GENERATIONS OF VERNON, LLC

1050 CONVALESCENT ROAD, VERNON, AL 35592 (205) 695-9313
For profit - Corporation 158 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
38/100
#201 of 223 in AL
Last Inspection: April 2022

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

Overview

Generations of Vernon, LLC has a Trust Grade of F, indicating poor performance with significant concerns. They rank #201 out of 223 nursing homes in Alabama, placing them in the bottom half of facilities in the state, but they are the only option in Lamar County. The facility has shown some improvement over time, as they went from having two issues in 2019 to none reported in 2022. Staffing is a positive aspect, with a 3 out of 5-star rating and no turnover, which is well below the state average, suggesting that staff members are stable and familiar with residents' needs. However, there are some serious concerns, such as a critical incident in which staff failed to properly clean and disinfect a glucometer, posing infection risks, and another incident where a resident received unnecessary blood sugar monitoring, highlighting potential lapses in care.

Trust Score
F
38/100
In Alabama
#201/223
Bottom 10%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
2 → 0 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
Turnover data not reported for this facility.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Alabama facilities.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 47 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Alabama. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
○ Average
7 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2019: 2 issues
2022: 0 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

The Ugly 7 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening
Aug 2019 2 deficiencies 1 IJ (1 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL (K)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, review of the facility's policies titled, Handwashing CC-INFC-28, Cleaning and Disinfecting G...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, review of the facility's policies titled, Handwashing CC-INFC-28, Cleaning and Disinfecting Glucose Monitoring Systems INFC-73, the ASSURE BRILLIANCE COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE & SUPPORT PROGRAM, a facility document and www.merriam-webster.com, the facility failed to ensure Employee Identifier (EI) #1, a Registered Nurse and EI #8, a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) cleaned and disinfected a multi-use glucometer between resident use. During medication pass observation on 7/31/2019 beginning at 3:47 PM, EI #1, a RN failed to clean and disinfect the multi-use glucometer when she performed finger stick blood sugar monitoring for RI #37, RI #66, RI #69 and RI #98. EI #1 further failed to wash her hands prior to and after she removed gloves and place a barrier down on the residents' over-bed table, bed and/or furniture. During medication pass observation on 8/1/2019 beginning at 5:34 AM, EI #8, a LPN failed to disinfect the multi-use glucometer when she performed finger stick blood sugar monitoring for RI #2, RI #14 and RI #18. These deficient practices affected RI #2, RI #14, RI #18, RI #37, RI #66, RI #69 and RI #98, seven of 10 residents observed for finger stick blood sugar monitoring and placed these residents in immediate jeopardy for serious injury, harm, impairment or death. The facility has 33 residents who require finger stick blood sugar monitoring. On 8/4/2019 at 3:26 PM, the Administrator, Director of Nursing and the Nurse Quality Advisor were notified of the finding of immediate jeopardy in the area of Infection Control, F 880. Findings include: The facility's undated policy titled Handwashing CC-INFC-28 documented Purpose: To provide guidelines to employees for proper and appropriate handwashing techniques that will aid in the prevention of the transmission of infections. Policy: All employees shall adhere to handwashing procedure as outlined in this policy. Handwashing shall be regarded by the facility as the single most important means of preventing the spread of infections. Procedures: . When to Wash Hands . 