SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, facility documentation, staff interviews, personnel file review, and policies and procedures, t...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, facility documentation, staff interviews, personnel file review, and policies and procedures, the facility failed to ensure one sampled resident (#158) was free from staff to resident abuse, which resulted in psychosocial harm as evidenced by increased yelling, screaming, agitation, and the resident being afraid of the staff member. The census was 55. The deficient practice could result in other residents being abused.
Findings include:
Resident #158 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia, Parkinson's disease, chronic pain syndrome, depressive episodes and anxiety. The resident was discharged from the facility on January 16, 2020 to hospice.
Review of a care plan initiated on January 10, 2019, revealed that the resident exhibited behaviors of physical and verbal aggression towards staff as evidenced by a history of physical behaviors of resisting cares, and yelling which were related to a diagnosis of cognitive impairment. Interventions included to reassure, re-approach at a different time, redirect and reorient. The care plan also included the resident had verbal behavior as evidenced by loud outbursts. Interventions included to provide calm, non-rushed environment.
Review of a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12, which indicated the resident had moderate cognition impairment. The MDS assessment included the resident had physical behavioral symptoms directed toward others 4 to 6 days of the 7-day lookback period, verbal behavioral symptoms directed towards others daily, other behavioral symptoms not directed toward others 1 to 3 days of the 7-day lookback period, and rejected care 4 to 6 days of the 7-day lookback period. The assessment also included the resident was total dependent for transfer and toilet use, required extensive assistance for bed mobility and dressing, and limited assistance for personal hygiene.
Review of the facility's Investigation Report dated October 7, 2019 revealed that on October 2, 2019 at approximately 6:00 AM, a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA/staff #94) witnessed another CNA (staff #93) place a rag and then a pillow over the resident's face as they were providing care. CNA #94 stated that she was beginning her shift and went into the resident's room to assist the night shift CNA (staff #93) because she heard the resident calling out. Staff #94 reported seeing the alleged perpetrator (staff #93) place a cloth on the resident's mouth, which the resident removed. She further reported that as the care progressed the resident continued to yell out and then staff #93 placed a pillow across the resident's face. At this point the CNA (staff #94) reported that she removed the pillow and talked to the resident to calm the resident.
Review of the Investigation Report revealed a body assessment was completed on resident #158 after it was reported at 3:00 PM on October 2, 2019 and that there were no signs of injury or bruising.
The investigation report included the following witness statement for staff #94 dated October 2, 2019 at 3:15 PM:
- I clocked in at 6:00 AM on October 2, 2019 and went to my scheduled hall. As I entered the hall I could hear resident #158 screaming very loudly in her room where she was being changed and dressed by CNA #93. I asked if CNA #93 needed help and started assisting with the resident's care. The resident was still screaming as we continued to get her clothes on when staff #93 tried to silence the resident by putting a rag onto her mouth, telling me that the resident just needed something to bite down on. The resident did not like this and removed the rag and shortly after, CNA #93 placed a pillow over the resident's face while trying to have a conversation with me. I removed the pillow and remained quiet and tried to calm the resident down verbally. We finished the care and CNA #93 gave me report and then clocked out.
Staff #93's (alleged perpetrator) statement dated October 3, 2019, included that when she starting dressing the resident, the resident behavior escalated to yelling and the resident resisted getting her shirt on by holding her arms down. During this time CNA #94 came in because it was 6:00 AM, and she assisted with dressing and Hoyering. Everything went normal with the care, and once the resident was in her chair she was content. We finished rounds for the hall and everything else went good until 6:30 AM when I clocked out.
A student CNA's (staff #301) statement dated October 3, 2019, included that on October 2, 2019, staff #301 started the shift as a CNA student for clinicals arriving on the hall a few minutes after 6:00 AM. Staff #301 heard as well as others, a resident yelling, screaming very upset but did not go to see what was going on. Staff #301 stated a resident made the comment that resident #158 is not usually that voicetourous, the resident was obviously upset about something.
