VILLAGE AT COOK SPRINGS SKILLED NURSING FACILITY

415 COOK SPRINGS, PELL CITY, AL 35125 (205) 338-2221
Non profit - Corporation 168 Beds NOLAND HEALTH Data: November 2025 3 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
9/100
#220 of 223 in AL
Last Inspection: May 2022

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

Overview

The Village at Cook Springs Skilled Nursing Facility has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about its overall quality and care. It ranks #220 out of 223 nursing homes in Alabama, placing it in the bottom tier of facilities statewide, and it is the lowest-ranked option in St. Clair County. The facility is worsening, with issues increasing from none in 2022 to two in 2023, and it has reported 12 total deficiencies, including three critical incidents involving resident abuse by a visitor and falls due to improper care planning. On a positive note, staffing is a strength with a rating of 4 out of 5 stars, though the turnover rate of 56% is average. While there have been no fines, which is a good sign, families should be cautious given the serious nature of the recent findings and overall poor ratings.

Trust Score
F
9/100
In Alabama
#220/223
Bottom 2%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
0 → 2 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
56% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Alabama facilities.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 32 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Alabama. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
12 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2022: 0 issues
2023: 2 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below Alabama average (2.9)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 56%

10pts above Alabama avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Chain: NOLAND HEALTH

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is elevated (56%)

8 points above Alabama average of 48%

The Ugly 12 deficiencies on record

3 life-threatening
Dec 2023 2 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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, resident record review, and a facility policy titled Perineal Care (Incontinent Care), the fac...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, resident record review, and a facility policy titled Perineal Care (Incontinent Care), the facility failed to ensure a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #4 provided perineal care for Resident Identifier (RI) #6 to correctly and thoroughly clean RI #6 during incontinent care on 12/19/2023. This had the potential to affect one of three sampled residents with urinary incontinence. Findings include: A facility policy titled Perineal Care (Incontinent Care) with an effective date of 6/20214 documented: PURPOSE: Good perineal care helps prevent infections, irritation, and skin breakdown. STANDARD: Residents who are incontinent of urine or feces should receive perineal care as needed. Residents should receive perineal care during routine baths or showers. PROCESS: 1. General . b) Remove any fecal matter or urine wiping with tissue from front to back. c) Pre-moistened disposable wipes or washcloth should be used. 2. a) Wash pubic area first, washing from front to back; use a different corner or a new wipe with each wipe. b) Turn the resident on to . (their) side and wipe from front to back wiping . to rectum extending over the buttocks, changing wipes or corners as needed. RI #6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include Overactive Bladder and a Personal History of Urinary Tract Infection (UTI). RI #6's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], documented RI #6 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 and was always incontinent of urine and bowel and was dependent for toileting hygiene. On 12/19/2023 at 4:49 PM, RI #6 was observed during incontinent care. The Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), CNA #4, CNA #5, and CNA #6 were all present. CNA #4, was observed cleaning RI #6's perineal area with wipes and CNA #4 wiped up toward the front of the perineum. The Surveyor asked that RI #6's brief be reopened and RI #6 be re-wiped. RI #6 was rolled to the right side, RI #6's perineum was wiped multiple times and there was bowel movement/stool observed on the wipes. 12/19/2023 at 5:01 PM, during an interview with the ADON, regarding the incontinent care provided to RI #6, she stated, it was not as good as it should have been. 12/19/2023 at 5:40 PM, during an interview with CNA #5 regarding the incontinent care provided to RI #6, he stated, the perineal care was not complete. CNA #5 said, RI #6 was cleaned upward instead of downward and RI #6 should have been wiped until clean. 12/19/2023 at 6:03 PM, during an interview with CNA #4 regarding the incontinent care provided to RI #6, he stated, he should have cleaned better and wiped downwards toward the back and not upwards toward the front; it was an error.
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

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, resident record review, and review of the training book How to Be a Nurse Assistant a Quality...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, resident record review, and review of the training book How to Be a Nurse Assistant a Quality Approach to Long Term Care the facility failed to ensure Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #3, did not create the potential for cross-contamination during incontinent care for Resident Identifier (RI) #8 on 12/19/2023 when she was observed not washing or sanitizing her hands after doffing dirty gloves before touching the clean gloves and not washing hands after perineal care was completed. This had the potential to affect one of three residents who were observed for incontinent care. Findings include: The training book American Health Care Association's HOW TO BE A NURSE ASSISTANT A QUALITY APPROACH TO LONG TERM CARE, eighth edition by [NAME], RN, used by the facility for training purposes, documented on page 68: . Hand Hygiene . Before and after contact with a resident or their environment . Before putting on gloves . After removing gloves . RI #8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. An observation of CNA #3 performing perineal care on RI #8 was made on 12/19/2023 at 11:58 PM. CNA #3 was observed entering RI #8's room and she washed her hands, then donned gloves. CNA #3 pulled back the sheet and blanket off RI #8, opened the plastic bag and set the bag on the end of the bed, removed the brief and put the brief in the plastic bag at the end of the bed. CNA #3 with the same gloves on and without washing her hands cleaned the perineal area with several wipes, threw them in the plastic bag and removed her gloves. CNA #3 then got a new pair of gloves out of another staff members pocket and without washing or sanitizing her hands she donned the gloves. CNA #3 then put the clean brief on the resident. CNA #3 doffed the gloves and then again without washing or sanitizing her hands donned another pair of gloves. On 12/19/2023 at 12:24 PM during an interview with CNA #3, she stated, according to facility policy, she should have washed her hands before putting on gloves and after taking them off. CNA #3 stated that she did not wash or sanitize her hands after removing gloves because she was nervous. CNA #3 stated, that not washing or sanitizing hands during perineal care could be a risk of infection. CNA #3 stated, there was a risk of germs if handwashing was not performed after perineal care was completed. On 12/20/2023 at 1:46 PM the Infection Preventionist (IP)/Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), said, staff should wash their hands during perineal care before, after putting on gloves, in between clean and dirty, and before they start perineal care. The IP stated that the risk of not washing or sanitizing hands before putting on gloves or after taking off gloves was spreading germs. The IP stated, staff members should wash or sanitize hands when switching dirty to clean, due to the risk for infection. IP stated, when perineal care was done, then staff were to remove gloves and wash hands. The IP stated, there was a risk of spreading germs if removing gloves and washing hands were not completed after perineal care.
Jul 2019 5 deficiencies 3 IJ
CRITICAL (J)

