WINDSOR HOUSE

4411 MCALLISTER DRIVE, HUNTSVILLE, AL 35805 (256) 837-8585
For profit - Corporation 117 Beds DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE Data: November 2025 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
0/100
#223 of 223 in AL
Last Inspection: May 2021

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

Overview

Windsor House in Huntsville, Alabama, has a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. It ranks #223 out of 223 facilities in Alabama, placing it in the bottom tier, and #12 out of 12 in Madison County, meaning there are no better local options available. Although the facility's issues have decreased from 11 in 2021 to 9 in 2023, it still has a concerning 24 total deficiencies, including critical incidents of abuse that were not reported or addressed properly. Staffing is rated at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average, and the turnover is 55%, slightly above the state average, suggesting some continuity in care. Additionally, the facility has incurred $266,231 in fines, higher than 98% of Alabama facilities, reflecting repeated compliance problems, although it does have better RN coverage than 78% of facilities in the state, which can help catch issues that other staff might miss.

Trust Score
F
0/100
In Alabama
#223/223
Bottom 1%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
11 → 9 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
55% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$266,231 in fines. Higher than 76% of Alabama facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 38 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Alabama. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
24 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2021: 11 issues
2023: 9 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below Alabama average (2.9)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 55%

Near Alabama avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $266,231

Well above median ($33,413)

Significant penalties indicating serious issues

Chain: DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is elevated (55%)