Another student CNA's (staff #302) statement dated October 3, 2019, revealed that on October 2, 2019, staff #94 was demonstrating how to properly change a resident, when she told them of an incident that happened that morning. Staff #302 stated staff #94 stated that she had come onto her shift on the [NAME] hall and heard the resident screaming very loudly, that she was concerned so she went to see what was going on and noticed that staff #93 was cleaning the resident who was very agitated, and that staff #93 was not explaining to the resident what she was doing or what she needed the resident to do. The student CNA statement included staff #94 stated that she tried to calm the resident down when staff #93 shoved a rag in the resident's mouth and placed a pillow on top of the resident's face. Staff #302 statement further revealed staff #94 told her that she was in shock and did not know what to do or say. The statement included staff #94 stated that they then went into another resident's room and that resident asked staff #93 if she was going to work the next night to which staff #93 replied she did and then this resident asked staff #93 what she was going to do with her and that staff #93 stated that she was going to kill her, laughed and told the resident to just shut up.
The report included resident #158's family was notified of the incident on October 3, 2019. The family member stated that she had talked to the resident on Friday and Saturday and the resident was telling her that a CNA taking care of her that is pregnant is abusing her on the night shift, that the resident stated she was hit and abused by the CNA and had bruises on her hands and arms. The family member stated resident #158 is scared and terrified of her.
Further review of the Investigation report revealed resident #158 was interviewed on October 4, 2019 and stated she slams me into the wall and hit me. Girl told me she has 4 kids she is pregnant, works at night When asked if she wanted to share anything else the resident stated help me. Resident #158 stated she would scream at her and hit her.
The report included an interview on October 4, 2019 with the resident whose room staff #93 and staff #94 went into after providing care for resident #158. This resident stated that a blonde girl at night throws her weight around, wants to get rid of people, she'll be here tonight, afraid drag me outside. NOC shift, blonde hair and pregnant, she scares me, she is mean and angry, she has piercing eyes tells people to shut up.
The report included that on October 4, 2021 a Licensed Practical Nurse had stated that resident #158 was yelling louder than normal.
The investigation report documentation dated October 4, 2019 by the Director of Nursing (DON/staff #303) revealed that no bruising was noted on any resident.
Further review of the Investigation Report included a skin assessment form dated October 10, 2019, which revealed resident #158 had an old small bruise on the left medial arm, below the elbow.
The Administrator (staff #304) wrote in the investigation report on October 7, 2021 that he had spoken with the investigating officer who stated that based off of the interviews he had conducted and due to eyewitness account that CNA #93 did place the rag over the resident's mouth and the pillow over the resident's face, and due to two residents being afraid of staff #93, the officer felt it was in the best interest of the residents to terminate staff #93.
Review of the personnel file for the alleged perpetrator (staff #93) revealed the CNA had received education/orientation for abuse, and resident rights. The file included an Employee Termination form dated 10/10/2019 that an allegation of abuse was brought against staff #93 and that after investigating the allegation, it was determined that two residents on the [NAME] unit were afraid of staff #93 and that they were not able to continue employment due to the residents being afraid of her. The file also included staff #93 had been educated on resident abuse and customer service on July 29, 2019, and that the impact of residents being afraid of employees negatively affects the well-being of the residents.
A telephone interview was attempted with the resident's family member on October 18, 2021 at 11:50 PM. There was no answer and no option to leave a message.
A telephone interview was attempted on October 19, 2021 at 2:49 PM with the alleged perpetrator (CNA/staff #93). The person answering the call stated that the number was now a business, and they were not familiar with staff #93.
A telephone interview was attempted on October 19, 2021 at 2:57 PM with the witness (CNA/staff #94). There was no answer and no voicemail available to leave a message.
An interview was conducted October 20, 2021 at 9:24 AM with the DON (staff #43), who stated that she was employed at the facility when the incident occurred in 2019. She stated that it was related to resident abuse, that the witness (CNA/staff #94) was coming on shift and the alleged perpetrator (CNA/staff #93) was going off shift. She stated that it was reported by staff #94 that staff #93 had put a pillow over a resident's face while changing the resident. She further stated that this does not meet the facility expectation for resident care. The DON stated that there was an investigation conducted, and the alleged perpetrator (staff #93) did not return to work and was terminated, but she is not aware of the reason.
An interview was conducted on October 20, 2021 at 10:15 AM with an LPN (staff #73), who stated that she has worked at the facility since July 2019. She stated that she is familiar with resident (#158) and that she was very confused, combative, resistant to care and refused a lot of care. She stated that she was aware of an incident with a staff member and the resident. Staff #73 stated that she was working on the unit that day and the CNA (staff #94) told her that the night shift CNA (staff #93) had put something over the resident's mouth. The LPN stated that the residents had not reported concerns to her regarding the alleged perpetrator, prior to the incident. She stated that staffing was consistent at the time, and that this type of treatment was totally unexpected from this CNA.