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, review of Resident Identifier (RI) #50's medical record and RI #52's medical record, the facility's policy...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, review of Resident Identifier (RI) #50's medical record and RI #52's medical record, the facility's policy titled Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation, the Alabama Department of Public Health Online Incident Reporting System and the facility's investigation files, the facility failed to ensure RI #50 and RI #52 were free from abuse perpetrated by a visitor of the facility, who is also the spouse of a resident residing in the facility. On 2/11/2019, without the consent of RI #50, the visitor came up behind RI #50 and placed his hands down the shirt of the resident, while the resident sat in the Dining room. RI #50 stated he/she was scared and shocked by the incident. Due to the facility not implementing interventions to protect and/or prevent further abuse from occurring, on 4/29/2019, without the consent of RI #52, the visitor kissed RI #52 on the forehead and ran his hand down the resident's clothing from the left breast to the resident's pubic area. RI #52 was hitting and screaming at the visitor to stop. A staff member intervened and instructed the visitor he had to leave the facility immediately. RI #52 stated he/she cried as he/she felt violated. These deficient practices placed RI #50 and RI #52, two of 11 sampled residents reviewed for abuse and placed them in immediate jeopardy of serious injury, harm, impairment or death. On 7/26/2019 at 6:50 PM, the facility's Administrator, Director of Nursing (DON), Director of Clinical Services and [NAME] President of Senior Living were given the Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) template and notified of the findings of immediate jeopardy in the area of Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation, F600. Findings include: The facility's policy titled Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation with an effective date of 11/2016 documented Introduction The resident has the right to be free from verbal, sexual, physical and mental abuse . Residents must not be subject to abuse by anyone, including, but not limited to, facility staff, other residents, consultants or volunteers, staff of other agencies serving the residents, family members or legal guardians, friends, or other individuals . Definitions Abuse Coordinator -Facility representative responsible for coordinating the policies and procedures for abuse, neglect and exploitation and evaluating how policies are operationalized. The facility's Abuse Coordinator is the Director of Nursing. Abuse means the willfull infliction of injury, unreasonable confinements, 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 . 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 . Sexual abuse includes, but is not limited to, sexual harassment, sexual coercion, or sexual assault. Physical abuse includes, but is not limited to, hitting, slapping, pinching, and kicking . 1) RI #50 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. RI #50's Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an assessment reference date of 2/7/2019 indicated RI #50 was cognitively intact, with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 14. According to the Alabama Department of Public Health Online Incident Reporting System on 2/14/2019 at 4:58 PM, the facility reported an allegation of sexual abuse that involved RI #50 and a visitor (another resident's spouse). The report documented the incident occurred on 2/11/2019 at 11:30 AM in which Unit Manager received a call at 3:44pm from resident's representative (RI #50's spouse), stating (RI #50) had contacted him one day this week, he was unsure of the day, and stated to him someone had put their hands down (his/her) shirt. (RI #50's spouse) stated he thought the incident happened on over the weekend but he wasn't sure and he was unsure of the time but it did happen during meal time . The actions taken by the facility were listed as . (RI #50's) sponsor could not return to the facility until we finish the investigation . Investigation begun results to follow. In an interview on 7/23/2019 at 5:11 PM, RI #50 was asked if she remembered the incident that happened in February (2019) when a someone touched him/her. RI #50 replied, yes he/she was in the dining room and a male came up behind him/her and put his hand under his/her shift. RI #50 stated he/she was shocked and when the male spoke, he/she knew it was not his/her spouse. RI #50 stated no one witnessed the incident and he/she returned to his/her room and called his/her spouse. When asked how that incident made RI #50 feel, the resident replied he/she was scared and shocked. 2) RI #52 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with an admit diagnosis of Spastic Quadriplegic Cerebral Palsy. RI #52's Quarterly MDS with an assessment reference date of 5/2/2019 indicated RI #52 is moderately impaired in cognitive skills for daily decision making, with a BIMS of 11. According to the Alabama Department of Public Health Online Incident Reporting System on 4/29/2019 at 2:54 PM, the facility submitted an allegation of sexual abuse that involved RI #52 and a visitor (another resident's spouse). The report documented the incident occurred on 4/29/2019 at 12:55 PM, in which . (name) is the husband of a resident in the facility. (Name) was visiting his wife in the resident dining room. Staff member heard (RI #52) yell stop. Staff turned around and (visitor) had his hand on (RI #52) near (his/her) private area. the staff member instructed (visitor) he had to leave immediately. (RI #52) stated as (visitor) was leaving the dining room he came to (him/her) and kissed (him/her) head and ran his hand down (his/her) from (his/her) breast to (his/her) vagina . Contained within the facility's investigation file was a handwritten statement from Employee Identifier (EI) #32, a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) which documented 4/29/19 While serving plates in the dining room, I heard (RI #52) yelling Stop! When I turned around I saw (RI #-- spouse/visitor) with his (L) (left) arm across (RI #52's) chest, (RI #52) was trying to push him away and continued saying stop, don't do that. I asked (RI #52) what happened and (he/she) stated that (another resident's spouse/visitor) had run his hand from (his/her) (L) breast down to (his/her) private area. The CNA who was at the table stated that what (RI #52) said was true . In an interview on 7/13/2019 at 10:45 AM, RI #52 stated a man groped him/her in the dining room on 4/29/2019. RI #52 explained the male, who was the spouse of another resident, ran his hand down RI #52's breast and in between the resident's legs. When asked how did this make him/her feel, RI #52 replied, just awful that he/she told the male to stop and tried to push the man's arm away. RI #52 stated he/she almost cried when it happened because it made him/her feel violated. RI #52 further explained that it made him/her upset and angry. In an interview on 7/22/2019 at 4:20 PM, EI #2, the DON/Abuse Coordinator acknowledged after the February 2019 incident involving the visitor and RI #50, the visitor was allowed to continue to visit the facility. When asked if anything was done different, EI #2 replied, no the visitor continued to visit his spouse, a resident of the facility, in an open area, usually in the Dining room or lounge. ************************* On 7/28/2019, the facility submitted an acceptable removal plan which documented: On 7/27/19, all residents with behavior careplans were reviewed and updated. On 7/27/19, the company [NAME] President of Senior Living (VP) provided both the facility Executive Director (Administrator) and the facility Clinical Services Administrator (Director of Nursing) with in-service education regarding the facility's policy entitled Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation. On 7/27/19, the RN, NHA, Legal Nurse Consultant provided in-service education on abuse reporting and investigating to facility Executive Director, Director of Nursing and divisional staff. Divisional Staff will then provide in-service education to staff regarding the proper identification, reporting and investigation of abuse. This staff training began on 7/27/19. To ensure the protection of all residents, staff will immediately identify Abuse as the willful inflection of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain, or mental anguish. This also includes the deprivation by an individual including a caretaker of goods or services that are necessary to attain or maintain physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. 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, neglect, and mental abuse, including abuse facilitated or enabled, through the use of technology. Willful, as used by this definition of abuse, means the individual must have acted deliberately, not that the individual must have intended to inflict injury or harm. In-service education will be completed by 7/28/19. Any staff members who do not receive in-service education by 7/28/19, will not be allowed to work until they have received in-service education. ************************* After reviewing the facility's information provided in their Removal Plan and verifying the immediate actions had been implemented, the scope/severity level of F600 was lowered to a D level on 7/28/2019, to allow the facility time to monitor and/or revise their corrective actions as necessary to achieve substantial compliance. This deficiency was cited as a result of the investigation of complaint/report number AL00036361.