7. After contact with blood, body fluids, secretions, excretions, mucous membranes, or broken skin; 8. After handling items or equipment potentially contaminated with a resident's blood, body fluids, excretions, or secretions; 9. After removing gloves; . The facility's policy titled Cleaning and Disinfecting Glucose Monitoring Systems INFC-73 revised September 2010, documented Purpose: To ensure that correct cleaning and disinfecting of the Glucose Monitoring System is followed to prevent the potential transmission of infectious organisms . Policy: The Glucose Monitoring System will be cleaned and disinfected between residents . Procedure: 1. The glucose monitoring system is cleaned/disinfected after each resident with Gluco-Chlor Disinfecting Wipes . The ASSURE BRILLIANCE COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE & SUPPORT PROGRAM revised April 2018, documented Cleaning and Disinfecting the Assure Prism multi Blood Glucose Monitoring System To minimize the risk of transmitting blood-borne pathogens, the cleaning and disinfection procedure should be performed as recommended in the instructions below . The meter should be cleaned and disinfected after use on each patient . Guidelines for cleaning and disinfecting the Assure Prism multi: + Always were the appropriate protective gear, including disposable gloves. + Open disinfectant package. + Wipe the entire surface of the meter using the towelette at least 3 times vertically and 3 times horizontally to clean blood and other body fluids from meter. + Dispose of the towelette. + Allow the exterior to remain wet for 1 minute, then wipe meter dry using a dry cloth. + Use caution as to not allow moisture to enter the test strip port, data port or battery compartment, as it may damage the meter . CLEANING AND DISINFECTING FAQ (frequently asked questions) . What will happen if a blood glucose meter is not cleaned and disinfected after use? Per the CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) F(Federal) - Tag 880 guideline, surveyors may issue a citation if they observe no cleaning and disinfecting of meters after a blood glucose test as they would not be in compliance with CMS F-Tag 880 . Why is Cleaning and Disinfecting of blood glucose meters such a high priority? Blood glucose meters are at high risk of becoming contaminated with bloodborne pathogens such as Hepatitis B Virus (HBV), Hepatitis C (HCV) and Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). Transmission of these viruses from resident to resident has been documented due to contaminated blood glucose devices. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, cleaning and disinfecting of meters between resident use can prevent the transmission of these viruses through indirect contact. How often do blood glucose meters need to be cleaned and disinfected? Per CMS F-Tag 880 Transmittal 55, blood glucose meters need to be cleaned and disinfected after each use for individual resident care . During medication pass observation on 7/31/2019 beginning at 3:47 PM, EI #1, a RN was observed to place the glucometer on the over-bed-table of RI #66, without a barrier. EI #1 did not wash or sanitize her hands before she put gloves on. After piercing the right middle finger of RI #66, to obtain a finger stick blood sugar, EI #1 did not clean and disinfect the glucometer. The glucometer used by EI #1 was an Assure Prism multi Blood Glucose Monitoring System. Without the cleaning or disinfecting the multi-use glucometer, at 4:00 PM, EI #1 proceeded to gather supplies to perform a finger stick blood sugar for RI #69. EI #1 laid the same glucometer used previously during RI #66's finger stick blood sugar, alcohol wipe and lancet on RI #69's bed. After pricking the left middle finger of RI #69 to obtain blood for the finger stick blood sugar, EI #1 placed the glucometer on the credenza in the resident's room without first placing a barrier. EI #1 discarded of the supplies and then laid the glucometer on top of the medication cart, without cleaning or disinfecting the multi-use glucometer. EI #1 removed her gloves but did not wash her hands. Without the cleaning or disinfecting the multi-use glucometer, at 4:05 PM, EI #1 proceeded to gather supplies to perform a finger stick blood sugar for RI #98. EI #1 used the same glucometer previously used during RI #66 and RI #69's finger stick blood sugar. EI #1 put gloves on without washing or sanitizing her hands. EI #1 placed the glucometer of RI #98's bed and over-bed-table, without first placing a barrier down. After EI #1 pricked the left middle finger of RI #98 to obtain blood for the finger stick blood sugar, EI #1 took her gloves off and did not wash or sanitize her hands. EI #1 placed the glucometer, without a barrier, on the medication cart without cleaning or disinfecting the multi-use glucometer. Without the cleaning or disinfecting the multi-use glucometer, at 4:08 PM, EI #1 proceeded to gather supplies to perform a finger stick blood sugar for RI #37. EI #1 placed the glucometer previously used during RI #66, RI #69 and RI #98's finger stick blood sugar, an alcohol wipe, gloves and a lancet on RI #37's over-bed-table, without placing a barrier down first. EI #1 did not wash her hands before she put gloves on or after she removed her gloves. After obtaining RI #37's blood sugar, EI #1 placed the glucometer on the medication cart without cleaning or disinfecting the multi-use