An interview was conducted on October 20, 2021 at 10:52 AM with a CNA (staff #78) who stated that she has worked at the facility for over 3 years. Staff #78 stated new employees receive orientation that includes a handbook, review the abuse policy, resident rights and Hand in Hand Crisis to Care (dementia and Alzheimer's) training, and that they also receive these in-services annually. She stated that she is familiar with the resident that she had a diagnosis of dementia. Staff #78 stated that most of her contact with the resident was in the dining room and that she did not have any behavior issues with resident #158. She further stated that she was aware of the staff to resident incident that occurred. Staff #78 stated that she did not see any abuse/behaviors toward residents from staff #93 and she was not aware of any complaints from residents about staff #93.
Review of the facility policy titled, Abuse Prevention Program, revealed that residents have the right to be free from abuse, and corporal punishment. The facility is committed to protecting residents from abuse by anyone including facility staff, other residents or any other individual.
Review of the facility policy titled, Abuse Prohibition, revealed that the facility will train employees to provide for the protection of residents and for the prevention, identification, and reporting of abuse, exploitation, neglect, and mistreatment. At the time of new hire orientation, all employees will be educated regarding abuse. Ongoing mandatory training is provided to all employees regarding identifying and reporting abuse.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0552
(Tag F0552)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure one resident (#55) and/or the...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure one resident (#55) and/or the resident representative were informed of the risks and benefits of a psychotropic medication prior to administration of the medication. The sample size was 6. The deficient practice could result in residents and/or their representatives not being aware of the risks and benefits of psychoactive medications.
Findings include:
Resident #55 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included unspecified dementia with behavior disturbance, unspecified psychosis not due to substance or known physiological condition, anxiety disorder, and other recurrent depressive disorders.
Review of the clinical record revealed physician orders dated September 27, 2019 for Venlafaxine 75 milligrams (mg) extended release tablet by mouth one time a day for Major Depressive Disorder.
Review of the Medication Administration Records for August 2021, September 2021, and October 2021 revealed the resident was administered Venlafaxine as ordered.
However, further review of the clinical record did not reveal evidence that the resident and/or the resident's representative had been informed of the risks and benefits of the psychotropic medication prior to the medication being administered to the resident.
An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON/staff #43) on October 20, 2021 at 10:21 a.m. The DON stated that when the physician writes an order for a resident to be administered a psychotropic medication, the process is to inform the resident/representative of the order and the risks and benefits of the medication, and have the resident/representative sign a consent form.
The facility's Psychotropic Medication Use policy signed by the administrator on July 5, 2021 stated the purpose of this policy is for psychotropic medication therapy to be used only when it is necessary to treat a specific condition. The procedure included to obtain verbal consent for all psychotropic medication ordered during stay in facility. Psychotropic medication will not be administered prior to verbal consent being obtained.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff interviews, facility documentation, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff interviews, facility documentation, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that an allegation of abuse for one resident (#158) was reported to the Administrator, State Agency, and Adult Protective Services (APS) within 2 hours. The sample size was one. The deficient practice could result in allegations of abuse not being reported within the required time frame.
Findings include:
Resident #158 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia, Parkinson's disease, chronic pain syndrome, depressive episodes and anxiety. The resident was discharged from the facility on January 10, 2020 to hospice.
Review of the facility's Investigation Report dated October 7, 2019 revealed that on October 2, 2019 at approximately 6:00 AM, a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA/staff #94) witnessed another CNA (staff #93) place a rag and then a pillow over the resident's face as they were providing care. CNA #94 stated that she was beginning her shift and went into the resident's room to assist the night shift CNA (staff #93) because she heard the resident calling out. Staff #94 reported seeing the alleged perpetrator (staff #93) place a cloth on the resident's mouth, which the resident removed. She further reported that as the care progressed the resident continued to yell out and then staff #93 placed a pillow across the resident's face. At this point the CNA (staff #94) reported that she removed the pillow and talked to the resident to calm the resident.
According to the Investigative Report, the Administrator reported the allegation of abuse on the State Agency after-hours phone line on October 2, 2019 at 5:00 PM.
Continued review of the facility's allegation report revealed the allegation of staff to resident abuse was not reported to the Director of Nursing until approximately 3:00 PM on October 2, 2019; and documentation by the Administrator (staff #304) that due to staff #94 not reporting this incident immediately, all staff would be provided education regarding abuse reporting.