CRITICAL (J)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, review of Resident Identifier (RI) #204's and RI #205's medical records, the Resident Incident Report, a ty...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, review of Resident Identifier (RI) #204's and RI #205's medical records, the Resident Incident Report, a typed statement and the hospital medical records, the facility failed to develop a care plan to address RI #204's use of a scoot chair and Dycem. On 3/21/2019, while sitting in the scoot chair at the nurses' station, RI #204 fell face forward onto the floor, hitting his/head. Employee Identifier (EI) #7, the Registered Nurse Supervisor who witnessed the fall, stated RI #204 slid from chair with cushion and Dycem still attached to resident's pants. The therapy staff indicated there should be two pieces of Dycem in RI #204's scoot chair. One piece of dycem was to be placed in the chair between the cushion and the chair. Then another piece of Dycem was to be placed on top of the cushion under the resident so the resident's bottom did not slide off the cushion and the cushion did not slide from the chair. EI #7 stated there was only one piece of Dycem and it was placed between the pad and RI #204's bottom. RI #204 was transferred and admitted to a local hospital's Intensive Care Unit for an Acute Subdural Hematoma. The facility further failed to ensure RI #205's care plan specified how RI #205 should be transferred and the level of assistance the resident required. RI #205 was assessed as requiring extensive assistance of two staff members for transfers. On 3/25/2019, EI #5 transferred RI #205 from the chair to the bed by herself using the Standup Lift. During the transfer, the resident became combative and fell to the floor hitting his/her head on the floor. The Licensed Practical Nurse/Restorative Nurse, EI #23, stated she assessed RI #205 prior to the fall and determined the resident was totally dependent on two staff for transfers with a Hoyer lift. RI #205 was transferred to the local hospital for further evaluation; the resident sustained a Closed Head Injury and a Traumatic Hematoma to the forehead. These deficient practices placed RI #204 and RI #205, two of eight sampled residents reviewed for accidents and placed them in immediate jeopardy of serious injury, harm, impairment or death. On 7/26/2019 at 6:50 PM, the facility's Administrator, Director of Nursing Service, Director of Clinical Services and [NAME] President of Senior Living were given the Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) template and notified of the findings of immediate jeopardy in the area of Comprehensive Resident Centered Care Plans, F656. Findings include: 1) RI #204 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with an admit diagnosis of Dementia without behavioral disturbance. RI #204's Resident Incident Report prepared by Employee Identifier (EI) #7, a Registered Nurse (RN) indicated on 3/21/2019 at 9:14 PM while at the nurses' station Resident leaned forward out of scoot chair, slid from chair with cushion and dycem still attached to resident pants. Landed face first on floor. Assessed for injury . Large hematoma approx (approximately) size of baseball above left eye. Two skin tears above left eye with large amount of bleeding noted . RI #204's care plan titled Potential for falls related to dementia with a problem onset date of 5/25/2018, did not include an approach for the use of a scoot chair with Dycem. RI #204's care plan titled Resident needs assist with ADL's (activities of daily living) related to history of CVA (Cerebrovascular Accident) and dementia with a problem onset date of 5/25/2018, did not include an approach for the use of a scoot chair with Dycem. In an interview on 7/22/2019 at 9:57 AM, Employee Identifier (EI) #16, the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator was asked was RI #204 care planned for a scoot chair and Dycem. EI #16 replied, it was not on RI #204's fall or ADL care plan. When asked why she was not, EI #16 she was not sure. When asked should the resident have been care planned for the scoot chair and Dycem, EI #16 stated if it was listed as an intervention it should have been care planned. EI #16 was asked what was the negative outcome of not care planning RI #204's use of a scoot chair and Dycem. EI #16 replied, the Dycem or scoot chair would not be in place, which could cause the resident to possible slide and fall. During an interview with EI #33, the Occupational Therapy Assistant (OTA) on 7/22/2019 at 10:17 AM, she was asked when was the scoot chair and Dycem ordered for RI #204. EI #33 replied, she didn't know but when RI #204 was seen for a quarterly screen on 11/8/2018, the resident was already in the scoot chair. A typed statement signed by EI #33, an Occupational Therapy Assistant (OTA), dated 7/22/2018 (2019) documented Nursing issued scoot chair for (RI #204), date (he/she) was issued scoot chair is unknown by therapy staff, it is also unknown at this time that dycem and cushion was in place. Patient was seen for a quarterly screen on 11/8/18 and was evaluated with no concerns documented regarding patient's positioning in scoot chair. Patient was discharged from therapy services 12/4/18 with FMP (Functional Maintenance Plan) noting scoot chair as appropriate positioning. Patient evaluated by OT 3/19/19 with dysem (dycem), cushion, and leg rests with standard foot plates on scoot chair documented in evaluation with no concerns. On 7/23/2019 at 8:40 AM, an interview was conducted with EI #2, the Director of Nursing. EI #2 was asked,were the interventions of the scoot chair and Dycem care planned for RI #204. EI #2 replied, no. RI #204's local hospital's History and Physical dated 3/22/2019, documented . Chief Complaint Pt (patient) resided at The Village at [NAME] Springs. Pt was sitting in a chair and fell forward and hit face. Lac (laceration) noted to left forehead. Takes aspirin. Hx (history) dementia History of Present Illness . The patient presented with fall. The onset was yesterday evening. The character of symptoms is pain with forehead laceration. The degree at onset was moderate . Pt . with hx (history) of dementia and TIA (Transient Ischemic Attack) who presented to the ED (Emergency Department) from nursing home c/o (complaint of) fall onset the evening of 3/21/2019. Per EMS (Emergency Medical Service) report, pt fell from a rolling chair and hit (his/her) face. (He/She) now presents with a L (left) side head injury with laceration. Unknown LOC (level of conscious). Pt.'s wound was bandaged en route to ED and sutured in the ED due to continuous bleeding. EMS notes BP (blood pressure) 200/100 en route. (He/She) takes 81 mg (milligram) ASA (aspirin) daily . In ED, . CT (Computed Tomography) Head: Impression: There is a small left subdural hematoma. There is no mass effect or midline shift. There are small hemorrhagic contusions in the left frontal lobe. This is a critical result . Neurosurgery was consulted by ED physician. No intervention recommended at this time - neurosurgery will consult in the AM (morning) . Assessment/Plan 1. Acute subdural hematoma s/p (status post) fall . 2. Head laceration - appx (approximately) 4 sutures to left forehead . RI #204 was admitted to the Intensive Care Unit. RI #204's Neurosurgery Consult Note dated 3/22/2019, documented . CT shows small acute left frontoparietal SDH (subdural hematoma) without mass effect. stable this am (morning . The SDH is small and stable. No surgical intervention needed. No follow-up needed . The Discharge Summary revealed RI #204 was discharged home on 3/29/2019 with hospice care arranged. 2) RI #205 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with an admit diagnosis of Dementia without Behavioral Disturbance. RI #205's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an assessment reference date of 3/7/2019 indicated the resident was severely impaired in cognitive skills for daily decision making, with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of two. RI #205 was assessed as being totally dependent on staff for transfers, requiring two plus persons physical assist. RI #205's Resident Incident Report prepared by Employee Identifier (EI) #19, a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) indicated on 3/25/2019 at 8:30 PM, . Resident was sitting on the edge of the bed, CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) was undressing (him/her) to get (him/her) ready for bed. Resident was combative was grabbing onto her. CNA bent down and resident fell forward onto the floor. ROOT CAUSE: Resident requires 2 person assist with ADL (Activities of Daily Living) care . The report indicated the physician and resident representative were notified, neurological checks were initiated, an ice pack was applied to RI #205's head and the resident was transferred to a local hospital for evaluation. The report further indicated the facility staff involved was EI #5, a CNA. In a telephone interview on 7/15/2019 at 11:35 AM, EI #5, a CNA who no longer works at the facility, was asked why on 3/25/2019, did she not have assistance when she transferred RI #205 back to bed, EI #5 stated she wasn't taught to have two people and that she had watched other staff do it by themselves as well. According to EI #5, the white book at the nurses' station that contained residents' care plans did not indicate that RI #205 required two persons assist with a lift. RI #205's care plan titled (RI #205) has potential for falls related to muscle weakness and dementia with a problem onset date of 7/25/2016 did not include an approach of how the resident should be transferred or the level of assistance required, prior to 3/25/2019. On 3/25/2019, the care plan was updated to include . Resident is to be a 2 person assist when placing in bed . On 3/26/2019, the care plan was updated to include . Resident is to be a mechanical lift with all transfers . In a follow-up telephone interview on 7/22/2019 at 12:01 PM, EI #5 stated when RI #205 fell on 3/25/2019, that she had only transferred the resident to the bed to a sitting position on the side of the bed. When asked if she was dressing the resident, EI #5 said no. When asked if she was changing the resident's pants, EI #5 said no, that she could not change the resident's pants until the resident was lying down on the bed. EI #5 was asked how could having a second person to assist with the transfer prevent the fall. EI #5 replied, one person could have been on each side of the resident, that as she went to pick the resident's legs up, the other person could have been behind or beside her. In an interview on 7/23/2019 at 5:12 PM, EI #16, the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator was asked what details should be included in a resident's care plan for the staff assisting with transfers. EI #16 replied, how the resident should be transferred and the number of staff it takes to transfer the resident. When asked why this information is important to include on the care plan, EI #16 replied, it lets the staff know how the resident should be transferred. When asked what could happen if the care plan did not give specific instructions on how the resident should be transferred, EI #16 answered, it would be confusing to the staff on how the resident should be transferred. EI #16 was asked prior to 3/25/2019, what instructions were provided on the resident's care plan. EI #16 stated, assist with transfer and ambulation as needed. When asked where on the care plan did it instruct the staff to use the Standup lift, EI #16 replied, it did not. When asked why it didn't, EI #16 replied she didn't know. In a follow-up interview on 7/24/2019 at 10:21 AM, EI #16, the MDS Coordinator stated RI #205 was assessed as being dependent on two persons for transfers; however, the care plan only indicated the resident was to be assisted with transfers as needed. On 7/24/2019 at 10:45 AM, an interview was conducted with EI #23, the LPN Restorative who assessed RI #205's functional status during the 3/7/2019 Quarterly MDS. EI #24 acknowledged that RI #205 was assessed as being totally dependent on two staff for transfers with a Hoyer lift. EI #24 stated she did not know why the staff would use a Standup lift with RI #205. When asked why RI #205's care plan was not updated to reflect the resident's assessed needs to be a two person assist with a Hoyer lift, EI #23 replied, she did not update the care plan. When asked why RI #205's care plan was not updated after the assessment was done on 3/7/2019 that indicated the resident was assessed to be a Hoyer lift transfer with two staff assistance, EI #23 replied, she didn't know and there was no excuse for it not being updated. In an interview on 7/25/2019 at 10:54 AM, EI #2, the Director of Nursing (DON) was asked why RI #205's care plan