glucometer. During an interview on 8/1/2019 at 11:57 AM, EI #1, RN was asked when she should wash her hands when wearing gloves. EI #1 answered, after the gloves are removed. When asked when she should wash her hands during a finger stick blood sugar, EI #1 replied, After you get done. EI #1 was asked did she wash her hands after removing her gloves when she obtained the finger stick blood sugar for RI #66. EI #1 replied, I can't really remember but I don't think so. EI #1 further acknowledged that she could not remember if she washed her hands after she removed her gloves during the finger stick blood sugar for RI #69, RI #98 and RI #37. When asked what she should do to clean and disinfect the glucometer, EI #1 stated, to take a Clorox wipe and wipe the glucometer off. EI #1 explained that she didn't use the Clorox wipe because there were none on her medication cart. EI #1 was asked if RI #66 was the first resident she performed a finger stick blood sugar for on 7/31/2019. EI #1 answered, she believed so. When asked if she cleaned and disinfected the multi-use glucometer after performing RI #66's finger stick blood sugar, EI #1 replied No ma'am. When asked if she cleaned and disinfected the multi-use glucometer after performing RI #69's finger stick blood sugar, EI #1 replied, No I didn't clean after any of them (residents). EI #1 acknowledged that she did not clean or disinfect the glucometer after obtaining RI #98's and RI #37's finger stick blood sugar. When asked what the concern was with not washing her hands after putting gloves on and taking them off, EI #1 said the spreading of germs. EI #1 was asked what the concern was with not cleaning and disinfecting the multi-use glucometer after each residents' finger stick blood sugar. EI #1 answered, Germs. When asked what she be placed down before putting a glucometer and other supplies on a resident's over-bed-table, bed and furniture, EI #1 said I have no idea, make sure area is clear. EI #1 was asked why she didn't clean and disinfect the multi-use glucometer between resident use. EI #1 stated she was nervous. EI #1 acknowledged she had been trained by the Staff Development Nurse, EI #5, on proper infection control procedures; however, she did not perform the procedures on 7/31/2019 as trained to do so. In an interview on 8/1/2019 at 3:12 PM, EI #3, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated she witnessed EI #1, a RN, perform finger stick blood sugars on 7/31/2019. EI #3 stated she witnessed EI #1 take the glucometer out of the drawer on the medication cart. According to EI #3, EI #1 did not clean (or disinfect) the glucometer before she performed the finger stick blood sugars. EI #3 stated she noticed EI #1 did not have gloves or a barrier in her hand, so she (EI #3) assumed the observation would not go well. When asked what the potential for harm was in not cleaning and disinfecting the glucometer, EI #3 replied, infection. In a follow-up telephone interview on 8/2/2019 at 10:57 AM, EI #1, a RN was asked how she was taught to clean and disinfect the glucometer, EI #1 replied, before using the glucometer, wipe it down then lay it on a barrier, clean the resident's finger then prick it to check the blood sugar; inform the resident what his/her blood sugar is; then wash your hands and rub down the glucometer. EI #1 was asked to explain what she meant by rub down the glucometer. EI #1 stated, the front, the buttons and the back and make sure the glucometer is dry before performing another finger stick blood sugar. During medication pass observation on 8/1/2019 at 5:34 AM, EI #8, a Licensed Practical Nurse was observed to perform a finger stick blood sugar for RI #18. EI #8 pricked the right middle finger of RI #18 and afterwards discarded of the lancet and test strip in the sharps container. EI #8 used a germicidal ([NAME]) wipe and cleaned the glucometer, then wrapped the glucometer in a paper towel. At 5:50 AM, EI #8 unwrapped the previously glucometer from the paper towel and gather her supplies to perform a finger stick blood sugar for RI #2. After obtaining the resident's blood sugar, EI #8 cleaned the glucometer with a wipe and wrapped it in a paper towel. At 6:26 AM, after obtaining RI #14's finger stick blood sugar, EI #8 cleaned the glucometer with a germicidal wipe then wrapped the glucometer in a paper towel to dry. In an interview on 8/2/2019 at 12:39 PM, EI #8, a LPN was asked how she was trained to clean and disinfect the glucometer. EI #8 replied, after putting on gloves, to place the glucometer on a paper towel, then get a [NAME] disposable wipe and wipe the front of the glucometer. After the glucometer was cleaned, place the glucometer on a paper towel for at least 5 minutes to let it air dry. On 8/1/2019 at 3:45 PM, an interview was conducted with EI #4, the