7 points above Alabama average of 48%

The Ugly 24 deficiencies on record

2 life-threatening 2 actual harm
Sept 2023 5 deficiencies 2 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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record review, review of a facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect, Misappropriation, Exploitation Policy, re...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record review, review of a facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect, Misappropriation, Exploitation Policy, review of Facility Reported Incidents (FRIs) received by the Alabama State Survey Agency, and review of the facility's investigative file, the facility failed to ensure Resident Identifier (RI) #s 1, 2, and 4 were free from abuse. 1) On [DATE], Employee Identifier (EI) #4, a CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) and EI #5, a CNA were providing care for RI #2. During the care RI #2 had gotten feces on his/her hands and was trying to touch EI #4. EI #5 witnessed EI #4 telling RI #2 not to touch her, and that RI #2 was nasty. EI #5 said, EI #4 held RI #2's hands down pinning RI #2's arms down by his/her head and said, don't fucking touch me. The witness (EI #5) said RI #2 stated ok I'm sorry but you're hurting me. According to the facility's investigation and interviews, EI #5 did not initially identify the incident as abuse or report this incident of abuse until [DATE]. EI #5 stated she was unsure it was abuse. EI #4 continued to work in the facility on [DATE] and five more days where she had continued access to RI #2 before being discharged home, and other vulnerable residents. 2) On [DATE], a second incident was witnessed by EI #11, volunteer. EI #11 stated upon entering the room RI #1 was yelling out which was not abnormal. EI #11 said, EI #4 grabbed RI #1's head with both hands and told RI #1 to shut the fuck up and then put a washcloth in RI #1's mouth. The incident was not reported to the administrator until [DATE]. EI #4 continued to provide patient care after the second incident including full access to RI #1 and other residents on the hallway she was working. EI #4 worked the remainder of the shift on [DATE], and for three additional days after the second incident. 3) On [DATE], RI #4, stated EI #6, CNA assisted him/her to the bed. RI #4 stated after getting in bed he/she wanted some water, so RI #4 pressed the call light. RI #4 said, EI #6 stormed back into the room saying, homie don't play that. RI #4 stated, EI #6 jerked the call light and they wrestled with the call light. RI #4 said EI #6 pried RI #4's fingers open and again said homie don't play that. RI #4 said, EI #6 left the room. Again, RI #4 pressed the call light because he/she assumed another CNA would answer the light. RI #4 said, EI #6 came back into the room. RI #4 stated he/she was holding the call light as tight as he/she could when EI #6 pulled on it. RI #4 said EI #6 proceeded to remove the call light from his/her hands and wrapped it around his/her neck several times, then EI #6 went behind the bed and pulled RI #4 up in bed with the call light cord. RI #4 stated he/she was trying to say something but could not breathe. RI #4 stated he/she was fearful and thought it was the end of his/her life. These deficient practices affected RI #s 1, 2, and 4, three of eight sampled residents reviewed for abuse. It was determined the facility's non-compliance with one or more requirements of participation had caused, or was likely to cause, serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to residents. The Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was related to State Operations Manual, Appendix PP, 483.12 Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation at a scope and severity of J. On [DATE] at 10:33 PM, the Administrator, EI #1, the Director of Nursing Services, EI #2, and the Director of Clinical Operations, EI #3 were provided a copy of the Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) template and notified of the finding of immediate jeopardy; substandard quality of care in the area of Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation at F 600- Free from Abuse and Neglect. The IJ began on [DATE] and continued until [DATE] when survey team verified onsite that corrective actions had been implemented. On [DATE] the immediate jeopardy was removed, F600 was lowered to the lower severity of no actual harm with a potential for more than minimal harm that was not immediate jeopardy, to allow the facility time to monitor and/or revise their corrective actions as necessary to achieve substantial compliance. Findings include: The facility's policy titled Abuse, Neglect, Misappropriation, Exploitation Policy, with an effective date of 01/2019, revealed: . Definitions: Abuse: The willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain or mental anguish . Instances of abuse of all residents, irrespective of any mental or physical condition, cause physical harm, pain or mental anguish. It includes verbal abuse, sexual abuse, physical abuse, and mental abuse including abuse facilitated or enabled through the use of technology. Willful, as used in this definition of abuse, means the individual must have acted deliberately, not that the individual must have intended to inflict injury or harm . Mental Abuse: is the use of verbal or nonverbal conduct which cause or has the potential to cause the resident to experience humiliation, fear shame, agitation, or degradation . Physical Abuse: Includes, but is not limited to, hitting, slapping, punching, biting, and kicking . Verbal abuse: May be considered to be a type of mental abuse. Verbal abuse includes the use of oral, written, or gestured communication, or sounds, to residents within hearing distance, regardless of age, ability to comprehend, or disability . 1) RI #2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] for Hospice Respite with diagnosis to include Alzheimer's Disease, Dementia, and Palliative Care. RI #2 Discharge Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of [DATE], listed RI #2's Brief Interview Mental Status (BIMS) as 03, which indicated the resident was cognitively impaired. The Alabama Department of Public Health Online Incident Reporting System form, dated [DATE], documented, . Narrative summary of incident: (name of EI # 2, DNS [Director of Nursing Services]) informed Admin (name of EI #5, CNA) told her about a previous incident (date unknown) where (name of EI #4, CNA) held patient (name of RI #2)'s arms down when providing care . An undated typed statement from EI #1, Administrator, documented, . (RI #2) . admitted to (name of facility) on [DATE] for a 5-day hospice respite stay. [DATE]: DNS interviewed (EI #5) who reported about a week ago she witnessed (EI #4) hold patient (RI #2)'s arms down when providing care. (EI #5) said patient (RI #2) had feces on (his/her) hands and (EI #4) yelled at (RI #2) to not touch her. (EI #5) said she witnessed (EI #4) hold (RI #2) arms down and (RI #2) was telling (EI #4) to stop your hurting me. (EI #5) said she then told (EI #4) she will take care of (RI #2) and (EI #4) exited the room. DNS asked (EI #5) why she did not report the incident immediately and (EI #5) did not know. (EI #5) reported (EI #4) had been acting differently lately. Allegation of abuse-physical is substantiated. (EI #5) witnessed (EI #4) hold (RI #2) down when providing patient care. Admin is unable to get a statement from victim as (local hospice agency) informed Admin (RI #2) expired on [DATE]. A telephone interview was conducted with EI #5 on [DATE] at 3:20 PM. EI #5, stated on [DATE], RI #2 had feces on his/her hands. EI #5 said, EI #4 and herself went in to clean up the resident. EI #5 stated RI #2 kept trying to touch EI #4. In response, EI #4 told RI #2 not to touch her and that he/she was nasty. EI #5 stated, EI #4 held RI #2 hands down forcefully and said, don't fucking touch me. EI #5 stated RI #2 said ok, I'm sorry, but you are hurting me. EI #5 stated she told EI #4 she would hold RI #2's hands while EI #4 cleaned RI #2. EI #5 stated she told EI #9, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) about the incident, but admitted it was days later. EI #5 stated she considered the incident abuse. EI #5 stated the concern of not reporting abuse timely was EI #4 could have continued to hurt the resident or another resident. Review of EI #4's timecard documented that EI #4 continued to work in the facility after the [DATE] incident involving RI #2. EI #4 worked [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], [DATE] and [DATE], before the incident was reported to EI #1, Administrator on [DATE]. A telephone interview was conducted with EI #9, LPN on [DATE] at 4:39 PM. EI #9 stated she became aware of RI #2's abuse allegation on [DATE], when EI #5 came to her and said EI #4 was being rough with residents. EI #9 stated EI #5 told her it had something to do with RI #2's arms. EI #9 stated she sent EI #5 straight to EI #2, DNS to report the allegation. An interview was conducted with EI #2, DNS on [DATE] at 6:29 PM. EI #2 stated she became aware of the allegation of abuse involving RI #2, on [DATE]. EI #2 stated EI #5 informed her of the incident. EI #2 stated the incident had happened the week prior. RI #2 was discharged from the facility on [DATE]. An interview was conducted with EI #1, Administrator on [DATE] at 5:21 PM. EI #1 stated she became aware of the allegation of physical abuse on [DATE]. EI #1 stated the allegation of physical abuse was substantiated because the incident was witnessed by EI #5. 2) RI #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE], with diagnoses to include Aphasia, Cognitive Communication Deficit, Altered Mental Status, Vascular Dementia, Anxiety Disorder and Parkinson's Disease. RI #1's admission MDS assessment, with an ARD of [DATE], revealed RI #1 had short- and long-term memory problems with severely impaired cognition. RI #1's care plan titled I sometimes have behaviors which include Shouting, Yelling during activities, with an initiated date of [DATE], revealed the following intervention . Speak to me unhurriedly and in a calm voice . On [DATE], the Alabama Department of Public Health Online Incident Reporting System received a second facility reported incident which revealed the Administrator, EI #1, was notified by the DNS, EI #2, she was informed by a team member EI #11 that EI #4, CNA put a washcloth in RI #1's mouth and told RI #2 to shut up. Review of the facility's investigative file revealed a written statement by EI #11 which documented the following: I (EI #11) as a volunteer at Windsor House (on) [DATE] @ [at] 1:30 pm was helping CNA (EI #4) in a resident room. Resident was screaming nonstop which occurs regularly when CNA grabbed resident by (his/her) head with both hands and told (him/her) to shut the F*** up and released (his/her) head. CNA turned up resident radio loud. CNA took a wash rag and folded it up like a burrito and stuffed it in resident's mouth. This volunteer removed wash rag from resident's mouth and went to activities and reported to my friend CNA (EI #7) over activities on the dementia unit . 10:00 pm This volunteer went to my mom nurse (EI #9) on Camelot and told her everything I had seen and heard through the day. My mom told her supervisor (EI #8) . On [DATE] at 1:00 PM, the surveyor conducted a telephone interview with EI #11. EI #11 said she was on the Memory Care unit when EI #4 came to get her to help her with RI #1. EI #11 said RI #1 was a person who yells and when RI #1 would not stop yelling EI #4 grabbed RI #1's head and told her to shut the fuck up. EI #11 said when RI #1 started screaming, EI #4 got a washcloth and put it in RI #1's mouth so RI #1 would stop screaming. EI #11 said she looked at RI #1 and took the washcloth out of his/her mouth and EI #4 looked at her (EI #11) angry like she had done something wrong. On [DATE] at 9:15 AM, a follow-up telephone interview was conducted with EI #11. When asked why she removed the washcloth from RI #1's mouth, EI #11 said RI #1 was turning red. EI #11 said when she removed the washcloth from RI #1's mouth RI #1 was trying to catch his/her breath. On [DATE] at 12:19 PM, a telephone interview was conducted with EI #9. EI #9 said on [DATE] at 10:00 PM, EI #11 informed her about EI #4 cursing RI #1 and placing a washcloth in RI #1's mouth. EI #9 said EI #11 said when EI #4 and herself went in RI #1's room, the resident was yelling. EI #9 said EI #11 said EI #4 grabbed RI #1 by the face with both of her hands and said shut the fuck up. EI #9 said EI #11 said EI #4 let RI #1's head go and RI #1 fell back into the bed. EI #9 said EI #11 said after that, EI #4 started to roll a washcloth like a burrito and proceeded to shove it into RI #1's mouth until RI #1 was gagging and turning red. EI #9 said the incident would be considered verbal, physical, and emotional abuse. On [DATE] at 8:30 PM, a telephone interview was conducted with EI #8. EI #8 said she was made aware on [DATE] around 10:30 PM that EI #4 told RI #1 to shut the fuck up and placed a washcloth in RI #1's mouth. EI #8 said the incident was physical, verbal and emotional abuse. On [DATE] at 6:09 PM, a telephone interview was conducted with EI #7, the Memory Care Director. EI #7 said EI #11 came into her office on [DATE] and said she (EI #11) had something to tell her, and EI #11 did not want EI #7 to say anything about the incident. EI #7 said EI #11 reported that EI #4 had asked her to go and help her with a resident. EI #7 said EI #11 said the resident was screaming and EI #4 shoved a washcloth in the resident's mouth. When asked what type of abuse would she consider this allegation to be, EI #7 said physical. On [DATE] at 12:10 PM, an interview was conducted with EI #2. EI #2 said she was made aware of the incident involving EI #4 cursing RI #1 and then placing a washcloth in RI #1's mouth on [DATE] by EI #7. EI #2 said informed EI #1 and EI #3, the Director of Clinical Operations. EI #2 said she came to the facility to start the investigation and all staff involved were put on administrative leave immediately. On [DATE] at 5:21 PM, an interview was conducted with EI #1. EI #1 said she became aware of the incident involving EI #4 cursing RI #1 and then placing a washcloth in RI #1's mouth on [DATE]. EI #1 said the facility's investigation substantiated that the incident did occur. A review of the Supplemental Narrative from the local police department's report, dated [DATE], revealed the following: . On 08-14-23 I received this case and made contact with the Windsor House administrator (EI #1). (EI #1) told me she was already investigating this case and had written statements from witnesses who stated they saw the offender (EI #4) physically abuse two different victims . 1) Victim (RI #2) was seen by (EI #5) being held down forcefully by (EI #4) sometime between [DATE]th and Aug (August) 6th 2023. The incident was not reported until [DATE]th 2023. (EI #1) said that (EI #5) said the patient (RI #2) made the statement as (his/her) wrists were being held down, please stop, you are hurting me. 2) Victim (RI #1) was seen by volunteer (EI #11) having (his/her) mouth stuffed with a folded washcloth by (EI #4). The witness also, wrote a statement about the offender (EI #4) grabbing (RI #1's) head with both hands and told (him/her) to shut the fuck up. The witness actually came in to remove the wash rag which was left in the victim's mouth . if the witness (RI #11) not intervened, serious bodily injury or death could have occurred involving the victim (RI #1). The actions (EI #4) did was reckless. (EI #4) shoved the rag in the mouth of (RI #1) in such a manner that (he/she) was gagging. This restriction of air could have caused suffocation leading to death or serious injury . Supplemental Narrative [DATE] . the offender's actions were intentional and no reasonable person would want the physical contact that the offender did to the victim . Review of a PROGRESSIVE DISCIPLINE FORM for EI #4 revealed the following: Name: (name of EI #4) . Position: CNA Date Administered: [DATE] Category 1 Violation: 1.1 Patient/resident abuse . Termination [DATE] Summary of Incident: . On Saturday [DATE] we were made aware of a concern that alleged you have abused a resident on Tuesday [DATE]. You were placed on administrative leave while we investigated into the allegation . Upon conclusion of the investigation we did substantiate the allegation of abuse, and the incident has been reported to state. Abuse, neglect, or misappropriation of any patient or resident is inexcusable and will not be tolerated. Based on the information found in the investigation, we have made the decision to terminate your employment immediately . A follow-up interview was conducted with EI #1, Administrator on [DATE] at 6:38 PM. EI #1 stated the potential harm of holding a resident's arms down aggressively when providing care was bruising, skin tears, possible broken bones, trauma, fear, anxiety, and depression. EI #1 stated the potential harm of placing a washcloth in a resident's mouth is the resident could choke, and cause resident to go into respiration distress. On [DATE] at 11:08 AM, a telephone interview was conducted with EI #14, the facility's Medical Director. When asked what type of harm could potentially occur to a resident when their hands/arms are being held while staff is attempting to provide care for the resident, EI #14 said bruising. EI #14 said depending on how forceful the resident was being held a bone could be break bones. EI #14 said someone could be hurt from actions like that. When asked what type of harm could potentially occur when a washcloth was placed in a resident's mouth to keep them from hollering, EI #14 said if not taken out of the mouth, the person could not breath and could become hypoxic. EI #14 said definitely this would be like abuse. On [DATE] at 10:06 AM, a telephone interview was conducted with RI #1's daughter/sponsor. RI #1's daughter said RI #1 had a stroke, has dementia and Parkinson's, required 24-hour care and was totally dependent on staff. When asked, from a reasonable person's view, how did she think it would have made RI #1 feel having the same person who cursed at him/her and placed a washcloth in his/her mouth continue to provide care to him/her. RI #1's daughter said RI #1 would have been scared. 