Review of the facility's Initial Notification of Alleged Abuse/Neglect document revealed the allegation of abuse was reported to the Administrator on October 2, 2019 at 2:45 PM, to APS via online report on October 2, 2019 at 3:31 PM, and to the State Agency after hours on October 2, 2019 at 5:00 PM.
An interview was conducted on October 20, 2021 at 9:24 AM with the current Director of Nursing (DON/staff #43), who stated that she was employed at the facility when the incident occurred in 2019 involving resident #158. The DON stated that the facility expectation is to report resident abuse or suspected abuse immediately to the direct supervisor. She stated that there is a supervisor available in the facility at all times. The DON stated that the witness (CNA #94) observed the incident as she was coming onto the unit at 6:00 AM, and did not report the incident until 2:30 or 3:00 PM. She stated that this does not meet the facility expectation.
An interview was conducted on October 20, 2021 at 10:15 with a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN/staff #73), who stated that she was the nurse assigned to the unit at that time of the alleged abuse allegation regarding a staff member and resident #158. She stated that the resident was very confused, combative, resistant to care, and refused a lot of care. She further stated that she was working on the unit that day and a CNA (staff #94) told her that the night shift CNA (staff #93) had put something over the resident's mouth. The LPN stated that she said to the CNA (staff #94) and you're reporting to me right now? and the CNA stated to her what am I supposed to do?. The LPN stated that she told the CNA (staff #94) to report the incident to the DON. The LPN also stated that it is the facility policy to report suspected abuse immediately to the immediate supervisor.
An interview was conducted on October 20, 2021 at 10:52 AM with an CNA (staff #78), who stated that she has worked at the facility for 3 years and 4 months. She stated that she is familiar with resident (#158) who had a diagnosis of dementia. She further stated that she was aware of the staff to resident incident involving resident #158. The CNA stated that if staff to resident abuse is observed or suspected it should be reported to a supervisor immediately. She also stated that the facility policy/expectation would be to notify a supervisor immediately in the event of suspicion of a crime.
Review of the facility policy titled, Abuse Reporting, stated all reports of resident abuse, neglect, exploitation, misappropriation of resident property, mistreatment and/or injuries of unknown source (abuse) shall be promptly report to local, state, and federal agencies as defined by current regulations. The policy included the Administrator or his/her designee will report all alleged violations involving abuse to the State Agency and APS. The policy also stated that suspected abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment will be reported within two hours.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0685
(Tag F0685)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff interviews, and policy and procedures, the facility failed to ensure one sampled resident...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff interviews, and policy and procedures, the facility failed to ensure one sampled resident (#38) received proper treatment and assistive devices to maintain hearing abilities, by failing to assist the resident in obtaining hearing aids and scheduling an audiology appointment. The deficient practice could result in residents not being able to understand and communicate effectively with others.
Findings include:
Resident #38 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included spinal stenosis, diabetes II, and chronic pain.
Review of the Clinical admission Evaluation dated September 13, 2021 revealed the resident had moderate difficulty with hearing and that hearing aids or other hearing appliances were not used when the resident's hearing was evaluated.
Review of the baseline care plan dated September 13, 2021 did not include the resident used hearing aids due to hearing loss.
A review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] included a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) with a score of 15 indicating the resident was cognitively intact. The assessment also included the resident had moderate difficulty with hearing and that no hearing aid or hearing appliance was used during the hearing assessment.
A review of the comprehensive care plan dated September 20, 2021 did not include the use of hearing aids due to hearing loss.
During the initial part of the survey, an interview was conducted with resident #38 on October 18, 2021 at 1:37 p.m. The resident kept stating that she could not hear what was being said to her. The resident stated that she had asked staff to help her with getting hearing aids and was told no, that she would have to wait until she was discharged .
On October 21, 2021 at 1:57 p.m., an interview was conducted with the Director of Social Services (staff #46). Staff #46 stated that she has met with the resident and the resident is hard of hearing. She stated that she has spoken to the resident's family and was told that the resident has hearing aids at home and that there were no family members that could go and get the hearing aids. Staff #46 stated that the family told her that the resident has trouble hearing with and without the hearing aids. Staff #46 stated that she told a nurse that the resident needed hearing aids, but she did not remember the name of the nurse. During the interview, she reviewed the clinical record and stated that the resident transferred to long-term care on September 27, 2021 and the appointment process should have been initiated. Staff #46 stated it is the responsibility of the Unit Coordinator (staff #6) to schedule outside appointments.