was not updated to reflect the resident required two person assistance for transfers. EI #2 replied, she didn't know but it should have been. RI #205's Emergency Documentation from the local hospital documented on 3/25/2019 . Per EMS (Emergency Medical Service) report pt (patient) was sitting on the edge of the bed and fell forward at The Village at [NAME] Springs, hitting the floor. Hematoma to R (right) forehead noted . Pt disorientedx4 (person, place, time, location). Daughter reports this is pt's baseline . The patient presents with head injury. The onset was just prior to arrival . The patient . with a hx (history) of Alzheimer's Dementia, TIA (Transient Ischemic Attack), and HTN (Hypertension) who presents to the ED (Emergency Department) via EMS with a head injury . (He/She) is not on blood thinners. Patient cannot give adequate hx due to Dementia . The Computed Tomography (CT) done on 3/25/2019 revealed Severe intracranial atrophy and severe supratentorial small vessel white matter disease without evidence of acute cortical infarct, intracranial hemorrhage, or mass lesion. RI #205 was discharged from the local hospital on 3/26/2019 and transferred back to the facility with a discharge diagnoses of Closed Head Injury, Dementia, Fall, and Traumatic hematoma of the forehead. ************************* On 7/28/2019, the facility submitted an acceptable removal plan which documented . Beginning 7/27/19 all residents with falls in the last 30 days had fall care plans updated to include all risk factors and individualized interventions put in place and sent to Daily Care Guide. Beginning 7/28/19 all residents with fall care plans had fall care plan reviewed and updated to include all risk factors and individualized interventions put in place and sent to Daily Care Guide. Beginning 7/28/19 licensed staff and CNA's were in-serviced on fall care plans, Daily Care Guides, and identifying risk factors and following interventions listed on Daily Care Guides. Daily Care Guides will be printed daily to include new interventions, and changes made to resident care-plans. MDS staff will list resolved interventions on Daily Care Guides to ensure proper and timely communication for direct care staff. Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) will print daily care guides at the time the care-plan is updated, and make Daily Care Guides available to all nursing staff (RN/LPN/C.N.A). ************************* After reviewing the facility's information provided in their Removal Plan and verifying the immediate actions had been implemented, the scope/severity level of F656 was lowered to a D level on 7/28/2019, to allow the facility time to monitor and/or revise their corrective actions as necessary to achieve substantial compliance. This deficiency was cited as a result of the investigation of complaint/report number AL00036361.
CRITICAL (J)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and review of Resident Identifier (RI) #204's medical record, RI #205's medical record, the Resident Inciden...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and review of Resident Identifier (RI) #204's medical record, RI #205's medical record, the Resident Incident Report, a typed statement, the hospital medical records and the facility's policy titled Mechanical Lift, the facility failed to ensure the Dycem was correctly placed in RI #204's scoot chair. On 3/21/2019, while sitting in the scoot chair at the nurses' station, RI #204 fell face forward onto the floor, hitting his/head. Employee Identifier (EI) #7, the Registered Nurse Supervisor who witnessed the fall, stated RI #204 slid from chair with cushion and Dycem still attached to resident's pants. The therapy staff indicated there should be two pieces of Dycem in RI #204's scoot chair. One piece of dycem was to be placed in the chair between the cushion and the chair. Then another piece of Dycem was to be placed on top of the cushion under the resident so the resident's bottom did not slide off the cushion and the cushion did not slide from the chair. EI #7 stated there was only one piece of Dycem and it was placed between the pad and RI #204's bottom. RI #204 was transferred and admitted to a local hospital's Intensive Care Unit for an Acute Subdural Hematoma. The facility further failed to ensure EI #5, a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) transferred RI #205, as determined by the resident's comprehensive assessment. RI #205 was assessed as requiring extensive assistance of two staff members for transfers. On 3/25/2019, EI #5 transferred RI #205 from the chair to the bed by herself using the Standup Lift. During the transfer, the resident became combative and fell to the floor hitting his/her head on the floor. The Licensed Practical Nurse/Restorative Nurse, EI #23, stated she assessed RI #205 prior to the fall and determined the resident was totally dependent on two staff for transfers with a Hoyer lift. RI #205 was transferred to the local hospital for further evaluation; the resident sustained a Closed Head Injury and a Traumatic Hematoma to the forehead. These deficient practices placed RI #204 and RI #205, two of eight sampled residents reviewed for falls and placed them in immediate jeopardy of serious injury, harm, impairment or death. On 7/26/2019 at 6:50 PM, the facility's Administrator, Director of Nursing Service, Director of Clinical Services and [NAME] President of Senior Living were given the Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) template and notified of the findings of immediate jeopardy in the area of Quality of Care, F 689. Findings include: 1) RI #204 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with an admit diagnosis of Dementia without behavioral disturbance. RI #204's Quarterly MDS with an assessment reference date of 2/4/2019, indicated the resident was moderately impaired in cognitive skills for daily decision making, with long and short term memory problems. RI #204's Resident Incident Report prepared by EI #7, a Registered Nurse (RN) indicated on 3/21/2019 at 9:14 PM while at the nurses' station Resident leaned forward out of scoot chair, slid from chair with cushion and dycem still attached to resident pants. Landed face first on floor. Assessed for injury. Neuro checks initiated. MD (Medical Doctor) notified with new orders to send to ER (Emergency Room). Non-verbal. Alert. ROOT CAUSE - leaned forward in chair. Intervention - PT/OT (Physical Therapy/Occupational Therapy) consulted for new chair. Large hematoma approx (approximately) size of baseball above left eye. Two skin tears above left eye with large amount of bleeding noted . RI #205's Departmental Notes written by EI #7, a RN, and dated 3/21/2019 10:26 PM, documented At approx. 9:14pm looked up from nurse's station and saw resident leaning forward out of scoot chair. Resident slid from chair with cushion and dycem still attached to resident pants. Resident landed face first on floor. Log rolled resident onto (his/her) back to assess fro injury. Large hematoma noted above left eye with large amount of bleeding noted coming from two skin tears also above left eye . PT/OT consulted for possible change of chair from scoot chair to geri-chair if appropriate. A typed statement signed by EI #33, an Occupational Therapy Assistant (OTA), dated 7/22/2018 (2019) documented Nursing issued scoot chair for (RI #204), date (he/she) was issued scoot chair is unknown by therapy staff, it is also unknown at this time that dycem and cushion was in place. Patient was seen for a quarterly screen on 11/8/18 and was evaluated with no concerns documented regarding patient's positioning in scoot chair. Patient was discharged from therapy services 12/4/18 with FMP (Functional Maintenance Plan) noting scoot chair as appropriate positioning. Patient evaluated by OT 3/19/19 with dysem (dycem), cushion, and leg rests with standard foot plates on scoot chair documented in evaluation with no concerns. RI #204's care plan titled Potential for falls related to dementia with a problem onset date of 5/25/2018, did not include an approach for the use of a scoot chair. RI #204's care plan titled Resident needs assist with ADL's (activities of daily living) related to history of CVA (Cerebrovascular Accident) and dementia with a problem onset date of 5/25/2018, did not include an approach for the use of a scoot chair. In an interview on 7/16/2019 at 9:30 AM, EI #14, a Physical Therapy Assistant was asked, what was the appropriate way to use dycem. EI #14 replied, to place the dycem between the resident and the sitting surface and if the sitting surface was a cushion, then place the dycem between the cushion and the sitting surface as well as between the resident and the cushion. When asked why would a resident fall out of a scoot chair that had dycem in place, EI #14 replied, the dycem may need to be replaced. During a telephone interview on 7/16/2019 at 9:53 AM, EI #15, an Occupational Therapist was asked, what was the appropriate way to use dycem. EI #15 replied, place dycem under any movable surface and under the patient. When asked why would a resident fall out of a scoot chair that had dycem in place, EI #15 replied, the dycem may not have been positioned appropriately or it needed to be replaced. In a follow-up telephone interview on 7/17/2019 at 11:36 AM, EI #15, the OT stated during the re-evaluation of RI #204 on 3/19/2019, there was two pieces of dycem in the resident's scoot chair. One piece of dycem was under the cushion and another piece of dycem was under the patient. In an interview on 7/20/2019 at 1:43 PM, EI #7, a Registered Nurse (RN) Supervisor acknowledged that she was at the nurses' station charting when RI #204 fell on 3/21/2019. When asked if RI #204 was exhibiting any behaviors prior to the fall, EI #7 said no. When asked what happened, EI #7 replied that she saw RI #204 fall forward from the scoot chair, all in one continuous motion. In a follow-up interview on 7/24/2019 at 11:13 AM, EI #7, a RN Supervisor was asked how was the dycem placed in RI #204's scoot chair prior to the resident falling on 3/21/2019. EI #7 replied, she didn't remember. After the resident fell, EI #7 stated, the dycem was attached to the resident and the cushion. During an interview on 7/24/2019 at 11:19 AM, EI #6, the RN Unit Manager was asked, who was responsible for placing dycem in a resident's chair. EI #6 replied, it can be the nurses or the Certified Nursing Assistants; whoever places the resident in the chair is responsible for making sure the dycem in the chair. When asked who trained the staff on the proper way to place dycem in RI #204's scoot chair, EI #6 stated, the CNAs should learn this in CNA class, that anyone could show the CNAs how to put dycem in the chair. On 7/25/2019 at 10:35 AM, an interview was conducted with EI #2, the Director of Nursing. EI #2 was asked, during the investigation of RI #204's fall on 3/21/2019, did she determine if the dycem in RI #204's scoot chair was properly placed. EI #2 replied, there was nothing in the investigation to reflect that. EI #2 further stated, the dycem was attached to the resident, so it had to have been in the chair because there was no other ay to place it in the scoot chair. When asked if there was supposed to be two pieces