Assistant Director of Nursing/Infection Control Nurse. EI #4 was asked what should be done before and after removing gloves prior to and following a finger stick blood sugar. EI #4 replied, wash your hands. When asked what should be placed before laying a glucometer and other supplies on a resident's over-bed-table, bed and/or other furniture, EI #4 answered A barrier, paper towel, plastic tray with paper towel underneath. EI #4 was asked, when should the glucometer be cleaned and disinfected and she stated, before and after resident use. When asked to explain the steps as to how staff should clean and disinfect the glucometer, EI #4 replied, put on gloves and use an antibacterial wipe to clean the glucometer then place the glucometer on a tray for five minutes. After the finger stick has been obtained, the nurse should remove her gloves, wash her hands, dispose of the lancet and wipe down the glucometer with an antibacterial wipe and place it in a paper towel and let it dry for five minutes. EI #4 was asked what the glucometer should be cleaned and disinfected with. EI #4 replied, Antibacterial germicidal wipes. When asked what the potential for harm was in not cleaning and disinfecting the glucometer after each use, EI #4 answered The potential for transmitting germs from one resident to another. Blood borne pathogens. In an interview on 8/3/2019 at 10:57 AM, EI #5, the Staff Development Coordinator was asked, what was the concern of not following the manufacturer's recommendations for the cleaning and disinfecting of the glucometer. EI #5 answered, the concern was the glucometer could not be cleaned and disinfected properly and there could possibly be a spread of infections. During a follow-up interview with EI #3, the DON on 8/3/2019 at 3:36 PM, she was asked, what was the concern of not following the manufacturer's recommendations for the cleaning and disinfecting of the glucometer. EI #3 replied, spread of blood borne pathogens and damage to the equipment. When asked if the disinfectant wipe was effective if it was not being used according to the manufacturer's recommendations, EI #3 said possibly no. In a document provided by the facility dated 8/2/2019, the facility has a total of 48 residents diagnosed as having Diabetes. Of the 48 residents diagnosed with Diabetes, 33 residents required finger stick blood sugar monitoring. The document further indicated there were residents residing in the facility with a communicable disease, one of which required finger stick blood sugar monitoring. A communicable disease, as defined by www.merriam-webster.com, is an infectious disease transmissible by direct contact with an affected individual or the individual's discharges or by indirect means. ************************* On 8/4/2019 at 9:16 PM, the facility submitted an acceptable Removal Plan, which documented Generations of [NAME] Removal Plan F 880 Infection Control 1. The registered nurse who failed to clean and disinfect the Assure Prism multi-use glucometer according to the manufacturer's recommendations between each resident when performing finger stick blood sugars on RI #66, RI #69, RI #98 and RI #37 was suspended on 7/31/19 pending a facility investigation and will not return to work until she goes through a thorough orientation re-training on cleaning and disinfecting the Assure Prism multi-use glucometer according to manufacturer's recommendations between each resident when performing finger stick blood sugars. 2. All Assure Prism multi-use glucometers were properly cleaned and disinfected per manufacturer's recommendations on 8/3/19 by licensed nurses after they received re-training on cleaning and disinfecting the Assure Prism multi-use glucometer by the Nurse Consultant using a manufacturer's approved recommendation germicidal wipe, PDI Super Sani-Cloth. 3. Licensed staff present on 8/2-8/3/19 were re-trained on cleaning and disinfecting the Assure Prism multi-use glucometers by the Nurse Consultant and Clinical Coordinator by lecture, return demonstration and verbalization of understanding of the process to clean and disinfect the Assure Prism multi-use glucometer at the following times: 8/2/19 9:13 p - 10:00 p 8/3/19 8:15 a.m. - 10:13 a.m. 8/3/19 10:20 a.m. - 10:35 a.m. 8/3/19 6:45 p.m. - 7:15 p.m. There are 33 residents who receive finger stick blood sugar monitoring and one of those 1 resident has a communicable disease. Date of alleged immediacy removed on 8/4/19. ************************* After reviewing the facility's information provided in their Removal Plan and verifying the immediate actions had been implemented, the scope/severity level of F 880 was lowered to a D level on 8/4/2019, to allow the facility time to monitor and/or revise their corrective actions as necessary to achieve substantial compliance.
CONCERN (D)