An interview was conducted on October 21, 2021 at 2:03 p.m. with the Unit Coordinator (staff #6). Staff #6 stated that when she receives an order from the nurse for an appointment, she schedules the appointment. She stated that she schedules appointments for vision, dental, and hearing. Staff #6 stated that she has not received an order for resident #38 regarding an appointment for hearing.
During an interview conducted on October 21, 2021 at 2:13 p.m. with the MDS Coordinator (staff #30), she stated that it is the nurse's responsibility to complete the section for hearing on the MDS assessment. Staff #30 stated the Director of Social Services (staff #46) has the responsibility to follow up on hearing aids and should contact the insurance case manager to see if new ones can be obtained.
The Director of Nursing (DON/staff #43) was interviewed on October 21, 2021 at 2:34 p.m. She stated that an order is needed from the physician to schedule appointments and that once an order has been received, the nurse would contact the Unit Coordinator to arrange for a consult. The DON stated that it is her expectation that staff will begin the appointment process when they become aware of the concern.
The facility's policy, Obtaining Orders for Consults Outside the Facility dated July 5, 2021 stated it is the policy of this facility that the responsible party will be contacted when there is an assessment finding that would indicate a need for a consult outside the facility prior to contacting the primary physician, unless the assessment demonstrates the needs for emergent care. When a change in assessment is noted in the resident level of function the responsible party will be contacted for permission to coordinate corresponding consults such as dental and ophthalmic services. Once the responsible party has communicated the desire for the outside consult t to be obtained:
-The primary physician will be notified of the request and an order will be obtained.
-The order will be given to the unit clerk to arrange the consult.
-The responsible party will be notified of when the appointment is scheduled.
The policy also stated that the assessment, discussion with the responsible party, and outcome will be documented in the medical record.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0919
(Tag F0919)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, staff interviews, and policy and procedure, the facility failed to ensure call-lights for two residents (...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, staff interviews, and policy and procedure, the facility failed to ensure call-lights for two residents (#2 and 27) were functioning correctly. The census was 55. The deficient practice could result in residents not receiving care and services in a timely manner.
Findings include:
-Resident #2 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included quadriplegia and depression.
The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] include a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. The assessment also included the resident was totally dependent on staff assistance with bed mobility, transfers, dressing, eating, toilet use, and personal hygiene.
-Resident #27 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included chronic pain and depression.
The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] include a BIMS score of 9 which indicated the resident had moderately impaired cognition. The assessment also included the resident was totally dependent on staff assistance with bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene.
During an interview conducted with resident #2 on October 19, 2021 at 9:04 a.m., resident #2 stated the call-light had not been working for a couple of days and she needed assistance with continent care. The resident stated that she has yelled and banged on the wall to get help. The resident stated that she has pushed the call-light button and no one came to help her.
The call-light was observed plugged into the call-light unit at the wall, but the call-light unit was not mounted to the box in the wall and there was no cover plate, so the unit and wires were exposed. It was also observed that when the call light was activated, the light for the call light just outside the resident's door was not on.
During this time, the resident roommate, resident #27 stated that her call light did not work.
Resident #27's call-light cord was also observed plugged into the call-light unit, but was not mounted to the box in the wall and there was no cover plate, so the unit and wires were exposed. Resident #27 pushed the call-light button and it was observed that the call-light outside the resident's room did not go on.
An interview was conducted on October 19, 2021 at 9:07 a.m. with a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA/staff #51). She stated that typically the residents use the call-light to let staff know they need assistance. The CNA stated that she knew the facility was having problems with call-lights not working. She stated that a resident could yell for help if a call-light was not working and she thought staff would hear. She also stated that staff make rounds every 2 hours to see if the residents need something. During the interview, she observed that the call-light outside resident #2's and #27's room was not working and that the call-light units were not mounted to the box and neither one had a plate cover.
Following this observation, the CNA and the surveyor went to the nurses' station where the CNA pointed out that the call light for the residents' room was showing up on the call-light control unit as normal, which indicated the resident had pushed the call-light and needed assistance. The control unit was beeping. The CNA acknowledged that staff would need to be near the nurses' station to hear the beeping.