of dycem in RI #204's scoot chair, EI #2 replied, it doesn't necessarily have to be. During an interview on 7/15/2019 at 11:17 AM, EI #7, a RN Supervisor was asked how was RI #204 and the dycem placed in the resident's scoot chair. EI #7 replied, it was the scoot chair, the pad, the dycem and then RI #204's bottom. In an interview on 7/17/2019 at 11:45 AM, EI #33, the OTA was asked how should dycem be properly placed in RI #204's scoot chair. EI #33 replied, a piece of dycem is placed in the chair between the cushion and the chair. Then another piece of dycem is placed on top of the cushion under the resident so the resident's bottom does not slide off the cushion and the cushion does not slide from the chair. RI #204's local hospital's History and Physical dated 3/22/2019, documented . Chief Complaint Pt (patient) resided at The Village at [NAME] Springs. Pt was sitting in a chair and fell forward and hit face. Lac (laceration) noted to left forehead. Takes aspirin. Hx (history) dementia History of Present Illness . The patient presented with fall. The onset was yesterday evening. The character of symptoms is pain with forehead laceration. The degree at onset was moderate . Pt . with hx (history) of dementia and TIA (Transient Ischemic Attack) who presented to the ED (Emergency Department) from nursing home c/o (complaint of) fall onset the evening of 3/21/2019. Per EMS (Emergency Medical Service) report, pt fell from a rolling chair and hit (his/her) face. (He/She) now presents with a L (left) side head injury with laceration. Unknown LOC (level of conscious). Pt.'s wound was bandaged en route to ED and sutured in the ED due to continuous bleeding. EMS notes BP (blood pressure) 200/100 en route. (He/She) takes 81 mg (milligram) ASA (aspirin) daily . In ED, . CT (Computed Tomography) Head: Impression: There is a small left subdural hematoma. There is no mass effect or midline shift. There are small hemorrhagic contusions in the left frontal lobe. This is a critical result . Neurosurgery was consulted by ED physician. No intervention recommended at this time - neurosurgery will consult in the AM (morning) . Assessment/Plan 1. Acute subdural hematoma s/p (status post) fall . 2. Head laceration - appx (approximately) 4 sutures to left forehead . RI #204 was admitted to the Intensive Care Unit. RI #204's Neurosurgery Consult Note dated 3/22/2019, documented . CT shows small acute left frontoparietal SDH (subdural hematoma) without mass effect. stable this am (morning . The SDH is small and stable. No surgical intervention needed. No follow-up needed . The Discharge Summary revealed RI #204 was discharged home on 3/29/2019 with hospice care arranged. 2) RI #205 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with an admit diagnosis of Dementia without Behavioral Disturbance. RI #205's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an assessment reference date of 3/7/2019 indicated the resident was severely impaired in cognitive skills for daily decision making, with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of two. RI #205 was assessed as being totally dependent on staff for transfers, requiring two plus persons physical assist. RI #205's Resident Incident Report prepared by Employee Identifier (EI) #19, a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) indicated on 3/25/2019 at 8:30 PM, . Resident was sitting on the edge of the bed, CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) was undressing (him/her) to get (him/her) ready for bed. Resident was combative was grabbing onto her. CNA bent down and resident fell forward onto the floor. ROOT CAUSE: Resident requires 2 person assist with ADL (Activities of Daily Living) care . The report indicated the physician and resident representative were notified, neurological checks were initiated, an ice pack was applied to RI #205's head and the resident was transferred to a local hospital for evaluation. The report further indicated the facility staff involved was EI #5, a CNA. In a telephone interview on 7/15/2019 at 11:35 AM, EI #5, a CNA who no longer works at the facility, stated on 3/25/2019, she had just used the stand up lift to place RI #205 back in the bed. As EI #5 lowered RI #205 to a sitting position, EI #5 moved the lift back and RI #205 became combative by pushing against EI #5 and holding onto the CNA's shirt. EI #5 stated the resident then fell forward onto the floor and hit his/her head. EI #5 stated that it happened so quick that she had no time to catch the resident. When asked why did she not have assistance when she transferred RI #205 back to bed, EI #5 stated she wasn't taught to have two people and that she had watched other staff do it by themselves as well. According to EI #5, the white book at the nurses' station that contained residents' care plans did not indicate that RI #205 required two persons assist with a lift. RI #205's care plan titled (RI #205) has potential for falls related to muscle weakness and dementia with a problem onset date of 7/25/2016 did not include an approach of how the resident should be transferred or the level of assistance required, prior to 3/25/2019. On 3/25/2019, the care plan was updated to include . Resident is to be a 2 person assist when placing in bed . On 3/26/2019, the care plan was updated to include . Resident is to be a mechanical lift with all transfers . In a follow-up telephone interview on 7/22/2019 at 12:01 PM, EI #5 stated when RI #205 fell on 3/25/2019, that she had only transferred the resident to the bed to a sitting position on the side of the bed. When asked if she was dressing the resident, EI #5 said no. When asked if she was changing the resident's pants, EI #5 said no, that she could not change the resident's pants until the resident was lying down on the bed. EI #5 was asked how could having a second person to assist with the transfer prevent the fall. EI #5 replied, one person could have been on each side of the resident, that as she went to pick the resident's legs up, the other person could have been behind or beside her. In a telephone interview on 7/23/2019 at 8:33 AM, EI #19, a LPN was asked how many staff are required to transfer a resident with a Standup lift. EI #19 replied, that she believed it was two but couldn't be completely sure. The facility's policy titled Mechanical Lift with an effective date of March 2018, documented PURPOSE: A mechanical lift should be used to help lift residents who may be too heavy to lift, or who cannot assist with a transfer. STANDARD: Two nursing staff should be used for the mechanic (mechanical) lift . On 7/24/2019 at 10:45 AM, an interview was conducted with EI #23, the LPN Restorative who assessed RI #205's functional status during the 3/7/2019 Quarterly MDS. EI #24 acknowledged that RI #205 was assessed as being totally dependent on two staff for transfers with a Hoyer lift. EI #24 stated she did not know why the staff would use a Standup lift with RI #205. EI #23 explained that to be able to use the Standup lift, the resident must be able to follow directions and since RI #205 was demented and sometimes could not comprehend directions, the Standup lift was not the best option. Review of RI #205's hospital records with an admission date of 3/25/19 revealed Emergency Documentation with Radiology Orders for CT Head or Brain with a reason documented as Head Injury and a Discharge Diagnosis of Closed Head Injury and Traumatic Hematoma of Forehead. According to a document titled Mechanical Lifts, Bed Bolsters, T&P (Turn and Position), and Heel Floating Objectives Skills Fair April 2018, there are two types of mechanical lifts, the Hoyer lift and the Standup Lift. The documented further listed . Standup Lift Resident has to be able to follow directions . RI #205's Emergency Documentation from the local hospital documented on 3/25/2019 . Per EMS (Emergency Medical Service) report pt (patient) was sitting on the edge of the bed and fell forward at The Village at [NAME] Springs, hitting the floor. Hematoma to R (right) forehead noted . Pt disorientedx4 (person, place, time, location). Daughter reports this is pt's baseline . The patient presents with head injury. The onset was just prior to arrival . The patient . with a hx (history) of Alzheimer's Dementia, TIA (Transient Ischemic Attack), and HTN (Hypertension) who presents to the ED (Emergency Department) via EMS with a head injury . (He/She) is not on blood thinners. Patient cannot give adequate hx due to Dementia . The Computed Tomography (CT) done on 3/25/2019 revealed Severe intracranial atrophy and severe supratentorial small vessel white matter disease without evidence of acute cortical infarct, intracranial hemorrhage, or mass lesion. RI #205 was discharged from the local hospital on 3/26/2019 and transferred back to the facility with a discharge diagnoses of Closed Head Injury, Dementia, Fall, and Traumatic hematoma of the forehead. ************************* On 7/28/2019, the facility submitted an acceptable removal plan which documented . All other residents with fall risks factors have the potential to be affected. On 07/27/19 facility staff reviewed residents who had a fall in the last thirty (30) days to identify fall risk factors. Facility staff reviewed the resident's Fall Risk Care Plans, updated as indicated, listed fall risk indicators and updated Daily Care Guides. Beginning 07/27/19, nursing staff (RN/LPN/C.N.A) was in-serviced on mechanical lift use with 2-person assist. In-service education will be completed by 07/28/19. Any staff members who do not receive in-service education by 07/28/19 will not be allowed to work until they have received in-service education. On 07/27/19 nursing staff began to provide in-service education on identifying fall risk factors, and following both resident care-plans and Daily Care Guides. In-service education will be completed by 07/28/19. Any staff members who do not receive in-service education by 07/28/19, will not be allowed to work until they have received in-service education. On 07/27/19 nursing staff began to provide in-service education on mechanical lift use with 2-person assist, to include the [NAME]-3000 stand-up lift. In-service education will be completed by 07/28/19. Any staff members who do not receive in-service education by 07/28/19, will not be allowed to work until they have received in-service education. On 07/27/19 licensed staff began to receive in-service education concerning fall-risk care-plans, fall-risk indicators, and updating Daily Care Guides for both residents being admitted and readmitted to the facility. In-service education will be completed by 07/28/19. Any staff members who do not receive in-service education by 07/28/19, will not be allowed to work until they have received in-service education. ************************* After reviewing the facility's information provided in their Removal Plan and verifying the immediate actions had been implemented, the scope/severity level of F689 was lowered to a D level on 7/28/2019, to allow the facility time to monitor and/or revise their corrective actions as necessary to achieve substantial compliance. This deficiency was cited as a result of the investigation of complaint/report number AL00036361.
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

