and pests, which could lead to food borne illness.
CONCERN (F)

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

Garbage Disposal (Tag F0814)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, review of the facility's policy for Smoking/Tobacco/Electronic Cigarette Free Facility and review of the 2017 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Code, the facilit...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, review of the facility's policy for Smoking/Tobacco/Electronic Cigarette Free Facility and review of the 2017 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Code, the facility failed to ensure waste was not strewn about the area designated for the compacting dumpster and the grease refuse container. The waste included cigarette butts, pepper packets, gloves, a pie box, a plastic food container lid, unidentifiable clumps of white residue, and dirty mop water This had the potential to affect 103 of 103 residents currently residing in the facility. Findings include: A facility policy dated 11/08/99 titled, Smoking/Tobacco/Electronic Cigarette Free Facility, included the following: (name of company) facilities are tobacco-free and electronic cigarette free in an effort to contribute to a safe, healthful, and comfortable work environment for employees and visitors. Smoking, tobacco products, and/or electronic cigarettes are prohibited in all workplace areas throughout all . (name of company) facilities . The 2017 FDA Food Code included the following: . 5-501.15 Outside Receptacles. (B) Receptacles and waste handling units for REFUSE and recyclables such as an on-site compactor shall be installed so that accumulation of debris and insect and rodent attraction and harborage are minimized and effective cleaning is facilitated around and . under the unit. 5-501.115 Maintaining Refuse Areas and Enclosures. A storage area and enclosure for REFUSE . shall be maintained free of unnecessary items . and clean. An initial tour of the dumpster/refuse area of the facility was conducted on 10/29/19 at 11:17 AM with Employee Identifier (EI) #2, the Registered Dietitian (RD)/Director of Food and Nutrition. At this time, EI #5, a Housekeeping Floor Tech, was observed dumping mop water with some suds from the loading dock onto the pavement between the compacting dumpster and the grease refuse container. EI #5 responded to questions about correct disposal of dirty mop water by stating, I'm new. At 11:18 AM, the initial tour of the dumpster/refuse area revealed: at least 16 cigarette butts, pepper packets, a small plastic food container lid, and multiple clumps of an unidentifiable white residue underneath and around the grease refuse container. In addition, a pie box and two plastic gloves were observed under the dumpster compactor. The dumpster compactor was located next to the grease refuse container. Both the dumpster compactor and the grease refuse container were directly adjacent to the loading dock for the facility. On 10/29/19 at 12:00 PM, EI #4, the Maintenance Director/Housekeeping Director, was asked how were workers supposed to dispose of dirty mop water. He answered in the janitorial closet. EI #4 further said there were four janitorial sinks and that one of the four was in the kitchen. EI #4 also said it was not appropriate to dump the mop water off the loading dock. When asked what was the policy on cleaning around the dumpster, EI #4 said it was cleaned really well every two weeks when the compacting dumpster was removed for emptying. During an interview on 10/30/19 at 04:27 PM, EI #2, the RD/Director of Food and Nutrition, was asked what was the potential concern with trash accumulating around and under the grease refuse container and the compacting dumpster. EI #2 said, It would attract pests and rodents. When asked how this could affect residents, EI #2 said pests and rodents could get in the kitchen. Upon being asked who was responsible for cleaning around the dumpster, EI #2 said she was not sure who was responsible for cleaning around the dumpster. During an interview on 10/30/19 at 5:11 PM, EI #4, the Maintenance Director/Housekeeping Director, was asked what was the potential concern with trash accumulating around and under the grease refuse container and the compacting dumpster; to include a pie box, gloves, unidentified white clumps, and cigarette butts. EI #4 said the drain could get clogged. When asked if he was able to determine that the white clumps were, EI #4 responded it could be chemicals or paper; he was not really sure. EI #4 was asked who was responsible for cleaning the area around the dumpster. He said housekeeping was responsible, and they do a walk-through everyday. When asked what was the problem with dumping mop water off the loading dock onto the pavement, EI #4 said chemicals go right down into the earth through the drain. EI #4 further said a floor tech should use the service sink because it provided more control and protected the soil.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0836 (Tag F0836)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and review of the ALABAMA BOARD OF NURSING ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, the facility failed to develop standardized procedures for wound assessment and care that were approved by the Alabam...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and review of the ALABAMA BOARD OF NURSING ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, the facility failed to develop standardized procedures for wound assessment and care that were approved by the Alabama Board of Nursing. This had the potential to affect all 103 of 103 residents currently residing in the facility identified by Employee Identifier, EI #1, the Administrator, as being considered at risk for pressure ulcer development. Findings include: Review of the ALABAMA BOARD OF NURSING ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, dated 3/31/19, revealed the following: . 