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

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 of Resident Identifier (RI) #37's medical record, the facility failed to ensure Emplo...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and review of Resident Identifier (RI) #37's medical record, the facility failed to ensure Employee Identifier (EI) #1, a Registered Nurse (RN) did not perform a finger stick blood sugar on RI #37, a non-diabetic resident, who was not ordered finger stick blood sugar monitoring. This deficient practice affected RI #37, one of 15 residents observed for medication pass. Findings include: RI #37 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. RI #37 has a medical history to include diagnoses of: Dementia with behavioral disturbance, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Peripheral Vascular Disease, and Alzheimer's Disease. During medication pass observation on 7/31/2019 at 4:08 PM, EI #1, a RN performed a finger stick blood sugar on RI #37. RI #37's PHYSICIAN'S ORDERS for July 2019, did not include an order for a finger stick blood sugar. During a telephone interview on 8/2/2019 at 10:57 AM, EI #1, a RN acknowledged that she had performed a finger stick blood sugar for RI #37 on 7/31/2019. When asked why she obtained a finger stick blood sugar on RI #37, EI #1 stated the resident was supposed to have it and she had always done a finger stick blood sugar for RI #37. RI #37's NURSE'S NOTES dated 8/2/2019 4:15 PM, documented (Medical Director) notified that resident received a finger stick blood sugar check on 7/31/19 that was not ordered . In an interview on 8/2/2019 at 3:44 PM, EI #3, the Director of Nursing was asked why finger stick blood sugar monitoring was done on RI #37. EI #3 replied that she would have to review RI #37's medical record that she didn't see an order for it and didn't see where finger stick blood sugar monitoring was being done. When asked if RI #37 had a Physician's order to perform finger stick blood sugar monitoring, EI #3 answered there was no order for it. When asked what the potential for harm was in obtaining a finger stick blood sugar without a Physician's order, EI #3 said, You are doing a procedure without an order.
Jun 2018 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0676 (Tag F0676)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, medical record review and a review of a facility document titled,Restorative Nursing Treatment Schedule, th...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, medical record review and a review of a facility document titled,Restorative Nursing Treatment Schedule, the facility failed to ensure that RI (Resident Identifier) #83 was provided restorative care for ambulation. This deficient practice affected RI #83, one of twenty four sampled residents receiving restorative care. Findings Include: RI # 83 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. RI #83's medical history included Cerebral Infarction and Hemiplegia. On 06/27/18 at 10:21 a.m., RI #83 stated to the surveyor Restorative was supposed to be walking her/him 3 times a week, but restorative had not been doing it. RI #83's Quarterly MDS ( Minimum Data Set) with an ARD (Assessment Reference Date) of 04/19/18, revealed a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score of 14 indicating RI #83 was cognitively intact for daily decision making. The MDS also revealed RI #83 used a wheelchair for mobility and required extensive assistance of two plus persons for transfers. RI #83's Functional Maintenance Program form documented: . Start of Maintenance 4/23/18 .Ambulation .Hemi-Walker . RI #83's care plan titled, Potential for contractures R/T ( related to) Basal Ganglia Stroke with decrease mobility, non-amb (ambulatory) had an intervention, dated 4/23/18, of Amb (ambulate) c-(with) hemi walker 5-6 x (times)/wk (week) .RESP. (Responsible) PARTY . Restorative CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) . RI # 83's Restorative Nursing Treatment Schedule form revealed RI #83 had not ambulated 5-6 times a week, for three weeks in May 2018 and had not ambulated 5-6 times a week for the month of June 2018. On 06/27/18 at 3:41 p.m., an interview was conducted with EI (Employee Identifier) #5, a Restorative CNA. EI #5 was asked if RI #83 had a Functional Maintenance Program. EI #5 said, Yes. EI #5 was asked what was RI #83's performance areas for the Functional Maintenance Program. EI #5 said RI #83 ambulated, sat down and stood up. EI #5 was asked how many times a week should RI #83 ambulate. EI #5 said, 5-6 times a week. EI #5 was asked to review RI #83's Nursing Treatment Schedule form and tell the surveyor if RI #83 ambulated 5-6 times a week for the months of May and June of 2018. EI #5 said, No. EI #5 was asked what was the potential harm with not providing restorative care for ambulation for RI #83 or any resident. EI #5 said, A decline in mobility. On 06/27/18 at 4:03 p.m., an interview was conducted with EI #6, a Restorative CNA. EI #6 was asked, according to RI #83's Functional Maintenance Program how many times a week was she/he scheduled to ambulate. EI #6 said 5-6 times a week. EI #6 was asked if RI #83 ambulated with restorative 5-6 times a week for the months of May and June 2018. EI #6 said, No Ma'am. EI #6 was asked what was the potential harm with not providing restorative care for ambulation for RI #83. EI #6 said,(She/He) would decline, not walk as far.
CONCERN (D)