On October 21, 2021 at 8:53 a.m., an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON/staff #43), who stated that the purpose of the call-light is to give residents a way to contact staff when they need assistance. She stated call-light audits are conducted by the Resident Care Coordinator (staff #78). The DON stated that maintenance should be notified if a call-light is not working, so it can be fixed. She stated that it is her expectation that if maintenance is unable to fix the call-light in a timely manner, staff would need to come up with a secondary plan, such as moving the resident to another room. The DON stated that she expected the call-light to be fixed the same day. The DON stated that if the call-light is not working, rounds should occur more frequently, every 10 to 15 minutes.
The facility's policy, Call Lights, dated July 5, 2021 stated it is the policy of this facility to have an operational call system for resident use. The call light system will be installed in each resident room, bathing, and toilet area to allow residents to summon for assistance. The call lights will be responded to by staff in a reasonable amount of time.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff interviews, and review of policy and procedures, the facility failed to ensure that one r...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff interviews, and review of policy and procedures, the facility failed to ensure that one resident's (#51) provider was consulted of a change in status regarding blood pressure. The sample size was 18. The deficient practice could result in providers not being notified of changes in residents' conditions.
Findings include:
Resident #51 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), primary hypertension, and unspecified osteoarthritis, unspecified site.
A physician order dated 01/31/21 included for Lisinopril 2.5 milligrams (mg) give one tablet once daily for hypertension. Hold if pulse is less than 60 or systolic blood pressure (SBP) is less than 100.
A physician order dated 06/28/21 included for Metoprolol Tartrate 100 mg give one tablet twice daily for hypertension. Hold if pulse is less than 60 or SBP is less than 100.
A quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 14 indicating the resident had intact cognition. The assessment also included hypertension as an active diagnosis.
Review of the clinical record did not reveal a care plan related to hypertension.
A review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for August 2021 revealed Lisinopril was administered 25 days out of 31 days, and Metoprolol Tartrate was administered 51 times out of 62 opportunities.
Continued review of the MAR for August 2021 revealed the resident's SBP was below ordered parameters twice on 08/04 - 97/59 (day shift) and 99/56 (night shift); and once on 08/05 - 97/70; 08/16 - 93/61; 08/19 - 97/55; 08/20 - 95/53; 08/21 - 90/54; 08/25 - 96/51; and 08/30 - 97/54.
Review of nursing progress notes dated August 4 through 30, 2021 did not reveal evidence that the physician had been notified or consulted regarding the SBPs below 100.
Review of the September 2021 MAR revealed that Lisinopril was administered 19 days out of 30 days, and Metoprolol Tartrate was administered for 47 times out of 60 opportunities.
Further review of the September 2021 MAR revealed more than 10 instances when the resident's SBP was below the ordered parameters, including 09/01 - 94/65; 09/05 - 92/48; 09/06 - 96/53; 09/11 - 97/54; 09/17 - 97/58; and 09/22 - 81/46.
Review of the nursing progress notes dated September 1 through 22, 2021 did not reveal evidence to indicate the physician had been notified or consulted regarding the instances of hypotension.
A review of the October 2021 MAR included Lisinopril had been administered 14 days out of the 19 days reviewed, and that Metoprolol Tartrate was administered for 31 times out of 38 opportunities.
Further review of the October 1 through 19, 2021 MAR revealed that the resident's SBP was below ordered parameters on 7 occasions, including 10/05 - 80/51; 10/10 - 89/51; 10/13 - 87/52; and 10/19 - 98/61.
Review of nursing progress notes dated October 1 through 19, 2021 did not reveal evidence the physician had been notified or consulted regarding the blood pressures.
An interview was conducted on 10/21/21 at 11:03 a.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON/staff #43), who stated that her expectation would be for nurses to notice when a resident's blood pressure has dropped. The DON stated that she would expect nursing to ensure resident safety, to recheck the vitals, review the medication information, and to notify the physician. She stated that she would know that staff has notified the physician through review of the progress notes. She reviewed the resident's progress notes and stated that she did not see any notes related to the blood pressures. Staff #43 stated that she would additionally anticipate that the resident's care plan would be updated to reflect the blood pressure had dropped below acceptable parameters.