3) RI #4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Multiple Sclerosis, Muscle Weakness, Other Lack of Coordination, Bed Confinement Status and Other Reduced Mobility. RI #4's Quarterly MDS with an ARD date of [DATE] indicated RI #4 had a BIMS of 13, which indicated RI #4 was cognitively intact. The Alabama Department of Public Health Online Incident Reporting System Form dated [DATE], documented, . (Name of RI #4) reported to (Name of EI #10) that on [DATE] (Name of EI #6, CNA) wrapped a call light around (his/her) neck. An undated typed statement from EI #1, Administrator, documented, . A full body audit was completed by (EI #10, RN) and documented that (RI #4) did have some bruising on the left side of (his/her) neck along with red areas on the right side of (his/her) neck. (RI #4) Interview with Administrator: Admin interviewed resident (RI #4) on [DATE] at 2:15pm regarding allegations (he/she) reported to nurse. (RI #4) said on Friday (9-1-23) around 2 to 3 pm this same CNA who resident reported was (EI #6) came in (his/her) room when (he/she) pushed (his/her) call light and shut the door behind her. (RI #4) as (he/she) was trying to get some water. Resident said (EI #6) told (him/her) I told you you're going somewhere because I am tired of you. (RI #4) said (he/she) was holding the call light in (his/her) left hand and (EI #6) pulled the call light out of the wall and wrestled it away from (him/her). (RI #4) said (EI #6) wrapped the call light around (his/her) neck multiple times and pulled (him/her) up then pushed (him/her) back down on the bed. (RI #4) said (he/she) tried yelling, but no one could hear (him/her). (RI #4) told Admin (EI #6) told (him/her) I don't want to be like you in the bed dying. (RI #4) said (EI #6) finally stopped choking (him/her) and threw call light on the floor by the entrance to (his/her) room. Admin asked who plugged (his/her) call light back in and resident could not tell Admin. Conclusion: Allegation of physical abuse with resident (RI #4) identified as the victim and CNA (EI #6) identified as the perpetrator is substantiated. (RI #4) had visible marks to (his/her) neck when assessed by assigned nurse, and (he/she) was consistent in (his/her) recollection of events . An interview was conducted with RI #4 on [DATE] at 6:17 PM. RI #4 stated on [DATE], EI #6 took him/her down to activities. RI #4 stated he/she was ready to go back to room and informed another staff member. RI #4 stated he was pushed back down the hallway and waited outside the room while EI #6 provided care for roommate. RI #4 stated, he/she was finally placed back in bed by EI #6 and another staff member. RI #4 stated once in bed he/she wanted some water, so he/she pushed the call light. RI #4 stated, EI #6 stormed back into the room and said homie don't play that, RI #4 stated they were wrestling for the call light. EI #6 left the room without giving RI #4 water. RI #4 stated he/she pressed the call light again thinking another staff would respond; however, EI #6 returned to the room. RI #4 stated he/she had a tight grip on the call light, but EI #6 was able to get call light out of RI #4 hands and wrapped it around RI #4's neck. RI #4 stated, EI #6 pulled the call light from out of the wall and went behind the top of the bed and was pulling back on the call light cord. RI #4 stated he/she was trying to say something, but he/she could not breathe. RI #4 stated he/she informed EI #10, Registered Nurse (RN), EI #12, CNA and EI #13, LPN of the incident soon after the incident. In a follow-up interview with RI #4 on [DATE] at 9:30 PM. RI #4 stated during the incident he/she was thinking he/she was going to die. A telephone interview was conducted with EI #10, RN on [DATE] at 5:38 PM. EI #10 stated on the evening of [DATE], RI #4 told him that EI #6 wrapped a call light around his/her neck and said abusive things to RI #4. EI #10 said RI #4 reported that EI #6 said she would not be like him/her and would not die in the bed. EI #10 stated a body audit was completed at the request of the administrator and results of the body audit showed some indention around the resident's neck. A telephone interview was conducted with EI #13, LPN on [DATE] at 8:41 PM. EI #13 stated on the evening of [DATE], RI #4 told her EI #6 came into the room to answer the call light. EI #13 stated RI #4 said EI #6 became angry took the cord and wrapped it around RI #4's neck and pulled RI #4 up and pushed him/her back down in the bed. A telephone interview was conducted with Investigator from local police Department on [DATE] at 8:20 AM. Investigator stated the case is ongoing. Investigator stated he talked with RI #4 on [DATE] and [DATE] and both times, RI #4's story was consistent. Investigator stated there was definitely a mark on RI #4's neck. An interview was conducted with EI #12, CNA on [DATE] at 2:30 PM. EI #12 stated when she went into RI #4's room on the early morning of [DATE], RI #4 told her, he/she wanted water on [DATE], so RI #4 pressed the call light and EI #6 came into the room and fought RI #4 for the call light then wrapped the call light around RI #4's neck and pulled up on it. EI #12 stated, RI #4 said after EI #6 did this she left the room. EI #12 stated she observed a couple of red spots on RI #4's neck. An interview was conducted with EI #1, Administrator on [DATE] at 5:21 PM. EI #1 stated she became aware of the allegation of physical abuse on [DATE]. EI #1 stated the allegation of physical abuse was substantiated due to RI #4 story remaining consistent and the body audit conducted by EI #10, documented a bruise on one side and redness on the other side of RI #4's neck. An interview was conducted with EI #1, Administrator on [DATE] at 6:38 PM. EI #1 stated the potential harm of holding a resident's arms down aggressively when providing care was bruising, skin tears, possible broken bones, trauma, fear, anxiety, and depression. EI #1 stated the potential harm of placing a washcloth in a resident's mouth was the resident could choke, and cause resident to go into respiration distress. EI #1 stated the potential harm wrapping a call light cord around a resident's neck was strangulation, fear, anxiety, social and psychological impact. This deficiency was cited as a result of the investigation of complaint/report number(s) AL00045242, AL00045244, and AL00045448. ******************************************************************* ******************************************************************* On [DATE] at 7:26 PM, the facility submitted an acceptable removal plan, which documented: F600 To the best of my knowledge and belief, as an agent of Windsor House, the following allegation of compliance constitutes a written plan demonstrating actions the Center took upon awareness of the deficient practice thus removing the Immediate Jeopardy cited on [DATE]. Preparation and execution of this allegation of compliance does not constitute an admission or agreement by the provider of the truth of the facts alleged or conclusions set forth in the alleged deficiencies. The allegation of compliance is prepared and/or executed solely because it is required by the provisions of Federal and State Law. Immediate Actions for All Residents Affected by Alleged Abuse: RI #2: o discharged from the center on [DATE] at end of hospice respite stay. o EI#4 (CNA) held resident's hands down and used profanity toward resident on [DATE]. It was observed by EI#5 (CNA.) o EI#5 (CNA) reported the incident to EI#9 on [DATE] who reported to Administrator on [DATE]. Due to delay of reporting EI#5 (CNA) was trained via phone. o Administrator notified ADPH on [DATE]. o Administrator notified MD on [DATE]. o Administrator notified Huntsville Police Department and attempted to notify family on [DATE]. o Hospice was notified on [DATE] via phone and [DATE] in person. o Ombudsman was notified on [DATE] via email and via phone on [DATE] and stated she will provide an in-service for the center. o EI#4 (CNA) was placed on Administrative Leave on [DATE] and investigation began. EI#4 (CNA) was terminated on [DATE]. o Full body audits conducted on residents on all halls with BIMS less than 8 on [DATE] with no significant findings. o Interviews conducted with residents on all halls with BIMS of 8 or greater on [DATE] with no significant findings. o Reported EI#4 (CNA) to CNA Registry and charges filed by Huntsville Police Department with upcoming court date on [DATE]. o EI#5(CNA) was placed on Administrative Leave on [DATE] and terminated on [DATE] for failing to report. Reported to CNA registry. o Additional signage added around center on [DATE] for reminders for team members to report incidents and contact information to abuse coordinator (Administrator). o Focused Quality Assurance meeting was held with Physician and Interdisciplinary Team in attendance on [DATE]. o All team members and center care partners in-serviced beginning [DATE] regarding abuse and neglect identification, residents' safety and protection, and reporting. (All team members and center care partners to include nurses, med techs, CNAs, team leaders/management, contract therapy service providers, contract housekeeping services, and contract dietary services.) o Team members and center care partners signed acknowledgement of receiving education and understanding the requirements of the Elder Justice Act training beginning on [DATE]. All team members and center care partners to include nurses, med techs, CNAs, team leaders/management, contract therapy service providers, contract housekeeping services, and contract dietary services. o Ombudsman, [NAME], provided training with team members and center care partners (to include nurses, med techs, CNAs, team leaders/management, contract therapy service providers, contract housekeeping services, and contract dietary services.) regarding resident rights, abuse, neglect, and reporting on [DATE] at 7:00 am and 3:30 pm which allowed accessibility for all shifts to attend. RI#1: o EI#4 (CNA) placed the washcloth in RI#1 mouth, EI#11 (volunteer) removed wash cloth from her mouth and reported to EI#7 (memory care director) on [DATE]. o EI#9 (LPN) and EI#11 (volunteer) together told EI#8 (LPN/Unit Manager) about the incident on [DATE]. EI#8 (LPN/Unit Manager) reported to Administrator on [DATE]. Due delay in reporting EI#8 (LPN/Unit Manager), EI#9 (LPN), EI#11 (volunteer), EI#7 (Memory Care Director) were all placed on administrative leave pending investigation due to this incident, should have been reported immediately to the Administrator. In-services began on [DATE] to include abuse identification, reporting time frames, and providing safety for the residents. o Assessed RI#1 for injury by DNS and no injuries noted on [DATE]. o Huntsville Police Department notified on [DATE] and came to center to complete the initial report. o ADPH was notified on [DATE] of incident and investigation immediately initiated. o Focused Quality Assurance meeting was held with Physician and Interdisciplinary Team in attendance on [DATE]. Recommendations included retraining with the team (to include nurses, med techs, CNAs, department leaders/management, contracted therapy services, contract housekeeping services, contract dietary services.) All team members and center care partners were in-serviced regarding abuse and neglect identification, resident safety and protection, immediacy of reporting expectations, and care partner managers following the Elder Justice Act guideline/follow up on findings, with post-test for knowledge retention. Also, to include customer service training and handling residents exhibiting behaviors. o MD notified on [DATE] and assessed RI#1 on [DATE] with no significant findings. o Family notified of incident on [DATE]. o Huntsville Police Department Investigator came into center on [DATE] and observed resident along with interviewing staff and Administrator. Administrator received completed report from Investigator Gollop. o Ombudsman notified on [DATE] via email and via phone on [DATE] and stated[TRUNCATED]
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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, medical record review, review of a facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect, Misappropriation, Exploitation Po...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, medical record review, review of a facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect, Misappropriation, Exploitation Policy, and review of Facility Reported Incidents (FRIs) received by the State Survey Agency, the facility failed to implement the facility's abuse policies when: 1) Employee Identifier (EI) #8, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), Unit Manager failed to report an allegation of sexual abuse to the Administrator and failed to implement immediate protective measures. On 07/28/2023 Resident Identifier (RI) #6's daughter reported to EI #8 that RI #7 had entered RI #6's room and touched his/her breast twice. 2) EI #5, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) failed to identify an incident as physical and verbal abuse and immediately report the incident to the administrator after she observed EI #4, CNA hold down RI #2's arms down while telling RI #2 to not fucking touch her on 08/06/2023. Further, no protective measures were implemented, and EI #4 provided resident care on 08/07/2023, 08/08/2023, 08/09/2023, 08/11/2023, and 08/12/2023. EI #4 perpetrated a second incident of verbal and physical abuse on 08/08/2023. 3) EI #11, facility volunteer failed to immediately report an allegation of physical and verbal abuse to the administrator after EI #11 witnessed an incident of abuse on 08/08/2023. EI #11 reported the incident to EI #7, Memory Care Director, EI #8, Unit Manager, and EI #9, LPN. EI #7, EI #8, and EI #9 failed to immediately report the allegation of abuse to the administrator. The facility staff further failed to implement protective measures to protect RI #1 and other vulnerable residents from further potential abuse. On 08/08/2023, EI #11, facility volunteer witnessed EI #4 take RI #1's head in her (EI #4's) hand and shake it while telling RI #1 to shut the fuck up. EI #11 said when RI #1 continued to yell out, EI #4 placed a washcloth in RI #1's mouth. EI #11 said she removed the washcloth from RI #1's mouth, left the room and immediately reported the incident to EI #7, the Memory Care Director around 1:30 PM. EI #11 said she later informed EI #9, LPN. EI #11 and EI #9 both informed EI #8, an LPN unit Manager, of the incident later on in the shift around 10:00 PM. EI #7 reported she was unaware of the incident until 08/11/2023. The incident was not reported to the facility's administrator until 08/12/2023. 4) EI #10, Registered Nurse (RN) and EI #13, LPN failed to identify an allegation of physical abuse, failed to immediately report the allegation to the administrator, and further failed to initiate an investigation when staff were unable to contact the administrator. On the evening of 09/01/2023 RI #4 reported to EI #10 and EI #13 that EI #6 had wrapped a call light around his/her neck and said abusive things to RI #4. No action was taken until 09/02/2023 around 6:00 AM. These deficient practices affected RI #s 1, 2, 4, and 6, four of eight sampled residents reviewed for abuse. It was determined the facility's non-compliance with one or more requirements of participation had caused, or was likely to cause, serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to residents. The Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was related to State Operations Manual, Appendix PP, 483.12 Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation at a scope and severity of J. On 09/18/2023 at 10:33 PM, the Administrator, the Director of Nursing Services (DNS) and the Director of Clinical Operations, EI #3 were given a copy of the Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) template and notified of the findings of immediate jeopardy; substandard quality of care in the area of Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation at F 607- Develop/Implement Abuse/Neglect, etc. Policies. Findings include: The facility's policy titled Abuse, Neglect, Misappropriation, Exploitation Policy, with an effective date of 01/2019, revealed the following: Purpose: To prohibit and prevent abuse . and to ensure reporting and investigation of alleged violations . in accordance with Federal and State Laws . Definitions: Abuse: The willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain or mental anguish . Instances of abuse of all residents, irrespective of any mental or physical condition, cause physical harm, pain or mental anguish. It included verbal abuse, sexual abuse, physical abuse, and mental abuse . Willful, as used in this definition of abuse, means the individual must have acted deliberately, not that the individual must have intended to inflict injury or harm. Alleged Violation: A situation or occurrence that is observed or reported by team member, resident, relative, visitor or others but has not yet been investigated . The following protocol has been established in the event of an allegation of abuse: 1. Protection First and foremost the resident/patient will be immediately assessed and removed from any potential harm . If the suspected perpetrator is another resident/patient, the Administrator/Director of Nursing or designee shall separate the resident/patients so they do not have access to each other until the circumstances of the alleged incident can be determined and assessment completed and if applicable interventions put in place. If the suspected perpetrator is a team member, the Administrator/Director of Nursing or designee shall place the team member on immediate investigatory suspension while completing the investigation . 4. Prevention Establish safe environment: Team members are required to report incidents of suspected abuse without fear or reprisal . 5. Identification If actual violation or alleged violation occurs the resident will immediately be assessed and removed from any potential harm . 6. Investigation If actual violation or alleged violation occurs the resident will immediately be assessed and removed from any potential harm (as applicable) . In the event an alleged violation/violation occurs when the Administrator or Director of Nursing are unavailable, the manager in charge is responsible for initiating the investigation procedure unless there is a conflict of interest or the person is implicated in the alleged violations. 7. Reporting/Response Alleged violations will be reported to the Administrator, designee immediately . 