Based on interviews, review of the facility's policy titled Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation and Resident Identifier (RI) #61's and RI #141's medical record, the facility failed to timely report alleg...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews, review of the facility's policy titled Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation and Resident Identifier (RI) #61's and RI #141's medical record, the facility failed to timely report allegations of physical abuse to the State Agency involving RI #61 and RI #205 and RI #52 and RI #141. On 1/30/2019, RI #205 hit RI #61 in the face. The residents were immediately separated and no injuries were noted. The facility reported this allegation to the State Agency on 7/19/2019. On 5/3/2019, RI #141 hit RI #52 on the arm, twice before the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) could intervene.The facility reported this allegation to the State Agency on 7/10/2019. This affected two of five allegations of abuse reviewed the survey. Findings include: The facility's policy titled Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation with an effective date of 11/2016 documented . Process . V. Response and Reporting of Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation (including injuries of unknown souce, and misappropriation of resident property) The following outlines steps to be taken during an investigation. These steps may occur simultaneously, may be perfomed by more than one person and not in any definitive order when there is an allegation or suspicision of abuse, neglect, or exploitation: A. Respond to the needs of the resident and protect them from further incident. B. Notify the Director of Nursing and Executive Director or their designee. C. Initiate an investigation immediately. D. Report to State agency immediately but no later than 2 hours . 1) RI #61's Resident Incident Report reviewed by EI #22, the Registered Nurse (RN) Unit Manager; EI #2, the DON; and EI #1, the Administrator dated 1/30/2019 11:00 AM documented Notified by CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) that while resident was outside the shower room waiting on (his/her) shower, another resident (RI #205) hit (him/her) in the face, moving (his/her) glasses down. Residents were separated immediately and writer assessed resident for injuries. No apparent injuries noted . In an interview on 7/22/2019 at 5:00 PM, EI #2, the DON/Abuse Coordinator acknowledged the incident involving RI #61 and RI #205 was not reported to the State Agency as an allegation of abuse and it should have been. When asked why the allegation of abuse was not reported to the State Agency, EI #2 stated it was overlooked, that she did not do a good job readying the Incident Report. During an interview with EI #1, the Administrator on 7/22/2019 at 6:22 PM, he stated the incident involving RI #61 and RI #205 should have been reported to the State Agency. According to EI #1, section five of the facility's policy related to response and the reporting of abuse was not followed. According to the Online Incident Reporting System Report on 7/19/2019 at 4:36 PM, the facility reported to the State Agency an allegation of physical abuse involving RI #61 and RI #205 that occurred on 1/30/2019 at 11:00 AM. 2) RI #141's Departmental Notes dated 5/3/2019 8:24 AM, documented CNA reported that resident approached another resident (RI #52) in in the dining room and attempted to take (his/her) drinks, when that resident asked (him/her) not to drink (his/her) drinks resident began yelling and threatening to hit the other resident. This resident then proceeded to hit the other resident in the arm, when that resident tried pushing (him/her) away, (he/she) hit (him/her) again before the CNA could reach them . In an interview on 7/24/2019 at 6:18 PM, EI #2, the DON/Abuse Coordinator acknowledged the incident between RI #52 and RI #141 was not timely reported to the State Agency. According to the Online Incident Reporting System Report on 7/10/2019 at 5:34 PM, the facility reported to the State Agency an allegation of physical abuse involving RI #52 and RI #141 that occurred on 5/3/2019 at 8:04 AM. This deficiency was cited as a result of the investigation of complaint/report number AL00036361.
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, interview and review of Resident Identifier (RI) #117's medical record, the facility failed to ensure Empl...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and review of Resident Identifier (RI) #117's medical record, the facility failed to ensure Employee Identifier (EI) #11, a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) washed her hands after handling RI #117's wet incontinence brief and before touching the resident's clean incontinence brief. This affected RI #117, one of three sampled residents observed for incontinence care. Findings include: RI #117 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. RI #117's Significant Change in Status Assessment with an assessment reference date of 7/4/2019 indicated the resident was assessed as requiring extensive assistance with toileting and being frequently incontinence of bowel and bladder. During the provision of incontinence care on 7/11/2019 at 9:15 AM, EI #11, a CNA removed RI #117's wet incontinence brief. After EI #11 cleansed the resident, she went to the resident's closet and removed a clean incontinence brief. EI #11 did not wash her hands or remove her gloves before she touched RI #117's clean incontinence brief. In an interview on 7/11/2019 at 9:57 AM, EI #11, a CNA was asked, what should have been done after she removed the soiled brief and before touching the clean brief. EI #11 replied, she should have washed her hands. When asked if she did that, EI #11 stated that missed that step. When asked what was the potential for harm, EI #11 replied, contamination of the clean brief.
Aug 2018 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the air conditioner temperature in Resident Identifier (RI) #37's room was not below 71 degrees. The temperature on the...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the air conditioner temperature in Resident Identifier (RI) #37's room was not below 71 degrees. The temperature on the unit on 8/16/18 at 9:30 AM read at 69 degrees. Findings Include: RI #37 was admitted to the facility 10/14/16 with diagnoses of Unspecified Atrial Fibrillation and Other Abnormalities of Gait and Mobility. A review of RI #37's Quarterly Minimal Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date of 5/31/18 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 11, indicating minimal difficulty with cognitive status. RI #37 was also coded for extensive assistance with transfers. A review of a Daily Care Guide for RI #37 revealed: : .Interventions .8/15/2018 Resident representative has asked the room air conditioner unit to be set for 74 degrees as the resident allows. On 8/16/18 at 9:30 AM, the surveyor observed RI #37's daughter enter RI #37's room. RI #37 told the daughter it was cold. The daughter went to the unit opened the cover and the reading was at 69 degrees. The surveyor observed the temperature on the air conditioner unit at 69 degrees. The surveyor briefly interviewed the daughter. The daughter reported she had came on several occasions and the temperature would be below 71 degrees. She said she attended a care plan meeting on 8/14/18 and asked for a note to be placed asking to not have the temperature below 74 degrees. On 8/16/18 at 9:30 AM, a brief interview with the RI #37 revealed the resident was unable to control the temperature on the unit. RI #37 revealed sometimes the staff that help with care turn it down because they say they are hot. On 8/16/18 at 9:40 AM, an observation and interview was conducted with Employee Identifier (EI) #1, Administrator. EI #1 was asked what was the reading on the unit. EI #1 replied, 69 degrees. EI #1 was asked what should the reading be. EI #1 replied, 71 degrees or greater. EI #1 was asked if the resident reported being cold. EI #1 replied, yes. EI #1 was asked what would the harm be in a resident's room temperature below 71 degrees. EI #1 replied, personal comfort for the resident may not be maintained. On 8/16/18 at 9:45 AM, an interview was conducted with EI #7. EI #7, a Certified Nursing Assistant assigned to care for RI #37, was asked what care RI #37 required. EI #7 replied everything. EI #7 was asked if RI #37 was able to change the temperature on the air conditioning unit. EI #7 replied, no. EI #7 was asked what should the temperature be. EI #7 replied, not below 74 degrees. On 8/16/18 at 9:55 AM an interview was conducted with EI #6, Licensed Practical Nurse. EI #6 was asked if the family for RI #37 asked her to place a note in the room concerning temperature . EI #6 replied yes and she told the unit manager and the manager said they could not put a note up but would add it to the care guide. EI #6 was asked how were the care guides reviewed. EI #6 replied, staff should check at the beginning of their shift.
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 and review a facility policy Medication Administration Medication Administration Guidelines the ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and review a facility policy Medication Administration Medication Administration Guidelines the facility failed to ensure licensed staff did not prepare Potassium liquid for Resident Identifier (RI) # 81 when the Keppra was due to be given. The facility further failed to ensure medication was not left at RI #81's bedside while the staff returned to the medication cart for a stethoscope. This was observed on 8/14/18 and affected one of seven nurses observed for medication administration. Findings Include: A review of a facility policy Medication Administration Medication Administration - General Guidelines with a date of 3/11 revealed: .Procedures . 16. Read medication label and compare with medication administration record before pouring. RI # 81 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of Seizures. A review of RI #81's August 2018 Physician's Order revealed: .POTASSIUM CL (chloride) 10% .GIVE 7.5 ML (milliliters) . EVERY DAY .6 AM .LEVETIRACETAM (Keppra) .GIVE 10 CC (cubic centimeters) . EVERY 12 HOURS 6 AM 6 PM . On 8/14/18 at 5:02 PM, the surveyor observed Employee Identifier (EI )#3, Licensed Practical Nurse, giving RI #81 the evening medication. EI #3 took the bottle of medication from the medication cart drawer and poured 10 milliliters into a medication cup. The surveyor read the label observing the bottle label to read Potassium. The surveyor asked EI #3 three separate times which medication she was giving and she replied Keppra each time, while she poured the Potassium from the bottle to the medication cup. EI #3 placed the Potassium bottle back into the medication cart. The surveyor then stopped EI #3 at that point and asked her to remove the bottle and read the label. EI #3 removed the bottle and read the label Potassium. The surveyor informed EI #3 at that time that had she not stopped her (LPN), she would have administered the Potassium to the resident. EI #3 prepared the Keppra 10 cc and entered RI #81's room. EI #3 left the room leaving the medication on the over the bed table. EI #3 opened the medication cart to get a stethoscope and returned to RI #81's room. EI #3 washed her hands, put on gloves, checked the tube placement and administered the medication. On 8/14/18 at 5:20 PM, an interview was conducted with EI #3. EI #3 was asked what was the policy on ensuring the correct medication was given to a resident. EI #3 replied she should have compared the medication bottle to the medication record. EI #3 was asked what medication had she poured to give RI #81. EI #3 replied, Potassium. EI #3 was asked what medication was due. EI #3 replied, the Keppra. EI #3 was asked what time was the Potassium to be given. EI #3 replied, 6 AM. EI #3 was asked what would the harm be in giving a medication that was not ordered at that time. EI #3 replied, RI #81 could have gotten too much Potassium and side effects on the heart. EI #3 was asked what was the policy on leaving medication in the room unattended. EI #3 replied, you were not to leave sight of it. EI #3 was asked what was the harm in leaving a medication at the bedside unattended. EI #3 replied, someone could take the medication.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and review of a facility policy : Medication Storage,the facility failed to ensure the secured medication box in the refrigerator on Hall I was locked. This was observ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and review of a facility policy : Medication Storage,the facility failed to ensure the secured medication box in the refrigerator on Hall I was locked. This was observed on 8/16/18 and affected one of two refrigerated secured medication storage boxes and had the potential to affect Resident Identifiers (RI) #2, 29, 56, 90, 113 and 136, six of six residents whose Lorazepam (Ativan) medication was stored in the refrigerated box. Findings Include: A review of a facility policy Medication Storage dated 3/11 revealed: .Procedures .7. Controlled medications are stored separately from other medications in a locked drawer or compartment designated for that purpose. On 8/16/18 at 10:15 AM, the medication room on Hall I was observed with Employee Identifier (EI) #8, Registered Nurse( RN). EI #8 opened the refrigerator and the surveyor asked her to remove the secured box. EI #8 replied the box did not come out. The surveyor asked if the secured box was locked. EI #8 replied, no. EI #8 was asked if the secured box should be locked. EI #8 replied, yes. EI #8 was asked what was in the box. EI #8 removed 6 individual bottles of Ativan and replied, six Ativan. EI #8 was asked what was the harm in the refrigerated secured medication box not being locked. EI #8 replied, people could take the medication. EI #8 was asked who did the Ativan belong to EI #8 replied, RI #2, 29, 56, 90, 113 and 136. On 8/16/18 at 11:00 AM an interview was conducted with EI #2, DON. EI #2 was asked what was the policy on securing the controlled refrigerated medication box. EI #2 replied, it should be secured and locked. EI #2 was asked when should the secured refrigerated boxes not be locked. EI #2 replied, only when medications were being removed. EI #2 was asked when should secured medication refrigerator boxes be left unlocked. EI #2 replied never. EI #2 was asked what would the risks be in the secured refrigerator box being left unlocked. EI #2 replied, someone could get the medications if they had the key, however only some nurses hold the keys to those boxes.