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 observation, interview, medical record review and a facility's document titled, SMOKING SAFETY ASSESSMENT, 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 facility's document titled, SMOKING SAFETY ASSESSMENT, the facility failed to ensure Resident Identifier (RI) #84, had on a smoking apron, as assessed, according to the smoking safety assessment during the smoke break on 06/27/18 at 11:30 a.m. This affected RI #84, one of four residents sampled for smoking. Findings Include: A review of RI #84's SMOKING SAFETY ASSESSMENT, with a date of 3/6/17, documented: .10. Safety: Does the resident need a smoke apron? Yes. RI #84 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses to include Alzheimer's Disease, Epilepsy, and Other Muscle Spasm. RI #84's Significant Change MDS (Minimum Data Set) with an ARD ( Assessment Reference Date) of 08/25/17, revealed the resident was severely cognitively impaired, and was assessed for current tobacco use. On 06/27/18 at 11:30 a.m., the surveyor observed RI #84 on the smoking porch, smoking without a smoking apron. Employee Identifier (EI) #8, a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), was present during smoking time. EI #8 was asked how would she know when a resident should have on an apron. EI #8 said it was a list of residents who required a smoking apron in a book. EI #8 was asked should RI #84 have had on an apron. EI #8 said yes, according to the paper work in the book. EI #8 was asked was the apron on when RI #84 began to smoke. EI #8 said, No it was not. EI #8 was asked what was the potential harm to RI #84 not wearing a smoking apron. EI #8 said, Burning himself.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0810 (Tag F0810)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, medical record review and review of a facility policy titled, Self-help eating devices are av...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, medical record review and review of a facility policy titled, Self-help eating devices are available for those needing them, the facility failed to ensure Resident Identifier (RI) #62 was provided weighted utensils during lunch meals on 06/26/18 and 06/27/18. This affected RI #62, one of seven sampled residents observed during meal time. Findings Include: Review of a facility policy titled, Self-help eating devices are available for those needing them, with no date, documented: .PROCEDURE: 1. Residents are reviewed on admission, and at least quarterly, for need of adaptive devices. 2. Adaptive devices in use are .provided for each meal. RI #62 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including, Alzheimer's Disease and Parkinson's Disease. A review of RI #62's medical record revealed the following: RESIDENT CARE PLAN .Problem 12/20/17 Potential for Alteration in Nutrition .Interventions .19.) Utilized Weighted Utensils. On 06/26/18 at 11:56 a.m., RI #62 was observed during the lunch meal. RI #62 was observed eating the meal with regular fork with hand shaking and food falling from fork back onto the plate and tray. No weighted utensils were present during this meal. On 06/27/18 at 7:38 p.m., an interview was conducted with Employee Identifier (EI) #2, Registered Nurse/MDS (Minimum Data Set) Coordinator. EI #2 was asked was RI #62 care planned for assistive devices while eating. EI #2 said yes, a divided plate, weighted utensils and a cup with lid for milk. EI #2 was asked should RI #62 receive those assistive devices with meals. EI #2 replied yes.
CONCERN (D)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