On October 21, 221 at 12:48 p.m., an interview was conducted with a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN/staff #35). He stated that if a resident's blood pressure is significantly below baseline, he would anticipate that the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) would tell the nurse. He stated that the nurse would be expected to recheck the resident's blood pressure. The LPN stated that if the BP was still significantly low, the expectation would be that the nurse would notify the provider and document the notification in a progress note. The LPN stated that the resident's family may not always be notified, because the provider may order an intervention which may stabilize the resident.
The facility policy titled Adverse Consequences and Medication Errors stated that it is the policy of the facility that each facility evaluates medication usage in order to prevent and detect adverse consequences and medication related problems such as adverse drug reactions and side-effects. Adverse consequences shall be reported to the attending physician. Residents that receive any medication that has a potential for an adverse consequence will be monitored to ensure that any such consequences are promptly identified and reported. An adverse drug reaction (ADR), a form of adverse consequences, is defined as a secondary and usually undesirable effect of a drug and is different from the therapeutic and helpful effects of a drug. An ADR is any noxious and unintended response to a drug that occurs in doses or prophylaxis, diagnosis, or therapy. The staff shall report clinically significant adverse medication consequences and medication errors with adverse clinical consequences to the resident's attending physician immediately.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0757
(Tag F0757)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** -Resident #51 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), ...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** -Resident #51 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), primary hypertension, and unspecified osteoarthritis, unspecified site.
Regarding pain medications:
A chronic pain care plan dated 12/30/20 had a goal to be free of pain. Interventions included to administer pain medication as ordered.
Review of physician orders revealed an order dated 12/29/2021 for Acetaminophen 325 mg give 2 tablets by mouth every 6 hours as needed for mild pain, dosing not to exceed 3000 mg/24hours, and an order dated 07/17/21 for Oxycodone (opioid) 5-325 mg one tablet by mouth every 4 hours as needed for moderate to severe pain.
The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident scored 14 on the BIMS, indicating the resident had intact cognition. The assessment included the resident reported frequent pain of 3 out of 10 on a pain scale, and received opioid pain medication for 7 out of 7 days during the lookback period.
Review of the MAR dated July 2021 revealed that Oxycodone was administered on 5 occasions when the resident's pain level was less than 5 out of 10; twice on 07/21 for pain levels of 0 and 3, once on 07/24 for a pain level of 4, once on 07/26 for a pain level of 3, and once on 07/30 for a pain level of 0.
Review of the August 2021 MAR revealed Oxycodone was administered on 08/25 for a pain level of 0.
The MAR for September 2021 revealed Oxycodone was administered on 09/03 for a pain level of 0, 09/12 for a pain level of 3, and 09/28 for a pain level of 0.
On 10/20/21 at 8:32 a.m., an interview was conducted with an LPN (staff #35). He stated that according to his understanding, pain levels between 1-4 indicate mild pain, 5-7 indicate moderate pain, and 8-10 would be severe pain. The LPN stated that it would not be appropriate to administer Oxycodone for pain levels of 0, 3, or 4.
An interview was conducted on 10/20/21 at 12:40 p.m. with the DON (staff #43). She stated that a physician order which states that a pain medication is to be administered for moderate to severe pain, would mean that the resident's reported pain level would be 5-10. She stated that it is written as such in the Pain Management documentation that has been provided to the nursing staff. The DON stated that her expectation is that nursing would follow the order parameters. She reviewed the resident's MARs and stated that administration of an opioid pain medication for the lower pain levels did not meet her expectation and she would consider this a medication error.
The facility's policy, Pain Management, revised December 5, 2018 stated it is imperative to their residents' comfort and quality of life that they keep their pain well managed. PRN (as needed) pain meds must be given within the ordered parameters of the medication. Mild pain: 1-4. Moderate: 5-7. Severe: 8-10. Their standing order for Tylenol is for MILD pain: 1-4.
Regarding antihypertensive medications:
A physician order dated 01/31/21 included for Lisinopril 2.5 mg give one tablet once daily for hypertension. Hold if pulse is less than 60 or systolic blood pressure (SBP) is less than 100.
A physician order dated 06/28/21 included for Metoprolol Tartrate 100 mg give one tablet twice daily for hypertension. Hold if pulse is less than 60 or SBP is less than 100.
A review of the August 2021 MAR revealed Metoprolol Tartrate 100 mg was administered on 08/30 for a blood pressure (BP) of 97/54.
Review of the September 2021 MAR revealed that Metoprolol Tartrate was administered for a BP of 94/65 on 09/01.
Further review of the MAR for September 2021 revealed Lisinopril was administered for a BP of 94/56 on 09/30.