1) RI #6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Muscle Weakness, Unsteadiness on Feet and Abnormalities of Gait and Mobility. RI #6's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 07/28/2023, indicated RI #6 was cognitively intact for daily decision making. RI #7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Disorder of Brain, Unsteadiness on Feet and Cognitive Communication Deficit. RI #7's admission MDS with an ARD of 07/24/2023 indicated RI #7 was severely impaired in cognitive skills for daily decision making. The facility reported the FRI to the State Agency on 07/30/2023. The report stated the Administrator was informed that resident (RI #6)'s daughter reported resident (RI #7) went into (RI #6)'s room and pulled his/her covers and touch his/her breast twice. The daughter stated that RI #7 was observed standing at RI #6 while the daughter was at the facility in early morning hours. A telephone interview was conducted on 09/14/2023 at 11:17 AM with EI #8, LPN/Unit Manager. She stated RI #6's daughter notified her of the incident on 07/28/2023 via text and phone. EI #8 said that RI #6's daughter said that RI #7 had touched RI #6's breast. EI #8 said she did not report the incident to Administrator. EI #8 said the staff were supposed keep RI #7 away from RI #6's room. EI #8 stated her last date of employment with the facility was 09/11/2023 and that she was terminated for failure to report the incident. An interview with the EI #2, DNS was conducted on 09/14/2023 at 5:30 PM. EI #2 said that on 07/30/2023 RI #6's daughter reported to her that RI #7 touched RI #6's breast. She said RI #6 called her and told her RI #7 pulled RI #6's covers at his/her feet and touch RI #6's breast. EI #2 said she immediately called EI #1 (Administrator) who suggested staff move EI #7 to the other hall, keep double doors close, and perform checks every 15 minutes. On 09/15/2023 at 6:38 PM, an interview was conducted with EI #1, the Administrator. EI #1 said protective measures were not implemented after RI #7 allegedly entered RI #6's room three times and touched his/her breast twice. This deficiency was cited as a result of the investigation of complaint/report number AL00045069. 2) RI #2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] for Hospice Respite with diagnosis to include Alzheimer's Disease, Dementia, and Palliative Care. RI #2 Discharge Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 08/06/2023, indicated RI #2's Brief Interview Mental Status (BIMS) was 03, which indicated the resident was cognitively impaired. The Alabama Department of Public Health Online Incident Reporting System form, dated 08/12/2023, documented, . Narrative summary of incident: (EI # 2, DNS) informed Admin (EI #5, CNA) told her about a previous incident (date unknown) where (EI #4, CNA) held patient (RI #2)'s arms down when providing care . A telephone interview was conducted with EI #5, CNA on 09/14/2023 at 3:20 PM regarding EI #4 holding RI #2's arms down and telling RI #2 to don't fucking touch her. EI #5 admitted after witnessing the incident between EI #4 and RI #2, she did nothing to protect RI #2 and other residents from further potential abuse. EI #5 stated did not report the incident until days later, because she thought it was not that big of a deal and did not immediately identify the incident as abuse. EI #5 stated she witnessed EI #4 holding RI #2's hands down and cursing at RI #2. EI #5 admitted she did not follow the facility's abuse policy when she failed to immediately report what she witnessed to the administrator. EI #5 stated the concern of not following the facility's abuse policy and reporting allegations of abuse immediately was not protecting the resident. EI #5 stated, EI #6 could have continued to hurt RI #2 or another resident. A review of a PROGRESSIVE DISCIPLINE FORM for EI #5 revealed the following: Name: (EI #5) . Position: CNA .Date Administered: 08/17/2023 .Category 1 Violation: 1.2 Failure to report any incident of patient/resident abuse .Termination 08/17/2023 .Summary of Incident: . Due to your failure to report the incident per our policy you failed to protect our residents and patients, and potentially provided an opportunity for the abuse to continue. Cased on this we have made the decision to separate employment effective immediately. An interview was conducted with EI #1 on 09/14/2023 at 5:21 PM. EI #1 said the facility's policy stated staff were to notify the abuse coordinator immediately of allegations. EI #1 said, EI #5 not reporting the incident involving RI #2 for several days was not timely reporting and the facility's policy was not followed. EI #1 stated the concern of not reporting timely was subjecting those residents to further abuse. 3) RI #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE], with diagnoses to include Aphasia, Cognitive Communication Deficit, Altered Mental Status, Vascular Dementia, Anxiety Disorder and Parkinson's Disease. RI #1's admission MDS assessment, with an ARD of 06/21/2023, revealed RI #1 had short- and long-term memory problems with severely impaired cognition. On 08/12/2023, the Alabama Department of Public Health Online Incident Reporting System received a second FRI. The report indicated the Administrator, EI #1, was notified by the DNS, EI #2, she was informed by EI #11 that EI #4, a CNA put a washcloth in RI #1's mouth and told RI #2 to shut up. On 09/13/2023 at 1:00 PM, the surveyor conducted a telephone interview with EI #11, volunteer. EI #11 said she observed EI #4 grab RI #1's head, tell RI #1 to shut the fuck up, and place a washcloth in RI #1's mouth. EI #11 said she left out of the room and told EI #7, Memory Care Director. EI #11 said later that day she told EI #9 about EI #4 cursing at RI #1 and putting a washcloth in the resident's mouth. EI #9 said they needed to tell EI #8, the Unit Manager on the unit RI #1 resided. EI #11 reported that EI #9 and herself reported the allegation to EI #8. On 09/13/2023 at 12:19 PM, a telephone interview was conducted with EI #9. EI #9 said on 08/08/2023 at 10:00 PM, EI #11 informed her about EI #4 cursing RI #1 and placing a washcloth in RI #1's mouth. EI #9 said she and EI #11 told EI #8, Unit Manager what happened. EI #8 said it would be handled. On 09/14/2023 at 12:10 PM, an interview was conducted with EI #2, DNS. EI #2 said she was made aware of the incident involving EI #4 cursing RI #1 and then placing a washcloth in RI #1's mouth on 08/12/2023 when she was talking with EI #7, the Memory Care Director on the phone. EI #2 said EI #7 said EI #11 asked her not to report the allegation to the administrator. EI #2 said EI #8 also knew about the allegation and had not reported to the administrator either. EI #2 said everyone named (EI #7 and #8) knew the day of the incident, which was 08/08/2023, and no one had reported it to her or EI #1, who was the Abuse Coordinator. EI #2 said the facility's abuse policy indicated that alleged violations should be reported immediately. EI #2 said the policy indicated if the alleged perpetrator was a team member, the team member should be put on administrative leave immediately pending investigation. EI #2 said EI #4 was the identified perpetrator. EI #2 said EI #4's timecard indicated that she worked in the facility after the incident occurred with RI #1 for three days, 08/09/2023, 08/11/2023 and 8/12/2023, before she was suspended and terminated. EI #2 said when a perpetrator continued to have access to the victim, there could be a potential for more harm. EI #2 said with EI #4 working in the facility for three additional days after the incident occurred on 08/08/2023, RI #1 and other residents at the facility were not protected. On 09/13/2023 at 6:09 PM, a telephone interview was conducted with EI #7, the Memory Care Director. EI #7 said EI #11 reported to her the EI #4 had placed a washcloth in RI #1's mouth. EI #7 said this was reported to her on 08/11/2023. EI #7 said abuse should be reported immediately to the Abuse Coordinator who was EI #1. The review of the facility's investigative file contained a typed, signed statement by EI #2 the DON which revealed On 08/12/2023, I spoke with (EI #7), the memory care director to get an update on a resident on memory care. During our conversation (EI #7) voiced some concerns on the MCU (Memory Care Unit). She also reported that a volunteer, (EI #11) informed her that (EI #4), a CNA pushed a resident's head (RI #1) telling the resident to shut the f*** up, and put a washcloth in the resident's mouth. I asked (EI #7), Did you report it? (EI #7) stated No, (EI #11), the volunteer, did not want me to tell anyone. She did not want to get anyone in trouble. (EI #7) reported that the volunteer, (EI #11) reported the incident to (EI #9) LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) and (EI #8) LPN on 08/08/2023 . A review of a PROGRESSIVE DISCIPLINE FORM for EI #7 revealed the following: Name: (name of RI #7) .Position: Memory Care Director . Date Administered: 08/16/2023 .Category 1 Violation: 1.2 Failure to report any incident of patient/resident abuse . Termination 08/16/2023 . Summary of Incident: . On 8/12/2023, during the course of an investigation involving suspected abuse of a resident, we were made aware that a team member reported this allegation of abuse to you on 8/8/2023, but you failed to report the allegation to the Center Administrator/Abuse Coordinator as you have been trained to do. We have concluded the investigation and substantiated the allegation of abuse. Due to your failure report the allegations per out policy you failed to protect our residents and patients, and potentially provided an opportunity for the abuse to continue. Based on this we have made the decision to separate employment effective immediately . On 09/13/2023 at 8:30 PM, a telephone interview was conducted with EI #8, Unit Manager. EI #8 said on 08/08/2023 around 10:30 PM she was made aware that EI #4 told RI #1 to shut the fuck up and placed a washcloth in RI #1's mouth. EI #8 said EI #9 and EI #11 had apparently told EI #7, prior to her being told. EI #8 said when she received the this information she tried to call EI #1 but EI #1 did not answer. EI #8 said she did not press the issue and assumed EI #1 would call her back. EI #1 said she got off at 3 or 4 AM that morning, went to bed and slept all day, EI #8 said this would have been 08/09/2023. EI #8 admitted to having opportunity on 08/10/2023 and 08/11/2023 to report to EI #1 the allegation but failed to report it. EI #8 said it should have been reported by EI #7 since EI #7 knew about it hours before she did. EI #8 said the time frame for reporting abuse when you are made aware of it is immediately and it should be reported to EI #1 the Abuse Coordinator. EI #8 said there was plenty of opportunity for everyone who knew about the incident to report it. EI #8 said it was important to report abuse immediately, especially when a perpetrator had been identified, to be sure the perpetrator was removed from the facility. When asked did she get written statements from EI #9 and EI #11, the volunteer who witnessed the incident, EI #8 said no she assumed EI #7 had done that since she was initially informed of the situation. Review of a PROGRESSIVE DISCIPLINE FORM for EI #8 revealed the following: Name: (name of RI #8) .Position: Unit Manager LPN . Date Administered: 08/16/2023 Category 1 Violation: 1.2 Failure to report any incident of patient/resident abuse . Termination 08/16/2023 .Summary of Incident: . On 8/12/2023, during the course of an investigation involving suspected abuse of a resident, we were made aware that a team member reported this allegation of abuse to you on 8/8/2023, but you failed to report the allegation to the Center Administrator/Abuse Coordinator as you have been trained to do. We have concluded the investigation and substantiated the allegation of abuse. Due to your failure to report the allegations per out policy you failed to protect our residents and patients, and potentially provided an opportunity for the abuse to continue. Based on this we have made the decision to separate employment effective immediately . On 09/16/2023 at 5:53 PM, a follow-up interview was conducted with EI #2. EI #2 said when the allegation was brought to EI #8's attention that EI #4 had cursed RI #1 and placed a washcloth in RI #1's mouth, EI #8 was Unit Manager and was considered to be in charge at that time. EI #2 said according to the facility's abuse policy, under the investigation component, EI #4 should have been put on leave immediately and EI #11 and EI #9's statements about the incident should have been obtained. On 09/14/2023 at 6:20 PM, an interview was conducted with EI #3, the Director of Clinical Operations. EI #3 said the facility's abuse policy said alleged violations should be reported immediately to the abuse coordinator. EI #3 said the facility did substantiate the abuse allegations involving EI #4, RI #1 and RI #2. EI #3 said since EI #4 continued to work in the facility for days after the alleged incident occurred, RI #2 and other residents at the facility were not protected. 4) RI #4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnosis to include Multiple Sclerosis, Muscle Weakness, Other Lack of Coordination, Bed Confinement Status and Other Reduced Mobility. RI #4's Quarterly MDS with an ARD date of 09/08/2023 indicated RI #4 had a BIMS of 13, which indicated RI #4 was cognitively intact. The Alabama Department of Public Health Online Incident Reporting System Form dated 09/02/2023, documented, . (Name of RI #4) reported to (Name of EI #10) that on 09/01/2023 (Name of EI #6, CNA) wrapped a call light around (his/her) neck. Review of text messages between EI #10, RN and EI #1, dated 09/02/2023, revealed EI #10 sent initial notification of the allegation to EI #1 on 09/10/2023 at 3:23 AM. EI #1 responded on 09/10/2023 at 6:35 AM. A telephone interview was conducted with EI #10 on 09/14/2023 at 9:33 PM. EI #10 stated during his medication pass around 9 PM, RI #4 first reported that EI #6 wrapped a call light cord around his/her neck. EI #10 said it did not register in his mind that it was abuse. EI #10 said he knew the facility's abuse policy stated that an abuse allegation should be reported immediately. EI #10 stated around 2 AM, EI #12, CNA was talking about the incident and stated that it sounded like abuse. EI #10 said at that time, he went back to RI #4 for clarification and then reported the allegation to the administrator. A review of a PROGRESSIVE DISCIPLINE FORM for EI #10 revealed the following: Name: (name of EI #10) .Position: Date Administered: 09/16/2023 .Category 1 Violation: 1.2 Failure to report any incident of resident abuse .Administrative Leave 08/17/2023 Summary of Incident: . you failed to report abuse of a resident immediately to the abuse coordinator once you were informed of the allegations. You are required to call the abuse coordinator (Administrator) with any allegations of abuse and neglect immediately as discussed in the in-services on abuse, neglect, and the elder justice act. You cannot text the Administrator on allegations of abuse. You must call to report any allegations of resident/patient abuse, neglect, or misappropriation, and please CALL until you speak to someone, no texting or leaving voicemail. A telephone interview was conducted with EI #13, LPN on 09/12/2023 at 8:41 PM. EI #13 stated she became aware of the incident of EI #6 wrapping a call light cord around RI #4's neck, when RI #4 told her on 09/01/2023 around 9 PM. EI #13 stated she went and reported the incident to EI #10 because EI #10 was the supervisor for the night. An interview was conducted with EI #1 on 09/14/2023 at 5:21 PM. EI #1 stated after RI #4 informed EI #10 and EI #13 about the incident, they should have notified her no later than two hours after being informed. EI #1 stated the facility's policy stated staff were to notify abuse coordinator immediately of allegations. EI #1 admitted this was not timely reporting and the facility's policy was not followed. ******************************************************************** On 09/20/2023 at 7:26 PM, the facility submitted an acceptable removal plan, which documented: F 607 To the best of my knowledge and belief, as an agent of Windsor House, the following allegation of compliance constitutes a written plan demonstrating actions the Center took upon awareness of the deficient practice thus removing the Immediate Jeopardy cited on 09/18/23. Preparation and execution of this allegation of compliance does not constitute an admission or agreement by the provider of the truth of the facts alleged or conclusions set forth in the alleged deficiencies. The allegation of compliance is prepared and/or executed solely because it is required by the provisions of Federal and State Law. Immediate Actions for All Residents Potentially Affected: RI #6 and RI #7: o EI #8 (LPN/Unit Manager) was informed about the incident on 7/28/23. o On 7/28/23 RI #6 and RI #7 were separated, and RI#7 was redirected from the room. RI #6 later reported RI #7 had touched her inappropriately. o On 7/28/23 RI #7 had a care plan initiated for wandering to include anticipating and meeting residents needs and redirection by staff to assist resident with developing more appropriate methods of coping and interaction with peers. o On 7/30/23 Administrator was notified by DNS after DNS was notified of incident by RI #6 family member. o Administrated notified ADPH on 7/30/23 and immediately initiated an investigation. o Physician notified on 7/30/23 of alleged incident. o Huntsville Police Department notified on 7/30/23 and arrived at center on 8/2/23 to take initial police report. o Ombudsman notified via email on 7/30/23 and by phone on 7/31/23. o EI#8 (LPN Unit Manager) was placed on administrative leave on 8/12/23 and terminated due to failure to report alleged abuse. On 8/16/23 EI#8 (Unit Manager) was reported to Alabama Board of Nursing. o Additional signage was added around the center on 8/12/23 for reminders for team members to report incidents and contact information for abuse coordinator (Administrator). Instructing to report allegations to the abuse coordinator, contact information included on the signage. 