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 a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) did not serve Resident Id...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) did not serve Resident Identifier (RI) #62's baked potato with an unclean glove during the lunch meal on 06/26/18. This deficient practice affected RI #62, one of seven sampled residents observed during meal time. Findings Include: RI #62 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. On 06/26/18 at 11:56 a.m., EI (Employee Identifier) #4, a CNA, was observed serving RI #62's lunch tray. The CNA was observed taking a glove from her jacket pocket, putting it on her right hand. She picked up RI #62's baked potato with the gloved hand and removed it from the aluminum foil and placed it on RI #62's plate. On 06/26/18 at 12:37 p.m., an interview was conducted with EI #4. EI #4 was asked did she serve and set up RI #62's lunch tray. EI #4 said yes. EI #4 was asked was she wearing gloves when she took RI #62's baked potato out of the aluminum foil. EI #4 replied yes, on her right hand. EI #4 was asked where did she get the glove. EI #4 stated out of her jacket pocket. EI #4 was asked was her pocket considered clean. EI #4 said to her it was, but to infection control, no. EI #4 was asked should gloves be placed in her pocket. EI #4 replied no. EI #4 was asked what was the concern with using unclean gloves when preparing a resident's meal. EI #4 answered it was an infection control issue.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) did not place her finger in...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) did not place her finger in a plastic pouch containing crushed medication for RI #89. This deficient practice affected RI #89, one of four residents observed during medication administration. Findings Include: RI # 89 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses to include Cognitive Communication Deficit, Dysphagia and Pneumonia. RI #89's Quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) with an ARD (Assessment Reference Date) of 05/14/18, revealed the resident received intake (nutrition/medication) by feeding tube. On 06/26/18 at 4:41 p.m., during medication administration, the surveyor observed Employee Identifier (EI) #7, a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), put her ungloved finger into the pill crush bag. On 06/26/18 at 5:30 p.m., the surveyor interviewed EI #7. EI #7 was asked when she put her finger into the pill crush bag, what was it considered. EI #7 said infection control. EI #7 was asked what effect would that have on the resident. EI #7 said it could give him/her the germs she had on her hand. EI #7 was asked what type of effect could the germ cause. EI #7 said the resident could get sick.
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
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Alabama facilities.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 7 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • Grade F (38/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 38/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Generations Of Vernon, Llc's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns GENERATIONS OF VERNON, LLC 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 Generations Of Vernon, Llc Staffed?

CMS rates GENERATIONS OF VERNON, LLC's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes.

What Have Inspectors Found at Generations Of Vernon, Llc?

State health inspectors documented 7 deficiencies at GENERATIONS OF VERNON, LLC during 2018 to 2019. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 6 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Generations Of Vernon, Llc?

GENERATIONS OF VERNON, LLC is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 158 certified beds and approximately 118 residents (about 75% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in VERNON, Alabama.

How Does Generations Of Vernon, Llc Compare to Other Alabama Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Alabama, GENERATIONS OF VERNON, LLC's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.9 and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Generations Of Vernon, Llc?

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?" "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?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations.

Is Generations Of Vernon, Llc Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, GENERATIONS OF VERNON, LLC has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 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 Generations Of Vernon, Llc Stick Around?

GENERATIONS OF VERNON, LLC has not reported staff turnover data to CMS. Staff turnover matters because consistent caregivers learn residents' individual needs, medications, and preferences. When staff frequently change, this institutional knowledge is lost. Families should ask the facility directly about their staff retention rates and average employee tenure.

Was Generations Of Vernon, Llc Ever Fined?

GENERATIONS OF VERNON, LLC 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 Generations Of Vernon, Llc on Any Federal Watch List?

GENERATIONS OF VERNON, LLC 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.