Review of the MAR for October 2021 revealed Lisinopril and Metoprolol Tartrate were administered on 10/05 for a BP of 80/51; and Metoprolol Tartrate was administered on 10/13 for a BP of 87/52.
On 10/20/21 at 8:32 a.m., an interview was conducted with an LPN (staff #35). He stated that antihypertensives should not be administered if either the resident's pulse or BP was less than the parameters in the physician orders. The LPN stated that the risks for doing so would include hypotension.
An interview was conducted on 10/20/21 at 12:40 p.m. with the DON (staff #43). She stated that her expectation is that nursing staff will follow the order parameters when administering medications. The DON stated that risks associated with administering antihypertensive medications to a resident whose BP or pulse was below the parameters would include hypotension, dizziness, and weakness.
The facility policy titled Medication Administration included that it is the policy of the facility that medications shall be administered in a safe and timely manner, and as prescribed. Orders will be checked for administration instructions and parameters and will be administered accordingly.
The facility's policy, Following Physician's Orders, dated July 5, 2021 stated it is the policy of this facility that physician or physician extender orders will be carried out as ordered. The policy included that should an order not be completely carried out as ordered the following will be completed: Medications, the facility will follow the Adverse Consequences and Medications Errors policy and procedure.
The facility policy titled Adverse Consequences and Medication Errors included it is the policy of the facility that each facility evaluates medication usage in order to prevent and detect adverse consequences and medication related problems such as adverse drug reactions and side-effects. A medication error is defined as the preparation or administration of drugs or biologicals which is not in accordance with physician's orders, manufacturer specifications, or accepted professional standards and principles for the professional(s) providing services.
Based on clinical record reviews, staff interviews, and policies and procedures, the facility failed to ensure two residents (#38 and #51) were not administered unnecessary medications, by failing to ensure medications were administered in accordance with physician orders. The sample size was 6. The deficient practice could result in residents receiving medications that may not be necessary.
Finding include:
-Resident #38 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included spinal stenosis, diabetes II, and chronic pain.
Review of the Order Summary Report revealed physician orders dated September 13, 2021 for:
-Acetaminophen Suppository 650 milligrams (mg) insert 1 suppository rectally every 4 hours as needed for mild pain (1-4). Dosing not to exceed 3000 mg/24 hours.
-Acetaminophen Tablet 325 mg give 2 tablets by mouth every 6 hours as needed for mild pain. Tylenol dosing not to exceed 3000 mg/24 hours.
-Tramadol Tablet 50 mg give 1 tablet by mouth every 6 hours as needed for moderate to severe pain, pain scale 5-10.
The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] included a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) with a score of 15 indicating the resident was cognitively intact. The assessment included the resident was administered pain medication as needed during the 5-day look-back period.
Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated October 2021 revealed Tramadol was administered on October 4, 2021 for a pain level of 0, and on October 11, and 14, 2021 for a pain level of 3.
An interview was conducted on October 21, 2021 at 1:45 p.m. with a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN/staff #73). The LPN stated that prior to administering as needed pain medications, she assesses the resident's pain on a scale of 1 to 10, reviews the orders for pain medication, and administers the pain medication according to the pain scale on the physician's order. She stated that if you administer pain medication outside of the pain scale on the order, it would be a medication error and she would notify the Director of Nursing and the physician. During the interview, she reviewed the MAR dated October 2021 and stated that Tramadol was given one time for a pain level of 0, and two times for a pain level 3 which is outside of the ordered pain scale parameters. The LPN stated that she supposed that these were medication errors and that there is a risk when administering medication outside of the parameters when it is not needed because it could lead to addiction.
On October 21, 2021 at 2:45 p.m., an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON/staff #43). She stated that if a pain medication was administered outside of the pain scale on the physician's order, she would notify the nurse that gave the medication to re-educate, and make sure the resident is okay. She stated that when pain medication is given outside of the pain scale on the order, there is a risk of giving too little and the resident could still be in pain or giving too much pain medication, which may affect/impact the resident ability to response and could impact the resident ability to participate in therapy. During the interview, she reviewed the resident's clinical record, which included the progress notes, and the MAR dated October 2021 and stated that the Tramadol was administered outside of the order pain parameters 3 times, one time for a pain level of 0 and two times for a pain level of 3. The DON stated these were medication errors and the pain medication was given by the same nurse.