9 signs placed throughout the center. o All team members and center care partners (to include nurses, med techs, CNAs, team leaders/management, contract therapy service providers, contract housekeeping services, and contract dietary services.) in-serviced regarding abuse and neglect identification, residents' safety and protection, reporting. o Team members and center care partners (to include nurses, med techs, CNAs, team leaders/management, contract therapy service providers, contract housekeeping services, and contract dietary services.) acknowledgement of receipt of Diversicare Elder Justice Act training on 8/25/23. Signed acknowledgement of receiving education and understanding the requirements of the Elder Justice Act training beginning on 8/25/23. o Ombudsman notified on 7/31/23 and discussed reeducation with all team members (to include nurses, med techs, CNAs, team leaders/management, contract therapy service providers, contract housekeeping services, and contract dietary services.) o Ombudsman, [NAME], provided training with team members and center care partners (to include nurses, med techs, CNAs, team leaders/management, contract therapy service providers, contract housekeeping services, and contract dietary services.) regarding resident rights, abuse, neglect, and reporting on 9/13/23 at 7:00 am and 3:30 pm which allowed accessibility for all shifts to attend. o RI#7 was referred to Remedy Behavioral Health and seen on 9/14/23 with recommendations to continue current medication regimen, monitor for medication efficacy and side effects, and Mini [NAME] evaluation. Follow up in one to two weeks. o RI#7 has been transferred to another facility with Memory Care Unit on 9/20/23. RI#7 has been sent to a center that has a male memory care unit due to Windsor House has a Female only memory care unit. RI #2: o discharged from the center on 8/6/2023 at end of Hospice Respite Stay. o EI#4 (CNA) held resident's hands down and used profanity toward resident on 8/6/23. It was observed by EI#5 (CNA.) o EI#5 (CNA) reported the incident to EI#9 on 8/12/23 who reported to Administrator on 8/12/23. Due to delay of reporting EI#5 (CNA) was trained via phone. o Administrator notified ADPH on 8/12/23. o Administrator notified MD on 8/12/23. o The administrator notified Huntsville Police Department and attempted to notify family on 8/12/23. o Hospice was notified on 8/12/23 via phone and 8/14/23 in person Ombudsman was notified on 8/12/23. o The Ombudsman was notified on 8/12/23 via email and via phone on 8/14/23 and stated she will provide an in-service for the center. o EI#4 (CNA) was placed on administrative leave on 8/12/23 and investigation began. EI#4 (CNA) was terminated on 8/16/23 due to substantiated abuse reports identifying EI#4 as aggressor. o Full body audits conducted on residents on all halls with BIMS less than 8 on 8/13/23 with no significant findings. o Interviews conducted with residents on all halls with BIMS of 8 or greater on 8/14/23 with no significant findings. o Reported EI#4 (CNA) to CNA Registry and charges filed by Huntsville Police Department with upcoming court date on 10/15/23. o EI#5(CNA) was placed on Administrative Leave on 8/12/23 and terminated on 8/16/23. Reported to CNA registry. o Additional signage was added around the center on 8/12/23 for reminders for team members to report incidents and contact information for abuse coordinator (Administrator). o Focused Quality Assurance meeting was held with Physician and Interdisciplinary Team in attendance on 08/12/23. o All team members and center care partners in-serviced beginning 8/12/23 regarding abuse and neglect identification, residents' safety and protection, and reporting. (All team members and center care partners to include nurses, med techs, CNAs, team leaders/management, contract therapy service providers, contract housekeeping services, and contract dietary services.) o Team members and center care partners signed acknowledgement of receiving education and understanding the requirements of the Elder Justice Act training beginning on 8/25/23. All team members and center care partners include nurses, med techs, CNAs, team leaders/management, contract therapy service providers, contract housekeeping services, and contract dietary services. o Ombudsman, [NAME], provided training with team members and center care partners (to include nurses, med techs, CNAs, team leaders/management, contract therapy service providers, contract housekeeping services, and contract dietary services.) regarding resident rights, abuse, neglect, and reporting on 9/13/23 at 7:00 am and 3:30 pm which allowed accessibility for all shifts to attend. RI#1: o EI#4 (CNA) placed the washcloth in RI#1 mouth, EI#11 (volunteer) removed wash cloth from her mouth and reported to EI#7 (memory care director) on 8/8/23. o EI#9 (LPN) and EI#11 (volunteer) together told EI#8 (LPN/Unit Manager) about the incident on 8/8/23. EI#8 (LPN/Unit Manager) reported to Administrator on 8/12/23. Due to delay in reporting EI#8 (LPN/Unit Manager), EI#9 (LPN), EI#11 (volunteer), EI#7 (Memory Care Director) were all placed on administrative leave pending investigation due to this incident, should have been reported immediately to the Administrator. In-services began on 8/13/23 to include abuse identification, reporting time frames, and providing safety for the residents. o Assessed RI#1 for injury by DNS and no injuries noted on 8/12/23. o &nbs[TRUNCATED]
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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record review and review of a facility policy titled Change of Resident Room/Roommate, the facility failed ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record review and review of a facility policy titled Change of Resident Room/Roommate, the facility failed to notify Resident identifier (RI) #7's representative when RI #7 was transferred to a different room on 07/28/2023. This deficient practice affected RI #7, one of two residents sampled for notification. Findings include: A facility policy titled Change of Resident Room/Roommate, with an effective date of 05/01/2012, revealed the following: . PROCEDURE . 2. Consent must be received from the resident and/or their legally authorized representative. 3. The notification will be documented in the progress notes . RI #7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE], with diagnoses to include Disorder of the Brain, Muscle Weakness, Unsteadiness on Feet, Lack of Coordination, Cognitive Communication Deficit and Alcohol Dependence. RI #7's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) 07/24/2023, identified RI #7 as scoring a 5 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) indicating RI #7 had severely impaired cognition. RI #7 was also coded as needing supervision with walking in the corridor, with locomotion on and off the unit, and used a wheelchair. A review of a facility Census List, with dates and times of room changes for RI #7, revealed the following: 1) admitted to facility on 07/19/2023 to RL #4 2) Moved to room RL #1 on 07/24/2023 3) Moved to room RL #5 on 07/28/2023 A review of RI #7's Progress Notes revealed the following: . 7/24/2023 . Note Text: Room changed to Room Locator (RL) #1 . Family and supervisor aware of room change . Further review of RI #7's Progress Notes revealed there was no documentation in the Progress Notes indicating RI #7 moved to room RL #5 on 07/28/2023; or RI #7's representative have been notified of the room change. A review of RI #7's Progress Notes revealed there was no documentation on 07/28/2023, indicating RI #7 was moved to a different room or RI #7's representative had been notified of the room change. An interview was conducted with EI #2, DON on 09/16/2023 at 5:08 PM. EI #2 stated she could not keep up with how many times RI #7 had changed rooms since being admitted to the facility on [DATE]. EI #2 stated she was aware of RI #7's room change to RL #1 and RL #4. EI #2 stated, she does not know why RI #7 was moved to room RL #5 on 07/28/2023. EI #2 stated she is not sure if RI #7's representative was notified regarding the move. EI #2 stated she does not know where the documentation was of representative being notified of RI #7's room change to RL #5. EI #2 stated, usually the social worker, nurse or administrator will notify the family of room changes and document in resident's progress notes. EI #2 admitted RI #7's representative should have been notified. An interview was conducted with RI #7's representative on 09/19/2023 at 1:15 PM. RI #7's representative stated she only knew of one time RI #7's room had been moved. This deficiency was cited as a result of the investigation of complaint/report number AL00045069.
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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record review and review of a facility policy titled Means of Egress, the facility failed to maintain an en...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record review and review of a facility policy titled Means of Egress, the facility failed to maintain an environment that was free of accident hazardous. Resident Identifier (RI) #7, a resident with a history of wandering in and out of other resident's room, began to exhibit more frequent wandering behaviors, and on 07/28/2023, facility staff built a barricade across the hallway to prevent the resident from wandering. This affected RI #7, one of three sampled residents care planned for wandering, and had the potential to affect all residents residing in Room locators (RL) 2-5. Findings include: Review of a facility policy titled Means of Egress, with an effective date of 09/01/2014, revealed the following: . PURPOSE To safeguard residents, visitors, and personnel by ensuring all emergency egress paths and exits are clear, unobstructed, completely accessible and illuminated from any residential area within the center to a public way . PROCEDURE . 1. Clean linen, soiled linen bins, housekeeping carts, computers on wheels, food carts, etc. are permitted while in use - 30 minutes or less Walking surface must be . unobstructed at all times . RI #7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE], with diagnoses to include Disorder of the Brain, Muscle Weakness, Unsteadiness on Feet, Lack of Coordination, Cognitive Communication Deficit and Alcohol Dependence. RI #7's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 07/24/2023, identified RI #7 as scoring a 5 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) indicating RI #7 had severely impaired cognition. RI #7's Progress Notes revealed the following: . Effective Date: 07/25/2023 . Type: Behavior Charting . Resident has been noted to be going into all the other resident's room on the hall. Redirection unsuccessful continues to enter other residents' room unwanted . Effective Date: 07/26/2023 . Type: Daily skilled Nurses Note Summary: . Self propels in wheelchair into other residents' room and has complaints of resident rumbling through things in other residents' rooms. Redirection unsuccessful wandering continues . Effective Date: 07/29/2023 . Type: Daily skilled Nurses Note Summary: . Self propels in wheelchair into other residents' rooms . RI #6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include Muscle Weakness and Unsteadiness on Feet. RI #6's MDS assessment, with an ARD of 07/28/2023 revealed RI #6 scored a 14 on the BIMS indicating RI #6 was cognitively intact. On 09/12/2023 at 5:00 PM a telephone interview was conducted with RI #6. RI #6 said RI #7 had wandered into his/her room twice and a barricade had been made to keep RI #7 out of his/her room. RI #6 said the barricade was made with a nurses' cart and an ice chest. On 09/16/2023 at 12:27 PM, an interview was conducted with Employee (EI) #1, the Administrator. EI #1 was shown a picture received by the State Agency of the barricade. EI #1 said the picture looked like the facility, and based off the chandelier in the picture, it looked like it was in the unit where RI #7 resided. EI #1 identified nurses' carts, an ice chest, and a linen cart in the picture blocking anyone attempting to leave RL #'s 2-5. RI #7 was residing in RL #5. EI #1 said the harm of the barricade was the residents could knock the barricade over and fall. On 09/16/2023 at 5:08 PM, an interview was conducted with EI #2, the Director of Nursing. EI #2 was shown the picture received by the State Agency of the barricade. EI #2 said the residents have attempted to get through the barrier and fall. EI #2 said that would not be safe. This deficiency was cited as a result of the investigation of complaint/report number AL00045069.
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 F0740 (Tag F0740)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and review of Resident Identifier (RI) #7's medical record, the facility failed to identify and address the b...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and review of Resident Identifier (RI) #7's medical record, the facility failed to identify and address the behavioral health care needs of RI #7, a resident with repeated incidents of wandering. In addition, the facility further failed to ensure their Behavioral Assessment policy/procedure was followed to direct the staff on how to assess the resident behaviors, utilizing the Behavioral Assessment Tool to help determine the factors contributing to identified behavior problems. The facility also did not identify specific behavioral interventions for RI #7, to deal effectively with the situation of wandering, after it was document, the resident continued to wander in/out other residents' rooms. This deficient practice affected RI #7; one of three sampled residents reviewed for wandering behaviors. Findings include: The facility Behavioral Policy and Procedure with an effected date of May 1, 2012 identified, Behavioral Assessment .PURPOSE it is the policy of this facility to assess a resident behavior, utilizing the Behavior Assessment Tool to help determine the factor(s) contributing to identified resident behavior problem(s) . PROCEDURE Social Service/Nursing completes the Behavioral Assessment Tool whenever . danger to harm others .The Behavior Assessment Tool is used to explore possible cause for the resident behavior. RI #7 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with an admitting diagnosis of Disorder of Brain, Unsteadiness on Feet and Cognitive Communication Deficit. The admission Minimum Data Set for RI #7, with an assessment reference date of 07/24/2023 indicated RI #7 was severely impaired in cognitive skills for daily decision making. According to this MDS, RI #7 displayed no physical behavioral symptoms directed toward others. The facility's Progress Notes for RI #7 identified the follow episodes of wandering into other resident's rooms without successful interventions being implemented: 07/24/2023 at 5:47 PM written by Employee Identifier (EI #9), a Licensed Practical Nurse, documented Room changed to 302A D/T resident going to glass doors. Redirection unsuccessful resident is sitting by the glass doors at this time. This nurse asked resident what he was doing down their resident stated, just looking. 07/25/2023 at 1:10 PM written by Employee Identifier (EI #9), a Licensed Practical Nurse, documented Resident is roaming the hallways going to glass doors and pushing the handles. Resident has been noted to be going into all the other resident s room on the hall. Redirection unsuccessful continues to enter other residents' room unwanted. 07/26/2023 at 6:59 PM written by Employee Identifier (EI #9), a Licensed Practical Nurse, documented . Self propels in wheelchair into other residents' room and has complaints of resident rumbling through things in other resident's rooms. Redirection unsuccessful wandering continues. 07/27/2023 at 5:47 PM written by Employee Identifier (EI #8), a RN Unit Manager, documented . Propels self in w/c in hallways with frequent redirection needed due to entering other residents' rooms uninvited . 07/28/2023 at 12:35 PM written by Employee Identifier (EI #16), a Director Care Coordinator documented . Care plan with patient and (him/her) family . They also stated that a patient would often enter (RI # 6's) room wandering around lost . 07/29/2023 at 1:05 PM written by Employee Identifier (EI) #9, a Licensed Practical Nurse, documented .Resident ambulates self in room without calling for assistance. Self-propels in wheelchair into other resident's rooms has been placed on 15 min watch. The facility initiated a care plan on 07/28/2023 for RI #7's wandering with three interventions, one intervention was added while survey was in progress. The interventions documented in care plan were to, . Anticipate and meet the resident's needs. Date initiated: 07/28/2023 .Assist the resident to develop more appropriate methods of coping and interacting. Encourage the resident to express feeling appropriately. Date initiated: 07/28/2023 Revision on: 09/18/2023 . Resident placed on 1:1 supervision. Dated initiated: 09/17/2023 Revision on: 09/17/2023. None of the interventions listed were specific to address wandering in/out of resident rooms. On 08/14/2023 the facility received verbal consent from RI #7's sponsor for referral to Remedy Behavioral Health however, behavioral did not visit the resident until 09/14/2023. Behavioral Health documented, Initial visit w/Remedy Behavioral health to evaluate cognition and behaviors It is my opinion the patient is good candidate and would benefit from Psychiatric services and treatment. An interview with the Remedy Behavioral Health CRNP (Certified Registered Nurse Practitioner) on 09/16/2023 at 12:00 PM, confirmed she did not receive the referral until 09/14/2023. My recommendation was to do a Mini Mental Status Exam, but I did not do it because he was so distracted. 09/17/2023 in the early AM a note was placed under DON door that RI #7 wandered had into RI #9 a female resident's room and he/she refusal to stay out of him/her room The note also documented that RI #7 was also wandering into other resident room. A review the progress notes revealed the LPN did not document this behavior and only left the note for the DON regarding RI #7 behaviors. On 09/14/2023 and interview was conducted with EI #5 (CNA) a direct care staff member who identified RI #7 was known to wander. EI #5 said one intervention used was to transfer RI #7 to another room because of a complaint of him/her wandering to into RI #6's room. On 09/16/2023 1:00 PM, an interview was conducted with EI #18 Social Services Director (SSD) regarding the Behavioral Assessment Tool to explore possible causal or RI #7 behavior. EI #18 said she was not made aware of the incident until the police showed up. EI #18 said the Behavioral Assessment should be implemented Quarterly or after an incident has taken place. EI #18 said in a normally run facility Social Services completes the assessment. EI #18 did say in the interview that the Behavioral Assessment Tool should have been completed when the incident occurred but was not completed. EI #18 said she was told not to complete the Behavioral Assessment Tool because the Administrator was handling it. EI #18 said it would have been important for her to complete the assessment because it would have allowed her to monitor the resident. An interview was conducted on 09/17/2023 at 1:00 PM, with Director of Nursing Services (DNS) EI #2 regarding RI #7 Behavioral Assessment Tool. EI #2 said, the tool is used to establish possible causes of the behavior. Usually, if a resident has a behavior the nurse should document the behavior and the Social Worker assist the care plan staff in updating the care plan. EI #2 said, she did not think the Behavioral Assessment Tool was completed on RI #7. The DNS said the Social Worker was responsible for completing the Behavioral Assessment Tool and was responsible for behavioral monitoring/management. EI #2 said once EI #13 became aware of RI #7's recent behavior of wandering she should have documented the behavior and placed RI #7 on one to one and make sure he/she did not wander into another resident's room. An interview was conducted with the Administrator (EI #1) on 09/18/2023 at 01:30 PM, regarding RI #7's wandering behavior. EI #1 said it was a collaboration of everyone to revise the care measure to prevent reoccurring behavior and the measure should be documented. EI #1 said that specific intervention used with RI #7 were to increased activities involvement, do every 15 minutes checks for medical issues and notify the physician of new behaviors. This deficiency was cited as a result of the investigation of complaint/report number AL00045069.
Aug 2023 4 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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