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, interview, record review and review of facility policy Hand Washing (Infection Control) and Medication Adm...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review and review of facility policy Hand Washing (Infection Control) and Medication Administration the facility failed to ensure licensed staff: 1. did not carry a stethoscope used to check a gastrostomy tube placement with the same soiled gloves she had on to administer Resident Identifier (RI) #81's gastrostomy medication then return it to the medication cart, 2. washed her hands between gloves changes while performing wound care for RI #73; and 3. did not store packaged medication in a water cup in the medication cart then use the same cup for water to give to RI #138 the scheduled medication. These findings were observed on 8/14/18 and 8/15/18 and affected RI #81 one of one observed for Gastrostomy tube medication pass, RI #73 one of one observed for wound care, and RI #138 one of seven observed for medication pass observation. Findings Include: 1. A review of a facility policy titled, Medication Administration with a date of 3/11 revealed: . Procedures .3. The charge nurse on duty ensures equipment ad supplies relating to medication storage and use are clean . RI # 81 was admitted to the facility 12/2/09 with diagnosis of Gastrostomy Status. On 8/14/18 at 5:02 PM, Employee Identifier (EI) #3 was observed giving RI #81 the evening medication. EI #3 put on gloves and checked the placement of the tube with a stethoscope. Once EI #3 finished checking the tube placement and giving the medication, she then with the same soiled gloves on, took the stethoscope and placed it in the medication cart. On 8/14/18 at 5:20 PM, an interview was conducted with EI #3, Licensed Practical Nurse. EI #3 was asked what was the policy on removing supplies you used while in a resident's room. EI #3 replied, she should have cleaned the stethoscope. EI #3 was asked if she removed the stethoscope from RI #81's room and placed it in the medication cart without cleaning it. EI #3 replied, yes. EI #3 was asked what was the risks in placing a dirty item in the medication cart without cleaning it after removing it from a resident's room. EI #3 replied, cross contamination. 2. A review of facility a policy titled, Hand Washing (Infection Control) with and effective date of 4/2018 revealed: PURPOSE: To provide guidelines to employees for proper and appropriate hand washing techniques that will aide in the prevention of transmission of infections. STANDARD: Hand washing should be performed between procedures with residents. RI #73 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of Pressure Ulcer of Sacral Region, unspecified stage. On 8/15/18 at 9:30 AM EI #4, Registered Nurse (RN), was observed performing wound care for RI #73. EI #4 gathered the needed supplies and entered RI #73's room. EI #4 put on gloves and set up the area and predated the outer dressing. EI #4 removed the gloves and put on clean gloves without washing her hands. EI #4 removed the soiled dressing. EI #4 removed her gloves and put on clean gloves, without washing her hands. EI #4 removed the back cover from the foam dressing and placed medihoney on the inside. EI #4 removed her gloves and put on clean gloves without washing her hands. EI #4 cleaned the wound with wound cleaner. EI #4 opened the skin prep and wiped the outer area of the wound. EI #4 removed her gloves again and put on clean gloves without washing her hands. EI #4 placed the outer dressing with the medihoney. EI #4 removed the gloves and washed her hands. On 8/15/18 at 9:50 AM an interview was conducted with EI#4. EI #4 was asked what was the policy on hand washing when changing gloves. EI #4 replied, wash hands when soiled. EI #4 was asked if she washed her hands between glove changes. EI #4 replied, no. EI #4 was asked what was the harm in not washing her hands between glove changes. EI #4 replied, she could spread germs. On 8/15/18 at 10:00 AM, an interview was conducted with EI #2, Director of Nursing. EI #2 was asked what was the policy on when to wash hands with glove changing while performing wound care. EI #2 replied, every time they changed gloves they should wash their hands. EI #2 was asked what was the harm in staff not washing their hands between glove changes. EI #2 replied, it could be infection control. 3. A review of a facility policy titled, Medication Administration with a date of 3/11 revealed: . Procedures .3. The charge nurse on duty ensures equipment ad supplies relating to medication storage and use are clean . RI #138 was admitted to the facility 6/22/18 with diagnoses of Pain and Functional Intestinal Disorder. A review of RI #138's August 2018 Physician's Order revealed . Glucosamine-Chondroitin 1 capsule PO TID (by mouth three times a day) .Nystatin .5 mL (milliliters) QID (four times a day) . On 8/15/18 at 11:00 AM, EI #5, Registered Nurse, was observed giving medication to RI #138. EI #5 opened the medication cart and removed a water cup from the drawer. Inside the water cup were 2 medication cups and the package of medication that was due to be given. EI #5 removed the Nystatin bottle and poured 5 milliliters in one of the medication cups. EI #5 opened the medication package and poured the Glucosamine Chondroitin tablet from the packaging into the second medication cup. EI #5 poured water into the same water cup the medication package was stored in and went in to RI #138's room and gave the medication and the water to RI #138. On 8/15/18 at 11:10 AM, an interview was conducted with EI #5. EI #5 was asked what was the policy on preparing medications. EI #5 replied, wait until they were due then remove from the roll of packed medications and pour the medication into a clean medication cup. EI #5 was asked if she should place needed supplies and packaged medications in a water cup in the drawer. EI #5 replied,no. EI #5 was asked why would she not place packaged medications in a water cup then use the water cup for water for the resident. EI #5 replied, could cause possible contamination of the medications. EI #5 was asked after she placed the medication package and needed supplies inside a water cup would the inside of that cup be considered clean. EI #5 replied, no. EI #5 was asked why would the inside of that cup not be clean. EI #5 replied, the cup could have germs from the medication packaging that may have gotten on the inside.
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observations, interviews and a review of a facility policy titled ,Food, Leftover-Storage and Use and a document titled, Food Code, the facility failed to ensure: 1. eleven honey thickener wa...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews and a review of a facility policy titled ,Food, Leftover-Storage and Use and a document titled, Food Code, the facility failed to ensure: 1. eleven honey thickener waters were not in the cooler passed the use by date of 2/5/18; 2. a worker washed her hands after dropping a thermometer cover to the floor and before taking the temperature of a milk and; 3. plates were free of debris in the plate warmer. This was observed on one of three days of the survey and had the potential to affect 151 of 151 resident who received meals from the kitchen. Findings Include: 1) A review of a facility policy titled Food, Leftover-Storage and Use, with an effective date of 7/2016 revealed: PURPOSE: To assure that food borne illnesses are avoided .PROCESS 9. Opened bulk items that require refrigeration once opened may be stored up to thirty (30) days but not beyond the best by or expiration date then discarded. On 8/14/18 at 8:40 a.m., the surveyor toured cooler #2 with EI #9, Dining Service Manager. The surveyor observed eleven Ready Care Lemon Flavored water Honey Consistency Thickener dated 2/5/18. On 8/15/18 at 9:05 a.m. the surveyor conducted an interview with EI #9. EI #9 was asked what was expired in the cooler. EI #9 replied, Honey Thickened Water. EI #9 was asked why was it expired in the cooler. EI #9 replied, it was beyond the use by date on the container. EI #9 was asked who was responsible for removing expired items out of the cooler. EI #9 replied, anyone who sees it should be pulling it. EI #9 was asked why should expired items be removed from the cooler. EI #9 replied, because it was beyond the use by date, it affects the quality and safety of the product. EI #9 was asked what did the facility policy say regarding expired food items in the cooler. EI #9 replied, it should be deposed of immediately. EI #9 was asked when should expired items be removed from the cooler. EI #9 replied, preferably on the expiration date or as soon as it is found. EI #9 was asked why was it important not to serve residents expired food. EI #9 replied, because the manufacture knows what the best use by date is, after that it was not good for consumption. 2) a review of a document titled Food Code U. S. Public Health Service , U. S. Food & Drug Administration, 2017, 2-301.13 Special Handwash Procedures.2-301.14 When to Wash. FOOD EMPLOYEES shall clean their hands .(E) After handling soiled EQUIPMENT or UTENSILS On 8/14/2018 at 11:30 a.m.,the surveyor observed EI #10, Dietary/Utility staff, dropped a thermometer cover to the floor. EI #10 picked up the thermometer cover off the floor. She went to a counter to get alcohol prep (wipes). She touched a trash can lid when she was near the counter. EI #10 did not wash her hands. On 8/15/18 at 09:07 a.m., the surveyor conducted an interview with EI #10. EI #10 was asked what did she drop on the floor. EI #10 replied, thermometer top on the floor. EI #10 was asked what did she do after she dropped the thermometer top on the floor. EI #10 replied, she kept it in her hands. EI #10 was asked did she wash the thermometer with water. EI #10 replied, no. EI #10 was asked what was the facility policy on when you drop items on the floor in the kitchen. EI #10 replied, when she drops it wash it with soap and water. EI #10 was asked after looking at the floor, was it clean or dirty. EI #10 replied, dirty. EI #10 was asked why was it important that she wash items that are dropped to the floor in the kitchen. She replied, it is contaminated. EI #10 was asked did she open a milk carton to take the milk temperature. EI #10 replied, she did. EI #10 was asked did she wash her hands after picking up the thermometer cover off the floor. EI #10 replied no ma'am. On 8/16/2018 at 11:35 an interview was conducted with EI #12, the Clinical Instructor. EI #12 was asked when picking up a thermometer cover off the floor should staff wash their hands. EI #12 replied, yes ma'am. EI #12 replied, it would be appropriate for staff to use hand sanitizer or washed their hands. 3) a review of a document titled, Food Code 2017 revealed 4-904.12 Soiled and Clean Tableware. Soiled TABLEWARE shall be removed from CONSUMER eating and drinking areas and handled so that clean TABLEWARE is not contaminated. On 8/14/18 at 12:21 p.m., the surveyor observed EI #11, the Cook. EI #11 picked up plates from the plate warmer. The surveyor observed spots on the plates before the worker picked up the plates from the warmer and the spots were brown. The surveyor observed several plates with spots on them. The surveyor observed a plate in the warmer that was dirty with a large amount of a red/yellow greasy looking areas on it. 08/15/18 at 10:08 a.m., the surveyor observed staff washing dishes in the dish room. During dishwashing, the surveyor observed a spot on a sectional plate ready to be put up. The worker wiped the spot in the plate and it came out. On 8/15/18 at 9:19 a.m., the surveyor conducted an interview with EI #11. EI #11 was asked what was on plates that she was plating. EI #11 replied, she thought it was a crumb from her gloves. EI #11 was asked who was responsible for making sure plates were clean. EI #11 replied, the staff person on the end of the dish line who put the dishes up in the dish room. EI #11 was asked what did the facility policy say regarding putting food on dirty plates on the tray line. EI #11 replied, she was not to put food on dirty plates. EI #11 said she would send dirty plates to the dish room. EI #11 was asked what did she observe on plates that she placed to the side. EI #11 replied, a crumb. EI #11 was asked why was it important that residents were not served food on dirty plates. EI #11 replied, she did not want to cross contaminate and she did not want the residents to get sick. EI #11 was asked was she observing plates carefully. EI #11 replied, she thought she was. On 8/16/18 at 9:48 a.m., the surveyor conducted an interview with EI #13, Dietary aide. EI #13 was asked did she pull dishes on 8/15/18 to be put up. EI #13 replied, yes ma'am. EI #13 was asked were plates on the table ready to be put away where they should go. EI #13 replied, yes ma'am. EI #13 was asked what did she see on one of the plates. EI #13 replied, one speck of something. EI #13 was asked did the speck come out. EI #13 replied, it did.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Alabama facilities.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 3 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 12 deficiencies on record, including 3 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • Grade F (9/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
  • • 56% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Bottom line: This facility has 3 Immediate Jeopardy findings. Serious concerns require careful evaluation.