610-X-6-.12 Practice Beyond Basic Nursing Education: Standardized Procedures. (1) For practice beyond basic education that has not been previously approved by the Board, a standardized procedure is required for the licensed nurse in any practice setting. . (b) Practice beyond basic education in . other locations outside a licensed hospital requires approval by the Board prior to implementation. (2) A complete Standardized Procedure Application shall be submitted to the Board for practice beyond basic education preparation required in rule, practice not previously approved by the Board, and shall include: (a) Approval from the submitting facility, as evidenced by signatures on the application form of: 1. The chief nursing officer or, if no such position exists within a facility, an Alabama-licensed registered nurse who has oversight responsibility for the procedure. 2. The Alabama-licensed chief medical officer or an Alabama-licensed physician. 3. The chief executive officer for the Alabama organization. (b) The policy and procedure. (c) The organized program of study by a qualified instructor with the method of evaluation of learning specified. (d) The plan for supervised clinical practice. (e) The plan for demonstration of competence, initially and at periodic intervals, during which the nurse demonstrates the knowledge, skills, and ability to perform the procedure safely and to manage any complications. . 610-X-6-.13 Standards For Wound Assessment And Care. (1) It is within the scope of a licensed nurse practice to perform wound assessments, including but not limited to staging of a wound and making determinations as to whether wounds are present on admission to a healthcare facility, pursuant to an approved standardized procedure, outlined in Rule 610-X-6-.12, Standardized Procedures, including supervised clinical practice and demonstrated clinical competence, initially and at periodic intervals . On 11/06/19 at 10:01 AM Employee Identifier (EI) #1, the Administrator, EI #9, Director of Nursing (DON), and EI #10 ,Director of Clinical Operations, were present with the surveyor and were asked about the facility's standardized procedures for pressure ulcer assessment and care, approved through the Alabama Board of Nursing. Their collective answer was, that was not something they had done. On 11/08/19 at 12:02 PM, EI #9, DON, was interviewed to discuss the concern of the facility not having a standardized procedure in place for pressure ulcer assessment and care that had been approved by the Alabama Board of Nursing. EI #9 was asked why had standardized procedures for pressure ulcer assessment and care not been submitted to the Board of Nursing. EI #9 said, she was unsure of the reason. EI #9 was asked if she would be using it to train nurses if the facility had one. EI #9 said, yes. EI #9 was asked why it would be important to have a standardized procedure, submitted to and accepted by the Alabama Board of Nursing for standards for wound assessment and care. EI #9 replied, to make sure the wounds were assessed and treated to provide appropriate care. When asked what elements would be included in the standards for wound assessment and care, EI #9 stated, scheduled body audits, reporting of concerns, identifying concerns, treatment, and documentation. On 11/08/19 at 12:42 PM, EI #10, Director of Clinical Operations, was asked about the facility's standardized procedures for wound care. EI #10 said, she had not submitted standardized procedures for pressure ulcer assessment and care to the Alabama Board of Nursing. When asked why not, EI #10 said, when she reviewed the standard she did not see anything that led her to believe that she needed to send one.
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: 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 8 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $14,521 in fines. Above average for Alabama. Some compliance problems on record.
  • • Grade D (41/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 41/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is East Glen's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns EAST GLEN 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 East Glen Staffed?

CMS rates EAST GLEN's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 67%, which is 20 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 71%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at East Glen?

State health inspectors documented 8 deficiencies at EAST GLEN during 2019 to 2023. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 7 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 East Glen?

EAST GLEN 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 NOLAND HEALTH, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 108 certified beds and approximately 96 residents (about 89% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in BIRMINGHAM, Alabama.

How Does East Glen Compare to Other Alabama Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Alabama, EAST GLEN's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (67%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting East Glen?

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 I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the facility's high staff turnover rate.

Is East Glen Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, EAST GLEN has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (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 East Glen Stick Around?

Staff turnover at EAST GLEN is high. At 67%, the facility is 20 percentage points above the Alabama average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 71%. 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 East Glen Ever Fined?

EAST GLEN has been fined $14,521 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Alabama average of $33,224. 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 East Glen on Any Federal Watch List?

EAST GLEN 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.