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 a facility policy titled Medication Administration the facility failed to ensur...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and review of a facility policy titled Medication Administration the facility failed to ensure Employee Identifier (EI) #4 prepared medications for administration in accordance with good nursing principles and practices and disposed of medications according to facility policy and procedure. On 8/22/2023 EI #4 was observed sitting at the nurses station with medications she was preparing for two different residents, Resident Identifier (RI) #16 and RI #17. EI #4 said she was confused and was unable to describe what medications were in each of the two cups that she had prepared to administer, and threw the cups of prepared medication into the trash bag on the medication cart. EI #4 was one of three nurses observed during medication administration and had the potential to affect RI #16 and RI #17, two of four residents for whom medications were observed being prepared and administered. Findings include: A facility policy titled Medication Administration with a review date of 4/2022 documented: POLICY: Medications are administered as prescribed, in accordance with good nursing principles and practices . Personal authorized to administer medications do so only after they have familiarized themselves with the medications. PROCEDURE: Medications are prepared, administered, and recorded . A facility policy titled Medication Destruction with a review date of 4/2022 documented . POLICY: . All medications are destroyed on facility premises or are to be picked up and destroyed by an environmental agency. Procedure: . The refusal and wasting of medication MUST be documented . Documentation should include: Date Reason for refusal and disposal Nurse's signature . RI #16 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. RI #17 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. On 8/22/2023 at 9:30 AM EI #4, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) was observed sitting behind the nurses station with the medication cart open and pulled up behind her. EI #4 had two medication cups in front of her on the counter, a medication card in her right hand, and was placing medication in the cup on her right. When asked if it was time to administer medications, EI #4 said, she was getting these 2 (two) ready. EI #4 returned the medication card to the cart and stood up. When asked who the residents were she was preparing medication for, EI #4 picked up both medication cups, one in each hand. EI #4 lifted her right hand and said that was RI #16's and nodded to her left hand and said that was RI #17's. When asked what medications were in the cup in her right hand and who it was for, EI #4 said, it was for RI #16 and there was an Eliquis and four magnesium oxide in the cup. When asked what was in the other cup and who it was for, EI #4 said, I cannot remember, you have confused me. EI #4 was asked again what medications were in the cup in her left hand, and who it was for. EI #4 said, I am confused. EI #4 then took both cups of medication and threw them in the trash bag on the trash bin of the medication cart. When asked what the policy was for passing medications, EI #4 did not reply. When asked what the policy was for discarding medications not given, EI #4 stated, you are trying to nail someone to the wall. On 8/22/23 at 11:19 AM a follow-up interview was conducted with EI #4 LPN. When asked how medications should be passed, EI #4 said, an hour before or an hour after it was scheduled. When asked if she should prepare two medications at one time, EI #4 said no, she should not. When asked about potential harm of preparing and giving two medications at one time, EI #4 said, they could get switched up and the wrong medication could be administered. When EI #4 was asked about the potential negative outcome of not disposing of medication properly per facility policy, EI #4 said, someone or a resident could get the medication if not disposed of properly. On 8/23/2023 at 2:30 PM EI #2, Director of Nursing (DON) was asked about the policy for preparing and giving medications. EI #2 said, the nurse was to roll the medication cart to the resident's door, sanitize hands, prepare the medication according to the Medication Administration Record (MAR), give the medication, sign out the medication as given, then sanitize hands and go to the next resident. EI #2 said, the nurse should roll the cart to the resident room and not be sitting at the station preparing medications. When asked what the potential harm would be in preparing two resident medications at the same time, EI #2 replied, she could get them mixed up and give the wrong medication to the residents. EI #2 was asked about the method of discarding of medication used by EI #4. EI #2 said, they discard medications not given to a resident in the destroyer solution. When asked about the potential harm in placing the medications in the trash on the medication cart, EI #2 said, the risk was for someone to get it from the trash and take it. On 8/24/2023 at 11:10 AM, EI #3 Pharmacist was asked about the observation of EI #4 from 8/22/2023. EI #3 said, medication for only one resident at the time should be prepared because the risk was becoming confused about the medication. When informed about EI #4 discarding medications in the trash bag on the medication cart, EI #3 said, that was not the policy for destroying medication and it should go in the destroyer bottle.
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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and resident record reviews, the facility failed to ensure: Employee Identifier (EI) #7 documented Activity ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and resident record reviews, the facility failed to ensure: Employee Identifier (EI) #7 documented Activity of Daily Living (ADL) on 5/26/2023 in the medical record for Resident Identifier (RI) #7; EI #8 documented ADL on 5/27/2023 and 5/29/2023 in the medical record for RI #7; and EI #9 documented ADL on 5/23/2023, 5/24/2023, 5/26/2023, 5/30/2023, and 5/31/2023 in the medical record for RI #7. This had the potential to affect RI #7 one of fifteen residents for whom records were reviewed. Findings include: RI #7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE]. RI #7's Documentation Survey Report for May 2023 had blank spaces for ADL Bathing from 5/23/2023 through 5/31/2023. There was not any documentation in the record to reflect that baths had been provided for that time frame. On 8/23/2023 at 4:49 PM, an interview was conducted with EI #7, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA). EI #7 stated she was assigned to RI #7 on 05/26/2023 and provided a bath for the resident on that date but did not document because she did not have access to the computer system. On 8/23/2023 at 4:55 PM, an interview was conducted with EI #8, CNA. EI #8 stated he was assigned to RI #7 on 05/27/2023 and 05/29/2023 and provided a bath for the resident on those dates but just forgot to document. On 8/24/2023 at 11:29 AM, an interview was conducted with EI #9, CNA. EI #9 stated she was assigned to RI #7 on 5/23/2023, 5/24/2023, 5/26/2023, 5/30/2023, and 5/31/2023 and provided a bath for the resident on those days. When asked why she did not document the bath, EI #9 stated, she was unable to log into the computer system. On 08/24/2023 at 3:06 PM, an interview was conducted with EI #2 Director of Nursing (DON). EI #2 stated that baths were not documented on 5/23/2023, 5/24/2023, 5/25/2023, 5/26/2023, 5/27/2023, 5/28/2023, 5/29/2023, 5/30/2023, and 5/31/2023 and the baths should have been documented. EI #2 stated, the risk of not documenting the baths was they would not know if it was provided or not.
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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, interviews, resident record review, and review of a facility policy titled Handwashing/Hand Hygiene the facility failed to ensure Employee Identifier (EI) #6, Certified Nursing ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, resident record review, and review of a facility policy titled Handwashing/Hand Hygiene the facility failed to ensure Employee Identifier (EI) #6, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), did not create the potential for cross-contamination during meal delivery on 8/23/2023 when she was observed not washing or sanitizing her hands after handling a dirty meal tray before touching the clean tray cart and coffee service container. This had the potential to affect residents who received meal trays on unit one. Findings include: A facility policy titled Handwashing/Hand Hygiene with an effective date of 11/1/2017 documented the following: . POLICY This center considers hand hygiene the primary means to prevent the spread of infections. POLICY INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION . 5. Use an alcohol-based hand rub or, alternatively, soap (antimicrobial or non-antimicrobial) and water for the following situations: . m. Before and after eating or handling food; . On 8/23/2023 at 7:58 AM, EI #6 CNA was observed with a dirty breakfast tray in her bare hands, walking down the hall to put the dirty tray on a cart. EI #6 then walked to the clean breakfast tray cart and started pushing it down the hallway without sanitizing or washing her hands. EI #6 then picked up the coffee pot and set it down, then opened the clean food cart door, all before washing or sanitizing her hands. On 8/23/2023 at 8:10 AM EI #6 CNA was asked, when was she supposed to wash or sanitize her hands. EI #6 responded, before entering and after leaving every room. EI #6 stated, that the facility policy was to wash or sanitize hands before entering and after leaving every room. EI #6 stated, she did not sanitize or wash her hands before touching the clean cart after handling the dirty tray. EI #6 stated, the risk of not washing or sanitizing her hands after touching a dirty tray was the spread of germs and infections. EI #6 stated, she should have washed or sanitized her hands after touching the dirty tray. On 8/24/2023 at 3:06 PM EI #2 Director of Nursing (DON) was asked, according to policy when should staff wash or sanitize their hands. EI #2 responded, before entering a room, when visibly dirty, when in contact with a resident, when leaving the room, and when delivering or picking up the trays. EI #2 stated, the risk for what EI #6 had done, was contamination of everything she touched. EI #2 stated, she should have set the dirty tray down and then she should have washed or sanitized her hands.
CONCERN (E) 📢 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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and facility policies titled Types of Maintenance and Room Audit the facility failed to provi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and facility policies titled Types of Maintenance and Room Audit the facility failed to provide necessary maintenance services to maintain good repair of equipment and a home like environment. This deficient practice was observed on 1 of 4 days of the survey and had the potential to affect Resident Identifier (RI) #19 and RI #20 and the residents residing on the 100 hall and 200 hall, two of three halls in the facility. Findings include: An undated facility policy titled TYPES OF MAINTENANCE documented: . 1. Preventative Maintenance . is focused on preserving the physical integrity and value of the property. Preventative maintenance consists of regular maintenance activities and routine inspections that are done to prevent problems . 3. Corrective Maintenance These are actual repairs that keep the property functioning normally and usually need to be done as soon as possible. This type of maintenance includes . fixing a dripping faucet, unclogging drains . repairing a non-functioning toilet . A facility policy titled Room Audit with an effective date of 9/1/2014 documented: . Purpose To assess residents rooms to identify items that should be repaired, replaced or addressed to ensure a home-like standard that meets acceptable standards . On 8/23/2023 at 9:33 AM the surveyor began making observations of environmental concerns in the facility. Handrails on the 100 and 200 halls were scrapped and discolored. There were cracked and broken floor tiles on the 100 hall, and discolored ceiling tiles on the 200 hall. RI #20 who resided in room [ROOM NUMBER] stated the paint in the bathroom was chipped and peeling, the sink drained slowly and held water, and the toilet leaked when flushed. RI #20 stated he/she had told maintenance about the issues in the room but the concerns had not been addressed. The surveyor observed the slow draining sink, leaking toilet, and chipped and peeling paint in room [ROOM NUMBER]. RI #19 who resided in room [ROOM NUMBER] said, the paint in the bathroom was chipped and peeling, the sink faucet dripped, and the toilet was loose and leaked when flushed. RI #19 said, he/she had told maintenance about the concerns but they had not been addressed. The surveyor observed the leaking faucet, leaking toilet, and chipped and peeling paint in room [ROOM NUMBER]. An interview was conducted with Employee Identifier (EI) #12, Maintenance Supervisor, on 8/23/2023 at 2:45 PM. EI #12 said, his duties included repairs and ongoing maintenance of the building. EI #12 said, he became aware on 8/22/2023 of the concerns in room [ROOM NUMBER]. EI #12 said he was not aware of the concerns in room [ROOM NUMBER]. EI #12 was asked why the sinks and toilets should be in working order in a resident's room. EI #12 said this was their home and they should have working sinks and toilets. EI #12 said, he did not consider chipped paint, leaking toilets, leaking faucets, and slow draining sinks to be a homelike environment for the residents. EI #12 was asked about the maintenance of the hand rails and he said, it was part of routine maintenance. EI #12 said, the handrails were scrapped and discolored due to wear and tear from the residents holding the rails. EI #12 stated, the handrails were not homelike and needed to be sanded, painted or stained. EI #12 said, the facility should be homelike because it was the resident's home. On 8/23/2023 at 3:15 PM the surveyor with EI #12, Maintance Supervisor, observed the scrapped and discolored hand rails on the 100 and 200 halls, broken tile on the 100 hall, room [ROOM NUMBER] and 115 sink and bathroom concerns and discolored ceiling tiles on the 200 hall. EI #12 said, the tile needed to be repaired in front of the shower room and he would start working on the concerns in room [ROOM NUMBER] and room [ROOM NUMBER]. This deficiency was cited as a result of the investigation of complaint/report numbers AL00043510 and AL00044803.
May 2021 11 deficiencies 2 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record review, and review of a facility policy titled Weight Loss Interventions, the facility failed to not...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record review, and review of a facility policy titled Weight Loss Interventions, the facility failed to notify Resident Identifier (RI) #36's responsible party when RI #36, a resident with a history of weight loss, lost a severe amount of weight from October 2020 through March 2021. RI #36 went from 169.9 pounds to 132.0 pounds without the family being made aware of the continued weight loss. This deficient practice affected RI #36; one of three residents sampled for weight loss. Findings include: The facility's policy titled Weight Loss Interventions, with an effective date of 3/16/2021, documented PURPOSE To ensure adequate nutrition for those at risk for weight loss, etc. PROCEDURE . 6. If weight has not stabilized or if the resident has lost 5% in one month . the . responsible party shall be notified . 8. The . responsible party shall be notified if weight loss continues . RI #36 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with an admitting diagnosis of Dementia. The resident has a medical history to include a diagnosis of: Dysphasia, Oropharyngeal Phase. A review of RI #36's weights over a six-month period revealed the following: On 10/14/2020, RI #36 weighed 169.9 pounds On 11/25/2020, RI #36 weighed 157.4 pounds, a severe loss of 7.3% in one month On 12/17/2020, RI #36 weighed 149 pounds, a severe loss of 5.3% in one month On 1/18/2021, RI #36 weighed 137.9 pounds, a severe loss of 7.4% in one month On 2/10/2021, RI #36 weighed 134 pounds, a loss of 2.8% in one month On 3/15/2021, RI #36 weighed 132 pounds, a loss of 1.9% in one month In an interview on 5/26/2021 at 5:56 PM, Employee Identifier (EI) #1, the Director of Nursing (DON) was asked who notifies the family of a resident's weight loss. EI #1 stated nursing. EI #1 said if the family was notified it should be in the nurses or dietary notes. A review of RI #36's nurses and dietary notes revealed no documentation of RI #36's responsible party being notified of the resident's weight loss. In a follow-up interview on 5/27/2021 at 11:00 AM, EI #1 said she was not sure if RI #36's family had been notified of the resident's weight lost but they should have been. During a telephone interview on 5/27/2021 at 11:51 AM, RI #36's responsible party stated she had never been notified of RI #36's weight losses.
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, review of Resident Identifier (RI) #36's medical record, and the facility's policy titled Weight Loss Inter...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, review of Resident Identifier (RI) #36's medical record, and the facility's policy titled Weight Loss Interventions, the facility failed to ensure nutritional interventions were implemented when RI #36 experienced a severe weight loss from November 2020 to January 2021. Beginning 11/25/2020, RI #36 experienced a severe weight loss of 7.3% in one month. There were no nutritional interventions to address the resident's weight loss until 1/18/2021. This deficient practice affected RI #36; one of three residents reviewed for weight loss. Findings include: RI #36 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with an admitting diagnosis of Dementia. The resident has a medical history to include a diagnosis of: Dysphasia, Oropharyngeal Phase. RI #36's care plan titled I am at risk for altered nutritional status related to Dementia with an initiated date of 9/30/2019, had an intervention of Consult RD PRN (as needed) . RI #36's Quarterly Minimum Data Set with an assessment reference date of 11/20/2020 indicated the resident was moderately impaired in cognitive skills with long- and short-term memory problems. The resident was assessed as requiring supervision with eating. A review of RI #36's weights over a six-month period revealed the following: On 10/14/2020, RI #36 weighed 169.9 pounds On 11/25/2020, RI #36 weighed 157.4 pounds, a severe loss of 7.3% in one month On 12/17/2020, RI #36 weighed 149 pounds, a severe loss of 5.3% in one month On 1/18/2021, RI #36 weighed 137.9 pounds, a severe loss of 7.4% in one month On 2/10/2021, RI #36 weighed 134 pounds, a loss of 2.8% in one month On 3/15/2021, RI #36 weighed 132 pounds, a loss of 1.9% in one month RI #36's Quarterly Minimum Data Set with an assessment reference date of 2/18/2021 indicated the resident was moderately impaired in cognitive skills with long- and short-term memory problems. The resident was assessed as requiring limited assistance with eating. The facility's policy titled Weight Loss Interventions, with an effective date of 3/16/2021, documented PURPOSE To ensure adequate nutrition for those at risk for weight loss, etc. PROCEDURE . When a resident loses 3% or more in one month . the following steps shall be taken: . 2. At the weekly Focus Meetings all possible causes for poor consumption shall be reviewed including: . d) Need to review and update of the resident's personal food preferences . 6. If weight has not stabilized or if the resident has lost 5% in one month . the RD . shall be notified and a revised plan shall be suggested, such as: A high calorie/protein snack, such as peanut butter, cheese, cottage cheese, etc. may be provided as an extra H.S. (bed time) snack . 13. The RD will enter a progress note and will write monthly progress notes until the problem is resolved. They will enter documentation in the progress note describing the status of the residents condition related to nutritional therapy . A review of RI #36's dietary notes revealed there was no progress notes addressing nutritional interventions for RI #36's severe weight loss of 7.3% in one month on 11/25/2020, or the severe weight loss of 5.3% in one month on 12/17/2020. During an interview on 5/27/2021 at 11:00 AM, Employee Identifier (EI) #1, the Director of Nursing was asked had RI #36 had any weight loss. EI #1 said yes. According to EI #1 on 10/14/2020, RI #36 weighed 169.9 pounds and RI #36's next month's weight on 11/25/2020, was 157.4 pounds. EI #1 said that was a 12.5-pound weight loss over a month. When asked was the RD, EI #8, consulted for the weight loss at that time, EI #1 said that would be something EI #9, the Dietary Manager (DM) does. EI #1 said she was not sure this was done. EI #1 said RI #36's next month's weight was 149 pounds on 12/17/2020. EI #1 said this was a loss of 8.4 pound over a month. When asked was this weight loss addressed by the RD, EI #1 said no but it should have been. EI #1 stated she attributes the resident's weight loss to COVID-19 and the constant walking he/she does. EI #1 explained the resident is constantly walking and that burns calories. According to RI #1's diagnoses information, on 1/1/2021, the resident obtained a new diagnosis of personal history of COVID-19. In a telephone interview with RI #36's emergency contact, she stated RI #36 usually body weight is between 130 and 140 pounds. While RI #36's emergency contact was not aware of the resident's weight loss, she had no concerns regarding the care the resident has received at the facility. On 5/27/2021 at 3:52 PM, a telephone interview was conducted with EI #8, the Consulting RD. EI #8 was asked if she was familiar with RI 36 and she said yes. E #8 stated RI #36 had been in the facility since 2019 and when the resident was first admitted , the resident weighed 131 pounds. When asked how often residents are weighed at the facility, EI #8 replied on admission to establish his/her weight, then weekly or monthly. According to EI #8, RI #36's ideal body weight is between 117 and 143 pounds. When the RD Nutritional Assessment was done on 10/14/2020, this was the annual assessment and RI #36 weighed 169.9 pounds; the resident was above his/her ideal body weight. Then on 11/25/2020, RI #36's weight was listed as 157.4, which is a 7.4% weight loss from the previous month. EI #8 stated she didn't implement any interventions at this time because the resident was above his/her ideal body weight and the resident was a walker and that may have been a contributing factor. EI #8 stated then on 12/17/2020, the resident's weight was 149 pounds. EI #8 stated this was a 5.3% weight loss in one month; however, she was not aware of this weight. EI #8 stated while the resident was still within his/her ideal body weight, she would have recommended to review the resident's food preferences to see if the staff could get the resident to eat more of his/her meals. RI #36's next weight of 137.9 was recorded on 1/18/2021. This was a 7.4% weight loss in one month. When asked what interventions were implemented as the result of this weight loss, EI #8 stated fortified food. EI #8 was asked what could she attribute RI #36's weight loss to. EI #8 replied, it could have been from the resident's increased activity of walking. EI #8 stated she reviewed the resident's intake and it ranged from 25% to 100%. EI #8 stated she could not give a definitive reason/explanation for the resident's weight loss. Since the weight loss, appropriate interventions have been implemented and the resident has maintained his/her weight in the ideal body weight range. In a follow-up telephone interview on 5/29/2021 at 6:06 PM, EI #8 stated again that she was not made aware of RI #36's weight of 157.4 pounds on 11/25/2020 but she should have been because it was a weight loss over 5% in one month. EI #8 stated had she been aware, she would have recommended some form of food preference or snack intervention. If the resident was not eating, she would have recommended a supplement. If the resident was eating, she would have recommended a snack. A telephone call/interview with the facility's Dietary Manager, EI #9, on 5/29/2021 was unsuccessful. From 5/25/2021 to 5/29/2021, RI #36 was observed for breakfast, lunch and dinner meals by the survey team. The resident was provided the correct, palatable diet with nutritional interventions. The staff provided verbal cues and assistance during each meal and the resident consumed 50% to 75% of each meal.