About This Facility

What is Village At Cook Springs Skilled Nursing Facility's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns VILLAGE AT COOK SPRINGS SKILLED NURSING FACILITY 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 Village At Cook Springs Skilled Nursing Facility Staffed?

CMS rates VILLAGE AT COOK SPRINGS SKILLED NURSING FACILITY's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 56%, which is 10 percentage points above the Alabama average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.

What Have Inspectors Found at Village At Cook Springs Skilled Nursing Facility?

State health inspectors documented 12 deficiencies at VILLAGE AT COOK SPRINGS SKILLED NURSING FACILITY during 2018 to 2023. These included: 3 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 9 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 Village At Cook Springs Skilled Nursing Facility?

VILLAGE AT COOK SPRINGS SKILLED NURSING FACILITY is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by NOLAND HEALTH, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 168 certified beds and approximately 123 residents (about 73% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in PELL CITY, Alabama.

How Does Village At Cook Springs Skilled Nursing Facility Compare to Other Alabama Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Alabama, VILLAGE AT COOK SPRINGS SKILLED NURSING FACILITY's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (56%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Village At Cook Springs Skilled Nursing Facility?

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 Village At Cook Springs Skilled Nursing Facility Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, VILLAGE AT COOK SPRINGS SKILLED NURSING FACILITY has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 3 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 Village At Cook Springs Skilled Nursing Facility Stick Around?

Staff turnover at VILLAGE AT COOK SPRINGS SKILLED NURSING FACILITY is high. At 56%, the facility is 10 percentage points above the Alabama average of 46%. 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 Village At Cook Springs Skilled Nursing Facility Ever Fined?

VILLAGE AT COOK SPRINGS SKILLED NURSING FACILITY has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.

Is Village At Cook Springs Skilled Nursing Facility on Any Federal Watch List?

VILLAGE AT COOK SPRINGS SKILLED NURSING FACILITY 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.