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews and review of Resident Identifier (RI) #28's medical record, the facility failed to maintain th...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews and review of Resident Identifier (RI) #28's medical record, the facility failed to maintain the ceiling in RI #28's room. RI #28's ceiling was observed with different color paint and water spots. This deficient practice affected RI #28, one of 39 sampled residents. Findings include: RI #28 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. RI #28's Quarterly Minimum Data Set with an assessment reference date of 2/17/2021 indicated the resident was cognitively intact with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15. On 4/11/2021 at 3:48 PM, RI #28 stated he/she would like the ceiling painted. An observation of the ceiling in RI #28's room revealed the ceiling had two colors of paint and spots over the resident's bed that resembled water spots. RI #28 stated he/she had spoken to the facility's Administrator about the ceiling, but nothing had been done about painting it. On 4/12/2021 at 9:03 AM, Employee Identifier (EI) #17, the Maintenance Director stated he observed RI #28's ceiling and it needed to be painted. During an interview on 4/12/2021 at 9:54 AM, EI #18, the Administrator stated she didn't remember being calling to look at RI #28's ceiling. EI #18 stated she will look at it and have it painted.
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 interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident Identifier (RI) #77's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident Identifier (RI) #77's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an assessment reference date of 10/21/2020, accurately reflected the stage of RI #77's pressure ulcer. This deficient practice affected RI #77; one of 14 residents whose MDS assessments were reviewed. Findings include: RI #77 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE]. RI #77's admission MDS with an assessment reference date of 7/21/2020, revealed RI #77 had a Stage II pressure ulcer during this assessment period. RI #77's Quarterly MDS with an assessment reference date of 10/21/2020, revealed RI #77 had a Stage IV pressure ulcer during this assessment period. On 1/18/2021, RI #77 was transferred to a local hospital for evaluation. RI #77 returned to the facility on 1/26/2021, with a diagnosis of Pressure Ulcer of Sacral Region, Stage IV, with an onset date of 1/26/2021. RI #77's readmit BODY AUDIT sheet, dated 1/27/2021, revealed RI #77 had a State IV pressure ulcer to the sacral area. In an interview on 5/29/2021 at 8:50 AM, Employee Identifier (EI) #6, the Treatment Nurse said on RI #77's first admission to the facility, the resident had a Stage II pressure ulcer. When asked when did the pressure ulcer progress to Stage IV, EI #6 said when RI #77 returned from the hospital on [DATE], the Stage IV pressure ulcer was present. When asked why RI #77's 10/21/2020 Quarterly MDS assessment coded RI #77 as having a Stage IV pressure ulcer if the Stage IV was not identified until 1/26/2021, EI #6 said it looked like a coding error had occurred. EI #6 said from the facility's investigation, RI #77's pressure ulcer was identified as a Stage IV when the resident was readmitted on [DATE]. During an interview on 5/29/2021 at 10:19 AM, EI #7, the Registered Nurse MDS Coordinator was asked did she complete the Skin Section, Section M of RI #77's Quarterly MDS dated [DATE]. EI #7 said yes. When asked where she got the information RI #77 had a Stage IV pressure ulcer, EI #7 said from the documentation of the Physician's Progress notes and from EI #2, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON). EI #7 said the Physician's Progress notes made it sound like a Stage IV pressure ulcer, but the stage of the pressure ulcer was never documented. EI #7 said she received a verbal statement from EI #2 about the stage of RI #77's pressure ulcer. EI #7 said she never saw any documentation of the pressure ulcer being Stage IV. A review of RI #77's wound care orders dated 10/10/2020 and RI #77's Physician's Progress Notes dated 10/16/2020, did not reveal the wound had been staged as a Stage IV pressure ulcer. On 5/29/2021 at 11:08 AM, EI #2, the ADON was asked before RI #77's readmission to the facility on 1/26/2021, was RI #77 ever identified to have a Stage IV pressure ulcer to his/her sacral area. EI #2 said no. EI #2 said she never informed EI #7 that RI #77 had a Stage IV pressure ulcer to his/her sacrum. EI #2 said RI #77 only had the Stage IV pressure ulcer when the resident was readmitted back to the facility on 1/26/2021.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on an observation, interviews, record review, and review of FUNDAMENTALS OF NURSING, the facility failed to ensure a dress...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on an observation, interviews, record review, and review of FUNDAMENTALS OF NURSING, the facility failed to ensure a dressing remained on Resident Identifier (RI) #77's Stage IV sacral pressure ulcer as ordered by the physician. This deficient practice affected RI #77; one of two residents observed for wound care. Findings include: Page 1209 of Chapter 48 titled Skin Integrity and Wound Care of FUNDAMENTALS OF NURSING with a copyright date of 2017, documented . Purposes of Dressings . When the skin is broken, a dressing helps reduce exposure to micro-organisms . RI #77 was readmitted on [DATE], with a diagnosis of Pressure Ulcer of Sacral Region, Stage IV. RI #77's Quarterly Minimum Data Set with an assessment reference date of 4/20/2021, revealed RI #77 had a Stage IV pressure ulcer during this assessment period. RI #77's May 2021 physician's order revealed an order dated 4/14/2021 for . CLEAN WOUND TO SACRUM WITH NORMAL SALINE. PACK WITH HYDROGEL IMPREGNATED GUAZE (GAUZE) THEM APPLY NON-ADHERENT FOAM DRESSING EACH DAY AND AS NEEDED . On 5/25/2021 at 3:28 PM, RI #77 was observed lying in bed on his/her left side with a wedge to his/her back. On 5/25/2021 at 4:05 PM, Employee Identifier (EI) #1, the Director of Nursing (DON) and EI #10, a Nursing Assistant (NA) removed the wedge from 77's back and repositioned RI #77. There was no dressing observed to the Stage IV pressure ulcer on RI #77's sacral area at this time. In an interview on 5/28/2021 at 9:30 AM, EI #10, a NA said she had no idea why RI #77 did not have a dressing to his/her sacral area but there definitely should have been one there. During an interview on 5/28/2021 at 10:03 AM, EI #2, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON)/Infection Preventionist said when a resident has a pressure ulcer there should be a dressing covering the wound. When asked what the potential was for when wounds are not covered, EI #2 said infection. EI #2 said she was not made aware RI #77 did not have a dressing on his/her Stage IV pressure ulcer until a little after 5:00 PM on 5/25/2021. EI #2 said when she became aware RI #77 did not have a dressing on his/her pressure ulcer she went and put one on it.
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, review of Resident Identifier (RI) #59's medical record and the facility's Diversicare Restorative Guideline...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, review of Resident Identifier (RI) #59's medical record and the facility's Diversicare Restorative Guideline, the facility failed to assess RI #59, a resident having occasional incontinent episodes of bladder; and a history of falls when going to and from the bathroom, for a toileting program. This deficient practice affected RI #59; one of two residents reviewed for bowel and bladder incontinence. Findings include: RI #59 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. RI #59's admission Minimum Data Set with an assessment reference date of 4/13/2017, indicated the resident was cognitively intact with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 15. RI #59 was assessed as being occasionally incontinent of bladder and not on a urinary toileting program during this assessment period. The facility's Diversicare Restorative Guideline dated June 2019, documented Purpose Restorative services refers to nursing interventions to assist the resident in reaching his/her highest level and then maintain that function . Restorative Considerations . Bladder Training and Scheduled Toileting . Key Elements: Residents will benefit from a restorative program in order to sustain function and/or to continue to progress toward functional goals after formalized therapy . RI #59's Quarterly MDS with an assessment reference date of 9/14/2020, indicated the resident was cognitively intact with a BIMS of 13. RI #59 was assessed as being occasionally incontinent of bladder and not on a urinary toileting program during this assessment period. According to RI #59's medical record, the resident experienced a fall on 10/22/2020 when coming from the bathroom. RI #59's Quarterly MDS with an assessment reference date of 12/15/2020, indicated the resident was cognitively intact with a BIMS of 13. RI #59 was assessed as being occasionally incontinent of bladder and not on a urinary toileting program during this assessment period. According to RI #59's medical record, the resident experienced a fall on 2/20/2021 when coming from the bathroom. RI #59's Annual MDS with an assessment reference date of 3/11/2021, indicated the resident was cognitively intact with a BIMS of 14. RI #59 was assessed as being occasionally incontinent of bladder and not on a urinary toileting program during this assessment period. According to RI #59's medical record, the resident experienced a fall on 3/28/2021 and 4/8/2021 when going to the bathroom. On 5/28/2021 at 4:51 PM, the surveyor conducted an interview Employee Identifier (EI) #1, the Director of Nursing. When asked when residents are placed on a toileting program, EI #1 said when a pattern is needed to identify the times a resident usually voids. EI #1 said the resident is usually continent or frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder when a toileting program is initiated. EI #1 said the facility did not have any residents on a toileting program at the time. EI #1 said the reason for that was usually the incontinent residents are checked and changed every two hours and the continent residents are encouraged and assisted to the restroom approximately every two hours as the resident will allow. When asked how many of RI #59's falls occurred when the resident was going to or coming from the bathroom, EI #1 replied, four. When asked if the facility ever considered RI #59 would benefit from a toileting program, EI #1 said no because RI #59 was leaning on furniture when coming out of the bathroom. When asked what the one factor was of four of the falls, EI #1 said the use of the bathroom. EI #1 said to her knowledge RI #59 had not been considered for a toileting program. The surveyor asked EI #1 what would a toileting program do for the resident. EI #1 said it would help the staff and resident know the time a resident normally voids. When asked would RI #59 benefit from being placed on a toileting program, EI #1 said yes.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to discard the expired Lantus pen...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to discard the expired Lantus pen of Resident Identifer (RI) #67 and further failed to label and date the inhaler for RI #68. These deficient practices affected RI #67 and RI #68, and were oberved on one of two medication carts in the facility. Findings include: The facility's policy titled Storage and Expiration Dating of Medications, Biologicals, Syringes and Needles, revised [DATE], documented . This Policy . sets for the procedures relating to the storage and expiration dates of medications, biologicals, syringes and needes . PROCEDURE . 4. Facility should ensure that medications and biologicals that: (1) have an expired date on the label; (2) have been retained longer than recommended by manufacturer or supplier guidelines; . are stored separate from other medications until destroyed . 5. Once any medication or biological package is opened, Facility should follow manufacturer/supplier guidelines with respect to expiration dates for opened medications. Facility staff should record the date opened on the primary medication container when the medication has a shortened expiration date once opened . During an observation of the medication cart on [DATE] at 2:56 PM, RI #67's Lantus pen had an opened date of [DATE]. Employee Identifier (EI) #19, a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) said the pen should be discarded 28 days after opening. Also observed on the medication cart was RI #68's Breo Ellipta inhaler; the inhaler and the packages did not have an opened date. The manufacture's information indicated Discard BREO ELLIPTA 6 weeks after opening the foil traym .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0790 (Tag F0790)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to conduct an investigation when Resident Identifier (RI) #36, an ambulatory cognitively impaired resident brought an implant/bridge to a lice...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to conduct an investigation when Resident Identifier (RI) #36, an ambulatory cognitively impaired resident brought an implant/bridge to a licensed nurse on 10/20/2020. The facility failed to conduct an investigation to determine whose implant/bridge this was. This deficient practice had the potential to affect one of the 82 residents who reside at the facility. Findings include: RI #36 was admitted to the facility's secured unit on 9/4/2019 with an admitting diagnosis of Dementia. RI #36's Quarterly Minimum Data Set with an assessment reference date of 2/18/2021 indicated the resident was moderately impaired in cognitive skills with long- and short-term memory problems. RI #36 was assessed as requiring supervision with walking in room and corridor and locomotion on and off the unit. RI #36's progress note dated 10/20/2020 10:44 PM written by Employee Identifier (EI) #14, a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) documented At 3:15pm resident came to nurse and gave me (his/her) left front tooth implant/bridge (two connected teeth noted with a post extending from the root of one. Resident denies pain, no bleeding noted. Root of the left tooth is visible from the gumline. No complaints during the shift. Ate supper without difficulty. Will continue plan of care. During a telephone interview that began on 5/26/2021 at 4:26 PM, EI #14, a LPN was asked about the situation when RI #36 brought her an implant/bridge. EI #14 stated she was shocked when the resident brought it to her. EI #14 stated she looked in the resident's mouth and didn't see any bleeding or anything. EI #14 stated that evening for dinner she observed the resident and there were no problems with eating. When asked who did the implant/bridge belong to, EI #14 said RI #36. During an interview on 5/26/2021 at 5:56 PM, EI #1, the Director of Nursing stated she became aware on 10/21/2020 that RI #36's implant/bridge had come out via reading the nurses' notes and the facility's morning meeting. EI #1 stated on 10/21/2020, she went and assessed the resident's mouth and gum line. She stated there was no redness, swelling or bleeding and the resident did not voice or show signs of pain or discomfort. When asked if she had done an investigation to determine who the implant/bridge belonged to, EI #1 said no. In a telephone interview with RI #36's emergency contact on 5/27/2021 at 11:51 AM, she was asked did RI #36 have an implant/bridge when admitted to the facility. The emergency contact said no, the resident only had his/her natural teeth. She stated RI #36 has never had an implant/bridge. RI #36's Clinical Health Status Evaluation dated 9/5/2019 indicated the resident has his/her own natural teeth. According to documentation within RI #36's medical record, the resident refused to be seen by the dentist on 2/12/2020. During the dental exam on 3/19/2021, the comprehensive oral evaluation was within normal limits; no concerns noted.
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 observation and interviews, the facility failed to ensure Employee Identifier (EI) #10, a Nursing Assistant (NA), chang...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interviews, the facility failed to ensure Employee Identifier (EI) #10, a Nursing Assistant (NA), changed her contaminated gloves during the provision of incontinence care for Resident Identifier (RI) #77. This deficient practice affected RI #77; one of one resident observed for incontinence care. Findings include: RI #77 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a principal diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease. RI #77's Quarterly Minimum Data Set with an assessment reference date of 4/20/2021, revealed RI #77 was totally dependent on staff for toileting and personal hygiene and always incontinent of bowel and bladder. During the provision of incontinence care on 5/25/2021 at 4:05 PM, EI #10, a NA used Procare disposable large adult washcloth and wiped RI #77's groin area and labia using different wipes. There was a small amount of bowel noted in RI #77's inner buttocks; EI #10 wiped the bowel off four times, using different wipes. EI #10 picked up a clean adult brief, with the contaminated gloves still on, and positioned the brief to RI #77's back. With the contaminated gloves still on, EI #10 picked up the tube of skin barrier, squeezed the barrier on her contaminated gloves and rubbed the barrier cream onto RI #77's buttocks. With the same contaminated gloves still on, EI #10 rubbed skin barrier in RI #77's groin areas and fastened the right side of RI #77's adult brief. EI #10 pulled RI #77's gown down, touched the incontinent pad, helped to reposition RI #77 by placing a pillow under RI #77's left elbow, pulling the sheet over RI #77, and letting the head of bed of RI #77 up. On 5/27/1021 at 5:45 PM, the surveyor conducted an interview with EI #10. The surveyor read back the observed incontinence care observation and asked EI #10 what she failed to do. EI #10 said she did not change her gloves. When asked what it was considered when gloves are not changed when going from dirty to clean items, EI #10 said contamination. EI #10 said she was last in-serviced on infection control in orientation. EI #10 was asked when she was told she needed to change her gloves during incontinent care. EI #10 said she was told to be aware of her glove use and every time she went from dirty to clean to change her gloves. A review of EI #10's Temporary Nurse Aide Skills Competency Checklist revealed on 7/18/2020, EI #10 had been checked off on Preventing Infection While Providing Personal Care. In an interview on 5/28/2021 at 10:03 AM, EI #2, the Infection Preventionist Nurse. was asked during incontinence care, when should gloves be changed. EI #2 said change gloves several times when going from one area to another, washing your hands or using hand sanitizer in-between. EI #2 said when not changed in this manner there was a potential for infection, Urinary Tract Infections, and yeast. EI #2 said CNAs are taught in orientation they are to change their gloves frequently.
CONCERN (E)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, review of Resident Identifier (RI) #36's medical record and the facility's policy titled Weight Loss Interve...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, review of Resident Identifier (RI) #36's medical record and the facility's policy titled Weight Loss Interventions, the facility failed to consistently document the meal intake of RI #36, a resident with a history of weight loss. This deficient practice affected RI #36; one of three residents reviewed for weight loss. Findings include: RI #36 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with an admitting diagnosis of Dementia. The resident has a medical history to include a diagnosis of: Dysphasia, Oropharyngeal Phase. A review of RI #36's Windsor House Documentation Survey Report v2 (Flow Sheet), under the task of Nutrition - Amount, revealed there was no documented percentage of RI #36's meal consumption for seven of 90 meals served during October 2020. A review of RI #36's Windsor House Documentation Survey Report v2, under the task of Nutrition - Amount, revealed there was no documented percentage of RI #36's meal consumption for 27 of 90 meals served during November 2020. A review of RI #36's Windsor House Documentation Survey Report v2, under the task of Nutrition - Amount, revealed there was no documented percentage of RI #36's meal consumption for 68 of 90 meals served during December 2020. A review of RI #36's Windsor House Documentation Survey Report v2, under the task of Nutrition - Amount, revealed there was no documented percentage of RI #36's meal consumption for 24 of 90 meals served during January 2021. A review of RI #36's Windsor House Documentation Survey Report v2, under the task of Nutrition - Amount, revealed there was no documented percentage of RI #36's meal consumption for 34 of 84 meals served during February 2021. A review of RI #36's Windsor House Documentation Survey Report v2, under the task of Nutrition - Amount, revealed there was no documented percentage of RI #36's meal consumption for 35 of 90 meals served during March 2021. The facility's policy titled Weight Loss Interventions, with an effective date of 3/16/2021, documented PURPOSE To ensure adequate nutrition for those at risk for weight loss, etc. PROCEDURE . 4. The CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) will document on the Flow Sheet, the percentage of consumption of each meal . During a telephone interview that began on 5/26/2021 at 4:26 PM, Employee Identifier (EI) #14, a Licensed Practical Nurse was asked where are RI #36's meal percentage charted. EI #14 said in the computer under RI #36's Activities of Daily Living portion of eating. When asked who was responsible for charting RI #36's meal percentage, EI #14 said the Certified Nursing Assistants. When asked why it was important for the meal percentage to be recorded, EI #14 said it showed how much the resident did or did not eat.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0625 (Tag F0625)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a notice of bed-hold to the resident and/or their represent...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a notice of bed-hold to the resident and/or their representative when Resident Identifier (RI) #59 and RI #78 were transferred to the local hospital. This deficient practice affected RI #59 and RI #78, two of three sampled residents reviewed for hospitalization, with the potential to affect all residents that are transferred to the hospital. Findings include: RI #59 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of RI #59's medical record indicated the resident was transferred to the local hospital on [DATE], 1/30/2021 and 3/28/2021. RI #78 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of RI #78's medical record indicated the resident was transferred to the local hospital on 3/24/2021, 4/1/2021, and 4/7/2021. In an interview on 5/26/2021 at 5:36 PM, Employee Identifier (EI) #18, the facility's Administrator stated the facility does not issue a notice of bed-hold when a resident is transferred to the hospital. According to EI #18, the only time a notice of bed-hold was discussed was during the admission process.
Mar 2019 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D)

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on an observation, interviews, review of medical records, and review of a facility policy titled, Abuse, Neglect, Misappro...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on an observation, interviews, review of medical records, and review of a facility policy titled, Abuse, Neglect, Misappropriation, Exploitation Policy, the facility failed to ensure Resident Identifier (RI) #72's Injury of Unknown Source was reported to the State Agency within twenty-four hours. This affected 1 of 19 sampled residents observed for signs of abuse during the survey. Findings Include: RI # 72 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Cerebral Infarction of Right Middle Cerebral Artery, Muscle Weakness, Difficulty in Walking, Hemiplegia and Hemiparesis following Cerebral Infarction, affecting left side, History of Falls, Unspecified Dementia without Behavioral Disturbance, and Hypertension. RI #72's quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment, with an Assessment Reference Date of 2/17/19, documented RI #72 had severe cognitive impairment. On 3/04/19 at 5:14 p.m., the surveyor noted bruising to the left side of RI #72's face and asked RI #72 what happened. When asked if it was due to a fall, RI #72 shook his/her head from left to right and stated no. RI #72 said he/she did not know what happened, but it was itching. An SBAR (Situation Background Assessment Recommendation)- Change of Condition form, dated 2/23/2019, indicated RI #72 was assessed due to having a blood red sclera and bruising to the left eye. This form also indicated an order was obtained to send RI #72 to the emergency room for evaluation. The Emergency Documentation from the hospital indicated RI #72 had .visible bruising and bleeding around left sclera . A facility policy titled, Abuse, Neglect, Misappropriation, Exploitation Policy, with an effective date of January 2019, revealed: .Injuries of Unknown Source: When both of the following criteria are met: the source of the injury was not observed by any person or the source of the injury could not be explained by the resident: and the injury is suspicious because of the extent of the injury or location of the injury .7. Reporting/Response .Immediately reporting all alleged violations to the .state agency .within specified timeframes .When .No serious bodily injury not later than 24 hours . On 3/05/19 at 7:39 a.m., the surveyor conducted an interview with Employee Identifier (EI) #1, the Administrator. EI #1 was asked if she had any reportable incidents/investigations that were reported to the State Agency for January, February, and March, 2019. EI #1 stated no, the last reportable was in December, 2018. On 3/05/19 at 3:26 p.m., the surveyor conducted an interview with EI #3, Registered Nurse/House Supervisor. EI #3 was asked on February 23, 2019 on day shift, why was RI #72 sent to the hospital emergency room. EI #3 stated that when she came in to her shift, the nurse on duty told her that RI #72's left eye was bloody and red looking. EI #3 stated when she assessed RI #72's left eye, she found the left sclera bright red, bloody looking and slightly swollen, but the left eye was open and RI #72 could open and close the eye. She stated the outside area of RI #72's lower left eye lid looked bruised on the outer edge, but there was no bruising on the left cheek. EI #3 stated she talked with RI #72 and asked what had happened to the left eye. EI #3 stated RI #72 stated that he/she did not know, but had a headache. EI #3 stated she asked RI #72 if he/she had fallen, but RI #72 stated no. EI #3 stated she asked RI #72 if he/she had bumped the left eye, and RI #72 no. EI #3 was asked what the facility's protocol was when a resident had an injury of unknown origin. EI #3 stated you should do an incident report and report it to the Administrator and Director of Nursing (DON) immediately. EI #3 stated she called the administrator and the DON immediately after she assessed RI #72 On 3/06/2019 at 11:43 a.m., the surveyor conducted an interview with EI #1, the Administrator. EI #1 was asked if she reported an Injury of Unknown Source regarding RI #72's bruising/bleeding of the left eye. EI #1 stated no. EI #1 was asked if she would consider this an injury of unknown origin. EI #1 stated yes. EI #1 said should report an Injury of Unknown Source when you are unsure of what happened to a resident. EI #1 was asked according to your policy, when should you report an Injury of Unknown Source. EI #1 stated you should report to the State Agency immediately.
Apr 2018 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0553 (Tag F0553)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident Identifier (RI) #15 and RI #75 were invite...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident Identifier (RI) #15 and RI #75 were invited to care plan meetings on 3-5-18 and 3-27-18. This affected two of 23 sampled residents. Findings Include: 1) RI #15 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of RI #15's most recent Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 3-2-18 documented a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12, which indicated he/she was cognitively intact. On 4-4-18 at 5:30 p.m., during an interview, RI #15 stated he/she was unaware of a care plan meeting. An interview was conducted with Employee Identifier (EI) #1, Registered Nurse, on 4-5-18 at 1:42 p.m. EI #1 was asked if RI #15 was invited to the care plan meeting on 3-5-18. EI #1 stated, no. EI #1 was asked if RI #15 should have been invited to the care plan meeting. EI #1 responded, probably so. EI #1 was asked what was the reason a resident would be invited to a care plan meeting. EI #1 responded, for the resident to have input into the care plan. 2) RI # 75 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of RI #75's most recent Quarterly MDS, with an ARD of 3-9-18, documented a BIMS score of 15, which indicated he/she was cognitively intact. 04/05/18 at 11:35 a.m., RI #75 was asked if he/she would have liked to have been invited to the care plan meeting on 3-27-18. RI #75 responded, yes. An interview was conducted with EI #1. EI #1 was asked if RI #75 was invited to the care plan meeting on 3-27-18. EI #1 responded, no. EI #1 was asked why RI #75 was not invited. RI #75 stated the sponsor received a letter. EI # 1 was asked if RI #75 should have been invited to the care plan meeting on 3/27/18. EI #1 responded, she did not know. EI #1 was asked what was the reason a resident would be invited to a care plan meeting. EI #1 responded the resident would be able to have input into the care plan.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, medical record review, and a review of [NAME] and Perry's FUNDAMENTALS OF NURSING, the facility...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, medical record review, and a review of [NAME] and Perry's FUNDAMENTALS OF NURSING, the facility failed to ensure a licensed nurse administered insulin in a subcutaneous (under the skin) area of Resident Identifier (RI) #21's body. This affected Resident Identifier RI #21, one of four residents observed during medication administration. Findings Include: A review of [NAME] and Perry's FUNDAMENTALS OF NURSING, NINTH EDITION, CHAPTER 32, page 647 and 648, revealed: . Subcutaneous injections involve placing medications into the loose connective tissue under the dermis. The best subcutaneous injection sites include the outer posterior aspect of the upper arms, the abdomen from below the coastal margins to the iliac crests, and the anterior aspects of the thighs. Recommended sites for insulin injections include the upper (outer) arm and the anterior and lateral parts of the thigh, buttocks and abdomen . RI #21 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with a diagnosis of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. A review of the physician's order dated 03/16/2018, revealed: HumaLOG KwikPen Solution Pen-Injector 100 UNIT/ML (milliters) . Inject 4 unit (units) subcutaneously as needed for a blood sugar greater than 350. On 4/03/18 at 5:53 p.m., the surveyor observed Employee Identifier (EI) #2, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), administer RI #21's four units of insulin in the left deltoid area (rounded, triangular muscle located on the uppermost part of the arm and the top of the shoulder). An interview was conducted on 4/3/18 at 5:36 p.m. with EI #2. EI #2 was asked where she gave RI #21's insulin. EI #2 replied, In the deltoid. EI #2 was asked where was insulin supposed to be administered. EI #2 replied, Right and left deltoid, all four quadrants of the abdomen, thigh area. The surveyor asked EI #2 to look at the physician's order for the insulin injection. EI #2 acknowledged the insulin was ordered subcutaneously.
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 observation, interviews, medical record review, and [NAME] AND PERRYS, FUNDAMENTALS OF NURSING, the facility failed to ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, medical record review, and [NAME] AND PERRYS, FUNDAMENTALS OF NURSING, the facility failed to ensure a licensed nurse did not blow on the glucometer or the multi-dose insulin pen before placing them into the medication cart. This affected Resident Identifier (RI) #21, one of four residents observed during medication administration and one of three nurses observed for medication administration. Findings Include: A review of [NAME] and Perry's, FUNDAMENTALS OF NURSING, Ninth Edition, Chapter 29, page 445, revealed: . Equipment used within the environment .often becomes a source for the transmission of pathogens. Box 29-1 Modes of Transmission . Droplet * Large particles that travel up to 3 feet during coughing, sneezing, or talking and come in contact with a susceptible host Airborne * Droplet nuclei or residue or evaporated droplets suspended in air during coughing, sneezing or carried on dust particles . Resident Identifier (RI) #21 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. On 4/3/18 at 5:53 p.m., Employee Identifier (EI) #2, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), was observed cleaning the glucometer before and after use. EI #2 blew on the glucometer to dry it and blew on the insulin pen before placing them back into the medication cart. An interview was conducted on 4/3/18 at 5:36 p.m. with EI #2. EI #2 was asked if she should have blown on the glucometer and the insulin pen. EI #2 replied, No, I was nervous, I'm sorry , I made a mistake. EI #2 was asked why should she not blow on the glucometer and insulin pen. EI #2 replied, it was not one of the steps and germs. An interview was conducted on 4/5/18 at 3:50 p.m. with EI #3, (a Registered Nurse/Director of Nursing). EI #3 was asked if a nurse should blow on the glucometer after cleaning it and before placing it back into the medication cart. EI #3 replied, No, let it air dry for five minutes. EI #3 was asked if a nurse should blow on the insulin pen before placing it back into the medication cart. EI #3 replied, No ma'am. EI#3 was asked what was the potential for harm. EI #3 replied, Could be contaminated.
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?"
  • "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), 2 harm violation(s), $266,231 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 24 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $266,231 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Alabama. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 0/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Windsor House's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns WINDSOR HOUSE an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much 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 Windsor House Staffed?

CMS rates WINDSOR HOUSE's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 55%, which is 9 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 Windsor House?

State health inspectors documented 24 deficiencies at WINDSOR HOUSE during 2018 to 2023. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 2 that caused actual resident harm, and 20 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 Windsor House?

WINDSOR HOUSE 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 DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 117 certified beds and approximately 99 residents (about 85% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in HUNTSVILLE, Alabama.

How Does Windsor House Compare to Other Alabama Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Alabama, WINDSOR HOUSE's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (55%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Windsor House?

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 Windsor House Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, WINDSOR HOUSE 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 1-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 Windsor House Stick Around?

Staff turnover at WINDSOR HOUSE is high. At 55%, the facility is 9 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 Windsor House Ever Fined?

WINDSOR HOUSE has been fined $266,231 across 1 penalty action. This is 7.4x the Alabama average of $35,741. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.

Is Windsor House on Any Federal Watch List?

WINDSOR HOUSE 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.